thebulwark--2020-05-27--Is the Spell of Political Correctness Breaking?

It began , like most matters in this never-ending election cycle , with a tweet .
Unlike most declamations that begin with those three not-so-little words , this brush-back pitch was aimed neither at bumbling Karens intent on complimenting African-American hairstyles nor at bellowing MAGA-ites unable to differentiate a jogger from a fleeing burglar .
It wasn ’ t a plea for heightened sensitivity or awareness .
It was a get-out-of-our-kitchen-with-your-oversimplifying-bullshit communiqué directed toward the scores of caucasians eager to prove themselves allies , and the scores of caucasians eager to point out what hypocrites those identity-politics-obsessed libtard allies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life is complicated .
And context matters .
Just as we can no longer accept overt racist aggression , we can also no longer act as though every microaggression , failed joke , or blind spot is a window into the heart of a racist .
And we can no longer refuse to accept apologies or demand that they be so hand-wringingly cringe-inducingly self-flagellating that any authentic engagement over sensitive topics is made impossible .
Joe Biden went for a joke he shouldn ’ t have .
He whiffed .
And then he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-American community has bailed out the Democratic party again and again at the voting booths .
So the surprise wasn ’ t that key voices in the community from Symone Sanders to Reggie Hudlin seemed largely willing to contextualize the remark , accept the apology , and move on .
The surprise was that many white allies generally intent on chest-beating and virtue signaling were willing to listen .
Not when the temporary occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue waxes poetic about Henry Ford ’ s “ good bloodlines.
” Not when African-Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote because thousands of polling stations in minority communities have been closed since the Supreme Court weakened voting discrimination laws in 2013 .
Not when nearly 100,000 Americans have died from a mismanaged crisis and ( according to the Guardian ) 1 out of every 2,000 African-Americans in the entire country has already died of COVID-19 .
Maybe now , with Americans perishing , unemployment skyrocketing , our economy shut down , and our Democratic institutions under assault from an administration and attorney general sworn to protect them , it seems we might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can no longer brandish our political positions with religious fanaticism .
We have to look at a dangerous world as it is , not as we wish it could be , and make complex , nuanced , and—gasp—adult decisions .
The Tara Reade debacle also illustrates the need for nuance .
One of the rallying cries of # MeToo has been “ Believe all women.
” But all women are not to be believed any more than all men are .
To suggest that females are magical truth-telling creatures isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And of course the leaders of # MeToo knew that .
But the biosphere of social and mainstream media no longer responds to—or has any interest in—nuanced positions .
So , “ Women will no longer be silenced just because they lack relative power in certain circumstances , an injustice that now demands we give equal weight to those who ’ ve been victimized ” became “ Believe all women.
” Which then , by its very lack of nuance , set off a firestorm of cancel culture , circumventing due process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when members of the left said nothing or responded with glee to the one-size-fits-all mob sentencing guidelines , they ended up condoning the same sort of overzealous nonsense that the right does when pretending that cancel culture rules the day .
With Trump in the Oval , Kavanaugh on the bench , and a full trough of cabinet members marinating in swampy emolument-immune fecundity , it ’ s ridiculous to pretend that cancel culture—damaging as it is—is more than a counterweight to the national imbalance .
If we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as untangling the unjust and systemic kinks in our wonderful engine of capitalism , addressing environmental and climate challenges , and flattening a curve while not flattening our economy for good , we ’ re going to need more than bumper-sticker slogans and all-or-nothing thinking .
We ’ ll need to listen , assess our own blind spots and confirmation biases , and open ourselves to the possibility that someone we disagree with might have something intelligent—and not disqualifyingly immoral—to say .
And just because those on the ( actual ) far right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions doesn ’ t mean it ’ s wise for the left to do the same .
Time and again , studies have shown that the vast majority ( up to 92 percent ) of Americans dislike political correctness , and the people most associated with that correctness are Democrats .
Yet ironically , most Democrats are part of the 92 percent who don ’ t like it .
So who are the Democrats pushing all this political correctness ?
The Atlantic tells us they are “ much more likely to be rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $ 100,000 a year.
” In other words : people who don ’ t have enough real world concerns to worry about have ended up coloring the nation ’ s view of who Democrats are .
Well enough of that—we all have plenty of real world concerns now .
In Biden ’ s gaffes , in the struggle for our democracy and the institutions that sustain it , in the face of a pandemic unlike any we ’ ve endured in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting ready to concede that we can ’ t win a war if we decide that every last hill of perceived or potential insensitivity is worth dying on .
And that this Republic , if we can keep it , is counting on our willingness to engage imperfectly with imperfect people , to make imperfect progress within an imperfect system if we hope to keep this great chain of democracy unbroken .

It began, like most matters in this never-ending election cycle, with a tweet.
Corey Richardson, a writer and storyteller, wrote:
Dear White People; Gonna need y'all to sit this one out. Black folks who have been black for long enough can identify the difference between an awkward ally and a virulent racist. We good. — Corey Richardson (@vexedinthecity) May 22, 2020
Unlike most declamations that begin with those three not-so-little words, this brush-back pitch was aimed neither at bumbling Karens intent on complimenting African-American hairstyles nor at bellowing MAGA-ites unable to differentiate a jogger from a fleeing burglar. It wasn’t a plea for heightened sensitivity or awareness. It was a get-out-of-our-kitchen-with-your-oversimplifying-bullshit communiqué directed toward the scores of caucasians eager to prove themselves allies, and the scores of caucasians eager to point out what hypocrites those identity-politics-obsessed libtard allies are.
Richardson’s message was: Life is complicated. And context matters.
Just as we can no longer accept overt racist aggression, we can also no longer act as though every microaggression, failed joke, or blind spot is a window into the heart of a racist.
And we can no longer refuse to accept apologies or demand that they be so hand-wringingly cringe-inducingly self-flagellating that any authentic engagement over sensitive topics is made impossible.
Joe Biden went for a joke he shouldn’t have. He whiffed. And then he admitted he screwed it up.
The African-American community has bailed out the Democratic party again and again at the voting booths. So the surprise wasn’t that key voices in the community from Symone Sanders to Reggie Hudlin seemed largely willing to contextualize the remark, accept the apology, and move on. The surprise was that many white allies generally intent on chest-beating and virtue signaling were willing to listen.
Absolutism apparently no longer holds water.
Not when the temporary occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue waxes poetic about Henry Ford’s “good bloodlines.” Not when African-Americans and Hispanics wait nearly twice as long to vote because thousands of polling stations in minority communities have been closed since the Supreme Court weakened voting discrimination laws in 2013. Not when nearly 100,000 Americans have died from a mismanaged crisis and (according to the Guardian) 1 out of every 2,000 African-Americans in the entire country has already died of COVID-19.
Maybe now, with Americans perishing, unemployment skyrocketing, our economy shut down, and our Democratic institutions under assault from an administration and attorney general sworn to protect them, it seems we might be—might be—waking up to the fact that we can no longer brandish our political positions with religious fanaticism. We have to look at a dangerous world as it is, not as we wish it could be, and make complex, nuanced, and—gasp—adult decisions.
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 Tara Reade debacle also illustrates the need for nuance. One of the rallying cries of #MeToo has been “Believe all women.” But all women are not to be believed any more than all men are. To suggest that females are magical truth-telling creatures isn’t just insulting; it’s objectifying.
And of course the leaders of #MeToo knew that.
But the biosphere of social and mainstream media no longer responds to—or has any interest in—nuanced positions. So, “Women will no longer be silenced just because they lack relative power in certain circumstances, an injustice that now demands we give equal weight to those who’ve been victimized” became “Believe all women.”
Which then, by its very lack of nuance, set off a firestorm of cancel culture, circumventing due process and harming people of both genders. And when members of the left said nothing or responded with glee to the one-size-fits-all mob sentencing guidelines, they ended up condoning the same sort of overzealous nonsense that the right does when pretending that cancel culture rules the day. With Trump in the Oval, Kavanaugh on the bench, and a full trough of cabinet members marinating in swampy emolument-immune fecundity, it’s ridiculous to pretend that cancel culture—damaging as it is—is more than a counterweight to the national imbalance.
If we’re going to deal with problems of endless complexity such as untangling the unjust and systemic kinks in our wonderful engine of capitalism, addressing environmental and climate challenges, and flattening a curve while not flattening our economy for good, we’re going to need more than bumper-sticker slogans and all-or-nothing thinking. We’ll need to listen, assess our own blind spots and confirmation biases, and open ourselves to the possibility that someone we disagree with might have something intelligent—and not disqualifyingly immoral—to say.
And just because those on the (actual) far right will never admit the unreasonableness of their positions doesn’t mean it’s wise for the left to do the same. Time and again, studies have shown that the vast majority (up to 92 percent) of Americans dislike political correctness, and the people most associated with that correctness are Democrats. Yet ironically, most Democrats are part of the 92 percent who don’t like it. So who are the Democrats pushing all this political correctness? The Atlantic tells us they are “much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year.”
In other words: people who don’t have enough real world concerns to worry about have ended up coloring the nation’s view of who Democrats are.
Well enough of that—we all have plenty of real world concerns now.
In Biden’s gaffes, in the struggle for our democracy and the institutions that sustain it, in the face of a pandemic unlike any we’ve endured in our lifetime, maybe we’re finally getting ready to concede that we can’t win a war if we decide that every last hill of perceived or potential insensitivity is worth dying on.
That nuance matters.
And that this Republic, if we can keep it, is counting on our willingness to engage imperfectly with imperfect people, to make imperfect progress within an imperfect system if we hope to keep this great chain of democracy unbroken.


