thebulwark--2020-05-15--The Case for a League of Democracies

The Case for a League of Democracies

Times of trial have a way of revealing essential truths about the human condition .
The coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the ferocious appetite among people everywhere not only for freedom but for order and the common good .
Our present global crisis offers an opportunity to come to grips with the uncomfortable truth that our current social order is unsustainable .
At risk is the postwar order as we know it–characterized by the ascent of democracy , the spread of market economics , and the suppression of geopolitical competition .
It has rightly been said that the underlying societal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much in the coronavirus outbreak as what it may trigger : a new Great Depression , and a corresponding surge in political radicalism .
An acute risk is that escalating public distrust in the democratic system engenders belief in the technocratic skill and general prestige of authoritarian rule .
Such a development could in turn incite a reversion to an era of bitter ideological struggle .
Of course , for politically engaged citizens the breathtaking corruption , official deceit , and malign ineptitude of authoritarian powers has exposed the yawning chasm between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpleasant reality of a system that brooks no dissent and does not submit to democratic audit .
Nonetheless , it is clear that the People ’ s Republic of China has sought , thus far with some success , to exploit the rampant insecurity bred by a lethal virus that it unleashed on the world .
The potential for the PRC and other authoritarian powers to shift the global equilibrium and put the liberal order under siege is evident in their conduct during this crisis .
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures to arrest the spread of the virus .
However effective these techniques of surveillance and quarantine orders are at blocking vectors for the virus , authoritarian regimes and ruling parties in immature democracies have often followed Beijing ’ s lead and used these emergency powers as a pretext to consolidate power .
This continues a pattern of authoritarian advance and democratic retreat that has been pronounced for more than a decade .
The democratic world is increasingly left supine before this severe authoritarian challenge .
If it remains disengaged , disunited , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarians could serve , as Daniel Twining notes , as a “ springboard for global contestation ” that may beget a terminal crisis for many democracies .
There is no natural law that holds the flourishing of a democratic order simply because it is superior to its alternatives .
To uphold an order conducive to the finest traditions of free society , constitutional government and individual rights , it behooves us to recall the history before that order arose in the world , and apply its lessons to defend pluralist politics against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anecdote that Phillip Ziegler recounts in his book Between the Wars : “ At the end of 1918 an American historian began to write a history of the Great War .
‘ What will you call it ?
’ he was asked .
‘ The First World War , ’ was his bleak response.
” The history of the 1930s vindicated this judgment when the international order broke down again under the combined aggression of Nazi Germany , Imperial Japan and fascist Italy .
When the Axis Powers began to wreak havoc on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order of the interwar years , none of the mature and powerful democracies of the day claimed any great responsibility for the world ’ s problems .
Without a credible and committed guarantor of peace , the world system didn ’ t stand a chance .
The fragility of the interwar order had not been secret knowledge .
Almost as soon as war had broken out in 1914 , American internationalists as ideologically discrepant as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed that after the war––a war fought , the president famously declared , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy ” ––America would not be able to secure its interests or advance its principles without taking a much more active role in the world .
The international environment was too chronically hazardous , and the fears and interests and ambitions of nations too ubiquitous , to permit any nation to safely indulge in “ splendid isolation.
” The world of globalization was too interconnected to shield national economies from the turbulence of overseas markets .
It was simply not enough for the United States to seek only “ our own defense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more onerous , vocation loomed .
Americans had to prove themselves worthy of global leadership , which meant a willingness to act in defense of others .
Through the provision of essential security and welfare to the foreign world , America established a new liberal order they would also benefit from .
To create and maintain that order , America would be compelled to take its place in a consortium of great powers , an “ international posse comitatus ” to deter and , if necessary , punish aggression in strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great World League for the Peace of Righteousness , ” as Roosevelt dubbed it , was not a form of international social work .
Rather , it was a hard-headed calculation of national interest , rightly understood .
After the guns fell silent on the Western Front , however , the summons to global responsibility issued by Roosevelt and Wilson went unheeded by their countrymen .
Such an extraordinary world-historical role for the United States , which would have entailed the deployment and exercise of power far from American shores , proved too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate rejected both the League of Nations and American participation in the Versailles Treaty .
When “ the League fight ” ended with the United States refusing to endorse its charter or adhere to its membership , the cause of collective security was dead on arrival .
In the interwar years , Americans appeared to be weary of direct involvement in “ foreign wars , ” and they elected leaders who promised to look after “ America First.
” This “ return to normalcy ” helped assure that the world would return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economic nationalism and autarkic societies became the norm .
With every nation going its own way , geopolitical competition flared up and eventually brought about a vast conflagration .
It was only in the aftermath of the Second World War that American leaders determined to avoid the catastrophic mistakes of their predecessors , and decided to be the harbingers of a new world .
This meant eschewing a passive and accommodating approach to foreign affairs that had left so much of the earth ’ s surface a cratered wreck .
Only the creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that promoted free trade and human rights , but ultimately backed by American power–could prevent the return of international anarchy and instability .
This ambitious internationalism was expressed in the determination , as George Marshall put it , that the American flag would be recognized “ throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.
” In taking on such weighty global responsibilities , Americans would lose what Reinhold Niebuhr called “ the innocency of irresponsibility.
” What they stood to gain was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better world , with all its attendant material and moral costs , and a measure of pride in serving an intangible sense of national honor .
This new international order gave birth to the United Nations , which continues to serve many legitimate and laudable functions , from peacekeeping to the provision of vital humanitarian supplies to communities in hours of their most urgent and pressing need .
But in strategic terms the world body was always destined to have negligible affect .
However noble the ideals of the U.N. Charter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the promiscuous interests of its most powerful member states .
Ideologically , it could hardly be expected to reinforce the domain of democracy given the prevalent and perverse influence of the innumerable dictatorships nesting under its roof .
To Roosevelt and the other principal architects of the postwar order , the U.N. was nothing so utopian as Alfred Lord Tennyson ’ s “ parliament of man ” in which the “ battle-flags ” of sovereign nations would be “ furl ’ d ” forever .
Pious declarations for “ outlawing war ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1928 ) would be of little avail .
The stewards of American power were too grimly realistic to imagine the world body could be the linchpin of a “ rules-based order ” compelling nations to beat their swords into plowshares .
Instead they conceived of the U.N. more as Wilson had the League of Nations , which is to say , as a forum to facilitate transnational cooperation under American leadership .
There was never any pretension that international law or international institutions would obviate the need for American primacy in preserving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenge posed by a rising and revisionist China demonstrates that the strategic engagement of America is necessary to world order but not remotely sufficient .
The full strength of the democratic world will be required in this titanic struggle .
Europeans must come to understand that America ’ s military predominance in the international system is the ultimate bulwark of freedom , including their own .
Without it , the PRC would be behaving more rapaciously at home and abroad .
In a similar manner , Americans must come to understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength and cohesion of European civilization .
In short , those who dream the U.N. Security Council might fulfill this role and provide countervailing force to an implacable threat arising from Beijing should continue slumbering .
Likewise for those who imagine that Washington can ever rally an effective global alliance under the banner of “ America First.
” Instead , the earth-shaking ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic should serve to revive an old but venerable proposal : a league of democracies .
The deficiencies of collective security under U.N. auspices , very often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have been evident for some time .
The supposed benefits of sticking with the Security Council have been eclipsed by the accumulating costs of advancing authoritarianism , which has used and abused global agencies such as the WHO and WTO .
Democratic solidarity demands the creation of a new organization that is immune from authoritarian blackmail , and actually supports an open international economic system , enforces principles of international behavior , and respects human rights .
Such an organization will promote the kind of world that suited Americans and those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the liberal order .
When the United States walked away from President Wilson ’ s project of defending the cause of democracy , a power vacuum was created that was eventually filled by aggressive totalitarian dictatorships .
A league of democracies would have prevented that tragic lapse .
“ The Western powers had hoped that their victory would usher in an era modeled in their own image , ” writes the historian Norman Davies .
In 1914 , he notes , Europe was a continent of nineteen monarchies and three republics .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republics .
But democracy did not prove resilient on the continent .
“ Hardly a year passed when one country or another did not see its democratic constitution violated by one or other brand of dictator .
It can not be attributed to a single cause , save the inability of the Western powers to defend the regimes which they had inspired.
” In our time , movements and regimes inspired by liberal ideals are increasingly finding themselves on the defensive in a world increasingly vulnerable to authoritarian mischief .
Although excessive centralization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in building efficient economies and nimble responses to pandemics , the PRC already has the economic and military means to bully its neighbors , intimidate private enterprises and undermine the liberal order .
A pushback must be organized and new arrangements must be formed to halt and reverse this dire trend .
A league of democracies , founded on the defense of open societies and the promotion of liberal values rather than national sovereignty , is central to this mission .
Such an organization seems decidedly unlikely to materialize with an administration in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of democracy and so wantonly forfeited American credibility .
This impression has scarcely been altered by America ’ s uninspired conduct in the midst of the pandemic .
So far from breaking down barriers of trust and trade with foreign partners in order to align methods to hold China to account , the Trump administration ’ s deplorable habit of solipsistic diplomacy––this time in the form of White House controls over foreign production by U.S. companies––has encouraged others to retaliate against American firms , seize scarce supplies and even nationalize U.S. plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister Carl Bildt has observed , it is remarkable during a crisis of this scope that “ there ’ s not been even a hint of an aspiration of American leadership.
” It is a safe surmise that no such leadership will be on offer until the current chief executive exits office .
Whenever America comes to its senses and decides to rejoin the struggle for democracy and decency , it should begin by putting its weight behind an organization open to and supportive of the true “ responsible stakeholders ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the consent of the governed .
The cause of liberty may depend on it .

