csmonitor--2020-03-09--Can Democrats win back Michigan?

Can Democrats win back Michigan?

Ask Arlene Williams about President Donald Trump 's promises to bring back auto industry jobs that have evaporated across Michigan and she 'll point with irony to the Chevy Blazer .
General Motors is now remaking the iconic American SUV after a lengthy hiatus – but building parts of it in Mexico and elsewhere overseas .
`` These are some of the staple brands and yes , they 're back , '' said Ms. Williams , who works at a GM plant in Romulus , Michigan , southwest of Detroit .
`` They 're just not being made in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting Tuesday , Michigan could redefine a Democratic primary that has become a showdown between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
But many voters are already looking ahead to November and whether Mr. Trump can again win in the state that perhaps more than any other catapulted him into the White House in 2016 .
For Mr. Sanders , the stakes could hardly be higher .
He defeated Hillary Clinton in Michigan in 2016 , emboldening his argument that he could win with a diverse coalition that drew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and African Americans .
But it is the kind of victory he has not been able to replicate this time , and if he does not on Tuesday , his path to the Democratic nomination may be greatly restricted .
Mr. Biden has been emphasizing the Obama administration 's bailout of the auto industry , which provided an economic lifeline for GM and Chrysler and federal loans for Ford , likely saving thousands of jobs .
He is also counting on continued strong support among African American voters .
How Michigan votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some see Mr. Sanders ' sweeping promises to cancel student debt and provide health care for all potentially energizing young voters but not older ones wary of his democratic socialist ideology .
Centrist and safe , Mr. Biden could do exactly the opposite , though .
Others worry that both candidates are taking black Democrats for granted .
All that may add up to neither being able to carry the state against Mr. Trump .
`` There 's not a lot of energy , not enough energy , I would say , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo , whose district includes a large swath of northwest Detroit .
She said the Democratic Party continues to use the same playbook of waiting until the last minute to do intensive community outreach – which crippled it in 2016 .
Indeed , major party turnout in Wayne County , which encompasses Detroit and is strongly African American , fell by more than 64,000 votes in 2016 as compared to 2012 .
That 's especially important since Mr. Trump leveled the Democrats ' famed `` blue wall '' with narrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortably go to Hillary Clinton : Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan , which he won by just 10,704 votes out more than 4.8 million cast .
Tuesday will be the first test of Democrats ' ability to take them back .
They already can point to hopeful signs .
Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , who has endorsed Mr. Biden and been mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick , won in 2018 , as fellow Democrat and Sen. Debbie Stabenow was cruising to re-election .
Veteran Michigan pollster Bernie Porn said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , especially in the suburbs – though he said Mr. Trump 's standing has recovered some in the wake of impeachment .
`` I think Trump is in trouble , '' Mr. Porn said .
Flipping the state back could be built on gains in places like Grand Rapids , childhood home of Gerald Ford and long the epitome of country club Republicans , often most interested in fiscal conservatism but also closely watching social issues .
It has begun moving to the left amid an influx of jobs bringing new residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , Mr. Porn said .
Mr. Sanders staged a rally on Sunday in Grand Rapids and – vowing to grow the Democratic electorate by winning over young , minority , and working-class voters – hit the University of Michigan and blue-collar Flint and Dearborn , home to a large concentration of Arab Americans .
It is a promise he has made in other states during the primaries , but so far has largely failed to deliver .
`` I am more than aware that Trump in 2016 won the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Sanders said .
`` I do believe the people of Michigan are n't going to make that mistake again . ''
Mr. Sanders canceled a planned trip to Mississippi to spend more time in the state this past weekend .
But he has struggled to broaden his appeal with black voters , as evidenced by Biden 's wipe-out win in South Carolina and across many other Southern states on Super Tuesday .
Activist Monica Lewis-Patrick , president and CEO of We the People Detroit , said the eventual nominee will need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same mistakes the party made in 2016 , when the black community felt largely unseen and ignored .
She has endorsed Mr. Sanders .
Citing the ongoing water crisis in Flint and Detroit 's aggressive water shutoff campaign that has disrupted service for 100,000-plus residential accounts across the city since 2014 , Ms. Lewis-Patrick said the party needs to speak to issues that are impacting lives on a daily basis .
`` We 've told every candidate before we got down to the final two that we noticed in the debates when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the conversation , '' she said , referring to when the city hosted Democratic presidential debates last summer .
`` What we 're seeing is that many campaigns are treating black and brown communities as sort of a drive-by vote . ''
Mr. Sanders has spoken to Flint 's water problems and the shutoff issue , asking with exasperation , `` How is it possible '' that people in parts of the state `` do n't have water coming out of the tap ? ''
In an attempt to shore up its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Michigan Democratic Party has had staff on the ground since 2017 in `` pivot '' counties that supported Barack Obama in 2012 but went to Mr. Trump last presidential cycle .
It also has led campaigns highlighting Mr. Trump 's `` broken promises '' when it comes to issues like restoring lost manufacturing jobs .
Still , Ms. Gay-Dagnogo said that , though the state Democratic Party opened 15 offices around Michigan , `` it 's no secret '' Trump 's reelection campaign has stood up its own operations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we just wait for something magical to happen , opposed to making sure that there are financial resources in the community to get people out , '' she said .
Mr. Trump , meanwhile , has visited Michigan several times as president and points to a strong national economy as proof he kept his kept his promises to restore the state 's lost jobs .
Manufacturing jobs in Michigan grew from 616,800 when Trump took office to 628,900 last December , according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
But some counties that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the state faces the prospect of further downturns as coronavirus reverberates through the economy .
While top union leaders have lined up to support either Mr. Biden or Mr. Sanders , many of their rank-and-file members continue to back Mr. Trump because of his views on social issues like guns and abortion .
`` A number of union households who voted for Trump and voted against their own economic interests , I think , may do that again , '' said Matt Vitiote , Democratic Party chairman in Monroe County near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Obama but voted for Trump in 2016 .
Ms. Williams , who noted the Chevy Blazer 's international flavor , is backing Mr. Sanders and his promise to strengthen union membership nationwide .
She concedes that Michigan 's economy has grown under Mr. Trump but hopes it wo n't be enough for him to win the state again .
`` I do n't see that there has been real growth in higher-paying jobs , '' Ms. Williams said .
`` There have been jobs created , but they 're low-paying jobs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three of them in order to raise your family . ''
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
AP writer David Eggert in Lansing , Michigan , contributed to this report .