Don’t Blame Twitter

Jonathan V. Last makes a compelling case that Twitter should ban Donald Trump .
I ’ m going to make a counterpoint , but he reminds us of several crucial facts here : Twitter is a private company and “ private companies are legally allowed to make reasonable decisions about who they will and will not serve.
” That ’ s the whole point of having terms of service and standards .
JVL also reminds us that it shouldn ’ t be up to Twitter to make this call : “ Ideally , a president would have the decency and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from saying the kinds of things Trump routinely says on Twitter.
” In a normal world , there would be other guard rails , but those are all down .
So if Twitter did decide to kick Trump out , it would not only be within its rights , it would reaffirm basic principles of decency .
But it would also be beside the point , because the whole debate about Twitter is a distraction .
Banning him would be both ineffective and even counterproductive , because it mistakes the pus for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say that social media platforms don ’ t bear some responsibility here ; and we should applaud anything they can do to push back on disinformation .
But in this case , the vector of this disease is not Twitter : the root of the malignancy is the president himself .
Until we deal with Trump , everything else is just noise , because he is the bully pulpit .
Peter Wehner makes that point in the Atlantic .
“ Donald Trump doesn ’ t merely want to criticize his opponents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a depraved delight in inflicting pain on others , even if there ’ s collateral damage in the process , as is the case with the Klausutis family.
” “ There is a wickedness in our president that long ago corrupted him .
It ’ s corrupted his party .
And it ’ s in the process of corrupting our country , too , ” writes Wehner , “ He is a crimson stain on American decency.
” So go ahead and ban him , or fact-check him , but his malignancy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ignored .
He ’ s the president and he will be heard as long as American voters continue to listen to him .
He would simply move the depravity elsewhere , while flying the flag of his victimization .
If Trump wants to soil our democracy , he doesn ’ t need to tweet .
He can join the trolls at Gab , or Newsmax , or OAN , or Fox News , or Rush Limbaugh .
He has his toadies at the Federalist , American Greatness , and Breitbart .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has his own social media death star .
Like Obi Wan , strike him down and he ’ ll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine .
I wrote about this earlier this year when Kamala Harris unwisely ( I thought ) called upon Twitter to kick Trump off the platform .
Back then I argued that banning him would be a political gift to Trump .
The Orange God King would like nothing better than to play the victim ; to stand before his MAGA masses with the stigmata @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris ’ s demand it would confirm every suspicion in Trump ’ s base about the intolerance of the left and the bias of the social media companies .
And , of course , it wouldn ’ t shut him up .
Because nothing can .
The attack on his account , he would rail , was not about him , but about the desire of the left to silence all of you out there .
This is about you , would be a staple of every campaign rally .
If they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , what are they capable of doing to the run–of-the-mill deplorable schmo who posts cat videos on Instagram ?
I still think that ’ s true , but JVL makes a strong counter case : “ There are moments when bad speech becomes especially dangerous and , because of temporal and logistical constraints , difficult to counter , ” he writes .
“ There are times when the immediate damage caused by bad speech is so great that we would rather not wait around for the good speech.
” He asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ super-charge a constitutional crisis and destabilize the country by challenging the legitimacy of his election defeat .
He reminds us that “ as nice as the idea of ‘ more speech beats bad speech ’ is , Twitter is not a suicide pact.
” He ’ s right , of course , and the scenario he offers is not far-fetched .
But it is also not just about Twitter .
Americans have to decide whether our democracy is a suicide pact .
Ultimately , only the American public can de-platform Donald Trump .

Jonathan V. Last makes a compelling case that Twitter should ban Donald Trump. I’m going to make a counterpoint, but he reminds us of several crucial facts here: Twitter is a private company and “private companies are legally allowed to make reasonable decisions about who they will and will not serve.”
That’s the whole point of having terms of service and standards. JVL also reminds us that it shouldn’t be up to Twitter to make this call: “Ideally, a president would have the decency and temperament, experience and prudence to keep from saying the kinds of things Trump routinely says on Twitter.” In a normal world, there would be other guard rails, but those are all down.
So if Twitter did decide to kick Trump out, it would not only be within its rights, it would reaffirm basic principles of decency.
But it would also be beside the point, because the whole debate about Twitter is a distraction.
Banning him would be both ineffective and even counterproductive, because it mistakes the pus for the real infection.
This isn’t to say that social media platforms don’t bear some responsibility here; and we should applaud anything they can do to push back on disinformation.
But in this case, the vector of this disease is not Twitter: the root of the malignancy is the president himself. Until we deal with Trump, everything else is just noise, because he is the bully pulpit.
Peter Wehner makes that point in the Atlantic. “Donald Trump doesn’t merely want to criticize his opponents,” he writes, “he takes a depraved delight in inflicting pain on others, even if there’s collateral damage in the process, as is the case with the Klausutis family.”
“There is a wickedness in our president that long ago corrupted him. It’s corrupted his party. And it’s in the process of corrupting our country, too,” writes Wehner, “He is a crimson stain on American decency.”
So go ahead and ban him, or fact-check him, but his malignancy is bigger than Twitter. Trump will not be ignored. He’s the president and he will be heard as long as American voters continue to listen to him.
He would simply move the depravity elsewhere, while flying the flag of his victimization.
If Trump wants to soil our democracy, he doesn’t need to tweet. He can join the trolls at Gab, or Newsmax, or OAN, or Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. He has his toadies at the Federalist, American Greatness, and Breitbart. And even if they won’t play, he has his own social media death star.
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1265420249748443139
Like Obi Wan, strike him down and he’ll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
I wrote about this earlier this year when Kamala Harris unwisely (I thought) called upon Twitter to kick Trump off the platform. Back then I argued that banning him would be a political gift to Trump.
The Orange God King would like nothing better than to play the victim; to stand before his MAGA masses with the stigmata of censorship. If Twitter acquiesced to Harris’s demand it would confirm every suspicion in Trump’s base about the intolerance of the left and the bias of the social media companies. And, of course, it wouldn’t shut him up. Because nothing can. The attack on his account, he would rail, was not about him, but about the desire of the left to silence all of you out there. This is about you, would be a staple of every campaign rally. If they can try to gag the president of the United States, what are they capable of doing to the run–of-the-mill deplorable schmo who posts cat videos on Instagram?
I still think that’s true, but JVL makes a strong counter case: “There are moments when bad speech becomes especially dangerous and, because of temporal and logistical constraints, difficult to counter,” he writes. “There are times when the immediate damage caused by bad speech is so great that we would rather not wait around for the good speech.”
He asks us to imagine Trump using Twitter to super-charge a constitutional crisis and destabilize the country by challenging the legitimacy of his election defeat. He reminds us that “as nice as the idea of ‘more speech beats bad speech’ is, Twitter is not a suicide pact.”
He’s right, of course, and the scenario he offers is not far-fetched. But it is also not just about Twitter. Americans have to decide whether our democracy is a suicide pact.
Ultimately, only the American public can de-platform Donald Trump.


