theatlantic--2020-02-15--Abraham Lincoln’s Radical Moderation

Abraham Lincoln’s Radical Moderation

From April 1861 : A Connecticut Yankee visits Charleston during the Fort Sumter standoff Wigfall , one of the many strange and colorful characters tossed up by the politics of the Civil War , typifies the time in important respects .
The years leading to the Civil War , and the war itself , were political intensifiers ; radicalism was rewarded and could be made to pay .
This was as true of the Republican reformers who are the heroes of Bordewich ’ s book as it is of secessionists like Wigfall .
Bordewich ’ s ungainly subtitle—How Republican Reformers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ended Slavery , and Remade America—telegraphs the grand claims he sets out to make for a group of congressmen who mostly styled themselves as Radical Republicans .
In his account , it is they who pressed for aggressive military campaigns when the will for war flagged among Abraham Lincoln ’ s generals ; who invented the financial mechanisms that funded the war ; who pushed for punitive measures against the southern slaveholders ; and who deserve credit ( or blame ! )
for the birth of big government—achievements more commonly attributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular historian and journalist blessedly free of academic affiliations , Bordewich is a master of the character sketch , summarizing complicated figures in a few swift phrases .
But Lincoln himself never comes alive in his pages .
Indeed , he scarcely appears .
He lurks just offstage , stepping forward now and then to try , briefly and usually without success , to stymie the righteous zeal that propels the Radicals .
The last line of the book declares that “ a whole generation of politically heroic Republicans … led Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an odd formulation—you probably thought the North won the war .
From June 1865 : The place of Abraham Lincoln in history Bordewich has chosen to tell his sprawling story of legislative activism and ascendancy mainly through four members of Congress : Senators Benjamin Wade of Ohio and William Pitt Fessenden of Maine , and Representatives Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Clement Vallandigham of Ohio .
Vallandigham is the only Democrat , a leader of an anti-war faction whose preference for the Union was complicated by his pro-slavery sympathies .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , Stevens and Wade , proudly called themselves Radicals and behaved accordingly .
Fessenden , at one time a conservative , grew more sympathetic to the Radicals ’ aims as the war dragged on .
Congressional power fell in the lap of Republicans , thanks to the departure of Wigfall and his southern colleagues ; their seizing of it seems , in retrospect , less a matter of superior gamesmanship than a law of political gravity .
Calling for stronger prosecution of the war , immediate liberation of the enslaved , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ southern belligerents , Radicals quickly took control of the Republican caucus .
Perhaps , Bordewich writes , the Radicals “ have something to teach us about how our government can function at its best in challenging times , and how crisis may even make it stronger.
” Lesson No .
1 : Get most of your opponents to leave town before you try anything .

Cecilia Carlstedt
In the opening days of the Civil War, long before Saturday Night Live appropriated the idea, Louis Trezevant Wigfall earned the distinction in Washington, D.C., of being the Thing That Wouldn’t Leave. Elected to the United States Senate from Texas to fill a vacancy in 1859, Wigfall wasted no time in making himself obnoxious to his colleagues and the public alike. He was lavish in his disdain for the legislative body in which he had sought a seat. On the Senate floor, he said of the flag and, especially, the Union for which it stood, “It should be torn down and trampled upon.” As the southern states broke away, Wigfall gleefully announced, “The federal government is dead. The only question is whether we will give it a decent, peaceable, Protestant burial.”
By then Wigfall had been appointed to the Confederate congress, and the only question that occurred to many of his colleagues was why he was still bloviating from the floor of the U.S. Senate. Wigfall was worse than a mere gasbag. As Fergus M. Bordewich points out in his provocative new book, Congress at War, he “passed on military information to his southern friends, bought arms for the Confederacy, and swaggered around encouraging men to enlist in the secessionist forces.” At last, in March 1861, Wigfall quit the U.S. capital and showed up a few weeks later in South Carolina. Commandeering a skiff after Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, he rowed out to present terms for the fort’s surrender. He had no authorization to do such a thing; he was simply following his passion to make trouble and get attention. He went down in history as a triple threat: a traitor, a blowhard, and a shameless buttinsky.
From April 1861: A Connecticut Yankee visits Charleston during the Fort Sumter standoff
Wigfall, one of the many strange and colorful characters tossed up by the politics of the Civil War, typifies the time in important respects. The years leading to the Civil War, and the war itself, were political intensifiers; radicalism was rewarded and could be made to pay. This was as true of the Republican reformers who are the heroes of Bordewich’s book as it is of secessionists like Wigfall.
Bordewich’s ungainly subtitle—How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery, and Remade America—telegraphs the grand claims he sets out to make for a group of congressmen who mostly styled themselves as Radical Republicans. In his account, it is they who pressed for aggressive military campaigns when the will for war flagged among Abraham Lincoln’s generals; who invented the financial mechanisms that funded the war; who pushed for punitive measures against the southern slaveholders; and who deserve credit (or blame!) for the birth of big government—achievements more commonly attributed to their far less radical president. A popular historian and journalist blessedly free of academic affiliations, Bordewich is a master of the character sketch, summarizing complicated figures in a few swift phrases. But Lincoln himself never comes alive in his pages. Indeed, he scarcely appears. He lurks just offstage, stepping forward now and then to try, briefly and usually without success, to stymie the righteous zeal that propels the Radicals. The last line of the book declares that “a whole generation of politically heroic Republicans … led Congress to victory in the Civil War.” It’s an odd formulation—you probably thought the North won the war.
From June 1865: The place of Abraham Lincoln in history
Bordewich has chosen to tell his sprawling story of legislative activism and ascendancy mainly through four members of Congress: Senators Benjamin Wade of Ohio and William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, and Representatives Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Clement Vallandigham of Ohio. Vallandigham is the only Democrat, a leader of an anti-war faction whose preference for the Union was complicated by his pro-slavery sympathies. The rest are Republicans, and two of them, Stevens and Wade, proudly called themselves Radicals and behaved accordingly. Fessenden, at one time a conservative, grew more sympathetic to the Radicals’ aims as the war dragged on.
Congressional power fell in the lap of Republicans, thanks to the departure of Wigfall and his southern colleagues; their seizing of it seems, in retrospect, less a matter of superior gamesmanship than a law of political gravity. Calling for stronger prosecution of the war, immediate liberation of the enslaved, and confiscation of all property owned by the southern belligerents, Radicals quickly took control of the Republican caucus. Perhaps, Bordewich writes, the Radicals “have something to teach us about how our government can function at its best in challenging times, and how crisis may even make it stronger.” Lesson No. 1: Get most of your opponents to leave town before you try anything.
Radicalism is more than packet of views or policies. It is a disposition.
The Radicals were quick on their feet, exploiting national turmoil to break a legislative logjam. For decades Southern Democrats, their numbers swollen by the Constitution’s infamous three-fifths clause, had blocked a series of domestic programs proposed first by the Whigs and then by their Republican successors. Here was the chance to neutralize the Democratic aversion to centralized power and advance a collectivist vision of the commercial republic, laying the foundation, Bordewich writes, “for the strong activist central government that came fully into being in the twentieth century.”
The flurry of legislating was indeed “transformative,” as Bordewich says. He points in particular to four pieces of legislation as landmarks. The Homestead Act promised 160 acres of federal land to any citizen willing to live on it and farm it for five years. The Pacific Railway Act financed the transcontinental railroad and further opened up the western territories to white settlement. The third bill created the federal Department of Agriculture. And the Morrill Land Grant College Act would distribute federal land to states and localities for the purpose of building public institutions of higher learning dedicated to teaching agriculture and other practical arts—a miracle of democratization in the history of American education.
Yet in Bordewich’s telling, Lincoln had little to do with the ambitious measures, as if the bills were signed by autopen during coffee breaks. In fact, two of them were explicitly endorsed in the Republican platform that Lincoln ran on in 1860; he made a special plea for the Department of Agriculture in his first annual message to Congress. Bordewich also downplays the inevitable unintended consequences that accompany government expansion, even what seem to be the most benign reforms. The railway act, with its crony capitalism and funny-money bond issues, led straight to the Gilded Age and the creation of half a dozen robber-baron fortunes. Those “federal lands” that Washington gave away in the railway and homestead acts were not, except in the sneakiest sense, the federal government’s to give away; the land rush they touched off may have guaranteed the otherwise merely predictable genocide of the Native Americans already living there.
In the name of designating the Radicals as the forerunners of contemporary liberalism, Bordewich tries to draw a continuous line from the Civil War Congress to the New Deal and the Great Society. Yet the line has too many zigs and zags and ups and downs to clinch a causal connection. And in fact, many of the features of big government (19th-century style) fell away before long. Calvin Coolidge, for instance, 60 years after the Civil War and a few years before the New Deal, oversaw a federal government that was in most respects closer in size and scope to the antebellum government than to the modern state that was soon to emerge.
From July/August 2009: Christopher Hitchens on Lincoln’s emancipation
If Bordewich oversells the legacy of the Radicals in Congress, his more fundamental misapprehension lies elsewhere: His version of events shortchanges the greatness that humanists of all stripes—not only historians—have found in Lincoln. The problem is partly a failure to appreciate that the Radicals were kibitzers, as many legislators are. But misjudging Lincoln’s role as executive and his commitment to larger obligations is Bordewich’s more telling mistake. Lincoln the executive shouldered the responsibility to lead an entire government and, just as important, an unstable political coalition. From Radicals to reactionaries, Republicans were held together by a single strand: a hostility, varying in degree, to slavery. A collapse of this delicate alliance—brought on by a sudden call for immediate, nationwide abolition, for instance—would have doomed the war effort.
Lincoln was required to be more cautious than a Radical congressman had to be—more serious, in a word. Bordewich credits the Radicals with forcing Lincoln year by year to pursue the war more savagely, culminating in the elevation of General Ulysses S. Grant in 1864. But his evidence is thin that Lincoln paid anything more than lip service to the Radicals’ pleas for bloodshed. Bordewich is a particular admirer of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War—“this improvised vigilante committee,” Lincoln called it, “to watch my movements and keep me straight.” It was put together by Benjamin Wade and stocked with his fellow Radicals.
The committee researched and rushed into print massive reports after failed and sometimes catastrophic military engagements. The accounts totaled millions of words and accused officers and bureaucrats of horrifying lapses in military judgment and execution. Some of the accusations were implausible; others were all too real. Historically, the reports are invaluable. At the time, however, their primary effect was to second-guess generals disliked by the committee’s majority and to advance the generals with whom the majority was politically aligned. The committee’s “greatest purpose,” Lincoln told a friend, “seems to be to hamper my action and obstruct military operations.”
Shelby Foote, in his history of the Civil War, tells a story that illustrates why Lincoln and the Radicals were destined to be so often at odds. One evening Wade rushed to the White House to demand that Lincoln fire a weak-willed general who had failed to press the Union advantage. Lincoln asked Wade whom he should enlist to take the general’s place. “Anybody!” Wade cried. “Anybody will do for you,” Lincoln replied, “but I must have somebody.” Lincoln had to be serious.
As Bordewich concedes, the Radicals were as bloody-minded as the Wigfalls of the world. “Nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce [southern rebels] to surrender,” Stevens once said, in a speech Bordewich doesn’t quote. There can, of course, be no moral equivalence between Stevens and a slavery apologist like Wigfall. One of them was on the side of the angels, and it wasn’t Wigfall. But both were radicals.
Radicalism is more than a packet of views or policies. The contents of the packet will change with circumstances and over time. (One reason Bordewich admires the Radical Republicans is that their views on race are so close to current mainstream attitudes; today’s radicals, valorizing group identity above all else, will likely find both the views and the politicians who held them hopelessly retrograde.) Radicalism is a disposition. The same is true of its contrary, moderation. Lincoln’s moderation was so infuriating to the Radicals because it reflected a hierarchy of values different from theirs.
The ultimate concerns for Stevens and his fellows were the liberation of the enslaved, the punishment of the enslavers, and the reorganization of southern society. The ultimate concern for Lincoln was the survival of the Union, to which he had an almost mystical attachment. The old question—was the war fought to preserve the Union or to free the slaves?—underestimates how closely the two causes were entwined in his mind. Lincoln’s goal was to uphold the kind of government under which slavery could not in the end survive. This was a government, as Lincoln said, dedicated to a proposition.
From September 1999: Lincoln’s greatest speech
In a hectoring letter written at a low point in 1863, a Radical senator insisted that Lincoln “stand firm” against conservatives in his government. It was a common complaint of the Radical Republicans that Lincoln was hesitant, easily led, timid—weak. “I hope to ‘stand firm’ enough to not go backward,” Lincoln replied, “and yet not go forward fast enough to wreck the country’s cause.” Lincoln struck this balance with unmatched skill and sensitivity.
It was a feat of leadership peculiar to self-government, captured most famously by the only 19th-century American who could rival him as a prose artist and a statesman. Frederick Douglass was an enthusiastic admirer of Lincoln, once calling him, not long after the assassination, “emphatically the black man’s president: the first to show any respect for their rights as men.” Years later, Douglass’s enthusiasm had cooled—and ripened.
From December 1866: Frederick Douglass on Reconstruction
Lincoln “was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men,” Douglass now said. “Viewed from the genuine abolition ground”—the ground, that is, from which Bordewich and many of today’s historians want to judge him, and the ground from which the Radicals did judge him—“Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent.” Douglass knew, though, that Lincoln never claimed to govern as an abolitionist, and Douglass knew why. “But measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
The italics are mine, but the insight belongs to Douglass. Lincoln was radical without being a Radical—and never more radical than a leader can afford to be when he leads a government of, by, and for the people.


