thebulwark--2020-07-10--Democracy Is No Game

Democracy Is No Game

The country is burning , literally and figuratively , torn apart first by a deadly virus and then by protests and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd at the knee of a police officer in Minneapolis .
It may not seem like the ideal moment in American history to talk about reforming the American political system , but it is imperative to do so .
The public response to the crises confronting us , nationally and locally , has exposed the deep dysfunction of American politics .
Partisanship infects everything , pushing every politician and citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be only one side—the American side .
Playing politics with medicine or with face masks during a pandemic should be the lowest possible point , a sign that we ’ ve badly lost our way .
Shouldn ’ t everyone be in favor of better science and protocols for fighting COVID-19 ?
Of more humane policing and less violence in the streets ?
Of course , everyone says they want those things , but too many are unwilling to compromise in any way to get them .
Compromise today is seen as weakness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferable to getting something done if progress requires any concessions to the other side .
The volume of the national conversation has been raised to a shouting contest .
Elections come only every few years , but Twitter is all day , every day .
In this battle for attention , holding the most extreme position and using the most outrageous rhetoric is often the winning play .
The current president is the most obvious example of the triumph of this method and Trump ’ s victory in 2016 was both a symptom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is to come if the system is not reformed .
When you are dealing with multiple crises , each demanding your full attention , it is hard to focus on the underlying causes .
However , if you don ’ t make the time to address the cause , you will eventually be overwhelmed by the effects .
You must prioritize strategic planning , the future impact of your current decisions .
The two of us came to our models of strategic thought from very different games , poker and chess .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds , to manage risk in an uncertain environment with hidden cards and bluffing opponents .
Chess involves precise calculation and deep preparation , with all the information available to both players at all times .
Reaching the championship level at both games requires planning and the ability to adapt over time .
Even if you have great success at first , if you don ’ t keep improving and changing , your rivals will find and exploit the holes in your game .
Any static system eventually becomes an easy target .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Initiative , we hope to apply our strategic insight to helping the United States go on a winning streak .
You might say that the political system is too important to take risks , but the challenge is actually the opposite .
The situation is too dire for us to just hope the cards will go our way .
The stakes are too high not to risk change .
Yet few want to be held responsible for veering from the status quo and failing , preferring instead to ensure failure by not trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be risk-takers , disruptors , and innovators , and it is past time to put that to the test and drag a stagnant system into the modern age .
An increasing number of Americans doubt the fairness of their elections and the honesty of their representatives .
Those doubts corrode participation , creating a downward spiral of apathy and corruption .
At RDI , we focus on the importance of an engaged and informed citizenry , but the political system must reward that engagement .
Proposals to achieve this should include : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity ( including vote by mail ) • Binding disclosure and divestment laws for candidates and elected officials Partisanship and gerrymandering have handed the reins over to radicals and incompetents .
Candidates do not fear a challenge from the center , only from even more extreme elements of their own party .
The Electoral College twists the will of the people into strange shapes , a form of gerrymandering on the national level .
The recent Supreme Court decision permitting states to punish rogue electors makes reform even more essential .
A nationwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any politician who is against making it easier for more people to vote and for more votes to matter .
The clear and present danger of foreign interference make it more important than ever to have complete financial transparency by campaigns and candidates .
When the Supreme Court decided that campaign spending was a form of speech , they didn ’ t have Vladimir Putin ’ s money in mind .
There must be full disclosure and divestment by our politicians , or we ’ ll move ever closer to an oligarchy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anonymous voting is sacrosanct , but anonymous money and potential conflicts of interest become a cancer .
As with the voting system , the possibility of abuse and the resulting erosion of trust can be as damaging as the abuse itself .
We have to commit for the long haul .
In one game of chess , in one hand of poker , there is far more chance involved than in a long series .
Greatness requires patience .
It ’ s easy for demagogues to promise quick and easy answers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the hard work that real solutions require .
The stakes in this challenge to safeguard our democracy are far higher than in any game .
People are not chess pawns or poker chips .
We must listen to each other , listen to reason , and be unafraid of taking the risks required to make America into a better country for all .

The country is burning, literally and figuratively, torn apart first by a deadly virus and then by protests and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd at the knee of a police officer in Minneapolis. It may not seem like the ideal moment in American history to talk about reforming the American political system, but it is imperative to do so.
The public response to the crises confronting us, nationally and locally, has exposed the deep dysfunction of American politics. Partisanship infects everything, pushing every politician and citizen to pick a side when there should be only one side—the American side. Playing politics with medicine or with face masks during a pandemic should be the lowest possible point, a sign that we’ve badly lost our way.
Shouldn’t everyone be in favor of better science and protocols for fighting COVID-19? Of more humane policing and less violence in the streets? Of course, everyone says they want those things, but too many are unwilling to compromise in any way to get them.
Compromise today is seen as weakness. Getting nothing done is seen as preferable to getting something done if progress requires any concessions to the other side. The volume of the national conversation has been raised to a shouting contest. Elections come only every few years, but Twitter is all day, every day.
In this battle for attention, holding the most extreme position and using the most outrageous rhetoric is often the winning play. The current president is the most obvious example of the triumph of this method and Trump’s victory in 2016 was both a symptom of the problem and a warning of what is to come if the system is not reformed.
When you are dealing with multiple crises, each demanding your full attention, it is hard to focus on the underlying causes. However, if you don’t make the time to address the cause, you will eventually be overwhelmed by the effects. You must prioritize strategic planning, the future impact of your current decisions.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The two of us came to our models of strategic thought from very different games, poker and chess. Poker rewards the ability to play the odds, to manage risk in an uncertain environment with hidden cards and bluffing opponents. Chess involves precise calculation and deep preparation, with all the information available to both players at all times.
Reaching the championship level at both games requires planning and the ability to adapt over time. Even if you have great success at first, if you don’t keep improving and changing, your rivals will find and exploit the holes in your game. Any static system eventually becomes an easy target. As board members at the Renew Democracy Initiative, we hope to apply our strategic insight to helping the United States go on a winning streak.
You might say that the political system is too important to take risks, but the challenge is actually the opposite. The situation is too dire for us to just hope the cards will go our way. The stakes are too high not to risk change. Yet few want to be held responsible for veering from the status quo and failing, preferring instead to ensure failure by not trying at all. Americans fancy themselves to be risk-takers, disruptors, and innovators, and it is past time to put that to the test and drag a stagnant system into the modern age.
An increasing number of Americans doubt the fairness of their elections and the honesty of their representatives. Those doubts corrode participation, creating a downward spiral of apathy and corruption. At RDI, we focus on the importance of an engaged and informed citizenry, but the political system must reward that engagement. Proposals to achieve this should include:
A form of national popular vote for president
Guarantees of voter access and voting system integrity (including vote by mail)
Stricter regulations for campaign finance transparency
Binding disclosure and divestment laws for candidates and elected officials
Partisanship and gerrymandering have handed the reins over to radicals and incompetents. Candidates do not fear a challenge from the center, only from even more extreme elements of their own party. The Electoral College twists the will of the people into strange shapes, a form of gerrymandering on the national level. The recent Supreme Court decision permitting states to punish rogue electors makes reform even more essential. A nationwide vote is now easy to do—and beware any politician who is against making it easier for more people to vote and for more votes to matter.
The clear and present danger of foreign interference make it more important than ever to have complete financial transparency by campaigns and candidates. When the Supreme Court decided that campaign spending was a form of speech, they didn’t have Vladimir Putin’s money in mind.
There must be full disclosure and divestment by our politicians, or we’ll move ever closer to an oligarchy, where public policy is for private gain. Anonymous voting is sacrosanct, but anonymous money and potential conflicts of interest become a cancer. As with the voting system, the possibility of abuse and the resulting erosion of trust can be as damaging as the abuse itself.
We have to commit for the long haul. In one game of chess, in one hand of poker, there is far more chance involved than in a long series. Greatness requires patience. It’s easy for demagogues to promise quick and easy answers to complex problems if we lose our appetite for the hard work that real solutions require.
The stakes in this challenge to safeguard our democracy are far higher than in any game. People are not chess pawns or poker chips. We must listen to each other, listen to reason, and be unafraid of taking the risks required to make America into a better country for all.


