csmonitor--2020-10-13--The COVID-19 challenge: Good government

The COVID-19 challenge: Good government

Liberal Western democracy could do with more leaders like her .
Germany is one big Western democracy that has done a reasonably good job of managing the pandemic , say the authors of a recent book called “ The Wake-Up Call.
” That , they suggest , is because Chancellor Angela Merkel is “ a serious woman who is doing serious work.
” If Europe and the United States are to stave off angry populism , governments there are going to have to fundamentally rethink their purpose and reform accordingly when the pandemic is over .
They might learn lessons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to home .
But other countries in Asia – democratic ones such as Japan , South Korea , and Taiwan – have done a good job of controlling the pandemic .
The problem in the West seems to be that some governments are just no good at governing anymore .
They have stopped making it their priority .
Big Western democracies – think the United States or Britain – have handled the coronavirus particularly badly .
Beijing would have you believe that is because they are democracies , and that authoritarianism is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a formidable , worldwide stress test .
And the COVID-19 pandemic is placing particular strain on a model of government long seen as uniquely able to combine individual freedom and economic advancement : Western liberal democracy .
With case numbers surging again in the United States and Europe , a variety of voices are calling for major changes in that model once the pandemic comes under control .
They ’ re posing a longer-term question : whether Western democracies ’ stress test will also prove to be a wake-up call – a catalyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but for fundamental reform .
The problems have been building for some years : a growing gap between haves and have-nots , aging infrastructure , uneven public-health provision , and a gnawing erosion of trust in political leaders and institutions .
This has all fed the rise of an angry populism , just as the world ’ s economic center of gravity has begun shifting eastward , toward an increasingly wealthy , assertive , and authoritarian China .
The pandemic has had two dramatic effects in the West .
It has spotlighted shortcomings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been far higher than in many Asian countries .
And the prospect of unprecedented government spending to get Western economies back on their feet has sparked intense debate over future priorities : over how all that money should be spent .
Some of the arguments for change focus on specific policy choices – on issues such as climate change , urban planning , education , employment , trade , business , and technology .
But potentially more important is the underlying tone of the debate : the sense that Western democracies need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the edges , but find new vitality , purpose , and connections with their citizens .
Can they summon the kind of resilience and reinvention they ’ ve drawn on in earlier crises : Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s New Deal response to the depression of the 1930s , for instance ; or the revival of Western Europe as an increasingly integrated family of social democracies from the ruins of World War II ?
Among the growing number of books that have been appearing on the political lessons of the pandemic , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that core question head-on .
It ’ s called , aptly , “ The Wake-Up Call.
” It is by John Micklethwait , former editor of The Economist newsmagazine , and its current political editor , Adrian Wooldridge .
They ’ re not politically neutral .
They ’ re part of what – in less fractious political times – would have been called the center-right .
They ’ re moderate conservatives , an increasingly endangered species in Britain ’ s Brexit-focused Tory party and a nearly vanished breed in the Donald Trump-era Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strength of their book is its analysis of why liberal democracies – especially the two main exemplars , Britain and America – seem to be in such crisis .
They dismiss the lesson China ’ s leaders have suggested should be drawn from the world ’ s COVID-19 response : that the Chinese system has proved superior to liberal democracy .
They note drily that other authoritarian regimes – Russia , Iran , Venezuela – have not fared so well .
Instead , they home in on a comparison with East Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Taiwan , and the island republic of Singapore in Southeast Asia .
Their central point is not that liberal democracy has passed its sell-by date .
It ’ s that the major Western democracies are no longer good at the core business of governing .
In the East Asian democracies and in Singapore , the people who run government , the civil servants , are paid salaries sufficient to attract the best and most committed officials , rather than , as in many Western democracies , a fraction of what they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schoolteachers are paid far better .
The not-so-good teachers are let go .
Infrastructure – not just roads or railways but broadband , software , and other high-tech essentials – is also a far higher priority .
The systems used in government departments in the U.S. , Britain , and a number of other Western democracies lag miles behind what any private business would accept .
The book does not argue against the welfare state .
It does , however , point out that in Western democracies most “ welfare ” money no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lion ’ s share is spent on state pension systems ( a good chunk of which goes to recipients with ample retirement funds of their own ) , tax concessions , and other payouts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy .
In some Western democracies , the authors argue , elected leaders have simply stopped taking the business of government seriously .
One country where that is clearly not the case is Germany , a big Western democracy that has so far managed the pandemic fairly well .
That ’ s in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ample testing and tracking capability and hospital facilities , all of which were quickly brought into action .
But for Messrs. Micklethwait and Wooldridge , there ’ s a deeper explanation – emphasizing elements they see as essential not just to making democratic government work , but to rebuilding a relationship of trust between government and the governed .
German Chancellor Angela Merkel “ has always known that government matters , ” they point out .
“ Brought up in East Germany , she knows what tyranny means .
Trained as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence .
… This is a serious woman who is doing serious work.
” While no book could pretend to suggest all the ways in which Western democratic government might be repaired and reinvigorated , this one – backed by myriad other voices expressing their hopes for post-pandemic government – leaves little doubt that addressing the challenge will require serious work as well .

Liberal Western democracy could do with more leaders like her.
Germany is one big Western democracy that has done a reasonably good job of managing the pandemic, say the authors of a recent book called “The Wake-Up Call.” That, they suggest, is because Chancellor Angela Merkel is “a serious woman who is doing serious work.”
If Europe and the United States are to stave off angry populism, governments there are going to have to fundamentally rethink their purpose and reform accordingly when the pandemic is over. They might learn lessons from East Asia, or from nearer to home.
This is one of Ned Temko’s regular “Patterns” columns on global affairs.
Have big Western democracies handled COVID-19 badly because they are democratic? No. It’s because they are no longer good at government. Asian democracies have done better, and may have lessons to teach.
But other countries in Asia – democratic ones such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan – have done a good job of controlling the pandemic. The problem in the West seems to be that some governments are just no good at governing anymore. They have stopped making it their priority.
Big Western democracies – think the United States or Britain – have handled the coronavirus particularly badly. Beijing would have you believe that is because they are democracies, and that authoritarianism is a better model.
It’s been a formidable, worldwide stress test. And the COVID-19 pandemic is placing particular strain on a model of government long seen as uniquely able to combine individual freedom and economic advancement: Western liberal democracy.
With case numbers surging again in the United States and Europe, a variety of voices are calling for major changes in that model once the pandemic comes under control. They’re posing a longer-term question: whether Western democracies’ stress test will also prove to be a wake-up call – a catalyst not just for specific policy adjustments, but for fundamental reform.
The problems have been building for some years: a growing gap between haves and have-nots, aging infrastructure, uneven public-health provision, and a gnawing erosion of trust in political leaders and institutions. This has all fed the rise of an angry populism, just as the world’s economic center of gravity has begun shifting eastward, toward an increasingly wealthy, assertive, and authoritarian China.
Why We Wrote This Have big Western democracies handled COVID-19 badly because they are democratic? No. It’s because they are no longer good at government. Asian democracies have done better, and may have lessons to teach. This is one of Ned Temko’s regular “Patterns” columns on global affairs.
The pandemic has had two dramatic effects in the West. It has spotlighted shortcomings in Western democracies, where death rates have been far higher than in many Asian countries. And the prospect of unprecedented government spending to get Western economies back on their feet has sparked intense debate over future priorities: over how all that money should be spent.
Some of the arguments for change focus on specific policy choices – on issues such as climate change, urban planning, education, employment, trade, business, and technology.
But potentially more important is the underlying tone of the debate: the sense that Western democracies need to do more than just tinker around the edges, but find new vitality, purpose, and connections with their citizens.
Can they summon the kind of resilience and reinvention they’ve drawn on in earlier crises: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal response to the depression of the 1930s, for instance; or the revival of Western Europe as an increasingly integrated family of social democracies from the ruins of World War II?
Among the growing number of books that have been appearing on the political lessons of the pandemic, one, in particular, has now tackled that core question head-on.
It’s called, aptly, “The Wake-Up Call.” It is by John Micklethwait, former editor of The Economist newsmagazine, and its current political editor, Adrian Wooldridge.
Edgar Su/Reuters View caption Hide caption A teacher in Singapore explains to students new protocols for taking recess breaks and daily temperature checks amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Singapore pays its teachers, and other public servants, better wages than most countries in the region.
They’re not politically neutral. They’re part of what – in less fractious political times – would have been called the center-right. They’re moderate conservatives, an increasingly endangered species in Britain’s Brexit-focused Tory party and a nearly vanished breed in the Donald Trump-era Republican Party in the United States.
But the strength of their book is its analysis of why liberal democracies – especially the two main exemplars, Britain and America – seem to be in such crisis.
They dismiss the lesson China’s leaders have suggested should be drawn from the world’s COVID-19 response: that the Chinese system has proved superior to liberal democracy. They note drily that other authoritarian regimes – Russia, Iran, Venezuela – have not fared so well.
Instead, they home in on a comparison with East Asian democracies like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and the island republic of Singapore in Southeast Asia.
Their central point is not that liberal democracy has passed its sell-by date. It’s that the major Western democracies are no longer good at the core business of governing.
In the East Asian democracies and in Singapore, the people who run government, the civil servants, are paid salaries sufficient to attract the best and most committed officials, rather than, as in many Western democracies, a fraction of what they could earn in the private sector. Good schoolteachers are paid far better. The not-so-good teachers are let go.
Infrastructure – not just roads or railways but broadband, software, and other high-tech essentials – is also a far higher priority. The systems used in government departments in the U.S., Britain, and a number of other Western democracies lag miles behind what any private business would accept.
The book does not argue against the welfare state. It does, however, point out that in Western democracies most “welfare” money no longer goes to those genuinely in need. The lion’s share is spent on state pension systems (a good chunk of which goes to recipients with ample retirement funds of their own), tax concessions, and other payouts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
In some Western democracies, the authors argue, elected leaders have simply stopped taking the business of government seriously.
One country where that is clearly not the case is Germany, a big Western democracy that has so far managed the pandemic fairly well. That’s in part because it has a health system with ample testing and tracking capability and hospital facilities, all of which were quickly brought into action.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
But for Messrs. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, there’s a deeper explanation – emphasizing elements they see as essential not just to making democratic government work, but to rebuilding a relationship of trust between government and the governed. German Chancellor Angela Merkel “has always known that government matters,” they point out. “Brought up in East Germany, she knows what tyranny means. Trained as a scientist, she knows how to evaluate evidence. … This is a serious woman who is doing serious work.”
While no book could pretend to suggest all the ways in which Western democratic government might be repaired and reinvigorated, this one – backed by myriad other voices expressing their hopes for post-pandemic government – leaves little doubt that addressing the challenge will require serious work as well.