Ask Arlene Williams about President Donald Trump's promises to bring back auto industry jobs that have evaporated across Michigan and she'll point with irony to the Chevy Blazer.
General Motors is now remaking the iconic American SUV after a lengthy hiatus – but building parts of it in Mexico and elsewhere overseas.
"These are some of the staple brands and yes, they're back," said Ms. Williams, who works at a GM plant in Romulus, Michigan, southwest of Detroit. "They're just not being made in the U.S."
The largest of six states voting Tuesday, Michigan could redefine a Democratic primary that has become a showdown between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. But many voters are already looking ahead to November and whether Mr. Trump can again win in the state that perhaps more than any other catapulted him into the White House in 2016.
For Mr. Sanders, the stakes could hardly be higher. He defeated Hillary Clinton in Michigan in 2016, emboldening his argument that he could win with a diverse coalition that drew well from young voters, working-class whites, and African Americans. But it is the kind of victory he has not been able to replicate this time, and if he does not on Tuesday, his path to the Democratic nomination may be greatly restricted.
Mr. Biden has been emphasizing the Obama administration's bailout of the auto industry, which provided an economic lifeline for GM and Chrysler and federal loans for Ford, likely saving thousands of jobs. He is also counting on continued strong support among African American voters.
How Michigan votes will also be clarifying for November. Some see Mr. Sanders' sweeping promises to cancel student debt and provide health care for all potentially energizing young voters but not older ones wary of his democratic socialist ideology. Centrist and safe, Mr. Biden could do exactly the opposite, though.
Others worry that both candidates are taking black Democrats for granted. All that may add up to neither being able to carry the state against Mr. Trump.
"There's not a lot of energy, not enough energy, I would say, even for the primary," said Michigan state Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, whose district includes a large swath of northwest Detroit. She said the Democratic Party continues to use the same playbook of waiting until the last minute to do intensive community outreach – which crippled it in 2016.
Indeed, major party turnout in Wayne County, which encompasses Detroit and is strongly African American, fell by more than 64,000 votes in 2016 as compared to 2012. That's especially important since Mr. Trump leveled the Democrats' famed "blue wall" with narrow wins in states that were supposed to comfortably go to Hillary Clinton: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, which he won by just 10,704 votes out more than 4.8 million cast.
Tuesday will be the first test of Democrats' ability to take them back.
They already can point to hopeful signs. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has endorsed Mr. Biden and been mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick, won in 2018, as fellow Democrat and Sen. Debbie Stabenow was cruising to re-election.
Veteran Michigan pollster Bernie Porn said the president remains unpopular with independents and Republican women, especially in the suburbs – though he said Mr. Trump's standing has recovered some in the wake of impeachment.
"I think Trump is in trouble," Mr. Porn said.
Flipping the state back could be built on gains in places like Grand Rapids, childhood home of Gerald Ford and long the epitome of country club Republicans, often most interested in fiscal conservatism but also closely watching social issues. It has begun moving to the left amid an influx of jobs bringing new residents from other parts of the state and the country, Mr. Porn said.
Mr. Sanders staged a rally on Sunday in Grand Rapids and – vowing to grow the Democratic electorate by winning over young, minority, and working-class voters – hit the University of Michigan and blue-collar Flint and Dearborn, home to a large concentration of Arab Americans. It is a promise he has made in other states during the primaries, but so far has largely failed to deliver.
"I am more than aware that Trump in 2016 won the state of Michigan by a small vote," Mr. Sanders said. "I do believe the people of Michigan aren't going to make that mistake again."
Mr. Sanders canceled a planned trip to Mississippi to spend more time in the state this past weekend. But he has struggled to broaden his appeal with black voters, as evidenced by Biden's wipe-out win in South Carolina and across many other Southern states on Super Tuesday.
Activist Monica Lewis-Patrick, president and CEO of We the People Detroit, said the eventual nominee will need a strong ground game in Detroit to prevent the same mistakes the party made in 2016, when the black community felt largely unseen and ignored.
She has endorsed Mr. Sanders.
Citing the ongoing water crisis in Flint and Detroit's aggressive water shutoff campaign that has disrupted service for 100,000-plus residential accounts across the city since 2014, Ms. Lewis-Patrick said the party needs to speak to issues that are impacting lives on a daily basis.
"We've told every candidate before we got down to the final two that we noticed in the debates when they came to Detroit that was missing from the conversation," she said, referring to when the city hosted Democratic presidential debates last summer. "What we're seeing is that many campaigns are treating black and brown communities as sort of a drive-by vote."
Mr. Sanders has spoken to Flint's water problems and the shutoff issue, asking with exasperation, "How is it possible" that people in parts of the state "don't have water coming out of the tap?"
In an attempt to shore up its position no matter who wins the nomination, the Michigan Democratic Party has had staff on the ground since 2017 in "pivot" counties that supported Barack Obama in 2012 but went to Mr. Trump last presidential cycle. It also has led campaigns highlighting Mr. Trump's "broken promises" when it comes to issues like restoring lost manufacturing jobs.
Still, Ms. Gay-Dagnogo said that, though the state Democratic Party opened 15 offices around Michigan, "it's no secret" Trump's reelection campaign has stood up its own operations in the same areas.
"I think sometimes we just wait for something magical to happen, opposed to making sure that there are financial resources in the community to get people out," she said.
Mr. Trump, meanwhile, has visited Michigan several times as president and points to a strong national economy as proof he kept his kept his promises to restore the state's lost jobs.
Manufacturing jobs in Michigan grew from 616,800 when Trump took office to 628,900 last December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But some counties that Mr. Trump won have experienced job losses, and the state faces the prospect of further downturns as coronavirus reverberates through the economy.
While top union leaders have lined up to support either Mr. Biden or Mr. Sanders, many of their rank-and-file members continue to back Mr. Trump because of his views on social issues like guns and abortion.
"A number of union households who voted for Trump and voted against their own economic interests, I think, may do that again," said Matt Vitiote, Democratic Party chairman in Monroe County near the Michigan-Ohio border, which twice supported Mr. Obama but voted for Trump in 2016.
Ms. Williams, who noted the Chevy Blazer's international flavor, is backing Mr. Sanders and his promise to strengthen union membership nationwide. She concedes that Michigan's economy has grown under Mr. Trump but hopes it won't be enough for him to win the state again.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
"I don't see that there has been real growth in higher-paying jobs," Ms. Williams said. "There have been jobs created, but they're low-paying jobs and you've got to have two or three of them in order to raise your family."
This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writer David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.


csmonitor--2020-03-10--Why this centenarian statesman is hopeful – but cautious – about the future