thebulwark--2020-07-11--Trump’s Tax-Case Loss Is a Victory for the Rule of Law

This week ’ s Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance is a reminder that two institutions of government are especially critical for surviving Trumpian chaos and corruption : the states and the courts .
In Vance , the Court decided 7-2 to enforce a grand jury subpoena issued by the New York County District Attorney ’ s Office on the personal accounting firm of Donald Trump .
Recall that internal Department of Justice guidance dating back to the Nixon White House forbids federal prosecutors from indicting sitting presidents , which means that the only criminal accountability for hypothetical presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
New York County D.A .
Cyrus Vance hasn ’ t shied away from investigating Trump ’ s excesses , despite the political risks to his elected position .
In an interview with the Washington Post last year , he explained : “ We have to be able to fill the gaps when the FBI can ’ t or won ’ t take these cases.
” In a companion case , Trump v. Mazars , the same majority upheld Congress ’ s constitutional right to subpoena the same accounting firm and two banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the lower court to apply a new standard the Court set forth for testing the propriety of congressional subpoenas .
What ’ s ironic about Mazars is that the Republican-controlled Senate ’ s acquittal of Donald Trump on the obstruction of Congress impeachment charge greenlighted presidential nose-thumbing at congressional subpoenas going forward .
The Supreme Court put that tool back in the congressional toolbox—a gift of the Article III branch of government to an Article I branch that has been shamefully beholden , on balance , to the current bully-in-chief .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Senate majority have refused outright to hold the president accountable for violations of the rule the law , the states and the courts have not .
This is a victory for the Constitution and democracy itself in the United States .
In establishing a divided government with power lodged in separate sovereigns—the federal government and the states—and by giving federal judges life tenure that enables them to rule on the facts and the law without fear of political retribution , the Constitution ’ s Framers were certainly onto something .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts have become for purposes of protecting the very structure of government by “ We the People , ” one need only look at the dissenting opinions in Vance , which appear deeply out of touch with the dark realities of the Trump era—almost naïvely so .
The Constitution entrusts the President with responsibilities that are essential to the country ’ s safety and well- being .
The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces .
.
.
.
He is responsible for the defense of the country from the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves .
.
.
The President also has the lead role in foreign relations .
.
.
.
As the head of the Executive Branch , the President is ultimately responsible for everything done by all the departments and agencies of the Federal Government and a federal civilian work force that includes millions of employees .
.
.
.
Without a President who is able at all times to carry out the responsibilities of the office , our constitutional system could not operate , and the country would be at risk .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ entrusted the weighty decision whether to remove a President to a supermajority of Senators , who were expected to exercise reasoned judgment and not the political passions of the day or the sentiments of a particular region .
In light of current events , it ’ s hard to read these words from a Supreme Court justice and keep one ’ s jaw off of the floor .
Trump just pulled out of the World Health Organization in the midst of a global pandemic that has already claimed 134,000 American lives , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not only is there no coherent national response in the United States—unlike across the rest of the world—but Trump has repeatedly worked against epidemiologists and science to pretend that the virus isn ’ t real and coax his followers to reject basic precautions , like social distancing and wearing masks .
As commander-in-chief , he has done nothing about recent reports that his buddy Vladimir Putin paid Taliban militants to murder American soldiers .
Instead , for nearly four straight years , he has insulted and alienated our allies and courted our enemies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point on it , but you can ’ t make this stuff up .
Justice Alito is apparently living in an altered state of reality—a very pleasant one in which Trump hasn ’ t been elected , as if we were living in the pre-Trump years instead of our present dystopia .
If the producers of Game of Thrones wanted to make a ninth season , they they would have plenty of material to work with from the real-life Trump White House .
What Alito ignores is that his platonic ideals for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president can legally take an action—the “ can he do this ?
” question—boils down to consequences .
Rules are good so only as they are enforced .
With Trump , the answer to the “ can he do this ?
” question is that it ’ s the wrong question .
The correct question is , when he does that horrible thing , what is the consequence ?
If there is no consequence , then the answer to the first question is yes .
Not because it ’ s legal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule in the breach .
With the Vance and Mazars cases , the Supreme Court reminded the world that there remain a few cops patrolling the Constitution beat that Trump can not berate into submission : the federal courts and the states .
That is something to be hopeful about .

This week’s Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance is a reminder that two institutions of government are especially critical for surviving Trumpian chaos and corruption: the states and the courts.
In Vance, the Court decided 7-2 to enforce a grand jury subpoena issued by the New York County District Attorney’s Office on the personal accounting firm of Donald Trump. Recall that internal Department of Justice guidance dating back to the Nixon White House forbids federal prosecutors from indicting sitting presidents, which means that the only criminal accountability for hypothetical presidential felons must come—if at all—from the states. New York County D.A. Cyrus Vance hasn’t shied away from investigating Trump’s excesses, despite the political risks to his elected position. In an interview with the Washington Post last year, he explained: “We have to be able to fill the gaps when the FBI can’t or won’t take these cases.”
In a companion case, Trump v. Mazars, the same majority upheld Congress’s constitutional right to subpoena the same accounting firm and two banks for records, but sent the matter back to the lower court to apply a new standard the Court set forth for testing the propriety of congressional subpoenas. What’s ironic about Mazars is that the Republican-controlled Senate’s acquittal of Donald Trump on the obstruction of Congress impeachment charge greenlighted presidential nose-thumbing at congressional subpoenas going forward. The Supreme Court put that tool back in the congressional toolbox—a gift of the Article III branch of government to an Article I branch that has been shamefully beholden, on balance, to the current bully-in-chief.
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, where the Department of Justice and the Senate majority have refused outright to hold the president accountable for violations of the rule the law, the states and the courts have not. This is a victory for the Constitution and democracy itself in the United States. In establishing a divided government with power lodged in separate sovereigns—the federal government and the states—and by giving federal judges life tenure that enables them to rule on the facts and the law without fear of political retribution, the Constitution’s Framers were certainly onto something.
To understand how critical the states and the courts have become for purposes of protecting the very structure of government by “We the People,” one need only look at the dissenting opinions in Vance, which appear deeply out of touch with the dark realities of the Trump era—almost naïvely so.
Here’s Justice Alito:
The Constitution entrusts the President with responsibilities that are essential to the country’s safety and well- being. The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. . . . He is responsible for the defense of the country from the moment he enters office until the moment he leaves. . . The President also has the lead role in foreign relations. . . . As the head of the Executive Branch, the President is ultimately responsible for everything done by all the departments and agencies of the Federal Government and a federal civilian work force that includes millions of employees. . . . Without a President who is able at all times to carry out the responsibilities of the office, our constitutional system could not operate, and the country would be at risk. . . . The Framers . . . entrusted the weighty decision whether to remove a President to a supermajority of Senators, who were expected to exercise reasoned judgment and not the political passions of the day or the sentiments of a particular region.
In light of current events, it’s hard to read these words from a Supreme Court justice and keep one’s jaw off of the floor. Trump just pulled out of the World Health Organization in the midst of a global pandemic that has already claimed 134,000 American lives, with 3.1 million confirmed cases and climbing. Not only is there no coherent national response in the United States—unlike across the rest of the world—but Trump has repeatedly worked against epidemiologists and science to pretend that the virus isn’t real and coax his followers to reject basic precautions, like social distancing and wearing masks. As commander-in-chief, he has done nothing about recent reports that his buddy Vladimir Putin paid Taliban militants to murder American soldiers. Instead, for nearly four straight years, he has insulted and alienated our allies and courted our enemies.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can’t make this stuff up. Justice Alito is apparently living in an altered state of reality—a very pleasant one in which Trump hasn’t been elected, as if we were living in the pre-Trump years instead of our present dystopia. If the producers of Game of Thrones wanted to make a ninth season, they they would have plenty of material to work with from the real-life Trump White House.
What Alito ignores is that his platonic ideals for the presidency mean nothing without accountability. Whether a president can legally take an action—the “can he do this?” question—boils down to consequences. Rules are good so only as they are enforced. With Trump, the answer to the “can he do this?” question is that it’s the wrong question. The correct question is, when he does that horrible thing, what is the consequence? If there is no consequence, then the answer to the first question is yes. Not because it’s legal, but because nobody is willing to enforce the rule in the breach.
With the Vance and Mazars cases, the Supreme Court reminded the world that there remain a few cops patrolling the Constitution beat that Trump cannot berate into submission: the federal courts and the states. That is something to be hopeful about.


The Filthy Air

Of course Donald Trump would have preferred to wait until November 3 to commute Roger Stone ’ s sentence .
But Stone had let it be known that he might talk if he had to set foot in prison for even a short time .
And so he received his get out of jail card on July 10 , four days before he was to report to the federal penitentiary .
Stone lied under oath , was convicted by a jury of his peers , was sentenced by a judge—and will never serve a day in prison .
Two days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vindman retired from the U.S. Army , under assault from Donald Trump and his supporters , with the prospect of an uncertain future in the Army because his superiors were not willing or able unambiguously to stand up to Donald Trump .
So Trump ’ s desire for revenge against a military officer who had served his country honorably and who had testified truthfully , under oath , to Congress , went unchecked .
Stone freed , and Vindman bullied .
That is Donald Trump ’ s America , where And yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still have judgment here.
” The people will make a judgment on November 3 .
But in between election days the people judge through their representatives .
The president is their foremost representative and there is no recourse or solace to be found there .
But there are other representatives , who now sit in a co-equal branch of government .
It is true they can do little to contravene the president ’ s use of a power that is his , and his alone .
But the people ’ s representatives need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be .
But what of Republicans ?
Will they cower ?
Probably .
Or will some—a few , a happy few—step forth now , in light of this extraordinarily corrupt exercise of presidential power , and say : No second term for this president .
Will some elected Republicans make clear that Donald Trump ’ s America is not their America , not our America , nor the America of patriots , not the America of our future ?
A healthy Republican party would feature dozens of members of Congress stepping forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all , not most , but six—not a negligible portion—of the seventeen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 voted for an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon that included the charge of Republicans had their chance a few months ago to vote to impeach , and then convict , Donald Trump .
With one ( one ! )
honorable exception , they chose not to stand up for the rule of law .
Now Trump has carried through on promises even Nixon never had the nerve or opportunity to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon ever did .
Will no elected Republican now stand up and say to the president : You chose Stone ; I choose Biden .