csmonitor--2020-10-13--Democrats say Barrett is a threat to health care, 2020 election

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face senators ’ questions over her approach to health care , legal precedent , and even the presidential election during a second day of confirmation hearings on track to lock in a conservative court majority for years to come .
The mood is likely to shift to a more confrontational tone as Judge Barrett , an appellate court judge with very little trial court experience , is grilled in 30-minute segments Tuesday by Democrats gravely opposed to President Donald Trump ’ s nominee , yet virtually powerless to stop her rise .
Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day .
“ This should not be President Trump ’ s judge , ” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Democrats say the winner of the presidential election should choose the nominee .
“ This should be your judge , ” she said .
Judge Barrett presented her approach to the law as conservative and fair on Monday at the start of fast-tracked confirmation hearings .
Democrats cast her as a threat to Americans ’ health care coverage during the coronavirus pandemic .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children behind her in a hearing room off-limits to the public and altered for COVID-19 risks , Judge Barrett delivered views at odds with the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill , laying out a judicial philosophy she has likened to that of her conservative mentor , the late Justice Antonin Scalia .
“ Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life , ” declared the 48-year-old federal appeals court judge , removing the protective mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read from a prepared statement .
Americans “ deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written , ” Judge Barrett told the committee .
The Senate , led by Mr. Trump ’ s Republican allies , is pushing Judge Barrett ’ s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3 , and ahead of the the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act , which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election .
Republicans also hope to seat Judge Barrett quickly enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut was among several Democrats demanding that Judge Barrett pledge not to take part in any election case .
She has made no such commitment .
Justice Ginsburg ’ s legacy was felt throughout the hearing , with some Democrats wearing lapel pins with her likeness .
Judge Barrett also praised the liberal icon , saying she was “ forever grateful ” for Justice Ginsburg ’ s trailblazing path as a woman on the court .
Yet Sen. Kamala Harris of California , Democratic presidential nominee Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Judge Barrett ’ s nomination puts in jeopardy everything Justice Ginsburg fought to protect .
Testifying from her office because of the pandemic , Ms. Harris said that the court is “ often the last refuge for equal justice ” and that not only health care but voting rights , workers ’ rights , abortion rights , and the very idea of justice are at stake .
Barring a dramatic development , Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Judge Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials .
She would be Mr. Trump ’ s third justice .
“ She is a slam dunk ” based on her qualifications , Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , the committee chairman , told reporters late in the day Monday .
Judge Barrett received the highest rating – “ well-qualified ” – from the American Bar Association , though she is the first nominee since Clarence Thomas who did not receive a unanimous assessment .
Underscoring the Republicans ’ confidence , Mr. Graham set an initial committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even before the last day of hearings wrapped , which would allow final approval by the panel for one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26 .
One after another , Democrats sought Monday to tie her nomination to the upcoming Obama-era health care case .
Republicans lambasted Democrats for attacking Judge Barrett ’ s Catholic religion , although none actually did .
Some senators took part remotely , after two committee Republicans , Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina , tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
Mr. Lee was present in the hearing room , bearing a doctor ’ s note saying he didn ’ t need to remain isolated .
Mr. Tillis took part remotely , but his spokesman said he also was free of symptoms .
Protesters rallied outside the Senate buildings with the hearing room largely closed to the public .
The start of the four-day hearings followed a White House event announcing her nomination just over two weeks ago , in which most of the audience did not wear masks .
The event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for COVID-19 .
More than two dozen people linked to the Sept. 26 Rose Garden event , including the two GOP senators , have contracted COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus .
Judge Barrett and her family went maskless at the event .
She and her husband , Jesse , tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered , administration officials have said .
Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly , having refused to consider President Barack Obama ’ s nominee after Justice Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well before that year ’ s election .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
AP writers Matthew Daly and Michael Balsamo in Washington , Elana Schor in New York and Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento , California , contributed to this report .

Mark Sherman, Lisa Mascaro, and Mary Clare Jalonick

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face senators’ questions over her approach to health care, legal precedent, and even the presidential election during a second day of confirmation hearings on track to lock in a conservative court majority for years to come.
The mood is likely to shift to a more confrontational tone as Judge Barrett, an appellate court judge with very little trial court experience, is grilled in 30-minute segments Tuesday by Democrats gravely opposed to President Donald Trump’s nominee, yet virtually powerless to stop her rise. Republicans are rushing her to confirmation before Election Day.
“This should not be President Trump’s judge,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Democrats say the winner of the presidential election should choose the nominee.
“This should be your judge,” she said.
Judge Barrett presented her approach to the law as conservative and fair on Monday at the start of fast-tracked confirmation hearings. Democrats cast her as a threat to Americans’ health care coverage during the coronavirus pandemic.
With her husband and six of their seven children behind her in a hearing room off-limits to the public and altered for COVID-19 risks, Judge Barrett delivered views at odds with the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill, laying out a judicial philosophy she has likened to that of her conservative mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
“Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” declared the 48-year-old federal appeals court judge, removing the protective mask she wore most of the day to read from a prepared statement.
Americans “deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written,” Judge Barrett told the committee.
The Senate, led by Mr. Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Judge Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election.
Republicans also hope to seat Judge Barrett quickly enough to hear any legal challenges after the election. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut was among several Democrats demanding that Judge Barrett pledge not to take part in any election case. She has made no such commitment.
Justice Ginsburg’s legacy was felt throughout the hearing, with some Democrats wearing lapel pins with her likeness. Judge Barrett also praised the liberal icon, saying she was “forever grateful” for Justice Ginsburg’s trailblazing path as a woman on the court.
Yet Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, warned that Judge Barrett’s nomination puts in jeopardy everything Justice Ginsburg fought to protect.
Testifying from her office because of the pandemic, Ms. Harris said that the court is “often the last refuge for equal justice” and that not only health care but voting rights, workers’ rights, abortion rights, and the very idea of justice are at stake.
Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Judge Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, and they spent their time portraying her as a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials. She would be Mr. Trump’s third justice.
“She is a slam dunk” based on her qualifications, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the committee chairman, told reporters late in the day Monday.
Judge Barrett received the highest rating – “well-qualified” – from the American Bar Association, though she is the first nominee since Clarence Thomas who did not receive a unanimous assessment.
Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Mr. Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, even before the last day of hearings wrapped, which would allow final approval by the panel for one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26.
One after another, Democrats sought Monday to tie her nomination to the upcoming Obama-era health care case.
Republicans lambasted Democrats for attacking Judge Barrett’s Catholic religion, although none actually did.
Some senators took part remotely, after two committee Republicans, Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, tested positive for the novel coronavirus 10 days ago.
Mr. Lee was present in the hearing room, bearing a doctor’s note saying he didn’t need to remain isolated. Mr. Tillis took part remotely, but his spokesman said he also was free of symptoms.
Protesters rallied outside the Senate buildings with the hearing room largely closed to the public.
The start of the four-day hearings followed a White House event announcing her nomination just over two weeks ago, in which most of the audience did not wear masks. The event has been labeled a “super spreader” for COVID-19.
More than two dozen people linked to the Sept. 26 Rose Garden event, including the two GOP senators, have contracted COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. Judge Barrett and her family went maskless at the event. She and her husband, Jesse, tested positive for the virus earlier this year and recovered, administration officials have said.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Democrats already were enraged that Republicans are moving so quickly, having refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee after Justice Scalia’s death in February 2016, well before that year’s election.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Daly and Michael Balsamo in Washington, Elana Schor in New York and Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.