Times of trial have a way of revealing essential truths about the human condition. The coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the ferocious appetite among people everywhere not only for freedom but for order and the common good.
Our present global crisis offers an opportunity to come to grips with the uncomfortable truth that our current social order is unsustainable. At risk is the postwar order as we know it–characterized by the ascent of democracy, the spread of market economics, and the suppression of geopolitical competition.
It has rightly been said that the underlying societal danger of this moment lies not so much in the coronavirus outbreak as what it may trigger: a new Great Depression, and a corresponding surge in political radicalism. An acute risk is that escalating public distrust in the democratic system engenders belief in the technocratic skill and general prestige of authoritarian rule. Such a development could in turn incite a reversion to an era of bitter ideological struggle.
Of course, for politically engaged citizens the breathtaking corruption, official deceit, and malign ineptitude of authoritarian powers has exposed the yawning chasm between the supposed aura of arbitrary rule and the unpleasant reality of a system that brooks no dissent and does not submit to democratic audit. Nonetheless, it is clear that the People’s Republic of China has sought, thus far with some success, to exploit the rampant insecurity bred by a lethal virus that it unleashed on the world.
The potential for the PRC and other authoritarian powers to shift the global equilibrium and put the liberal order under siege is evident in their conduct during this crisis. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, governments around the world have implemented stringent measures to arrest the spread of the virus. However effective these techniques of surveillance and quarantine orders are at blocking vectors for the virus, authoritarian regimes and ruling parties in immature democracies have often followed Beijing’s lead and used these emergency powers as a pretext to consolidate power. This continues a pattern of authoritarian advance and democratic retreat that has been pronounced for more than a decade.
The democratic world is increasingly left supine before this severe authoritarian challenge. If it remains disengaged, disunited, and paralyzed, the assertiveness of the authoritarians could serve, as Daniel Twining notes, as a “springboard for global contestation” that may beget a terminal crisis for many democracies. There is no natural law that holds the flourishing of a democratic order simply because it is superior to its alternatives. To uphold an order conducive to the finest traditions of free society, constitutional government and individual rights, it behooves us to recall the history before that order arose in the world, and apply its lessons to defend pluralist politics against the depredations of dictatorships.
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 a famous anecdote that Phillip Ziegler recounts in his book Between the Wars: “At the end of 1918 an American historian began to write a history of the Great War. ‘What will you call it?’ he was asked. ‘The First World War,’ was his bleak response.”
The history of the 1930s vindicated this judgment when the international order broke down again under the combined aggression of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and fascist Italy. When the Axis Powers began to wreak havoc on their vulnerable neighbors and the fragile democratic order of the interwar years, none of the mature and powerful democracies of the day claimed any great responsibility for the world’s problems. Without a credible and committed guarantor of peace, the world system didn’t stand a chance.
The fragility of the interwar order had not been secret knowledge. Almost as soon as war had broken out in 1914, American internationalists as ideologically discrepant as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed that after the war––a war fought, the president famously declared, to make the world “safe for democracy”––America would not be able to secure its interests or advance its principles without taking a much more active role in the world. The international environment was too chronically hazardous, and the fears and interests and ambitions of nations too ubiquitous, to permit any nation to safely indulge in “splendid isolation.”
The world of globalization was too interconnected to shield national economies from the turbulence of overseas markets. It was simply not enough for the United States to seek only “our own defense,” Roosevelt argued. A more eminent, and more onerous, vocation loomed. Americans had to prove themselves worthy of global leadership, which meant a willingness to act in defense of others. Through the provision of essential security and welfare to the foreign world, America established a new liberal order they would also benefit from.
To create and maintain that order, America would be compelled to take its place in a consortium of great powers, an “international posse comitatus” to deter and, if necessary, punish aggression in strategic areas around the globe. This “great World League for the Peace of Righteousness,” as Roosevelt dubbed it, was not a form of international social work. Rather, it was a hard-headed calculation of national interest, rightly understood.
After the guns fell silent on the Western Front, however, the summons to global responsibility issued by Roosevelt and Wilson went unheeded by their countrymen. Such an extraordinary world-historical role for the United States, which would have entailed the deployment and exercise of power far from American shores, proved too much for Americans to countenance. The Senate rejected both the League of Nations and American participation in the Versailles Treaty. When “the League fight” ended with the United States refusing to endorse its charter or adhere to its membership, the cause of collective security was dead on arrival.
In the interwar years, Americans appeared to be weary of direct involvement in “foreign wars,” and they elected leaders who promised to look after “America First.” This “return to normalcy” helped assure that the world would return to a normalcy of its own––however shortlived. Economic nationalism and autarkic societies became the norm. With every nation going its own way, geopolitical competition flared up and eventually brought about a vast conflagration.
It was only in the aftermath of the Second World War that American leaders determined to avoid the catastrophic mistakes of their predecessors, and decided to be the harbingers of a new world. This meant eschewing a passive and accommodating approach to foreign affairs that had left so much of the earth’s surface a cratered wreck. Only the creation of a durable liberal order–featuring global organizations that promoted free trade and human rights, but ultimately backed by American power–could prevent the return of international anarchy and instability.
This ambitious internationalism was expressed in the determination, as George Marshall put it, that the American flag would be recognized “throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.” In taking on such weighty global responsibilities, Americans would lose what Reinhold Niebuhr called “the innocency of irresponsibility.” What they stood to gain was the comparatively dubious burden of responsibility for a better world, with all its attendant material and moral costs, and a measure of pride in serving an intangible sense of national honor.
This new international order gave birth to the United Nations, which continues to serve many legitimate and laudable functions, from peacekeeping to the provision of vital humanitarian supplies to communities in hours of their most urgent and pressing need. But in strategic terms the world body was always destined to have negligible affect. However noble the ideals of the U.N. Charter, the universal social contract was rendered impotent by the promiscuous interests of its most powerful member states. Ideologically, it could hardly be expected to reinforce the domain of democracy given the prevalent and perverse influence of the innumerable dictatorships nesting under its roof.
To Roosevelt and the other principal architects of the postwar order, the U.N. was nothing so utopian as Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “parliament of man” in which the “battle-flags” of sovereign nations would be “furl’d” forever. Pious declarations for “outlawing war” (as the Kellogg-Briand agreement did in 1928) would be of little avail.
The stewards of American power were too grimly realistic to imagine the world body could be the linchpin of a “rules-based order” compelling nations to beat their swords into plowshares. Instead they conceived of the U.N. more as Wilson had the League of Nations, which is to say, as a forum to facilitate transnational cooperation under American leadership. There was never any pretension that international law or international institutions would obviate the need for American primacy in preserving the peace.
Today, the scale of the challenge posed by a rising and revisionist China demonstrates that the strategic engagement of America is necessary to world order but not remotely sufficient. The full strength of the democratic world will be required in this titanic struggle. Europeans must come to understand that America’s military predominance in the international system is the ultimate bulwark of freedom, including their own. Without it, the PRC would be behaving more rapaciously at home and abroad. In a similar manner, Americans must come to understand that they still have a stake in the strength and cohesion of European civilization.
In short, those who dream the U.N. Security Council might fulfill this role and provide countervailing force to an implacable threat arising from Beijing should continue slumbering.
Likewise for those who imagine that Washington can ever rally an effective global alliance under the banner of “America First.” Instead, the earth-shaking ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic should serve to revive an old but venerable proposal: a league of democracies.
The deficiencies of collective security under U.N. auspices, very often arising from an excessive deference to autocracies, have been evident for some time. The supposed benefits of sticking with the Security Council have been eclipsed by the accumulating costs of advancing authoritarianism, which has used and abused global agencies such as the WHO and WTO.
Democratic solidarity demands the creation of a new organization that is immune from authoritarian blackmail, and actually supports an open international economic system, enforces principles of international behavior, and respects human rights. Such an organization will promote the kind of world that suited Americans and those who shared their beliefs at the outset of the liberal order.
When the United States walked away from President Wilson’s project of defending the cause of democracy, a power vacuum was created that was eventually filled by aggressive totalitarian dictatorships. A league of democracies would have prevented that tragic lapse.
“The Western powers had hoped that their victory would usher in an era modeled in their own image,” writes the historian Norman Davies. In 1914, he notes, Europe was a continent of nineteen monarchies and three republics. By 1919 it had fourteen monarchies and sixteen republics. But democracy did not prove resilient on the continent. “Hardly a year passed when one country or another did not see its democratic constitution violated by one or other brand of dictator. It cannot be attributed to a single cause, save the inability of the Western powers to defend the regimes which they had inspired.”
In our time, movements and regimes inspired by liberal ideals are increasingly finding themselves on the defensive in a world increasingly vulnerable to authoritarian mischief. Although excessive centralization is not a winning strategy for states in building efficient economies and nimble responses to pandemics, the PRC already has the economic and military means to bully its neighbors, intimidate private enterprises and undermine the liberal order. A pushback must be organized and new arrangements must be formed to halt and reverse this dire trend. A league of democracies, founded on the defense of open societies and the promotion of liberal values rather than national sovereignty, is central to this mission.
Such an organization seems decidedly unlikely to materialize with an administration in Washington that has so lavishly defiled the cause of democracy and so wantonly forfeited American credibility. This impression has scarcely been altered by America’s uninspired conduct in the midst of the pandemic. So far from breaking down barriers of trust and trade with foreign partners in order to align methods to hold China to account, the Trump administration’s deplorable habit of solipsistic diplomacy––this time in the form of White House controls over foreign production by U.S. companies––has encouraged others to retaliate against American firms, seize scarce supplies and even nationalize U.S. plants abroad.
As the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt has observed, it is remarkable during a crisis of this scope that “there’s not been even a hint of an aspiration of American leadership.” It is a safe surmise that no such leadership will be on offer until the current chief executive exits office.
Whenever America comes to its senses and decides to rejoin the struggle for democracy and decency, it should begin by putting its weight behind an organization open to and supportive of the true “responsible stakeholders” of the liberal order: the nations that govern by the consent of the governed. The cause of liberty may depend on it.