Of course Donald Trump would have preferred to wait until November 3 to commute Roger Stone’s sentence. But Stone had let it be known that he might talk if he had to set foot in prison for even a short time. And so he received his get out of jail card on July 10, four days before he was to report to the federal penitentiary.
Stone lied under oath, was convicted by a jury of his peers, was sentenced by a judge—and will never serve a day in prison.
Two days before this event, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman retired from the U.S. Army, under assault from Donald Trump and his supporters, with the prospect of an uncertain future in the Army because his superiors were not willing or able unambiguously to stand up to Donald Trump. So Trump’s desire for revenge against a military officer who had served his country honorably and who had testified truthfully, under oath, to Congress, went unchecked.
Stone freed, and Vindman bullied. That is Donald Trump’s America, where
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.
And yet. To return to Macbeth, “we still have judgment here.”
The people will make a judgment on November 3.
But in between election days the people judge through their representatives. The president is their foremost representative and there is no recourse or solace to be found there. But there are other representatives, who now sit in a co-equal branch of government.
It is true they can do little to contravene the president’s use of a power that is his, and his alone.
But the people’s representatives need not be mute.
Democrats certainly will not be.
But what of Republicans?
Will they cower? Probably.
Or will some—a few, a happy few—step forth now, in light of this extraordinarily corrupt exercise of presidential power, and say: No second term for this president.
Will some elected Republicans make clear that Donald Trump’s America is not their America, not our America, nor the America of patriots, not the America of our future?
A healthy Republican party would feature dozens of members of Congress stepping forward to say this. After all, not all, not most, but six—not a negligible portion—of the seventeen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 voted for an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon that included the charge of
[E]ndeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
Republicans had their chance a few months ago to vote to impeach, and then convict, Donald Trump. With one (one!) honorable exception, they chose not to stand up for the rule of law. Now Trump has carried through on promises even Nixon never had the nerve or opportunity to carry out.
Trump has gone further than Nixon ever did. Will no elected Republican now stand up and say to the president: You chose Stone; I choose Biden.


thebulwark--2020-07-12--The Neoprogressive Moment and What to Do With It

What happens after Trump ?
There are a number of possibilities , some more likely than others .
In the near term , these will be determined by the outcome of November 3 .
If Trump wins , we move to one universe of outcomes .
If he loses , we move to another .
And if he is defeated decisively , with Democrats also holding the House and capturing the Senate , we then move to a third universe .
This last set of outcomes is the most interesting to contemplate because it offers the largest number of chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political system .
Because a realigning election is one thing , but a realignment taking place in reaction against a sitting president is something that happens once or twice in a lifetime .
What could America do with such a realigned government ?
Political conditions of the last half century have made non-incremental forms of political change nearly impossible .
( We ’ ll get to this in a moment . )
But full control of the White House and Congress would offer the chance to implement constitutional and policy reforms that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class and destroy any remaining vestiges of Trumpism among Republicans and the nation at large .
So if governmental syzygy is achieved , we should think big .
Really big .
What we should hope and work for is an episode of change on a level with the Progressive Era , which brought American government into the modern age .
We need a Neoprogressive Era that will bring American government into the postmodern age .
Think about it this way : The upheavals of the Sixties threw many moderate liberals into the arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lasting center-right coalition .
Well , today the Trump disaster is pushing many moderate conservatives into the arms of the Democratic party and creating neoprogressives .
And these groups , too , could create a lasting coalition .
But in such a moment of political syzygy , long-delayed , non-incremental reforms would be possible .
And this is where the real change would have to happen in order to bring along the Trump constituency .
Such synergy can redistribute resources to those who have lost out in the processes of globalization and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a key constituency for Trump and addressing their legitimate grievances is a necessary , though not sufficient , condition for dismantling Trumpism for good .
Because our American system is no longer capable of non-incremental change .
America ’ s interest-group politics has obvious collective action problems .
Because no one faction is concerned with any interest except its own , our system has trouble generating public goods .
• The exploitation of large , unorganized interests by narrow , better organized ones • Difficulty in redistributing the results of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of creative destruction and globalization • And inept responses to public health dangers , such as pandemics To some degree these problems are the byproduct of good things , such as our pluralistic politics and the Constitution .
But they are problems nonetheless and can not be addressed by incremental changes such as tweaking current legislation or passing new legislation that is marginally better .
So how do we do better ?
The most obvious route large-scale change has historically been been bipartisan cooperation .
But the sorting out of the political parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created enough polarization that this approach may no longer be realistic .
Another approach is the idea-based/entrepreneurial model , which depends on the development of a consensus of expert opinion on a thorny policy problem ( such as pollution , tax , or welfare reform ) .
Building consensus can take decades , but when it crystalizes , policy entrepreneurs put it to good use .
Their task is to translate the expert consensus into a public idea for use by non-experts in a way that remains faithful to the original insight .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean air , ” or “ end welfare as we know it , ” are examples of public ideas that created a climate of opinion in favor of change that became powerful enough to create their own coalitions to secure passage .
The idea-based/entrepreneurial model was effective from the early ’ 70s through the late ’ 90s , but has been less so since the turn of the millennium .
It depended on the development of an expert consensus that all parties respected .
But the rise of the internet has meant the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus much harder to develop or popularly leverage even if it finally crystalizes .
So the mechanism that is most amenable to non-incremental change would be a realigning election that ushers in a period of unified government .
We can call this the presidential/majoritarian model .
And we might well see it as the last arrow in America ’ s constitutional quiver for producing big change .
And if a Democratic landslide did produce a moment of institutional unity ?
What should be done with it ?
I would argue that we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our political institutions for collective action through constitutional reform .
There is a long list of proposed constitutional amendments waiting for their chance , ranging from the elimination of the Electoral College to an amendment that would allow the president to submit a legislative agenda directly to Congress , which would be required promptly to vote the entire package up or down , without amendments , on a strict majoritarian basis .
But if we ’ re going to go the difficult route of amending the Constitution , the change ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which changes the amendment process itself .
This idea has , in various ways , already been incorporated into most state constitutions and therefore received ample road testing .
The Article V process for amending the Constitution is notoriously daunting , and far more difficult than the amendment process of any other liberal democracy .
Why do we assume that this is the optimal design ?
State constitutions are vastly more malleable than the federal Constitution .
Our federal Constitution has been amended only 27 times—the first 10 being immediately passed as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states still have their original constitutions .
Most states have adopted three or more constitutions .
In total , the states have held over 230 constitutional conventions , adopted 146 constitutions , and added over 5,000 amendments .
The constitutions of 14 states require that the question of whether to call a constitutional convention be periodically referred to a statewide ballot .
Thus most state constitutions have amendment provisions that are vastly less daunting than Article V. We could seek to make such periodic review possible at the federal level .
Given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the great store of plausible reforms extensively tested at the state level , more constitutional experimentation at the federal level seems highly desirable .
Florida ’ s system of convoking a commission of constitutional revision every 20 years is exemplary .
Commission members are appointed by state-wide officials and submit proposed amendments directly to the voters for approval .
But even a commission process that referred proposed changes to the states rather than the electorate would be an improvement over current practice which , as a practical matter , amounts to a near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
This election may provide a political window of opportunity for non-incremental change that could easily include constitutional reform .
A realigning election , united government , and the abundance of analogous practices at the state level , could make it plausible that a constitutional commission amendment could overcome the obstacle course created by Amendment V. If the window of opportunity provided by a moment of syzygy can be leveraged to address the structural barriers to collective action , a new era in American politics will open up , one in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much reduced .