csmonitor--2020-10-14--As long as we’re talking

As long as we’re talking

My dad was a great talker .
For a man who spent 30 years in personnel and labor relations , the most important thing to him was communication .
It was a skill , an art form , a vocation , and a passion ; it was the essence of his lively and loquacious spirit .
Communication was his credo .
“ As long as we ’ re talking ... ” he ’ d say .
Everything would be OK , as long as we ’ re talking .
It ’ s particularly important advice to heed in these times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shout .
After years in labor negotiations , Dad had many stories and insights about the art of talking .
For example , he knew that contracts were rarely decided in rooms where pounding tables and shouting were the preferred techniques .
The ultimate agreement was likely to be confirmed later , across the street from the plant at a tavern , where calm prevailed .
I remember theorizing with Dad that if all the members of Congress lived in the same neighborhood and walked together each morning discussing , debating , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a more perfect union .
Even if they didn ’ t change their minds , they ’ d still like each other a lot more and perhaps even understand the other side .
My dad and his lifelong friend Tom spent years walking our subdivision , arguing over every issue they could find .
They ’ d often wake the neighborhood , a conservative Roman Catholic Republican sparring with a liberal Protestant Democrat .
They didn ’ t resolve much , but each was better off , for the walk and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as we ’ re talking .
We hear too often how both sides are “ done talking ” because no progress has been made .
My dad and Tom would say they weren ’ t even close to done and hadn ’ t talked nearly enough .
Dad was always talking , even to himself .
I remember riding in the car with him and watching him “ talk things through , ” his hands framing ideas subtly on the steering wheel , and his lips moving ever so slightly as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was his gift of gab that scored him his career .
He was fond of telling the story of walking across campus at Southern Illinois University when he saw Owens-Illinois was interviewing job candidates , and an old buddy was the rep. Dad , being a gregarious sort , always bopping in and out of everyone ’ s day , stopped to chat .
After a while , shooting the breeze and chewing the fat , his friend asked him , “ So , you want a job ?
” Doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know anything about glass manufacturing.
” That ’ s OK , came the reply .
“ You ’ ll figure it out.
” Dad had talked his way into a job , and kept talking his way forward in a successful career .
My father and I had some rules for talking when I was a petulant teenager .
For example , we would never go to bed angry .
It didn ’ t matter how late it was , with me at the bottom of the stairs and Dad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always ended with a hug , no matter how heated the talking had been .
We learned a lot by talking and perhaps just as much when we didn ’ t .
When I ’ d moved away , for instance , we discovered that email is a terrible way to talk things out .
Even the phone can be tough , for there ’ s no hug or smile at the end .
Talking was also conflict resolution , an essential part of Dad ’ s parenting style .
To be honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was kind of a pain when I was a kid and had done something wrong : Can ’ t you just ground me and get it over with ?
No .
It was never just a punishment – it was a learning opportunity .
Dad and I had long , deep , and occasionally contentious discussions as we sought to make sense of the world .
When Mom would remark on the intensity of our debates , Dad would play down the seriousness of our tone .
“ Michael and I are just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figuring out the mysteries of the universe , ” he ’ d say .
Dad ’ s lesson is one that all of us can use .
Talk .
Really talk to each other .
And keep talking .
My colleagues might cringe at that proposal , knowing I always have something to say .
And it ’ s been my professional goal lately to do more listening .
But I do know that , as long as we ’ re talking , there ’ s hope .
I ’ ve thought of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job as an educator , especially in working on issues of equity , diversity , and race .
My work has been informed by the ideas of Dr. Glenn Singleton , who for decades has encouraged having courageous conversations .
In doing so , we must be willing to engage and be vulnerable .
In doing the tough work of talking it out , we must also willingly accept and expect nonclosure .
We won ’ t solve the problem in one setting .
The conversation is ongoing and endless .
At times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it ’ s not ... as long as we ’ re talking .

My dad was a great talker. For a man who spent 30 years in personnel and labor relations, the most important thing to him was communication. It was a skill, an art form, a vocation, and a passion; it was the essence of his lively and loquacious spirit. Communication was his credo. “As long as we’re talking ...” he’d say. Everything would be OK, as long as we’re talking. It’s particularly important advice to heed in these times, when people seem more likely to shout.
After years in labor negotiations, Dad had many stories and insights about the art of talking. For example, he knew that contracts were rarely decided in rooms where pounding tables and shouting were the preferred techniques. The ultimate agreement was likely to be confirmed later, across the street from the plant at a tavern, where calm prevailed.
I remember theorizing with Dad that if all the members of Congress lived in the same neighborhood and walked together each morning discussing, debating, and arguing the issues, we’d have a more perfect union. Even if they didn’t change their minds, they’d still like each other a lot more and perhaps even understand the other side.
My dad and his lifelong friend Tom spent years walking our subdivision, arguing over every issue they could find. They’d often wake the neighborhood, a conservative Roman Catholic Republican sparring with a liberal Protestant Democrat. They didn’t resolve much, but each was better off, for the walk and the talk. Good things can happen as long as we’re talking. We hear too often how both sides are “done talking” because no progress has been made. My dad and Tom would say they weren’t even close to done and hadn’t talked nearly enough.
Dad was always talking, even to himself. I remember riding in the car with him and watching him “talk things through,” his hands framing ideas subtly on the steering wheel, and his lips moving ever so slightly as he formulated ideas into words. In fact, it was his gift of gab that scored him his career.
He was fond of telling the story of walking across campus at Southern Illinois University when he saw Owens-Illinois was interviewing job candidates, and an old buddy was the rep. Dad, being a gregarious sort, always bopping in and out of everyone’s day, stopped to chat. After a while, shooting the breeze and chewing the fat, his friend asked him, “So, you want a job?”
Doing what? Dad asked. “I don’t know anything about glass manufacturing.”
That’s OK, came the reply. “You’ll figure it out.” Dad had talked his way into a job, and kept talking his way forward in a successful career.
My father and I had some rules for talking when I was a petulant teenager. For example, we would never go to bed angry. It didn’t matter how late it was, with me at the bottom of the stairs and Dad sitting at his desk. And it always ended with a hug, no matter how heated the talking had been. We learned a lot by talking and perhaps just as much when we didn’t. When I’d moved away, for instance, we discovered that email is a terrible way to talk things out. Even the phone can be tough, for there’s no hug or smile at the end. Talking was also conflict resolution, an essential part of Dad’s parenting style. To be honest, his insistence on talking it out was kind of a pain when I was a kid and had done something wrong: Can’t you just ground me and get it over with? No. It was never just a punishment – it was a learning opportunity.
Dad and I had long, deep, and occasionally contentious discussions as we sought to make sense of the world. When Mom would remark on the intensity of our debates, Dad would play down the seriousness of our tone.
“Michael and I are just solving the problems of the world and figuring out the mysteries of the universe,” he’d say.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Dad’s lesson is one that all of us can use. Talk. Really talk to each other. And keep talking. My colleagues might cringe at that proposal, knowing I always have something to say. And it’s been my professional goal lately to do more listening. But I do know that, as long as we’re talking, there’s hope.
I’ve thought of Dad’s words often in my job as an educator, especially in working on issues of equity, diversity, and race. My work has been informed by the ideas of Dr. Glenn Singleton, who for decades has encouraged having courageous conversations. In doing so, we must be willing to engage and be vulnerable. In doing the tough work of talking it out, we must also willingly accept and expect nonclosure. We won’t solve the problem in one setting. The conversation is ongoing and endless. At times it may seem fruitless, even hopeless. But it’s not ... as long as we’re talking.


csmonitor--2020-10-14--‘Chicago 7’: Fast-talking court drama is a window on protest and America