theatlantic--2020-02-15--Ruth Bader Ginsburg Versus the Equal Rights Amendment

There ’ s a reason why , in our system , judges don ’ t decide issues in the abstract .
They decide issues after those issues are presented by counsel in an adversary proceeding .
And on the merits of the legal issues , the arguments in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment at this time are very powerful .
The time limit was in a joint resolution by Congress .
Congress can change that time limit , and the House took a very important step in that direction this morning .
Berman : You ’ re characterizing her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her suggestion that you can ’ t count the late-coming states without counting those that have rescinded their ratifications is at the heart of one of the legal arguments against this current effort .
Coberly : You ’ re right about that , and there ’ s an answer to her question .
And if the case came in front of her , she would be presented with the answer .
The answer is the reasons for counting what she referred to as the latecomers are entirely separate from the reasons for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legislature purporting to rescind a ratification .
They are really two completely different legal questions , and there ’ s no reason why they should be linked together .
So there ’ s an answer to her question , and if the case came before her , that answer would be provided , and I have every confidence that she would hear and consider those arguments .
Berman : Were you surprised or disappointed that she commented at all , given that this case very possibly will come before the court ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunate , obviously , because this is a very exciting week for the Equal Rights Amendment .
I think the timing of her comments on Monday was unfortunate .
The fact that she repeated them this week is unfortunate , because it has created a talking point for opponents of the ERA and it has raised questions that a lot of people have been focusing on .
But the reality is , it ’ s not clear to me that the case would come before the court , and that ’ s because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in the Senate , where Congress decides that the time limit should be removed , that choice is probably not reviewable in court at all .
There ’ s a very strong argument under Supreme Court case law that a challenge to a deadline removal would not be justiciable , because it would be a political question that the courts should not resolve at all .
And I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court , no matter how it ’ s constituted , would change its existing precedent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people you might have thought would have stood in the way of this at the 11th hour , did you ever imagine it would be her ?
Coberly : [ Laughs . ]
It ’ s unfortunate for advocates to have disagreement in a public way about the strategy .
That is unfortunate , and Justice Ginsburg is obviously an icon in so many ways , and specifically in respect to her work on sex equality , which has been so important both before and after her appointment to the bench .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that ’ s why her comments are getting so much attention , because she has played such an important role in the movement .
I just think that as in any movement , there can be disagreements , and reasonable disagreements , about political strategy , and I think that ’ s what this is .

