thebulwark--2020-05-05--Team Trump’s Gross Exploitation of Tara Reade

Some people are entirely disqualified from any serious discussion of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Joe Biden .
Namely , anyone associated with President Donald J. Trump .
Working for Trump means you have to be willing to snuff out all the allegations against him .
Over the past week , lots of Trump surrogates—from campaign manager Brad Parscale to daughter-in-law Lara Trump to communications guru Mercedes Schlapp—have tried to capitalize on the allegations lodged by Tara Reade against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee .
But given how they ’ ve protected Trump from such allegations , why should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The way Trump ’ s aides have put on masks of righteous indignation to scold Biden over his treatment of women is a disgusting act of its own .
Calling them hypocrites is too charitable ; what they ’ re doing is a whole lot smuttier .
To these opportunists , Tara Reade is just another woman to be used .
Remember , Trump ’ s operatives proved their loyalty by running cover through the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct women have made against him , revelations of hush-money payments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the pussy ” remarks .
Former Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon said the Access Hollywood tapes were a “ litmus test ” that showed “ who really had Donald Trump ’ s back.
” Before she was promoted to the role of White House press secretary , then-Trump surrogate Kayleigh McEnany went so far as to say that the “ grab ’ em by the pussy ” audio “ implied consent.
” That ’ s not spin .
It ’ s a wretched thought .
When asked in her first White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump , McEnany said “ he has always told the truth on these issues .
He ’ s denied them immediately .
And you ’ re bringing up issues , like I said , from four years ago that were asked and answered.
” Nope , that ’ s not true at all .
Trump ’ s former “ fixer ” Michael Cohen is in jail right now , in part , because of the “ hush money ” he paid to silence women who wanted to speak about their alleged affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it might ’ ve been “ asked ” in 2016 but none was “ answered ” —at least not honestly—and voters were explicitly deprived of that information .
But what should we expect ?
With Trump and his people , it ’ s nothing but lies upon lies .
The only news value in listening to these surrogates , whether they be employed by his campaign or in the White House , is in documenting what sorts of lies they are telling today .
For many Trump-loving Republicans , Reade represents the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throats of Democrats who have chanted “ believe women ” even in the absence of compelling evidence .
She ’ s a means of exacting sweet revenge on those who trumpeted wild allegations made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 nomination battle .
And for these reasons , regardless of whether her story holds , Reade will be weaponized for their purposes .
It ’ s hard to see how women are helped by all these self-serving political games .
Abuse of women shouldn ’ t be something to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet that ’ s exactly what Team Trump is doing with Reade .
Just like they did in 2016 when candidate Trump , seeking to shield himself from attacks in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood tapes going public , brought former President Bill Clinton ’ s accusers to the final presidential debate .
The Trump campaign released a statement last Friday that said , “ The double standard exhibited by Biden , prominent liberal women ’ s groups , and Democrat elected officials—some of whom want to be Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to stand.
” While the double standards argument can be helpful in exposing hypocrites , Trump ’ s operatives aren ’ t proving the point they think they are .
Just try applying any of these attacks to their boss .
Do they think Trump ’ s accusers should be believed ?
Where are Trump ’ s tax records and what about all those non-disclosure agreements ?
It goes on and on .
The problem they are trying to highlight about Democrats refusing to hold Biden to the same unforgiving standard as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact Trump ’ s defenders have never been interested in applying any standards to Trump at all .
They are like atheists telling everyone else to go to church .
The list of women who have accused President Trump of sexual misconduct is so long that the media has quit keeping track and describes them as “ dozens.
” President Trump , who denies all accusations of sexual assault and misconduct from these women , has shown that he has no interest in applying vigorous , equal standards when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about their claims , he has called the women liars , suggested they are too unattractive for him to be interested in , and depicted himself as the victim .
Trump has never permitted himself to be subjected to any real vetting of these claims ; he only mocks them .
This is a time for fair-minded people to seize the moment to finally have a good-faith debate about how to properly investigate claims of sexual misconduct .
The legions of Democrats who were quick to believe Kavanaugh ’ s accusers should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a sober approach when vetting these claims .
Because the liberals who stretched the meaning of “ Me Too ” to mean all women must be believed need to face a reckoning .
Otherwise , we ’ ll never get agreement on what standards will help end such workplace abuses once and for all .
Don ’ t expect anyone aligned with President Trump to contribute anything meaningful to that discussion , though .
Those who have lied about or dismissed the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploit .

Some people are entirely disqualified from any serious discussion of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Joe Biden. Namely, anyone associated with President Donald J. Trump. Working for Trump means you have to be willing to snuff out all the allegations against him.
Over the past week, lots of Trump surrogates—from campaign manager Brad Parscale to daughter-in-law Lara Trump to communications guru Mercedes Schlapp—have tried to capitalize on the allegations lodged by Tara Reade against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But given how they’ve protected Trump from such allegations, why should anyone care what they have to say?
The way Trump’s aides have put on masks of righteous indignation to scold Biden over his treatment of women is a disgusting act of its own. Calling them hypocrites is too charitable; what they’re doing is a whole lot smuttier. To these opportunists, Tara Reade is just another woman to be used.
Remember, Trump’s operatives proved their loyalty by running cover through the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct women have made against him, revelations of hush-money payments, and his infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” remarks. Former Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon said the Access Hollywood tapes were a “litmus test” that showed “who really had Donald Trump’s back.”
Before she was promoted to the role of White House press secretary, then-Trump surrogate Kayleigh McEnany went so far as to say that the “grab ’em by the pussy” audio “implied consent.” That’s not spin. It’s a wretched thought.
When asked in her first White House briefing about all the allegations raised against President Trump, McEnany said “he has always told the truth on these issues. He’s denied them immediately. And you’re bringing up issues, like I said, from four years ago that were asked and answered.”
Nope, that’s not true at all. Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen is in jail right now, in part, because of the “hush money” he paid to silence women who wanted to speak about their alleged affairs with Trump during the campaign. Some of it might’ve been “asked” in 2016 but none was “answered”—at least not honestly—and voters were explicitly deprived of that information.
But what should we expect? With Trump and his people, it’s nothing but lies upon lies. The only news value in listening to these surrogates, whether they be employed by his campaign or in the White House, is in documenting what sorts of lies they are telling today.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
For many Trump-loving Republicans, Reade represents the chance to shove double standards down the throats of Democrats who have chanted “believe women” even in the absence of compelling evidence. She’s a means of exacting sweet revenge on those who trumpeted wild allegations made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 nomination battle. And for these reasons, regardless of whether her story holds, Reade will be weaponized for their purposes.
It’s hard to see how women are helped by all these self-serving political games. Abuse of women shouldn’t be something to “both sides” and play whataboutism with, yet that’s exactly what Team Trump is doing with Reade. Just like they did in 2016 when candidate Trump, seeking to shield himself from attacks in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood tapes going public, brought former President Bill Clinton’s accusers to the final presidential debate.
The Trump campaign released a statement last Friday that said, “The double standard exhibited by Biden, prominent liberal women’s groups, and Democrat elected officials—some of whom want to be Biden’s running mate—is glaring and cannot be allowed to stand.”
While the double standards argument can be helpful in exposing hypocrites, Trump’s operatives aren’t proving the point they think they are. Just try applying any of these attacks to their boss. Do they think Trump’s accusers should be believed? Where are Trump’s tax records and what about all those non-disclosure agreements? It goes on and on.
The problem they are trying to highlight about Democrats refusing to hold Biden to the same unforgiving standard as they did Kavanaugh is totally muted by the fact Trump’s defenders have never been interested in applying any standards to Trump at all. They are like atheists telling everyone else to go to church.
The list of women who have accused President Trump of sexual misconduct is so long that the media has quit keeping track and describes them as “dozens.” President Trump, who denies all accusations of sexual assault and misconduct from these women, has shown that he has no interest in applying vigorous, equal standards when it comes to investigating allegations of sexual assault. When asked about their claims, he has called the women liars, suggested they are too unattractive for him to be interested in, and depicted himself as the victim.
Trump has never permitted himself to be subjected to any real vetting of these claims; he only mocks them.
This is a time for fair-minded people to seize the moment to finally have a good-faith debate about how to properly investigate claims of sexual misconduct. The legions of Democrats who were quick to believe Kavanaugh’s accusers should be put on record about the need to take a sober approach when vetting these claims. Because the liberals who stretched the meaning of “Me Too” to mean all women must be believed need to face a reckoning. Otherwise, we’ll never get agreement on what standards will help end such workplace abuses once and for all.
Don’t expect anyone aligned with President Trump to contribute anything meaningful to that discussion, though. Those who have lied about or dismissed the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump only view Tara Reade as a woman to exploit.