thebulwark--2020-05-16--The HEROES Act and How to Allocate Federal Aid

Back in March , the coronavirus pandemic led to a rare outbreak of a different sort , as bipartisanship returned to Capitol Hill .
Unfortunately , unlike COVID-19 , that phenomenon has proved fleeting , as Democrats and Republicans are back to bickering again as they debate the next phase of the federal response .
On Tuesday , House Democrats put their chips on the table with a $ 3 trillion stimulus proposal , dubbed the HEROES Act .
The bill passed Friday night despite Senate Republicans saying that another round of help is premature .
The need to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to work prevailed over partisan politics .
For his part , Fed chairman Powell is uncharacteristically warning that without massive federal aid and investment the present recession will turn into something long-lasting and much worse .
This won ’ t be the last fight over federal aid and posturing has become par for the course in Washington in recent years .
Sometimes it ’ s the prelude to negotiation , sometimes to stalemate .
But we would be remiss not to plead with our fellow conservatives : don ’ t shoot yourselves—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist state and local governments .
Sadly , GOP opposition to “ fiscal stabilization ” seems to be hardening .
Even Senator Lamar Alexander , a former governor himself and one of the smartest and steadiest Republicans in Congress , has indicated that states might be on their own .
“ The country certainly can ’ t afford for Washington to keep passing trillion-dollar spending bills , ” he recently told AEI ’ s Frederick M. Hess .
“ We are all going to have to make tough decisions.
” Yes , conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out profligate state and local governments , especially for needs that bear little relationship to—and pre-date—the virus crisis and its economic consequences .
It didn ’ t help when Illinois Democrats pleaded for a rescue package for the state ’ s miserably mismanaged pension system .
It ’ s simply unfair to ask taxpayers in red states to pay the bill for expensive government services in blue ones .
If progressives could count on the federal government to come to the rescue during every recession , it would create a moral hazard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expensive programs that their own taxpayers can ’ t afford .
So the details matter greatly when deciding how federal aid is allocated .
Proposals are floating around Washington that address the concerns of Republicans and their constituents , while keeping the focus squarely on the matter at hand : backstopping the sizable COVID-related expenditures of hard-hit state and local governments , and replacing the billions of dollars of revenue lost when the economy shut down .
In other words , a well-crafted bill would base the amount of funding for state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual costs and losses incurred as result of the pandemic .
It can not be a blank check to fund every item on a state ’ s wish list .
But telling states to “ make hard decisions ” is not going to cut it , for four reasons .
First , this is not a typical crisis for which state and local governments could prepare .
The economic shock is orders of magnitude greater than during a typical , cyclical downturn ; no public official—not even in solidly red states like Ohio—could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day funds ” to weather this storm .
The federal government has the ability to borrow the money to deal with a calamity of this size ; state and local governments don ’ t .
And , unlike Congress , they must balance their budgets .
Second , without federal aid , states and localities will be forced to make enormous cuts to staff—and that will in turn slow down the economic recovery .
To get business moving again , once it ’ s safe to resume activity , we ’ ll need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the confidence to spend it .
Laying off hundreds of thousands of state and local workers—including front-line teachers , police , nurses , and firefighters—won ’ t help .
Third , cuts in staff means a cut in services and the burden of those cuts will fall hardest on our communities and families most in need .
Crime-ridden streets will be less safe , fragile families will be more stressed , and low-income students will lose ground academically—a double whammy considering the time they ’ ve already lost to school closures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen the economy if basic services like building and health inspectors are in short supply .
Finally , Republicans could pay a big price in November if they block such help , given its wide public support .
Are they really willing to gamble away important swing states like Michigan or Senate seats like Arizona ’ s when the headwinds are already so fierce ?
By all means , GOP leaders should push back against the parts of stimulus packages they find objectionable , and make sure than any state or local aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pensions or keep afloat other long-insolvent big-government programs .
But as defenders of our federalist system and of local control , it makes no sense to allow our state and local institutions to crumble .
Federal aid should always be a measure of last resort , reserved for times of true national crisis .
Alas , fellow conservatives , that time is now .