thebulwark--2020-05-28--Protest as Profession in the Age of COVID-19

In 1918 , at the height of the influenza pandemic , the Owosso Casket Company was hard at work , churning out more than 150 burial caskets per day without any hope of denting its substantial backorders .
The premier purveyor of mortuary supplies for its time , the casketworks provided the final arrangements for U.S. Presidents William McKinley and Benjamin Harrison , among other notables , while serving as the primary industry of its small community .
The factory closed down in the mid-century , leaving the quiet Michigan town of 15,000 from which it took its name with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outsized number of funeral parlors and monument salesmen .
Today , however , less than half a mile away from the old casketworks , business of a different kind is booming at Karl Manke ’ s salon Barber & Beauty .
The shop ’ s 77-year-old owner has been rapidly making the transition from local to national celebrity for the cause of bucking the COVID-19 lockdown .
Since reopening his shop on May 4 in defiance of executive orders from Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer , Manke has attracted protests , interviews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The largest of these has raised more than $ 70,000 as of this writing from donors all over the country to cover Manke ’ s “ legal fees , unconstitutional citations and financial loss due to unlawful citations etc.
” On May 18 , a rally was held in his honor by visiting COVID celebrity Shelley Luther ( no relation to the author ) , whose similar act of defiance had earned her a week ’ s jailtime in her native Texas , and had subsequently helped her raise more than a half-million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal jeopardy is not yet quite as serious as Luther ’ s was .
Shiawassee County sheriff Brian BeGole had already joined five other Michigan sheriffs in refusing to enforce the Governor ’ s order and county circuit judge Matthew Stewart has likewise rebuffed attempts by Michigan ’ s department of health and human services to obtain an order to shut down the salon .
This left Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel little recourse against Manke but to direct the state police to issue citations and to request that regulators suspend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 13 .
“ Anytime you have a barber or other professional providing services to numerous citizens in close proximity to each other and those citizens are then returning to their various residences , there is a risk of contracting and spreading the virus , ” Nessel said in a statement reported by the New York Times .
Among the reasons state health officials might be so concerned : Located within a mile of Manke ’ s shop is the county ’ s largest medical center , Owosso Memorial Hospital , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 237 COVID19 cases ( 26 of which proved fatal ) .
From Manke ’ s lot on Main Street , life-flight helicopters can be seen and heard above the treeline with increasing frequency taking off and landing at the facility as patients are transported to other better-equipped hospitals around the state .
That the county ’ s 70,000 residents have seen relatively few deaths—from a disease that has to date killed 100,000 people across the country—has been a rare spot of good news in a state otherwise very hard hit in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with hundreds of protesters , militia members , and activists from out-of-state having congregated at the local barbershop , remains to be seen , particularly as concern over “ Superspreader events ” begins to inform the debate among epidemiologists about public policy during the pandemic .
While Manke had initially declared he would “ be open until Jesus walks in or until they arrest me , ” he shuttered the business on May 15 after receiving notice by mail of his suspended license .
During the 10 days the salon was operating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked more than 90 hours , seeing hundreds of customers , covering his mouth and nose with a mask , and placing his tools under a UV lamp between sittings .
Somehow amid this flurry of activity he also found time to give dozens of interviews , including appearances on Fox News and the Glenn Beck program , where , after touting his refusal to dip into his retirement savings or to seek government assistance as alternatives to his predicament , he compared his plight to that of Europe ’ s Jews during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an excellent segue into plugging his self-published fiction .
And this is where we see another side of the small-town barber .
While cutting hair and acting as a landlord—he rents apartments in the upper floors of his shop—are apparently his main income sources , his true passions are writing and history .
As he puts it in the teaser for one of his books , “ the memory of things past is much like a worm that doesn ’ t die , ” and this fascination with the past is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s written over the years .
Here ’ s how Manke ’ s website introduces Age of Shame , his self-published 2014 Romeo-and-Juliet tale of love between a German and a Jew in the middle of the Holocaust : “ Both are suspicious of the other because of their opposing ethnicities , but they soon come to a realization that neither of their traditions had ever allowed them to examine .
.
.
.
Able to set their prejudices aside , they conjoin in an unseemly relationship and make their way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls his book “ an excellent WWII epic story told from several different view points including both the German and Jewish perspective.
” If that ’ s not quite to the reader ’ s taste , there are other stories on offer : From Jewish gangsters in the Prohibition era and PTSD among Vietnam veterans , to murderous railroad hobos and the rise and fall of hippies , Manke ’ s oeuvre covers a broad array of topics , musing over each with homespun prose and a flair for the dramatic .
Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unintended Consequences , which has a ripped-from-the-headlines feel for Owosso locals .
Set in the town of Argus—the Owosso local paper is the Argus Press—the story puts the town drunk , “ Swiggy Swiggens , ” on a deadly collision course with a local anti-abortion protester .
While Owosso ’ s history is notable for a few things—it was the birthplace of Thomas E. Dewey and early-20th-century author James Oliver Curwood , and it merited brief condemnation in the autobiography of Malcolm X for having been a sundown town—its most recent source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a 2009 shooting spree that claimed the lives of two men , one of them an anti-abortion protester who habitually picketed schools , clinics , and government buildings around the town .
The crime had prompted a plea for political tolerance from then-president Obama , a notion that seems almost quaint in hindsight as protesters with rifles surround the statehouse in Lansing and rally on Main Street in Owosso to support Manke ’ s stand against the governor .
While his legal challenge to the suspension of his license is pending , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 20 in a protest dubbed “ Operation Haircut ” at the capitol in Lansing , where he cut hair for attendees and spoke to the assembled crowd .
In video of the event , which was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition and Bikers for Trump , Manke can be seen in his barber ’ s coat addressing participants from the “ Trump Unity Bridge , ” a Trump-themed parade float towed in for the occasion .
“ You know , the governor has made me who I am , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international symbol of freedom !
” Over Memorial Day weekend , Manke ’ s site was overhauled to reflect his newfound fame , including a merchandise section selling “ America ’ s Barber ” T-shirts—bearing Manke ’ s likeness flanked by barber poles , among other designs—starting at $ 30 a piece .
Meanwhile , President Trump has made Michigan ’ s Democratic governor a particular focus of his ire as he attempts to bring a premature end to the coronavirus lockdowns , and Manke has tapped into that sentiment , referring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and denouncing her measures against him as vindictive overreach .
“ I ’ m the male , I ’ m the husband , I ’ m the father .
.
.
and she ’ s not my mother , ” he told the Lansing State Journal in a videotaped statement .
At the May 20 rally , Manke was more forceful , likening his experience again to that of the Jewish characters in his Holocaust epic : “ They willingly got into those cattle cars .
I refuse to get into a cattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Manke seems to be enjoying the attention his spat with Whitmer has brought him , telling Fox News in a May 22 interview “ I ’ ve become a worm in her brain , and I don ’ t mind that.
” That sounds like the perfect motto for our era of cable-news controversy , social-media celebrities , and inescapable grifterhood .