thebulwark--2020-05-05--The President Should Resign

The President Should Resign

Since about February 20 , when the stock market began its plunge , the world has understood that the coronavirus outbreak was more than a regional concern .
By all accounts , Donald Trump knew this truth at least three weeks before that .
Throughout this crisis , the president ’ s advisors seem to have been consistent in telling him the facts as well as which strategies could lead the nation out of catastrophe .
They also seem to have conveyed to him what the future would look like if he continued to lie to the public , undermine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail to build a testing , tracing , and isolation apparatus .
In response , the president made inconsistent and often contradictory alterations to his rhetoric while continuing to abdicate his responsibility to carry out the federal government ’ s most important task : assembling a testing regime adequate to the challenge of the pandemic .
On Monday , a CDC/FEMA model surfaced which predicted that over the next eight weeks the daily death totals would increase by roughly 50 percent from where they stand today .
This at a moment when America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this terrible curve .
Something is wrong with this picture .
By the end of February , anyone who knew anything about public health knew that testing on an increasing scale was our best hope to identify , isolate , trace , and treat patients .
South Korea , where the first case appears to have arrived at around the same time as in the United States , also saw a massive outbreak ( peaking at 851 daily cases on March 3 ) , but successfully contained it through a diligent combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consistent public health communications that—while scary at times—saved the lives of tens of thousands of citizens .
Pursuing a similar containment strategy in the United States was a reasonable and achievable goal .
On March 10 , when there were 994 total confirmed cases in America and 30 deaths , my colleagues and I wrote : We can learn from South Korea ’ s approach of widespread testing in coordination with federal and state authorities , education of the public , and transparency with regular briefs .
That is , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of opportunity to get in front of this epidemic narrows .
Now is when our nation ’ s leadership matters most .
It is eights weeks since that was written and the window to get in front of the outbreak has indeed closed .
Today , there are 1.2 million confirmed cases and over 69,000 confirmed deaths .
Worse , President Trump still has not enunciated a clear strategy for mitigating further case growth and deaths on a wider scale .
His messaging remains inconsistent and often driven more by what he sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts are advising him .
He has prompted partisan rebellion in our nation in an effort to shore up his electoral base , which has led some governors who belong to his political party—and who might have favored a cautious approach—to move more swiftly in opening up their states ’ economies so as not to incur the wrath of the president .
Whether or not the new CDC model winds up being a good predictor , we know that the relaxation of social distancing/lockdown measures will result in greater spread of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other therapeutic intervention—this will result in an escalation of cases and deaths .
We also know that reliable strategies would have helped mitigate this situation .
And that they can still lessen the damage .
Edward Kaplan and I have spelled out one such strategy here .
Others abound .
But all of these strategies rely on testing at a scale that is achievable—but requires coordination of effort and leadership from the top of the federal government .
This leadership has been missing from the start of the crisis .
If a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this and been unable to create effective leadership after 12 weeks of death and economic destruction , then it is unlikely he is capable of it .
At this point , the single most effective action President Trump could do to to save lives and put our country back on a footing toward health and economic prosperity is to resign .
The only explanation for why we are where we are is gross incompetence in the carrying out of the most basic executive functions of the presidency .
In the normal course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until an election provides a remedy for the nation .
But this is not an ordinary time .
For the good of the country , President Trump should step aside and give Vice President Pence the chance to do the jobs that he is incapable of performing .

Since about February 20, when the stock market began its plunge, the world has understood that the coronavirus outbreak was more than a regional concern. By all accounts, Donald Trump knew this truth at least three weeks before that.
Throughout this crisis, the president’s advisors seem to have been consistent in telling him the facts as well as which strategies could lead the nation out of catastrophe. They also seem to have conveyed to him what the future would look like if he continued to lie to the public, undermine efforts at containment and mitigation, and fail to build a testing, tracing, and isolation apparatus.
In response, the president made inconsistent and often contradictory alterations to his rhetoric while continuing to abdicate his responsibility to carry out the federal government’s most important task: assembling a testing regime adequate to the challenge of the pandemic.
On Monday, a CDC/FEMA model surfaced which predicted that over the next eight weeks the daily death totals would increase by roughly 50 percent from where they stand today. This at a moment when America should be moving down the back slope of this terrible curve.
Something is wrong with this picture.
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…
By the end of February, anyone who knew anything about public health knew that testing on an increasing scale was our best hope to identify, isolate, trace, and treat patients. South Korea, where the first case appears to have arrived at around the same time as in the United States, also saw a massive outbreak (peaking at 851 daily cases on March 3), but successfully contained it through a diligent combination of testing, tracing, isolation, and consistent public health communications that—while scary at times—saved the lives of tens of thousands of citizens.
Pursuing a similar containment strategy in the United States was a reasonable and achievable goal. On March 10, when there were 994 total confirmed cases in America and 30 deaths, my colleagues and I wrote:
We can learn from South Korea’s approach of widespread testing in coordination with federal and state authorities, education of the public, and transparency with regular briefs. That is, if we choose to. Each day the window of opportunity to get in front of this epidemic narrows. Now is when our nation’s leadership matters most.
It is eights weeks since that was written and the window to get in front of the outbreak has indeed closed. Today, there are 1.2 million confirmed cases and over 69,000 confirmed deaths.
Worse, President Trump still has not enunciated a clear strategy for mitigating further case growth and deaths on a wider scale.
His messaging remains inconsistent and often driven more by what he sees on cable TV than what his own experts are advising him.
He has prompted partisan rebellion in our nation in an effort to shore up his electoral base, which has led some governors who belong to his political party—and who might have favored a cautious approach—to move more swiftly in opening up their states’ economies so as not to incur the wrath of the president.
Whether or not the new CDC model winds up being a good predictor, we know that the relaxation of social distancing/lockdown measures will result in greater spread of the coronavirus.
We know that—short of a vaccine or other therapeutic intervention—this will result in an escalation of cases and deaths.
We also know that reliable strategies would have helped mitigate this situation. And that they can still lessen the damage. Edward Kaplan and I have spelled out one such strategy here. Others abound.
But all of these strategies rely on testing at a scale that is achievable—but requires coordination of effort and leadership from the top of the federal government.
This leadership has been missing from the start of the crisis. If a president has faced a moment such as this and been unable to create effective leadership after 12 weeks of death and economic destruction, then it is unlikely he is capable of it.
At this point, the single most effective action President Trump could do to to save lives and put our country back on a footing toward health and economic prosperity is to resign.
The only explanation for why we are where we are is gross incompetence in the carrying out of the most basic executive functions of the presidency.
In the normal course of events, such incompetence can be endured until an election provides a remedy for the nation. But this is not an ordinary time.
For the good of the country, President Trump should step aside and give Vice President Pence the chance to do the jobs that he is incapable of performing.


thebulwark--2020-05-06--The Novel Coronavirus Praises The Plan to Reopen America

Thank you all for joining me today .
I just wanted to tell you all what a great year it ’ s been and what a huge success I am .
When people were downplaying my importance back in February , I worried about making a splash in the greatest economy on Earth , but I never had any doubt it would be big .
In spite of those who ignored me , I ’ ve literally grown from zero to a million cases in two months – I ’ ve basically gone platinum .
And people can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are cramming into state capitols , shopping malls , and public parks to lobby on my behalf !
Some people are actually bringing guns to protect their right to pass me around from person to person .
A literal armed militia has risen to defend me !
And I ’ ve been able to achieve all this with 95 percent of the media against me .
Seriously – how many pro-COVID-19 stories do you see ?
Nobody has been treated this unfairly since the Spanish Flu .
The fake news media aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even your president , Donald Trump , called me a “ very brilliant enemy ” and said I was a “ genius !
” Sure , I ’ m microscopic , but I have a very big brain .
Just think of all the wonderful things that have come about since I showed up .
People are baking bread and sewing masks and playing Monopoly and talking to their children .
Nature is healing !
And just look at the ratings I ’ m getting !
I ’ m not saying this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , that the press conferences the president is holding rival those of the Bachelor finale and Monday Night Football !
And just think of all the things I haven ’ t done .
I haven ’ t suggested people drink bleach ( I don ’ t even have a brain and that ’ s the dumbest thing I ’ ve ever heard ) , and I haven ’ t Tweeted well wishes to Kim Jong Un .
That guy ’ s an asshole .
Anyway , it ’ s clear the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s favorite supporters have tweeted that the states ’ stay-at-home orders are like “ slavery ” and that they ’ d refuse to take any vaccine once it ’ s developed .
In the meantime , I can get millions of dollars ’ worth of free public relations .
Name someone else born from a medium-rare bat that could achieve that !
See , Americans love an underdog – I ’ m like the nerdy kid that catches the game-winning touchdown in that Charlie Sheen movie Lucas from the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheen – a big supporter of the anti-vax community . )
What can I say – I agree with Donald Trump ’ s optimism that great times are ahead .
Re-opening America is more than any infectious disease can ask for .
All I ask from America is that you keep manufacturing phony drama between Doctors Birx and Fauci and Trump – getting rid of the experts will be the viral equivalent of sending me out on tour .
In closing , I would like to thank all the impatient Americans for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your love of the virus , just compare not being able to eat in a restaurant to Japanese internment camps during World War II , yell “ herd immunity !
” and run out of the room .
I have provided a complimentary Clorox smoothie for all of you on your way out .

