thebulwark--2020-08-20--How to Put 170,000 COVID Deaths in Perspective

What does it mean that 170,000 Americans have died—so far—from COVID-19 ?
You may recall that early on in the pandemic , there was a great deal of crowing from the pro-Trump pandemic-skeptical right .
They would say things like , “ Only 12 people died today in the entire country !
Why are we getting so worked up over this media hoax !
” At some point those voices grew silent .
Today we have the opposite problem : The number of deaths is so large that it has become an abstract statistic .
It ’ s hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans really means .
How are we supposed to understand the scale ?
Consider breast cancer .
We all have a mother , a wife , a sister , who has battled breast cancer .
The country wears pink every October because of it .
In recent years , a little more than 40,000 women have died of breast cancer every year .
COVID-19 killed that many people in about six weeks .
When you tell people that this epidemic is the worst since the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed about 675,000 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance gets lost .
But tell people that close to 85,000 Americans die from diabetes every year .
And then show them that COVID-19 has killed twice that many people in less than six months .
You can help people understand the true scope of COVID by putting it in the personal context of the health problems we all see in our families ’ lives .
For instance , prostate cancer kills 33,000 men every year .
Which means that COVID has already killed five times as many people this year as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you prefer to look at it another way : The coronavirus has already killed more people in 2020 than breast cancer , prostate cancer , and diabetes combined .
It ’ s unclear why the Democratic party has not used this frame to explain the scale of the pandemic ’ s destruction to voters .
To tell voters that cancer—all cancers , put together—will kill about 600,000 Americans each year .
Then show them that by November , the death toll will be almost certainly near 200,000 .
And by year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meaning that even though COVID didn ’ t really break out in America until late March , it would have killed half as many people as the disease most people fear above all others .
Instead , Democrats seem intent on comparing COVID to .
.
.
Ebola .
When Kamala Harris gave her first speech last week as Joe Biden ’ s running mate , she said , Six years ago , in fact , we had a different health crisis .
It was called Ebola , and we all remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened then ?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job .
Only two people in the United States died—two .
That is what ’ s called leadership .
But compare that to the moment we find ourselves in now .
When other countries are following the science , Trump pushed miracle cures he saw on Fox News .
This is political malpractice .
Mentioning that two people died six years ago from an outbreak which is only dimly remembered isn ’ t going to help people understand what ’ s going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that COVID-19 killed more Americans this year than lung cancer will ( 135,000 annually ) or Alzheimer ’ s disease ( 122,000 annually ) .
And remember : The key point is that unlike all of these other causes of death , COVID is contagious .
Which is why we can ’ t just accept these deaths— “ it is what it is ” —and move on , even if we wanted to .
The coronavirus has to be actively fought .
Or else it will continue to spread and expand its grim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes it different—and more dangerous , by far—than cancer or diabetes or heart disease , even .
One suspects that framing the fight against COVID and the failures of the Trump administration in dealing with COVID in terms that people can relate to would be quite helpful , as an electoral matter , to Democrats ’ prospects .
After all , many of the battleground states have large populations of voters over the age of 65 : Florida ( ranked # 2 among states for that population ) , Pennsylvania ( # 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michigan ( # 14 ) , Iowa ( tied for # 17 ) , Ohio ( also ties for # 17 ) , and Wisconsin ( # 19 ) all have older populations above the national average .
Democrats ought to tell people what the fact of 170,000 deaths really means in ways that they can feel .

What does it mean that 170,000 Americans have died—so far—from COVID-19?
You may recall that early on in the pandemic, there was a great deal of crowing from the pro-Trump pandemic-skeptical right. They would say things like, “Only 12 people died today in the entire country! Why are we getting so worked up over this media hoax!”
At some point those voices grew silent.
Today we have the opposite problem: The number of deaths is so large that it has become an abstract statistic. It’s hard to get your mind around what 170,000 dead Americans really means.
How are we supposed to understand the scale?
Consider breast cancer. We all have a mother, a wife, a sister, who has battled breast cancer. The country wears pink every October because of it. In recent years, a little more than 40,000 women have died of breast cancer every year.
COVID-19 killed that many people in about six weeks.
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…
When you tell people that this epidemic is the worst since the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed about 675,000 in America, their eyes glaze over, the importance gets lost.
But tell people that close to 85,000 Americans die from diabetes every year.
And then show them that COVID-19 has killed twice that many people in less than six months.
You can help people understand the true scope of COVID by putting it in the personal context of the health problems we all see in our families’ lives. For instance, prostate cancer kills 33,000 men every year.
Which means that COVID has already killed five times as many people this year as prostate cancer will.
Or, if you prefer to look at it another way: The coronavirus has already killed more people in 2020 than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and diabetes combined.
It’s unclear why the Democratic party has not used this frame to explain the scale of the pandemic’s destruction to voters. To tell voters that cancer—all cancers, put together—will kill about 600,000 Americans each year. Then show them that by November, the death toll will be almost certainly near 200,000. And by year’s end, 300,000 deaths is clearly possible.
Meaning that even though COVID didn’t really break out in America until late March, it would have killed half as many people as the disease most people fear above all others.
Instead, Democrats seem intent on comparing COVID to . . . Ebola.
When Kamala Harris gave her first speech last week as Joe Biden’s running mate, she said,
Six years ago, in fact, we had a different health crisis. It was called Ebola, and we all remember that pandemic. But you know what happened then? Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job. Only two people in the United States died—two. That is what’s called leadership. But compare that to the moment we find ourselves in now. When other countries are following the science, Trump pushed miracle cures he saw on Fox News.
This is political malpractice. Mentioning that two people died six years ago from an outbreak which is only dimly remembered isn’t going to help people understand what’s going on. Instead, Harris could have mentioned that COVID-19 killed more Americans this year than lung cancer will (135,000 annually) or Alzheimer’s disease (122,000 annually).
And remember: The key point is that unlike all of these other causes of death, COVID is contagious. Which is why we can’t just accept these deaths—“it is what it is”—and move on, even if we wanted to. The coronavirus has to be actively fought. Or else it will continue to spread and expand its grim reach even further.
Which is what makes it different—and more dangerous, by far—than cancer or diabetes or heart disease, even.
One suspects that framing the fight against COVID and the failures of the Trump administration in dealing with COVID in terms that people can relate to would be quite helpful, as an electoral matter, to Democrats’ prospects. After all, many of the battleground states have large populations of voters over the age of 65: Florida (ranked #2 among states for that population), Pennsylvania (#8), Arizona (#12), Michigan (#14), Iowa (tied for #17), Ohio (also ties for #17), and Wisconsin ( #19) all have older populations above the national average.
Democrats ought to tell people what the fact of 170,000 deaths really means in ways that they can feel.