Aaron Sorkin ’ s “ The Trial of the Chicago 7 ” debuts at a time when the political temperature in the United States is practically at full boil .
It ’ s based on the notorious 1969 trial in which seven ( originally eight ) defendants were charged by President Richard Nixon ’ s Justice Department with conspiracy to incite violence in the wake of the 1968 Democratic National Convention .
Although Sorkin originally wrote the script in 2007 , it ’ s inevitable that the movie is now being promoted , rightly or wrongly , as a mirror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the U.S. As a writer-director , Sorkin , by his own admission , is most in his element when his characters are jabbering and pontificating in a confined space , à la his TV hit “ The West Wing.
” His new film often cuts away from the trial proceedings – including period documentary footage and flashbacks to the street clashes between protesters and the police and National Guard – but the meat of the action , and its best scenes , take place inside Chicago ’ s U.S. District Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a showcase for a motley crew of provocateurs , among them , defendants Jerry Rubin ( Jeremy Strong ) , co-founder of the radical Youth International Party ( Yippies ) and a prankster who looks like he might have stepped out of a Cheech & Chong movie ; Abbie Hoffman ( Sacha Baron Cohen ) , another Yippie instigator , whose courtroom antics , by design , are catnip for the media ; and Tom Hayden ( Eddie Redmayne ) , co-founder of the somewhat more temperate Students for a Democratic Society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out as the voice of reason .
Their co-chief counsel William Kunstler is played by Mark Rylance in a distracting longhaired wig that makes him look , no doubt intentionally , like a superannuated hippie .
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II plays Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale , whose angry outbursts in the courtroom prompt the defendants ’ nemesis Judge Julius Hoffman ( Frank Langella , sounding like a testier version of his Nixon from “ Frost/Nixon ” ) to bind and gag and eventually sever him from the case .
Sorkin draws on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of the film ’ s best lines were , in a sense , already written for him .
When , for example , Judge Hoffman asks Abbie ( no relation ) if he is familiar with the concept of contempt of court , his gleeful comeback is , “ It ’ s practically a religion for me , sir.
” Sorkin overplays the grave jollity inside the courthouse , but as beautifully played by Baron Cohen in easily the film ’ s best performance , Abbie is the one character whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When at one point he is asked what his price would be to call off the “ revolution , ” he answers simply , “ My life.
” Clearly Sorkin sees the Chicago 7 as victims of the vilification of dissent .
He also sees them as exemplars – this is his version of a superhero movie – and the idealization at times gets a bit sticky .
( Hayden , in particular , practically comes equipped with his own halo . )
For Sorkin , protest is the highest American virtue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago protesters ’ rallying cry : “ The whole world is watching.
” We can choose to look to this film for confirmation that , even before the pandemic , things have not really changed for the better – that civil rights abuses , racial injustice , demagoguery in high places , and so much else are still rampant .
But there are large differences from that time , too – the Vietnam War , for one , without which it ’ s inconceivable the counterculture would have arisen as it did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn about America by looking at its movies .
It ’ s also a trap .
This country is too complex for that .
Too much , especially in the racial realm , has been left out .
As Sorkin has acknowledged in interviews , what comes closer to the truth is that American films – think of the best of John Ford or Frank Capra – can express a longing for a time that never really existed except in our fantasies .
This is a different kind of American history .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to believe .
For all its documentary-like aspects , “ The Trial of the Chicago 7 ” also falls into this category .
It represents the sanctification of a time and a people whose spirit Sorkin sees as our salvation .
Peter Rainer is the Monitor ’ s film critic .
“ The Trial of the Chicago 7 ” debuts on Netflix on Oct. 16 , and is in select theaters .

Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7” debuts at a time when the political temperature in the United States is practically at full boil. It’s based on the notorious 1969 trial in which seven (originally eight) defendants were charged by President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department with conspiracy to incite violence in the wake of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Although Sorkin originally wrote the script in 2007, it’s inevitable that the movie is now being promoted, rightly or wrongly, as a mirror image rendering of the civil unrest happening across the U.S.
As a writer-director, Sorkin, by his own admission, is most in his element when his characters are jabbering and pontificating in a confined space, à la his TV hit “The West Wing.” His new film often cuts away from the trial proceedings – including period documentary footage and flashbacks to the street clashes between protesters and the police and National Guard – but the meat of the action, and its best scenes, take place inside Chicago’s U.S. District Court.
Sorkin transforms the prolonged political theater into a showcase for a motley crew of provocateurs, among them, defendants Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), co-founder of the radical Youth International Party (Yippies) and a prankster who looks like he might have stepped out of a Cheech & Chong movie; Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), another Yippie instigator, whose courtroom antics, by design, are catnip for the media; and Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), co-founder of the somewhat more temperate Students for a Democratic Society, who, amid this company, stands out as the voice of reason.
Why We Wrote This Movies can enhance our understanding of America. With the arrival of Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” film critic Peter Rainer examines the intersection of popular culture and events that define a nation.
Their co-chief counsel William Kunstler is played by Mark Rylance in a distracting longhaired wig that makes him look, no doubt intentionally, like a superannuated hippie. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II plays Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale, whose angry outbursts in the courtroom prompt the defendants’ nemesis Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella, sounding like a testier version of his Nixon from “Frost/Nixon”) to bind and gag and eventually sever him from the case.
Niko Tavernise/Courtesy of Netflix View caption Hide caption Aaron Sorkin wrote and directed "The Trial of the Chicago 7," which includes (from left to right) Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Bobby Seale, Ben Shenkman as Leonard Weinglass, Mark Rylance as lawyer William Kunstler, Eddie Redmayne as Tom Hayden, and Alex Sharp as Rennie Davis.
Sorkin draws on and often embellishes the actual trial proceedings. Some of the film’s best lines were, in a sense, already written for him. When, for example, Judge Hoffman asks Abbie (no relation) if he is familiar with the concept of contempt of court, his gleeful comeback is, “It’s practically a religion for me, sir.” Sorkin overplays the grave jollity inside the courthouse, but as beautifully played by Baron Cohen in easily the film’s best performance, Abbie is the one character whose showboating clearly fronts a deeper concern. When at one point he is asked what his price would be to call off the “revolution,” he answers simply, “My life.”
Clearly Sorkin sees the Chicago 7 as victims of the vilification of dissent. He also sees them as exemplars – this is his version of a superhero movie – and the idealization at times gets a bit sticky. (Hayden, in particular, practically comes equipped with his own halo.) For Sorkin, protest is the highest American virtue. He closes out the film with the Chicago protesters’ rallying cry: “The whole world is watching.”
We can choose to look to this film for confirmation that, even before the pandemic, things have not really changed for the better – that civil rights abuses, racial injustice, demagoguery in high places, and so much else are still rampant. But there are large differences from that time, too – the Vietnam War, for one, without which it’s inconceivable the counterculture would have arisen as it did.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
It’s tempting to try to learn about America by looking at its movies. It’s also a trap. This country is too complex for that. Too much, especially in the racial realm, has been left out. As Sorkin has acknowledged in interviews, what comes closer to the truth is that American films – think of the best of John Ford or Frank Capra – can express a longing for a time that never really existed except in our fantasies. This is a different kind of American history. It’s a history of what we want to believe. For all its documentary-like aspects, “The Trial of the Chicago 7” also falls into this category. It represents the sanctification of a time and a people whose spirit Sorkin sees as our salvation.
Peter Rainer is the Monitor’s film critic. “The Trial of the Chicago 7” debuts on Netflix on Oct. 16, and is in select theaters.


csmonitor--2020-10-14--Calm before storm? How Senate could change after Barrett confirmation.