In 1918, at the height of the influenza pandemic, the Owosso Casket Company was hard at work, churning out more than 150 burial caskets per day without any hope of denting its substantial backorders. The premier purveyor of mortuary supplies for its time, the casketworks provided the final arrangements for U.S. Presidents William McKinley and Benjamin Harrison, among other notables, while serving as the primary industry of its small community. The factory closed down in the mid-century, leaving the quiet Michigan town of 15,000 from which it took its name with a landscape of aging industrial buildings and an outsized number of funeral parlors and monument salesmen.
Today, however, less than half a mile away from the old casketworks, business of a different kind is booming at Karl Manke’s salon Barber & Beauty. The shop’s 77-year-old owner has been rapidly making the transition from local to national celebrity for the cause of bucking the COVID-19 lockdown.
Since reopening his shop on May 4 in defiance of executive orders from Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, Manke has attracted protests, interviews, and nearly a dozen GoFundMe campaigns. The largest of these has raised more than $70,000 as of this writing from donors all over the country to cover Manke’s “legal fees, unconstitutional citations and financial loss due to unlawful citations etc.” On May 18, a rally was held in his honor by visiting COVID celebrity Shelley Luther (no relation to the author), whose similar act of defiance had earned her a week’s jailtime in her native Texas, and had subsequently helped her raise more than a half-million dollars via crowdfunding.
Manke’s legal jeopardy is not yet quite as serious as Luther’s was. Shiawassee County sheriff Brian BeGole had already joined five other Michigan sheriffs in refusing to enforce the Governor’s order and county circuit judge Matthew Stewart has likewise rebuffed attempts by Michigan’s department of health and human services to obtain an order to shut down the salon. This left Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel little recourse against Manke but to direct the state police to issue citations and to request that regulators suspend his occupational license, which they did on May 13. “Anytime you have a barber or other professional providing services to numerous citizens in close proximity to each other and those citizens are then returning to their various residences, there is a risk of contracting and spreading the virus,” Nessel said in a statement reported by the New York Times.
Among the reasons state health officials might be so concerned: Located within a mile of Manke’s shop is the county’s largest medical center, Owosso Memorial Hospital, which has handled the majority of Shiawassee’s 237 COVID19 cases (26 of which proved fatal). From Manke’s lot on Main Street, life-flight helicopters can be seen and heard above the treeline with increasing frequency taking off and landing at the facility as patients are transported to other better-equipped hospitals around the state. That the county’s 70,000 residents have seen relatively few deaths—from a disease that has to date killed 100,000 people across the country—has been a rare spot of good news in a state otherwise very hard hit in the crisis. Whether that luck will hold, with hundreds of protesters, militia members, and activists from out-of-state having congregated at the local barbershop, remains to be seen, particularly as concern over “Superspreader events” begins to inform the debate among epidemiologists about public policy during the pandemic.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
While Manke had initially declared he would “be open until Jesus walks in or until they arrest me,” he shuttered the business on May 15 after receiving notice by mail of his suspended license. During the 10 days the salon was operating, Manke told the Times, he worked more than 90 hours, seeing hundreds of customers, covering his mouth and nose with a mask, and placing his tools under a UV lamp between sittings. Somehow amid this flurry of activity he also found time to give dozens of interviews, including appearances on Fox News and the Glenn Beck program, where, after touting his refusal to dip into his retirement savings or to seek government assistance as alternatives to his predicament, he compared his plight to that of Europe’s Jews during World War II, which apparently made for an excellent segue into plugging his self-published fiction.
And this is where we see another side of the small-town barber. While cutting hair and acting as a landlord—he rents apartments in the upper floors of his shop—are apparently his main income sources, his true passions are writing and history. As he puts it in the teaser for one of his books, “the memory of things past is much like a worm that doesn’t die,” and this fascination with the past is very much on display in the ten titles he’s written over the years.
Here’s how Manke’s website introduces Age of Shame, his self-published 2014 Romeo-and-Juliet tale of love between a German and a Jew in the middle of the Holocaust: “Both are suspicious of the other because of their opposing ethnicities, but they soon come to a realization that neither of their traditions had ever allowed them to examine. . . . Able to set their prejudices aside, they conjoin in an unseemly relationship and make their way through this labyrinth of insanity.” Manke calls his book “an excellent WWII epic story told from several different view points including both the German and Jewish perspective.”
If that’s not quite to the reader’s taste, there are other stories on offer: From Jewish gangsters in the Prohibition era and PTSD among Vietnam veterans, to murderous railroad hobos and the rise and fall of hippies, Manke’s oeuvre covers a broad array of topics, musing over each with homespun prose and a flair for the dramatic. Also of particular note is 2011’s Unintended Consequences, which has a ripped-from-the-headlines feel for Owosso locals. Set in the town of Argus—the Owosso local paper is the Argus Press—the story puts the town drunk, “Swiggy Swiggens,” on a deadly collision course with a local anti-abortion protester. While Owosso’s history is notable for a few things—it was the birthplace of Thomas E. Dewey and early-20th-century author James Oliver Curwood, and it merited brief condemnation in the autobiography of Malcolm X for having been a sundown town—its most recent source of notoriety was its misfortune as the site of a 2009 shooting spree that claimed the lives of two men, one of them an anti-abortion protester who habitually picketed schools, clinics, and government buildings around the town. The crime had prompted a plea for political tolerance from then-president Obama, a notion that seems almost quaint in hindsight as protesters with rifles surround the statehouse in Lansing and rally on Main Street in Owosso to support Manke’s stand against the governor.
While his legal challenge to the suspension of his license is pending, Manke has been keeping busy, participating on May 20 in a protest dubbed “Operation Haircut” at the capitol in Lansing, where he cut hair for attendees and spoke to the assembled crowd. In video of the event, which was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition and Bikers for Trump, Manke can be seen in his barber’s coat addressing participants from the “Trump Unity Bridge,” a Trump-themed parade float towed in for the occasion. “You know, the governor has made me who I am,” he told the crowd, “an international symbol of freedom!” Over Memorial Day weekend, Manke’s site was overhauled to reflect his newfound fame, including a merchandise section selling “America’s Barber” T-shirts—bearing Manke’s likeness flanked by barber poles, among other designs—starting at $30 a piece.
Meanwhile, President Trump has made Michigan’s Democratic governor a particular focus of his ire as he attempts to bring a premature end to the coronavirus lockdowns, and Manke has tapped into that sentiment, referring to the governor as “Mother Whitmer” and denouncing her measures against him as vindictive overreach. “I’m the male, I’m the husband, I’m the father . . . and she’s not my mother,” he told the Lansing State Journal in a videotaped statement. At the May 20 rally, Manke was more forceful, likening his experience again to that of the Jewish characters in his Holocaust epic: “They willingly got into those cattle cars. I refuse to get into a cattle car!”
Despite the stakes implied, Manke seems to be enjoying the attention his spat with Whitmer has brought him, telling Fox News in a May 22 interview “I’ve become a worm in her brain, and I don’t mind that.” That sounds like the perfect motto for our era of cable-news controversy, social-media celebrities, and inescapable grifterhood.


thebulwark--2020-05-28--Should We Resume Nuclear Testing?

Should We Resume Nuclear Testing?

Last Friday , the Washington Post reported that the U.S. government was considering resuming the testing of nuclear weapons , which has been on pause since 1992 .
Anything that involves nuclear weapons or the Trump administration is always controversial .
The combination of the two is , well , explosive .
Tommy Vietor , an Obama PR flack turned podcasting hack , called the idea nuts .
So did Hans Kristensen , a project director at the Federation of American Scientists , in a one-sided Guardian article .
The Post ’ s original report also quoted Kristensen , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Arms Control Association .
Neither report quoted any supporters of the move , plenty of whom exist outside the MAGAverse .
So : Is it a good idea or a bad one ?
Before answering this question , let ’ s have a little refresher on nuclear weapons technology and strategy .
Nuclear tests exist for several reasons .
The first is to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons .
We don ’ t want our nukes to detonate where they shouldn ’ t—that ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to make sure that they do detonate where we need them to—that ’ s reliability .
There are two main types of nuclear delivery systems : gravity bombs and non-gravity bombs .
( For the purposes of simplicity , we can set aside less common delivery systems , such as mines and nuclear munitions . )
Gravity bombs are those that you drop out of a plane .
Non-gravity bombs are delivered by a missile , mostly cruise and ballistic ; these could be launched from air , land , and sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate Trump was unaware of back in 2015 ) .
Different temperatures , altitudes , pressures , speeds , and other conditions risk unintended detonations of nuclear weapons .
It is to make sure that both the “ physics package ” —the nuclear warhead proper , the part of the weapon that detonates—and the delivery system meet our requirements for safety and reliability that we have nuclear testing .
Since the end of the Cold War , nuclear weapons were largely left out of successive U.S. administrations ’ national security strategies , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on reduction and nonproliferation—important subjects in their own right , but very different .
With no tests conducted for nearly three decades , we don ’ t know the extent to which the components of the weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile have .
So , for the sake of safety and reliability , a return to testing can help us assure that everything is in working order .
A second reason we might think of is psychological .
Nuclear tests are a demonstration of resolve .
States test nuclear weapons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political will to use nukes in a conflict .
This makes tests a valuable tool of deterrence .
The Cold War is recalled as “ the nuclear age ” because of the large impact of nuclear weapons on the great power rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union .
Recently , that terminology in the international relations literature has evolved to “ first nuclear age ” —an acknowledgement that the return of great power competition has again made nuclear weapons relevant .
The United States is a party to several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These commitments include presidential pledges , signed agreements , and ratified treaties .
Except for the 2010 New START with Russia , all of these commitments are either from the Cold War or a result of the post-Cold War hopes for a liberal Russia .
With the return of the great power competition and the exposure of that hope as a mirage , most ( but not all ) of these treaties are outdated since China is not a party to them and Russia is out of compliance with several of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were adopted with U.S.-Soviet competition in mind or with a liberalizing Russia in mind—situations in which “ trust , but verify , ” the old Russian adage that President Reagan loved to quote , was still tenable .
They did not take into account an illiberal , post-Soviet Russia or any U.S.-China concerns .
The 2020 Compliance Report , produced by the Department of State and reported to the U.S. Congress , states that Russia is in violation of a variety of these agreements .
The biggest issue was the 1988 Intermediate-Range Nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian violations in recent years were the primary reason the Trump administration withdrew from that treaty in 2019 .
But there was also a Chinese consideration in the Trump administration ’ s actions .
The INF Treaty was bilateral between the Soviet Union and the United States and thus didn ’ t prevent other countries from developing intermediate-range nuclear missiles , and China has been taking advantage of that .
In the Sino-American competition , it was unilateral disarmament .
With the INF Treaty now dead , the only other bilateral nuclear-arms treaty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the books is the Threshold Test Ban Treaty , which prohibits tests with yields greater than 150 kt ( kilotons equivalent of TNT ) .
Again , the treaty does not put any limits on China , and China “ maintained a high level of activity at its Lop Nur nuclear weapons test site throughout 2019 , ” according to the compliance report .
At least based on what we know from the compliance report , it seems clear the argument that nuclear testing would be a provocative move by the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States that is being provoked here .
But the report suffers from a significant credibility problem .
Its full text remains classified—likely for good reasons—and it is safe to assume that if the full report were politically cooked , that fact would have been exposed by now through leaks .
Nevertheless , credibility is a problem for an administration that nobody believes except its fervent supporters .
As the Post correctly observes , the administration has claimed treaty violations but not provided any evidence .
This is an obstacle the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the size and composition of the U.S. nuclear arsenal ?
Today , the United States has about 1,750 deployed nuclear weapons , with an additional 2,050 in the active stockpile , and several thousand more being slowly dismantled .
All nukes are not created equal .
Fat Man and Little Boy , which dropped in Japan , had yields of 21 kt and 15 kt , respectively .
The B53 thermonuclear bomb—the most powerful nuclear weapon the United States had in its arsenal , until its retirement in 2011—was about 430 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ever has to threaten an adversary with nuclear weapons over the safety of an ally during peacetime ( as Presidents Truman , Eisenhower , Kennedy , and Nixon all did ) it is much more believable to threaten them with a low-yield bomb than a thermonuclear one .
That is also true of escalation during wartime .
Escalation dominance means an absolute advantage to win the war if it is escalated “ vertically ” ( horizontal escalation is escalating to other territories , and the vertical one is escalating the level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal power on the next step is dominant .
Currently , the United States has rough parity on high-yield nuclear weapons with Russia .
On low-yield side—the so-called non-strategic nuclear weapons ( NSNW ) —Russia has a huge advantage .
While the United States maintains fewer than 500 NSNWs , Russia ’ s stockpile reaches 1,850 ready-for-use NSNWs .
This disparity is due to the fact that , in recent years , Russia ’ s budgetary shortcomings have prompted Putin to turn to low-cost strategies , and NSNWs are much cheaper to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This means that , be it in peacetime or wartime , Russia can threaten the United States with NSNWs , and the two options available to the United States are escalation to thermonuclear war or surrender .
The nuclear hibernation age is over .
A new age of nuclear competition is upon us .
We can either get ahead of it , or we can fool ourselves into believing that we can prevent it—the kind of mistake that we made with China , Putin , and Iran , thinking that with the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stakeholders of the liberal world order .
If the COVID-19 pandemic straitens the budgets of Russia and China , that could encourage them to develop more nuclear weapons—since investing in nukes provides enormous deterrent and coercive power at a low relative cost .
This might be a consideration for the Trump administration , as well—although , even before the pandemic , the Trump administration informed the world of its intention to develop new NSNWs in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review .
Great power competition has made nuclear weapons relevant again .
The Russians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we are going to think clearly and realistically about the world we live in , the least we can do is to make sure that our nuclear arsenal functions properly while letting our adversaries know that we consider these dread weapons an active and necessary tool of the defense of the free world .

Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. government was considering resuming the testing of nuclear weapons, which has been on pause since 1992. Anything that involves nuclear weapons or the Trump administration is always controversial. The combination of the two is, well, explosive.
Tommy Vietor, an Obama PR flack turned podcasting hack, called the idea nuts. So did Hans Kristensen, a project director at the Federation of American Scientists, in a one-sided Guardian article. The Post’s original report also quoted Kristensen, as well as Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association. Neither report quoted any supporters of the move, plenty of whom exist outside the MAGAverse.
So: Is it a good idea or a bad one?
Before answering this question, let’s have a little refresher on nuclear weapons technology and strategy.
Nuclear tests exist for several reasons. The first is to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. We don’t want our nukes to detonate where they shouldn’t—that’s what we mean by safety. And we want to make sure that they do detonate where we need them to—that’s reliability. There are two main types of nuclear delivery systems: gravity bombs and non-gravity bombs. (For the purposes of simplicity, we can set aside less common delivery systems, such as mines and nuclear munitions.) Gravity bombs are those that you drop out of a plane. Non-gravity bombs are delivered by a missile, mostly cruise and ballistic; these could be launched from air, land, and sea (the “nuclear triad” that candidate Trump was unaware of back in 2015). Different temperatures, altitudes, pressures, speeds, and other conditions risk unintended detonations of nuclear weapons. It is to make sure that both the “physics package”—the nuclear warhead proper, the part of the weapon that detonates—and the delivery system meet our requirements for safety and reliability that we have nuclear testing.
Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons were largely left out of successive U.S. administrations’ national security strategies, and most of the conversation around nuclear weapons focused on reduction and nonproliferation—important subjects in their own right, but very different. With no tests conducted for nearly three decades, we don’t know the extent to which the components of the weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile have degraded. So, for the sake of safety and reliability, a return to testing can help us assure that everything is in working order.
A second reason we might think of is psychological. Nuclear tests are a demonstration of resolve. States test nuclear weapons to demonstrate not just technical capacity but also the political will to use nukes in a conflict. This makes tests a valuable tool of deterrence.
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 Cold War is recalled as “the nuclear age” because of the large impact of nuclear weapons on the great power rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Recently, that terminology in the international relations literature has evolved to “first nuclear age”—an acknowledgement that the return of great power competition has again made nuclear weapons relevant.
The United States is a party to several bilateral and multilateral nuclear arms control commitments. These commitments include presidential pledges, signed agreements, and ratified treaties. Except for the 2010 New START with Russia, all of these commitments are either from the Cold War or a result of the post-Cold War hopes for a liberal Russia. With the return of the great power competition and the exposure of that hope as a mirage, most (but not all) of these treaties are outdated since China is not a party to them and Russia is out of compliance with several of them. In other words, these policies were adopted with U.S.-Soviet competition in mind or with a liberalizing Russia in mind—situations in which “trust, but verify,” the old Russian adage that President Reagan loved to quote, was still tenable. They did not take into account an illiberal, post-Soviet Russia or any U.S.-China concerns.
The 2020 Compliance Report, produced by the Department of State and reported to the U.S. Congress, states that Russia is in violation of a variety of these agreements. The biggest issue was the 1988 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; mounting Russian violations in recent years were the primary reason the Trump administration withdrew from that treaty in 2019. But there was also a Chinese consideration in the Trump administration’s actions. The INF Treaty was bilateral between the Soviet Union and the United States and thus didn’t prevent other countries from developing intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and China has been taking advantage of that. In the Sino-American competition, it was unilateral disarmament.
With the INF Treaty now dead, the only other bilateral nuclear-arms treaty between the U.S. and the USSR still on the books is the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits tests with yields greater than 150 kt (kilotons equivalent of TNT). Again, the treaty does not put any limits on China, and China “maintained a high level of activity at its Lop Nur nuclear weapons test site throughout 2019,” according to the compliance report.
At least based on what we know from the compliance report, it seems clear the argument that nuclear testing would be a provocative move by the United States is upside down: It is the United States that is being provoked here.
But the report suffers from a significant credibility problem. Its full text remains classified—likely for good reasons—and it is safe to assume that if the full report were politically cooked, that fact would have been exposed by now through leaks. Nevertheless, credibility is a problem for an administration that nobody believes except its fervent supporters. As the Post correctly observes, the administration has claimed treaty violations but not provided any evidence. This is an obstacle the administration must overcome.
How should we think about the size and composition of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Today, the United States has about 1,750 deployed nuclear weapons, with an additional 2,050 in the active stockpile, and several thousand more being slowly dismantled.
All nukes are not created equal. Fat Man and Little Boy, which dropped in Japan, had yields of 21 kt and 15 kt, respectively. The B53 thermonuclear bomb—the most powerful nuclear weapon the United States had in its arsenal, until its retirement in 2011—was about 430 times larger than Fat Man. If the United States ever has to threaten an adversary with nuclear weapons over the safety of an ally during peacetime (as Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon all did) it is much more believable to threaten them with a low-yield bomb than a thermonuclear one. That is also true of escalation during wartime. Escalation dominance means an absolute advantage to win the war if it is escalated “vertically” (horizontal escalation is escalating to other territories, and the vertical one is escalating the level of violence) because one’s lethal power on the next step is dominant.
Currently, the United States has rough parity on high-yield nuclear weapons with Russia. On low-yield side—the so-called non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW)—Russia has a huge advantage. While the United States maintains fewer than 500 NSNWs, Russia’s stockpile reaches 1,850 ready-for-use NSNWs. This disparity is due to the fact that, in recent years, Russia’s budgetary shortcomings have prompted Putin to turn to low-cost strategies, and NSNWs are much cheaper to develop and maintain—and much scarier—than conventional power. This means that, be it in peacetime or wartime, Russia can threaten the United States with NSNWs, and the two options available to the United States are escalation to thermonuclear war or surrender.
The nuclear hibernation age is over. A new age of nuclear competition is upon us. We can either get ahead of it, or we can fool ourselves into believing that we can prevent it—the kind of mistake that we made with China, Putin, and Iran, thinking that with the right strategies, we could make them responsible stakeholders of the liberal world order.
If the COVID-19 pandemic straitens the budgets of Russia and China, that could encourage them to develop more nuclear weapons—since investing in nukes provides enormous deterrent and coercive power at a low relative cost. This might be a consideration for the Trump administration, as well—although, even before the pandemic, the Trump administration informed the world of its intention to develop new NSNWs in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.
Great power competition has made nuclear weapons relevant again. The Russians and Chinese are aware of this. If we are going to think clearly and realistically about the world we live in, the least we can do is to make sure that our nuclear arsenal functions properly while letting our adversaries know that we consider these dread weapons an active and necessary tool of the defense of the free world.


thebulwark--2020-05-28--Who’s Watching the Relief Money?