thebulwark--2020-08-20--Trump and Snowden’s War on Proper Authority

President Trump , who exhibits unrestrained contempt for proper authority , including his own , recently declared that he may soon grant a pardon for Edward Snowden , the former National Security Agency contractor who has lived in Moscow since 2013 after leaking information on the nation ’ s most secretive spy agencies .
This would be the culmination of a years-long relationship that Trump and his entourage has cultivated with Snowden ( and Julian Assange ) since it became clear that these forces shared Trump ’ s unalloyed hostility for the American order and all its works .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose revelations about the National Security Agency ’ s foreign and domestic surveillance techniques were disclosed at his personal whim rather than through democratic audit , is a befitting offering from a chief executive whose flagrant criminality and contempt for the democratic process will be his most enduring legacy .
The controversy over Snowden calls to mind an episode from revolutionary America in which Alexander Hamilton laid down an important standard about the appropriate balance between justice and principle .
In May 1775 , when a nasty mob gathered at King ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooper , the college ’ s loyalist president , Hamilton interceded to lecture the crowd on the disgrace such unwarranted violence would bring “ on the cause of liberty.
” Thanks to this effort to hold the agitated crowd at bay , Cooper was able to escape to the safety of a British warship , but Hamilton was nonetheless shaken by the experience .
He wrote to John Jay soon afterwards , “ I am always more or less alarmed at every thing which is done of mere will and pleasure , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have occurred to Snowden that his shabby conscience does not and never did constitute a proper authority .
He abrogated to himself the responsibilities of governance under the dubious ruse of exposing unconstitutional methods , and his media allies assumed the same responsibilities under the equally dubious ruse of investigative journalism .
It has been widely suggested that Snowden ’ s stolen secrets—and his unscrupulous acolytes in media who have lustily distributed them on multiple continents—represent a valiant defense of individual liberties against mighty and minatory states .
This narrative could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apologists for and beneficiaries of Vladimir Putin ’ s regime have suggested that Americans ’ civil liberties are held in contempt by their own government .
And yet it is the United States government that has seen fit to obtain such a sturdy legal footing before venturing to gather user information from Verizon and other private companies that so offended Snowden ’ s delicate sensibilities .
Far from being a violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures , the collection of sensitive information by the NSA—expressly permitted by Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surveillance Court—has been fully consistent with longstanding judicial precedent .
In United States v. Choate , for instance , the courts decided that the Postal Service may record “ mail cover , ” i.e.
, what ’ s written on the outside of an envelope—the addresses of sender and receiver .
As Charles Krauthammer argued at the time of Snowden ’ s revelations , the NSA ’ s recording of U.S. phone data merely extends the logic of this ruling to telephone records .
The program is not a mass , roving tap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it only records the numbers dialed and time stamps— “ the outside of the envelope , as it were .
The content of the conversation , however , is like the letter inside the envelope .
It may not be opened without a court order.
” In Smith v. Maryland , the Supreme Court addressed this method of surveillance more directly .
It held that the warrantless state installation of a pen register that collected telephone information , known as metadata , could not be construed as an unreasonable search by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was decided on the grounds that people have no expectation of privacy in records that plainly belong to another party .
Once the case of government trampling civil liberties is demonstrated to be an obnoxious fiction , the critics tend to fall back on challenging the notion that its surveillance measures even foil the country ’ s enemies .
After all , we are knowingly assured , the enemy already understood the danger of placing calls .
This argument has gained a surprising amount of traction given the obvious flaw in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should tell us that if we , an informed citizenry , didn ’ t know about the details of such operations , our enemies probably didn ’ t know either .
This argument calls to mind the deceitful habit cultivated by detractors of America ’ s post-September 11 regime of enhanced interrogation .
They frequently insisted that “ torture ” was not merely immoral ; it was ineffective .
At times it seemed as if they could not mount a case against it if it were proven to yield benefits to American security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongdoing is at least tenable , if not compelling .
What strains credulity is that his imprudent action has not done real harm to American security .
The ability to hinder terrorists ’ communications is a vital American advantage in a war where the asymmetric benefits so often reside on the other side .
At this point one simply has to reiterate the initial questions : To justify Snowden ’ s wanton disregard for democratic procedure , what laws were ever shown to have been broken ?
What liberties were violated ?
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you like , defenders of the act of bringing these classified materials to light—have never adequately explained .
Indeed , this is what they have doggedly refused to answer .
And for good reason .
In the vast labyrinth of the American security state , there are numerous possibilities of illegal activity being brought to light .
And yet even at this late date , not a shred of evidence has been produced suggesting chronic abuse , let alone law-breaking , by the NSA .
Even if there were such evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place to reform government intelligence gathering techniques without arbitrarily leaking classified information—a process that Snowden shows no sign of having availed himself .
Anyone who recalls this sordid affair will not fail to notice the cavalier contempt for authority that propelled Snowden to splash his ill-gotten goods onto the world stage has been replicated every day of the Trump administration .
( At least once , this happened literally , when Trump disclosed high-level U.S. secrets to the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office . )
It is this exercise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most urgently needs to be ruled out of court—the court of public opinion .
If the president decides to grant him a pardon anyway , in open defiance of the spirit of his executive authority , it will not be the least of reasons for the American public to turn him out of office this November .

President Trump, who exhibits unrestrained contempt for proper authority, including his own, recently declared that he may soon grant a pardon for Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has lived in Moscow since 2013 after leaking information on the nation’s most secretive spy agencies. This would be the culmination of a years-long relationship that Trump and his entourage has cultivated with Snowden (and Julian Assange) since it became clear that these forces shared Trump’s unalloyed hostility for the American order and all its works.
The prospect of a presidential pardon for Snowden, whose revelations about the National Security Agency’s foreign and domestic surveillance techniques were disclosed at his personal whim rather than through democratic audit, is a befitting offering from a chief executive whose flagrant criminality and contempt for the democratic process will be his most enduring legacy.
The controversy over Snowden calls to mind an episode from revolutionary America in which Alexander Hamilton laid down an important standard about the appropriate balance between justice and principle. In May 1775, when a nasty mob gathered at King’s College to tar and feather Myles Cooper, the college’s loyalist president, Hamilton interceded to lecture the crowd on the disgrace such unwarranted violence would bring “on the cause of liberty.” Thanks to this effort to hold the agitated crowd at bay, Cooper was able to escape to the safety of a British warship, but Hamilton was nonetheless shaken by the experience. He wrote to John Jay soon afterwards, “I am always more or less alarmed at every thing which is done of mere will and pleasure, without any proper authority.”
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…
It seems never to have occurred to Snowden that his shabby conscience does not and never did constitute a proper authority. He abrogated to himself the responsibilities of governance under the dubious ruse of exposing unconstitutional methods, and his media allies assumed the same responsibilities under the equally dubious ruse of investigative journalism. It has been widely suggested that Snowden’s stolen secrets—and his unscrupulous acolytes in media who have lustily distributed them on multiple continents—represent a valiant defense of individual liberties against mighty and minatory states. This narrative could not be further from the truth.
The apologists for and beneficiaries of Vladimir Putin’s regime have suggested that Americans’ civil liberties are held in contempt by their own government. And yet it is the United States government that has seen fit to obtain such a sturdy legal footing before venturing to gather user information from Verizon and other private companies that so offended Snowden’s delicate sensibilities. Far from being a violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the collection of sensitive information by the NSA—expressly permitted by Congress and extensively reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—has been fully consistent with longstanding judicial precedent.
In United States v. Choate, for instance, the courts decided that the Postal Service may record “mail cover,” i.e., what’s written on the outside of an envelope—the addresses of sender and receiver. As Charles Krauthammer argued at the time of Snowden’s revelations, the NSA’s recording of U.S. phone data merely extends the logic of this ruling to telephone records. The program is not a mass, roving tap, as it has been widely characterized, because it only records the numbers dialed and time stamps—“the outside of the envelope, as it were. The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope. It may not be opened without a court order.”
In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court addressed this method of surveillance more directly. It held that the warrantless state installation of a pen register that collected telephone information, known as metadata, could not be construed as an unreasonable search by the standards of the Fourth Amendment. This was decided on the grounds that people have no expectation of privacy in records that plainly belong to another party.
Once the case of government trampling civil liberties is demonstrated to be an obnoxious fiction, the critics tend to fall back on challenging the notion that its surveillance measures even foil the country’s enemies. After all, we are knowingly assured, the enemy already understood the danger of placing calls. This argument has gained a surprising amount of traction given the obvious flaw in its reasoning. A moment’s thought should tell us that if we, an informed citizenry, didn’t know about the details of such operations, our enemies probably didn’t know either.
This argument calls to mind the deceitful habit cultivated by detractors of America’s post-September 11 regime of enhanced interrogation. They frequently insisted that “torture” was not merely immoral; it was ineffective. At times it seemed as if they could not mount a case against it if it were proven to yield benefits to American security. The suggestion that Snowden ever exposed wrongdoing is at least tenable, if not compelling. What strains credulity is that his imprudent action has not done real harm to American security. The ability to hinder terrorists’ communications is a vital American advantage in a war where the asymmetric benefits so often reside on the other side.
At this point one simply has to reiterate the initial questions: To justify Snowden’s wanton disregard for democratic procedure, what laws were ever shown to have been broken? What liberties were violated? This is what Snowden’s defenders—or, if you like, defenders of the act of bringing these classified materials to light—have never adequately explained. Indeed, this is what they have doggedly refused to answer. And for good reason. In the vast labyrinth of the American security state, there are numerous possibilities of illegal activity being brought to light.
And yet even at this late date, not a shred of evidence has been produced suggesting chronic abuse, let alone law-breaking, by the NSA. Even if there were such evidence, there is an established and credible process in place to reform government intelligence gathering techniques without arbitrarily leaking classified information—a process that Snowden shows no sign of having availed himself.
Anyone who recalls this sordid affair will not fail to notice the cavalier contempt for authority that propelled Snowden to splash his ill-gotten goods onto the world stage has been replicated every day of the Trump administration. (At least once, this happened literally, when Trump disclosed high-level U.S. secrets to the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office.) It is this exercise in “mere will and pleasure” that most urgently needs to be ruled out of court—the court of public opinion. If the president decides to grant him a pardon anyway, in open defiance of the spirit of his executive authority, it will not be the least of reasons for the American public to turn him out of office this November.