What happens after Trump?
There are a number of possibilities, some more likely than others. In the near term, these will be determined by the outcome of November 3. If Trump wins, we move to one universe of outcomes. If he loses, we move to another. And if he is defeated decisively, with Democrats also holding the House and capturing the Senate, we then move to a third universe.
This last set of outcomes is the most interesting to contemplate because it offers the largest number of chances for substantive change in America’s political system. Because a realigning election is one thing, but a realignment taking place in reaction against a sitting president is something that happens once or twice in a lifetime.
What could America do with such a realigned government? Political conditions of the last half century have made non-incremental forms of political change nearly impossible. (We’ll get to this in a moment.) But full control of the White House and Congress would offer the chance to implement constitutional and policy reforms that could make substantial changes for the white working class and destroy any remaining vestiges of Trumpism among Republicans and the nation at large.
So if governmental syzygy is achieved, we should think big. Really big. What we should hope and work for is an episode of change on a level with the Progressive Era, which brought American government into the modern age. We need a Neoprogressive Era that will bring American government into the postmodern age. Think about it this way: The upheavals of the Sixties threw many moderate liberals into the arms of the Republicans, creating neoconservatives and a lasting center-right coalition. Well, today the Trump disaster is pushing many moderate conservatives into the arms of the Democratic party and creating neoprogressives. And these groups, too, could create a lasting coalition.
But in such a moment of political syzygy, long-delayed, non-incremental reforms would be possible. And this is where the real change would have to happen in order to bring along the Trump constituency. Such synergy can redistribute resources to those who have lost out in the processes of globalization and capitalist creative destruction.
These left-behind Americans have been a key constituency for Trump and addressing their legitimate grievances is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for dismantling Trumpism for good.
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…
Why is a neoprogressive moment needed?
Because our American system is no longer capable of non-incremental change.
America’s interest-group politics has obvious collective action problems. Because no one faction is concerned with any interest except its own, our system has trouble generating public goods.
We face:
The exploitation of large, unorganized interests by narrow, better organized ones
Difficulty in redistributing the results of economic growth
Increased economic inequality
Weakness in creating public goods
Ineffective responses to the dislocations of creative destruction and globalization
And inept responses to public health dangers, such as pandemics
To some degree these problems are the byproduct of good things, such as our pluralistic politics and the Constitution. But they are problems nonetheless and cannot be addressed by incremental changes such as tweaking current legislation or passing new legislation that is marginally better.
So how do we do better?
The most obvious route large-scale change has historically been been bipartisan cooperation. But the sorting out of the political parties into relatively uniform organs of ideological movements created enough polarization that this approach may no longer be realistic.
Another approach is the idea-based/entrepreneurial model, which depends on the development of a consensus of expert opinion on a thorny policy problem (such as pollution, tax, or welfare reform). Building consensus can take decades, but when it crystalizes, policy entrepreneurs put it to good use. Their task is to translate the expert consensus into a public idea for use by non-experts in a way that remains faithful to the original insight. Phrases such as “the right to clean air,” or “end welfare as we know it,” are examples of public ideas that created a climate of opinion in favor of change that became powerful enough to create their own coalitions to secure passage.
The idea-based/entrepreneurial model was effective from the early ’70s through the late ’90s, but has been less so since the turn of the millennium. It depended on the development of an expert consensus that all parties respected. But the rise of the internet has meant the death of expertise, making an authoritative consensus much harder to develop or popularly leverage even if it finally crystalizes.
So the mechanism that is most amenable to non-incremental change would be a realigning election that ushers in a period of unified government. We can call this the presidential/majoritarian model. And we might well see it as the last arrow in America’s constitutional quiver for producing big change.
And if a Democratic landslide did produce a moment of institutional unity? What should be done with it? I would argue that we should focus our energies on improving the capacity of our political institutions for collective action through constitutional reform.
There is a long list of proposed constitutional amendments waiting for their chance, ranging from the elimination of the Electoral College to an amendment that would allow the president to submit a legislative agenda directly to Congress, which would be required promptly to vote the entire package up or down, without amendments, on a strict majoritarian basis.
But if we’re going to go the difficult route of amending the Constitution, the change ought to be even more fundamental: an amendment which changes the amendment process itself.
This idea has, in various ways, already been incorporated into most state constitutions and therefore received ample road testing. The Article V process for amending the Constitution is notoriously daunting, and far more difficult than the amendment process of any other liberal democracy. Why do we assume that this is the optimal design?
State constitutions are vastly more malleable than the federal Constitution. Our federal Constitution has been amended only 27 times—the first 10 being immediately passed as the Bill of Rights—yet only 19 of the states still have their original constitutions. Most states have adopted three or more constitutions. In total, the states have held over 230 constitutional conventions, adopted 146 constitutions, and added over 5,000 amendments.
The constitutions of 14 states require that the question of whether to call a constitutional convention be periodically referred to a statewide ballot. Thus most state constitutions have amendment provisions that are vastly less daunting than Article V.
We could seek to make such periodic review possible at the federal level.
Given the extraordinary stasis of our federal Constitution and the great store of plausible reforms extensively tested at the state level, more constitutional experimentation at the federal level seems highly desirable.
Florida’s system of convoking a commission of constitutional revision every 20 years is exemplary. Commission members are appointed by state-wide officials and submit proposed amendments directly to the voters for approval. But even a commission process that referred proposed changes to the states rather than the electorate would be an improvement over current practice which, as a practical matter, amounts to a near ban on any significant constitutional change at all.
This election may provide a political window of opportunity for non-incremental change that could easily include constitutional reform. A realigning election, united government, and the abundance of analogous practices at the state level, could make it plausible that a constitutional commission amendment could overcome the obstacle course created by Amendment V.
If the window of opportunity provided by a moment of syzygy can be leveraged to address the structural barriers to collective action, a new era in American politics will open up, one in which the constraints on effective government action will be much reduced.


thebulwark--2020-07-13--Is the U.S. Covertly Attacking Iran?

Is the U.S. Covertly Attacking Iran?

On Friday , an explosion lit up Tehran ’ s early morning skies—the third such huge explosion in Iran in three weeks .
Many details about the explosions remain unconfirmed , but the smart money is betting on the Mossad and maybe the CIA .
The exact location of the Friday blast remains undisclosed , but analysts quoted in the New York Times reveal that in the vicinity of the explosion—roughly 15 miles from the iconic Azadi Square in Tehran—there are several facilities for military training and two for military production , one of which is suspected to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous blasts , the first was before sunrise on June 26 at the Parchin missile base near Tehran .
The second , on the morning of July 2 , occurred about 130 miles to the south , at the Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province—a site that the United States had previously attacked a decade ago via the “ Stuxnet ” cyber offensive .
At each turn , state media and government officials in Iran have made contradictory statements , including outright denial of the explosions visible in videos circulating on social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground and satellite photos showing it .
If you find it hard to believe that all these explosions are just coincidences , you ’ ve got good instincts : As the New York Times reported last week , they apparently are the result of joint U.S.-Israeli operations designed to set back Iran ’ s nuclear and military programs .
They come following Iran ’ s lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) , which passed a resolution last month calling out Iran on this problem .
Following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran nuclear deal ( the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , or JCPOA ) and imposition of sanctions on Iran , Iran has expanded its nuclear activities beyond the terms of the JCPOA .
It is important to point out that , despite the U.S. withdrawal , Iran remains a party to the agreement and bound by its terms .
( The United States , as long as it was a party to the agreement , didn ’ t violate its terms . )
Iran ’ s violations , while not exactly surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli officials , but also the three European signatories to the JCPOA ( France , Germany , and the United Kingdom ) , whose governments called for the IAEA resolution .
Iran seems to be banking on a Joe Biden victory in November .
After all , not only was Biden part of the administration that negotiated the deal , but he pushed wary Senate Democrats to approve of it and even bragged about the deal in his primary campaign ads .
His longtime aid and likely national security advisor , Jake Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks leading up to the JCPOA .
So with the prospect in sight of the United States returning to the JCPOA and lifting the sanctions , the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government in Israel are apparently trying to set back Iran ’ s capabilities while they have the chance .
But all parties might be mistaken .
Whoever wins in November will have unprecedented leverage over Iran .
The regime ’ s popularity is at an all-time low—one recent defector has suggested that it is in single digits , according to internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in free fall—both because of the U.S. sanctions and the incompetence and corruption of the regime ’ s leaders .
The regime ’ s handling of the pandemic has been catastrophic , with over 200 daily deaths .
And the people are only blaming the regime for their problems , not any foreign power .
It is difficult to see the Biden administration not take advantage of the situation for a more favorable agreement , especially as the U.N.-imposed arms embargo will soon expire under the terms of the resolution that adopted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iranian regime draw from these three ( so far ) explosions ?
First , the explosions show that there are foreign spies within the ranks of the regime , deeper than previously thought , seeking to sabotage its projects .
Second , it is noteworthy that—at least based on the chatter on social media and my conversations with people in Iran—there has been no perceivable “ rally ’ round the flag ” effect , despite the certainty of Iranians that Israel is behind these explosions .
And the regime has so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign powers for these explosions , which has long been the first card they played to appear as the victim and mobilize popular support .
A regime that for decades has stood on its feet by scaring people about bogeyman foreigners—Saddam Hussein , America , “ the Zionists ” —has lost its charm .
In November of last year , unprecedented and violent protests erupted , which led to the security forces ’ opening fire on protesters and killing over a thousand of them , with more handed hefty sentences up to capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States killed the infamous general Qassem Soleimani , head of Iran ’ s blood-soaked Quds Force .
The Soleimani killing was initially followed by days of mourning and calls for revenge .
But savvy observers understood that those protesters after Solomeini ’ s death were not deeply committed but rather motivated by financial incentives or fear .
And that proved true when , days later , Iran shot down a civilian airliner , which briefly revived the November protests .
Four decades of Western engagement with Iran has failed to modify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or externally .
Even the Obama administration ’ s nuclear agreement failed to change Iran ’ s behavior outside of its nuclear program .
In fact , the release of Iran ’ s frozen assets as part of the JCPOA led to greater aggression everywhere , from the Middle East to the Americas .
It is past due time to accept that to ask the Islamic Republic to stop its aggressive behavior is to ask it to cease to exist .
But the good news is that there is an unprecedented opportunity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s legitimacy has hit the rock bottom , while the regime is short on finances and resources to stay in power for long .
The regime is not even popular within the ranks of its security forces .
Many Iranian young men join the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) because it is the only institution that hires and pays livable wages , and one can see that Mossad agents and likely CIA agents—once viewed as the sources of all evils in Iran—are in the ranks of the IRGC , just based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been going on in recent years and have accelerated over the past few weeks .
It is fear , not love , that is keeping the IRGC going .