Some judicial experts , including Gregg Nunziata , former chief nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee , believe packing the court would politicize it , especially in the eyes of the public .
“ At every turn over the last 50 years , ” he says , “ each party has used the tools at its disposal to fight over the control of the court , and I don ’ t think that ’ s changing.
” Such moves would change how government works – though how significantly is a matter of debate .
Their prospect is the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial nominees that has amplified political division within the Senate .
Amid the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , some Democrats are talking about increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so a Biden administration could “ pack the court.
” They ’ re also considering the removal of the 60-vote threshold informally required to pass most legislation .
Unlike the House , the Senate does not traditionally operate by the maxim of majority rule .
More deliberative , it ’ s often described as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that could be changing before our eyes .
The last time a Supreme Court nominee came before the Senate Judiciary Committee , it was open warfare in the hearing room , as nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced last-minute allegations of sexual assault .
“ Boy , y ’ all want power .
God , I hope you never get it , ” Sen. Lindsey Graham raged at Democrats over their treatment of the nominee two years ago .
This time around , the Republican senator from South Carolina , now the committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very good ” with “ very good questions , hard questions.
” In contrast to 2018 , the tone is respectful – in part because no one is challenging the character of Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
But make no mistake .
The judicial wars in the Senate have not subsided .
In a body that has applied the term “ nuclear option ” to its consideration of nominees , some Democrats are now talking about detonating more procedural bombs : getting rid of the 60-vote threshold informally required to pass most legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so a Biden administration could “ pack the court.
” These are moves that would change how government works – though how significantly is a matter of debate .
What ’ s not in dispute is the decade-by-decade arms race over judicial nominees , and how it has amplified political division within the Senate .
“ At every turn over the last 50 years , each party has used the tools at its disposal to fight over the control of the court , and I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Gregg Nunziata , former chief nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and former policy adviser to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida .
At the Kavanaugh hearing , Senator Graham , boiling over with anger , hollered that “ this is the most unethical sham since I ’ ve been in politics … !
” Democrats this week have charged the same thing – albeit in a more measured manner .
Presidents are fully within their constitutional rights to nominate a justice at any time in their term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ process , meant to confirm Judge Barrett before the Nov. 3 election , calling it “ illegitimate ” and a “ sham ” as millions of Americans are already voting .
They ’ ve slammed Republicans as hypocrites for refusing to even consider President Obama ’ s nominee , Merrick Garland , because a presidential election was coming in eight months .
“ The people should decide ” who would pick the nominee , the GOP said at the time .
Why GOP lines up for Barrett Throughout American history , presidents have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high court , and that has led to some big battles , reminds former Senate historian Don Ritchie .
Thomas Jefferson for instance , tried and failed to impeach a Federalist justice appointed by George Washington .
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the Supreme Court with more justices in order to protect his New Deal legislation .
When it comes to the courts , “ there have been periods of polarization , but in recent years , it ’ s gotten much worse , ” says Mr. Ritchie .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been deciding some of the most contentious issues that divide Americans and affect everyday lives – health care , abortion , gun regulation , and gay marriage , among others .
Indeed , Democrats have pointedly questioned Judge Barrett , the ideological opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , on all of these issues .
At the same time , the political parties have evolved into more or less monolithic groupings of conservatives and progressives , rather than the ideological mixtures of old that lent themselves more easily to negotiating across the aisle to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualifications and character , judicial philosophy and ideology of nominees has become much more of a factor .
All of this explains why , as Chairman Graham observed on Monday , Republicans on the committee will line up for Judge Barrett , and Democrats won ’ t – and why Republicans backed President Trump ’ s nominee even before she was announced .
In the Senate , the judicial battle that ignited today ’ s war was the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court by Republican President Ronald Reagan in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ritchie recalls , “ a human barbed wire , who offended a lot of people ” by carrying out President Richard Nixon ’ s orders to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox , who was investigating Watergate , and by his comments about rolling back Supreme Court civil rights rulings .
Like Barrett and her mentor , Justice Antonin Scalia , he was an “ originalist ” who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written at the time .
It was a contentious hearing that eventually ended in his 58-42 defeat , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibusters to block the appointment of federal judges by presidents in both parties , subsequent backlogs of appointments , and eventually the detonation of “ nuclear options ” to blow up those backlogs and the filibusters that allowed them , by requiring only a majority vote for approval .
The first one was set off by Senate Democrats in 2013 , and applied only to lower court and executive nominees ; the second by Republicans in 2017 , to include Supreme Court nominees .
As Mr. Nunziata describes it , the nuclear option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed by a bare majority of the Senate on a body that does not traditionally operate by the maxim of majority rule , as does the House .
The more deliberative Senate is often described as the “ cooling saucer ” for the House , but that could change if Democrats gain control of the Senate and do away with the filibuster altogether , allowing legislation to pass by majority vote .
“ If taken to its logical conclusion , all minority rights of the Senate could fall , and [ it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , operating on the brute strength of the majority , ” Nunziata says .
Will Senate still be special ?
Not everyone agrees with that scenario .
Even if Democrats did kill the legislative filibuster , the Senate would retain many of its special characteristics that can make it a brake on either the House or the Oval Office .
For instance , senators are elected every six years instead of two , giving them a longer view .
Some represent swing states , with no guarantee that they will always fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to override a presidential veto , approve treaties , and convict in an impeachment trial .
Meanwhile , individual senators can still muck up the works by , for instance , refusing to grant unanimous consent – required for so much of Senate business .
“ I don ’ t really expect the Senate to turn into the House , ” says Sarah Binder , an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University .
What Dr. Binder and others foresee , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swings : aggressive legislating , particularly if one party controls the Congress and the White House , followed by attempts to undo those laws when the other party takes control .
Think of the passage of the Affordable Care Act , which has been followed by at least 70 Republican attempts to repeal it .
Rather than reflecting compromise , with something for everyone , legislation would have a “ love it ” or “ hate it ” quality to it , suggests Mr. Ritchie .
“ I don ’ t think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a very different body , ” ventures Mr. Ritchie , noting that the Constitution never included the filibuster .
“ I can ’ t say it would be better or worse , but it would be different.
” Opinions range , too , on the implications of a larger Supreme Court .
The Constitution doesn ’ t stipulate how many justices should sit on the court .
It ’ s been nine since 1869 .
Some judicial experts , like Nunziata , believe packing the court would politicize it , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He fears , as Joe Biden has speculated in the past , that there would be a tit-for-tat response by the other party in a subsequent election to add even more justices .
Dr. Binder says there ’ s uncertainty about what a larger court would mean .
She ’ s not sure it ’ s the danger that some suggest .
She sees the move of adding seats , which she calls “ court curbing , ” as a move to protect the status quo .
“ It eliminates most likely the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of jurisprudence which have protected a whole range of individual rights , ” she says .
A lot of stars would have to align to actually make these changes happen .
First , Democrats would have to win the House , the Senate , and the White House – a distinct possibility .
Second , Democrats would have to agree – first on killing off the legislative filibuster and then on stacking the court .
But it ’ s far from clear they would unite on either of these .
Joe Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – after saying he would not comment on court packing until after the election – he told a Cincinnati broadcaster that he is “ not a fan.
” When Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah attacked court packing in this week ’ s nomination hearing , Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois , the second ranking Senate Democrat , told reporters “ there ’ s no active conversation , or deliberation about any changes in court composition.
” However , the former vice president seems to have warmed to getting rid of the legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently as February .
He told reporters in July that it would depend on how “ obstreperous ” Republicans become in blocking legislation in Congress .
And then , too , there are those Democratic senators from purple states .
Might failure to pass some major legislation , say on climate change or immigration , unite them ?
Possibly .
Would an early Supreme Court decision striking down the Affordable Care Act bring them in line ?
Again , that ’ s a possibility .
But what about public opinion ?
That worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example .
Still , underneath these debates , the partisan divide reflected in the procedural arms race continues .
Both parties have talked about getting rid of the legislative filibuster in the recent past .
Now , many Democrats sound ready to take that fateful step .
“ The question is not , should Democrats pack the courts , ” says Jeremy Parris , the former Democratic counterpart to Mr. Nunziata on the Senate Judiciary Committee .
“ The question is , what are the Democrats going to do to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he charges , continue to push an unpopular policy agenda through the courts .
“ If Republicans continue to abuse their power this way , it may be that we have no choice , ” Mr. Parris says .
And if Republicans lose this election for failing to work through problems such as the pandemic , and then continue to block legislation even as a Senate minority , Mr. Parris is resolute : “ Then we do away with the filibuster .
”