thebulwark--2020-08-20--Bannon Grifter Indictment: More Steel Bracelets for Team Trump

Oh , what a summer it ’ s been for those salt-of-the-earth , God-fearing , Second Amendment-protecting , border-defending members of President Trump ’ s circle of trusted advisers .
You know , the people who are working day and night to protect your rights from the evil , money-sucking swamp monsters of Washington , D.C. ?
Well , if you believe that , you ’ re probably the perfect mark for the next grifter campaign led by another one of Trump ’ s con men .
Today , Breitbart founder-turned Trump campaign CEO-turned White House adviser Steve Bannon was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes him the second Trump presidential campaign manager to get fitted with a free pair of steel bracelets .
( It ’ s like a BOGO offer : Do this crime , get this promo item free ! )
Not to be mistaken with Trump ’ s deputy campaign manager who was jailed , mind you .
Or his personal lawyer .
Or his longtime adviser Roger Stone .
Particularly when there is so much more money to be made and so many more issues to be exploited .
Bannon is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lawyers this fall because prosecutors at the Southern District of New York allege he participated in a scheme to bilk people who wanted to privately fund the border wall .
Under the premise of an online crowdfunding group , “ We Build The Wall , ” he helped rack up more than $ 25 million in donations from donors who were told , according to the indictment , that the founders would “ not take a penny in salary or compensation ” and that “ 100 % of the funds raised .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ execution of our mission and purpose.
” Bannon publicly stated , “ we ’ re a volunteer organization.
” The founder of the group , Brain Kolfage , is a disabled war veteran who expressly preyed on sympathies people may have for him , with Bannon-esque flair .
Material from him still left up on the website pleads : “ It ’ s time we stand up and fight back against the globalist [ sic ] who continue to allow our nation to be overrun .
I fought in war and lost three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war is at our doorstep .
It just takes $ 60 and share this with your friends and family .
Let ’ s go win this battle !
” According to the indictment , Kolfage used the money for home renovations , a boat , a luxury SUV , a golf cart , jewelry , cosmetic surgery , personal tax payments , and credit card debt .
To nab the cash , Bannon and company created sham invoices to route payments through a non-profit and shell company .
Standard fraud kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would a purchase for a boat to be used in a Trump flotilla count as a business expense or not ?
In hindsight , maybe Bannon ’ s plans to lease a 13th-century , sprawling Italian monastery makes a little more sense .
It would make for quite the picturesque sanctuary city .
Gosh , who could have ever expected that all this winning would be so hard on the wrists , though .
Ouchie .
If this all sounds a bit familiar , it ’ s probably because you were reading about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this summer .
It was the same kind of story—extravagant spending on all the rich-guy stuff .
Boats , travel , fancy suits .
All those things needed to really get in touch with those lunch-bucket construction workers , miners , and diner line cooks .
And happened to give reasons for the New York attorney general to seek to dissolve the organization after uncovering rampant fraud and abuse by the non-profit .
And if all that sounds familiar , it ’ s because that was the same attorney general who shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you guessed it , rampant fraud and abuse .
Anyone noticing a pattern here ?
It ’ s about as obvious as Trump ’ s makeup line on his jaw .
They ’ re grifters .
And like magnets , they have a strange way of attracting other grifters .
President Trump is like a galactic electromagnet that brings grifters together into a self-collapsing black hole of suckage .
But , for anyone left with a last naïve shred of belief that the ideological predators whom Trump surrounds himself with are honestly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting conservative principles , do I need to give you a picture ?
If Jerry Falwell Jr. , the president of Liberty University , being caught with his pants down isn ’ t enough to destroy your faith all that is MAGA , then Fox-News-host-turned-Trump-son-girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle would really love it if you would make your most generous donation to the Trump campaign IMMEDIATELY and help their dear family save America .
They need you .
Like , really need you .
How else are they going to pay for all those tequila-soaked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and while you have your wallet out , can I interest you in MyPillow Guy ’ s white oleander COVID cure ?
There ’ s still time to get in on the ground level of the next big scheme .

Oh, what a summer it’s been for those salt-of-the-earth, God-fearing, Second Amendment-protecting, border-defending members of President Trump’s circle of trusted advisers.
You know, the people who are working day and night to protect your rights from the evil, money-sucking swamp monsters of Washington, D.C.? Well, if you believe that, you’re probably the perfect mark for the next grifter campaign led by another one of Trump’s con men.
Today, Breitbart founder-turned Trump campaign CEO-turned White House adviser Steve Bannon was indicted and arrested for fraud. Which makes him the second Trump presidential campaign manager to get fitted with a free pair of steel bracelets. (It’s like a BOGO offer: Do this crime, get this promo item free!) Not to be mistaken with Trump’s deputy campaign manager who was jailed, mind you. Or his personal lawyer. Or his longtime adviser Roger Stone.
But, hey, who’s keeping track?
Particularly when there is so much more money to be made and so many more issues to be exploited.
Bannon is going to be spending a lot of time with his lawyers this fall because prosecutors at the Southern District of New York allege he participated in a scheme to bilk people who wanted to privately fund the border wall. Under the premise of an online crowdfunding group, “We Build The Wall,” he helped rack up more than $25 million in donations from donors who were told, according to the indictment, that the founders would “not take a penny in salary or compensation” and that “100% of the funds raised . . . will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose.” Bannon publicly stated, “we’re a volunteer organization.”
The founder of the group, Brain Kolfage, is a disabled war veteran who expressly preyed on sympathies people may have for him, with Bannon-esque flair. Material from him still left up on the website pleads: “It’s time we stand up and fight back against the globalist [sic] who continue to allow our nation to be overrun. I fought in war and lost three limbs defending this country, but now the war is at our doorstep. It just takes $60 and share this with your friends and family. Let’s go win this battle!”
According to the indictment, Kolfage used the money for home renovations, a boat, a luxury SUV, a golf cart, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, personal tax payments, and credit card debt. To nab the cash, Bannon and company created sham invoices to route payments through a non-profit and shell company. Standard fraud kind of stuff. Question for the lawyers, would a purchase for a boat to be used in a Trump flotilla count as a business expense or not?
In hindsight, maybe Bannon’s plans to lease a 13th-century, sprawling Italian monastery makes a little more sense. It would make for quite the picturesque sanctuary city.
Gosh, who could have ever expected that all this winning would be so hard on the wrists, though. Ouchie.
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…
If this all sounds a bit familiar, it’s probably because you were reading about National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre earlier this summer. It was the same kind of story—extravagant spending on all the rich-guy stuff. Boats, travel, fancy suits. All those things needed to really get in touch with those lunch-bucket construction workers, miners, and diner line cooks. And happened to give reasons for the New York attorney general to seek to dissolve the organization after uncovering rampant fraud and abuse by the non-profit.
And if all that sounds familiar, it’s because that was the same attorney general who shut down Trump’s family charity for, you guessed it, rampant fraud and abuse.
Anyone noticing a pattern here? It’s about as obvious as Trump’s makeup line on his jaw. They’re grifters. And like magnets, they have a strange way of attracting other grifters. President Trump is like a galactic electromagnet that brings grifters together into a self-collapsing black hole of suckage.
But, for anyone left with a last naïve shred of belief that the ideological predators whom Trump surrounds himself with are honestly in these fights for the sheer good of promoting conservative principles, do I need to give you a picture?
If Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, being caught with his pants down isn’t enough to destroy your faith all that is MAGA, then Fox-News-host-turned-Trump-son-girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle would really love it if you would make your most generous donation to the Trump campaign IMMEDIATELY and help their dear family save America.
They need you. Like, really need you. How else are they going to pay for all those tequila-soaked birthday dinners at Mar-a-Lago?
Oh, and while you have your wallet out, can I interest you in MyPillow Guy’s white oleander COVID cure? There’s still time to get in on the ground level of the next big scheme.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--What Are We Saving?