Back in March, the coronavirus pandemic led to a rare outbreak of a different sort, as bipartisanship returned to Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, unlike COVID-19, that phenomenon has proved fleeting, as Democrats and Republicans are back to bickering again as they debate the next phase of the federal response.
On Tuesday, House Democrats put their chips on the table with a $3 trillion stimulus proposal, dubbed the HEROES Act. The bill passed Friday night despite Senate Republicans saying that another round of help is premature. The need to provide liability protection for businesses that bring staff back to work prevailed over partisan politics. For his part, Fed chairman Powell is uncharacteristically warning that without massive federal aid and investment the present recession will turn into something long-lasting and much worse.
This won’t be the last fight over federal aid and posturing has become par for the course in Washington in recent years. Sometimes it’s the prelude to negotiation, sometimes to stalemate. But we would be remiss not to plead with our fellow conservatives: don’t shoot yourselves—and your constituents—in the foot by refusing to assist state and local governments.
Sadly, GOP opposition to “fiscal stabilization” seems to be hardening. Even Senator Lamar Alexander, a former governor himself and one of the smartest and steadiest Republicans in Congress, has indicated that states might be on their own. “The country certainly can’t afford for Washington to keep passing trillion-dollar spending bills,” he recently told AEI’s Frederick M. Hess. “We are all going to have to make tough decisions.”
Yes, conservatives are right to be leery of bailing out profligate state and local governments, especially for needs that bear little relationship to—and pre-date—the virus crisis and its economic consequences. It didn’t help when Illinois Democrats pleaded for a rescue package for the state’s miserably mismanaged pension system. It’s simply unfair to ask taxpayers in red states to pay the bill for expensive government services in blue ones. If progressives could count on the federal government to come to the rescue during every recession, it would create a moral hazard, giving them even more reason to create expensive programs that their own taxpayers can’t afford.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
So the details matter greatly when deciding how federal aid is allocated. Proposals are floating around Washington that address the concerns of Republicans and their constituents, while keeping the focus squarely on the matter at hand: backstopping the sizable COVID-related expenditures of hard-hit state and local governments, and replacing the billions of dollars of revenue lost when the economy shut down. In other words, a well-crafted bill would base the amount of funding for state and local governments upon an estimate of the actual costs and losses incurred as result of the pandemic. It cannot be a blank check to fund every item on a state’s wish list.
But telling states to “make hard decisions” is not going to cut it, for four reasons.
First, this is not a typical crisis for which state and local governments could prepare. The economic shock is orders of magnitude greater than during a typical, cyclical downturn; no public official—not even in solidly red states like Ohio—could have set aside nearly enough “rainy day funds” to weather this storm. The federal government has the ability to borrow the money to deal with a calamity of this size; state and local governments don’t. And, unlike Congress, they must balance their budgets.
Second, without federal aid, states and localities will be forced to make enormous cuts to staff—and that will in turn slow down the economic recovery. To get business moving again, once it’s safe to resume activity, we’ll need more consumers with money in their pockets and the confidence to spend it. Laying off hundreds of thousands of state and local workers—including front-line teachers, police, nurses, and firefighters—won’t help.
Third, cuts in staff means a cut in services and the burden of those cuts will fall hardest on our communities and families most in need. Crime-ridden streets will be less safe, fragile families will be more stressed, and low-income students will lose ground academically—a double whammy considering the time they’ve already lost to school closures. It will also make it harder to reopen the economy if basic services like building and health inspectors are in short supply.
Finally, Republicans could pay a big price in November if they block such help, given its wide public support. Are they really willing to gamble away important swing states like Michigan or Senate seats like Arizona’s when the headwinds are already so fierce?
By all means, GOP leaders should push back against the parts of stimulus packages they find objectionable, and make sure than any state or local aid doesn’t go to bail out pensions or keep afloat other long-insolvent big-government programs. But as defenders of our federalist system and of local control, it makes no sense to allow our state and local institutions to crumble. Federal aid should always be a measure of last resort, reserved for times of true national crisis. Alas, fellow conservatives, that time is now.


thebulwark--2020-05-17--Trump v. Fauci? Unfortunate, But Easy

Trump v. Fauci? Unfortunate, But Easy

It was inevitable .
President Donald Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci are now on opposite sides of the question of how our country should address the most deadly pandemic we and the world have ever faced in our lifetimes .
That they have collided on the issue of when to lift restrictions and begin a return to “ normal ” ( whatever that is ) is not surprising .
Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci are fundamentally different men , with different experiences , different approaches to life , and different motivations .
Oil and water .
Trump has spent his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money and fame .
Fauci has spent his entire career as a government employee seeking cures for diseases .
By publicly calling Dr. Fauci ’ s comments on when schools should re-open “ unacceptable , ” President Trump has shown breathtaking arrogance .
Such decisions are not subject to his “ acceptance.
” In saying that , President Trump has made his agenda clear .
Simply put , Trump is done with COVID-19 and wants to re-open the country now .
It ’ s not hard to figure out why .
Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering as long as COVID-19 remains an issue and the economy continues to implode .
He ’ s had enough bad headlines and wants to put it behind us .
Fauci , on the other hand , wants to proceed carefully and slowly .
A scientist and doctor , Fauci cares little about headlines or polls , and while he fervently shares the president ’ s desire to defeat COVID-19 , he knows we can not simply wish it away and there is a significant risk in rushing to presume we are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As uncomfortable as it may be for us to have the president of the United States being be so out of sync with one of the country ’ s top scientists , it speaks well of our democracy that a relatively unknown government physician , who usually spends most of his time hunched over a microscope in an obscure laboratory in Maryland , has emerged as the public face of the country ’ s effort to deal with our most serious health challenge .
For a while , there was an uneasy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Fauci .
Remember those insufferably long “ briefings ” Trump conducted ?
Aware and undoubtedly jealous of Fauci ’ s unimpeachable integrity , credibility , and popularity , Trump–in a flimsy attempt to convey a positive relationship with Fauci–sucked it up and pretended to respect “ Anthony , ” whose name he often over-enunciated .
Fauci , ever the loyal civil servant , did his best to share critical information with the American people , while engaging in verbal gymnastics to avoid contradicting a president who was clearly in over his head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sort of .
Perhaps egged-on by the incredibly ignorant and irresponsible rhetoric of Senator Rand Paul , who said Fauci was not the “ end all , ” and their sycophants on Fox News , Trump decided to abandon any pretense of mutual respect and positioned himself squarely against Dr. Fauci .
Yikes !
There is no modern precedent for a president suggesting he knows more than a doctor on a medical issue .
In asking people to choose whether to follow his recommendations , rather than those of a man who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , President Trump has embarked on a very dangerous–and potentially fatal–path for America .
Forget for a moment the increasing evidence that Trump ’ s initial mishandling of COVID-19 ’ s threat led to many unnecessary deaths .
The decision before us now is how to safely re-open the country and our economy .
No one knows for sure what the best way forward is .
It is a genuinely perplexing question of whether to believe a president who says we are ready to re-open , or the country ’ s most experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infectious diseases who urges patience and caution .
Maybe the best way to think about this is to ask what each man seeks .
Let ’ s start with the president .
What does President Trump think about when he wakes up every morning ?
Besides bashing political opponents , and seeking credit for doing what he is supposed to do , it is clear he is laser-focused on his re-election .
He knows a collapsing economy poses a grave threat to that , which explains why he is so anxious to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what cost ?
Is the risk of a deadly rebound of COVID-19 in the fall worth the short term gratification of getting tattoos , haircuts , and going to the beach now ?
Anthony Fauci , on the other hand , probably does not think about politics , short-term conveniences , or economics , but instead about how to save lives .
In other words , he follows his Hippocratic Oath .
That does not mean Fauci is a better person than Trump .
Protecting physical health and protecting economic health are equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know for sure who is “ right ” because everyone ’ s situation is different .
It ’ s understandable that somebody who is out of work might think re-opening the economy ASAP is vital , while somebody who is at severely at risk might disagree .
Let ’ s not lose sight of what we are fighting .
COVID-19 is a medical problem .
Medical problems require medical solutions .
Anthony Fauci is a doctor .
Donald Trump is a politician .
To whom would you go if you get sick ?