“ We are now on a major hinge of history , ” says Mr. Shultz , who turns 100 this year .
“ There ’ s no withdrawing from the world ; we ’ re part of it .
So we might as well see what we can do to make it better.
” So when this centenarian declares in a quiet yet firm voice that the world stands at a turning point that will require every bit of the leadership and determination that got mankind through the 20th century , it seems wise to listen .
Mr. Shultz , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Ronald Reagan and served under President Richard Nixon , has , after all , lived through great historical moments , from the Great Depression , to the rise of fascism in Europe , World War II , and the fall of the Berlin Wall .
He hasn ’ t just witnessed them , he ’ s had a hand in influencing some of the defining features of the 20th century , including the rebottling of the nuclear genie and the demise of the Cold War .
George Shultz is calling on renewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existential challenges : climate change , nuclear weapons proliferation , human migration , cyber threats to governance , and new disruptions to the global trading system .
George Shultz turns 100 this year – and like anyone reaching that age , he has lived through great historical moments .
These range from the Great Depression , to the rise of fascism in Europe and World War II , to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union .
But much more than most , Mr. Shultz – one of only two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in four Cabinet positions – has not just witnessed these moments .
He had a hand in influencing some of the defining features of the 20th century , including the postwar reign of the dollar , the rebottling of the menacing nuclear genie , and the management and ultimate demise of the Cold War .
Perhaps above all , he has taken part in the establishment and consolidation of the postwar American-led international order .
So when this centenarian declares in a quiet yet firm voice that the world stands at a turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leadership and determination that got mankind through the 20th century , it seems wise to listen .
“ We are now on a major hinge of history , comparable to but different from the hinge we were on at the end of World War II , ” says Mr. Shultz , who was secretary of state to President Ronald Reagan and treasury secretary , director of the Office of Management and Budget , and labor secretary to President Richard Nixon .
He ’ s seated at a modest , book-piled desk in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Stanford University campus .
Now as then , he says , the world faces existential threats , and at both times the temptation to pull in and withdraw loomed large – a temptation the United States indeed succumbed to after World War I .
But not after the Second World War , given the devastation of the conflict , the millions of deaths , the Holocaust , and the advent of the nuclear bomb .
“ [ Unlike ] after World War I when we withdrew from the world , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , whether we like it or not , ’ ” says Mr. Shultz .
Thanks to “ some gifted people , ” he adds , ticking off names like Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower , and diplomats George Marshall and William Clayton , American leadership guided the world out of the ruin into an era of growing security and prosperity .
“ There were 44 countries at Bretton Woods , ” the 1944 conference that established a new international monetary system , he says , and “ out of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on international economic arrangements.
” In quick succession came the Marshall Plan , the United Nations , and NATO , which successfully defended the West from the Soviet Union .
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank , born at Bretton Woods , eventually “ got around to the World Trade Organization.
” Out of devastation , Mr. Shultz says , had come renewal and progress – in no small part because of inspired leadership .
As he talks , the art deco Hoover Tower , Stanford ’ s most imposing landmark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the distance are Northern California ’ s signature oaks and redwoods , while somewhere a babbling fountain interrupts the campus hush .
In the office , every space not taken by a book seems occupied by the memorabilia of decades of public service : signed photos of Ronald and Nancy Reagan , an autographed biography of Margaret Thatcher , Russian nesting dolls , a framed letter in which President Reagan thanks “ George ” for his service .
A glass tray proclaims , “ WHY NOT HAVE A BIG LIFE ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book , “ Thinking About the Future , ” is these days not so much dwelling on the past as considering how the glory years of American leadership might provide signposts for the challenges now on the world ’ s doorstep .
Seven decades after World War II , he says , the world faces complex issues as real as and perhaps even more life-threatening than it did then .
Climate change , nuclear weapons development and proliferation , human migration , cyber and social media challenges to governance , new means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system – all are going to test leadership capacity and human ingenuity to new limits , he says .
It ’ s perhaps not surprising that Mr. Shultz calls for renewed American leadership to take on today ’ s existential challenges with , as he puts it , determination and faith in progress , as well as respect for others ’ formative experiences and points of view .
He is , after all , surrounded by many artifacts of the postwar American era and reminders of the role he played in it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only country that can help the world surmount these issues “ because I don ’ t see who else is going to lead .
Not China or Russia .
Europe can ’ t do it.
” To illustrate how others still look to the U.S. , Mr. Shultz tells the story of when Lee Kuan Yew , Singapore ’ s founding prime minister , visited him at Stanford with hopes of learning about the ingenuity of adjacent Silicon Valley .
“ I reminded him that Silicon Valley is full of talent , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the world , not just from the U.S. , ” Mr. Shultz recalls .
“ And he said , ‘ Yes , but this could only happen in America.
’ ” Yet if Mr. Shultz is issuing a clarion call for renewed American leadership at a critical moment in history , it is in part because he doesn ’ t see such a response now .
“ Right now we ’ re not leading the world , ” he says .
“ We ’ re withdrawing from it.
” The four walls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoover Institution are chockablock with photos , magazine covers , yellowed political cartoons , tributes , and other remembrances of his career .
Almost lost in the parade of frames is a photo of a smiling Secretary Shultz kicking up his heels with Ginger Rogers at a 1983 White House dinner .
“ What a joy this was for me !
” Ms. Rogers wrote in a handwritten note accompanying the photograph .
“ For the first two minutes I could swear I was dancing with Fred !
” No doubt it says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to be compared to Fred Astaire , Ms. Rogers ’ longtime Hollywood dancing partner .
( Or perhaps erstwhile skills : Mr. Shultz confirms with a slight grin that his dancing days are “ no more.
” ) But what the Rogers anecdote underscores is the personal side of the lifelong diplomat .
Mr. Shultz is a storyteller , and many of his tales highlight the importance he always saw in the “ softer ” side of diplomacy – the “ get to know you ” prebusiness conversations , the glitzy dinners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites – as a sign of the common humanity and respect for the “ other side ” that can pay big dividends .
To illustrate this point , Mr. Shultz goes back to one of the first visits he made to Russia while secretary of the treasury .
His counterpart took him to Leningrad ( today St. Petersburg ) with a first stop at the vast cemetery where many from the battle of Leningrad are buried .
Standing with his host on a platform overlooking “ row after row after row of mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed that all the Russians around him were weeping .
“ And I said to [ my host ] , ‘ I have a sense of community with these people because I also fought in World War II .
I also had comrades shot down beside me .
But furthermore these are the people who stopped Hitler.
’ And I walked up to the front of the platform and gave a long salute.
” Years later , when Mr. Shultz returned to Leningrad as secretary of state , “ I found that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
“ It teaches you that if you show respect to things that deserve it , then your criticisms of other things carry more weight instead of being just critical across the board.
” Even well after his official years in government , Mr. Shultz has been called on to use some of his considerable personal skills to rescue a big foreign policy moment .
He tells the story of being called by the State Department in 2013 with an SOS : China ’ s new president , Xi Jinping , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day before a scheduled summit with President Barack Obama at the Sunnylands estate in Southern California to get to know the area .
Can the former secretary of state help out ?
“ That ’ s a statement [ from President Xi ] that , ‘ I want to get to know you , ’ have private communications where you get to know each other , and have confidence in each other , ” he says .
Mr. Shultz says he dispatched his wife , Charlotte Mailliard Shultz – who , he notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city of San Francisco and the state of California “ knows a lot ” on the subject – to Orange County .
And the experienced diplomat who had worked closely with both Chinese and Soviet authorities in his day says he was horrified to learn from his wife that “ no high federal official ” was set to greet the Xis upon their arrival .
Ms. Shultz called on then-California Gov .
Jerry Brown , who agreed to welcome the Xis at the airport , and the two wives spent the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels ” before Mr. Obama ’ s arrival , he says .
The Obama White House would later characterize the Sunnylands summit as a big success .
But Mr. Shultz recalls that presummit arrival and says , “ This is not just a missed opportunity ; this is an insult .
That ’ s not the way you get along with people.
” These days Mr. Shultz may no longer be a practicing diplomat in the strict sense of the word , but he continues to write books , discuss economics with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and keep a formidable social calendar .
He recently attended the annual dinner of Washington ’ s exclusive Alfalfa Club .
His wife , at 86 , continues to carry out duties that make the couple a regular feature of the San Francisco Chronicle ’ s society page .
Mr. Shultz gives every indication of relishing the role of an éminence grise of U.S. foreign policy .
He continues to pen Op-Ed pieces on issues such as arms control and climate change , often with another sage of his era , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense Secretary William Perry .
He says his large and close-knit family offers him a window on today ’ s young people .
And he rejects the notion that young Americans today , while different from those of three or four generations past , are dismissive of institutions , less patriotic , or less oriented toward public service than his generation , which was called on to serve in World War II .
The Shultz family glue and the patriarch ’ s understanding of the millennial generation ’ s values were tested a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the onetime Silicon Valley darling Theranos – the supposedly revolutionary blood-analysis startup .
The company ’ s high-powered board of directors included Henry Kissinger , Sam Nunn , Mr. Perry – and Mr. Shultz .
The firm , now defunct , would be brought down in large part by an employee named Tyler Shultz – who saw from the inside that the company ’ s technology was not the revolution it claimed to be and took his findings public .
He was a whistleblower who happened to be the grandson of Theranos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Versions vary as to how long it took for the elder Mr. Shultz to accept his grandson ’ s findings and to side with him in the Theranos affair .
But the elder Shultz says he admires how his grandson never wavered and stuck by what he knew to be right .
“ He has great integrity , ” he says of Tyler .
“ What this [ Theranos experience ] tells me about my grandson is , he ’ s honest and he wants things to be good .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust things , ” he says , bringing a question about millennials back to his grandson .
“ He doesn ’ t put up with something that ’ s wrong.
” For some , Mr. Shultz ’ s plea for American leadership to guide the world through the 21st century ’ s grave challenges may seem like an exercise in nostalgia , especially when it is coming from someone who had a role in a bygone golden era of American power .
But that tempting perspective would fail to consider that over much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day , Mr. Shultz has been ahead of his time – as a realist with a knack for seeing beyond conventional thinking to solutions that would end up becoming mainstream .
That has been true on climate change , nuclear disarmament , and , above all , the nation ’ s half-century-old drug war .
“ I think it ’ s just looking at the realities , an ability to see the realities , and using common sense , ” he says .
“ It ’ s no big deal.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Shultz has advocated a drug policy that focuses on reducing demand instead of supply .
He says the drug war has done nothing to address the market for narcotics while ravaging America ’ s southern neighbors .
“ We complain about Mexico being a source of drugs , come on – we ’ re the culprits , not them , ” he says .
“ They [ Mexicans ] are the victims ; they ’ ve had huge numbers of people killed by the drug lords ” supplying our market .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , but decriminalization of possession of small amounts for personal use , ramped-up access to treatment , and education to stop people from using in the first place .
( He believes his friend Nancy Reagan was on the right track with her “ Just Say No ” campaign , but says then as now , in the devastating opioid epidemic , a “ huge drug bureaucracy ” has stood in the way of a demand-focused policy . )
Similarly on climate change , Mr. Shultz stands out as a lonely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the country is being “ mugged by reality ” and must act .
“ There ’ s an ocean being created in the Arctic , why ?
Why is the ice cap over Greenland becoming a river ?
Australia , the whole continent is burning , why ?
” he says .
Closer to home , he points to California ’ s intensifying fires and the repeated inundating storms in Houston over recent years and says , “ The Gulf of Mexico is the warmest it ’ s ever been .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of evaporation , and what goes up must come down .
So it ’ s not a mystery.
” For years , Mr. Shultz has advocated what he calls a revenue-neutral carbon tax , which he says would cut fossil fuel consumption while encouraging renewable energy research and development , and job-creating innovation .
And then there ’ s nuclear disarmament .
President Reagan ’ s top diplomat notes that even in the 1980s his boss envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons , and he says that has been his goal ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefulness that keeps him on the zero-nukes path but a realistic understanding of the unthinkable destruction , and indeed global annihilation , that nuclear weapons threaten .
Calling it one of the “ hinge of history ” issues , Mr. Shultz notes that some nuclear powers , including the U.S. , are once again talking about scenarios for nuclear arms use .
Instead of a focus on reduction , “ you have ... proliferation of [ nuclear ] weapons and a lot of careless talk about using them .
People seem to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cuban missile crisis , ” he says .
He ’ s critical of what he sees as the Trump administration ’ s willingness to allow decades of arms control success with the Russians be lost and reversed .
He displays a rare public annoyance with the Republican administration over the current state of nuclear diplomacy .
“ Right now the Russians have said they ’ re ready to renew [ the new START treaty ] and we ’ re hesitating .
Come on !
We should grab that and then say to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s see what we can do .
... You ’ ve got to be positive about these things , ” he says .
As he goes about his 100th year determined to continue being a “ doer ” on the world ’ s critical issues , Mr. Shultz is taking his own advice .
He ’ s optimistic that the world will be up to the challenge of addressing this moment in history , and he holds out hope that America will again rise to the occasion and lead the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leadership we needed at critical times , ” he says , ticking off Washington and Lincoln , Franklin D. Roosevelt and Reagan .
“ We seem to have a knack for identifying somebody .
I don ’ t know who or what or whether or not somebody out there can stand up and be counted.
” Fortunately , he says , America continues to have values that motivate people to action and keep it , he believes , the envy of the world .
“ We have community spirit .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for themselves , ” he says .
“ We have outstanding institutions in many ways , and , by and large , there ’ s kind of an atmosphere of trust .
I always felt trust is the coin of the realm.
” And here the hopeful realist in Mr. Shultz surfaces .
“ Right now we ’ re pulling back [ from the world ] but we ’ re entwined , ” he says .
“ There ’ s no withdrawing from the world ; we ’ re part of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we can do to make it better .
”