On Friday, an explosion lit up Tehran’s early morning skies—the third such huge explosion in Iran in three weeks. Many details about the explosions remain unconfirmed, but the smart money is betting on the Mossad and maybe the CIA.
The exact location of the Friday blast remains undisclosed, but analysts quoted in the New York Times reveal that in the vicinity of the explosion—roughly 15 miles from the iconic Azadi Square in Tehran—there are several facilities for military training and two for military production, one of which is suspected to be the site of chemical weapons development.
Of the previous blasts, the first was before sunrise on June 26 at the Parchin missile base near Tehran. The second, on the morning of July 2, occurred about 130 miles to the south, at the Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province—a site that the United States had previously attacked a decade ago via the “Stuxnet” cyber offensive. At each turn, state media and government officials in Iran have made contradictory statements, including outright denial of the explosions visible in videos circulating on social media and of the aftermath, despite ground and satellite photos showing it.
If you find it hard to believe that all these explosions are just coincidences, you’ve got good instincts: As the New York Times reported last week, they apparently are the result of joint U.S.-Israeli operations designed to set back Iran’s nuclear and military programs. They come following Iran’s lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which passed a resolution last month calling out Iran on this problem.
Following the United States’s departure from the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and imposition of sanctions on Iran, Iran has expanded its nuclear activities beyond the terms of the JCPOA. It is important to point out that, despite the U.S. withdrawal, Iran remains a party to the agreement and bound by its terms. (The United States, as long as it was a party to the agreement, didn’t violate its terms.) Iran’s violations, while not exactly surprising, have alarmed not only American and Israeli officials, but also the three European signatories to the JCPOA (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), whose governments called for the IAEA resolution.
Iran seems to be banking on a Joe Biden victory in November. After all, not only was Biden part of the administration that negotiated the deal, but he pushed wary Senate Democrats to approve of it and even bragged about the deal in his primary campaign ads. His longtime aid and likely national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, was a key negotiator in the talks leading up to the JCPOA. So with the prospect in sight of the United States returning to the JCPOA and lifting the sanctions, the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government in Israel are apparently trying to set back Iran’s capabilities while they have the chance.
But all parties might be mistaken. Whoever wins in November will have unprecedented leverage over Iran. The regime’s popularity is at an all-time low—one recent defector has suggested that it is in single digits, according to internal estimates. Iran’s economy is in free fall—both because of the U.S. sanctions and the incompetence and corruption of the regime’s leaders. The regime’s handling of the pandemic has been catastrophic, with over 200 daily deaths. And the people are only blaming the regime for their problems, not any foreign power. It is difficult to see the Biden administration not take advantage of the situation for a more favorable agreement, especially as the U.N.-imposed arms embargo will soon expire under the terms of the resolution that adopted the JCPOA.
So, what lessons can the Iranian regime draw from these three (so far) explosions? First, the explosions show that there are foreign spies within the ranks of the regime, deeper than previously thought, seeking to sabotage its projects. Second, it is noteworthy that—at least based on the chatter on social media and my conversations with people in Iran—there has been no perceivable “rally ’round the flag” effect, despite the certainty of Iranians that Israel is behind these explosions. And the regime has so far shown itself to be hesitant about blaming foreign powers for these explosions, which has long been the first card they played to appear as the victim and mobilize popular support. A regime that for decades has stood on its feet by scaring people about bogeyman foreigners—Saddam Hussein, America, “the Zionists”—has lost its charm.
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 November of last year, unprecedented and violent protests erupted, which led to the security forces’ opening fire on protesters and killing over a thousand of them, with more handed hefty sentences up to capital punishment.
Then, in January, the United States killed the infamous general Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s blood-soaked Quds Force. The Soleimani killing was initially followed by days of mourning and calls for revenge. But savvy observers understood that those protesters after Solomeini’s death were not deeply committed but rather motivated by financial incentives or fear. And that proved true when, days later, Iran shot down a civilian airliner, which briefly revived the November protests.
Four decades of Western engagement with Iran has failed to modify the regime’s behavior, internally or externally. Even the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement failed to change Iran’s behavior outside of its nuclear program. In fact, the release of Iran’s frozen assets as part of the JCPOA led to greater aggression everywhere, from the Middle East to the Americas. It is past due time to accept that to ask the Islamic Republic to stop its aggressive behavior is to ask it to cease to exist.
But the good news is that there is an unprecedented opportunity for change in Iran. The regime’s legitimacy has hit the rock bottom, while the regime is short on finances and resources to stay in power for long. The regime is not even popular within the ranks of its security forces. Many Iranian young men join the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) because it is the only institution that hires and pays livable wages, and one can see that Mossad agents and likely CIA agents—once viewed as the sources of all evils in Iran—are in the ranks of the IRGC, just based on the sabotage and intelligence operations that have been going on in recent years and have accelerated over the past few weeks. It is fear, not love, that is keeping the IRGC going.


thebulwark--2020-07-13--Trump Is Cornered. Here’s Why.

Trump Is Cornered. Here’s Why.