What Are We Saving?

During this week ’ s Democratic National Convention , speaker after speaker appealed to Americans to vote in November as if democracy itself were on the ballot .
On Monday , Senator Bernie Sanders kicked things off by saying that the 2020 election would be the most important in modern American history and calling on Americans to “ stand up and fight for democracy.
” Those who tuned in on Tuesday saw a reprise of Vice President Joe Biden ’ s May 2019 campaign launch where he warned that under the Trump Administration , “ the threat to our democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates used her three-minute address to remind listeners of the president ’ s “ relentless attacks on our democratic institutions , ” including his threats not to accept the election results and his repeated attacks on mail-in voting .
She claimed that in the forthcoming presidential contest , “ the future of our democracy is at stake.
” Former President Barack Obama picked up the theme on Wednesday , urging Americans to “ believe in your own ability—to embrace your own responsibility as citizens—to make sure that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because that ’ s what at stake right now .
Our democracy.
” Each of these speakers acted as if such appeals and warnings would be a surefire way to rally people to their cause and to galvanize voters to preserve democracy .
In so doing , they not only ignored unnerving evidence of the American public ’ s diminishing attachment to democratic institutions , they also missed an opportunity to forthrightly address the reasons for that loss of faith and to shore it up .
Disillusioned Americans need more than to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exhorted to stand up for it .
If the erosion of democracy ’ s underpinnings is to be reversed , Americans have to see why democracy is valuable and understand what can be done to ensure that its recent failures will be addressed in the future .
They need a powerful and convincing civics lesson .
They must be helped , as the political theorist Danielle Allen puts it , to see how they can “ become citizens again.
” Doubts about democracy are of course nothing new ; they are as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree that the Founders did not intend to create a government that would be guided by , and responsive to , popular opinion .
They worried that democracy would deteriorate into mob rule and threaten liberty .
As a result , they limited the franchise and created a form of government replete with barriers to democratic majorities seeking to work their will .
Alexander Hamilton , for one , rested his defense of the Constitution on the grounds that it was not a genuinely democratic document .
As he argued at the Constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people has been said to be the voice of God ; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed , it is not true in fact .
The people are turbulent and changing ; they seldom judge or determine right .
… Their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks.
” A year later Hamilton returned to the same theme : “ It has been observed that a pure democracy , if it were practicable , would be the most perfect government .
Experience has proved that no position is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracies , in which the people themselves deliberated , never possessed one good feature of government .
Their very character was tyranny ; their figure deformity.
” Hamilton ’ s doubts were shared by many of his contemporaries .
Thus in 1814 former President John Adams warned that “ democracy never lasts long .
It soon wastes , exhausts , and murders itself .
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
” Modern thinkers have also been prone to such dire doubts about democracy .
Two hundred years after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lippmann echoed his concern .
He wrote that American democracy asked too much of citizens .
“ My sympathies are with [ the citizen ] , for I believe that he has been saddled with an impossible task and that he is asked to practice an unattainable ideal , ” Lippmann said .
“ I find it so myself for , although public business is my main interest and I give most of my time to watching it , I can not find time to do what is expected of me in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what is going on and to have an opinion worth expressing on every question which confronts a self-governing community.
” Today such concerns about democracy are widespread among the American public .
They are registered in many ways .
For example , public trust and confidence in government has plummeted from the early 1960s , when 80 percent of Americans said they trusted the government in Washington .
Today that number is 20 percent .
Worse , 47 percent of the American people now believe that there is not much that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
In addition , national surveys reveal that , like Lippmann , only 34 percent of the respondents “ have a very great deal or a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions.
” Sixty-three percent have either “ not very much confidence or none at all.
” This is a sharp reversal since the late 1990s , when nearly two-thirds said they had confidence in the public ’ s political wisdom .
Other recent studies report a dramatic decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ essential ” to live in a democracy and a rise in those who embrace authoritarian rule .
When asked to rate on a scale of one to 10 how essential it is for them to live in a democracy , 72 percent of those born before World War II select 10 , the highest value .
But people born since 1980 have “ grown more indifferent ” : less than one in 3 agree that it is essential to live in a democracy .
In light of these results , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely to agree that having a democratic political system is a bad way to run this country .
Almost a quarter of people 16-24 express that view ; in contrast among people over 65 , just 12 percent judge democracy as a bad way to run the country .
Moreover , the New York Times reports that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a “ good ” or “ very good ” thing had risen to one in 6 in 2014 , compared with one in 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa have called democratic “ deconsolidation ” in the United States .
In this context , defenders of democracy have their work cut out for them .
They will have to offer a defense of democracy that goes beyond Winston Churchill ’ s famous admonition that “ democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
” As the 2020 campaign unfolds , Democrats will have to do more than warn of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to make a compelling case for why democracy matters—why it is a form of government that best embodies the ideals of freedom and human dignity Americans should prize , and how it can more fully satisfy our aspirations for justice and equality than any other form of government .
And the Democrats need to make clear what they will do to ensure that democratic institutions address the very real challenges Americans are confronting every day .

During this week’s Democratic National Convention, speaker after speaker appealed to Americans to vote in November as if democracy itself were on the ballot. On Monday, Senator Bernie Sanders kicked things off by saying that the 2020 election would be the most important in modern American history and calling on Americans to “stand up and fight for democracy.”
Those who tuned in on Tuesday saw a reprise of Vice President Joe Biden’s May 2019 campaign launch where he warned that under the Trump Administration, “the threat to our democracy is real.” That same night, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates used her three-minute address to remind listeners of the president’s “relentless attacks on our democratic institutions,” including his threats not to accept the election results and his repeated attacks on mail-in voting. She claimed that in the forthcoming presidential contest, “the future of our democracy is at stake.”
Former President Barack Obama picked up the theme on Wednesday, urging Americans to “believe in your own ability—to embrace your own responsibility as citizens—to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure. Because that’s what at stake right now. Our democracy.”
Each of these speakers acted as if such appeals and warnings would be a surefire way to rally people to their cause and to galvanize voters to preserve democracy. In so doing, they not only ignored unnerving evidence of the American public’s diminishing attachment to democratic institutions, they also missed an opportunity to forthrightly address the reasons for that loss of faith and to shore it up.
Disillusioned Americans need more than to be told repeatedly that democracy is in danger and exhorted to stand up for it. If the erosion of democracy’s underpinnings is to be reversed, Americans have to see why democracy is valuable and understand what can be done to ensure that its recent failures will be addressed in the future.
They need a powerful and convincing civics lesson. They must be helped, as the political theorist Danielle Allen puts it, to see how they can “become citizens again.”
Doubts about democracy are of course nothing new; they are as old as the Republic itself.
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…
Historians agree that the Founders did not intend to create a government that would be guided by, and responsive to, popular opinion. They worried that democracy would deteriorate into mob rule and threaten liberty. As a result, they limited the franchise and created a form of government replete with barriers to democratic majorities seeking to work their will.
Alexander Hamilton, for one, rested his defense of the Constitution on the grounds that it was not a genuinely democratic document. As he argued at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “the voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. … Their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks.”
A year later Hamilton returned to the same theme: “It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Hamilton’s doubts were shared by many of his contemporaries. Thus in 1814 former President John Adams warned that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Modern thinkers have also been prone to such dire doubts about democracy. Two hundred years after Adams, journalist and public intellectual Walter Lippmann echoed his concern. He wrote that American democracy asked too much of citizens. “My sympathies are with [the citizen], for I believe that he has been saddled with an impossible task and that he is asked to practice an unattainable ideal,” Lippmann said. “I find it so myself for, although public business is my main interest and I give most of my time to watching it, I cannot find time to do what is expected of me in the theory of democracy; that is, to know what is going on and to have an opinion worth expressing on every question which confronts a self-governing community.”
Today such concerns about democracy are widespread among the American public.
They are registered in many ways. For example, public trust and confidence in government has plummeted from the early 1960s, when 80 percent of Americans said they trusted the government in Washington. Today that number is 20 percent. Worse, 47 percent of the American people now believe that there is not much that ordinary citizens can do to influence the government.
In addition, national surveys reveal that, like Lippmann, only 34 percent of the respondents “have a very great deal or a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions.” Sixty-three percent have either “not very much confidence or none at all.” This is a sharp reversal since the late 1990s, when nearly two-thirds said they had confidence in the public’s political wisdom.
Other recent studies report a dramatic decline in the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy and a rise in those who embrace authoritarian rule.
When asked to rate on a scale of one to 10 how essential it is for them to live in a democracy, 72 percent of those born before World War II select 10, the highest value. But people born since 1980 have “grown more indifferent”: less than one in 3 agree that it is essential to live in a democracy.
In light of these results, it is not surprising that young people are more likely to agree that having a democratic political system is a bad way to run this country. Almost a quarter of people 16-24 express that view; in contrast among people over 65, just 12 percent judge democracy as a bad way to run the country.
Moreover, the New York Times reports that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to one in 6 in 2014, compared with one in 16 in 1995.
All of this points to what political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa have called democratic “deconsolidation” in the United States.
In this context, defenders of democracy have their work cut out for them.
They will have to offer a defense of democracy that goes beyond Winston Churchill’s famous admonition that “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
As the 2020 campaign unfolds, Democrats will have to do more than warn of democracy’s demise. They will have to make a compelling case for why democracy matters—why it is a form of government that best embodies the ideals of freedom and human dignity Americans should prize, and how it can more fully satisfy our aspirations for justice and equality than any other form of government.
And the Democrats need to make clear what they will do to ensure that democratic institutions address the very real challenges Americans are confronting every day.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--Joe Biden’s Virtual Triumph