The Supreme Court justice says backers of the ERA must “start over” in their bid to amend the Constitution. A leading backer of the effort explains why she believes that the icon of the women’s-rights movement is wrong.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is probably the last person anyone would expect to stand in the way of final ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
No living woman is more closely associated with the decades-long push to enshrine gender equality into U.S. law than the 86-year-old jurist and feminist icon. But Ginsburg is no fan of the recent efforts to revive the ERA long after the expiration of a congressionally imposed deadline for adding it to the Constitution.
“I would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over,” she told an interviewer on Monday at a Georgetown Law School event to commemorate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage. Ginsburg explained that there was “too much controversy” around the question of whether three-fourths of the states had actually ratified the ERA. Virginia this year became the 38th and seemingly final state needed, but along with Nevada and Illinois, it acted more than 30 years after the 1982 deadline for ratification. Further complicating matters? Five other states had previously passed resolutions to rescind their approval of the amendment.
“If you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said we’ve changed our minds?” Ginsburg asked.
As ERA opponents have noted, Ginsburg had previously hinted at her position by saying in a speech last year that backers of the amendment should start “over again.”
But her comments this week left far less ambiguity, and they could not have come at a worse time for ERA advocates, who were poised to celebrate House passage on Thursday of a resolution formally removing the deadline Congress had originally put in place. Senate Republicans have already cited the justice’s view as validation of their intention not to act on the measure. By weighing in now, Ginsburg cast doubt on the entire pursuit of ERA ratification; the issue will likely be resolved by the courts, and without Ginsburg’s vote, defeat in the Supreme Court is all but certain.
Read: Did Virginia just amend the Constitution?
Beyond that, however, Ginsburg’s remarks forced some of the country’s most prominent advocates for women’s rights into the decidedly awkward position of—ever so respectfully, of course—rebutting the Notorious R.B.G. on a matter of law.
Shortly after the House vote, I spoke with Linda Coberly, a veteran appellate lawyer in Chicago who heads the ERA Coalition’s legal task force. She called the timing of Ginsburg’s comment “unfortunate,” but she told me she wasn’t giving up on winning the justice’s vote. “There’s an answer to her question,” Coberly told me, “and if the case came before her, that answer would be provided, and I have every confidence that she would hear and consider those arguments.”
Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Russell Berman: What was your immediate reaction to Justice Ginsburg’s comments?
Linda Coberly: I wasn’t surprised to hear her express a preference for a new beginning, because she has said that before.
She was asked a political question, not a legal one, which is, “What is your prognosis for an Equal Rights Amendment?” And she expressed a preference for a new beginning because she fears there’s too much controversy right now in light of the time limit and what she refers to as the latecomers to ratification. And I have a lot of respect for that view, of the strategy and the political concern. But we [are] coming up on 50 years of effort behind ratification of this amendment, and with the House vote today, we are very close to resolving the issue. And I think it is worth seeing that process through.
Berman: Do you think her vote is gone on the Supreme Court? Or do you hold out hope that she would consider the legal arguments and potentially rule in your favor if one of these lawsuits makes it?
Coberly: I certainly hold out hope about that. She was expressing a view about politics and strategy, not about the legality of any position. In fact, she didn’t comment on the pending legislation. She didn’t comment on the pending lawsuit, and that’s exactly as it should be. I wouldn’t expect her to comment on a legal issue that is going to come before her.
There’s a reason why, in our system, judges don’t decide issues in the abstract. They decide issues after those issues are presented by counsel in an adversary proceeding. And on the merits of the legal issues, the arguments in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment at this time are very powerful. The time limit was in a joint resolution by Congress. Congress can change that time limit, and the House took a very important step in that direction this morning.
Berman: You’re characterizing her remarks in the political sense, but her suggestion that you can’t count the late-coming states without counting those that have rescinded their ratifications is at the heart of one of the legal arguments against this current effort.
Coberly: You’re right about that, and there’s an answer to her question. And if the case came in front of her, she would be presented with the answer. The answer is the reasons for counting what she referred to as the latecomers are entirely separate from the reasons for not taking into account a subsequent vote by a legislature purporting to rescind a ratification. They are really two completely different legal questions, and there’s no reason why they should be linked together.
So there’s an answer to her question, and if the case came before her, that answer would be provided, and I have every confidence that she would hear and consider those arguments.
Berman: Were you surprised or disappointed that she commented at all, given that this case very possibly will come before the court?
Coberly: I think it’s unfortunate, obviously, because this is a very exciting week for the Equal Rights Amendment. I think the timing of her comments on Monday was unfortunate.
The fact that she repeated them this week is unfortunate, because it has created a talking point for opponents of the ERA and it has raised questions that a lot of people have been focusing on. But the reality is, it’s not clear to me that the case would come before the court, and that’s because if the House vote leads to a vote in the Senate, where Congress decides that the time limit should be removed, that choice is probably not reviewable in court at all.
There’s a very strong argument under Supreme Court case law that a challenge to a deadline removal would not be justiciable, because it would be a political question that the courts should not resolve at all. And I have no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, no matter how it’s constituted, would change its existing precedent on that question.
Berman: Of all the people you might have thought would have stood in the way of this at the 11th hour, did you ever imagine it would be her?
Coberly: [Laughs.] It’s unfortunate for advocates to have disagreement in a public way about the strategy. That is unfortunate, and Justice Ginsburg is obviously an icon in so many ways, and specifically in respect to her work on sex equality, which has been so important both before and after her appointment to the bench. She is such an icon, and I think that’s why her comments are getting so much attention, because she has played such an important role in the movement. I just think that as in any movement, there can be disagreements, and reasonable disagreements, about political strategy, and I think that’s what this is.


theatlantic--2020-02-16--Bernie Sanders’s Biggest Test Yet With Latino Voters

In New Hampshire , Sanders similarly blew away his opponents with Latino voters .
An exit poll by NBC shows that Sanders won 39 percent of those voters in the state ’ s primary on Tuesday—about 20 percentage points more than any other candidate .
Read : Democrats should be worried about the Latino vote Neither of the two early states have particularly large Latino populations , but in Iowa , which is around 6 percent Latino , the Sanders campaign spent months circulating flyers to Latino voters , partnering with local Latino groups , and recruiting Latino canvassers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Nevada , where a recent poll shows him as the clear front-runner .
Sanders ’ s track record in Iowa and New Hampshire bodes well for his chances with Latino voters in the state—but this time around , he faces more competition .
One potential point of weakness for Sanders emerged this week , when the state ’ s powerful Culinary Union , whose members are overwhelmingly Latino , criticized the senator for his Medicare for All plan .
Several candidates—such as Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , pounced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
( On Thursday , the union declined to endorse a candidate . )
As the Democratic contenders descend on Nevada ahead of the caucus , all of them are frantically seeking to woo Latino voters .
But Nevada presents challenges for Sanders ’ s rivals—among Latinos , the senator ’ s campaign is already light-years ahead of them , says Domingo Garcia , the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens , the country ’ s largest Latino civil-rights group .
Warren doesn ’ t have high name recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me , and the departures of black and Latina staffers in Nevada have elevated concerns that her campaign is not connecting with Latinos there .
Meanwhile , Buttigieg and Klobuchar—who have relatively little nonwhite support nationally—have sought to mobilize support from Latino voters ahead of the caucus , but they still have small outfits in the state .
Both candidates recently sat down with the Spanish-language news network Telemundo in Nevada ; Buttigieg spoke in Spanish .
Sanders ’ s campaign insists that the senator will prevail with Nevada ’ s Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rivals .
Chuck Rocha , a senior adviser to Sanders , told me that more than 200 staffers , including 76 Latino staffers , are deployed across the state at 11 field offices .
“ There ’ s one thing you can not get back in campaigns , and that is time , ” Rocha said .
“ But like most campaigns have done historically with Latino outreach , with just days left before the caucus , Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg go up [ with ads ] on Spanish TV.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish-language television last month . )