The electoral dynamics have already hardened .
Donald Trump will lose if everyone who wants to vote can .
His remaining hope is to choose his own electorate .
Amid a deadly and economically ruinous pandemic , he is driving a strategy aimed only at arousing his base—chiefly by inflaming white racial grievances and cultural resentment .
He seeks not to heal the wounds exacerbated by George Floyd ’ s murder , but to exploit them .
Reprising the imaginary “ carnage ” he promised to end in his hallucinatory inaugural address , he recasts himself as Superman in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to tear down statues of our Founders , deface our most sacred memorials , and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.
” To do so , he converts predominantly peaceful protests into an epidemic of disorder , as if this were America in 1968 .
But it is not 1968—or even 2016 .
Our demographics have changed : The U.S. population was above 83 percent non-Hispanic white in 1968 , compared to 60 percent today .
Our incumbent president is himself an agent of chaos , rhetorical and real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Square so that he could stage a photo op while holding aloft a Bible .
That ’ s what made his jeremiad at Mount Rushmore so remarkable .
As historian Michael Beschloss told the New York Times : “ Most presidents in history have understood that when they appear at a national monument , it ’ s usually a moment to act as a unifying chief of state , not a partisan divider.
” Instead , Trump chose the rhetoric of culture war .
“ I don ’ t think it will work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ because what he is trying to do is pretend that the situation is better than it is.
” The core of Trump ’ s campaign is not about his presidency—it ’ s about race .
As Michelle Goldberg wrote , “ Trump sees clearly—more clearly than most of his party—that racism is the main thing he has to offer.
” Indeed .
What other president would tweet videos of a supporter shouting “ white power , ” a white couple aiming guns at peaceful protesters , and blacks assaulting whites ; embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense bill which would rename military bases commemorating Confederate generals ; call the slogan Black Lives Matter a “ symbol of hate ” ; and propose to scrap an Obama-era fair-housing regulation at “ the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs.
” This is not simply a gross abuse of his office ; it is politically tone-deaf .
Says pollster Cornell Belcher : “ What ’ s different today is the upward of 70 percent of Americans [ who ] think racism is a problem in this country.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May and early June puts that number at 76 percent , including 71 percent of whites .
A CBS poll from the same time shows that a majority of Americans believe that police are “ more likely to use deadly force against a black person ” than against a white person .
As for Confederate monuments , a Quinnipiac poll shows that registered voters favor 52-44 their removal from public spaces—a 19-point swing since 2017 .
The Pandemic and the Polls But Trump ’ s presidency has been swamped by COVID-19—yet another reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself , is terminally deficient .
The pandemic has become a metaphor for Trump ’ s suffocating incompetence , mendacity , and self-absorption .
Four months after Trump blithely assured us that the pandemic would “ disappear , ” it has taken over 135,000 American lives .
Cases are spiking in broad swaths of America previously spared ; every week sees a record for new cases .
While death rates had fallen since the peak in mid-April , they have now ominously begun to trend upwards again , and public health experts forecast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orleans , Phoenix , and San Antonio—are woefully short of testing capacity .
Red states like Texas , Florida , and Arizona which , at Trump ’ s urging , reopened too quickly are reimposing public health restrictions .
Proactive states like California and Washington are suffering as well .
That ’ s on Trump .
In May , a Columbia University study estimated that had the United States begun limiting social contacts one week earlier , roughly 35,000 lives would have been saved through early May ; starting two weeks earlier would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths through early May .
But from January to mid-March , Trump dismissed the pandemic as of negligible concern .
Thereafter , obsessing on how its economic impact would affect his re-election campaign , he treated COVID-19 primarily as a cultural and political problem , blaming Democrats for the public health measures his own government had prescribed .
He even mocked Joe Biden for wearing a mask .
Only this past weekend—more than six weeks after Biden and millions of other Americans started wearing masks—did Trump finally wear a mask in public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pleading ” with him .
His remarks about masks have been far from his only idiocy .
Trump ’ s public statements would comprise a litany of buffoonery were his derelictions not so lethal .
A few early examples : • Hydroxychloroquine would be one of the biggest game changers in history of medicine .
• Injecting household disinfectants into the body could kill the virus .
• Anyone who wants a test can get one .
Such preposterous misstatements became a case study in political malpractice .
In mid-May he proclaimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we have prevailed.
” “ He ’ s declaring victory , ” former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe observed in wonder .
“ We ’ re going to use his own words .
.
.
.
That will sink him.
” But , like a panicky salesman , Trump can not stop himself : “ When you have all those tests , you have more cases ” — “ 99 percent of which are totally harmless.
” As the coronavirus surged , he announced on the Fourth of July that “ our strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ve learned how to put out the flame.
” In keeping with the pattern of his entire career , he can not stop himself from the grotesque exaggerations and outright lies of a carnival barker .
But pandemics don ’ t lie .
Ever more Americans know someone who has sickened or died because of COVID-19—three million and counting .
On June 30 , Anthony Fauci said : “ We are now having 40-plus thousand new cases a day .
I would not be surprised if we go up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around.
” In the two weeks since Fauci made that remark , our new daily case reports have risen to about 60,000 per day , and one day last week surpassed 68,000 .
The EU has barred American travelers as a public health risk .
Yet Trump blustered : “ We ’ re very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools.
” While everyone wants to reopen schools—safely—Trump has no plan for doing so .
This is utterly irresponsible : Young children can not truly grasp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reports , one-third of all public school teachers are 50 or older .
Further , scientists express deep concerns about transmission in classrooms .
Yet Trump has threatened to cut off federal funding for schools that don ’ t reopen .
Bullying parents , kids and teachers at the risk of their health is not a winning strategy .
Here , yet again , Trump ’ s ineradicable narcissism overwhelms presidential or political judgment .
A CBS poll of U.S. adults in late June showed that 62 percent of respondents believed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going “ badly.
” A Reuters/Ipsos survey of U.S. adults from late June—at which point it was just becoming clear that the trend lines for new cases was pointing back up—found that only 38 percent of Americans approved of Trump ’ s response to the pandemic , while 57 disapproved .
Biden nails Trump ’ s problem : “ All his whining and self-pity .
This pandemic didn ’ t happen to him .
It happened to all of us .
And his job isn ’ t to whine about it .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to lead.
” A glaring example of Trump ’ s political empathy gap is a crucial issue underscored by the pandemic : healthcare .
Millions of people have lost employer-based health insurance during the pandemic—a number which , the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in May , could reach 27 million .
Trump and his party have no plan to help them .
In fact , he has insisted on asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare , which would strip perhaps 23 million more Americans of their health insurance—while ending such popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions and coverage of young adults on their parents ’ health insurance .
Yet , despite repeated promises , Trump has never produced a plan to replace Obamacare .
With Election Day looming , his mishandling of healthcare amid a pandemic is stunningly self-destructive .
But Trump ’ s vaunted political instincts were proven illusory in 2018—when the Democrats clobbered him on .
.
.
healthcare .
Trump ’ s supposed genius , it transpires , cloaks an incapacity to learn .
In 2020 , a critical proportion of Americans is growing sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Hamby writes of Trump : “ It ’ s not that he ’ s inhabiting a bad political environment .
He created the bad political environment—out of thin air—just by being himself.
” And what he is , is tiresome .
In a Politico/Morning Consult poll of registered voters from April 2019 , nearly half of the respondents , 46 percent , opined that Trump ’ s constant tweeting hurts his chances for re-election—more than twice those who say it helps .
And 7 in 10 said that Trump uses Twitter too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from six weeks ago , found similar results , with this additional data point : 62 percent of registered voters say they believe Trump ’ s tweets half or less than half of the time , including 42 percent who say they “ never ” believe his tweets .
Yet Trump ’ s fractious campaign can not control him .
Repeatedly , he veers off message , stinting his only strong suit—his supposed economic stewardship—to traffic in juvenile insults and racist dog whistles .
“ He ’ s really the campaign manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Jared Kushner told the New York Times .
“ Our job is to present him with data , give him ideas , help him structure .
And then when he makes decisions on where he wants to go , the campaign was designed to be like a custom suit for him.
” More like a dunce cap .
On ABC ’ s This Week , Chris Christie admonished that if Trump “ doesn ’ t change course , both in terms of the substance of what he ’ s discussing and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then he will lose.
” Contrary to Trump ’ s illusions , he can not win by replicating the campaign of 2016 .
Because he was running against an unusually polarizing opponent , many voters whom Trump discomfited nonetheless took a flyer .
And he benefited from two extraordinary strokes of good fortune : the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Clinton campaign , and James Comey ’ s last-minute announcement of a renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s own emails .
Hamby distills the real lesson of 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won a margin-of-error race between two historically disliked candidates , in hindsight the equivalent of a .300 hitter getting on base with a dinky single into left field .
He has no magical powers.
” Other factors , opines Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg in the Atlantic , distinguish 2016 from 2020 .
Trump ’ s white identity politics is narrowing in appeal—as with race , there has been a shift among most Americans in favor of legal immigration .
And Biden ’ s campaign will not neglect Wisconsin , Michigan , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left is uniting behind the party ’ s nominee .
In a June New York Times/Siena College poll , Nate Cohn notes , Bernie Sanders supporters in six battleground states prefer Biden over Trump by 87 percent to 4 percent , while Elizabeth Warren ’ s backers in those states choose Biden by 96 percent to nothing .
In 2016 , about 6 percent of the electorate chose third-party or protest candidates ; in 2020 , the figure seems unlikely to reach half that .
Nor does Biden suffer the opprobrium that so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable , likable , and politically inclusive , he is avoiding the left-wing poison pills that Trump has sought to exploit—like “ defund the police.
” “ Biden is just not scary enough for Trump , ” David Axelrod told Frank Bruni .
“ He ’ s culturally inconvenient.
” Thus Biden attracts voters Clinton could not .
As Sarah Longwell wrote here on The Bulwark last week , after three years of conducting focus groups among women who reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 , “ It can not be overstated how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for attracting disaffected Republican voters—especially women—than any of the other Democrats who ran this cycle.
” Another line of attack—that Biden is decrepit and senescent—isn ’ t taking .
A Monmouth University poll conducted in late June showed that more voters are concerned that Trump , rather than Biden , lacks the physical and mental stamina to be president .
A likely subtext , one suspects , is intuitive concern over Trump ’ s emotional stability .
While the deeper fervor among Trump ’ s supporters than Biden ’ s has potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump himself functions as a turnout machine—for Democrats .
This was true in 2018 , and is likely truer now .
As Republican strategist Ron Christie characterized Trump ’ s behaviors to the New York Times : That underscores perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 : As the incumbent , Trump is hemorrhaging support .
According to the 2016 exit polls , Trump carried whites by 20 percent ; recent polling shows him ahead by only 5 percent .
Among whites without college degrees , Trump won by 37 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead by only 21 points .
And while Trump took white seniors by 19 percent in 2016 , Biden now nearly matches him among those category of voters .
One reason is that white Americans believe , quite reasonably , that Trump has worsened race relations .
The latest ABC/Ipsos poll puts his approval rating on race at a dismal 32 percent .
Here , again , credit Trump ’ s behavior after George Floyd ’ s murder .
Writes Longwell of her focus groups : “ It wasn ’ t until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests that the bottom started to drop out.
” Trump ’ s loss of white support is especially acute among college-educated women .
In the 2016 exit polls , they preferred Clinton over Clinton by only 7 points .
As Aaron Blake notes in the Washington Post , recent polls have them preferring Biden by 28 points , 29 points , and a stunning 39 points .
And while Trump still leads among non-college educated white women , his support has declined : In 2016 , they preferred him by 27 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
Critically , the Times/Siena College poll shows that among self-described independents—a group he won by 4 percent in 2016—Trump is trailing Biden by 18 percent .
Observed political scientist William G. Mayer to the Times : “ I know Republicans who think that Trump is somehow incredibly savvy politically and knows just what he ’ s doing .
I strongly disagree .
I think he ’ s needlessly alienating a whole lot of people who might otherwise be inclined to vote for him.
” Meanwhile , Trump ’ s negatives are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the last two months , his approval ratings declined to the low 40s .
This is the territory that doomed the last two incumbents who lost re-election campaigns , George H.W .
Bush and Jimmy Carter .
In several recent national polls , Biden leads Trump by double digits .
More salient , polls show Biden leading in Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , North Carolina , Florida , and Arizona .
While caution suggests that Trump can not be in quite so deep a ditch , other battleground polls concur .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ states as elsewhere , he is losing seniors .
One major reason is his mismanagement of the coronavirus .
But another is that older Americans simply dislike his noxious persona in their president .
Trump ’ s residual area of strength is the economy .
This is no small thing .
As Hamby adjures : Focus groups from April , Hamby elaborates , further suggested that Biden has three economic disadvantages .
Participants thought Trump better equipped to lead us out a recession ; considered Biden ’ s economic agenda sketchy ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic rather than Trump .
Nonetheless , Hamby notes , recent polls show Trump ’ s edge on the economy eroding .
And , last Thursday , Biden introduced an agenda calculated to preempt Trump ’ s economic nationalism .
With the economy his only selling point , Trump can not resist overselling it .
After a better-than-expected jobs report in early June , Trump proclaimed : “ Now we ’ re opening , and we ’ re opening with a bang .
.
.
.
This is a rocket ship .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think of it , the greatest comeback in American history.
” After all , he tweeted a few days later , “ I built the greatest economy in the World , the best the U.S. has ever had .
I am doing it again !
” Back in the real world , the New York Times reported Fed Chair Jerome Powell ’ s pandemic-related skepticism in late June : In truth , the coronavirus is far too multifaceted to serve Trump ’ s economic triumphalism .
In the ABC/Ipsos survey of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent approve Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic—down 8 percent from three weeks earlier ; 59 percent said they believe that the U.S. economy is reopening too quickly .
This shift in opinion reflects a reality that permeates the economy and is apparent in the headlines .
After Macy ’ s reopened stores in May , the Washington Post reports , its sales sputtered , causing executives to believe that a full recovery could take until 2022 .
At 11 percent , unemployment remains worse than any point during the Great Recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stifling recovery in major states like Florida , Texas , Arizona , and California .
“ The virus drives the economics , ” economist Betsey Stevenson told the New York Times , adding that if cases continued to rise , as health officials warn , “ we ’ re not going to have people going back to work.
” Further , the childcare crisis could hamper parents from returning to fully productive work .
As economist Michael Bloom told the Washington Post , “ You can ’ t run an economy with so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Finally , states and localities have already laid off or furloughed 1.5 million employees .
Without a massive federal bailout , the losses in public employment will grow exponentially—further damaging the private economy .
Absent a miracle , Trump won ’ t get the broad and accelerated recovery he needs to survive .
He has only one way out : pursuing voter suppression through any stratagem that limits Biden ’ s vote—like relentlessly exploiting the pandemic .
That ’ s why he ’ s crying voter fraud and decrying voting by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-pity , we can expect him to resort to more desperate measures .
Curbing democracy will become what November is about .