It was inevitable. President Donald Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci are now on opposite sides of the question of how our country should address the most deadly pandemic we and the world have ever faced in our lifetimes.
That they have collided on the issue of when to lift restrictions and begin a return to “normal” (whatever that is) is not surprising. Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci are fundamentally different men, with different experiences, different approaches to life, and different motivations. Oil and water. Trump has spent his entire life in the business world seeking money and fame. Fauci has spent his entire career as a government employee seeking cures for diseases.
By publicly calling Dr. Fauci’s comments on when schools should re-open “unacceptable,” President Trump has shown breathtaking arrogance. Such decisions are not subject to his “acceptance.”
In saying that, President Trump has made his agenda clear. Simply put, Trump is done with COVID-19 and wants to re-open the country now. It’s not hard to figure out why. Trump, a politician, knows his popularity is suffering as long as COVID-19 remains an issue and the economy continues to implode. He’s had enough bad headlines and wants to put it behind us. Fauci, on the other hand, wants to proceed carefully and slowly. A scientist and doctor, Fauci cares little about headlines or polls, and while he fervently shares the president’s desire to defeat COVID-19, he knows we cannot simply wish it away and there is a significant risk in rushing to presume we are “on the other side” of things.
As uncomfortable as it may be for us to have the president of the United States being be so out of sync with one of the country’s top scientists, it speaks well of our democracy that a relatively unknown government physician, who usually spends most of his time hunched over a microscope in an obscure laboratory in Maryland, has emerged as the public face of the country’s effort to deal with our most serious health challenge.
For a while, there was an uneasy, though necessary, detente between Trump and Fauci. Remember those insufferably long “briefings” Trump conducted? Aware and undoubtedly jealous of Fauci’s unimpeachable integrity, credibility, and popularity, Trump–in a flimsy attempt to convey a positive relationship with Fauci–sucked it up and pretended to respect “Anthony,” whose name he often over-enunciated. Fauci, ever the loyal civil servant, did his best to share critical information with the American people, while engaging in verbal gymnastics to avoid contradicting a president who was clearly in over his head.
Until now, that worked. Sort of. Perhaps egged-on by the incredibly ignorant and irresponsible rhetoric of Senator Rand Paul, who said Fauci was not the “end all,” and their sycophants on Fox News, Trump decided to abandon any pretense of mutual respect and positioned himself squarely against Dr. Fauci.
Yikes! There is no modern precedent for a president suggesting he knows more than a doctor on a medical issue.
In asking people to choose whether to follow his recommendations, rather than those of a man who has dedicated his career to fighting infectious diseases, President Trump has embarked on a very dangerous–and potentially fatal–path for America. Forget for a moment the increasing evidence that Trump’s initial mishandling of COVID-19’s threat led to many unnecessary deaths. The decision before us now is how to safely re-open the country and our economy.
No one knows for sure what the best way forward is. It is a genuinely perplexing question of whether to believe a president who says we are ready to re-open, or the country’s most experienced and knowledgeable expert in the field of infectious diseases who urges patience and caution.
Maybe the best way to think about this is to ask what each man seeks. Let’s start with the president. What does President Trump think about when he wakes up every morning? Besides bashing political opponents, and seeking credit for doing what he is supposed to do, it is clear he is laser-focused on his re-election. He knows a collapsing economy poses a grave threat to that, which explains why he is so anxious to open things up.
The question is at what cost? Is the risk of a deadly rebound of COVID-19 in the fall worth the short term gratification of getting tattoos, haircuts, and going to the beach now?
Anthony Fauci, on the other hand, probably does not think about politics, short-term conveniences, or economics, but instead about how to save lives. In other words, he follows his Hippocratic Oath.
That does not mean Fauci is a better person than Trump. Protecting physical health and protecting economic health are equally important.
There is no way to know for sure who is “right” because everyone’s situation is different. It’s understandable that somebody who is out of work might think re-opening the economy ASAP is vital, while somebody who is at severely at risk might disagree. Let’s not lose sight of what we are fighting. COVID-19 is a medical problem. Medical problems require medical solutions. Anthony Fauci is a doctor. Donald Trump is a politician. To whom would you go if you get sick?


thebulwark--2020-05-17--New Approaches in New York City

New Approaches in New York City

As the rate of new COVID-19 deaths in New York City falls , this is a moment for the city to engage in self-scrutiny and plan for the future , using the imagination our citizens are famous for in creative fields .
We need to rescue ourselves economically while rethinking the nature of our city—fixing the plane while learning to fly it .
Why do we need a fundamental rethinking ?
Because , at least until an effective vaccine is widely available , people are unlikely to want to return to their former social and economic behaviors .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to match the nation ’ s demographics ) , some 67 percent of respondents said they would be uncomfortable shopping in a retail clothing store , while 78 percent would be uncomfortable eating out .
Whether or not these risk assessments are rational , they must be taken into account by business owners and government officials .
And the adaptations we make now can help us better to handle future pandemics with less drastic economic interruptions than this time .
Because it is all but certain that there will be more pandemics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than this one .
We need a modular city that can , when necessary , be reconfigured for different levels of social distancing .
At the same time that we attend to these nuts-and-bolts issues , we must preserve New York ’ s status as a great city , arguably the world ’ s capital .
This requires nurturing what makes New York special : diversity , the arts , energy , ambition , and opportunity .
Great cities produce a mix of industry , culture , and entertainment , drawing residents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the publication of Jane Jacobs ’ s The Death and Life of Great American Cities , we have realized that cities need robust mixed-use neighborhoods , and that commerce makes streets safe and inviting .
Today we have miles of closed storefronts and streets deserted after dark except for the homeless .
Successful cities also have an esprit de corps , a sense of inclusion .
We now need to figure out how to provide all this even as the city likely depopulates , more people work from home , and almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a silver lining .
Due to the switch to working from home and the decommercialization of the streets , we are at a perfect moment to rethink many of the tired clichés that have guided our city planning .
It ’ s time for frankness : The New York of recent years wasn ’ t that fascinating .
Manhattan and upscale parts of Brooklyn have become increasingly sterile , homogenized , and slick , full of chain stores found elsewhere .
Even many of the more interesting streets have become monocultures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasional liquor store , $ 1 ( how ? )
pizza , and doggie spa .
( I should note here that—as Dutch computer scientist Lora Aroyo has reminded me—such homogenization is evident in most big European cities , too , even those with far more regulations than in the United States , and even those with pedestrian areas . )
We now know that at least two urban “ truths ” are false : Most of us need to come into an office five days a week .
And most forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We should overturn another , related myth that says that Manhattan can ’ t offer pedestrian streets in the way London , Paris , Milan , Rome , Seville , and hundreds of European cities do .
We can continue to enjoy one of the few unequivocal silver linings of the pandemic : freedom from traffic noise and cleaner air .
We can walk , run , and bike , for the moment , without cars or trucks on many of our streets—in fact , the pandemic has resulted in the longest stretch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the city reopens and attempts to find a new normal , would greater pedestrianization cripple commerce ?
Amazon already functions perfectly well using hand carts for the last 100 yards .
Taxis and ride-share services could let most fares off at the nearest corner .
Think about the reductions in fumes directly outside residences and businesses .
Mayor Bill de Blasio has proposed eventually opening a hundred miles of New York City streets to pedestrians but his concept seems to be purely for walking and biking , not commerce .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-pandemic commerce , too .
Here , offered for public debate , are a few suggestions for how we might pedestrianize while reimagining vibrant street-level commerce with social distancing .
We will discover new uses as we go along .
And all this activity is bound to foster not only new bonds between neighbors , but new business ideas .
( 4 ) Our brand is culture .
Theater as we know it began outdoors .
Encourage theater troupes to move from venue to venue in the warmer months .
How about standup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are already very successful outdoor programs for tango and swing around Manhattan .
Lots of under-used public space in the city could be repurposed easily and cheaply as theaters with simple nonpermanent seating—including some of the sitting areas along Broadway .
If the number of empty storefronts threatens to turn into blight , encourage ( but don ’ t subsidize ) their use by artists and gallerists .
There is much more we might consider , including changes to how schools work .
Is there any reason that New York , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick to the school calendar in which the summer months are scheduled for vacation ?
And would students and teachers benefit from finding ways to move suitable classes outside ?
Finally , a word about fairness .
Too many of our citizens have been excluded from many of the city ’ s pleasures by the inequality that accompanied the massive economic shift of the last decades .
Not everyone can spend $ 16 on a movie and $ 37 for a half roast chicken after .
They are even excluded from the patrimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 25 admission .
( They should all be pay-what-you-can for residents , like the Metropolitan Museum of Art . )
We need more signals from our government that we are all in this together , that we are fellow citizens and not just consumers living alongside each other .
In this spirit I propose a media campaign—preferably national not only local—to target obesity and diabetes , the preventable pre-existing conditions that make Americans vulnerable to COVID-19 in a way Europeans aren ’ t .
“ The fact that 42 percent of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reach of the virus , ” says Brooklyn ER physician Mert Erogul .
Many people choosing—on some level—to be grossly overweight has helped to cause the deaths of other people and contributed to the job losses of millions .
Of course , some bad lifestyle choices are foisted upon poor people by fast-food chains and agribusiness—and Mike Bloomberg ’ s oft-ridiculed attack on big sodas looks pretty prescient now .
This is a big , complicated discussion , one that will require some creative policy thinking , but we should start having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still with us and before a worse one arrives .