Thank you all for joining me today. I just wanted to tell you all what a great year it’s been and what a huge success I am. When people were downplaying my importance back in February, I worried about making a splash in the greatest economy on Earth, but I never had any doubt it would be big.
In spite of those who ignored me, I’ve literally grown from zero to a million cases in two months – I’ve basically gone platinum.
And people can’t get enough of me! Now Americans are cramming into state capitols, shopping malls, and public parks to lobby on my behalf! Some people are actually bringing guns to protect their right to pass me around from person to person. A literal armed militia has risen to defend me!
And I’ve been able to achieve all this with 95 percent of the media against me. Seriously – how many pro-COVID-19 stories do you see? Nobody has been treated this unfairly since the Spanish Flu.
The fake news media aren’t giving me nearly enough credit. Even your president, Donald Trump, called me a “very brilliant enemy” and said I was a “genius!” Sure, I’m microscopic, but I have a very big brain.
Just think of all the wonderful things that have come about since I showed up. People are baking bread and sewing masks and playing Monopoly and talking to their children. Nature is healing!
And just look at the ratings I’m getting! I’m not saying this, but I’ve heard other people say, that the press conferences the president is holding rival those of the Bachelor finale and Monday Night Football!
And just think of all the things I haven’t done. I haven’t suggested people drink bleach (I don’t even have a brain and that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard), and I haven’t Tweeted well wishes to Kim Jong Un. That guy’s an asshole.
Anyway, it’s clear the people want more of me. Some of the president’s favorite supporters have tweeted that the states’ stay-at-home orders are like “slavery” and that they’d refuse to take any vaccine once it’s developed. In the meantime, I can get millions of dollars’ worth of free public relations. Name someone else born from a medium-rare bat that could achieve that!
See, Americans love an underdog – I’m like the nerdy kid that catches the game-winning touchdown in that Charlie Sheen movie Lucas from the ‘80s. (Shout out to Charlie Sheen – a big supporter of the anti-vax community.)
What can I say – I agree with Donald Trump’s optimism that great times are ahead. Re-opening America is more than any infectious disease can ask for. All I ask from America is that you keep manufacturing phony drama between Doctors Birx and Fauci and Trump – getting rid of the experts will be the viral equivalent of sending me out on tour.
In closing, I would like to thank all the impatient Americans for their support. If anyone ever challenges you on your love of the virus, just compare not being able to eat in a restaurant to Japanese internment camps during World War II, yell “herd immunity!” and run out of the room.
I have provided a complimentary Clorox smoothie for all of you on your way out.