The electoral dynamics have already hardened. Donald Trump will lose if everyone who wants to vote can. His remaining hope is to choose his own electorate.
Amid a deadly and economically ruinous pandemic, he is driving a strategy aimed only at arousing his base—chiefly by inflaming white racial grievances and cultural resentment. He seeks not to heal the wounds exacerbated by George Floyd’s murder, but to exploit them.
Reprising the imaginary “carnage” he promised to end in his hallucinatory inaugural address, he recasts himself as Superman in a cartoon dystopia where “angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.” To do so, he converts predominantly peaceful protests into an epidemic of disorder, as if this were America in 1968. But it is not 1968—or even 2016.
Our demographics have changed: The U.S. population was above 83 percent non-Hispanic white in 1968, compared to 60 percent today. Our incumbent president is himself an agent of chaos, rhetorical and real, who used troops to clear Lafayette Square so that he could stage a photo op while holding aloft a Bible.
That’s what made his jeremiad at Mount Rushmore so remarkable. As historian Michael Beschloss told the New York Times: “Most presidents in history have understood that when they appear at a national monument, it’s usually a moment to act as a unifying chief of state, not a partisan divider.” Instead, Trump chose the rhetoric of culture war. “I don’t think it will work” in 2020, Beschloss added, “because what he is trying to do is pretend that the situation is better than it is.”
The core of Trump’s campaign is not about his presidency—it’s about race. As Michelle Goldberg wrote, “Trump sees clearly—more clearly than most of his party—that racism is the main thing he has to offer.”
Indeed. What other president would tweet videos of a supporter shouting “white power,” a white couple aiming guns at peaceful protesters, and blacks assaulting whites; embrace Confederate monuments; threaten to veto a defense bill which would rename military bases commemorating Confederate generals; call the slogan Black Lives Matter a “symbol of hate”; and propose to scrap an Obama-era fair-housing regulation at “the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs.”
This is not simply a gross abuse of his office; it is politically tone-deaf. Says pollster Cornell Belcher: “What’s different today is the upward of 70 percent of Americans [who] think racism is a problem in this country.”
A Monmouth University poll conducted in late May and early June puts that number at 76 percent, including 71 percent of whites. A CBS poll from the same time shows that a majority of Americans believe that police are “more likely to use deadly force against a black person” than against a white person. As for Confederate monuments, a Quinnipiac poll shows that registered voters favor 52-44 their removal from public spaces—a 19-point swing since 2017.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The Pandemic and the Polls
But Trump’s presidency has been swamped by COVID-19—yet another reason why his race-baiting, a loser in itself, is terminally deficient. The pandemic has become a metaphor for Trump’s suffocating incompetence, mendacity, and self-absorption.
Four months after Trump blithely assured us that the pandemic would “disappear,” it has taken over 135,000 American lives. Cases are spiking in broad swaths of America previously spared; every week sees a record for new cases. While death rates had fallen since the peak in mid-April, they have now ominously begun to trend upwards again, and public health experts forecast a resurgence.
Cities in crisis—like New Orleans, Phoenix, and San Antonio—are woefully short of testing capacity. Red states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona which, at Trump’s urging, reopened too quickly are reimposing public health restrictions. Proactive states like California and Washington are suffering as well.
That’s on Trump. In May, a Columbia University study estimated that had the United States begun limiting social contacts one week earlier, roughly 35,000 lives would have been saved through early May; starting two weeks earlier would have prevented 1 million cases and 58,000 deaths through early May.
But from January to mid-March, Trump dismissed the pandemic as of negligible concern. Thereafter, obsessing on how its economic impact would affect his re-election campaign, he treated COVID-19 primarily as a cultural and political problem, blaming Democrats for the public health measures his own government had prescribed. He even mocked Joe Biden for wearing a mask. Only this past weekend—more than six weeks after Biden and millions of other Americans started wearing masks—did Trump finally wear a mask in public, and even that reportedly required his staff “pleading” with him.
His remarks about masks have been far from his only idiocy. Trump’s public statements would comprise a litany of buffoonery were his derelictions not so lethal. A few early examples:
Such preposterous misstatements became a case study in political malpractice. In mid-May he proclaimed: “We have met the moment and we have prevailed.” “He’s declaring victory,” former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe observed in wonder. “We’re going to use his own words. . . . That will sink him.”
But, like a panicky salesman, Trump cannot stop himself: “When you have all those tests, you have more cases”—“99 percent of which are totally harmless.” As the coronavirus surged, he announced on the Fourth of July that “our strategy is moving along well. . . . We’ve learned how to put out the flame.” In keeping with the pattern of his entire career, he cannot stop himself from the grotesque exaggerations and outright lies of a carnival barker.
But pandemics don’t lie. Ever more Americans know someone who has sickened or died because of COVID-19—three million and counting. On June 30, Anthony Fauci said: “We are now having 40-plus thousand new cases a day. I would not be surprised if we go up to 100,000 day if this is not turned around.”
In the two weeks since Fauci made that remark, our new daily case reports have risen to about 60,000 per day, and one day last week surpassed 68,000. The EU has barred American travelers as a public health risk. Yet Trump blustered: “We’re very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools.”
While everyone wants to reopen schools—safely—Trump has no plan for doing so. This is utterly irresponsible: Young children cannot truly grasp health protocols and, the New York Times reports, one-third of all public school teachers are 50 or older.
Further, scientists express deep concerns about transmission in classrooms. Yet Trump has threatened to cut off federal funding for schools that don’t reopen.
Bullying parents, kids and teachers at the risk of their health is not a winning strategy. Here, yet again, Trump’s ineradicable narcissism overwhelms presidential or political judgment.
A CBS poll of U.S. adults in late June showed that 62 percent of respondents believed that our efforts to combat the virus were going “badly.” A Reuters/Ipsos survey of U.S. adults from late June—at which point it was just becoming clear that the trend lines for new cases was pointing back up—found that only 38 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s response to the pandemic, while 57 disapproved. Biden nails Trump’s problem: “All his whining and self-pity. This pandemic didn’t happen to him. It happened to all of us. And his job isn’t to whine about it. His job is to do something about it, to lead.”
Healthcare Voters
A glaring example of Trump’s political empathy gap is a crucial issue underscored by the pandemic: healthcare.
Millions of people have lost employer-based health insurance during the pandemic—a number which, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in May, could reach 27 million. Trump and his party have no plan to help them.
In fact, he has insisted on asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare, which would strip perhaps 23 million more Americans of their health insurance—while ending such popular provisions as protection for people with pre-existing conditions and coverage of young adults on their parents’ health insurance. Yet, despite repeated promises, Trump has never produced a plan to replace Obamacare.
With Election Day looming, his mishandling of healthcare amid a pandemic is stunningly self-destructive. But Trump’s vaunted political instincts were proven illusory in 2018—when the Democrats clobbered him on . . . healthcare. Trump’s supposed genius, it transpires, cloaks an incapacity to learn.
Historically Disliked
In 2020, a critical proportion of Americans is growing sick of him. In Vanity Fair, Peter Hamby writes of Trump: “It’s not that he’s inhabiting a bad political environment. He created the bad political environment—out of thin air—just by being himself.”
And what he is, is tiresome. In a Politico/Morning Consult poll of registered voters from April 2019, nearly half of the respondents, 46 percent, opined that Trump’s constant tweeting hurts his chances for re-election—more than twice those who say it helps. And 7 in 10 said that Trump uses Twitter too much. A more recent Economist/YouGov survey, from six weeks ago, found similar results, with this additional data point: 62 percent of registered voters say they believe Trump’s tweets half or less than half of the time, including 42 percent who say they “never” believe his tweets.
Yet Trump’s fractious campaign cannot control him. Repeatedly, he veers off message, stinting his only strong suit—his supposed economic stewardship—to traffic in juvenile insults and racist dog whistles.