“We are now on a major hinge of history,” says Mr. Shultz, who turns 100 this year. “There’s no withdrawing from the world; we’re part of it. So we might as well see what we can do to make it better.”
So when this centenarian declares in a quiet yet firm voice that the world stands at a turning point that will require every bit of the leadership and determination that got mankind through the 20th century, it seems wise to listen.
As one of only two people in U.S. history who has served in four Cabinet posts, George Shultz has seen a lot of the workings – and nonworkings – of American policy up close. Now, as he nears 100, he gives his state of the world and outlines why trust is “the coin of the realm” for effective governing.
Mr. Shultz, who served as secretary of state to President Ronald Reagan and served under President Richard Nixon, has, after all, lived through great historical moments, from the Great Depression, to the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. He hasn’t just witnessed them, he’s had a hand in influencing some of the defining features of the 20th century, including the rebottling of the nuclear genie and the demise of the Cold War.
George Shultz is calling on renewed American leadership to tackle today’s existential challenges: climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, human migration, cyber threats to governance, and new disruptions to the global trading system.
George Shultz turns 100 this year – and like anyone reaching that age, he has lived through great historical moments. These range from the Great Depression, to the rise of fascism in Europe and World War II, to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union.
But much more than most, Mr. Shultz – one of only two people in U.S. history to have served in four Cabinet positions – has not just witnessed these moments. He had a hand in influencing some of the defining features of the 20th century, including the postwar reign of the dollar, the rebottling of the menacing nuclear genie, and the management and ultimate demise of the Cold War.
Perhaps above all, he has taken part in the establishment and consolidation of the postwar American-led international order.
Why We Wrote This As one of only two people in U.S. history who has served in four Cabinet posts, George Shultz has seen a lot of the workings – and nonworkings – of American policy up close. Now, as he nears 100, he gives his state of the world and outlines why trust is “the coin of the realm” for effective governing.
So when this centenarian declares in a quiet yet firm voice that the world stands at a turning point that will require every bit of the leadership and determination that got mankind through the 20th century, it seems wise to listen.
“We are now on a major hinge of history, comparable to but different from the hinge we were on at the end of World War II,” says Mr. Shultz, who was secretary of state to President Ronald Reagan and treasury secretary, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and labor secretary to President Richard Nixon.
He’s seated at a modest, book-piled desk in his corner office at the Hoover Institution on the Stanford University campus.
Now as then, he says, the world faces existential threats, and at both times the temptation to pull in and withdraw loomed large – a temptation the United States indeed succumbed to after World War I.
But not after the Second World War, given the devastation of the conflict, the millions of deaths, the Holocaust, and the advent of the nuclear bomb. “[Unlike] after World War I when we withdrew from the world, they said, ‘We are part of it, whether we like it or not,’” says Mr. Shultz. Thanks to “some gifted people,” he adds, ticking off names like Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and diplomats George Marshall and William Clayton, American leadership guided the world out of the ruin into an era of growing security and prosperity.
COPYRIGHT 2020, THE CHICAGO MAROON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION. View caption Hide caption In 1962 George Shultz becomes dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
“There were 44 countries at Bretton Woods,” the 1944 conference that established a new international monetary system, he says, and “out of that came basically the rules of the road on international economic arrangements.” In quick succession came the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and NATO, which successfully defended the West from the Soviet Union. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, born at Bretton Woods, eventually “got around to the World Trade Organization.”
Out of devastation, Mr. Shultz says, had come renewal and progress – in no small part because of inspired leadership.
As he talks, the art deco Hoover Tower, Stanford’s most imposing landmark, looms outside his window. Visible in the distance are Northern California’s signature oaks and redwoods, while somewhere a babbling fountain interrupts the campus hush. In the office, every space not taken by a book seems occupied by the memorabilia of decades of public service: signed photos of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, an autographed biography of Margaret Thatcher, Russian nesting dolls, a framed letter in which President Reagan thanks “George” for his service. A glass tray proclaims, “WHY NOT HAVE A BIG LIFE?”
Yet Mr. Shultz, who just published a book, “Thinking About the Future,” is these days not so much dwelling on the past as considering how the glory years of American leadership might provide signposts for the challenges now on the world’s doorstep. Seven decades after World War II, he says, the world faces complex issues as real as and perhaps even more life-threatening than it did then.
Climate change, nuclear weapons development and proliferation, human migration, cyber and social media challenges to governance, new means of production that disrupt the global trading system – all are going to test leadership capacity and human ingenuity to new limits, he says.
It’s perhaps not surprising that Mr. Shultz calls for renewed American leadership to take on today’s existential challenges with, as he puts it, determination and faith in progress, as well as respect for others’ formative experiences and points of view. He is, after all, surrounded by many artifacts of the postwar American era and reminders of the role he played in it. He also thinks the U.S. is the only country that can help the world surmount these issues “because I don’t see who else is going to lead. Not China or Russia. Europe can’t do it.”
ALESSANDRA TARANTINO/AP/FILE View caption Hide caption In 2007 George Shultz joins Henry Kissinger and other statesmen to push for total nuclear disarmament.
To illustrate how others still look to the U.S., Mr. Shultz tells the story of when Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister, visited him at Stanford with hopes of learning about the ingenuity of adjacent Silicon Valley.
“I reminded him that Silicon Valley is full of talent, the best and the brightest, from all over the world, not just from the U.S.,” Mr. Shultz recalls. “And he said, ‘Yes, but this could only happen in America.’”
Yet if Mr. Shultz is issuing a clarion call for renewed American leadership at a critical moment in history, it is in part because he doesn’t see such a response now.
“Right now we’re not leading the world,” he says. “We’re withdrawing from it.”
The four walls of the Shultz conference room at the Hoover Institution are chockablock with photos, magazine covers, yellowed political cartoons, tributes, and other remembrances of his career. Almost lost in the parade of frames is a photo of a smiling Secretary Shultz kicking up his heels with Ginger Rogers at a 1983 White House dinner.
“What a joy this was for me!” Ms. Rogers wrote in a handwritten note accompanying the photograph. “For the first two minutes I could swear I was dancing with Fred!”
No doubt it says something about Mr. Shultz’s smooth-stepping skills to be compared to Fred Astaire, Ms. Rogers’ longtime Hollywood dancing partner. (Or perhaps erstwhile skills: Mr. Shultz confirms with a slight grin that his dancing days are “no more.”)
But what the Rogers anecdote underscores is the personal side of the lifelong diplomat. Mr. Shultz is a storyteller, and many of his tales highlight the importance he always saw in the “softer” side of diplomacy – the “get to know you” prebusiness conversations, the glitzy dinners, the visits to cultural and historical sites – as a sign of the common humanity and respect for the “other side” that can pay big dividends.
To illustrate this point, Mr. Shultz goes back to one of the first visits he made to Russia while secretary of the treasury. His counterpart took him to Leningrad (today St. Petersburg) with a first stop at the vast cemetery where many from the battle of Leningrad are buried. Standing with his host on a platform overlooking “row after row after row of mass graves,” the American treasury secretary noticed that all the Russians around him were weeping.
“And I said to [my host], ‘I have a sense of community with these people because I also fought in World War II. I also had comrades shot down beside me. But furthermore these are the people who stopped Hitler.’ And I walked up to the front of the platform and gave a long salute.”
Years later, when Mr. Shultz returned to Leningrad as secretary of state, “I found that people knew about that little incident,” he says. “It teaches you that if you show respect to things that deserve it, then your criticisms of other things carry more weight instead of being just critical across the board.”
COURTESY OF RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY View caption Hide caption George Shultz dances with Ginger Rogers at a 1983 White House dinner.
Even well after his official years in government, Mr. Shultz has been called on to use some of his considerable personal skills to rescue a big foreign policy moment. He tells the story of being called by the State Department in 2013 with an SOS: China’s new president, Xi Jinping, wants to come with his wife a day before a scheduled summit with President Barack Obama at the Sunnylands estate in Southern California to get to know the area. Can the former secretary of state help out?
“That’s a statement [from President Xi] that, ‘I want to get to know you,’ have private communications where you get to know each other, and have confidence in each other,” he says.
Mr. Shultz says he dispatched his wife, Charlotte Mailliard Shultz – who, he notes, as chief of protocol for both the city of San Francisco and the state of California “knows a lot” on the subject – to Orange County. And the experienced diplomat who had worked closely with both Chinese and Soviet authorities in his day says he was horrified to learn from his wife that “no high federal official” was set to greet the Xis upon their arrival.
Ms. Shultz called on then-California Gov. Jerry Brown, who agreed to welcome the Xis at the airport, and the two wives spent the day together while President Xi “cooled his heels” before Mr. Obama’s arrival, he says.
The Obama White House would later characterize the Sunnylands summit as a big success. But Mr. Shultz recalls that presummit arrival and says, “This is not just a missed opportunity; this is an insult. That’s not the way you get along with people.”
These days Mr. Shultz may no longer be a practicing diplomat in the strict sense of the word, but he continues to write books, discuss economics with a group of Stanford and Bay Area academics, and keep a formidable social calendar.
He recently attended the annual dinner of Washington’s exclusive Alfalfa Club. His wife, at 86, continues to carry out duties that make the couple a regular feature of the San Francisco Chronicle’s society page.
Mr. Shultz gives every indication of relishing the role of an éminence grise of U.S. foreign policy. He continues to pen Op-Ed pieces on issues such as arms control and climate change, often with another sage of his era, like former Secretary of State James Baker or Defense Secretary William Perry.
He says his large and close-knit family offers him a window on today’s young people. And he rejects the notion that young Americans today, while different from those of three or four generations past, are dismissive of institutions, less patriotic, or less oriented toward public service than his generation, which was called on to serve in World War II.
DOUG MILLS/AP/FILE View caption Hide caption George Shultz receives the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, from President Reagan in 1989.
The Shultz family glue and the patriarch’s understanding of the millennial generation’s values were tested a few years ago by the ignominious fall of the onetime Silicon Valley darling Theranos – the supposedly revolutionary blood-analysis startup. The company’s high-powered board of directors included Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Mr. Perry – and Mr. Shultz.
The firm, now defunct, would be brought down in large part by an employee named Tyler Shultz – who saw from the inside that the company’s technology was not the revolution it claimed to be and took his findings public. He was a whistleblower who happened to be the grandson of Theranos board member and iconic statesman George Shultz.
Versions vary as to how long it took for the elder Mr. Shultz to accept his grandson’s findings and to side with him in the Theranos affair. But the elder Shultz says he admires how his grandson never wavered and stuck by what he knew to be right.
“He has great integrity,” he says of Tyler. “What this [Theranos experience] tells me about my grandson is, he’s honest and he wants things to be good. It’s not that he doesn’t trust things,” he says, bringing a question about millennials back to his grandson. “He doesn’t put up with something that’s wrong.”
For some, Mr. Shultz’s plea for American leadership to guide the world through the 21st century’s grave challenges may seem like an exercise in nostalgia, especially when it is coming from someone who had a role in a bygone golden era of American power.
But that tempting perspective would fail to consider that over much of his career on key issues of the day, Mr. Shultz has been ahead of his time – as a realist with a knack for seeing beyond conventional thinking to solutions that would end up becoming mainstream.
That has been true on climate change, nuclear disarmament, and, above all, the nation’s half-century-old drug war.
“I think it’s just looking at the realities, an ability to see the realities, and using common sense,” he says. “It’s no big deal.”
As far back as the Nixon administration, Mr. Shultz has advocated a drug policy that focuses on reducing demand instead of supply. He says the drug war has done nothing to address the market for narcotics while ravaging America’s southern neighbors.
“We complain about Mexico being a source of drugs, come on – we’re the culprits, not them,” he says. “They [Mexicans] are the victims; they’ve had huge numbers of people killed by the drug lords” supplying our market.
BOB DAUGHERTY/AP/FILE View caption Hide caption George Shultz with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (right) in 1983.
His solution is not drug legalization, he says, but decriminalization of possession of small amounts for personal use, ramped-up access to treatment, and education to stop people from using in the first place. (He believes his friend Nancy Reagan was on the right track with her “Just Say No” campaign, but says then as now, in the devastating opioid epidemic, a “huge drug bureaucracy” has stood in the way of a demand-focused policy.)
Similarly on climate change, Mr. Shultz stands out as a lonely, though not lone, Republican voice who says the country is being “mugged by reality” and must act.
“There’s an ocean being created in the Arctic, why? Why is the ice cap over Greenland becoming a river? Australia, the whole continent is burning, why?” he says. Closer to home, he points to California’s intensifying fires and the repeated inundating storms in Houston over recent years and says, “The Gulf of Mexico is the warmest it’s ever been. That means you’ve got a lot of evaporation, and what goes up must come down. So it’s not a mystery.”
For years, Mr. Shultz has advocated what he calls a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which he says would cut fossil fuel consumption while encouraging renewable energy research and development, and job-creating innovation.
And then there’s nuclear disarmament. President Reagan’s top diplomat notes that even in the 1980s his boss envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons, and he says that has been his goal ever since. It’s not dewy-eyed hopefulness that keeps him on the zero-nukes path but a realistic understanding of the unthinkable destruction, and indeed global annihilation, that nuclear weapons threaten. Calling it one of the “hinge of history” issues, Mr. Shultz notes that some nuclear powers, including the U.S., are once again talking about scenarios for nuclear arms use.
Instead of a focus on reduction, “you have ... proliferation of [nuclear] weapons and a lot of careless talk about using them. People seem to have forgotten by now Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban missile crisis,” he says.
He’s critical of what he sees as the Trump administration’s willingness to allow decades of arms control success with the Russians be lost and reversed. He displays a rare public annoyance with the Republican administration over the current state of nuclear diplomacy.
“Right now the Russians have said they’re ready to renew [the new START treaty] and we’re hesitating. Come on! We should grab that and then say to China, ‘Join with us and let’s see what we can do. ... You’ve got to be positive about these things,” he says.
As he goes about his 100th year determined to continue being a “doer” on the world’s critical issues, Mr. Shultz is taking his own advice. He’s optimistic that the world will be up to the challenge of addressing this moment in history, and he holds out hope that America will again rise to the occasion and lead the way.
“This country has always produced the leadership we needed at critical times,” he says, ticking off Washington and Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Reagan. “We seem to have a knack for identifying somebody. I don’t know who or what or whether or not somebody out there can stand up and be counted.” Fortunately, he says, America continues to have values that motivate people to action and keep it, he believes, the envy of the world.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“We have community spirit. We have a culture that encourages people to look out for themselves,” he says. “We have outstanding institutions in many ways, and, by and large, there’s kind of an atmosphere of trust. I always felt trust is the coin of the realm.”
And here the hopeful realist in Mr. Shultz surfaces. “Right now we’re pulling back [from the world] but we’re entwined,” he says. “There’s no withdrawing from the world; we’re part of it. So we might as well see what we can do to make it better.”