The senator notched decisive victories with Latinos in Iowa and New Hampshire. Can he do it again in Nevada?
Bernie Sanders wasn’t physically at a Las Vegas town hall on Thursday hosted by a Latino civil-rights group, but the enthusiasm for his campaign was still apparent. While three of his rivals—former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and the businessman Tom Steyer—were there in person and got warm receptions, the largely Latino crowd broke out in chants of “Bernie, Bernie” when the senator from Vermont appeared on a live-stream.
Even though the Democratic primary kicked off with contests in two of the whitest states in the country, Bernie Sanders is already winning big with Latino voters. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders claimed an overwhelming victory with Latinos—a validation of his playbook of mobilizing Latino voters that will now face its biggest test yet in Nevada, which is nearly 30 percent Latino and holds its caucus on Saturday. Though other candidates could still chip away at his advantage, Sanders’s success so far sends a clear sign to the rest of his field: His focus on Latino voters is paying off, and they have a daunting amount of work to do to catch up.
While overall turnout in the Iowa caucus was similar to that of 2016, Matt Barreto, the co-founder of the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative, told me he estimates that Latino turnout at least doubled from four years ago, and that these voters broke sharply for Sanders. He won 51 percent of votes in the state’s 30 precincts with the most Latino voters, and in the 12 Latino-majority precincts, he won 66 percent of caucus-goers, according to an analysis by LPPI.
In New Hampshire, Sanders similarly blew away his opponents with Latino voters. An exit poll by NBC shows that Sanders won 39 percent of those voters in the state’s primary on Tuesday—about 20 percentage points more than any other candidate.
Read: Democrats should be worried about the Latino vote
Neither of the two early states have particularly large Latino populations, but in Iowa, which is around 6 percent Latino, the Sanders campaign spent months circulating flyers to Latino voters, partnering with local Latino groups, and recruiting Latino canvassers and staff—a strategy that he has also deployed in Nevada, where a recent poll shows him as the clear front-runner. Sanders’s track record in Iowa and New Hampshire bodes well for his chances with Latino voters in the state—but this time around, he faces more competition.
One potential point of weakness for Sanders emerged this week, when the state’s powerful Culinary Union, whose members are overwhelmingly Latino, criticized the senator for his Medicare for All plan. Several candidates—such as Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, pounced to try to win the group’s support. (On Thursday, the union declined to endorse a candidate.)
As the Democratic contenders descend on Nevada ahead of the caucus, all of them are frantically seeking to woo Latino voters. But Nevada presents challenges for Sanders’s rivals—among Latinos, the senator’s campaign is already light-years ahead of them, says Domingo Garcia, the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the country’s largest Latino civil-rights group.
Warren doesn’t have high name recognition with Latino voters, Garcia and others told me, and the departures of black and Latina staffers in Nevada have elevated concerns that her campaign is not connecting with Latinos there. Meanwhile, Buttigieg and Klobuchar—who have relatively little nonwhite support nationally—have sought to mobilize support from Latino voters ahead of the caucus, but they still have small outfits in the state. Both candidates recently sat down with the Spanish-language news network Telemundo in Nevada; Buttigieg spoke in Spanish.
Sanders’s campaign insists that the senator will prevail with Nevada’s Latino voters because his operation dwarfs that of his rivals. Chuck Rocha, a senior adviser to Sanders, told me that more than 200 staffers, including 76 Latino staffers, are deployed across the state at 11 field offices.
Read: Nevada’s coveted Latino voters
“There’s one thing you cannot get back in campaigns, and that is time,” Rocha said. “But like most campaigns have done historically with Latino outreach, with just days left before the caucus, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg go up [with ads] on Spanish TV.” (The Sanders campaign started advertising on Spanish-language television last month.)
Any last-minute outreach to Latinos in Nevada could be too little, too late, Clarissa Martínez de Castro, the deputy director of policy and advocacy at the nonpartisan civil-rights group Unidos US, told me.
“You’ve got to build that relationship, right?” Martínez de Castro said. “No waiting for the last minute—I don’t think that’s the strategy that candidates use with voters that they really are trying to win, so they should not use it with Latino voters either.”
Sanders’s advantage with Latino voters means he could be poised for a big caucus night, but how he ultimately performs could have implications beyond Nevada, too: The state’s demographics make it a bellwether for Latino-heavy states like California and Texas, which vote on Super Tuesday, in early March.
Now that the race has moved beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, every candidate is rushing to court Latino voters. But in Nevada, Sanders’s operation will be tough to beat.


theatlantic--2020-02-17--America Is Alone in Its Cold War With China

In not following America ’ s lead , these allies have set precedents for how countries caught between the superpowers could act in the future .
They have also signaled that international relations today are too intertwined , and Chinese power too magnetic , for them to enlist in a U.S.-led coalition and usher in a Cold War–style bifurcated world .
If the United States is intent on reconstructing that world , it will likely find itself largely isolated .
If the United States wishes to not be isolated , it will have to develop compelling alternatives for allies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The countermovement against a U.S.-China cold war gained strength in late January , when British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the United Kingdom would allow the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei to provide equipment for Britain ’ s next-generation 5G mobile network .
This was a slap in the face to the U.S. officials who had spent months lobbying their British counterparts to ban Huawei because of alleged security risks associated with its connections to the Chinese government .
The Trump administration reportedly went so far as to share classified intelligence with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spy on and disrupt foreign networks—a claim Huawei denies .
Ultimately , the U.K. chose to split the difference between China and the United States .
The British government said it would keep Huawei technology out of the most sensitive parts of the country ’ s new 5G network , but it won ’ t follow the United States , Australia , and Japan in outright prohibiting the provider .
But the fact that the U.K. , which famously enjoys a “ special relationship ” with the United States , went with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington on the line after Brexit , no less—emboldened other allies .
The European Union and France swiftly disclosed similar plans , and Germany looks poised to do the same .
Other conflicted allies , such as India and South Korea , are undoubtedly watching the cascade .
For these countries , the benefits of partnering with Huawei—the dominant player in the global 5G market , and also the cheapest because of Chinese government subsidies—are obvious while the costs are more opaque , if no less real .
As Johnson put it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another then they have to tell us what is the alternative , right ?
” U.S. Attorney General William Barr has recognized this weakness in America ’ s message to allies , proposing that the U.S. government quickly offer a “ market-ready alternative ” to Huawei by taking a controlling ownership stake in Huawei ’ s European competitors Nokia or Ericsson .
Reihan Salam : The age of ‘ Chimerica ’ is coming to an end But Barr also acknowledged that the Trump administration ’ s grievances with Huawei are about more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superpower will dominate the backbone of the future digital economy , with trillions of dollars in new opportunities in play .
This is true , but it ’ s also an admission that is likely to strengthen allies ’ suspicions that the United States ’ position is really about maintaining America ’ s technological leadership , not securing partners .