thebulwark--2020-05-06--Reforming America: The Pandemic Imperative

COVID-19 presents a lethal paradox .
It envelops us all , affects us all , puts all of us at risk .
At the same time , the pandemic divides us—exposing and exacerbating the unsustainable economic and social fractures that threaten American democracy .
It is past time to address our pre-existing sickness .
Donald Trump is but a symptom .
For far too many people for far too long , America was far from great .
Our maldistribution of wealth suffocates hope for millions of workers , minorities , millennials , and middle-class Americans .
Increasingly our economy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety net tattered ; and our political system corrupt .
The societal toll of COVID-19 was more than predictable—it was inevitable .
This is not a call to reject the blessings of a free economy , or to radically reconfigure America along ideological lines .
Rather , the moment requires us to remember that social stability and breadth of economic opportunity are the essential preconditions of a successful democracy .
Twice in the twentieth century—the Progressive Era and the New Deal—America preserved both capitalism and democracy by adapting its social and economic arrangements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
The pandemic exposes this as another such time .
The Old Ethos and the New The prosperous quarter-century after World War II reflected a communitarian corporate ethos : fair wages , vigorous unions , reasonable executive compensation , a secure retirement , and constraints on the power of business .
The fruits were widening prosperity and opportunity .
Four decades ago , corporations began abandoning this model in favor of a “ shareholder capitalism ” solely focused on investor returns .
“ There is one and only one social responsibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.
” To please investors and surmount global competition , corporations pursued a “ free-market ” agenda rooted in avoiding regulation , reducing taxes , gelding unions , slashing benefits , pursuing corporate consolidation , and overpaying a new class of corporate Übermensch for maximizing shareholder value by offshoring jobs , suppressing wages , and firing workers .
This was not a natural evolution of capitalism ; it was a deliberate policy choice , in which government was an indispensable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral or societal concerns about income inequality , worker insecurity , and wealth disparity were deemed inimical to economic growth .
The result was a massive wealth transfer from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to those at the top .
While workers ’ hourly compensation stagnated—increasing just 12 percent from 1979 to 2018 , when adjusted for inflation—worker productivity over the same period grew by 70 percent .
The business of ordinary Americans became producing prosperity for their economic betters .
Government stopped enforcing the antitrust laws that had prevented corporations from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of existence for millions of Americans—depressed wages , vanishing benefits , longer hours , rising insecurity , diminished privacy , strains on family life , and a pervasive sense of political and personal impotence .
Take Amazon .
Its ability to deliver goods cheaply and conveniently has pleased consumers but eviscerated competitors .
Working conditions for many Amazon employees are Dickensian : low wages , dependency on food stamps , skimpy vacations , bathroom breaks at warp speed , pressure to work through injuries—all facilitated by ruthless efforts to suppress unionization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seized its spoils from the losers .
According to an analysis by the AFL-CIO , in 2018 the CEOs of S & P 500 companies received an average of $ 14.5 million in total compensation , as compared to average pay of about $ 50,000 for workers at those companies—a 287 to 1 ratio , seven times larger than in 1980 .
( The national average for worker earnings was even lower : about $ 46,000 . )
In 2018 , Wall Street banks paid $ 27.5 billion in bonuses to roughly 181,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined 2018 earnings of the 434,000 Americans working full-time for the minimum wage .
Looking at the overall income statistics for 2018 , Americans in the top 10 percent averaged over nine times the income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent ; income for people in the top 1 percent averaged 39 times that of people in the bottom 90 percent .
Wealth inequality is even more pronounced .
The wealth of the top 1 percent , the Washington Post reports , now surpasses that of the bottom 80 percent .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 the median wealth of middle- and low-income families actually declined—dramatically .
In great measure this stems from the financial predation which triggered the financial crisis of 2008 , cratering the value of their principal asset—a home .
For many families , their debts exceed their assets .
The government bailouts of 2008 rescued the financial system , its overlords , and its beneficiaries , while stranding the millions who lost their jobs , homes , and savings .
America ’ s racial wealth gap is even more dramatic .
As a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , in 2016 the wealth of the median black family was just 2.4 percent that of the median white family ; for Latinos , the figure was 4.5 percent .
While 72 percent of white families owned a home in 2016 , just 44 percent of black families and 45 percent of Latino families did .
“ The proportion of black families with zero or negative wealth rose .
.
.
from 34 percent to 37 percent between 1983 and 2016 , ” according to the report—and while the proportion for Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than twice that of whites .
Compared to other Western countries , the United States lags on various key health indicators , such as life expectancy and reducing obesity .
Our rate of maternal death in childbirth has spiked since 1990 ; three times more black women than whites die giving birth .
Our infant mortality rate is among the worst in the developed world .
We also have shockingly high rates of child poverty .
Unlike many other developed countries , America does not mandate maternity , parental , or home care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childhood programs—depressing the workforce participation of U.S. mothers .
Nor do we have anything close to universal healthcare coverage .
What all this creates is an increasingly ossified class system rooted in a self-perpetuating quasi-meritocracy that determines life outcomes with depressing consistency .
As spelled out in Matthew Stewart ’ s compelling study for the Atlantic , unfettered social mobility is ever more illusory .
The beneficiaries , Stewart shows , are not simply the upper 1 percent but the top 10 percent .
While embracing meritocracy in theory , this cadre is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the essentials of well-being—superior healthcare ; elite education ; a network of societal gatekeepers ; influence over governmental decision-making ; and the accumulation and preservation of wealth .
The Americans in that top 10 percent , writes Stewart , “ are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy , destabilizing American politics , and eroding democracy.
” Granted , the top 0.1 percent are especially conspicuous .
But the next 9.9 percent own substantially more wealth than the top 0.1 percent or the bottom 90 percent .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and purveyors of financial services whose median worth— $ 2.4 million in 2016—is unimaginable for those below .
Unsurprisingly , they are significantly whiter than our total population .
As Yale law professor Daniel Markovits explains in his recent book The Meritocracy Trap , “ American meritocracy has become precisely what it was invented to combat : a mechanism for the concentration and dynastic transmission of wealth , privilege , and caste across generations.
” Little wonder .
By 1980 , the combination of economic change and shareholder capitalism began opening an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-college-educated Americans still had a good shot at middle-class security .
Today , the median income for a family headed by someone without a bachelor ’ s degree is roughly half that of a family headed by someone with one , and roughly a third that of a family headed by someone with an advanced degree .
In part , this reflects the evolution of our digital economy and a complicated—and sometimes dubious—financial services industry .
Concurrently , those who provide important but traditional goods and services face stagnant wages , vanishing job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society they enrich .
Writes Louis Menand in the New Yorker : “ The problem is not that some citizens are lawyers and some work in Amazon fulfillment centers .
It ’ s that the economy is structured to allow the former class of worker to soak up most of the national wealth.
” Generally , these fortunate folks congregate in affluent residential enclaves—often in expensive cities or suburbs—that reinforce economic and racial segregation .
Homeowners benefit from escalating property values ; renters get squeezed out .
This makes a defining difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher life expectancy , stronger social networks , lower crime rates , better public schools—or elite private alternatives .
For those embedded there , it becomes easier to forget those who are not—or , quite often , to thwart affordable-housing programs that would open their neighborhoods to society ’ s also-rans .
Many of the latter are consigned to areas which reflect decades of systemic discrimination in housing : redlining , the denial of mortgage financing , predatory lending , and racially motivated zoning—all countenanced or actively encouraged by the federal government well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then and now , from building wealth the way so many whites do : homeownership .
Further , the concentration of low-income housing isolates families by race and class , limiting mobility and access to quality education while creating pockets of substandard health .
The Political , Social , and Health Effects of Inequality This divide permeates our politics .
Armed with money and social capital , the wealthiest Americans can bend government to their economic ends .
We see this in upper-income tax cuts , lower estate taxes , and favored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
True , the privileged have always enjoyed disproportionate political influence .
But this dominance has swollen in the era of billion-dollar campaigns for president and multi-million-dollar campaigns for federal office—especially after the Supreme Court , in Citizens United , licensed unlimited expenditures by corporations and super PACs .
In recent years the Republican party has further diminished democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression , while demographic sorting has reduced the Electoral College to a contest for a handful of states .
When the votes of average citizens don ’ t truly count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classic example is Trump ’ s tax cuts of 2017 , which further starved government of revenues while channeling hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations and the rich—the core of the Republican donor class .
In 2020 , the top 1 percent is expected to receive 23 percent of the resulting windfall .
Because of GOP tax cuts , economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found , the 400 richest Americans now pay a lower overall tax rate than any other group in America .
The impact on government is striking—and intended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , total taxes paid to all levels of government shrank from 32 percent two decades ago to roughly 28 percent today— “ a decline unique in modern history among wealthy nations.
” Yet only government can safeguard national security , protect our environment , sustain a social safety net—or provide the massive economic and public health interventions necessary to combat a pandemic .
This gutting of government serves the antipathy of wealthy interests to federal policies which would subordinate their narrow economic interests to the common good .
As cover for his advancement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud of supply-side economics with a phony populism and white identity politics designed to mesmerize the Republican base .
What has 40 years of shareholder capitalism and creeping oligarchy done to our social fabric ?
One aspect uncovered by Anne Case and Angus Deaton is “ deaths of despair ” among the white working class caused by substance abuse or suicide ; another is a class-wide decline in life expectancy stemming from joblessness , wage stagnation , inadequate healthcare , and a pervasive sense of social and economic marginalization .
This diminution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in declining marriage rates for non-college whites .
“ The meaningfulness of the working-class life seems to have evaporated , ” Deaton told Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn .
“ The economy just seems to have stopped delivering for these people.
” Nor does government truly tackle other accelerants of ill health , from food and housing insecurity to the diseases of poverty to the lack of affordable primary care .
In the absence of universal healthcare , 28 million Americans were uninsured in 2018 and tens of millions more went “ underinsured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the year ) .
Among the ironies of shareholder capitalism is that , as corporations pay their workers less , the proportionate cost of paying for healthcare rises .
And so , to keep cheap labor truly cheap , businesses no longer do .
America ’ s public health capacity has also suffered .
The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Dr. Tom Frieden , told the New York Times that “ public health is the best bang for our collective buck .
.
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the least amount of money.
” Yet we have cut spending on public health departments at all levels of government .
There is now a $ 5.4 billion gap , the Times reports , between current spending and the cost of modernizing our public health infrastructure .
In sum , pre-pandemic America had become a Potemkin village , its First World veneer covering an incipient Third World society .
The sole mercy of COVID-19 is that it provides a merciless x-ray of reality .
What the Pandemic Has Revealed The federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absence of testing itself .
With Trump at its head , the federal government has exhibited a fatal lack of resources or capacity .
Instead of providing , coordinating , or driving the production of life-saving supplies and equipment , it forced state governments to bid against each other in the pandemic ’ s lethal lottery .
Its public health agencies proved severely depleted .
It offered no coherent plan on how states could shut down schools , businesses , or public gathering places .
Because our social safety net could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food banks .
Since the earliest confirmed death , three months ago , we have lost more Americans—over 70,000—than died in the Vietnam War .
The bulk of our newly venerated “ essential workers ” —healthcare providers , bus drivers , eldercare aids , sanitation workers , warehouse employees , and delivery personnel—are the very underpaid people we so blithely left behind .
Now , all too often , we are leaving them on their own .
Economically unable to choose between their income and our lives , they face a far greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; many are people of color .
It ’ s not that COVID-19 has its own class system ; it simply replicates ours .
Observes Anna North in Vox : One thinks of Vice President Mike Pence ’ s patronizing directive to embattled frontline workers : “ You are giving a great service to the people of the United States of America , and we need you to continue , as part of what we call our critical infrastructure , to show up and do your job.
” Left unmentioned was the miserable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infrastructure receive in return .
Many white-collar employees can work from home , including 52 percent of college graduates .
Most working-class Americans—indeed , 87 percent of workers who finished high school but did not go on to college— can not .
Whether they are “ essential , ” or among the “ non-essential ” workers under pressure to return as businesses reopen , they create a vexing economic and social dilemma : Will they , as Trump seems to suggest , bear the cost as well as the risk of potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempted to specifically delineate safe working conditions ?
As for the record numbers of abruptly unemployed workers , many can not cover groceries or housing .
Many of the 30 million kids eligible for breakfast or lunch in school are going hungry .
Often their parents are among the millions of Americans who can not access adequate healthcare .
Yet they are also those most beset by the underlying social causes of ill health .
Another critical variable—living space—is also a function of race and class .
The more densely packed the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-Americans , Asians , and Hispanics are the most likely to live in crowded or multigenerational households .
This not only affects individual families , but neighborhoods already suffering from compromised health conditions .
Like a laser , the pandemic targets the finances and health of minorities .
Many of those most likely to go broke in a pandemic already suffer from the racial wealth gap .
An early Associated Press analysis of 3,300 pandemic victims showed that 42 percent were black—double the proportion of blacks in the general population of the area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a large statistical sample from 14 states showed that blacks accounted for 33 percent of hospitalizations for whom race data was reported in March while comprising only 18 percent of the population in the area from the sample .
The numbers are consistent and unrelenting .
Whether in Chicago , Michigan , Louisiana , Milwaukee , or Boston , the cases of COVID-19 among African Americans roughly double their percentage of the population—and their ratio of deaths far exceeds that .
While the data is less clear for Hispanics , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 patients admitted to San Francisco General Hospital , even though they represent just 16 percent of the city ’ s populace and just a quarter of the wider Bay Area population .
Other fissures widen .
Prior economic dislocations have primarily affected men .
Now , the service sectors that employ mainly women—including single mothers—are shedding jobs .
The 30 percent of households without a consistent broadband connection are missing critical information or internet instruction for kids .
The pandemic threatens to wipe out childcare providers for millions of children .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the financial prospects of the young .
Even before the pandemic and its disruption of schools and daycare providers , millions of Americans could not afford adequate childcare .
Overall , we don ’ t invest enough in early childhood or K-12 education .
And for many teenagers thinking about their futures , or young parents planning for their children ’ s futures , college will be unaffordable , or the debt incurred to pay for it crushing .
These conditions blight the hopes of our next generations .
For them , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted above , the wages of college graduates are flat , even as they decline for non-college graduates .
Buffeted by the recession of 2008 , millennials as a cohort are the stepchildren of shareholder capitalism—exploited by the gig economy , contract work , and employers who don ’ t want to pay the benefits their parents enjoyed .
In the Atlantic , Annie Lowrey describes their current plight : The pandemic only compounds these existing problems .
According to an early-April survey cited by Vox , 52 percent of Americans under 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or had their hours drastically cut because of the pandemic—twice the percentage of older Americans .
Lowrey forecasts that millennials “ will be the first generation in modern American history to end up poorer than their parents.
” Here ’ s another question : What kind of society swallows its future ?
No doubt everyone has individual responsibility for their own lives .
But we are collectively responsible for the society we create—and the pathways it opens or forecloses .
This pandemic illuminates our societal imperative : America must reform its social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the New Deal , but also the Progressive Era , and Lyndon Johnson ’ s Great Society—which , despite its failures , created Medicare , Medicaid , and Head Start .
The New York Times editorial board summarizes today ’ s mandate : “ Generations of federal policymakers have prioritized the pursuit of economic growth with scant regard for stability or distribution .
This moment demands a restoration of the national commitment to a richer conception of freedom : economic security and equality of opportunity.
” Where to begin ?
“ Beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandel writes in the Times , “ we need to think more broadly about the way we contend with inequality .
We need to better reward the social and economic contributions of work done by the majority of Americans , who don ’ t have college degrees .
And we need to reckon with the morally corrosive downsides of meritocracy.
” This is not a call to displace capitalism .
Nor is it a blanket condemnation of society ’ s winners , or a hosanna to everyone else .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about other people and their children before democracy perishes in a rancorous Hobbesian state of nature which obliterates comity and reason .
The needs are clear .
We need to combat poverty and food insecurity ; attack the underlying causes of illness ; rebuild our public health agencies ; and provide universal healthcare , paid family and sick leave , and safe and affordable childcare .
We need to establish universal pre-k ; fortify K-12 education ; grant student debt relief and free college tuition for those truly in need ; and educate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We need to combat racial and economic segregation in housing .
We need to amend zoning laws that restrict access to the best jobs and schooling .
We need to leverage federal funding to build new housing units for low- and middle-income families ; assist communities historically denied fair mortgages ; provide financial support for those whose housing equity was destroyed by the 2008 financial crisis ; and help those pummeled by the pandemic to keep their homes .
We need to restore the dignity and security that capitalism once afforded working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and curbing mandatory arbitration and non-compete clauses .
We need to help create jobs and renew our economy by rebuilding our infrastructure , encouraging the redevelopment of blighted communities , and expanding broadband connectivity .
Obviously , these measures would transform parts of our society ; obviously , they would require unprecedented federal expenditures .
But we can not forget what they would save us—not simply in opportunities squandered , but in many billions of dollars .
Our patchwork healthcare system is a wasteful drag on GDP .
Our financial inequities retard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax revenues .
The absence of universal childcare denies us the long-term financial benefits of higher incomes , improved health , and diminished social pathology .
The question is not whether we spend money—it ’ s where we spend it ; how we derive it ; and what we receive in return .
This inevitably implicates our system of taxation—and the federal budget overall .
But consider that Republican tax cuts have exploded a deficit that , sooner or later , will become an unsustainable burden on younger Americans .
Consider , further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep the pandemic from totally cratering our economy .
Seen in this light , the cost of addressing our pre-existing societal ills is simply an additive to the immediate need for comprehensive tax reform .
Start with eliminating politically inspired drains on revenue such as protecting capital gains , carried interest , profits from real estate , and generational wealth transfers .
Because the pandemic will sharply diminish tax collection from middle- and low-income Americans , the wealthy must pay more : Trump ’ s tax cuts must go ; and marginal individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In these exigent circumstances , a judiciously designed wealth tax deserves serious consideration .
Increased taxation is not “ class warfare ” ; it is an act of societal self-preservation which recognizes that for decades our tax code has been slanted to benefit the wealthy—and that this can not continue .
It is well to remember that tax rates in post-war America were far higher than today ’ s , and that we enjoyed unprecedented and widespread prosperity .
Our current tax code was not written to benefit society writ large , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This quasi-legal bribery has too long gone unchecked .
Our politicized Supreme Court grafted unlimited political spending onto the Constitution ; reform must await a new court .
But we can protect and expand voting rights ; combat gerrymandering ; require full disclosure of all campaign funding ; establish a publicly financed matching system for small donations ; bar selected public officials from pursuing lobbying careers ; ban political donations from lobbyists to legislators ; and compel lobbyists to disclose meetings with public officials .
Finally , we must return to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism .
The original 1973 Davos Manifesto of the World Economic Forum embodies that spirit : “ The purpose of professional management is to serve clients , shareholders , workers and employees , as well as societies , and to harmonize the different interests of the stakeholders.
” Corporate boards should include employee representatives , account for the social and environmental impact of their decisions , and constrain excessive executive compensation .
And we should vigorously enforce updated antitrust laws to promote competition and constrict overweening corporate power .
For the free market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be free .
“ We may have democracy , or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few , ” Louis Brandeis is famously supposed to have said , “ but we can ’ t have both.
” To some , that may sound radical .
Not so .
It is , in the best sense , profoundly conservative—and deeply American .
Only reform can preserve our political and economic system against oligarchy , authoritarianism and corrosive strife .
Our history ’ s ultimate lesson is this : No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .

COVID-19 presents a lethal paradox. It envelops us all, affects us all, puts all of us at risk. At the same time, the pandemic divides us—exposing and exacerbating the unsustainable economic and social fractures that threaten American democracy. It is past time to address our pre-existing sickness.
Donald Trump is but a symptom. For far too many people for far too long, America was far from great. Our maldistribution of wealth suffocates hope for millions of workers, minorities, millennials, and middle-class Americans. Increasingly our economy is predatory; our government dysfunctional; our safety net tattered; and our political system corrupt. The societal toll of COVID-19 was more than predictable—it was inevitable.
This is not a call to reject the blessings of a free economy, or to radically reconfigure America along ideological lines. Rather, the moment requires us to remember that social stability and breadth of economic opportunity are the essential preconditions of a successful democracy. Twice in the twentieth century—the Progressive Era and the New Deal—America preserved both capitalism and democracy by adapting its social and economic arrangements to ameliorate excesses which could have destroyed them. The pandemic exposes this as another such time.
The Old Ethos and the New
The prosperous quarter-century after World War II reflected a communitarian corporate ethos: fair wages, vigorous unions, reasonable executive compensation, a secure retirement, and constraints on the power of business. The fruits were widening prosperity and opportunity.
Four decades ago, corporations began abandoning this model in favor of a “shareholder capitalism” solely focused on investor returns. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” Milton Friedman wrote: “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”
To please investors and surmount global competition, corporations pursued a “free-market” agenda rooted in avoiding regulation, reducing taxes, gelding unions, slashing benefits, pursuing corporate consolidation, and overpaying a new class of corporate Übermensch for maximizing shareholder value by offshoring jobs, suppressing wages, and firing workers. This was not a natural evolution of capitalism; it was a deliberate policy choice, in which government was an indispensable partner.
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…
In this new dispensation, moral or societal concerns about income inequality, worker insecurity, and wealth disparity were deemed inimical to economic growth. The result was a massive wealth transfer from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to those at the top. While workers’ hourly compensation stagnated—increasing just 12 percent from 1979 to 2018, when adjusted for inflation—worker productivity over the same period grew by 70 percent. The business of ordinary Americans became producing prosperity for their economic betters.
Government stopped enforcing the antitrust laws that had prevented corporations from throttling competition. Mega-corporations began dictating the terms of existence for millions of Americans—depressed wages, vanishing benefits, longer hours, rising insecurity, diminished privacy, strains on family life, and a pervasive sense of political and personal impotence.
Take Amazon. Its ability to deliver goods cheaply and conveniently has pleased consumers but eviscerated competitors. Working conditions for many Amazon employees are Dickensian: low wages, dependency on food stamps, skimpy vacations, bathroom breaks at warp speed, pressure to work through injuries—all facilitated by ruthless efforts to suppress unionization.
Inequality and Its Consequences
The winners in this Darwinian system have seized its spoils from the losers. According to an analysis by the AFL-CIO, in 2018 the CEOs of S&P 500 companies received an average of $14.5 million in total compensation, as compared to average pay of about $50,000 for workers at those companies—a 287 to 1 ratio, seven times larger than in 1980. (The national average for worker earnings was even lower: about $46,000.) In 2018, Wall Street banks paid $27.5 billion in bonuses to roughly 181,000 New York-based employees—more than four times the combined 2018 earnings of the 434,000 Americans working full-time for the minimum wage.
Looking at the overall income statistics for 2018, Americans in the top 10 percent averaged over nine times the income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent; income for people in the top 1 percent averaged 39 times that of people in the bottom 90 percent. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced. The wealth of the top 1 percent, the Washington Post reports, now surpasses that of the bottom 80 percent.
According to Pew Research, from 2001 to 2016 the median wealth of middle- and low-income families actually declined—dramatically. In great measure this stems from the financial predation which triggered the financial crisis of 2008, cratering the value of their principal asset—a home.
For many families, their debts exceed their assets. The government bailouts of 2008 rescued the financial system, its overlords, and its beneficiaries, while stranding the millions who lost their jobs, homes, and savings.
America’s racial wealth gap is even more dramatic. As a report from the Institute for Policy Studies lays out, in 2016 the wealth of the median black family was just 2.4 percent that of the median white family; for Latinos, the figure was 4.5 percent. While 72 percent of white families owned a home in 2016, just 44 percent of black families and 45 percent of Latino families did. “The proportion of black families with zero or negative wealth rose . . . from 34 percent to 37 percent between 1983 and 2016,” according to the report—and while the proportion for Hispanic families declined, it is still more than twice that of whites.
Compared to other Western countries, the United States lags on various key health indicators, such as life expectancy and reducing obesity. Our rate of maternal death in childbirth has spiked since 1990; three times more black women than whites die giving birth. Our infant mortality rate is among the worst in the developed world.
We also have shockingly high rates of child poverty. Unlike many other developed countries, America does not mandate maternity, parental, or home care. We spend much less in early childhood programs—depressing the workforce participation of U.S. mothers. Nor do we have anything close to universal healthcare coverage.
What all this creates is an increasingly ossified class system rooted in a self-perpetuating quasi-meritocracy that determines life outcomes with depressing consistency. As spelled out in Matthew Stewart’s compelling study for the Atlantic, unfettered social mobility is ever more illusory.
The beneficiaries, Stewart shows, are not simply the upper 1 percent but the top 10 percent. While embracing meritocracy in theory, this cadre is vesting its children with privileged access to the essentials of well-being—superior healthcare; elite education; a network of societal gatekeepers; influence over governmental decision-making; and the accumulation and preservation of wealth. The Americans in that top 10 percent, writes Stewart, “are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy.”
Granted, the top 0.1 percent are especially conspicuous. But the next 9.9 percent own substantially more wealth than the top 0.1 percent or the bottom 90 percent. These are the doctors, lawyers, executives, and purveyors of financial services whose median worth—$2.4 million in 2016—is unimaginable for those below.
Unsurprisingly, they are significantly whiter than our total population. As Yale law professor Daniel Markovits explains in his recent book The Meritocracy Trap, “American meritocracy has become precisely what it was invented to combat: a mechanism for the concentration and dynastic transmission of wealth, privilege, and caste across generations.”
Little wonder. By 1980, the combination of economic change and shareholder capitalism began opening an enormous education gap. Until then, non-college-educated Americans still had a good shot at middle-class security. Today, the median income for a family headed by someone without a bachelor’s degree is roughly half that of a family headed by someone with one, and roughly a third that of a family headed by someone with an advanced degree.
In part, this reflects the evolution of our digital economy and a complicated—and sometimes dubious—financial services industry. Concurrently, those who provide important but traditional goods and services face stagnant wages, vanishing job security, and diminishing respect from the society they enrich. Writes Louis Menand in the New Yorker: “The problem is not that some citizens are lawyers and some work in Amazon fulfillment centers. It’s that the economy is structured to allow the former class of worker to soak up most of the national wealth.”
Generally, these fortunate folks congregate in affluent residential enclaves—often in expensive cities or suburbs—that reinforce economic and racial segregation. Homeowners benefit from escalating property values; renters get squeezed out.
This makes a defining difference. Privileged zip codes mean shorter commutes, higher life expectancy, stronger social networks, lower crime rates, better public schools—or elite private alternatives. For those embedded there, it becomes easier to forget those who are not—or, quite often, to thwart affordable-housing programs that would open their neighborhoods to society’s also-rans.
Many of the latter are consigned to areas which reflect decades of systemic discrimination in housing: redlining, the denial of mortgage financing, predatory lending, and racially motivated zoning—all countenanced or actively encouraged by the federal government well into the 1960s. This prevented blacks, then and now, from building wealth the way so many whites do: homeownership. Further, the concentration of low-income housing isolates families by race and class, limiting mobility and access to quality education while creating pockets of substandard health.
The Political, Social, and Health Effects of Inequality
This divide permeates our politics. Armed with money and social capital, the wealthiest Americans can bend government to their economic ends. We see this in upper-income tax cuts, lower estate taxes, and favored treatment for earnings and appreciation from investments.
True, the privileged have always enjoyed disproportionate political influence. But this dominance has swollen in the era of billion-dollar campaigns for president and multi-million-dollar campaigns for federal office—especially after the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, licensed unlimited expenditures by corporations and super PACs.
In recent years the Republican party has further diminished democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression, while demographic sorting has reduced the Electoral College to a contest for a handful of states. When the votes of average citizens don’t truly count, their voices go unheard.
The classic example is Trump’s tax cuts of 2017, which further starved government of revenues while channeling hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations and the rich—the core of the Republican donor class. In 2020, the top 1 percent is expected to receive 23 percent of the resulting windfall. Because of GOP tax cuts, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found, the 400 richest Americans now pay a lower overall tax rate than any other group in America.
The impact on government is striking—and intended. According to Joseph Stiglitz and coauthors, total taxes paid to all levels of government shrank from 32 percent two decades ago to roughly 28 percent today—“a decline unique in modern history among wealthy nations.” Yet only government can safeguard national security, protect our environment, sustain a social safety net—or provide the massive economic and public health interventions necessary to combat a pandemic.
This gutting of government serves the antipathy of wealthy interests to federal policies which would subordinate their narrow economic interests to the common good. As cover for his advancement of plutocracy, Trump combines the hoary fraud of supply-side economics with a phony populism and white identity politics designed to mesmerize the Republican base.
What has 40 years of shareholder capitalism and creeping oligarchy done to our social fabric? One aspect uncovered by Anne Case and Angus Deaton is “deaths of despair” among the white working class caused by substance abuse or suicide; another is a class-wide decline in life expectancy stemming from joblessness, wage stagnation, inadequate healthcare, and a pervasive sense of social and economic marginalization.
This diminution of faith in the future is further reflected in declining marriage rates for non-college whites. “The meaningfulness of the working-class life seems to have evaporated,” Deaton told Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. “The economy just seems to have stopped delivering for these people.”
Nor does government truly tackle other accelerants of ill health, from food and housing insecurity to the diseases of poverty to the lack of affordable primary care. In the absence of universal healthcare, 28 million Americans were uninsured in 2018 and tens of millions more went “underinsured” (meaning they lacked insurance for part of the year). Among the ironies of shareholder capitalism is that, as corporations pay their workers less, the proportionate cost of paying for healthcare rises. And so, to keep cheap labor truly cheap, businesses no longer do.
America’s public health capacity has also suffered. The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Tom Frieden, told the New York Times that “public health is the best bang for our collective buck. . . . It has consistently saved the most lives for the least amount of money.” Yet we have cut spending on public health departments at all levels of government. There is now a $5.4 billion gap, the Times reports, between current spending and the cost of modernizing our public health infrastructure.