csmonitor--2020-03-12--At key moments, the power of a president’s words

Since the start of the coronavirus situation , Mr. Trump has blamed “ fake news ” and the “ Democrat Party ” for trying to sow panic and hurt him politically .
Perhaps Mr. Trump ’ s biggest challenge right now is a trust deficit , given his own well-established history of misstatements .
All presidents dissemble or lie at times , but Mr. Trump ’ s verbal habits are unprecedented for an American president – though perceived in sharply different ways , depending on voters ’ party affiliation .
The speech was “ not reassuring , ” says Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at New York University .
“ It will not go down in history as one of the great moments of calm , where the president has used his or her great skills at reassurance to get people to relax , and say , ‘ This is going to be OK. ’ ” When President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office Wednesday night about coronavirus , he appeared ill at ease , misstating numerous aspects of his government ’ s own plan , and even sprinkling in campaign rhetoric .
At a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective things a president can do is speak to the nation directly , in an effort to keep the public informed and allay fears .
At a time of crisis , one of the most effective things a president can do is speak to the nation directly , in an effort to keep the public informed and allay fears .
But not all presidential addresses hit their mark .
When President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office Wednesday night about the coronavirus pandemic , he appeared ill at ease , misstating numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan , and even sprinkling in campaign rhetoric .
Thursday morning , investors spoke .
Within minutes of the markets ’ opening , the S & P 500 plummeted 7 % , triggering the “ circuit breaker ” and halting trading .
The president ’ s instinct to try to project calm was no doubt correct – and part of a long-standing American tradition of presidential efforts to rally the nation at times of crisis , from Franklin Roosevelt ’ s fireside chats to Bill Clinton ’ s speech after the Oklahoma City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bullhorn moment in New York City after 9/11 .
But as a norm-busting leader who is often short on the nuts and bolts of governance , Mr. Trump has so far struggled to meet this moment .
The speech was “ not reassuring , ” says Paul Light , a professor of public service at New York University .
“ It will not go down in history as one of the great moments of calm , where the president has used his or her great skills at reassurance to get people to relax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be OK. ’ ” Public health experts say the speech failed to level with Americans about just how much their day-to-day lives may be about to change – or how important their own actions will be in helping to address the challenge , with specific social-distancing measures , for example .
Most glaringly were the three factual errors : Mr. Trump asserted , incorrectly , that the suspension of travel from Europe would include “ trade and cargo.
” He failed to mention that the ban on flights from Europe would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents , or immediate family of citizens .
And he misstated the “ waiver ” of insurance copayments around coronavirus ; it applies to testing , but not treatment .
After the speech , the White House quickly corrected the mistakes , but not before U.S. stock futures and overseas markets spiraled .
Mr. Trump ’ s performance stood in stark contrast to that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel , a physicist by training , who spoke to her own nation on Wednesday , and delivered bad news in her signature , no-nonsense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected , she said .
Not all presidents get it right when trying to reassure the nation .
And while sugarcoating bad news is never a good idea , an overly negative tone can be problematic as well .
In 1979 , President Jimmy Carter delivered a downbeat speech as the United States grappled with gas lines , unemployment , and inflation .
It is now famously remembered as the “ malaise speech , ” even though President Carter never used that word .
The following year , he lost his reelection bid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation – and as recently as Monday – Mr. Trump has blamed “ fake news ” and the “ Democrat Party ” for trying to sow panic and hurt him politically .
When asked Thursday morning on NBC ’ s “ Today Show ” about Mr. Trump ’ s word choices , Vice President Mike Pence acknowledged that “ there ’ s been some irresponsible rhetoric , ” without saying whom he was referring to .
“ The American people should know President Trump has no higher priority than the health and safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , ” Vice President Pence added .
Perhaps Mr. Trump ’ s biggest challenge right now is a trust deficit , given his own well-established history of misstatements , misleading assertions , vague language , and even outright lies .
All presidents dissemble or lie at times , but Mr. Trump ’ s verbal habits are unprecedented for an American president – though perceived in sharply different ways , depending on voters ’ party affiliation .
On his handling of coronavirus itself , voters so far are just as divided : Eighty-seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Democrats disapprove , and independents are split 50-50 , according to a Quinnipiac poll .
Overall , 43 % of registered voters approve , and 49 % disapprove .
Add to the mix the November election , and Mr. Trump ’ s drive for a second term .
In his Oval Office address , even as he warned the American public about the potential grave dangers ahead , he threw in campaign-style flourishes .
“ Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world by far , ” the president said .
Indeed , the American economy remains a bulwark against the challenge that coronavirus presents , experts say .
But there ’ s no doubt that the virus is presenting a serious economic threat , as reflected in the tanking markets .
Mr. Trump ’ s political team has not skipped a beat since the Wednesday address .
On Thursday morning , the Trump campaign – working in concert with the Republican National Committee – sent out an email slamming “ liberal reporters ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become completely UNHINGED.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden , now in a strong position to win the Democratic presidential nomination , delivered his own address to the nation on the coronavirus situation on Thursday .
It all seemed aimed at creating the appearance of a “ shadow government , ” waiting in the wings to take power , as in a parliamentary system .
Mr. Biden announced he was releasing a comprehensive plan to combat the virus , calling it “ a road map , not for what I will do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but for the leadership that I believe is immediately required at this very moment.
” He added , “ President Trump is welcome to adopt all of it today .
”