If the Trump administration is truly going all-in on competition with Beijing, it’s not clear that Trump himself is fully on board. Nor, it’s now clear, are several of America’s closest friends.
In the contest between the United States and China over who gets to shape the world in the coming century, America seems to be playing to win. But it’s running into a big problem. Despite the global network of alliances Washington has built up, it’s been unable to convince those allies to hop aboard the “great-power-competition” express and leave China behind.
U.S. officials are learning just how challenging it is to persuade friendly nations that America is a reliable partner capable of providing them with viable alternatives to what China has on offer—that the rewards of drawing closer to Washington outweigh the risks of alienating Beijing. That’s in part because of the mixed messages from the American president himself: He’s notoriously iffy about his commitment to allies, even as he often expresses his adoration of the Chinese president (notwithstanding the ongoing U.S.-China trade war).
The consequences of all these doubts have been especially evident in the past few weeks, as America’s closest ally in the world (the United Kingdom) and one of the most pro-American countries in the world (the Philippines) have essentially declared, “We’re good, thanks.”
Read: China’s spies are on the offensive
In not following America’s lead, these allies have set precedents for how countries caught between the superpowers could act in the future. They have also signaled that international relations today are too intertwined, and Chinese power too magnetic, for them to enlist in a U.S.-led coalition and usher in a Cold War–style bifurcated world. If the United States is intent on reconstructing that world, it will likely find itself largely isolated. If the United States wishes to not be isolated, it will have to develop compelling alternatives for allies to stick with it instead of China.
The countermovement against a U.S.-China cold war gained strength in late January, when British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the United Kingdom would allow the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei to provide equipment for Britain’s next-generation 5G mobile network.
This was a slap in the face to the U.S. officials who had spent months lobbying their British counterparts to ban Huawei because of alleged security risks associated with its connections to the Chinese government. The Trump administration reportedly went so far as to share classified intelligence with the United Kingdom indicating that Huawei could potentially spy on and disrupt foreign networks—a claim Huawei denies.
Ultimately, the U.K. chose to split the difference between China and the United States. The British government said it would keep Huawei technology out of the most sensitive parts of the country’s new 5G network, but it won’t follow the United States, Australia, and Japan in outright prohibiting the provider.
Read: Britain and America have a China problem
But the fact that the U.K., which famously enjoys a “special relationship” with the United States, went with that option—with intelligence sharing and trade talks with Washington on the line after Brexit, no less—emboldened other allies. The European Union and France swiftly disclosed similar plans, and Germany looks poised to do the same. Other conflicted allies, such as India and South Korea, are undoubtedly watching the cascade.
For these countries, the benefits of partnering with Huawei—the dominant player in the global 5G market, and also the cheapest because of Chinese government subsidies—are obvious while the costs are more opaque, if no less real. As Johnson put it, “If people oppose one brand or another then they have to tell us what is the alternative, right?”
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has recognized this weakness in America’s message to allies, proposing that the U.S. government quickly offer a “market-ready alternative” to Huawei by taking a controlling ownership stake in Huawei’s European competitors Nokia or Ericsson.
Reihan Salam: The age of ‘Chimerica’ is coming to an end
But Barr also acknowledged that the Trump administration’s grievances with Huawei are about more than security risks—amounting to a battle over which superpower will dominate the backbone of the future digital economy, with trillions of dollars in new opportunities in play. This is true, but it’s also an admission that is likely to strengthen allies’ suspicions that the United States’ position is really about maintaining America’s technological leadership, not securing partners.
Hence the transatlantic divergence. While the Trump administration claims that a rising China poses an existential threat to American preeminence, my colleague Tom McTague has written, “London appears to have already calculated that China is a land paved with gold it cannot afford to stay away from.”
Many countries around the world are now caught between the United States as their main security ally and China as their top trading partner. And this past week one of those countries, the Philippines, a former U.S. territory, began backing out of its decades-old security alliance with Washington.
President Rodrigo Duterte, a critic of the United States ever since coming to power in 2016, served notice that his government will terminate an accord that governs the rules for U.S. forces participating in joint military exercises and training in the Philippines. The parties may still find a way to salvage the pact before the termination takes effect in 180 days. And even if they don’t, other elements of the military alliance, such as a separate mutual-defense treaty, may endure.
But Duterte’s decision nevertheless constitutes the gravest threat to the alliance in years and jeopardizes the U.S. military’s efforts to deter Chinese aggression in the region. As the Asia scholar Brad Glosserman has written, Duterte’s move was in part motivated by his doubts about America’s commitment to the Philippines’ defense and concerns about antagonizing an ascendant China. In fact, the country’s military chief has suggested that the Philippines could broker new military-cooperation agreements with China despite their maritime territorial disputes. Even if this is just a troll of the United States, it’s working. As Defense Secretary Mark Esper noted, the Duterte government is heading “in the wrong direction.”
But one U.S. official who doesn’t seem especially concerned is Esper’s boss. Asked about Duterte’s announcement, Trump told reporters that he was “fine” with it and even thanked the Philippines for saving the United States “a lot of money.”
Read: The cost of China’s Belt and Road expansion
It’s the kind of gripe from Trump that countries that share long-standing military alliances with America have grown accustomed to. But now they’re also concluding that despite what administration officials say, Trump himself thinks about competing with China in the narrow terms of not getting fleeced on trade rather than in the broader terms of contending with the Chinese geostrategically as a superpower.
His administration is also torn between the impulse to scale back America’s investments abroad and prevailing over a China that is ramping up its own investments. While China is investing more than a trillion dollars in Belt and Road infrastructure projects across Eurasia, the Trump administration’s 2021 budget proposal suggests setting aside a relatively measly $800 million to provide an alternative to “predatory Chinese international lending.” Similarly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is currently on a trip to Senegal, Ethiopia, and Angola that is intended, as one State Department official briefing reporters phrased it, to emphasize America’s interest in “dramatically increasing U.S. trade and investment” in these and other African countries. But all three countries have close ties with China, whose diplomatic and economic investments in the region far outweigh America’s.
More broadly, allies are less inclined to side with the U.S. now that they’ve witnessed how major foreign-policy initiatives are no longer likely to carry over from one administration to the next. This is the case even with what is arguably the most bipartisan belief in Washington these days: that competition between a rising China and a dominant United States will define the 21st century. During a recent visit to London, for example, Pompeo described the Chinese Communist Party as “the central threat of our times.” Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders’s foreign-policy adviser, told me around the same time that a Sanders administration would consider climate change “the number-one security threat” facing the United States, which would make China, as the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter, a crucial partner. Why go out on a limb and pick a side when one U.S. election could scramble the sides?
In a new report on U.S. policy toward China, the Center for a New American Security noted that while U.S. partners generally don’t want to be part of a new international system led by an authoritarian China, they also cannot ignore Beijing as a mammoth “economic opportunity and geographic reality.” Any American strategy needs to recognize that, the authors advised.
The guidance also came with a warning: “Attempts to construct an explicitly anti-China alliance will fail.” On the day the report was released, the United Kingdom announced its Huawei decision.


theatlantic--2020-02-18--The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Bring Out the Worst in Trump

From the first , Trump has offered false reassurance .
In a CNBC interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , last month , Trump maintained that the coronavirus was “ totally under control ” and that he wasn ’ t concerned about the risk of a pandemic .
“ It ’ s going to be just fine , ” he said .
Except that it wasn ’ t under control—it still isn ’ t—and no one knows just how bad it will be .
“ Even a middle schooler wouldn ’ t have said that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Harvard ’ s School of Public Health , told me .
“ Everyone is using caution in how we ’ re framing what the risk is , primarily because we don ’ t understand what the risk is at this moment .
The last thing anyone would say is , ‘ We ’ re not concerned.
’ Everyone is concerned.
” Read : The new coronavirus is a truly modern epidemic Since Trump ’ s first upbeat assessment , the number of people sickened by the virus has spiraled .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in China had died from the virus and about 540 were infected .
Today , the death toll is about 1,900 and the number of infections tops 73,000 .
At least 15 cases have been reported in the U.S. , and an additional 14 Americans infected with the virus arrived yesterday following their evacuation from a cruise ship in Japan .
Much about the virus is still unknown , but you wouldn ’ t know that listening to Trump .
Speaking to the nation ’ s governors at a conference last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the weather turns warm .
“ Typically , that will go away in April , ” Trump said .
In fact , no one knows when the outbreak will subside , and what experts have said conflicts with Trump ’ s Panglossian assurances .
Last week , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials said the virus could linger into next year and eventually establish a “ foothold ” in the U.S .
Guiding Trump ’ s response is a hardheaded nationalism .
On January 31 , the administration announced strict travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d recently been to China were barred from entering the U.S. , and Americans were warned to stay clear of the country .
These measures—which career public-health officials argued were needed to delay the virus ’ s spread—broke with guidance from the World Health Organization , which did not recommend curbs on travel or trade .
The restrictions did , however , reflect the alarm coming from Trump ’ s base .
Inside the administration , some officials maintain that China has not shown needed cooperation or transparency as the virus has spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure of the Communist Chinese Party in handling the crisis , ” Peter Navarro , a senior Trump trade adviser who is part of the administration ’ s effort to combat the outbreak , told me .
“ The CCP suppressed information early to both the U.S. and Chinese people .
This delay allowed the virus to proliferate much faster than it otherwise would and reach other countries that it might otherwise have not .
”