Joe Biden’s Virtual Triumph

On Thursday night , Joe Biden had to accomplish what no one else could do for him : complete his transition from avuncular alternative to Donald Trump into the empathetic and commanding president Americans want .
Only that remained .
Beginning on Monday evening , his party had turned what could have been a mind-numbing infomercial into a persuasive call to rescue America from chaos and meanness .
In the process , they confirmed that the focus and economy of campaigning during a pandemic has served Biden well .
Gone were the long boring speeches , the delegates in silly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters desperate for excitement .
In their absence , the party ’ s message emerged unalloyed : America needs this man .
Monday established the theme .
Instead of feeling exploitative or contrived—which they easily could have—the videos of diverse and ordinary people beset by our converging social crises composed a telling indictment of a solipsistic president and his supine party .
Imagine Trump ’ s GOP inviting George Floyd ’ s brother to recite the names of other victims before requesting a moment of silence .
Biden ’ s party did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicted Trump for her father ’ s death from COVID-19 : “ My dad was a healthy 65-year-old .
His only pre-existing condition was trusting Donald Trump .
And for that , he paid with his life.
” In a president , she reminded us , callousness kills .
A related theme underscored Biden ’ s humanity for an electorate drained by Trump ’ s singular self-absorption .
Typical were personal remembrances of his kindness and concern from fellow Amtrak commuters—reminding us that for decades Joe Biden , family man , commuted from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids .
Then came Biden the unifier .
John Kasich and Bernie Sanders , political opposites , delivered a cross-ideological appeal for Biden as the trusted leader we need in hard and fractious times .
The progressives who objected to including Kasich , a conservative Republican with a conscience , missed the point : To defeat Trump , Biden needs the support of disaffected Republicans and voters weary of polarization or wary of the Democratic left .
Here Kasich did his job : “ I ’ m sure there are Republicans and independents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support a Democrat ; they fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind .
I don ’ t believe that , because I know the measure of the man—reasonable , faithful , respectful .
And you know , no one pushes Joe around.
” In turn , Sanders gave Biden the fervent endorsement he denied Hillary Clinton .
After acknowledging their differences on healthcare , Sanders emphasized areas of agreement crucial to progressives before invoking the moral imperatives of the moment : Monday ’ s final speaker is , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most effective mass communicator—capable of rousing a packed convention hall to near-evangelical fervor .
But Michelle Obama proved equally persuasive speaking from her living room .
She began by ruing the signal failure of Trump ’ s presidency : “ Whenever we look to this White House for some leadership or consolation or any semblance of steadiness , what we get instead is chaos , division , and a total and utter lack of empathy.
” Then she held out the promise of a different leader : With lethal elegance , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth ” : With that last mordant sentence—repeating verbatim Trump ’ s dismissal of lives needlessly lost to COVID-19—still resonating , the former first lady went in for the kill : Her elixir of fear and hope permeated the next three nights .
It ’ s up to us , the narrative went : We can choose renewal and resolve , decency and compassion—or the destructive nihilism of a man incapable of better .
On Tuesday night , Democrats turned to issues on this knife-edge of good and ill. Exploiting the GOP ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace it , the party featured vulnerable Americans who depend on it to avert personal tragedy and financial ruin .
The father of a Parkland victim spoke of Biden ’ s commitment to end our enthrallment to the gun lobby .
John Kerry pilloried Trump as a dangerous incompetent who kowtows to dictators and jeopardizes our national security and global standing .
Bill Clinton laid into Trump ’ s chaotic mishandling of the pandemic : “ At a time like this , the Oval Office should be a command center .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And a diverse selection of presenters called for combating racism in law enforcement .
Strategically , the convention continued its outreach to disenchanted Republicans .
Colin Powell delivered a strong endorsement of Biden , and Cindy McCain narrated a video memorializing the friendship between Biden and her late husband—an echo of the more civilized political mores which Trump has trampled .
But the most affecting video , perhaps , depicted the relationship between Joe and Jill Biden—who , as a young woman , became mother to two boys after Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car wreck .
This refreshing preview of a first couple we can actually admire served to introduce Tuesday evening ’ s final speaker .
Jill Biden proved an interesting complement to Michelle Obama .
Despite her warmth , there is something about Obama which arouses awe .
Biden evokes what she clearly is—the caring and capable teacher and mom .
Appropriately , Obama was on the attack .
As a potential first lady , Biden kept it personal .
Her account of the familial experience in surmounting grief also served as an extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , motherhood came to me in a way I never expected .
I fell in love with a man and two little boys standing in the wreckage of unthinkable loss , mourning a wife and mother , a daughter and sister .
I never imagined , at the age of 26 , I would be asking myself , how do you make a broken family whole ?
Still , Joe always told the boys , “ Mommy sent Jill to us.
” And how could I argue with her ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
.
We found that love holds a family together .
Love makes us flexible and resilient .
It allows us to become more than ourselves , together , and though it can ’ t protect us from the sorrows of life , it gives us refuge , a home .
How do you make a broken family whole ?
The same way you make a nation whole : with love and understanding and small acts of kindness .
.
.
.
After our son Beau died of cancer , I wondered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joy again .
It was summer , but there was no more warmth left for me .
Four days after Beau ’ s funeral , I watched Joe shave and put on his suit .
I saw him steel himself in the mirror , take a breath , put his shoulders back , and walk out into a world empty of our son .
He went back to work .
That ’ s just who he is .
.
.
.
The burdens we carry are heavy and we need someone with strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entrust this nation to Joe , he will do for your family what he did for ours : Bring us together and make us whole .
Carry us forward in our time of need .
Keep the promise of America for all of us .
Wednesday ’ s program was , again , a well-conceived meld of targeted messaging .
Videos dramatized the plight of Dreamers , the engagement of women in the scrum of politics , and Biden ’ s sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act .
Gabrielle Giffords personified the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke of childcare as part of our national infrastructure .
But the evening hinged on the final speakers—Barack Obama and Kamala Harris .
This was a different Obama .
He delivered a stark warning about our future in the plainest terms , mercifully stripped of post-presidential niceties , suffused with barely suppressed anger and anguish at how relentlessly his successor had defiled his office and degraded our democracy .
What made it so riveting was that our visceral relief in seeing him unshackled exposed the dire exigencies of a national reckoning Obama knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damning verdict on Trump : The task of saving American democracy from Trump ’ s suffocating pathologies , Obama enjoined , falls on us : Never before has an American president felt compelled to say of a successor , as Obama did in concluding , “ This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that ’ s what it takes to win.
” Such was the moment that nothing Harris said could match it .
But by dissecting Trump from his rarefied platform , Obama relieved Harris of the running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a service to Harris , and Biden .
Harris displayed a commanding presence and gracefully embraced her historic role , personal and symbolic .
But despite her star power , Harris is better known to the public for her prosecutorial talents than for the warmth she displays in private .
On Wednesday evening that changed : She spoke with palpable feeling of her mother , husband , sister , and extended family , and their centrality to her sense of self .
This may serve to mute the expected insinuations by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nasty and calculating vessel of the left , devoid of principal or feeling .
In short , Harris gave Biden what he needed—she justified his choice .
All that remained which mattered was that which mattered most : the speech on which the convention ’ s ultimate success or failure rested , Biden ’ s own—the fateful culmination of a half-century in politics filled with triumph and tragedy , self-inflicted wounds and preternatural resilience , a vertiginous amalgam of highs and lows which , for many , too often reflected a humanity too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday night , when he began speaking under the pressure of what is becoming Donald Trump ’ s central message : that , at 77 , Biden is a senescent has-been unable to sustain a coherent train of thought .
Knowing this , one watched him with a hyper-alertness for any moment , perhaps negligible in anyone else , which would feed Trumps merciless depiction .
While steady and sober , his opening moments did not dispel all doubt .
Then , as moments passed , one began seeing him as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is too much anger in this country , he said , too much division , too much fear .
We are better than that , he told us—and we knew that , unlike our president , so is he .
“ This is not a partisan moment , ” Biden insisted .
“ This must be an American moment.
” He spoke of decency , inclusiveness , compassion—those simple but important graces not granted Donald Trump .
He spoke of tackling the pandemic—and one believed him .
He promised to tackle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand educational opportunity , provide child- and elder-care , reform our immigration system , and combat the scourge of racism .
He spoke directly to the families who have lost a child , sibling or parent—and one knew that his feelings matched the words .
He spoke of patriotism steeped in pride and hope , not fear and exclusion , and one knew it could be so .
As he looked in the camera , his voice gaining force , one realized that Joe Biden was giving the speech of his life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular guy who had willed himself to leadership without losing his essential decency .
He was not simply making a liar of Donald Trump—he was shaming him .
Though he had been in politics for decades , he was telling us that experience—and the chance to use it for good—had made this good man the right man for hard times .
“ So , ” he said , “ the question for us is simple : Are we ready ?
“ I believe we are .
If we are , Biden told us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he .