As the rate of new COVID-19 deaths in New York City falls, this is a moment for the city to engage in self-scrutiny and plan for the future, using the imagination our citizens are famous for in creative fields. We need to rescue ourselves economically while rethinking the nature of our city—fixing the plane while learning to fly it.
Why do we need a fundamental rethinking? Because, at least until an effective vaccine is widely available, people are unlikely to want to return to their former social and economic behaviors. For instance, in a recent poll (weighted to match the nation’s demographics), some 67 percent of respondents said they would be uncomfortable shopping in a retail clothing store, while 78 percent would be uncomfortable eating out. Whether or not these risk assessments are rational, they must be taken into account by business owners and government officials.
And the adaptations we make now can help us better to handle future pandemics with less drastic economic interruptions than this time. Because it is all but certain that there will be more pandemics, and that they will be even worse than this one.
We need a modular city that can, when necessary, be reconfigured for different levels of social distancing. At the same time that we attend to these nuts-and-bolts issues, we must preserve New York’s status as a great city, arguably the world’s capital. This requires nurturing what makes New York special: diversity, the arts, energy, ambition, and opportunity.
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…
Great cities produce a mix of industry, culture, and entertainment, drawing residents and visitors. In the nearly six decades since the publication of Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities, we have realized that cities need robust mixed-use neighborhoods, and that commerce makes streets safe and inviting. Today we have miles of closed storefronts and streets deserted after dark except for the homeless. Successful cities also have an esprit de corps, a sense of inclusion. We now need to figure out how to provide all this even as the city likely depopulates, more people work from home, and almost everyone is worse off financially.
But there is a silver lining. Due to the switch to working from home and the decommercialization of the streets, we are at a perfect moment to rethink many of the tired clichés that have guided our city planning.
It’s time for frankness: The New York of recent years wasn’t that fascinating. Manhattan and upscale parts of Brooklyn have become increasingly sterile, homogenized, and slick, full of chain stores found elsewhere. Even many of the more interesting streets have become monocultures of restaurants and nail salons with the occasional liquor store, $1 (how?) pizza, and doggie spa. (I should note here that—as Dutch computer scientist Lora Aroyo has reminded me—such homogenization is evident in most big European cities, too, even those with far more regulations than in the United States, and even those with pedestrian areas.)
We now know that at least two urban “truths” are false: Most of us need to come into an office five days a week. And most forms of exercise and entertainment must occur indoors.
We should overturn another, related myth that says that Manhattan can’t offer pedestrian streets in the way London, Paris, Milan, Rome, Seville, and hundreds of European cities do.
We can continue to enjoy one of the few unequivocal silver linings of the pandemic: freedom from traffic noise and cleaner air. We can walk, run, and bike, for the moment, without cars or trucks on many of our streets—in fact, the pandemic has resulted in the longest stretch without a single pedestrian fatality since 1983. As the city reopens and attempts to find a new normal, would greater pedestrianization cripple commerce? Amazon already functions perfectly well using hand carts for the last 100 yards. Taxis and ride-share services could let most fares off at the nearest corner. Think about the reductions in fumes directly outside residences and businesses.
Mayor Bill de Blasio has proposed eventually opening a hundred miles of New York City streets to pedestrians but his concept seems to be purely for walking and biking, not commerce. I propose pedestrianization as a way of jumpstarting post-pandemic commerce, too.
Here, offered for public debate, are a few suggestions for how we might pedestrianize while reimagining vibrant street-level commerce with social distancing.
(1) Pedestrianize every second or third crosstown Manhattan street. This can be attempted experimentally at first, starting just on the weekends, before it is expanded to full-time. Do the same for major shopping/dining arteries like Bleecker, Broadway, West Fourth, 14th, 23rd, 34th, 57th. Some of these very different streets should have bike lanes, but not all. I don’t know Brooklyn or Queens or the Bronx well enough to offer specific guidance, but there are places in each where it would be appropriate to do the same. (This good idea, along with many bad ones, was proposed in Paul and Percival Goodman’s 1947 master plan for Manhattan.)
(2) Use the streets as our citizens see fit. We are going to need more outdoor space for safe exercise and leisure, not only as parks, but as ice-skating rinks, as dog runs, as safe-distance playgrounds, as outdoor theaters, as outdoor gyms, quarter-mile running tracks (how about some with soft surfaces?), sculpture gardens, mini farmers’ markets—and gardens to grow the produce to sell there. (A bit more self-sufficiency in food production sounds good right about now, doesn’t it?)
We will discover new uses as we go along. And all this activity is bound to foster not only new bonds between neighbors, but new business ideas.
(3) To bring jittery riders back to mass transit, try low-capacity, open-air buses along high-traffic routes. (I owe this idea to Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute, who was in turn inspired by a 1970 paper.) Make them free, at least to start. While we’re at it, institute taxi stands to prevent idling, and add bus lanes on all crosstown routes. (These ideas I owe to bicycle historian Pryor Dodge.)
(4) Our brand is culture. Theater as we know it began outdoors. Encourage theater troupes to move from venue to venue in the warmer months. How about standup comedy? Dance? String quartets? There are already very successful outdoor programs for tango and swing around Manhattan. Lots of under-used public space in the city could be repurposed easily and cheaply as theaters with simple nonpermanent seating—including some of the sitting areas along Broadway.
If the number of empty storefronts threatens to turn into blight, encourage (but don’t subsidize) their use by artists and gallerists.
There is much more we might consider, including changes to how schools work. Is there any reason that New York, or indeed most of North America, must stick to the school calendar in which the summer months are scheduled for vacation? And would students and teachers benefit from finding ways to move suitable classes outside?
Finally, a word about fairness. Too many of our citizens have been excluded from many of the city’s pleasures by the inequality that accompanied the massive economic shift of the last decades. Not everyone can spend $16 on a movie and $37 for a half roast chicken after. They are even excluded from the patrimony of all, with most museums charging $25 admission. (They should all be pay-what-you-can for residents, like the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) We need more signals from our government that we are all in this together, that we are fellow citizens and not just consumers living alongside each other.
In this spirit I propose a media campaign—preferably national not only local—to target obesity and diabetes, the preventable pre-existing conditions that make Americans vulnerable to COVID-19 in a way Europeans aren’t. “The fact that 42 percent of this country is clinically obese amplifies the impact and reach of the virus,” says Brooklyn ER physician Mert Erogul.
Many people choosing—on some level—to be grossly overweight has helped to cause the deaths of other people and contributed to the job losses of millions. Of course, some bad lifestyle choices are foisted upon poor people by fast-food chains and agribusiness—and Mike Bloomberg’s oft-ridiculed attack on big sodas looks pretty prescient now. This is a big, complicated discussion, one that will require some creative policy thinking, but we should start having it now, while this pandemic is still with us and before a worse one arrives.