When a senior White House aide would brief President Donald Trump in 2018 about an Ebola-virus outbreak in central Africa, it was plainly evident that hardships roiling a far-flung part of the world didn’t command his attention. He was zoning out. “It was like talking to a wall,” a person familiar with the matter told me.
Now a new coronavirus that originated in China is confronting him with a potential pandemic, a problem that Trump seems ill-prepared to meet. A crisis that is heading into its third month could draw out every personal and managerial failing that the president has shown to this point. Much of what he’s said publicly about the virus has been wrong, a consequence of downplaying any troubles on his watch. He has long stoked fears that foreigners entering the United States bring disease. Now he may double down on xenophobic suspicions. He has hollowed out federal agencies and belittled expertise, prioritizing instead his own intuition and the demands of his political base. But he’ll need to rely on a bureaucracy he’s maligned to stop the virus’s spread.
“We have a president who doesn’t particularly care about competent administration, and who created a culture in which bad news is shut down,” says Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, whose state is home to one of multiple airports screening passengers for the coronavirus. “And when you’re dealing with a potential pandemic, you need to know all the bad news. If this disease ends up not overwhelming us, that would be a blessing. But it would not be because the Trump administration was ready. They were not.”
From the first, Trump has offered false reassurance. In a CNBC interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month, Trump maintained that the coronavirus was “totally under control” and that he wasn’t concerned about the risk of a pandemic. “It’s going to be just fine,” he said.
Except that it wasn’t under control—it still isn’t—and no one knows just how bad it will be. “Even a middle schooler wouldn’t have said that,” Michael Mina, an epidemiology professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, told me. “Everyone is using caution in how we’re framing what the risk is, primarily because we don’t understand what the risk is at this moment. The last thing anyone would say is, ‘We’re not concerned.’ Everyone is concerned.”
Read: The new coronavirus is a truly modern epidemic
Since Trump’s first upbeat assessment, the number of people sickened by the virus has spiraled. At the time of the CNBC interview, 17 people in China had died from the virus and about 540 were infected. Today, the death toll is about 1,900 and the number of infections tops 73,000. At least 15 cases have been reported in the U.S., and an additional 14 Americans infected with the virus arrived yesterday following their evacuation from a cruise ship in Japan.
Much about the virus is still unknown, but you wouldn’t know that listening to Trump. Speaking to the nation’s governors at a conference last week, the president said it would dissipate when the weather turns warm. “Typically, that will go away in April,” Trump said. In fact, no one knows when the outbreak will subside, and what experts have said conflicts with Trump’s Panglossian assurances. Last week, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials said the virus could linger into next year and eventually establish a “foothold” in the U.S.
Guiding Trump’s response is a hardheaded nationalism. On January 31, the administration announced strict travel bans: Most foreign nationals who’d recently been to China were barred from entering the U.S., and Americans were warned to stay clear of the country. These measures—which career public-health officials argued were needed to delay the virus’s spread—broke with guidance from the World Health Organization, which did not recommend curbs on travel or trade. The restrictions did, however, reflect the alarm coming from Trump’s base.
Inside the administration, some officials maintain that China has not shown needed cooperation or transparency as the virus has spread. “This has been a signal failure of the Communist Chinese Party in handling the crisis,” Peter Navarro, a senior Trump trade adviser who is part of the administration’s effort to combat the outbreak, told me. “The CCP suppressed information early to both the U.S. and Chinese people. This delay allowed the virus to proliferate much faster than it otherwise would and reach other countries that it might otherwise have not.”
But critics from WHO and elsewhere have said the bans are unnecessary and could generate a racist backlash against Chinese people. One Chinese foreign official asked of the U.S.: “Where is its empathy?”
Empathy may be a casualty of Trump’s own phobias: He is squeamish about contagion. A body man traveling with him would make sure that two implements were always in his possession: a Sharpie for autographs and hand sanitizer for germs, said a former White House official, who like others I talked with for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity. Aides would try to suppress coughs in his presence. If they couldn’t stifle repeated sneezes, Trump might order them to leave his presence. “He never said, ‘Go home.’ He just didn’t want them anywhere near him,” the ex-official told me.
When an Ebola epidemic struck in 2014, Trump was unnerved. For months, he sent dire messages with a common theme: Keep the virus out of the U.S. at all costs. He faulted then-President Barack Obama for sending troops to Africa to combat it, and chided him for playing golf amid the outbreak. (A couple of weeks ago, with the number of coronavirus infections piling up, Trump didn’t hesitate to release a picture of himself teeing off at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida.)
So determined was he to keep Ebola from coming into the U.S., Trump wanted to keep Americans out. A doctor named Kent Brantly had gone to Liberia to treat Ebola patients and became infected. His life in jeopardy, he was airlifted to a hospital in Atlanta. Trump was watching; he didn’t believe that Brantly should be allowed back home for treatment. “The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great—but must suffer the consequences!” he tweeted.
Brantly ultimately recovered. I contacted him recently and asked him about Trump’s hard-line stance. In an email, he didn’t mention the president, but wrote that “we MUST choose compassion over fear. We must choose to respond to people (even in deadly outbreaks of infectious diseases) with actions and words and attitudes that convey compassion and uphold the dignity of our fellow human beings.”
Before long, Trump was running for president on an anti-immigrant platform. One message he pushed was that immigrants carry contagion. In 2015, he put out a statement warning that “tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border,” a claim unsupported by fact.
Read: Are we ready for Trump 2.0?
Should the coronavirus outbreak spread in the U.S., it could pose the biggest test yet of Trump’s managerial competence, given his habit of elevating his own judgment over expert opinion, as I’ve described before.
He has said he knows more about terrorists than the generals, more about social media than Facebook, more about the economy than the Federal Reserve. In 2014, he suggested that he understands disease better than epidemiologists, saying that “Ebola is much easier to transmit than the CDC and government representatives are admitting.”
Amid the outbreak that year, Obama tapped a so-called czar, Ron Klain, to coordinate the work of a slew of federal agencies. Trump has chosen a different model, setting up a 12-member task force headed by a Cabinet member, Alex Azar, the secretary of health and human services. The task force has proved balky, say Schatz and his colleague Senator Mazie Hirono, who is also a Hawaii Democrat: Without a single point person in command, there’s a pass-the-buck mentality that has made getting answers difficult. Hirono says that she gets “conflicting information” about how people will be quarantined and who will foot the bill. “When we call [Azar’s] office, they usually have to refer us to other agencies,” she told me. “One of the ways we can change this lack of communication is to have one person in charge. We have a model for that: the Ebola epidemic in 2014.”
For his part, Navarro said the administration’s response has been effective. “The U.S. effort is going to be a model effort in fighting an infectious disease like this,” he told me.
At times, Trump has seemed at odds with his own team. That may have something to do with diverging priorities. He has sought to preserve a relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping as the two spar over trade issues. Throughout the crisis, he’s heaped praise on Xi, but what he hasn’t mentioned is a profound source of frustration for his own coronavirus task force: Chinese leaders have been slow in letting the U.S. in to help.
Here, it might be helpful if Trump had maintained a strong diplomatic corps to smooth negotiations. But morale at the State Department has suffered in the “America first” era, with the president attempting to cut the department’s budget and leaving key positions unfilled. William Burns, a former deputy secretary of state who spent more than 30 years as a diplomat and who retired in 2014, told me: “The sidelining of career expertise over the last three years puts you at a disadvantage in dealing with crises and big challenges like this one.”
Trump insists on being the protagonist in every drama. He wants to promote the idea that everything on his watch is improving. Virology isn’t politics, though. Tweets don’t beget vaccines. Following his instincts in the face of an outbreak that has left the world on edge risks making things worse.


theatlantic--2020-02-18--<em>The Atlantic </em>Politics Daily: MAGA vs. the Coronavirus

1 .
“ Indeed , given our national faith and trust in a rule of law no one can subvert , it is not too strong to say that Bill Barr is un-American.
” Attorney General Barr is placing the president above the law , the former deputy attorney general Donald Ayer , who preceded Barr in the George H. W. Bush administration , writes .
His argument comes amid a forceful public letter signed by now more than 2,000 former Department of Justice officials ( including Ayer ) calling on Barr to resign .
Here ’ s why Ayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 .
“ He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors ...
So why all the talk of civil war ?
” “ Nobody likes ” him , Hillary Clinton even declared last month of her 2016 primary rival .
But that ’ s true only among a certain stratum of Democrats , Peter Beinart argues : The Democratic elite are afraid of the party schism that a Bernie Sanders victory could cause , but Democratic voters are far less hesitant about the democratic-socialist candidate .
In fact , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among ordinary voters .
+ Our writer David A. Graham attended dueling rallies in North Carolina this weekend—one for the front-runner Sanders , the other for Mike Bloomberg .
Those two already seem to be regarding the race as a two-person one , David writes .
3 .
“ If past is prologue , Trump will say absolutely anything necessary to attract and maintain support , including patent untruths … .
How can Democrats run against a candidate who will simply deny his unpopular positions and make up nonexistent accomplishments ?
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee is their ability to run against a president “ seemingly prepared , and empowered , to lie and cheat his way to reelection , ” Sarada Peri , a former speechwriter for Barack Obama , argues .
So what can the candidates going toe-to-toe with Trump do ?
If the Trump administration is truly going all-in on competition with Beijing , it ’ s not clear that Trump himself is fully on board .
Nor , it ’ s now clear , are several of America ’ s closest friends .
Uri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and China over who gets to shape the world in the coming century , America seems to be playing to win .
But it ’ s running into a big problem .
Despite the global network of alliances Washington has built up , it ’ s been unable to convince those allies to hop aboard the “ great-power-competition ” express and leave China behind .
Today ’ s newsletter was written by Saahil Desai , an editor on the Politics desk , and edited by Shan Wang , who oversees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this newsletter with questions or comments , or send a note to politicsdaily @ theatlantic.com .
Your support makes our journalism possible .
Subscribe here .