Some judicial experts, including Gregg Nunziata, former chief nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, believe packing the court would politicize it, especially in the eyes of the public. “At every turn over the last 50 years,” he says, “each party has used the tools at its disposal to fight over the control of the court, and I don’t think that’s changing.”
Such moves would change how government works – though how significantly is a matter of debate. Their prospect is the latest development in a decade-by-decade arms race over judicial nominees that has amplified political division within the Senate.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings have been respectful. But they could represent a new, more intense phase of the Senate’s partisan struggle over seating judges, politeness notwithstanding.
Amid the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, some Democrats are talking about increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so a Biden administration could “pack the court.” They’re also considering the removal of the 60-vote threshold informally required to pass most legislation.
Unlike the House, the Senate does not traditionally operate by the maxim of majority rule. More deliberative, it’s often described as the “cooling saucer” for the House. But that could be changing before our eyes.
The last time a Supreme Court nominee came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was open warfare in the hearing room, as nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced last-minute allegations of sexual assault.
“Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it,” Sen. Lindsey Graham raged at Democrats over their treatment of the nominee two years ago.
This time around, the Republican senator from South Carolina, now the committee chairman, has pronounced the hearing “very good” with “very good questions, hard questions.” In contrast to 2018, the tone is respectful – in part because no one is challenging the character of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Why We Wrote This Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings have been respectful. But they could represent a new, more intense phase of the Senate’s partisan struggle over seating judges, politeness notwithstanding.
But make no mistake. The judicial wars in the Senate have not subsided. In a body that has applied the term “nuclear option” to its consideration of nominees, some Democrats are now talking about detonating more procedural bombs: getting rid of the 60-vote threshold informally required to pass most legislation, known as the filibuster, and increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so a Biden administration could “pack the court.” These are moves that would change how government works – though how significantly is a matter of debate.
What’s not in dispute is the decade-by-decade arms race over judicial nominees, and how it has amplified political division within the Senate.
“At every turn over the last 50 years, each party has used the tools at its disposal to fight over the control of the court, and I don’t think that’s changing,” says Gregg Nunziata, former chief nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and former policy adviser to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
At the Kavanaugh hearing, Senator Graham, boiling over with anger, hollered that “this is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics …!” Democrats this week have charged the same thing – albeit in a more measured manner.
Presidents are fully within their constitutional rights to nominate a justice at any time in their term. But Democrats have sharply criticized the rushed process, meant to confirm Judge Barrett before the Nov. 3 election, calling it “illegitimate” and a “sham” as millions of Americans are already voting. They’ve slammed Republicans as hypocrites for refusing to even consider President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, because a presidential election was coming in eight months. “The people should decide” who would pick the nominee, the GOP said at the time.
Why GOP lines up for Barrett
Throughout American history, presidents have sought to put their stamp on the high court, and that has led to some big battles, reminds former Senate historian Don Ritchie. Thomas Jefferson for instance, tried and failed to impeach a Federalist justice appointed by George Washington. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the Supreme Court with more justices in order to protect his New Deal legislation.
Ken Cedeno/AP View caption Hide caption Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett listens during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 14, 2020. Democrats have pointedly questioned Judge Barrett on health care, abortion, gun regulation, and gay marriage.
When it comes to the courts, “there have been periods of polarization, but in recent years, it’s gotten much worse,” says Mr. Ritchie.
A big reason is that the courts have been deciding some of the most contentious issues that divide Americans and affect everyday lives – health care, abortion, gun regulation, and gay marriage, among others. Indeed, Democrats have pointedly questioned Judge Barrett, the ideological opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on all of these issues.
At the same time, the political parties have evolved into more or less monolithic groupings of conservatives and progressives, rather than the ideological mixtures of old that lent themselves more easily to negotiating across the aisle to get things done. Also, beyond qualifications and character, judicial philosophy and ideology of nominees has become much more of a factor.
All of this explains why, as Chairman Graham observed on Monday, Republicans on the committee will line up for Judge Barrett, and Democrats won’t – and why Republicans backed President Trump’s nominee even before she was announced.
In the Senate, the judicial battle that ignited today’s war was the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1987. He was, as Mr. Ritchie recalls, “a human barbed wire, who offended a lot of people” by carrying out President Richard Nixon’s orders to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating Watergate, and by his comments about rolling back Supreme Court civil rights rulings. Like Barrett and her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, he was an “originalist” who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written at the time.
Stefani Reynolds/AP View caption Hide caption Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, wearing a mask with an image of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, listens during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Oct. 14, 2020. Judge Barrett and Justice Ginsburg are ideological opposites.
It was a contentious hearing that eventually ended in his 58-42 defeat, and set the stage for partisan escalation: filibusters to block the appointment of federal judges by presidents in both parties, subsequent backlogs of appointments, and eventually the detonation of “nuclear options” to blow up those backlogs and the filibusters that allowed them, by requiring only a majority vote for approval. The first one was set off by Senate Democrats in 2013, and applied only to lower court and executive nominees; the second by Republicans in 2017, to include Supreme Court nominees.
As Mr. Nunziata describes it, the nuclear option was a “brute force mechanism” imposed by a bare majority of the Senate on a body that does not traditionally operate by the maxim of majority rule, as does the House. The more deliberative Senate is often described as the “cooling saucer” for the House, but that could change if Democrats gain control of the Senate and do away with the filibuster altogether, allowing legislation to pass by majority vote.
“If taken to its logical conclusion, all minority rights of the Senate could fall, and [it could] become a legislative body like the House, operating on the brute strength of the majority,” Nunziata says.
Will Senate still be special?
Not everyone agrees with that scenario. Even if Democrats did kill the legislative filibuster, the Senate would retain many of its special characteristics.
For instance, senators are elected every six years instead of two, giving them a longer view. Some represent swing states, with no guarantee that they will always fall in line. A two-thirds majority is required to override a presidential veto, approve treaties, and convict in an impeachment trial. Meanwhile, individual senators can still muck up the works by, for instance, refusing to grant unanimous consent – required for so much of Senate business.
“I don’t really expect the Senate to turn into the House,” says Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University.
What Dr. Binder and others foresee, though, is a Senate with partisan policy swings: aggressive legislating, particularly if one party controls the Congress and the White House, followed by attempts to undo those laws when the other party takes control. Think of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which has been followed by at least 70 Republican attempts to repeal it.
Rather than reflecting compromise, with something for everyone, legislation would have a “love it” or “hate it” quality to it, suggests Mr. Ritchie.
“I don’t think the republic would collapse, but the Senate would be a very different body,” ventures Mr. Ritchie, noting that the Constitution never included the filibuster. “I can’t say it would be better or worse, but it would be different.”
Opinions range, too, on the implications of a larger Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t stipulate how many justices should sit on the court. It’s been nine since 1869.
Some judicial experts, like Nunziata, believe packing the court would politicize it, especially in the eyes of the public. He fears, as Joe Biden has speculated in the past, that there would be a tit-for-tat response by the other party in a subsequent election to add even more justices.
Dr. Binder says there’s uncertainty about what a larger court would mean. She’s not sure it’s the danger that some suggest.
She sees the move of adding seats, which she calls “court curbing,” as a move to protect the status quo.
“It eliminates most likely the fear of the immediate unraveling of decades of jurisprudence which have protected a whole range of individual rights,” she says.
Democrats mull fateful step
A lot of stars would have to align to actually make these changes happen. First, Democrats would have to win the House, the Senate, and the White House – a distinct possibility. Second, Democrats would have to agree – first on killing off the legislative filibuster and then on stacking the court. But it’s far from clear they would unite on either of these.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times/AP View caption Hide caption Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island speaks during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Oct. 14, 2020. In contrast to the 2018 confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the tone of the current hearing has been respectful.
Joe Biden is a Senate institutionalist, and this week – after saying he would not comment on court packing until after the election – he told a Cincinnati broadcaster that he is “not a fan.” When Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah attacked court packing in this week’s nomination hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second ranking Senate Democrat, told reporters “there’s no active conversation, or deliberation about any changes in court composition.”
However, the former vice president seems to have warmed to getting rid of the legislative filibuster, an idea he opposed as recently as February. He told reporters in July that it would depend on how “obstreperous” Republicans become in blocking legislation in Congress.
And then, too, there are those Democratic senators from purple states. Might failure to pass some major legislation, say on climate change or immigration, unite them? Possibly. Would an early Supreme Court decision striking down the Affordable Care Act bring them in line? Again, that’s a possibility. But what about public opinion? That worked against FDR’s court packing plan, for example.
Still, underneath these debates, the partisan divide reflected in the procedural arms race continues. Both parties have talked about getting rid of the legislative filibuster in the recent past. Now, many Democrats sound ready to take that fateful step.
“The question is not, should Democrats pack the courts,” says Jeremy Parris, the former Democratic counterpart to Mr. Nunziata on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The question is, what are the Democrats going to do to respond to right-wing court-packing?”
Republicans, he charges, continue to push an unpopular policy agenda through the courts.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“If Republicans continue to abuse their power this way, it may be that we have no choice,” Mr. Parris says.
And if Republicans lose this election for failing to work through problems such as the pandemic, and then continue to block legislation even as a Senate minority, Mr. Parris is resolute: “Then we do away with the filibuster.”


csmonitor--2020-10-14--Amid a pandemic, Republicans become the new door-knocking warriors