thebulwark--2020-05-18--Trump’s Weekend of Scandal Was Hiding in Plain Sight

The Washington Post published a picture of Stacey Abrams wearing a cape this weekend .
You may have seen it , since in certain corners of the conservative news media , this fawning coverage of the becaped former state representative and vice-presidential hopeful was the single most noteworthy piece of news from the weekend .
And I ’ d like to preface the impending rant by saying , for the record , that in the narrowest possible sense , these conservative media critics have a sliver of a point .
It is true that the number of glowing profiles given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-shot vice presidential contender is absurd .
And yes , it is impossible to imagine a losing Republican candidate being given this sort of treatment .
And yes , it ’ s telling that the biggest media outlets are unable to have even a modicum of self-awareness in situations like this .
I wish they would stop .
( See also : Cuomo , Andrew ) .
But while the professional media critics , anti-anti-Trumpers , and assorted both-siders were obsessing over the Stacey Abrams Caped Crusader feature , there were some other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here are some of them : ( 1 ) The president of the United States quote-tweeted an avowed alt-right account that flirts with Holocaust denial , ( 2 ) The president also texted supporters false allegations that he had been illegally spied on by the previous vice president .
( 3 ) The president also fired another independent inspector general without providing cause .
( 4 ) The official American death toll from COVID-19 inched close to 90,000 souls while the president spent his time live tweeting cable TV .
( 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large adult sons grotesquely suggested that Joe Biden is a “ pedophile.
” ( 6 ) Another of his large adult sons claimed that the virus was a hoax perpetrated by the left and the media and that it will disappear after the election .
But who could find the time to care about any of this when the Washington Post publishes a picture of Stacey Abrams in a cape .
# Capegate .
What an outrage .
Three and a half years into the Trump experiment , the president is still using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any one of his actions .
He veers from incident to incident—at any point in U.S. history , any of the above seven items would have been an all-encompassing scandal , a few could ’ ve been career enders .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s defenders run content farms of counter “ scandals ” which they litigate and re-litigate and then litigate some more .
Which has the effect of paralyzing the mainstream media , which has produced a great deal of good journalism , but has been unable to change its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , kabuki balance , and an evolutionary imperative for clicks .
The current conservative content farm “ scandal ” is “ Obamagate , ” in which Trump has fabricated an espionage claim against both his predecessor and general election opponent .
This “ scandal ” has been a public-private partnership , created both with the tools of the federal government as well as Trump ’ s campaign and its proxies in conservative media .
The very creation of this fake “ scandal ” is , as I wrote last week , being largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either think it too stupid to be taken seriously or don ’ t understand how the Department of Justice and director of National Intelligence are leveraging government assets in order to aid the president ’ s reelection campaign .
For those who have not followed it , the tl ; dr of what the government is doing is this : The Department of Justice has deputized U.S. Attorney John Durham to oversee a team of investigators aimed at looking into whether the Russia investigation was actually a Deep State plot .
Durham has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to scour the globe .
Meanwhile the acting director of National Intelligence , someone whose main experience for the job was pleasing President Trump with his aggressive trolling of reporters on Twitter , is selectively leaking innocuous intelligence gathering efforts in order to advance this conspiratorial narrative .
These leaks , in turn , are being driven by the Trump campaign .
On Saturday the president used the leads from the director of National Intelligence to advance an elaborate lie that accuses his opponent of committing illegal espionage against him .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used the leads from the director of National Intelligence to advance an elaborate lie that accuses his opponent of committing illegal espionage against him .
This is the most outrageous and pernicious lie that a president has levied against his opponent in my lifetime .
And despite the president himself elevating this lie on Saturday , it was not discussed on front pages across the country .
Forget front pages , it ’ s hard to find any article at all addressing the President ’ s insane charges .
Most coverage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not Obama and Biden did anything wrong—there is literally no evidence to suggest that they did—rather than focusing on how the Trump administration is guilty of weaponizing American intelligence agencies for political ends by perpetrating this falsehood .
Drawing historical analogies to Trump ’ s behavior is more or less impossible—there is no true analog .
The best I can do is this : Imagine if , in 2012 , President Obama had deputized a U.S. attorney to investigate claims that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush family , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ espionage against his campaign because the government was investigating the Tony Rezko scandal .
And that he somehow tied Mitt Romney to the fiction , too .
Set aside the fact that this would be Wuhan batshit level crazy that would have caused people to wonder if Obama was even mentally fit for office .
There is a 100 percent chance that these actions would have become the all-encompassing scandal for the rest of Obama ’ s administration .
Trump ’ s actions combine the politicization of intelligence , the misuse of tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phony investigation using the Department of Justice in order to advance the president ’ s reelection campaign .
And that ’ s just the nuts-and-bolts , the stuff you can probe with your hands .
The president has also created a propaganda campaign that will lead millions to believe that one party actively spied on the other , further tearing the fabric of our country in ways that won ’ t be repaired for a generation .
Or maybe ever .
And if that isn ’ t giving you cause for concern , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspectors general overseeing the departments most intertwined with his COVID-19 response and his “ Obamagate ” abuses .
The fired IGs include the State and Defense Departments , the pandemic response , and the intelligence community .
The only person in the Republican Senate majority who seems to give a damn about this is Mitt Romney .
And for good measure the president elevated an avowed white nationalist and Holocaust denier who proceeded to brag about how Trump is helping him get around deplatforming .
Put all this together with beyond the pale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump family went exponentially further than any previous president in eroding our norms rhetorical , political , and legal — and that was just one weekend .
Correction : An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Stacey Abrams is a former state senator , she is a former state representative .

The Washington Post published a picture of Stacey Abrams wearing a cape this weekend.
You may have seen it, since in certain corners of the conservative news media, this fawning coverage of the becaped former state representative and vice-presidential hopeful was the single most noteworthy piece of news from the weekend.
And I’d like to preface the impending rant by saying, for the record, that in the narrowest possible sense, these conservative media critics have a sliver of a point. It is true that the number of glowing profiles given over to a failed gubernatorial candidate and long-shot vice presidential contender is absurd. And yes, it is impossible to imagine a losing Republican candidate being given this sort of treatment.
And yes, it’s telling that the biggest media outlets are unable to have even a modicum of self-awareness in situations like this. I wish they would stop. (See also: Cuomo, Andrew).
But while the professional media critics, anti-anti-Trumpers, and assorted both-siders were obsessing over the Stacey Abrams Caped Crusader feature, there were some other things happening in the actual real world.
Here are some of them:
(1) The president of the United States quote-tweeted an avowed alt-right account that flirts with Holocaust denial,
(2) The president also texted supporters false allegations that he had been illegally spied on by the previous vice president.
(3) The president also fired another independent inspector general without providing cause.
(4) The official American death toll from COVID-19 inched close to 90,000 souls while the president spent his time live tweeting cable TV.
(5) One of the president’s large adult sons grotesquely suggested that Joe Biden is a “pedophile.”
(6) Another of his large adult sons claimed that the virus was a hoax perpetrated by the left and the media and that it will disappear after the election.
(7) The President sent a tweet encouraging protesters who aggressively shouted down and chased after a random local news reporter with calls of “you are the virus,” “traitor,” and “enemy of the people.” (Note: This was entry number seven because I even forgot about it until after writing the article because Trump does so much insane stuff every day)
But who could find the time to care about any of this when the Washington Post publishes a picture of Stacey Abrams in a cape. #Capegate. What an outrage.
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…
Three and a half years into the Trump experiment, the president is still using chaff to prevent people from zeroing in on any one of his actions. He veers from incident to incident—at any point in U.S. history, any of the above seven items would have been an all-encompassing scandal, a few could’ve been career enders. Meanwhile, Trump’s defenders run content farms of counter “scandals” which they litigate and re-litigate and then litigate some more. Which has the effect of paralyzing the mainstream media, which has produced a great deal of good journalism, but has been unable to change its fundamental priorities, which create recency bias, kabuki balance, and an evolutionary imperative for clicks.
The current conservative content farm “scandal” is “Obamagate,” in which Trump has fabricated an espionage claim against both his predecessor and general election opponent. This “scandal” has been a public-private partnership, created both with the tools of the federal government as well as Trump’s campaign and its proxies in conservative media.
The very creation of this fake “scandal” is, as I wrote last week, being largely treated as a sideshow by those who either think it too stupid to be taken seriously or don’t understand how the Department of Justice and director of National Intelligence are leveraging government assets in order to aid the president’s reelection campaign.
For those who have not followed it, the tl;dr of what the government is doing is this:
The Department of Justice has deputized U.S. Attorney John Durham to oversee a team of investigators aimed at looking into whether the Russia investigation was actually a Deep State plot. Durham has access to a grand jury and the resources to scour the globe. Meanwhile the acting director of National Intelligence, someone whose main experience for the job was pleasing President Trump with his aggressive trolling of reporters on Twitter, is selectively leaking innocuous intelligence gathering efforts in order to advance this conspiratorial narrative.
These leaks, in turn, are being driven by the Trump campaign. On Saturday the president used the leads from the director of National Intelligence to advance an elaborate lie that accuses his opponent of committing illegal espionage against him.
Just read that sentence again.
The president used the leads from the director of National Intelligence to advance an elaborate lie that accuses his opponent of committing illegal espionage against him.
This is the most outrageous and pernicious lie that a president has levied against his opponent in my lifetime.
And despite the president himself elevating this lie on Saturday, it was not discussed on front pages across the country. Forget front pages, it’s hard to find any article at all addressing the President’s insane charges.
Most coverage of the issue is framed around discussing whether or not Obama and Biden did anything wrong—there is literally no evidence to suggest that they did—rather than focusing on how the Trump administration is guilty of weaponizing American intelligence agencies for political ends by perpetrating this falsehood.
Drawing historical analogies to Trump’s behavior is more or less impossible—there is no true analog. The best I can do is this: Imagine if, in 2012, President Obama had deputized a U.S. attorney to investigate claims that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush family, while asserting that the GOP engaged in illegal espionage against his campaign because the government was investigating the Tony Rezko scandal. And that he somehow tied Mitt Romney to the fiction, too.
Set aside the fact that this would be Wuhan batshit level crazy that would have caused people to wonder if Obama was even mentally fit for office. There is a 100 percent chance that these actions would have become the all-encompassing scandal for the rest of Obama’s administration.
Trump’s actions combine the politicization of intelligence, the misuse of tax dollars, and the creation of a phony investigation using the Department of Justice in order to advance the president’s reelection campaign. And that’s just the nuts-and-bolts, the stuff you can probe with your hands. The president has also created a propaganda campaign that will lead millions to believe that one party actively spied on the other, further tearing the fabric of our country in ways that won’t be repaired for a generation. Or maybe ever.
And if that isn’t giving you cause for concern, the president has systematically fired the independent inspectors general overseeing the departments most intertwined with his COVID-19 response and his “Obamagate” abuses. The fired IGs include the State and Defense Departments, the pandemic response, and the intelligence community. The only person in the Republican Senate majority who seems to give a damn about this is Mitt Romney.
And for good measure the president elevated an avowed white nationalist and Holocaust denier who proceeded to brag about how Trump is helping him get around deplatforming.
Six months ago Michelle Malkin was “cancelled” because she refused to disavow me after I was blacklisted by Con Inc. Three months ago my 77k sub channel was banned from Youtube. Yesterday the President retweeted a video of Malkin posted by an America First clips channel. pic.twitter.com/8fPuDlGqSb — Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) May 17, 2020
Put all this together with beyond the pale defamation and the COVID lies and the Trump family went exponentially further than any previous president in eroding our norms rhetorical, political, and legal — and that was just one weekend.
But hey, don’t forget that cape pic.
***
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Stacey Abrams is a former state senator, she is a former state representative.