Who’s Watching the Relief Money?

Conservatives should be apoplectic about the botched rollout of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act .
Sure , lots of money went to undeserving large corporate recipients and universities with huge endowments—a few of which have pledged to give the booty back .
With billions still in government coffers awaiting distribution , it remains to be seen whether the $ 2 trillion billed to future generations will have a net positive impact on the economy , which has suffered a terrible shock from the pandemic and public health response ( 36 million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankrupt , and the GDP is shrinking ) .
The bigger theoretical problem for conservatives with the CARES Act should be Congress ’ s massive handoff of largely unrestrained power over $ 500 billion in taxpayer dollars to the Department of the Treasury .
The Treasury Department was created to manage federal government revenues in 1789 by the first Congress .
With Alexander Hamilton as its first secretary , Treasury is the only government agency mentioned in the Constitution itself .
The Appropriations Clause provides that The Constitution thus contemplates that only Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As students used to learn in high school civics , this is a vital part of the composition of our constitutional structure : It ’ s Congress—not the president—that holds the purse strings .
This is one way that the powers of the presidency are kept in check .
This is also one reason why Donald Trump ’ s refusal to release $ 400 million in military aid absent Ukraine ’ s promise to announce an investigation into Joe Biden was legally fraught .
Likewise , Trump ’ s diversion of billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his disastrous “ border wall ” clashed with the Constitution ’ s division of power , since Congress had planted that money in the Pentagon and the Pentagon alone , and the emergency declaration the president used to allow him to shift the money was transparently bogus .
But in addition to appropriations , there ’ s another problem with the CARES Act ’ s entrusting $ 500 billion to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin .
In the wake of the Great Depression , President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously spearheaded the creation of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has since become what many people believe is a bloated , inefficient , and constitutionally suspect federal bureaucracy .
Federal agencies are created by Congress , but largely answer to the president within the chain of command of Article II of the Constitution .
Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 in part due to his promise to shrink the size of the federal government by slashing regulations and confining the authority of the myriad executive branch agencies that dot downtown Washington , D.C. ( “ In this present crisis , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address , “ government is not the solution to our problem ; government is the problem.
” ) The deregulation refrain has been a dominant theme in Republican politics to this day .
Just last week , Donald Trump signed an executive order directing agencies to “ identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery ” and to “ address this economic emergency by rescinding , modifying , waiving , or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery ” from the coronavirus crisis .
Setting aside animating economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to preserve Congress ’ s express and exclusive prerogative under the Constitution to make laws .
When Congress passes off the legislative baton to agencies lodged in the executive branch , the so-called “ nondelegation doctrine ” argument goes , it enables the president , in effect , to exercise legislative power , impermissibly blurring the separation of powers .
Since the New Deal , the Supreme Court has largely rejected this theory as a basis for striking down regulations on the rationale that Congress can empower agencies to make laws so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power gives “ intelligible ” instructions for implementing it .
What does this have to do with the CARES Act ?
Well , section 4003 of the law provides that “ the Secretary [ of the Treasury ] is authorized to make loans , loan guarantees , and other investments in support of eligible businesses , States , and municipalities that do not , in the aggregate , exceed $ 500,000,000,000 and provide the subsidy amounts necessary for such loans , loan guarantees , and other investments.
” Although the statute goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cargo air carriers , $ 17 billion for “ businesses critical to maintaining national security , ” and—with the assistance of the Federal Reserve— $ 454 billion “ for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system that supports lending to eligible businesses , States , or municipalities , ” the law is pretty thin in terms of marching orders for Mnuchin and his army of unelected employees .
( The law does bar support going to entities in which top Trump officials , members of Congress , or their families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts some constraints on Fed lending facilities that rely on CARES Act money . )
Instead , it states that “ a loan , loan guarantee , or other investment by the Secretary shall be made under this section in such form and on such terms and conditions .
.
.
( including requirements for audits ) as the Secretary determines appropriate.
” ( Emphasis added ) .
Of course , this congressional handoff of power to the executive branch is nothing new .
Congress appropriates loads of money to dozens of executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every last penny must go .
Agencies get loads of discretion .
But when it comes to policymaking , agencies are generally bound by the Administrative Procedure Act , which mandates a laborious rulemaking process that incorporates commentary from the public before agencies can step into Congress ’ s shoes and make laws that bind conduct—such as , for example , penalties for non-compliance with standards for accepting COVID-related money from the government .
In implementing the $ 500 billion CARES Act fund , Treasury has issued what ’ s loosely known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through the painstaking rulemaking process .
The CARES Act set up a bunch of oversight mechanisms , including establishment of a Congressional Oversight Commission to oversee the $ 500 billion loan fund .
It ’ s the statute ’ s only oversight mechanism that ’ s actually tied to Congress which—again—is the place the Constitution put appropriations and legislative powers in the first place .
( In April , House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi also named a House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis to oversee the CARES Act . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings and request ( but not subpoena ) documents from Treasury , but only if it has a chairperson , who is to be picked jointly by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Pelosi .
So far , they haven ’ t agreed on anybody .
Until that person is in place , the commission can not even hire staff .
The headless four-member commission nonetheless managed last week to comply with its statutory obligation to issue a 30-day report on Treasury ’ s progress to date .
It ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is actually entitled “ Questions About the CARES Act ’ s $ 500 Billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Funds.
” The commission is statutorily charged with answering two questions : What are the Treasury and the Fed doing with $ 500 billion in taxpayer money ?
And who is that money helping ?
So far , the $ 46 billion in airline loans haven ’ t been disbursed , although Treasury published “ procedures and minimum requirements ” for doing so .
Of the $ 454 billion balance , only $ 37.5 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the report .
The rules of the game are already shifting .
In an April 9 announcement , for example , the Treasury and the Fed issued a term sheet requiring certain would-be borrowers to attest that they “ require [ ] financing due to the exigent circumstances presented ” by COVID-19 .
But on April 30 , the agencies announced that they had eliminated that requirement .
And although the administration initially issued a requirement that companies make “ reasonable efforts ” to retain employees during the term of the loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule to “ commercially reasonable efforts.
” And so on .
These are the kinds of policy decisions that conservatives would traditionally prefer be made by Congress , not the executive branch .
And for good reason .
Congress is electorally accountable .
Mnuchin is not ; he serves at the pleasure of Donald J. Trump , who has no compunction firing people for perceived personal disloyalty or for simply doing their jobs for the American people .
And while Fed chairman Jerome Powell can not be fired by the president , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to voters .
Most revealing is the May 18 report ’ s laundry list of “ preliminary questions ” that the commission “ intend [ s ] to consider in our future work.
” So far , there are a whopping 52 of them ( not even counting sub-questions ) .
These are questions that , so far , nobody but people inside the Trump administration knows the answers to—and maybe not even people inside the administration .
They include such critical matters as : • How will the Treasury and the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure of this program ?
• How will the agencies attempt to stabilize the economy while protecting taxpayer dollars ?
• Will the agencies “ faithfully follow the statutory requirements ” of the CARES Act ?
• How will outside sources be hired to assist in this effort and “ how are conflicts of interest mitigated ?
” • What will the effect be on overall employment ?
And so on .
The Trump years have made crystal clear a fact of life that the Framers of the Constitution knew full well : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in power to abuse power .
And without meaningful oversight , corruption thrives .
Ideally , Congress would have addressed the commission ’ s questions before the money flowed to Steve Mnuchin for lending as he “ determines appropriate.
” The central question of whether the $ 500 billion should be used to serve the millions of unemployed Americans over big banks and corporations is also a pivotal one that should have been decided before Mnuchin was handed the giant checkbook .
And certainly , Congress should have ensured that the congressional watchdog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sent over to Team Trump .
At this point , all we can do is hope that the people in power will do the right thing .
Needless to say , Trump continues to prove that hope is pointless .