On Thursday night, Joe Biden had to accomplish what no one else could do for him: complete his transition from avuncular alternative to Donald Trump into the empathetic and commanding president Americans want.
Only that remained. Beginning on Monday evening, his party had turned what could have been a mind-numbing infomercial into a persuasive call to rescue America from chaos and meanness. In the process, they confirmed that the focus and economy of campaigning during a pandemic has served Biden well.
Gone were the long boring speeches, the delegates in silly hats, the noisy dissenters pursued by reporters desperate for excitement. In their absence, the party’s message emerged unalloyed: America needs this man.
Monday established the theme. Instead of feeling exploitative or contrived—which they easily could have—the videos of diverse and ordinary people beset by our converging social crises composed a telling indictment of a solipsistic president and his supine party. Imagine Trump’s GOP inviting George Floyd’s brother to recite the names of other victims before requesting a moment of silence. Biden’s party did.
Equally absorbing was the young woman who indicted Trump for her father’s death from COVID-19: “My dad was a healthy 65-year-old. His only pre-existing condition was trusting Donald Trump. And for that, he paid with his life.” In a president, she reminded us, callousness kills.
A related theme underscored Biden’s humanity for an electorate drained by Trump’s singular self-absorption. Typical were personal remembrances of his kindness and concern from fellow Amtrak commuters—reminding us that for decades Joe Biden, family man, commuted from D.C. to Delaware to be with his kids.
Then came Biden the unifier. John Kasich and Bernie Sanders, political opposites, delivered a cross-ideological appeal for Biden as the trusted leader we need in hard and fractious times. The progressives who objected to including Kasich, a conservative Republican with a conscience, missed the point: To defeat Trump, Biden needs the support of disaffected Republicans and voters weary of polarization or wary of the Democratic left.
Here Kasich did his job: “I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat; they fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that, because I know the measure of the man—reasonable, faithful, respectful. And you know, no one pushes Joe around.”
In turn, Sanders gave Biden the fervent endorsement he denied Hillary Clinton. After acknowledging their differences on healthcare, Sanders emphasized areas of agreement crucial to progressives before invoking the moral imperatives of the moment:
And to heal the soul of our nation, Joe Biden will end the hate and division Trump has created. He will stop the demonization of immigrants, the coddling of white nationalists, the racist dog-whistling, the religious bigotry, and the ugly attacks on women. . . . The future of our democracy is at stake. . . . We must come together, defeat Donald Trump, and elect Joe Biden. . . . My friends, the price of failure is just too great to imagine.
Monday’s final speaker is, when she cares to be, America’s most effective mass communicator—capable of rousing a packed convention hall to near-evangelical fervor. But Michelle Obama proved equally persuasive speaking from her living room.
She began by ruing the signal failure of Trump’s presidency: “Whenever we look to this White House for some leadership or consolation or any semblance of steadiness, what we get instead is chaos, division, and a total and utter lack of empathy.” Then she held out the promise of a different leader:
I know Joe. He is a profoundly decent man, guided by faith. He was a terrific vice president. He knows what it takes to rescue an economy, beat back a pandemic, and lead our country. And he listens. He will tell the truth and trust science. He will make smart plans and manage a good team. And he will govern as someone who’s lived a life that the rest of us can recognize.
With lethal elegance, she proceeded to distill “the cold hard truth”:
Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is.
With that last mordant sentence—repeating verbatim Trump’s dismissal of lives needlessly lost to COVID-19—still resonating, the former first lady went in for the kill:
So if you take one thing from my words tonight, it is this: if you think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me, they can; and they will if we don’t make a change in this election. If we have any hope of ending this chaos, we have got to vote for Joe Biden like our lives depend on it.
Her elixir of fear and hope permeated the next three nights. It’s up to us, the narrative went: We can choose renewal and resolve, decency and compassion—or the destructive nihilism of a man incapable of better.
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…
On Tuesday night, Democrats turned to issues on this knife-edge of good and ill.
Exploiting the GOP’s efforts to repeal Obamacare with nothing to replace it, the party featured vulnerable Americans who depend on it to avert personal tragedy and financial ruin. The father of a Parkland victim spoke of Biden’s commitment to end our enthrallment to the gun lobby. John Kerry pilloried Trump as a dangerous incompetent who kowtows to dictators and jeopardizes our national security and global standing. Bill Clinton laid into Trump’s chaotic mishandling of the pandemic: “At a time like this, the Oval Office should be a command center. Instead, it’s a storm center.” And a diverse selection of presenters called for combating racism in law enforcement.
Strategically, the convention continued its outreach to disenchanted Republicans. Colin Powell delivered a strong endorsement of Biden, and Cindy McCain narrated a video memorializing the friendship between Biden and her late husband—an echo of the more civilized political mores which Trump has trampled.
But the most affecting video, perhaps, depicted the relationship between Joe and Jill Biden—who, as a young woman, became mother to two boys after Biden’s first wife and daughter died in a car wreck. This refreshing preview of a first couple we can actually admire served to introduce Tuesday evening’s final speaker.
Jill Biden proved an interesting complement to Michelle Obama. Despite her warmth, there is something about Obama which arouses awe. Biden evokes what she clearly is—the caring and capable teacher and mom.
Appropriately, Obama was on the attack. As a potential first lady, Biden kept it personal. Her account of the familial experience in surmounting grief also served as an extended metaphor for a country confronting COVID-19:
You know, motherhood came to me in a way I never expected. I fell in love with a man and two little boys standing in the wreckage of unthinkable loss, mourning a wife and mother, a daughter and sister. I never imagined, at the age of 26, I would be asking myself, how do you make a broken family whole? Still, Joe always told the boys, “Mommy sent Jill to us.” And how could I argue with her? And so we figured it out together. . . . We found that love holds a family together. Love makes us flexible and resilient. It allows us to become more than ourselves, together, and though it can’t protect us from the sorrows of life, it gives us refuge, a home. How do you make a broken family whole? The same way you make a nation whole: with love and understanding and small acts of kindness. . . . After our son Beau died of cancer, I wondered if I would ever smile or feel joy again. It was summer, but there was no more warmth left for me. Four days after Beau’s funeral, I watched Joe shave and put on his suit. I saw him steel himself in the mirror, take a breath, put his shoulders back, and walk out into a world empty of our son. He went back to work. That’s just who he is. . . . The burdens we carry are heavy and we need someone with strong shoulders. I know that if we entrust this nation to Joe, he will do for your family what he did for ours: Bring us together and make us whole. Carry us forward in our time of need. Keep the promise of America for all of us.
As spousal testament, matchless.
Wednesday’s program was, again, a well-conceived meld of targeted messaging. Videos dramatized the plight of Dreamers, the engagement of women in the scrum of politics, and Biden’s sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act. Gabrielle Giffords personified the toll of gun violence; Elizabeth Warren spoke of childcare as part of our national infrastructure. But the evening hinged on the final speakers—Barack Obama and Kamala Harris.
This was a different Obama. He delivered a stark warning about our future in the plainest terms, mercifully stripped of post-presidential niceties, suffused with barely suppressed anger and anguish at how relentlessly his successor had defiled his office and degraded our democracy. What made it so riveting was that our visceral relief in seeing him unshackled exposed the dire exigencies of a national reckoning Obama knows we cannot escape.
Consider his damning verdict on Trump:
I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care. But he never did. For close to four years now, he’s shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves. Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t.
The task of saving American democracy from Trump’s suffocating pathologies, Obama enjoined, falls on us:
Well here’s the point: this president and those in power—those who benefit from keeping things the way they are—they are counting on your cynicism. They know they can’t win you over with their policies. So they’re hoping to make it as hard as possible for you to vote, and to convince you that your vote doesn’t matter. That’s how they win. . . . We can’t let that happen. Do not let them take away your power. Do not let them take away your democracy.
Never before has an American president felt compelled to say of a successor, as Obama did in concluding, “This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win.”
Such was the moment that nothing Harris said could match it. But by dissecting Trump from his rarefied platform, Obama relieved Harris of the running mate’s principal role—attacker.
This was a service to Harris, and Biden. Harris displayed a commanding presence and gracefully embraced her historic role, personal and symbolic.
But despite her star power, Harris is better known to the public for her prosecutorial talents than for the warmth she displays in private. On Wednesday evening that changed: She spoke with palpable feeling of her mother, husband, sister, and extended family, and their centrality to her sense of self. This may serve to mute the expected insinuations by Trump and his misogynist enablers she is a nasty and calculating vessel of the left, devoid of principal or feeling.
In short, Harris gave Biden what he needed—she justified his choice.
All that remained which mattered was that which mattered most: the speech on which the convention’s ultimate success or failure rested, Biden’s own—the fateful culmination of a half-century in politics filled with triumph and tragedy, self-inflicted wounds and preternatural resilience, a vertiginous amalgam of highs and lows which, for many, too often reflected a humanity too unnervingly human.
This was especially true on Thursday night, when he began speaking under the pressure of what is becoming Donald Trump’s central message: that, at 77, Biden is a senescent has-been unable to sustain a coherent train of thought. Knowing this, one watched him with a hyper-alertness for any moment, perhaps negligible in anyone else, which would feed Trumps merciless depiction.
While steady and sober, his opening moments did not dispel all doubt. Then, as moments passed, one began seeing him as he is: a mature and seasoned man. There is too much anger in this country, he said, too much division, too much fear. We are better than that, he told us—and we knew that, unlike our president, so is he. “This is not a partisan moment,” Biden insisted. “This must be an American moment.”
He spoke of decency, inclusiveness, compassion—those simple but important graces not granted Donald Trump. He spoke of tackling the pandemic—and one believed him. He promised to tackle climate change, revive the economy, expand educational opportunity, provide child- and elder-care, reform our immigration system, and combat the scourge of racism.
He spoke directly to the families who have lost a child, sibling or parent—and one knew that his feelings matched the words. He spoke of patriotism steeped in pride and hope, not fear and exclusion, and one knew it could be so.
As he looked in the camera, his voice gaining force, one realized that Joe Biden was giving the speech of his life. He was running as himself, a regular guy who had willed himself to leadership without losing his essential decency. He was not simply making a liar of Donald Trump—he was shaming him. Though he had been in politics for decades, he was telling us that experience—and the chance to use it for good—had made this good man the right man for hard times.
“So,” he said, “the question for us is simple: Are we ready?
“I believe we are.
“We must be.”
If we are, Biden told us in word and manner, so is he.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--Playing Kanye as a Black Voter Trump Card Is Betting on a Losing Hand