Since the start of the coronavirus situation, Mr. Trump has blamed “fake news” and the “Democrat Party” for trying to sow panic and hurt him politically.
Perhaps Mr. Trump’s biggest challenge right now is a trust deficit, given his own well-established history of misstatements . All presidents dissemble or lie at times, but Mr. Trump’s verbal habits are unprecedented for an American president – though perceived in sharply different ways, depending on voters’ party affiliation.
The speech was “not reassuring,” says Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. “It will not go down in history as one of the great moments of calm, where the president has used his or her great skills at reassurance to get people to relax, and say, ‘This is going to be OK.’”
When President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office Wednesday night about coronavirus, he appeared ill at ease, misstating numerous aspects of his government’s own plan, and even sprinkling in campaign rhetoric.
Allaying fear and rallying the nation is a critical task for any leader at a time of crisis. But downplaying the challenge or misstating fundamental facts can severely undercut the public’s confidence.
At a time of crisis, one of the most effective things a president can do is speak to the nation directly, in an effort to keep the public informed and allay fears.
At a time of crisis, one of the most effective things a president can do is speak to the nation directly, in an effort to keep the public informed and allay fears.
But not all presidential addresses hit their mark.
When President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office Wednesday night about the coronavirus pandemic, he appeared ill at ease, misstating numerous aspects of his government’s own plan, and even sprinkling in campaign rhetoric.
Why We Wrote This Allaying fear and rallying the nation is a critical task for any leader at a time of crisis. But downplaying the challenge or misstating fundamental facts can severely undercut the public’s confidence.
Thursday morning, investors spoke. Within minutes of the markets’ opening, the S&P 500 plummeted 7%, triggering the “circuit breaker” and halting trading.
The president’s instinct to try to project calm was no doubt correct – and part of a long-standing American tradition of presidential efforts to rally the nation at times of crisis, from Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats to Bill Clinton’s speech after the Oklahoma City bombing to George W. Bush’s bullhorn moment in New York City after 9/11.
But as a norm-busting leader who is often short on the nuts and bolts of governance, Mr. Trump has so far struggled to meet this moment.
The speech was “not reassuring,” says Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. “It will not go down in history as one of the great moments of calm, where the president has used his or her great skills at reassurance to get people to relax, and say, ‘This is going to be OK.’”
Public health experts say the speech failed to level with Americans about just how much their day-to-day lives may be about to change – or how important their own actions will be in helping to address the challenge, with specific social-distancing measures, for example.
Most glaring were the three factual errors: Mr. Trump asserted, incorrectly, that the suspension of travel from Europe would include “trade and cargo.” He failed to mention that the ban on flights from Europe would not apply to U.S. citizens, legal residents, or immediate family of citizens. And he misstated the “waiver” of insurance copayments around coronavirus; it applies to testing, but not treatment.
After the speech, the White House quickly corrected the mistakes, but not before U.S. stock futures and overseas markets spiraled.
Mr. Trump’s performance stood in stark contrast to that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a physicist by training, who spoke to her own nation on Wednesday, and delivered bad news in her signature, no-nonsense style: Two-thirds of Germans may become infected, she said.
AP/File View caption Hide caption President Franklin Roosevelt delivers an address in the White House in Washington April 28, 1935. For his "fireside chats," Roosevelt was actually seated in front of three microphones in a White House room with no fireplace.
Not all presidents get it right when trying to reassure the nation. And while sugarcoating bad news is never a good idea, an overly negative tone can be problematic as well. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter delivered a downbeat speech as the United States grappled with gas lines, unemployment, and inflation. It is now famously remembered as the “malaise speech,” even though President Carter never used that word. The following year, he lost his reelection bid.
Since the start of the coronavirus situation – and as recently as Monday – Mr. Trump has blamed “fake news” and the “Democrat Party” for trying to sow panic and hurt him politically.
When asked Thursday morning on NBC’s “Today Show” about Mr. Trump’s word choices, Vice President Mike Pence acknowledged that “there’s been some irresponsible rhetoric,” without saying whom he was referring to.
“The American people should know President Trump has no higher priority than the health and safety and well-being of the people of this country,” Vice President Pence added.
Perhaps Mr. Trump’s biggest challenge right now is a trust deficit, given his own well-established history of misstatements, misleading assertions, vague language, and even outright lies. All presidents dissemble or lie at times, but Mr. Trump’s verbal habits are unprecedented for an American president – though perceived in sharply different ways, depending on voters’ party affiliation.
On his handling of coronavirus itself, voters so far are just as divided: Eighty-seven percent of Republicans approve, 83% of Democrats disapprove, and independents are split 50-50, according to a Quinnipiac poll. Overall, 43% of registered voters approve, and 49% disapprove.
Add to the mix the November election, and Mr. Trump’s drive for a second term. In his Oval Office address, even as he warned the American public about the potential grave dangers ahead, he threw in campaign-style flourishes.
“Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we have the greatest economy anywhere in the world by far,” the president said.
Indeed, the American economy remains a bulwark against the challenge that coronavirus presents, experts say. But there’s no doubt that the virus is presenting a serious economic threat, as reflected in the tanking markets.
Mr. Trump’s political team has not skipped a beat since the Wednesday address. On Thursday morning, the Trump campaign – working in concert with the Republican National Committee – sent out an email slamming “liberal reporters” that begins, “The mainstream media has become completely UNHINGED.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, now in a strong position to win the Democratic presidential nomination, delivered his own address to the nation on the coronavirus situation on Thursday. It all seemed aimed at creating the appearance of a “shadow government,” waiting in the wings to take power, as in a parliamentary system. Mr. Biden announced he was releasing a comprehensive plan to combat the virus, calling it “a road map, not for what I will do as president 10 months from now – but for the leadership that I believe is immediately required at this very moment.”
He added, “President Trump is welcome to adopt all of it today.”


csmonitor--2020-03-12--Bipartisan bill aims to limit Trump's military options in Iran

Defying a veto threat , Congress has approved a bipartisan measure to limit President Donald Trump 's authority to launch military operations against Iran .
The House gave final legislative approval to the measure Wednesday , 227-186 , sending it to Mr. Trump .
The president has promised to veto the war powers resolution , warning that if his `` hands were tied , Iran would have a field day . ''
The resolution , sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , declares that Mr. Trump must win approval from Congress before engaging in further military action against Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure is not about Mr. Trump or even the presidency , but instead is an important reassertion of congressional power to declare war .
Six Republicans joined 220 Democrats and independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan to support the measure .
Six Democrats and 180 Republicans opposed it .
In the Senate last month , eight Republicans backed the resolution .
The resolution `` sends a clear message that the American people do n't want war with Iran and that Congress has not authorized war with Iran , '' said Rep. Eliot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Foreign Affairs Committee .
While tensions with Iran have abated since a U.S. drone strike that killed Iran 's top general in early January , the resolution clarifying Congress ' power to declare war is still important , Mr. Engel said .
`` Congress does n't have to wait until the president alone decides to use military force again , '' Mr. Engel told House members during floor debate Wednesday .
`` It 's our responsibility to do something , because we know the tensions could flare up again at a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deterred as the administration promised . ''
Texas Rep. Michael McCaul , the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee , called the war powers measure `` divisive and irresponsible '' and based on a false premise .
`` It orders the president to terminate hostilities against Iran .
The problem is , for the other side , we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran , '' Mr. McCaul said .
If the U.S. military launches strikes in Iran , `` I believe that the president would need to come before this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' for the use of force , Mr. McCaul said .
`` But that is not what we are facing . ''
The House vote marked a rare exertion of authority from Congress , which also moved to impose restrictions on U.S. involvement with the Saudi-led war in Yemen last year after U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a gruesome murder at Saudi Arabia 's consulate in Turkey .
Mr. Trump promptly vetoed that measure .
The Democratic-controlled House passed a separate , nonbinding resolution on Iran in January , a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's resolution .
Two-thirds votes in the House and the GOP-run Senate would be needed to override an expected Trump veto .
`` For years , Congress has abdicated its responsibility on matters of war , but now a bipartisan majority in both the Senate and House has made clear that we shouldn ’ t be engaged in hostilities with Iran without a vote of Congress , '' he said in a statement .
The legislation `` doesn ’ t prevent the president from defending the United States against imminent attack , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whether or not we go on offense and send our troops into harm ’ s way should only be made after serious deliberation and a vote of Congress , '' Mr. Kaine added .
`` If President Trump is serious about his promise to stop endless wars , he will sign this resolution into law . ''
In a statement of administration policy , the White House said the resolution should be rejected `` because it attempts to hinder the president ’ s ability to protect '' U.S. diplomats , forces , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the continued threat posed by Iran and its proxies , including militia groups and foreign fighters in Syria .
`` Iran has a long history of attacking United States and coalition forces both directly and through its proxies , '' the White House said , adding the congressional resolution could hinder Mr. Trump 's ability to protect U.S. forces and interests in the region .
`` This joint resolution is untimely and misguided .
Its adoption by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States to protect American citizens whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' the White House said .
Tehran responded to the U.S. attack on its top general , Qassem Soleimani , by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops .
The attack caused traumatic brain injuries in more than 100 U.S. soldiers , the Pentagon said .
Democrats and Republicans alike criticized a briefing by the Trump administration shortly after the drone strike , saying U.S. officials offered vague information about a possible attack being planned by Iran but no substantial details .
Mr. Kaine has long pushed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the request of Republican senators , he removed initial language that targeted Mr. Trump in favor of a generalized statement declaring Congress has sole power to declare war .
The resolution also directs Mr. Trump to terminate use of military force against Iran or any part of its government without approval from Congress and commends Mr. Trump for killing Mr. Soleimani , who was long designated a terrorist by the U.S. '' No one lamented the loss of Mr. Soleimani .
No one , '' said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what this bill is about . ''
The resolution `` is about our Constitution , the authority of this body to declare or not declare war , '' Mr. Hoyer added .
`` It ought to be the representatives of the people that take them to war , not a president – any president , Democrat or Republican .
This is about our responsibility . ''
This story was reported by The Associated Press .