In sum, pre-pandemic America had become a Potemkin village, its First World veneer covering an incipient Third World society. The sole mercy of COVID-19 is that it provides a merciless x-ray of reality.
What the Pandemic Has Revealed
The federal government has utterly failed its COVID-19 test—starting with the absence of testing itself. With Trump at its head, the federal government has exhibited a fatal lack of resources or capacity. Instead of providing, coordinating, or driving the production of life-saving supplies and equipment, it forced state governments to bid against each other in the pandemic’s lethal lottery.
Its public health agencies proved severely depleted. It offered no coherent plan on how states could shut down schools, businesses, or public gathering places. Because our social safety net could not protect the most vulnerable, they overwhelmed food banks. Since the earliest confirmed death, three months ago, we have lost more Americans—over 70,000—than died in the Vietnam War.
The bulk of our newly venerated “essential workers”—healthcare providers, bus drivers, eldercare aids, sanitation workers, warehouse employees, and delivery personnel—are the very underpaid people we so blithely left behind. Now, all too often, we are leaving them on their own. Economically unable to choose between their income and our lives, they face a far greater risk of dying. Many have families; many are people of color.
It’s not that COVID-19 has its own class system; it simply replicates ours. Observes Anna North in Vox:
Overall, the lesson of the pandemic so far is that while the virus itself can infect anyone, those hit hardest by the national and worldwide crisis around it are those who were already hurting—experiencing racism, housing instability, job insecurity, and other ills that disproportionately affect marginalized communities around the country. And many fear that unless policymakers do more to address the disparate impacts of the virus, the result will be a country that’s more unequal than it was before, even long after the pandemic is over.
One thinks of Vice President Mike Pence’s patronizing directive to embattled frontline workers: “You are giving a great service to the people of the United States of America, and we need you to continue, as part of what we call our critical infrastructure, to show up and do your job.” Left unmentioned was the miserable minimum wage some of these animate pieces of infrastructure receive in return.
Many white-collar employees can work from home, including 52 percent of college graduates. Most working-class Americans—indeed, 87 percent of workers who finished high school but did not go on to college—cannot. Whether they are “essential,” or among the “non-essential” workers under pressure to return as businesses reopen, they create a vexing economic and social dilemma: Will they, as Trump seems to suggest, bear the cost as well as the risk of potential infection—especially when the federal government has not attempted to specifically delineate safe working conditions?
As for the record numbers of abruptly unemployed workers, many cannot cover groceries or housing. Many of the 30 million kids eligible for breakfast or lunch in school are going hungry. Often their parents are among the millions of Americans who cannot access adequate healthcare. Yet they are also those most beset by the underlying social causes of ill health.
Another critical variable—living space—is also a function of race and class. The more densely packed the environment, the more vulnerable its residents; African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics are the most likely to live in crowded or multigenerational households. This not only affects individual families, but neighborhoods already suffering from compromised health conditions.
Like a laser, the pandemic targets the finances and health of minorities. Many of those most likely to go broke in a pandemic already suffer from the racial wealth gap. An early Associated Press analysis of 3,300 pandemic victims showed that 42 percent were black—double the proportion of blacks in the general population of the area analyzed. Similarly, a CDC study of a large statistical sample from 14 states showed that blacks accounted for 33 percent of hospitalizations for whom race data was reported in March while comprising only 18 percent of the population in the area from the sample.
The numbers are consistent and unrelenting. Whether in Chicago, Michigan, Louisiana, Milwaukee, or Boston, the cases of COVID-19 among African Americans roughly double their percentage of the population—and their ratio of deaths far exceeds that. While the data is less clear for Hispanics, they have made up an estimated 80 percent of COVID-19 patients admitted to San Francisco General Hospital, even though they represent just 16 percent of the city’s populace and just a quarter of the wider Bay Area population.
A Generational Imbalance
Other fissures widen. Prior economic dislocations have primarily affected men. Now, the service sectors that employ mainly women—including single mothers—are shedding jobs. The 30 percent of households without a consistent broadband connection are missing critical information or internet instruction for kids. The pandemic threatens to wipe out childcare providers for millions of children. And, inevitably, COVID-19 will further blight the financial prospects of the young.
Even before the pandemic and its disruption of schools and daycare providers, millions of Americans could not afford adequate childcare. Overall, we don’t invest enough in early childhood or K-12 education. And for many teenagers thinking about their futures, or young parents planning for their children’s futures, college will be unaffordable, or the debt incurred to pay for it crushing.
These conditions blight the hopes of our next generations. For them, as the New York Times editorialized:
The economic ladder is harder to climb; real incomes have stagnated for decades even as the costs of housing, education and health care have increased. Many lower-income Americans are born into polluted, impoverished neighborhoods, with no decent jobs to be found.
As noted above, the wages of college graduates are flat, even as they decline for non-college graduates. Buffeted by the recession of 2008, millennials as a cohort are the stepchildren of shareholder capitalism—exploited by the gig economy, contract work, and employers who don’t want to pay the benefits their parents enjoyed. In the Atlantic, Annie Lowrey describes their current plight:
They have smaller savings accounts than prior generations. They have less money invested. They own fewer houses to refinance or rent out or sell. They make less money, and are less likely to have benefits like paid sick leave. They have more than half a trillion dollars of student-loan debt to keep paying off, as well as hefty rent and child-care payments that keep coming due.
The pandemic only compounds these existing problems. According to an early-April survey cited by Vox, 52 percent of Americans under 45 have lost their job, been furloughed, or had their hours drastically cut because of the pandemic—twice the percentage of older Americans. Lowrey forecasts that millennials “will be the first generation in modern American history to end up poorer than their parents.”
As a consequence, she told Vox,
I’m really worried about the children of millennials who are living in these homes that have been shattered by this crisis. I’m concerned about the intergenerational effects of this. How many kids are going to be food insecure? How many kids are going to be out of school for months and months and in really unstable housing and economic situations?
Here’s another question: What kind of society swallows its future?
No doubt everyone has individual responsibility for their own lives. But we are collectively responsible for the society we create—and the pathways it opens or forecloses. This pandemic illuminates our societal imperative: America must reform its social and political imbalance.
We did so during the New Deal, but also the Progressive Era, and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—which, despite its failures, created Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start. The New York Times editorial board summarizes today’s mandate: “Generations of federal policymakers have prioritized the pursuit of economic growth with scant regard for stability or distribution. This moment demands a restoration of the national commitment to a richer conception of freedom: economic security and equality of opportunity.”
Where to begin? “Beyond the issue of healthcare,” Michael Sandel writes in the Times, “we need to think more broadly about the way we contend with inequality. We need to better reward the social and economic contributions of work done by the majority of Americans, who don’t have college degrees. And we need to reckon with the morally corrosive downsides of meritocracy.”
This is not a call to displace capitalism. Nor is it a blanket condemnation of society’s winners, or a hosanna to everyone else. It’s a plea for all of us to care about other people and their children before democracy perishes in a rancorous Hobbesian state of nature which obliterates comity and reason.
Time to Act
The needs are clear. We need to combat poverty and food insecurity; attack the underlying causes of illness; rebuild our public health agencies; and provide universal healthcare, paid family and sick leave, and safe and affordable childcare.
We need to establish universal pre-k; fortify K-12 education; grant student debt relief and free college tuition for those truly in need; and educate and retrain workers for the new economy.
We need to combat racial and economic segregation in housing. We need to amend zoning laws that restrict access to the best jobs and schooling. We need to leverage federal funding to build new housing units for low- and middle-income families; assist communities historically denied fair mortgages; provide financial support for those whose housing equity was destroyed by the 2008 financial crisis; and help those pummeled by the pandemic to keep their homes.
We need to restore the dignity and security that capitalism once afforded working people—safeguarding unions; raising the minimum wage; and curbing mandatory arbitration and non-compete clauses. We need to help create jobs and renew our economy by rebuilding our infrastructure, encouraging the redevelopment of blighted communities, and expanding broadband connectivity.
Obviously, these measures would transform parts of our society; obviously, they would require unprecedented federal expenditures. But we cannot forget what they would save us—not simply in opportunities squandered, but in many billions of dollars.
Our patchwork healthcare system is a wasteful drag on GDP. Our financial inequities retard consumer spending and overall prosperity while shrinking tax revenues. The absence of universal childcare denies us the long-term financial benefits of higher incomes, improved health, and diminished social pathology. The question is not whether we spend money—it’s where we spend it; how we derive it; and what we receive in return.
This inevitably implicates our system of taxation—and the federal budget overall. But consider that Republican tax cuts have exploded a deficit that, sooner or later, will become an unsustainable burden on younger Americans. Consider, further, the massive expenditures already required to keep the pandemic from totally cratering our economy. Seen in this light, the cost of addressing our pre-existing societal ills is simply an additive to the immediate need for comprehensive tax reform.
Start with eliminating politically inspired drains on revenue such as protecting capital gains, carried interest, profits from real estate, and generational wealth transfers. Because the pandemic will sharply diminish tax collection from middle- and low-income Americans, the wealthy must pay more: Trump’s tax cuts must go; and marginal individual and corporate tax rates must rise. In these exigent circumstances, a judiciously designed wealth tax deserves serious consideration.
Increased taxation is not “class warfare”; it is an act of societal self-preservation which recognizes that for decades our tax code has been slanted to benefit the wealthy—and that this cannot continue. It is well to remember that tax rates in post-war America were far higher than today’s, and that we enjoyed unprecedented and widespread prosperity.
Our current tax code was not written to benefit society writ large, but the paymasters of our compromised political processes. This quasi-legal bribery has too long gone unchecked.
Our politicized Supreme Court grafted unlimited political spending onto the Constitution; reform must await a new court. But we can protect and expand voting rights; combat gerrymandering; require full disclosure of all campaign funding; establish a publicly financed matching system for small donations; bar selected public officials from pursuing lobbying careers; ban political donations from lobbyists to legislators; and compel lobbyists to disclose meetings with public officials.
Finally, we must return to America’s corporate credo prior to shareholder capitalism. The original 1973 Davos Manifesto of the World Economic Forum embodies that spirit: “The purpose of professional management is to serve clients, shareholders, workers and employees, as well as societies, and to harmonize the different interests of the stakeholders.”
Corporate boards should include employee representatives, account for the social and environmental impact of their decisions, and constrain excessive executive compensation. And we should vigorously enforce updated antitrust laws to promote competition and constrict overweening corporate power. For the free market to work it must, in fact, be free.
“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few,” Louis Brandeis is famously supposed to have said, “but we can’t have both.”
To some, that may sound radical. Not so. It is, in the best sense, profoundly conservative—and deeply American. Only reform can preserve our political and economic system against oligarchy, authoritarianism and corrosive strife. Our history’s ultimate lesson is this: No democracy can thrive when its people do not.