“ No one man should have all that power .
The clock ’ s tickin ’ , I just count the hours .
Stop trippin ’ I ’ m trippin ’ off the power.
” –Kanye West , “ Power ” I really don ’ t want to speak about Kanye West .
My desire to opine on his antics passed many moons ago .
I ’ m also not a person who believes in “ cancel culture ” —but I ’ m a huge proponent of “ consequence culture , ” and I long ago moved Kanye into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So why break my self-imposed moratorium ?
Because no matter how much of a hot mess I believe Kanye is today , I couldn ’ t sit idly by while political powers-that-be attempt to commodify him purely for their political gains while simultaneously insulting black voters .
By now it ’ s no secret that Donald Trump , Jared Kushner , and an assortment of C-list Roger Stone wannabes are working with Kanye ’ s cabal to help ensure that he is on the ballot in several key swing states for November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to describe this in my view : pimping a man in the midst of a mental-health crisis to try and help secure a second Trump term .
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and you might think that the people snuggling up in the California king with Kanye are definitely strange—until you look at the nation and the Trump family ’ s track record of commodifying black people for social , economic , and political gain .
Racial capitalism—deriving social or economic value from the racial identity of other people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tale as old as American time .
It started with slavery , continued through minstrel shows and hip-hop culture , and we can see it still today in the exploitation of college athletes .
It is by no means the exclusive terrain of Republicans , but Donald Trump has been particularly persistent in attempting to use blacks for profit .
Trump once suggested a blacks vs. whites season of his reality show The Apprentice , and during the 2016 campaign wasn ’ t afraid to do the quiet part of tokenizing out loud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American over here.
” And what of Kanye West ?
What is the politically expedient purpose behind the GOP ’ s newfound coziness with him ?
Securing the black vote , or at least swinging some black voters away from Biden , of course .
Or giving those unicorn black voters who are still on the fence between Biden and Trump a third way .
Spoiler : this ain ’ t it .
We shouldn ’ t be surprised that a person who thought Race War Thunderdome would make good TV and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he gassed some protesters to hold up a Bible and not read from it would think that all he needs to do to peel off some of Biden ’ s black support is to get a rapper on the ballot .
But let ’ s talk about actual black voters for a minute .
Many efforts to secure the votes of black Americans evince a deep misunderstanding of what motivates blacks to keep on showing up in voting booths , even when that may mean many hours in lines ( looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling places specifically in places where people of color vote ) .
And these misguided efforts are not divided by a red or blue color line .
To be sure , Republicans tokenize blacks but so do Democrats .
During the 2020 primary season , there was a lot of talk on the left about the sophistication , or lack thereof , of black voters .
It was as patronizing and insulting then as Republicans ’ sudden burst of love for Kanye is now .
Black voters are not dumb .
So will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not Miss Cleo , but here ’ s my sense of things : No .
The answer is no .
Black voters are nothing if not pragmatic and acutely aware that there is no political messiah who is going to save us .
We vote to save ourselves .
Self-preservation is the reason that so many blacks stormed the primary polls to vote for Joe Biden , some with their noses plugged to ensure that Dems did not doom us to a disastrous Bernie Sanders nomination .
Those same voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a continued Trump presidency poses to our existence , are not going to throw away their vote .
To believe that black voters , in a time in which we are fighting for our lives—both literally , due to the systemic structural inequality that renders us subject to disproportionate racial violence and poor health outcomes , as COVID-19 has shined a light on , and figuratively as we try to advance this nation towards a reckoning that will lead to liberty and justice for all—persist in showing up so that we can engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a place of privilege that is divorced from the reality that black Americans live .
Generally speaking , we simply don ’ t have the luxury of “ Jill Steining ” votes on principle , as some did in 2016 .
Contrary to the seemingly prevailing political perspective , black people do not automatically offer full-throated support to any person deemed to have the right amount of melanin .
Exhibit A : John James , a candidate who by all accounts should have a bright political future but who is currently way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Senate .
Or , for that matter , Exhibit B : the fates of Kamala Harris , Cory Booker , and Deval Patrick during the Democratic primaries .
Undeniably , Kanye West remains a celebrity who does what is necessary to remain on the public ’ s radar .
But the attention Kanye receives is comparable to the grotesque curiosity that causes people to slow down to watch a car accident or train wreck .
That does not make him a relevant black thought-leader .
It does give Kanye some appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race who thinks the whole system is corrupt .
The type of voter who is happy to take a flier on a famous person whom they think has a less than zero chance of winning but who is going to shake up the system .
Now , who do you think that type of voter went for in the last election ?
Setting aside the question of qualification for the presidency and looking just at the question of electability , there was a point at which Kanye may have actually been a viable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disillusioned and discontented with the kinds of political candidates the two dominant parties usually select—candidates who often trade empty promises to people of color for votes .
This would have been back when Kanye was a populist , outsider voice of black America .
But that ’ s not the Kanye of 2020 .
The Kanye who scythed the Bush administration for its Katrina response is now running cover for an administration that has so mangled its response to the COVID-19 pandemic that is disproportionately delivering its pain on the black community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Donald and don a red MAGA hat , to many he may as well have transformed into Clayton Bigsby , the iconic Dave Chappelle character who was a white supremacist but because of his blindness could not see that he was actually a black man .
In the same way that Donald Trump thought Jared Kushner could solve Middle East Peace because he ’ s the Jewish in-law , Jared thinks Kanye can solve their black voter problem .
That ’ s not how this works .
People are not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and discarded for the purpose of white-knuckling one ’ s tenuous grasp on political power .
It ’ s my beautiful dark twisted fantasy that folks would ante up and stop seeing blacks as chips to be played but instead equal players in the game .
We know when people are trying to use us because we ’ ve seen it .
Repeatedly .
And not even for the love of Yeezus are we here for it happening one more time at the hands of Donald J. Trump .