Defying a veto threat, Congress has approved a bipartisan measure to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch military operations against Iran.
The House gave final legislative approval to the measure Wednesday, 227-186, sending it to Mr. Trump. The president has promised to veto the war powers resolution, warning that if his "hands were tied, Iran would have a field day."
The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., declares that Mr. Trump must win approval from Congress before engaging in further military action against Iran. Senator Kaine and other supporters say the measure is not about Mr. Trump or even the presidency, but instead is an important reassertion of congressional power to declare war.
Six Republicans joined 220 Democrats and independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan to support the measure. Six Democrats and 180 Republicans opposed it. In the Senate last month, eight Republicans backed the resolution.
The resolution "sends a clear message that the American people don't want war with Iran and that Congress has not authorized war with Iran,'' said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
While tensions with Iran have abated since a U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top general in early January, the resolution clarifying Congress' power to declare war is still important, Mr. Engel said.
"Congress doesn't have to wait until the president alone decides to use military force again,'' Mr. Engel told House members during floor debate Wednesday. "It's our responsibility to do something, because we know the tensions could flare up again at a moment's notice. Iran has not been deterred as the administration promised.''
Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the war powers measure "divisive and irresponsible" and based on a false premise.
"It orders the president to terminate hostilities against Iran. The problem is, for the other side, we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran,'' Mr. McCaul said.
If the U.S. military launches strikes in Iran, "I believe that the president would need to come before this body to ask for a new authorization" for the use of force, Mr. McCaul said. "But that is not what we are facing.''
The House vote marked a rare exertion of authority from Congress, which also moved to impose restrictions on U.S. involvement with the Saudi-led war in Yemen last year after U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a gruesome murder at Saudi Arabia's consulate in Turkey. Mr. Trump promptly vetoed that measure.
The Democratic-controlled House passed a separate, nonbinding resolution on Iran in January, a few weeks before the Senate approved Mr. Kaine's resolution. Two-thirds votes in the House and the GOP-run Senate would be needed to override an expected Trump veto.
Mr. Kaine hailed the House vote.
"For years, Congress has abdicated its responsibility on matters of war, but now a bipartisan majority in both the Senate and House has made clear that we shouldn’t be engaged in hostilities with Iran without a vote of Congress,'' he said in a statement.
The legislation "doesn’t prevent the president from defending the United States against imminent attack," but instead "demands that the decision of whether or not we go on offense and send our troops into harm’s way should only be made after serious deliberation and a vote of Congress," Mr. Kaine added. "If President Trump is serious about his promise to stop endless wars, he will sign this resolution into law."
In a statement of administration policy, the White House said the resolution should be rejected "because it attempts to hinder the president’s ability to protect" U.S. diplomats, forces, allies, and partners, including Israel, from the continued threat posed by Iran and its proxies, including militia groups and foreign fighters in Syria.
"Iran has a long history of attacking United States and coalition forces both directly and through its proxies," the White House said, adding the congressional resolution could hinder Mr. Trump's ability to protect U.S. forces and interests in the region.
"This joint resolution is untimely and misguided. Its adoption by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to harm," the White House said.
Tehran responded to the U.S. attack on its top general, Qassem Soleimani, by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops. The attack caused traumatic brain injuries in more than 100 U.S. soldiers, the Pentagon said.
Democrats and Republicans alike criticized a briefing by the Trump administration shortly after the drone strike, saying U.S. officials offered vague information about a possible attack being planned by Iran but no substantial details.
Mr. Kaine has long pushed for action reasserting congressional power over military conflict. At the request of Republican senators, he removed initial language that targeted Mr. Trump in favor of a generalized statement declaring Congress has sole power to declare war. The resolution also directs Mr. Trump to terminate use of military force against Iran or any part of its government without approval from Congress and commends Mr. Trump for killing Mr. Soleimani, who was long designated a terrorist by the U.S.
"No one lamented the loss of Mr. Soleimani. No one," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "That's not what this bill is about."
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
The resolution "is about our Constitution, the authority of this body to declare or not declare war," Mr. Hoyer added. "It ought to be the representatives of the people that take them to war, not a president – any president, Democrat or Republican. This is about our responsibility."
This story was reported by The Associated Press.


csmonitor--2020-03-11--The party strikes back: How Biden's prospects soared so quickly

For all the signs of party influence in Biden 's comeback , “ there was a lot of contingency , ” says Matt Grossmann , an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University .
“ I don ’ t think it was inevitable.
” There has long been tension between pure democracy and the preferences of political elites in America ’ s nomination system .
Both played a part lately .
But one foundational aspect of Mr. Biden ’ s sudden strength was almost certainly the role played by the institutional Democratic Party .
Party actors from elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days to coalesce around an imperfect but broadly acceptable alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders , whom many feared would drag them to defeat in down-ballot races this fall .
In part it was geographic – the former vice president ’ s core supporters were scarce in early voting states , but more prevalent from South Carolina on .
He also likely benefited from a bandwagon effect , attracting support because suddenly he seemed like a winner .
Two weeks ago , Joe Biden ’ s presidential candidacy was almost dead .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party .
What happened ?
Two weeks ago , Joe Biden ’ s presidential candidacy was almost dead .
Today he looks like the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party .
What happened ?
In part it was geographic .
The former vice president ’ s core supporters were scarce in early voting states , but more prevalent from South Carolina on .
He also likely benefited from a bandwagon effect , attracting support because suddenly he seemed like a winner .
But one foundational aspect of Mr. Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the institutional Democratic Party stood up and rallied around him .
After rank-and-file African American voters threw their weight behind him in South Carolina , party actors from elected officials to local activists decided within a few days to coalesce around an imperfect but broadly acceptable alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders , whom many feared would drag them to defeat in down-ballot races this fall .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr. Biden just prior to Super Tuesday .
Former rival Beto O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more endorsements began flooding in .
Suddenly , the way was clear for voters to unify around a single alternative to Senator Sanders – and they did .
Sanders supporters have complained that the playing field isn ’ t level and that party coordination of any sort is an undemocratic influence .
But this isn ’ t a new conflict .
Tension between pure democracy and the preferences of political elites has long been a part of America ’ s complicated presidential nomination system .
In 2020 , it took so long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen .
“ But given the situation , I think the party has acted like it ’ s deciding , ” says Hans Noel , an associate professor of government at Georgetown University and co-author of the seminal 2008 book “ The Party Decides : Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform.
” The results of this week ’ s “ mini-Tuesday ” of six state primaries haven ’ t brought an official end to the Democratic nomination contest , of course .
Mr. Sanders on Wednesday vowed to stay in the race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his appeal to younger voters .
He said he planned to attend a scheduled Sunday Democratic debate in Phoenix .
But barring a major unforeseen development , the Vermont senator ’ s path to the nomination seems all but gone .
Mr. Biden won four states on Tuesday , including Michigan , the day ’ s biggest prize .
Florida , Ohio , Illinois , and Arizona will hold primaries next week , and the former vice president is heavily favored in all .
Given that Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally , Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead that for all practical purposes is insurmountable , if he doesn ’ t already .
On Wednesday afternoon , the data journalism site FiveThirtyEight rated Biden ’ s chances of winning a delegate majority at 99 % .
It ’ s already hard to remember that in late February , it seemed entirely possible that Mr. Biden would drop out of the race around Super Tuesday .
His turnaround was so quick that he gained about 36 points in national polls in 14 days .
“ The polling swing toward Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primaries , ” tweeted FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver on March 9 .
That swing was the result of changes in Democratic primary voters ’ decisions .
Given a one-on-one choice ( the third remaining candidate , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , has attracted little support ) as a whole they clearly prefer Mr. Biden over Mr. Sanders .
But many important Democratic Party figures helped those voters along by winnowing the field and signaling through endorsements and other methods that Mr. Biden was now their own clear choice .
That means that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political experts who hold that the party writ large retains a disproportionate influence on nomination choices might be right .
“ It is certainly evidence in their favor .
But I believe there was a lot of contingency .
I don ’ t think it was inevitable , ” says Matt Grossmann , an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University .
In the 2008 book “ The Party Decides , ” Dr. Noel and co-authors argued that elements of organized political parties , from officials to special interest groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chosen nominees in the “ invisible primary ” period before voting actually starts .
The 2016 election produced evidence both for and against their theory .
On one hand , Hillary Clinton did indeed attract much institutional party support and money prior to the Iowa caucuses , making her the establishment choice .
On the other , the Republican nomination went to a candidate the party hierarchy resisted , but seemed too weak and disorganized to stop : Donald Trump .
Then the 2020 cycle began with Democrats in the same position of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were numerous , party coordination seemed weak , and a consensus establishment pick did not emerge prior to Iowa .
Suddenly Sen. Sanders seemed on the verge of taking over a party which , while it has drifted left in recent years , organizationally remains resistant to Sanders-style revolution .
“ One question is why it took the party so long to get their coordination together , and if that delay means they really didn ’ t do anything , ” says Dr. Noel in an email .
Maybe it was moderate Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters in South Carolina and other Super Tuesday states , who lie behind the Biden resurgence , he says .
But Dr. Noel thinks the party did have an effect .
South Carolina Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn ’ s endorsement of Biden prior to the South Carolina primary was huge .
Representative Clyburn is renowned in his state and the highest ranking African American in Congress .
The party quickly coalesced around Biden after South Carolina , sending the same sort of signal that it usually sends prior to Iowa regarding the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t happen earlier because a lot of people in the party wanted someone else – Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey , say , or Sen. Kamala Harris of California .
It took time for these Biden alternatives to falter .
Then came the flood : everyone from Mr. Buttigieg to Mr. Bloomberg ended their bids quickly , and moved to support the sudden front-runner .
Look at things from the point of view of the party , not the ambitious candidates , says Dr. Noel .
“ From that point of view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not comfortable with Sanders , but they weren ’ t sure how best to stop him , and not sure whether Biden could really win .
The South Carolina results were enough to convince them , ” he says .
To many Sanders supporters the sudden turnaround in Biden ’ s fortunes seems suspicious .
All those people dropping out and endorsing Biden all at once ?
The Republicans couldn ’ t manage that in 2016 .
Somebody on the Democratic side must have made some phone calls .
President Trump , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this suspicion in an effort to split his opponents .
“ I think it ’ s rigged against Bernie , ” President Trump said in an appearance after Super Tuesday .
But on the other side , there are political experts who think the nomination system has too little input from party hierarchies and elected officials , not too much .
“ Yes , I do believe that people who govern with the president of the United States and run on the same ticket have the most serious stakes in the nomination process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Elaine Kamarck , a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution and author of “ Primary Politics , ” a history of the U.S. nomination system .
Ms. Kamarck – herself a Democratic “ superdelegate ” with a vote at the convention if the nomination goes beyond one ballot – says a group of senators , representatives , governors , national committee members , and other high party officials should give a collective vote of “ confidence ” or “ no confidence ” for each candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What ’ s happened in the 21st century is there are a lot of people in both parties who have no earthly reason to run for president , but do , ” she says .