“ We may find that virtual friend-to-friend [ contacts ] may be more effective than a stranger at your door , ” says Donald Green , a political scientist at Columbia University .
“ It ’ s kind of too early to tell.
” Donald Green , a political scientist at Columbia University and co-author of “ Get out the Vote !
, ” found that connecting with 1,000 voters via door knocking generates 40 votes , while talking to 1,000 voters on the phone generates 28 .
But he says more targeted digital methods , including Democrats ’ shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be effective .
These diverging approaches – reflected in races across the country , including the presidential race – serve to reinforce the two sides ’ core arguments .
Democrats ’ minimal door knocking respects voters ’ concerns about the pandemic , while Republicans are trying to emphasize a return to “ normal ” life .
How can politicians best connect with voters during COVID-19 ?
Jim Bognet , a Republican running to represent Pennsylvania in Congress , shakes hands , poses for selfies , and recently spoke to 500 people at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickup truck .
His opponent , incumbent Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright , hasn ’ t held large in-person events or done any door-to-door canvassing since March .
As he wraps up his stump speech to a group of mostly maskless voters outside the Luzerne County GOP headquarters , Jim Bognet shakes hands and poses for selfies .
It ’ s his third in-person campaign event of the day .
Despite the various COVID-19 guidelines restricting group activities , the Republican candidate for northeast Pennsylvania ’ s 8th Congressional District says he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ a normal campaign year ” since June .
“ A month ago , I spoke from the back of a pickup truck to 500 people at a pig roast , ” says Mr. Bognet , who owned a communications consulting business before working as a Trump administration appointee at the Export-Import Bank of the United States .
Meanwhile , Mr. Bognet ’ s opponent , incumbent Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright , hasn ’ t held large in-person events or done any door-to-door canvassing since March .
“ I would love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Congressman Cartwright , an attorney who was first elected to Congress in 2012 .
But “ I think it ’ s way more important to model good pandemic behavior and to do our part to slow the spread – and I think people appreciate that.
” As COVID-19 continues to upend everyday life in America , it has also disrupted campaigning – forcing presidential and down-ballot candidates alike to reevaluate once-routine forms of politicking .
Everything from speeches and rallies to door knocking and handshaking now comes with a cloud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a clear partisan split .
Taking cues from President Donald Trump – who has resumed a jam-packed schedule of MAGA rallies after being sidelined by a COVID-19 diagnosis – many Republican candidates returned to the trail in early summer .
By contrast , Democrats from former Vice President Joe Biden on down have been much more cautious , with some only just now beginning to hold small events and go door to door .
The diverging approaches serve to reinforce the two sides ’ core arguments , points out Melissa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Menlo College in Atherton , California , who has studied get-out-the-vote methods for decades .
“ By not engaging in door knocking , or minimal door knocking , Democrats are sending a message – reminding people that we are in a pandemic.
” Republicans , on the other hand , are trying to emphasize a return to “ normal ” life .
“ We see among Republican and independent voters , they still want to be talked to , ” says Mr. Bognet .
“ They still appreciate it when we go door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats are making a horrible mistake by giving [ that ] up.
” After months of mostly virtual campaign events , Mr. Biden recently embarked on an 8-stop train tour around Ohio and Pennsylvania , de-training to speak to small , socially distant crowds .
Biden volunteers are just now beginning to knock on doors of voters who have been hard to reach by phone in the swing states of Nevada , Michigan , New Hampshire , and Pennsylvania – the first such efforts since the spring .
By contrast , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive canvassing numbers .
According to a campaign spokesman , the campaign has knocked on over 22.5 million doors to date , with a current average of 2 million doors per week ( though figures like these are impossible to independently verify ) .
In some ways , 2020 is offering a kind of real-life political science experiment : Just how much does face-to-face contact with voters actually matter ?
Biden campaign manager Jen O ’ Malley Dillion has tried to reassure nervous Democrats that what ’ s important isn ’ t sheer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningful conversations with voters – which she says have been easier than ever to have on the phone , with so many Americans stuck at home and on their devices .
“ Our operation has been highly successful when it comes to the most important metric , which is quality conversations , ” a senior Biden official tells the Monitor .
In the month of September alone , the campaign held 5.9 million of these conversations , the official says .
The Biden campaign has employed various virtual tactics , from social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they have experimented further with peer-to-peer organizing , in which supporters text or call their own friends and family – a method political scientists rank as highly effective .
Still , face-to-face interactions typically allow for more in-depth conversations than phone calls or texting .
Compared with other campaign tactics , in terms of both cost and success in generating votes , in-person canvassing comes out looking “ pretty good , ” says Donald Green , a political scientist at Columbia University and author of the book “ Get out the Vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average , they calculate that connecting with 1,000 voters via door knocking generates 40 votes , while talking to 1,000 voters on the phone generates 28 .
“ It all depends on the quality of the interaction , ” Mr. Green adds .
“ We may find that virtual friend-to-friend [ contacts ] may be more effective than a stranger at your door .
...
It ’ s kind of too early to tell.
” With an umbrella hanging from his waist and a stack of campaign flyers in his pocket , Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislature in Pennsylvania ’ s District 118 , walks from house to house under a drizzling rain in Duryea , a town south of Scranton .
He ’ s following a map of potential supporters on his phone ; many of the homes he approaches have lawn signs for President Trump or other Republican candidates .
Wearing a black face mask that says “ We the People , ” Mr. Holter knocks on a door – firmly , but not aggressively – and then steps backward off the house ’ s porch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holter , a paramedic firefighter , introduces himself and gives a one-minute version of his stump speech , explaining what he would do differently from the incumbent , such as investing more in emergency services .
One young woman listens from inside .
“ I really appreciate you being out here and taking the time to talk to people , ” she says , before offering him a friendly wave and returning to her barking dogs .
As the number of swing voters has shrunk in America , canvassing activities in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making sure the candidates ’ supporters show up on Election Day .
A 2017 study by two political scientists found that door knocking can persuade undecided voters in a primary election , but has little to no effect winning over new supporters in general election campaigns .
Still , Mr. Holter knocks on a few doors that he knows are home to registered Democrats , and even one with a sign for his opponent .
When a woman answers , she listens quietly to his short speech and takes his flyer before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door .
“ This is the moment you get to change someone ’ s mind , ” says Mr. Holter , who estimates he ’ s spoken with at least 600 potential voters when going door to door .
“ It ’ s the difference between them continuing to vote down the ballot when they might have just checked the top boxes and then moved on.
” Ironically , until this year , Democrats were regarded as stronger when it came to field operations .
The Trump campaign reportedly required its full-time staffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How Obama ’ s 2.2 Million Volunteers Transformed Campaigning in America , ” about the Obama campaign ’ s 2008 and 2012 on-the-ground efforts .
In 2018 , extensive in-person canvassing was partially credited with helping Democrats win back a majority in the U.S. House .
In a recent episode of the podcast Pod Save America , former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Democratic candidates this year have been constrained to some extent by the concerns of their voters , who polls show are more worried about the virus than Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for door knocking don ’ t want someone at their door , ” he said .
“ But it makes me nervous , ” Mr. Plouffe added , saying he found door knocking to be the best form of voter contact during the Obama campaigns .
For some voters , “ that may be the only way you get them to register or maybe the best way to convince them to turn out.
” In part because of concerns like these , the Biden campaign is now carefully stepping up its efforts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , according to the Biden official .
All volunteers are provided with protective equipment and temperature checks , and homeowners receive texts beforehand so they know to expect a knock on the door .
Republicans have been quick to level charges of hypocrisy , after Democrats spent months criticizing the Trump campaign for supposedly endangering its voters with in-person events .
“ For months , Joe Biden and his campaign suggested door knocking would put people ‘ in harm ’ s way ’ , ” says Samantha Zager , Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But now that Biden realized he can ’ t win an election from his basement and without a field operation , his campaign ’ s hypocrisy is on full display.
” Of course , it isn ’ t just Democrats who ’ ve had to restrict their campaigning in various ways this year .
GOP Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania ’ s 9th District says roughly three-quarters of his campaign events have been canceled , postponed , or moved to Zoom .
“ We ’ re doing some door knocking , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
“ We ’ re following the appropriate guidelines.
” Congressman Meuser ’ s challenger , Democrat Gary Wegman , sums up campaigning during a pandemic in two words : “ It stinks , ” he says , from a picnic table on his family farm in northeast Pennsylvania .
Still , if there are any positives to this unprecedented election season , it ’ s that voters across the political spectrum appear to be tuned into politics like never before .
“ People are looking at their representatives like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign manager , Mallie Prytherch .
“ They ’ re saying , ‘ What are you doing for us ?
’ ” Ms. Prytherch says she has more volunteers offering to help than she knows what to do with .
And if deciding not to risk the health of supporters and volunteers with in-person events ultimately costs the campaign votes , she says she ’ s OK with that .
Above all , she suspects this election will inevitably change what political campaigning will look like in the future .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very different to campaign with the pandemic – but I don ’ t think that necessarily means it ’ s been worse , ” she says .
Campaigns were already heading toward a much more targeted , digital approach anyway , she notes .
“ This has just kind of accelerated that process .
”