thebulwark--2020-05-07--Another Scandal.Another Whistleblower.Another Impeachment?

The story of Dr. Rick Bright—government virologist turned whistleblower—should not be treated as just another Trump administration scandal , soon to be forgotten among the countless others .
Nor should we think about it as just the latest bit of evidence of this administration ’ s lethal fecklessness in responding to the coronavirus pandemic .
It is both of those things .
But it is also good reason to once again impeach the president .
I know what you ’ re thinking : We ’ ve been through this before .
Impeachment is slow and it takes time and energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be expending on other important tasks , like fighting the pandemic and restoring the economy .
And another impeachment in the House will be futile , since the Republican-controlled Senate still won ’ t remove the president .
But hear me out : The pandemic creates new reasons to remove the president—because of his latest actions and because of what still lies ahead .
And even if Senate Republicans wouldn ’ t vote differently—despite the gathering electoral storm clouds—at least the effort again to remove this singularly unfit president would be a worthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let ’ s start with the administration ’ s recent record .
Dr.
Bright ’ s whistleblower complaint makes it clear that the president ’ s unabashed corruption has contributed to the administration ’ s botched coronavirus response .
Dr .
Bright has a Ph.D. in immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University .
He is a leading expert in pandemic preparedness and response , as well as in the design of diagnostic tools required to track pandemics like the one we are now fighting .
After a decade working on vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prevention , Bright moved over to the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) in 2010 .
Until last month , he was the deputy assistant HHS secretary for preparedness and response , while also serving as the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) .
BARDA is responsible for government contracts valued at approximately $ 50 billion , with an average annual budget of over $ 1.5 billion .
According to Bright ’ s complaint , “ every contract is reviewed by a panel of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and every contract passes through several layers of review before obtaining approval.
” Over the course of his HHS tenure , Bright “ led the expansion of vaccine production capacity from less than 1 million doses to a nearly 1 billion dose capacity ” across twelve developing countries .
He also served as a scientific advisor to the Department of Defense and the World Health Organization .
So let ’ s be clear on one thing : Bright is an expert in the development and production of vaccines to combat menaces like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of success .
America is drowning in the coronavirus crisis .
Why , in the midst of the pandemic , would the Trump administration toss aside one of the leading figures in government with expertise and experience ?
According to Dr .
Bright , he was sidelined for voicing concerns “ about the pressure that .
.
.
government officials were exerting on BARDA to invest in drugs , vaccines , and other technologies without proper scientific vetting or that lacked scientific merit.
” He objected to the administration ’ s award @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than “ exclusively on scientific merit.
” Bright insisted “ that BARDA would only invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic in safe and scientifically vetted solutions and it would not succumb to the pressure of politics or cronyism.
” He paid a political price for his integrity as a scientist , physician , and steward of taxpayer dollars .
Dr .
Bright was particularly troubled by Trump ’ s reckless promotion of the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source these products from uninspected labs in Pakistan and India .
In touting the drugs , Trump promised on March 19 : “ The nice part is , it ’ s been around for a long time , so we know that if it—if things don ’ t go as planned , it ’ s not going to kill anybody.
” After hydroxychloroquine became a conservative cause célèbre for a few weeks , as the Trump administration ’ s reflexive defenders tripped over one another to praise the president and the drug , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is not at all the magic bullet they thought it was .
The fight over chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine finally drove a frustrated Bright to go to the press , on the rationale “ that Americans needed to have this critical information available to them to better inform them of the risks before taking the medicine.
” He claims he “ felt that he had exhausted all avenues to alert government officials , who refused to listen or take appropriate action to accurately inform the public.
” Shortly thereafter , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retaliation for his whistleblowing activity under 5 U.S.C .
§ 2302 ( b ) ( 8 ) ( A ) , which protects employees who disclose information that reveals “ any violation of any law , rule , or regulation , ” or “ gross mismanagement , a gross waste of funds , an abuse of authority , or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
” Although Bright ’ s allegations have not been tested in court , much about his whistleblower complaint is consistent with public reports of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He claims , for example , that he was pressured by an industry consultant with ties to HHS leadership to extend a failed contract with a pharmaceutical company that was slated to expire .
The reason ?
The company ’ s chief executive officer Kushner ’ s clumsy and irresponsible self-dealing is not new .
According to the Washington Post , a “ volunteer ” on Kusher ’ s so-called “ coronavirus response team ” filed a complaint in April with the House Oversight Committee .
That whistleblower asserts that Kushner ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private equity firms had , as the Post put it , “ little expertise in the tasks they were assigned , exacerbating chronic problems in obtaining supplies for hospitals and other needs , according to numerous government officials and a volunteer involved in the effort.
” Keep in mind that Kushner—like Rudy Giuliani , the private lawyer at the center of the last impeachment scandal—has been given massive responsibility within the Trump administration that goes far , far beyond his experience and expertise .
He is not a presidential appointee confirmed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oath of office .
And he is not subject to the legislative and regulatory means of oversight and accountability that govern federal employees .
Nor are the ragtag members of his coronavirus task force , which reportedly used a spreadsheet named “ VIP Update ” to prioritize procurement of protective equipment and other vital medical supplies from Trump allies over experienced , vetted vendors .
But of course , we already know—from numerous reports of Trump ’ s purging of suspected “ Never Trumpers ” from the ranks of the civil service and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with perceived loyalists—that there is no accountability for Donald Trump under his view of the presidency .
And so far , Congress has largely gone along with his distortion of the Constitution ’ s separation of powers .
Bright ’ s complaint goes on for nearly 60 detailed pages , and is reportedly backed by emails and other documentary evidence of his time at HHS .
These facts can not be ignored .
Meanwhile , COVID-19 is threatening voter safety at the physical polls in November .
The president opposes mail-in voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressing call to finance nationwide mail-in voting and save the U.S .
Postal Service from bankruptcy .
As a consequence , the fall election may not be perceived as legitimate—whatever its outcome .
Republican senators ’ excuse for excusing Trump ’ s abuses of office during the last round of impeachment proceedings no longer holds water .
Outgoing senator Lamar Alexander ( R-Tennessee ) justified his vote to acquit this way : “ Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘ the consent of the governed , ’ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
Let the people decide.
” But what if a vicious virus and an incompetent president have made voting unsafe and unreliable ?
The Constitution offers another viable tool for removing a president : impeachment .