Conservatives should be apoplectic about the botched rollout of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Sure, lots of money went to undeserving large corporate recipients and universities with huge endowments—a few of which have pledged to give the booty back. With billions still in government coffers awaiting distribution, it remains to be seen whether the $2 trillion billed to future generations will have a net positive impact on the economy, which has suffered a terrible shock from the pandemic and public health response (36 million Americans are jobless, many businesses are going bankrupt, and the GDP is shrinking).
The bigger theoretical problem for conservatives with the CARES Act should be Congress’s massive handoff of largely unrestrained power over $500 billion in taxpayer dollars to the Department of the Treasury.
The Treasury Department was created to manage federal government revenues in 1789 by the first Congress. With Alexander Hamilton as its first secretary, Treasury is the only government agency mentioned in the Constitution itself. The Appropriations Clause provides that
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
The Constitution thus contemplates that only Congress can decide how to spend taxpayer dollars. As students used to learn in high school civics, this is a vital part of the composition of our constitutional structure: It’s Congress—not the president—that holds the purse strings. This is one way that the powers of the presidency are kept in check.
This is also one reason why Donald Trump’s refusal to release $400 million in military aid absent Ukraine’s promise to announce an investigation into Joe Biden was legally fraught. Likewise, Trump’s diversion of billions of dollars in Pentagon funding to build his disastrous “border wall” clashed with the Constitution’s division of power, since Congress had planted that money in the Pentagon and the Pentagon alone, and the emergency declaration the president used to allow him to shift the money was transparently bogus.
But in addition to appropriations, there’s another problem with the CARES Act’s entrusting $500 billion to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
In the wake of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously spearheaded the creation of an “alphabet soup” of federal agencies that has since become what many people believe is a bloated, inefficient, and constitutionally suspect federal bureaucracy. Federal agencies are created by Congress, but largely answer to the president within the chain of command of Article II of the Constitution.
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…
Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 in part due to his promise to shrink the size of the federal government by slashing regulations and confining the authority of the myriad executive branch agencies that dot downtown Washington, D.C. (“In this present crisis,” he famously said in his first inaugural address, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”) The deregulation refrain has been a dominant theme in Republican politics to this day. Just last week, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing agencies to “identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery” and to “address this economic emergency by rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery” from the coronavirus crisis.
Setting aside animating economic theories, the constitutional justification for deregulation is to preserve Congress’s express and exclusive prerogative under the Constitution to make laws. When Congress passes off the legislative baton to agencies lodged in the executive branch, the so-called “nondelegation doctrine” argument goes, it enables the president, in effect, to exercise legislative power, impermissibly blurring the separation of powers. Since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has largely rejected this theory as a basis for striking down regulations on the rationale that Congress can empower agencies to make laws so long as the statute handing off such power gives “intelligible” instructions for implementing it.
What does this have to do with the CARES Act?
Well, section 4003 of the law provides that “the Secretary [of the Treasury] is authorized to make loans, loan guarantees, and other investments in support of eligible businesses, States, and municipalities that do not, in the aggregate, exceed $500,000,000,000 and provide the subsidy amounts necessary for such loans, loan guarantees, and other investments.”
Although the statute goes on to earmark $29 billion for airlines and cargo air carriers, $17 billion for “businesses critical to maintaining national security,” and—with the assistance of the Federal Reserve—$454 billion “for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system that supports lending to eligible businesses, States, or municipalities,” the law is pretty thin in terms of marching orders for Mnuchin and his army of unelected employees. (The law does bar support going to entities in which top Trump officials, members of Congress, or their families have a controlling interest. And it puts some constraints on Fed lending facilities that rely on CARES Act money.)
Instead, it states that “a loan, loan guarantee, or other investment by the Secretary shall be made under this section in such form and on such terms and conditions . . . (including requirements for audits) as the Secretary determines appropriate.” (Emphasis added).
Of course, this congressional handoff of power to the executive branch is nothing new. Congress appropriates loads of money to dozens of executive branch agencies every year without identifying where every last penny must go. Agencies get loads of discretion. But when it comes to policymaking, agencies are generally bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates a laborious rulemaking process that incorporates commentary from the public before agencies can step into Congress’s shoes and make laws that bind conduct—such as, for example, penalties for non-compliance with standards for accepting COVID-related money from the government. In implementing the $500 billion CARES Act fund, Treasury has issued what’s loosely known as “guidance,” which does not go through the painstaking rulemaking process.
The CARES Act set up a bunch of oversight mechanisms, including establishment of a Congressional Oversight Commission to oversee the $500 billion loan fund. It’s the statute’s only oversight mechanism that’s actually tied to Congress which—again—is the place the Constitution put appropriations and legislative powers in the first place. (In April, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi also named a House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis to oversee the CARES Act.)
The five-member commission has the power to hold hearings and request (but not subpoena) documents from Treasury, but only if it has a chairperson, who is to be picked jointly by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. So far, they haven’t agreed on anybody. Until that person is in place, the commission cannot even hire staff. The headless four-member commission nonetheless managed last week to comply with its statutory obligation to issue a 30-day report on Treasury’s progress to date. It’s pretty telling.
The May 18 “report” is actually entitled “Questions About the CARES Act’s $500 Billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Funds.” The commission is statutorily charged with answering two questions: What are the Treasury and the Fed doing with $500 billion in taxpayer money? And who is that money helping?
So far, the $46 billion in airline loans haven’t been disbursed, although Treasury published “procedures and minimum requirements” for doing so. Of the $454 billion balance, only $37.5 billion was handed out as of the date of the report.
The rules of the game are already shifting. In an April 9 announcement, for example, the Treasury and the Fed issued a term sheet requiring certain would-be borrowers to attest that they “require[] financing due to the exigent circumstances presented” by COVID-19. But on April 30, the agencies announced that they had eliminated that requirement. And although the administration initially issued a requirement that companies make “reasonable efforts” to retain employees during the term of the loan, on April 30 it changed the rule to “commercially reasonable efforts.” And so on.
These are the kinds of policy decisions that conservatives would traditionally prefer be made by Congress, not the executive branch. And for good reason. Congress is electorally accountable. Mnuchin is not; he serves at the pleasure of Donald J. Trump, who has no compunction firing people for perceived personal disloyalty or for simply doing their jobs for the American people. And while Fed chairman Jerome Powell cannot be fired by the president, he, like Mnuchin, is not answerable to voters.
Most revealing is the May 18 report’s laundry list of “preliminary questions” that the commission “intend[s] to consider in our future work.” So far, there are a whopping 52 of them (not even counting sub-questions). These are questions that, so far, nobody but people inside the Trump administration knows the answers to—and maybe not even people inside the administration. They include such critical matters as:
How will the Treasury and the Fed . . . assess the success or failure of this program?
How will the agencies attempt to stabilize the economy while protecting taxpayer dollars?
Will the agencies “faithfully follow the statutory requirements” of the CARES Act?
How will outside sources be hired to assist in this effort and “how are conflicts of interest mitigated?”
What will the effect be on overall employment?
And so on.
The Trump years have made crystal clear a fact of life that the Framers of the Constitution knew full well: It’s human nature for people in power to abuse power. And without meaningful oversight, corruption thrives.
Ideally, Congress would have addressed the commission’s questions before the money flowed to Steve Mnuchin for lending as he “determines appropriate.” The central question of whether the $500 billion should be used to serve the millions of unemployed Americans over big banks and corporations is also a pivotal one that should have been decided before Mnuchin was handed the giant checkbook. And certainly, Congress should have ensured that the congressional watchdog had an actual head before the money was sent over to Team Trump.
At this point, all we can do is hope that the people in power will do the right thing. Needless to say, Trump continues to prove that hope is pointless.