thebulwark--2020-05-18--A Picture Is Worth 100,000 Lives

A Picture Is Worth 100,000 Lives

“ A picture shows me at a glance what it takes dozens of pages of a book to expound , ” wrote Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev , in his 1862 classic Fathers and Sons .
But for some pictures , Turgenev might be undershooting the mark .
Select snapshots are worthy of hours of reflection ; others deserve volumes written about them .
One recent photo sums up not just America ’ s politics in 2020 , but its culture over the past decade .
On March 4 , a photographer caught Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz wearing a gas mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives .
In the photo , Gaetz is sitting alone , wearing the mask while scrolling through his phone .
Gaetz later tweeted a photo of himself wearing the gas mask while consulting with a staff member .
At the time , only 130 cases of COVID-19 had been identified in the United States , with 11 Americans having died from the virus .
Despite the warnings of the devastation the coronavirus could cause , Gaetz thought it was hilarious to mock people who were trying to sound the alarm about the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , this was back before Donald Trump was a wartime president , when he was still downplaying the threat from COVID-19 , dismissing the concerns of experts , and insisting that it would all go away on its own .
As Gaetz ’ s constituents panicked over the arrival of the deadly virus , their elected representative decided to carry Trump ’ s water by ridiculing the people who were trying to warn the public of the looming danger .
But , as we would soon find out , if idiocy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaetz ’ s butler .
Within days , Gaetz ’ s first constituent died of the disease .
Around the same time , Gaetz announced that he had been in contact with an attendee at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference and would be self-quarantining for 14 days .
Gaetz said his gas mask stunt was sincere .
That ’ s difficult to believe .
Had he been sincere he would have worn a surgical mask and gloves , not a contraption designed for chemical warfare .
And his outlandish behavior over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to grant him the benefit of the doubt .
After all , this is the same guy who invited a holocaust-denying white supremacist alt-right troll to the State of the Union speech .
The same guy who attempted to blackmail a witness before Congress in order to try to protect Trump .
And Gaetz is the guy who orchestrated a stunt during a presidential impeachment trial that compromised national security .
Remember last October when Gaetz and his fellow Republicans staged a “ sit-in ” at a secure hearing facility demanding Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing even when nearly 1-in-4 House Republicans were actually members of the Intelligence , Oversight or Foreign Affairs committees—all of which were allowed to take part in the impeachment inquiries ?
But Gaetz isn ’ t the whole story here .
In virus-speak , he is merely a symptom of how we got to a place in American politics where trolling has overtaken expertise and self-promotion has eclipsed competence .
People of the future who look back to the photo will see a political era when acting as a loathsome , self-aggrandizing grifter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within one ’ s party .
An era when no problems were addressed until they had spiralled out of control and seriousness and expertise were viewed with suspicion and contempt .
You can think of this era as America ’ s Golden Age of Anti-Knowledge .
And soon it will have cost upwards of 100,000 Americans their lives .
To paraphrase Trotsky , you may not be interested in the virus .
But the virus is interested in you .
Whatever happens next—with the pandemic , with Trumpism , with America—we will always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what this time in our lives was like : A time when toadies like Matt Gaetz tried to ignore mass death with sarcasm .
A time where we picked the leader of the free world not because we believed he could manage the ship of state in crisis , but because he seemed very forceful when he fired Meat Loaf that one time on his reality show .
News moves quickly these days , with each day ’ s ridiculous headlines supplanted by tomorrow ’ s even more absurd ones .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay with us for a very long time , an artifact reminding America how one man gleefully lowered himself to match the moment .

“A picture shows me at a glance what it takes dozens of pages of a book to expound,” wrote Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev, in his 1862 classic Fathers and Sons.
But for some pictures, Turgenev might be undershooting the mark. Select snapshots are worthy of hours of reflection; others deserve volumes written about them. One recent photo sums up not just America’s politics in 2020, but its culture over the past decade.
On March 4, a photographer caught Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz wearing a gas mask on the floor of the House of Representatives. In the photo, Gaetz is sitting alone, wearing the mask while scrolling through his phone.
Gaetz later tweeted a photo of himself wearing the gas mask while consulting with a staff member.
At the time, only 130 cases of COVID-19 had been identified in the United States, with 11 Americans having died from the virus.
Despite the warnings of the devastation the coronavirus could cause, Gaetz thought it was hilarious to mock people who were trying to sound the alarm about the virus by wearing a full-face gas mask. After all, this was back before Donald Trump was a wartime president, when he was still downplaying the threat from COVID-19, dismissing the concerns of experts, and insisting that it would all go away on its own. As Gaetz’s constituents panicked over the arrival of the deadly virus, their elected representative decided to carry Trump’s water by ridiculing the people who were trying to warn the public of the looming danger.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But, as we would soon find out, if idiocy were currency, Jeff Bezos would be Gaetz’s butler.
Within days, Gaetz’s first constituent died of the disease. Around the same time, Gaetz announced that he had been in contact with an attendee at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference and would be self-quarantining for 14 days.
Gaetz said his gas mask stunt was sincere. That’s difficult to believe. Had he been sincere he would have worn a surgical mask and gloves, not a contraption designed for chemical warfare. And his outlandish behavior over the years suggests that there’s no reason to grant him the benefit of the doubt. After all, this is the same guy who invited a holocaust-denying white supremacist alt-right troll to the State of the Union speech. The same guy who attempted to blackmail a witness before Congress in order to try to protect Trump.
And Gaetz is the guy who orchestrated a stunt during a presidential impeachment trial that compromised national security. Remember last October when Gaetz and his fellow Republicans staged a “sit-in” at a secure hearing facility demanding Republicans be allowed to take part in the hearing even when nearly 1-in-4 House Republicans were actually members of the Intelligence, Oversight or Foreign Affairs committees—all of which were allowed to take part in the impeachment inquiries?
But Gaetz isn’t the whole story here. In virus-speak, he is merely a symptom of how we got to a place in American politics where trolling has overtaken expertise and self-promotion has eclipsed competence.
People of the future who look back to the photo will see a political era when acting as a loathsome, self-aggrandizing grifter was the quickest way to earn credibility within one’s party. An era when no problems were addressed until they had spiralled out of control and seriousness and expertise were viewed with suspicion and contempt.
You can think of this era as America’s Golden Age of Anti-Knowledge. And soon it will have cost upwards of 100,000 Americans their lives.
To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in the virus. But the virus is interested in you.
Whatever happens next—with the pandemic, with Trumpism, with America—we will always have that photo to remind us of exactly what this time in our lives was like: A time when toadies like Matt Gaetz tried to ignore mass death with sarcasm. A time where we picked the leader of the free world not because we believed he could manage the ship of state in crisis, but because he seemed very forceful when he fired Meat Loaf that one time on his reality show.
News moves quickly these days, with each day’s ridiculous headlines supplanted by tomorrow’s even more absurd ones.
But Gaetz’s gas mask photo should stay with us for a very long time, an artifact reminding America how one man gleefully lowered himself to match the moment.