“We may find that virtual friend-to-friend [contacts] may be more effective than a stranger at your door,” says Donald Green, a political scientist at Columbia University. “It’s kind of too early to tell.”
Donald Green, a political scientist at Columbia University and co-author of “Get out the Vote!,” found that connecting with 1,000 voters via door knocking generates 40 votes, while talking to 1,000 voters on the phone generates 28. But he says more targeted digital methods, including Democrats’ shift toward peer-to-peer organization, could prove to be effective.
The partisan divide over how best to connect with voters in the 2020 election season is not just a matter of logistics, but also differing views of how the country should move forward: respect concerns about the pandemic, or return to “normal” life.
These diverging approaches – reflected in races across the country, including the presidential race – serve to reinforce the two sides’ core arguments. Democrats’ minimal door knocking respects voters’ concerns about the pandemic, while Republicans are trying to emphasize a return to “normal” life.
How can politicians best connect with voters during COVID-19? Jim Bognet, a Republican running to represent Pennsylvania in Congress, shakes hands, poses for selfies, and recently spoke to 500 people at a pig roast from the back of a pickup truck. His opponent, incumbent Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright, hasn’t held large in-person events or done any door-to-door canvassing since March.
As he wraps up his stump speech to a group of mostly maskless voters outside the Luzerne County GOP headquarters, Jim Bognet shakes hands and poses for selfies.
It’s his third in-person campaign event of the day. Despite the various COVID-19 guidelines restricting group activities, the Republican candidate for northeast Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District says he’s been operating almost as if it’s “a normal campaign year” since June.
“A month ago, I spoke from the back of a pickup truck to 500 people at a pig roast,” says Mr. Bognet, who owned a communications consulting business before working as a Trump administration appointee at the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Why We Wrote This The partisan divide over how best to connect with voters in the 2020 election season is not just a matter of logistics, but also differing views of how the country should move forward: respect concerns about the pandemic, or return to “normal” life.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bognet’s opponent, incumbent Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright, hasn’t held large in-person events or done any door-to-door canvassing since March.
“I would love to be out there having big events,” says Congressman Cartwright, an attorney who was first elected to Congress in 2012. But “I think it’s way more important to model good pandemic behavior and to do our part to slow the spread – and I think people appreciate that.”
As COVID-19 continues to upend everyday life in America, it has also disrupted campaigning – forcing presidential and down-ballot candidates alike to reevaluate once-routine forms of politicking. Everything from speeches and rallies to door knocking and handshaking now comes with a cloud of complications and a cost-benefit analysis.
Yet there’s a clear partisan split. Taking cues from President Donald Trump – who has resumed a jam-packed schedule of MAGA rallies after being sidelined by a COVID-19 diagnosis – many Republican candidates returned to the trail in early summer. By contrast, Democrats from former Vice President Joe Biden on down have been much more cautious, with some only just now beginning to hold small events and go door to door.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Despite COVID-19, Jim Bognet, Republican candidate for Pennsylvania’s 8th District, has largely resumed campaigning as normal since June. “Most campaigns are two different messages with very similar tactics,” says Mr. Bognet, who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Congressman Matt Cartwright. “This campaign has incredibly divergent messages. ... But even more so than that, they’re using different tactics.”
The diverging approaches serve to reinforce the two sides’ core arguments, points out Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College in Atherton, California, who has studied get-out-the-vote methods for decades. “By not engaging in door knocking, or minimal door knocking, Democrats are sending a message – reminding people that we are in a pandemic.”
Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to emphasize a return to “normal” life.
“We see among Republican and independent voters, they still want to be talked to,” says Mr. Bognet. “They still appreciate it when we go door to door. And I just think the Democrats are making a horrible mistake by giving [that] up.”
Real-life political science experiment
After months of mostly virtual campaign events, Mr. Biden recently embarked on an 8-stop train tour around Ohio and Pennsylvania, de-training to speak to small, socially distant crowds. Biden volunteers are just now beginning to knock on doors of voters who have been hard to reach by phone in the swing states of Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania – the first such efforts since the spring.
By contrast, the Trump team claims to have already amassed impressive canvassing numbers. According to a campaign spokesman, the campaign has knocked on over 22.5 million doors to date, with a current average of 2 million doors per week (though figures like these are impossible to independently verify).
In some ways, 2020 is offering a kind of real-life political science experiment: Just how much does face-to-face contact with voters actually matter?
Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillion has tried to reassure nervous Democrats that what’s important isn’t sheer numbers of doors knocked on, but meaningful conversations with voters – which she says have been easier than ever to have on the phone, with so many Americans stuck at home and on their devices.
“Our operation has been highly successful when it comes to the most important metric, which is quality conversations,” a senior Biden official tells the Monitor. In the month of September alone, the campaign held 5.9 million of these conversations, the official says.
The Biden campaign has employed various virtual tactics, from social media to Zoom rallies to mailing postcards. And they have experimented further with peer-to-peer organizing, in which supporters text or call their own friends and family – a method political scientists rank as highly effective.
Still, face-to-face interactions typically allow for more in-depth conversations than phone calls or texting. Compared with other campaign tactics, in terms of both cost and success in generating votes, in-person canvassing comes out looking “pretty good,” says Donald Green, a political scientist at Columbia University and author of the book “Get out the Vote!” with Alan Gerber. On average, they calculate that connecting with 1,000 voters via door knocking generates 40 votes, while talking to 1,000 voters on the phone generates 28.
“It all depends on the quality of the interaction,” Mr. Green adds. “We may find that virtual friend-to-friend [contacts] may be more effective than a stranger at your door. ... It’s kind of too early to tell.”
Knocking on doors – in a mask
With an umbrella hanging from his waist and a stack of campaign flyers in his pocket, Andrew Holter, a conservative running for the state legislature in Pennsylvania’s District 118, walks from house to house under a drizzling rain in Duryea, a town south of Scranton. He’s following a map of potential supporters on his phone; many of the homes he approaches have lawn signs for President Trump or other Republican candidates.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Andrew Holter, a conservative running for the state legislature in Pennsylvania's District 118, knocks on doors in a neighborhood south of Scranton, Sept. 29, 2020. “This is still the foundation of politics,” says Mr. Holter, motioning to the houses around him. “Nothing beats talking to somebody on their front porch.”
Wearing a black face mask that says “We the People,” Mr. Holter knocks on a door – firmly, but not aggressively – and then steps backward off the house’s porch. If the homeowner answers, Mr. Holter, a paramedic firefighter, introduces himself and gives a one-minute version of his stump speech, explaining what he would do differently from the incumbent, such as investing more in emergency services.
One young woman listens from inside. “I really appreciate you being out here and taking the time to talk to people,” she says, before offering him a friendly wave and returning to her barking dogs.
As the number of swing voters has shrunk in America, canvassing activities in recent years have tended to focus more on turnout, making sure the candidates’ supporters show up on Election Day. A 2017 study by two political scientists found that door knocking can persuade undecided voters in a primary election, but has little to no effect winning over new supporters in general election campaigns.
Still, Mr. Holter knocks on a few doors that he knows are home to registered Democrats, and even one with a sign for his opponent. When a woman answers, she listens quietly to his short speech and takes his flyer before giving a quick wave and closing her door.
“This is the moment you get to change someone’s mind,” says Mr. Holter, who estimates he’s spoken with at least 600 potential voters when going door to door. “It’s the difference between them continuing to vote down the ballot when they might have just checked the top boxes and then moved on.”
Door knocking helped Democrats win in 2018
Ironically, until this year, Democrats were regarded as stronger when it came to field operations. The Trump campaign reportedly required its full-time staffers to read the book “Groundbreakers: How Obama’s 2.2 Million Volunteers Transformed Campaigning in America,” about the Obama campaign’s 2008 and 2012 on-the-ground efforts.
In 2018, extensive in-person canvassing was partially credited with helping Democrats win back a majority in the U.S. House.
In a recent episode of the podcast Pod Save America, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Democratic candidates this year have been constrained to some extent by the concerns of their voters, who polls show are more worried about the virus than Republicans. “Most people who would be targets for door knocking don’t want someone at their door,” he said.
“But it makes me nervous,” Mr. Plouffe added, saying he found door knocking to be the best form of voter contact during the Obama campaigns. For some voters, “that may be the only way you get them to register or maybe the best way to convince them to turn out.”
In part because of concerns like these, the Biden campaign is now carefully stepping up its efforts, sending out several hundred volunteers to canvass last week, according to the Biden official. All volunteers are provided with protective equipment and temperature checks, and homeowners receive texts beforehand so they know to expect a knock on the door.
Republicans have been quick to level charges of hypocrisy, after Democrats spent months criticizing the Trump campaign for supposedly endangering its voters with in-person events.
“For months, Joe Biden and his campaign suggested door knocking would put people ‘in harm’s way’,” says Samantha Zager, Mr. Trump’s deputy national press secretary. “But now that Biden realized he can’t win an election from his basement and without a field operation, his campaign’s hypocrisy is on full display.”
Campaigning during a pandemic: ‘It stinks’
Of course, it isn’t just Democrats who’ve had to restrict their campaigning in various ways this year. GOP Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania’s 9th District says roughly three-quarters of his campaign events have been canceled, postponed, or moved to Zoom.
“We’re doing some door knocking, but less than we would have,” he says. “We’re following the appropriate guidelines.”
Congressman Meuser’s challenger, Democrat Gary Wegman, sums up campaigning during a pandemic in two words: “It stinks,” he says, from a picnic table on his family farm in northeast Pennsylvania.
Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor View caption Hide caption Mallie Prytherch, campaign manager for Gary Wegman, the Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania’s 9th District, suspects COVID-19 has changed political campaigning for good. “There’s so much more emphasis on the digital,” says Ms. Prytherch. “And campaigns are finding that it’s cheaper and more efficient because you can target people exactly.”
Still, if there are any positives to this unprecedented election season, it’s that voters across the political spectrum appear to be tuned into politics like never before.
“People are looking at their representatives like they never have,” says Mr. Wegman’s campaign manager, Mallie Prytherch. “They’re saying, ‘What are you doing for us?’”
Ms. Prytherch says she has more volunteers offering to help than she knows what to do with. And if deciding not to risk the health of supporters and volunteers with in-person events ultimately costs the campaign votes, she says she’s OK with that.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Above all, she suspects this election will inevitably change what political campaigning will look like in the future.
“Of course, it’s been very different to campaign with the pandemic – but I don’t think that necessarily means it’s been worse,” she says. Campaigns were already heading toward a much more targeted, digital approach anyway, she notes. “This has just kind of accelerated that process.”