Why the virus could bring out the worst in Trump.
It’s Tuesday, February 18. In today’s newsletter: Why the coronavirus outbreak could bring out the worst in Trump. Plus: Is Bernie Sanders as polarizing as elite Democrats claim he is?
*
« TODAY IN POLITICS »
(HAPPY TOGETHER / SHUTTERSTOCK / ARSH RAZIUDDIN / THE ATLANTIC)
The Trump administration isn’t ready for the coronavirus.
The outbreak of COVID-19, as the illness is now called, has thrown the world into panic. But if it spreads across the U.S., it could bring out the worst in President Donald Trump, who on top of a tendency to prefer his own instincts to the advice of experts, is famously a germaphobe.
Empathy may be a casualty of Trump’s own phobias: He is squeamish about contagion. A body man traveling with him would make sure that two implements were always in his possession: a Sharpie for autographs and hand sanitizer for germs, said a former White House official, who like others I talked with for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity. Aides would try to suppress coughs in his presence. If they couldn’t stifle repeated sneezes, Trump might order them to leave his presence. “He never said, ‘Go home.’ He just didn’t want them anywhere near him,” the ex-official told me. When an Ebola epidemic struck in 2014, Trump was unnerved. For months, he sent dire messages with a common theme: Keep the virus out of the U.S. at all costs.
My colleague Peter Nicholas reports on the nightmare scenario of the outbreak reaching the U.S.
Would a quarantine of the scale China is implementing now—extended beyond the Wuhan epicenter to more than 50 million elsewhere in China—be possible in the U.S.?
A legal mess would certainly result, Polly Price, a global health professor, writes:
The average American may be surprised to learn who holds the authority to order such public-health measures. Except at the nation’s borders, the federal government, with the expertise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is not in charge. America’s defense against epidemics is divided among 2,684 state, local, and tribal public-health departments. Each one is responsible for monitoring people within its jurisdiction, imposing isolation or quarantine as needed. CDC officials are “preparing as if [the new coronavirus] is the next pandemic,” but in reality, the laboring oar falls to state and local health departments.
Read the rest.
—Saahil Desai
*
« IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS »
(STEPHEN LAM / REUTERS)
1. “Indeed, given our national faith and trust in a rule of law no one can subvert, it is not too strong to say that Bill Barr is un-American.”
Attorney General Barr is placing the president above the law, the former deputy attorney general Donald Ayer, who preceded Barr in the George H. W. Bush administration, writes. His argument comes amid a forceful public letter signed by now more than 2,000 former Department of Justice officials (including Ayer) calling on Barr to resign.
Here’s why Ayer argues Bill Barr must step down.
2. “He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors ... So why all the talk of civil war?”
“Nobody likes” him, Hillary Clinton even declared last month of her 2016 primary rival. But that’s true only among a certain stratum of Democrats, Peter Beinart argues: The Democratic elite are afraid of the party schism that a Bernie Sanders victory could cause, but Democratic voters are far less hesitant about the democratic-socialist candidate. In fact, Sanders may be one of the least polarizing among ordinary voters.
+ Our writer David A. Graham attended dueling rallies in North Carolina this weekend—one for the front-runner Sanders, the other for Mike Bloomberg. Those two already seem to be regarding the race as a two-person one, David writes.
3. “If past is prologue, Trump will say absolutely anything necessary to attract and maintain support, including patent untruths …. How can Democrats run against a candidate who will simply deny his unpopular positions and make up nonexistent accomplishments?”
The real electability challenge for the 2020 Democratic nominee is their ability to run against a president “seemingly prepared, and empowered, to lie and cheat his way to reelection,” Sarada Peri, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, argues. So what can the candidates going toe-to-toe with Trump do?
*
« EVENING READ »
(LEON NEAL / GETTY / KATIE MARTIN / THE ATLANTIC)
The New Cold War
If the Trump administration is truly going all-in on competition with Beijing, it’s not clear that Trump himself is fully on board. Nor, it’s now clear, are several of America’s closest friends. Uri Friedman writes:
In the contest between the United States and China over who gets to shape the world in the coming century, America seems to be playing to win. But it’s running into a big problem. Despite the global network of alliances Washington has built up, it’s been unable to convince those allies to hop aboard the “great-power-competition” express and leave China behind.
There’s a countermovement against a U.S.-China cold war brewing.
*


theatlantic--2020-02-20--Bernie Sanders Gets a Pass

Bernie Sanders Gets a Pass

Compared with earlier debates , Sanders did face more questions about his agenda and record from both his rivals and the moderators .
Between them , they introduced arguments against Sanders ’ s candidacy that may resonate more loudly down the road , in particular when they questioned whether his calls for a “ political revolution ” can build a winning coalition against President Donald Trump .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg made that case most persistently , saying at one point that Democrats risk defeat if they offer voters “ a socialist who thinks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even Warren , who has been remarkably reluctant to draw contrasts with Sanders even as he has eclipsed her as the favorite of the party ’ s most liberal voters , asserted that Democrats “ are worried about gambling on a revolution that won ’ t bring along a majority of this country.
” But compared with the hazing Bloomberg received , Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps .
He was confident and unyielding , if sometimes hectoring , in defending his agenda and ideology , and the focus never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the night ’ s most telling moments came when the moderators asked Biden if Americans would elect a candidate who identifies as a socialist , as Sanders does , and the former vice president somehow managed to answer the question without ever mentioning ( much less challenging ) his opponent .
“ The other five tore each other apart while Bernie skated , ” one Democratic pollster , who is not affiliated with any campaign , texted me after the debate .
Bloomberg ’ s exchanges with Sanders—with Bloomberg insisting that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his ownership of three houses , and Sanders , in turn , denouncing Bloomberg as the embodiment of corruption in the political system—seemed to pulse with the most mutual hostility .
But all the candidates pummeled the billionaire , over everything from his treatment of women to his record as mayor and from his prior history of supporting Republicans to his delay in releasing his income-tax returns .
At points , Bloomberg was effective in touting his policy plans ( especially on climate ) , but he buckled in defending his record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren was Bloomberg ’ s most potent and relentless interrogator .
In a lengthy back-and-forth about the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who worked for him , Warren delivered so many blows so fast that a boxing referee might have stopped the fight .
He was , at one point , left to sputter in defense that he signed the agreements “ probably because some women didn ’ t like some jokes I told.
” It ’ s a safe bet that Warren and his other opponents won ’ t let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unsteady performance reverses the gains he ’ s generated with his spending onslaught—as of Friday , he ’ d spent $ 100 million on TV ads in California , Texas , and Florida alone—the turnabout could help any of the other candidates regain ground in the race .
But it still leaves them the challenge of slowing Sanders , who has been buoyed by a wave of positive polls since his narrow victory last week in New Hampshire .

LAS VEGAS—Faced with signs that Bernie Sanders is consolidating his position as the clear front-runner in the Democratic race, the presidential candidates last night chose to focus most of their fire instead at the new guy onstage: Michael Bloomberg.
The withering criticism, especially that from Elizabeth Warren, left Bloomberg visibly staggered at times and reflected an undeniable imperative for his opponents’ campaigns: His unprecedented TV-advertising blitz across the states voting in March threatens to catapult him past all of them as the principal alternative to the Vermont senator, who has taken a solid lead in the latest national polls. But the consistent focus on Bloomberg, especially during the debate’s highly contentious first hour, meant that Sanders was let relatively off the hook.
Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine anything that unfolded on the debate stage will impede Sanders’s march toward an expected victory in Saturday’s caucus here—where Bloomberg won’t even be on the ballot. Appearing on MSNBC after the debate, Joe Biden declared that “Bernie’s going to get vetted in a way he never has been before.” That moment may be coming, but it certainly didn’t arrive last night.
Compared with earlier debates, Sanders did face more questions about his agenda and record from both his rivals and the moderators. Between them, they introduced arguments against Sanders’s candidacy that may resonate more loudly down the road, in particular when they questioned whether his calls for a “political revolution” can build a winning coalition against President Donald Trump.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg made that case most persistently, saying at one point that Democrats risk defeat if they offer voters “a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil.” Even Warren, who has been remarkably reluctant to draw contrasts with Sanders even as he has eclipsed her as the favorite of the party’s most liberal voters, asserted that Democrats “are worried about gambling on a revolution that won’t bring along a majority of this country.”
But compared with the hazing Bloomberg received, Sanders escaped with many fewer bruises and bumps. He was confident and unyielding, if sometimes hectoring, in defending his agenda and ideology, and the focus never stayed on him for long. One of the night’s most telling moments came when the moderators asked Biden if Americans would elect a candidate who identifies as a socialist, as Sanders does, and the former vice president somehow managed to answer the question without ever mentioning (much less challenging) his opponent. “The other five tore each other apart while Bernie skated,” one Democratic pollster, who is not affiliated with any campaign, texted me after the debate.
Read: Bloomberg’s beating
Bloomberg’s exchanges with Sanders—with Bloomberg insisting that Sanders can’t win and needling him over his ownership of three houses, and Sanders, in turn, denouncing Bloomberg as the embodiment of corruption in the political system—seemed to pulse with the most mutual hostility. But all the candidates pummeled the billionaire, over everything from his treatment of women to his record as mayor and from his prior history of supporting Republicans to his delay in releasing his income-tax returns. At points, Bloomberg was effective in touting his policy plans (especially on climate), but he buckled in defending his record.
As my colleague Russell Berman described, Warren was Bloomberg’s most potent and relentless interrogator. In a lengthy back-and-forth about the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who worked for him, Warren delivered so many blows so fast that a boxing referee might have stopped the fight. He was, at one point, left to sputter in defense that he signed the agreements “probably because some women didn’t like some jokes I told.” It’s a safe bet that Warren and his other opponents won’t let him forget those words.
If Bloomberg’s unsteady performance reverses the gains he’s generated with his spending onslaught—as of Friday, he’d spent $100 million on TV ads in California, Texas, and Florida alone—the turnabout could help any of the other candidates regain ground in the race. But it still leaves them the challenge of slowing Sanders, who has been buoyed by a wave of positive polls since his narrow victory last week in New Hampshire.
Sanders has established himself as the front-runner by posting significant leads among young people and the most liberal voters, a more modest advantage among white voters without a college degree, and a potentially expanding lead with Latinos. (In several polls, Sanders has also reduced, or even eliminated, Biden’s lead with African Americans.) These increases translate to support from, at most, a little more than 30 percent of the Democratic Party so far.
Meanwhile, the constituencies more resistant to Sanders—particularly moderates, older voters, and college-educated white voters—have splintered among the remaining candidates. In a national NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll this week, for example, Sanders attracted a higher share of progressives than any other candidate won among moderates; his share among non-college-educated white voters exceeded anyone else’s share of white voters with degrees; and he attracted far more younger people (under age 45) than anyone else drew among older voters. As last night suggested, Sanders’s competitors still seem to be focused more on emerging as the alternative to him than on challenging him directly.
That pressure encouraged a kind of all-against-all quality in the debate. Anyone trying to map the direction of attacks among the candidates would have quickly produced something like a spiral graph. At one point, Warren delivered a rapid-fire denunciation of the health-care plans from Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Sanders. Later, in a tour de force of cutting concision, she encapsulated her differences with Sanders (too revolutionary), Biden and Klobuchar (too clubby with Senate Republicans), and Buttigieg (too cozy with billionaires) in just three sentences.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar, meanwhile, lacerated each other in bitterly personal terms. (“I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete,” she insisted at one point.) There’s an electoral logic to the two targeting each other: In the New Hampshire exit poll, Klobuchar finished first and Buttigieg a close second among both college-educated and older voters. But their animosity seems to extend to a personal distaste that transcends any political logic.
It took the moderators to remind the candidates of the big picture as Sanders establishes some separation from the field. Chuck Todd asked a question that I believe will become a frequent topic of conversation among Democrats in the weeks ahead: Do you believe the party should nominate the candidate who arrives at the July convention with the most delegates, even if no one has the 1,991 delegates required for a first-ballot victory? All the contenders effectively said no, except for Sanders—who insisted that “the will of the people should prevail.”
With those answers, the candidates chasing Sanders pointedly left themselves room to resist his nomination at the convention if he arrives with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates. But by and large, they did surprisingly little to reduce the odds that Sanders will, in fact, arrive in Milwaukee with more delegates than anyone else.