thebulwark--2020-05-28--The Case for Klobuchar

The Case for Klobuchar

The news broke last week that the Biden campaign has asked Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar to undergo vetting as a possible 2020 vice-presidential running mate .
This in itself is not really news .
It was clear that Klobuchar was likely to be considered for the role .
What is news is that it was announced to the press , which we can take as a kind of trial balloon , an attempt to gauge how the choice would go over , to see who is excited and who objects .
We can also take this as a sign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under way—and the Biden campaign is on the right track in looking at Klobuchar .
There will be an especially intense focus on Joe Biden ’ s choice for his vice-president .
This is partly because of Biden ’ s age .
He would be 78 on his inauguration , so there is an actuarially greater than normal chance that he might not be able to serve out a full term in office—much less run for a second .
But it ’ s also because of things like the “ you ain ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are trying to make this out as proof that age has caught up with Biden and made him mentally infirm .
But as far as I can recall , Joe Biden has always been like this : a gabbling gaffe machine .
This would be a powerful argument against Biden as president—if he weren ’ t running against President Tweety , who has the same problem , only to a much greater degree .
But for Biden , his gaffe problem means that he should probably be paired with someone who has greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden as a transitional president , as someone who paves the way for a successor .
And the presumed successor would be his vice president .
To his credit , Biden knows this .
He has described himself as a “ bridge ” to a new generation of Democrats and “ not as anything else.
” The bridge starts with his choice of running mate .
There are a number of options I could recommend if Biden had not limited himself to nominating a woman .
Colorado ’ s Jared Polis , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor who has managed the coronavirus crisis most successfully , free of disastrous early decisions and preening self-regard ( Andrew Cuomo ) , heavy-handed overreach ( Gretchen Whitmer ) , or hypocrisy ( Ralph Northam ) .
But in today ’ s Democratic party , with its race and gender obsessions , Biden clearly feels the need to counterbalance his old-white-maleness with a partner who would , by implication , be the future first female president .
The challenge is that Biden shouldn ’ t just pick someone to excite the ideological activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of the party , there may be a temptation to try to shore up his support on the left .
This would be a mistake .
Just about everybody on the left has a strong incentive to vote for Biden simply because he ’ s not Donald Trump .
The number of progressives who hate a moderate Democrat enough to stay home is small .
Biden can afford to lose the votes of a couple hundred communists in Brooklyn , in order to gain thousands of swing voters in the Upper Midwest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electorate what appeals to a # NeverTrump former Republican like myself ?
Well , sure—but that ’ s actually a pretty good guide in this particular election .
In 2016 , people who didn ’ t like either party or candidate broke for Trump .
Now they are overwhelmingly breaking for Biden .
That ’ s what it looks like when you ’ re winning the swing vote and it ’ s the sort of thing that will win this election .
Biden will have a better chance of winning if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who repels those voters .
Which means : Not Kamala Harris , who manages to be both too far to the left and too much of a cop at the same time .
Not the uncharismatic Elizabeth Warren , who in any case is too old to represent the new generation .
Not Stacey Abrams , since winning elections is a much better credential than losing and complaining that the election was rigged .
Biden needs someone who is not just the kind of hot-house plant that only prospers in the warm glow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point , he needs someone with a track record of being able to get votes outside of the reliable “ blue ” enclaves .
That ’ s where Amy Klobuchar comes in .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton only narrowly won Minnesota .
Two years later , Senator Klobuchar won re-election in the state with 60 percent of the vote .
She has done this by taking relatively moderate positions .
She was most notable in this year ’ s presidential primaries as the only candidate at a Democratic debate to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialism .
Despite a caustic streak that Pete Buttigieg seems to bring out , she has also presented her views in a moderate , “ Minnesota Nice ” manner .
And gosh darn it , she just seems like a regular person , which in and of itself adds a lot of diversity to this year ’ s national contest .
As a progressive activist told the New York Times , Klobuchar is “ a perfectly fine Democrat , but if we ’ re looking for a transformational leader and someone who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas and systemic change , others like Elizabeth Warren seem to fit the bill a little bit more head on.
” This sums up perfectly why Klobuchar is so appealing .
She is someone who neither promises nor threatens to attempt a radical transformation of our lives .
Progressive activists see this as a bug .
Actual voters tend to regard it as a feature .
That ’ s particularly important in this cycle because our lives have already been radically transformed by the coronavirus pandemic .
This is not the election for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion that normal life is horrible , and we have nothing to lose , so we should send him to Washington to break things .
That was basically the sales pitch for Donald Trump in 2016 .
It has been the sales pitch for Bernie Sanders for forever .
But now everything is broken and the experience turned out to be not much fun .
I suspect that a majority of voters are going to want someone who promises to put things back together—someone who represents a yearning to return to normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly approve of Amy Klobuchar ’ s agenda .
She is , after all , a Democrat , and I disagree profoundly with her on issues such as gun control and global warming—just as I do with Biden .
But we ’ re living in an era of lowered expectations .
I am not looking for someone who could be a great president .
That seems like too much to ask for , and we literally do not deserve it .
But under the current circumstances , I would be thrilled to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal and is promising a return to normal .
“ Normal ” wasn ’ t exactly a utopia , but it looks a whole lot better when you haven ’ t been there for a while .
That ’ s what Joe Biden has been running on up to now , and picking Amy Klobuchar as his running mate—and as the future direction of his party—would seal the deal .

The news broke last week that the Biden campaign has asked Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar to undergo vetting as a possible 2020 vice-presidential running mate.
This in itself is not really news. It was clear that Klobuchar was likely to be considered for the role. What is news is that it was announced to the press, which we can take as a kind of trial balloon, an attempt to gauge how the choice would go over, to see who is excited and who objects.
We can also take this as a sign that the veepstakes are now well and truly under way—and the Biden campaign is on the right track in looking at Klobuchar.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
There will be an especially intense focus on Joe Biden’s choice for his vice-president.
This is partly because of Biden’s age. He would be 78 on his inauguration, so there is an actuarially greater than normal chance that he might not be able to serve out a full term in office—much less run for a second.
But it’s also because of things like the “you ain’t black” gaffe. Some people are trying to make this out as proof that age has caught up with Biden and made him mentally infirm. But as far as I can recall, Joe Biden has always been like this: a gabbling gaffe machine.
This would be a powerful argument against Biden as president—if he weren’t running against President Tweety, who has the same problem, only to a much greater degree. But for Biden, his gaffe problem means that he should probably be paired with someone who has greater self-discipline. Frankly, America is considering Biden as a transitional president, as someone who paves the way for a successor. And the presumed successor would be his vice president.
To his credit, Biden knows this. He has described himself as a “bridge” to a new generation of Democrats and “not as anything else.” The bridge starts with his choice of running mate.
There are a number of options I could recommend if Biden had not limited himself to nominating a woman. Colorado’s Jared Polis, for example, seems to be the Democratic governor who has managed the coronavirus crisis most successfully, free of disastrous early decisions and preening self-regard (Andrew Cuomo), heavy-handed overreach (Gretchen Whitmer), or hypocrisy (Ralph Northam).
But in today’s Democratic party, with its race and gender obsessions, Biden clearly feels the need to counterbalance his old-white-maleness with a partner who would, by implication, be the future first female president.
The challenge is that Biden shouldn’t just pick someone to excite the ideological activists. After the battle with the progressive side of the party, there may be a temptation to try to shore up his support on the left. This would be a mistake.
Just about everybody on the left has a strong incentive to vote for Biden simply because he’s not Donald Trump. The number of progressives who hate a moderate Democrat enough to stay home is small. Biden can afford to lose the votes of a couple hundred communists in Brooklyn, in order to gain thousands of swing voters in the Upper Midwest and Sunbelt.
Am I projecting onto the electorate what appeals to a #NeverTrump former Republican like myself? Well, sure—but that’s actually a pretty good guide in this particular election.
In 2016, people who didn’t like either party or candidate broke for Trump. Now they are overwhelmingly breaking for Biden. That’s what it looks like when you’re winning the swing vote and it’s the sort of thing that will win this election. Biden will have a better chance of winning if he avoids connecting himself to a running mate who repels those voters.
Which means: Not Kamala Harris, who manages to be both too far to the left and too much of a cop at the same time. Not the uncharismatic Elizabeth Warren, who in any case is too old to represent the new generation. Not Stacey Abrams, since winning elections is a much better credential than losing and complaining that the election was rigged.
Biden needs someone who is not just the kind of hot-house plant that only prospers in the warm glow of sympathetic media coverage. More to the point, he needs someone with a track record of being able to get votes outside of the reliable “blue” enclaves.
That’s where Amy Klobuchar comes in. In 2016, Hillary Clinton only narrowly won Minnesota (with 46.4 percent). Two years later, Senator Klobuchar won re-election in the state with 60 percent of the vote.
She has done this by taking relatively moderate positions. She was most notable in this year’s presidential primaries as the only candidate at a Democratic debate to raise her hand and go on record opposing socialism. Despite a caustic streak that Pete Buttigieg seems to bring out, she has also presented her views in a moderate, “Minnesota Nice” manner. And gosh darn it, she just seems like a regular person, which in and of itself adds a lot of diversity to this year’s national contest.
As a progressive activist told the New York Times, Klobuchar is “a perfectly fine Democrat, but if we’re looking for a transformational leader and someone who’s going to elevate big, bold ideas and systemic change, others like Elizabeth Warren seem to fit the bill a little bit more head on.”
This sums up perfectly why Klobuchar is so appealing. She is someone who neither promises nor threatens to attempt a radical transformation of our lives. Progressive activists see this as a bug. Actual voters tend to regard it as a feature.
That’s particularly important in this cycle because our lives have already been radically transformed by the coronavirus pandemic.
This is not the election for the kind of politician who campaigns on the notion that normal life is horrible, and we have nothing to lose, so we should send him to Washington to break things.
That was basically the sales pitch for Donald Trump in 2016. It has been the sales pitch for Bernie Sanders for forever. But now everything is broken and the experience turned out to be not much fun. I suspect that a majority of voters are going to want someone who promises to put things back together—someone who represents a yearning to return to normal.
This does not mean that I particularly approve of Amy Klobuchar’s agenda. She is, after all, a Democrat, and I disagree profoundly with her on issues such as gun control and global warming—just as I do with Biden. But we’re living in an era of lowered expectations.
I am not looking for someone who could be a great president. That seems like too much to ask for, and we literally do not deserve it. But under the current circumstances, I would be thrilled to have a president—or at least a president-in-waiting—who is normal and is promising a return to normal.
“Normal” wasn’t exactly a utopia, but it looks a whole lot better when you haven’t been there for a while.
That’s what Joe Biden has been running on up to now, and picking Amy Klobuchar as his running mate—and as the future direction of his party—would seal the deal.
Correction May 28, 2020 8:30 a.m.: The article originally stated that Donald Trump won Minnesota in 2016. Hillary Clinton won Minnesota with 46.4 percent of the vote. The article has been changed accordingly.