“No one man should have all that power. The clock’s tickin’, I just count the hours. Stop trippin’ I’m trippin’ off the power.”
–Kanye West, “Power”
I really don’t want to speak about Kanye West. My desire to opine on his antics passed many moons ago. I’m also not a person who believes in “cancel culture”—but I’m a huge proponent of “consequence culture,” and I long ago moved Kanye into the “thank you, next” column.
So why break my self-imposed moratorium? Because no matter how much of a hot mess I believe Kanye is today, I couldn’t sit idly by while political powers-that-be attempt to commodify him purely for their political gains while simultaneously insulting black voters.
By now it’s no secret that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, and an assortment of C-list Roger Stone wannabes are working with Kanye’s cabal to help ensure that he is on the ballot in several key swing states for November’s election. The most accurate way to describe this in my view: pimping a man in the midst of a mental-health crisis to try and help secure a second Trump term. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and you might think that the people snuggling up in the California king with Kanye are definitely strange—until you look at the nation and the Trump family’s track record of commodifying black people for social, economic, and political gain.
Racial capitalism—deriving social or economic value from the racial identity of other people, and specifically here, black people—is a tale as old as American time. It started with slavery, continued through minstrel shows and hip-hop culture, and we can see it still today in the exploitation of college athletes. It is by no means the exclusive terrain of Republicans, but Donald Trump has been particularly persistent in attempting to use blacks for profit. Trump once suggested a blacks vs. whites season of his reality show The Apprentice, and during the 2016 campaign wasn’t afraid to do the quiet part of tokenizing out loud telling people to “look at my African American over here.”
And what of Kanye West? What is the politically expedient purpose behind the GOP’s newfound coziness with him? Securing the black vote, or at least swinging some black voters away from Biden, of course. Or giving those unicorn black voters who are still on the fence between Biden and Trump a third way. Spoiler: this ain’t it.
We shouldn’t be surprised that a person who thought Race War Thunderdome would make good TV and that his evangelical supporters would like it if he gassed some protesters to hold up a Bible and not read from it would think that all he needs to do to peel off some of Biden’s black support is to get a rapper on the ballot.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But let’s talk about actual black voters for a minute. Many efforts to secure the votes of black Americans evince a deep misunderstanding of what motivates blacks to keep on showing up in voting booths, even when that may mean many hours in lines (looking at you, secretaries of state closing many polling places specifically in places where people of color vote). And these misguided efforts are not divided by a red or blue color line. To be sure, Republicans tokenize blacks but so do Democrats. During the 2020 primary season, there was a lot of talk on the left about the sophistication, or lack thereof, of black voters. It was as patronizing and insulting then as Republicans’ sudden burst of love for Kanye is now. Black voters are not dumb.
So will pimping Kanye “work”? I’m not Miss Cleo, but here’s my sense of things: No. The answer is no. Black voters are nothing if not pragmatic and acutely aware that there is no political messiah who is going to save us. We vote to save ourselves. Self-preservation is the reason that so many blacks stormed the primary polls to vote for Joe Biden, some with their noses plugged to ensure that Dems did not doom us to a disastrous Bernie Sanders nomination. Those same voters, who fully recognize the existential threat that a continued Trump presidency poses to our existence, are not going to throw away their vote.
To believe that black voters, in a time in which we are fighting for our lives—both literally, due to the systemic structural inequality that renders us subject to disproportionate racial violence and poor health outcomes, as COVID-19 has shined a light on, and figuratively as we try to advance this nation towards a reckoning that will lead to liberty and justice for all—persist in showing up so that we can engage in performative political theater is to operate from a place of privilege that is divorced from the reality that black Americans live. Generally speaking, we simply don’t have the luxury of “Jill Steining” votes on principle, as some did in 2016.
Contrary to the seemingly prevailing political perspective, black people do not automatically offer full-throated support to any person deemed to have the right amount of melanin. Exhibit A: John James, a candidate who by all accounts should have a bright political future but who is currently way down in the polls in his race for the Senate. Or, for that matter, Exhibit B: the fates of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick during the Democratic primaries.
Undeniably, Kanye West remains a celebrity who does what is necessary to remain on the public’s radar.
But the attention Kanye receives is comparable to the grotesque curiosity that causes people to slow down to watch a car accident or train wreck. That does not make him a relevant black thought-leader.
It does give Kanye some appeal to the type of voter of any race who thinks the whole system is corrupt. The type of voter who is happy to take a flier on a famous person whom they think has a less than zero chance of winning but who is going to shake up the system.
Now, who do you think that type of voter went for in the last election?
Setting aside the question of qualification for the presidency and looking just at the question of electability, there was a point at which Kanye may have actually been a viable political alternative for the non-nihilists who are disillusioned and discontented with the kinds of political candidates the two dominant parties usually select—candidates who often trade empty promises to people of color for votes. This would have been back when Kanye was a populist, outsider voice of black America.
But that’s not the Kanye of 2020. The Kanye who scythed the Bush administration for its Katrina response is now running cover for an administration that has so mangled its response to the COVID-19 pandemic that is disproportionately delivering its pain on the black community.
When he made the choice to stand with the Donald and don a red MAGA hat, to many he may as well have transformed into Clayton Bigsby, the iconic Dave Chappelle character who was a white supremacist but because of his blindness could not see that he was actually a black man.
In the same way that Donald Trump thought Jared Kushner could solve Middle East Peace because he’s the Jewish in-law, Jared thinks Kanye can solve their black voter problem.
That’s not how this works.
People are not simply political pawns to be used, abused, and discarded for the purpose of white-knuckling one’s tenuous grasp on political power. It’s my beautiful dark twisted fantasy that folks would ante up and stop seeing blacks as chips to be played but instead equal players in the game.
We know when people are trying to use us because we’ve seen it. Repeatedly. And not even for the love of Yeezus are we here for it happening one more time at the hands of Donald J. Trump.