The story of Dr. Rick Bright—government virologist turned whistleblower—should not be treated as just another Trump administration scandal, soon to be forgotten among the countless others. Nor should we think about it as just the latest bit of evidence of this administration’s lethal fecklessness in responding to the coronavirus pandemic.
It is both of those things. But it is also good reason to once again impeach the president.
I know what you’re thinking: We’ve been through this before. Impeachment is slow and it takes time and energy that Congress and the American people should be expending on other important tasks, like fighting the pandemic and restoring the economy. And another impeachment in the House will be futile, since the Republican-controlled Senate still won’t remove the president.
But hear me out: The pandemic creates new reasons to remove the president—because of his latest actions and because of what still lies ahead. And even if Senate Republicans wouldn’t vote differently—despite the gathering electoral storm clouds—at least the effort again to remove this singularly unfit president would be a worthy historical act of devotion to 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…
Let’s start with the administration’s recent record. Dr. Bright’s whistleblower complaint makes it clear that the president’s unabashed corruption has contributed to the administration’s botched coronavirus response.
Dr. Bright has a Ph.D. in immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University. He is a leading expert in pandemic preparedness and response, as well as in the design of diagnostic tools required to track pandemics like the one we are now fighting. After a decade working on vaccines at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bright moved over to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2010. Until last month, he was the deputy assistant HHS secretary for preparedness and response, while also serving as the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). BARDA is responsible for government contracts valued at approximately $50 billion, with an average annual budget of over $1.5 billion. According to Bright’s complaint, “every contract is reviewed by a panel of scientific experts, typically from across HHS, and every contract passes through several layers of review before obtaining approval.”
Over the course of his HHS tenure, Bright “led the expansion of vaccine production capacity from less than 1 million doses to a nearly 1 billion dose capacity” across twelve developing countries. He also served as a scientific advisor to the Department of Defense and the World Health Organization.
So let’s be clear on one thing: Bright is an expert in the development and production of vaccines to combat menaces like the coronavirus. He has a track record of success. America is drowning in the coronavirus crisis. Why, in the midst of the pandemic, would the Trump administration toss aside one of the leading figures in government with expertise and experience?
According to Dr. Bright, he was sidelined for voicing concerns “about the pressure that . . . government officials were exerting on BARDA to invest in drugs, vaccines, and other technologies without proper scientific vetting or that lacked scientific merit.” He objected to the administration’s award of contracts to companies with political connections rather than “exclusively on scientific merit.” Bright insisted “that BARDA would only invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic in safe and scientifically vetted solutions and it would not succumb to the pressure of politics or cronyism.” He paid a political price for his integrity as a scientist, physician, and steward of taxpayer dollars.
Dr. Bright was particularly troubled by Trump’s reckless promotion of the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, as well as the administration’s plan to source these products from uninspected labs in Pakistan and India. In touting the drugs, Trump promised on March 19: “The nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it—if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody.” After hydroxychloroquine became a conservative cause célèbre for a few weeks, as the Trump administration’s reflexive defenders tripped over one another to praise the president and the drug, the interest petered out—because it became clear that it is not at all the magic bullet they thought it was.
The fight over chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine finally drove a frustrated Bright to go to the press, on the rationale “that Americans needed to have this critical information available to them to better inform them of the risks before taking the medicine.” He claims he “felt that he had exhausted all avenues to alert government officials, who refused to listen or take appropriate action to accurately inform the public.”
Shortly thereafter, he was removed as BARDA director, allegedly in retaliation for his whistleblowing activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A), which protects employees who disclose information that reveals “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”
Although Bright’s allegations have not been tested in court, much about his whistleblower complaint is consistent with public reports of how the Trump administration is handling COVID-19. He claims, for example, that he was pressured by an industry consultant with ties to HHS leadership to extend a failed contract with a pharmaceutical company that was slated to expire. The reason? The company’s chief executive officer
was a “wildcard” and a friend of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and a Senior Advisor to the President. Dr. Bright stood his ground on this contract, which led to some discord between him and HHS leadership.
Kushner’s clumsy and irresponsible self-dealing is not new. According to the Washington Post, a “volunteer” on Kusher’s so-called “coronavirus response team” filed a complaint in April with the House Oversight Committee. That whistleblower asserts that Kushner’s approximately two-dozen recruits from consulting and private equity firms had, as the Post put it, “little expertise in the tasks they were assigned, exacerbating chronic problems in obtaining supplies for hospitals and other needs, according to numerous government officials and a volunteer involved in the effort.”
Keep in mind that Kushner—like Rudy Giuliani, the private lawyer at the center of the last impeachment scandal—has been given massive responsibility within the Trump administration that goes far, far beyond his experience and expertise. He is not a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. He did not take an oath of office. And he is not subject to the legislative and regulatory means of oversight and accountability that govern federal employees.
Nor are the ragtag members of his coronavirus task force, which reportedly used a spreadsheet named “VIP Update” to prioritize procurement of protective equipment and other vital medical supplies from Trump allies over experienced, vetted vendors.
But of course, we already know—from numerous reports of Trump’s purging of suspected “Never Trumpers” from the ranks of the civil service and of his replacement of neutral inspectors general with perceived loyalists—that there is no accountability for Donald Trump under his view of the presidency. And so far, Congress has largely gone along with his distortion of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Bright’s complaint goes on for nearly 60 detailed pages, and is reportedly backed by emails and other documentary evidence of his time at HHS. These facts cannot be ignored.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 is threatening voter safety at the physical polls in November. The president opposes mail-in voting, and Congress has thus far ignored the pressing call to finance nationwide mail-in voting and save the U.S. Postal Service from bankruptcy. As a consequence, the fall election may not be perceived as legitimate—whatever its outcome.
Republican senators’ excuse for excusing Trump’s abuses of office during the last round of impeachment proceedings no longer holds water. Outgoing senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) justified his vote to acquit this way: “Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” But what if a vicious virus and an incompetent president have made voting unsafe and unreliable? The Constitution offers another viable tool for removing a president: impeachment.