For all the signs of party influence in Biden's comeback, “there was a lot of contingency,” says Matt Grossmann, an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University. “I don’t think it was inevitable.”
There has long been tension between pure democracy and the preferences of political elites in America’s nomination system. Both played a part lately.
But one foundational aspect of Mr. Biden’s sudden strength was almost certainly the role played by the institutional Democratic Party. Party actors from elected officials to local activists decided within a few days to coalesce around an imperfect but broadly acceptable alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom many feared would drag them to defeat in down-ballot races this fall.
This era can often seem like one of political chaos. Renegade candidates win elections while brushing aside their own party elites. One take-away this spring, however, is that political parties aren't dead.
In part it was geographic – the former vice president’s core supporters were scarce in early voting states, but more prevalent from South Carolina on. He also likely benefited from a bandwagon effect, attracting support because suddenly he seemed like a winner.
Two weeks ago, Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy was almost dead. Today he looks like the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. What happened?
Two weeks ago, Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy was almost dead. Today he looks like the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. What happened?
In part it was geographic. The former vice president’s core supporters were scarce in early voting states, but more prevalent from South Carolina on. He also likely benefited from a bandwagon effect, attracting support because suddenly he seemed like a winner.
But one foundational aspect of Mr. Biden’s sudden strength was almost certainly that much of the institutional Democratic Party stood up and rallied around him. After rank-and-file African American voters threw their weight behind him in South Carolina, party actors from elected officials to local activists decided within a few days to coalesce around an imperfect but broadly acceptable alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom many feared would drag them to defeat in down-ballot races this fall.
Why We Wrote This This era can often seem like one of political chaos. Renegade candidates win elections while brushing aside their own party elites. One take-away this spring, however, is that political parties aren't dead.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr. Biden just prior to Super Tuesday. Former rival Beto O’Rourke backed him, too. Money and more endorsements began flooding in. Suddenly, the way was clear for voters to unify around a single alternative to Senator Sanders – and they did.
Sanders supporters have complained that the playing field isn’t level and that party coordination of any sort is an undemocratic influence. But this isn’t a new conflict. Tension between pure democracy and the preferences of political elites has long been a part of America’s complicated presidential nomination system.
In 2020, it took so long it almost seemed it wouldn’t happen.
“But given the situation, I think the party has acted like it’s deciding,” says Hans Noel, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University and co-author of the seminal 2008 book “The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform.”
The results of this week’s “mini-Tuesday” of six state primaries haven’t brought an official end to the Democratic nomination contest, of course. Mr. Sanders on Wednesday vowed to stay in the race, citing the popularity of his proposals and his appeal to younger voters. He said he planned to attend a scheduled Sunday Democratic debate in Phoenix.
But barring a major unforeseen development, the Vermont senator’s path to the nomination seems all but gone. Mr. Biden won four states on Tuesday, including Michigan, the day’s biggest prize. Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Arizona will hold primaries next week, and the former vice president is heavily favored in all.
Given that Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally, Mr. Biden will likely soon have a delegate lead that for all practical purposes is insurmountable, if he doesn’t already. On Wednesday afternoon, the data journalism site FiveThirtyEight rated Biden’s chances of winning a delegate majority at 99%.
A stunning turnaround
It’s already hard to remember that in late February, it seemed entirely possible that Mr. Biden would drop out of the race around Super Tuesday. His turnaround was so quick that he gained about 36 points in national polls in 14 days.
“The polling swing toward Biden is probably the fastest in the history of the primaries,” tweeted FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver on March 9.
That swing was the result of changes in Democratic primary voters’ decisions. Given a one-on-one choice (the third remaining candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has attracted little support) as a whole they clearly prefer Mr. Biden over Mr. Sanders.
But many important Democratic Party figures helped those voters along by winnowing the field and signaling through endorsements and other methods that Mr. Biden was now their own clear choice.
That means that in 2020, for the Democratic field, political experts who hold that the party writ large retains a disproportionate influence on nomination choices might be right.
“It is certainly evidence in their favor. But I believe there was a lot of contingency. I don’t think it was inevitable,” says Matt Grossmann, an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University.
In the 2008 book “The Party Decides,” Dr. Noel and co-authors argued that elements of organized political parties, from officials to special interest groups, can and do organize to support their chosen nominees in the “invisible primary” period before voting actually starts.
The 2016 election produced evidence both for and against their theory. On one hand, Hillary Clinton did indeed attract much institutional party support and money prior to the Iowa caucuses, making her the establishment choice. On the other, the Republican nomination went to a candidate the party hierarchy resisted, but seemed too weak and disorganized to stop: Donald Trump.
Then the 2020 cycle began with Democrats in the same position of the GOP four years before. Candidates were numerous, party coordination seemed weak, and a consensus establishment pick did not emerge prior to Iowa. Suddenly Sen. Sanders seemed on the verge of taking over a party which, while it has drifted left in recent years, organizationally remains resistant to Sanders-style revolution.
Big endorsement from Clyburn
“One question is why it took the party so long to get their coordination together, and if that delay means they really didn’t do anything,” says Dr. Noel in an email.
Maybe it was moderate Democratic voters in general, and African American voters in South Carolina and other Super Tuesday states, who lie behind the Biden resurgence, he says.
But Dr. Noel thinks the party did have an effect. South Carolina Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn’s endorsement of Biden prior to the South Carolina primary was huge. Representative Clyburn is renowned in his state and the highest ranking African American in Congress. The party quickly coalesced around Biden after South Carolina, sending the same sort of signal that it usually sends prior to Iowa regarding the party’s choice.
This didn’t happen earlier because a lot of people in the party wanted someone else – Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, say, or Sen. Kamala Harris of California. It took time for these Biden alternatives to falter. Then came the flood: everyone from Mr. Buttigieg to Mr. Bloomberg ended their bids quickly, and moved to support the sudden front-runner.
Look at things from the point of view of the party, not the ambitious candidates, says Dr. Noel.
“From that point of view, it’s clear they were not comfortable with Sanders, but they weren’t sure how best to stop him, and not sure whether Biden could really win. The South Carolina results were enough to convince them,” he says.
Consternation in Sanders’ camp
To many Sanders supporters the sudden turnaround in Biden’s fortunes seems suspicious. All those people dropping out and endorsing Biden all at once? The Republicans couldn’t manage that in 2016. Somebody on the Democratic side must have made some phone calls.
President Trump, for one, has been eager to stoke this suspicion in an effort to split his opponents.
“I think it’s rigged against Bernie,” President Trump said in an appearance after Super Tuesday.
But on the other side, there are political experts who think the nomination system has too little input from party hierarchies and elected officials, not too much.
“Yes, I do believe that people who govern with the president of the United States and run on the same ticket have the most serious stakes in the nomination process. They should have a greater role,” says Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution and author of “Primary Politics,” a history of the U.S. nomination system.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Ms. Kamarck – herself a Democratic “superdelegate” with a vote at the convention if the nomination goes beyond one ballot – says a group of senators, representatives, governors, national committee members, and other high party officials should give a collective vote of “confidence” or “no confidence” for each candidate who wants to run for president.
“What’s happened in the 21st century is there are a lot of people in both parties who have no earthly reason to run for president, but do,” she says.