“He’s really the campaign manager at the end of the day,” Jared Kushner told the New York Times. “Our job is to present him with data, give him ideas, help him structure. And then when he makes decisions on where he wants to go, the campaign was designed to be like a custom suit for him.”
More like a dunce cap. On ABC’s This Week, Chris Christie admonished that if Trump “doesn’t change course, both in terms of the substance of what he’s discussing and the way that he approaches the American people, then he will lose.”
Contrary to Trump’s illusions, he cannot win by replicating the campaign of 2016. Because he was running against an unusually polarizing opponent, many voters whom Trump discomfited nonetheless took a flyer. And he benefited from two extraordinary strokes of good fortune: the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Clinton campaign, and James Comey’s last-minute announcement of a renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s own emails.
Hamby distills the real lesson of 2016: “The boring reality is that Trump won a margin-of-error race between two historically disliked candidates, in hindsight the equivalent of a .300 hitter getting on base with a dinky single into left field. He has no magical powers.”
Other factors, opines Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg in the Atlantic, distinguish 2016 from 2020. Trump’s white identity politics is narrowing in appeal—as with race, there has been a shift among most Americans in favor of legal immigration. And Biden’s campaign will not neglect Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Unlike 2016, the Democratic left is uniting behind the party’s nominee. In a June New York Times/Siena College poll, Nate Cohn notes, Bernie Sanders supporters in six battleground states prefer Biden over Trump by 87 percent to 4 percent, while Elizabeth Warren’s backers in those states choose Biden by 96 percent to nothing. In 2016, about 6 percent of the electorate chose third-party or protest candidates; in 2020, the figure seems unlikely to reach half that.
Nor does Biden suffer the opprobrium that so badly damaged Clinton. Widely perceived as reasonable, likable, and politically inclusive, he is avoiding the left-wing poison pills that Trump has sought to exploit—like “defund the police.” “Biden is just not scary enough for Trump,” David Axelrod told Frank Bruni. “He’s culturally inconvenient.”
Thus Biden attracts voters Clinton could not. As Sarah Longwell wrote here on The Bulwark last week, after three years of conducting focus groups among women who reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016, “It cannot be overstated how much better of a candidate Joe Biden is for attracting disaffected Republican voters—especially women—than any of the other Democrats who ran this cycle.”
Another line of attack—that Biden is decrepit and senescent—isn’t taking. A Monmouth University poll conducted in late June showed that more voters are concerned that Trump, rather than Biden, lacks the physical and mental stamina to be president. A likely subtext, one suspects, is intuitive concern over Trump’s emotional stability.
While the deeper fervor among Trump’s supporters than Biden’s has potential implications for in-person turnout during a pandemic, Trump himself functions as a turnout machine—for Democrats. This was true in 2018, and is likely truer now. As Republican strategist Ron Christie characterized Trump’s behaviors to the New York Times:
It’s almost self-defeating. . . . People are exhausted. The president, with every tweet, every insult, will move himself out of favor with the demographic that he needs the most, which is the independent.
That underscores perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020: As the incumbent, Trump is hemorrhaging support.
According to the 2016 exit polls, Trump carried whites by 20 percent; recent polling shows him ahead by only 5 percent. Among whites without college degrees, Trump won by 37 points in 2016; recent polls show him ahead by only 21 points. And while Trump took white seniors by 19 percent in 2016, Biden now nearly matches him among those category of voters.
One reason is that white Americans believe, quite reasonably, that Trump has worsened race relations. The latest ABC/Ipsos poll puts his approval rating on race at a dismal 32 percent. Here, again, credit Trump’s behavior after George Floyd’s murder. Writes Longwell of her focus groups: “It wasn’t until the killing of George Floyd and the resulting protests that the bottom started to drop out.”
Trump’s loss of white support is especially acute among college-educated women. In the 2016 exit polls, they preferred Clinton over Trump by only 7 points. As Aaron Blake notes in the Washington Post, recent polls have them preferring Biden by 28 points, 29 points, and a stunning 39 points. And while Trump still leads among non-college educated white women, his support has declined: In 2016, they preferred him by 27 percent, today they prefer him by about 15 percent.
Critically, the Times/Siena College poll shows that among self-described independents—a group he won by 4 percent in 2016—Trump is trailing Biden by 18 percent. Observed political scientist William G. Mayer to the Times: “I know Republicans who think that Trump is somehow incredibly savvy politically and knows just what he’s doing. I strongly disagree. I think he’s needlessly alienating a whole lot of people who might otherwise be inclined to vote for him.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s negatives are brutal: stuck in the mid-50s. In the last two months, his approval ratings declined to the low 40s. This is the territory that doomed the last two incumbents who lost re-election campaigns, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.
In several recent national polls, Biden leads Trump by double digits. More salient, polls show Biden leading in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and Arizona. While caution suggests that Trump cannot be in quite so deep a ditch, other battleground polls concur.
A key is that, in swing states as elsewhere, he is losing seniors. One major reason is his mismanagement of the coronavirus. But another is that older Americans simply dislike his noxious persona in their president.
Unemployment and the Economy
Trump’s residual area of strength is the economy. This is no small thing. As Hamby adjures:
For most of the pandemic, with unemployment hovering above Great Recession-era levels, and with the incumbent’s overall job approval rating underwater, Trump has been running anywhere from 6 to 10 points ahead of Biden on the question of who would better handle the economy.
Focus groups from April, Hamby elaborates, further suggested that Biden has three economic disadvantages. Participants thought Trump better equipped to lead us out a recession; considered Biden’s economic agenda sketchy; and were inclined to blame unemployment on the pandemic rather than Trump.
Nonetheless, Hamby notes, recent polls show Trump’s edge on the economy eroding. And, last Thursday, Biden introduced an agenda calculated to preempt Trump’s economic nationalism.
With the economy his only selling point, Trump cannot resist overselling it. After a better-than-expected jobs report in early June, Trump proclaimed: “Now we’re opening, and we’re opening with a bang. . . . This is a rocket ship. . . . Today is probably, if you think of it, the greatest comeback in American history.” After all, he tweeted a few days later, “I built the greatest economy in the World, the best the U.S. has ever had. I am doing it again!”
Back in the real world, the New York Times reported Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s pandemic-related skepticism in late June:
“A full recovery is unlikely until people are confident that it is safe to re-engage in a broad range of activities,” Mr. Powell told a House committee, adding that a second wave “could force people to withdraw” and “undermine public confidence, which is what we need to get back to lots of kinds of economic activity that involve crowds.”
In truth, the coronavirus is far too multifaceted to serve Trump’s economic triumphalism. In the ABC/Ipsos survey of American adults conducted last week, only 33 percent approve Trump’s handling of the pandemic—down 8 percent from three weeks earlier; 59 percent said they believe that the U.S. economy is reopening too quickly.
This shift in opinion reflects a reality that permeates the economy and is apparent in the headlines. After Macy’s reopened stores in May, the Washington Post reports, its sales sputtered, causing executives to believe that a full recovery could take until 2022. At 11 percent, unemployment remains worse than any point during the Great Recession. And the resurgence of COVID-19 is stifling recovery in major states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California.
“The virus drives the economics,” economist Betsey Stevenson told the New York Times, adding that if cases continued to rise, as health officials warn, “we’re not going to have people going back to work.”
Further, the childcare crisis could hamper parents from returning to fully productive work. As economist Michael Bloom told the Washington Post, “You can’t run an economy with so many people aged 30 to 45 missing.”
Finally, states and localities have already laid off or furloughed 1.5 million employees. Without a massive federal bailout, the losses in public employment will grow exponentially—further damaging the private economy.
Absent a miracle, Trump won’t get the broad and accelerated recovery he needs to survive.
He has only one way out: pursuing voter suppression through any stratagem that limits Biden’s vote—like relentlessly exploiting the pandemic. That’s why he’s crying voter fraud and decrying voting by mail. As he flails in quicksand and self-pity, we can expect him to resort to more desperate measures.
Curbing democracy will become what November is about.