Bloomberg’s Beating

Read : The debate that progressives have been waiting for No one , however , attacked Bloomberg harder , or with more gusto , than Warren .
She began the debate by reminding voters of the “ billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians.
” “ No , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg , ” she said .
“ Look , I ’ ll support whoever the Democratic nominee is , but understand this .
Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren directly confronted Bloomberg about the allegations of workplace harassment at his eponymous financial company .
With help from Biden , she tried to force him to release women from the nondisclosure agreements they had signed .
After Bloomberg countered that he had hired and promoted women both at his company and at city hall , Warren summarized his defense as “ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
” And after Bloomberg repeated the apology he had issued for stop-and-frisk , saying that New York City police officers had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replied , “ You need a different apology , Mr. Mayor.
” The closest thing to a national debate Bloomberg has taken part in happened during the last race he ran for mayor—more than a decade ago .
Tonight , the 78-year-old viewers saw on TV was a far cry from the one in the well-produced ads that have flooded the airwaves across the country and catapulted him into second place behind Sanders in some national polls .
He seemed irritated at the attacks , asked the moderators for more time to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me finish , please.
” Viewers also saw a very different Warren from the candidate that largely eschewed attacks on her opponents for the campaign ’ s first year .
Fighting both a cold and the irrelevancy of the second tier , she went after not only Bloomberg but Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg as well .
“ It ’ s not a plan ; it ’ s a PowerPoint , ” Warren said of Buttigieg ’ s health-care proposal , which she said had been handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy ’ s plan is even less .
It ’ s like a Post-It note : ‘ Insert plan here.
’ ” ( Warren did later defend Klobuchar , however , after Buttigieg criticized his moderate rival for forgetting the name of the Mexican president . )
Indeed , it was hard to keep track of all the attacks the candidates deployed , making this debate nearly unrecognizable from the often snoozy—but substantive—affairs that preceded it .
( Even The Onion noticed the change in tone . )
It wasn ’ t difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the shift .
The voting has started , and the next contests in Nevada and South Carolina could turn the primary campaign into a two-man race between a 78-year-old billionaire and a 78-year-old democratic socialist , neither of whom was a registered member of the party as of a few years ago .
For Warren , Biden , Klobuchar , and Buttigieg , tonight ’ s debate was perhaps one of their final chances to change the trajectory of the campaign before Super Tuesday .
And so , on a February night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show up and fight .

Everyone came to Vegas to fight—everyone, that is, except Michael Bloomberg.
Tonight’s debate at the Paris Theater on the Las Vegas strip was the feistiest free-for-all of a marathon campaign that saw its first votes cast only two weeks ago. The candidates went after one another with abandon—front-runners filleting the underdogs, zingers crisscrossing the stage like lasers. A newly energized and combative Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tried to reassert herself in the race by taking down just about all of her five competitors—but particularly the former New York mayor.
Bloomberg made his debate debut after entering the race 10 weeks ago, and his lack of experience on the national stage was apparent from the evening’s opening moments. Bloomberg, who has muscled his way into the top tier on the back of nearly a quarter billion dollars in advertising, came under withering criticism from his rivals on a broad range of issues. Again and again, he struggled to respond. Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden assailed the stop-and-frisk policing policy Bloomberg presided over as mayor, which he defended for years despite data that showed it disproportionately affected young men of color. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont knocked him for his Republican past, noting his endorsement of President George W. Bush in 2004 and the financial support he has given to GOP candidates in the many years since.
Read: The debate that progressives have been waiting for
No one, however, attacked Bloomberg harder, or with more gusto, than Warren. She began the debate by reminding voters of the “billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians.”
“No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg,” she said. “Look, I’ll support whoever the Democratic nominee is, but understand this. Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”
Later in the debate, Warren directly confronted Bloomberg about the allegations of workplace harassment at his eponymous financial company. With help from Biden, she tried to force him to release women from the nondisclosure agreements they had signed. After Bloomberg countered that he had hired and promoted women both at his company and at city hall, Warren summarized his defense as “I’ve been nice to some women.”
And after Bloomberg repeated the apology he had issued for stop-and-frisk, saying that New York City police officers had “stopped too many people,” Warren replied, “You need a different apology, Mr. Mayor.”
The closest thing to a national debate Bloomberg has taken part in happened during the last race he ran for mayor—more than a decade ago. Tonight, the 78-year-old viewers saw on TV was a far cry from the one in the well-produced ads that have flooded the airwaves across the country and catapulted him into second place behind Sanders in some national polls. He seemed irritated at the attacks, asked the moderators for more time to respond, and snapped at Biden, “Let me finish, please.”
Viewers also saw a very different Warren from the candidate that largely eschewed attacks on her opponents for the campaign’s first year. Fighting both a cold and the irrelevancy of the second tier, she went after not only Bloomberg but Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg as well. “It’s not a plan; it’s a PowerPoint,” Warren said of Buttigieg’s health-care proposal, which she said had been handed to him by consultants. “And Amy’s plan is even less. It’s like a Post-It note: ‘Insert plan here.’” (Warren did later defend Klobuchar, however, after Buttigieg criticized his moderate rival for forgetting the name of the Mexican president.)
Indeed, it was hard to keep track of all the attacks the candidates deployed, making this debate nearly unrecognizable from the often snoozy—but substantive—affairs that preceded it. (Even The Onion noticed the change in tone.)
It wasn’t difficult, though, to find a reason for the shift. The voting has started, and the next contests in Nevada and South Carolina could turn the primary campaign into a two-man race between a 78-year-old billionaire and a 78-year-old democratic socialist, neither of whom was a registered member of the party as of a few years ago. For Warren, Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, tonight’s debate was perhaps one of their final chances to change the trajectory of the campaign before Super Tuesday.
And so, on a February night in Las Vegas, they collectively decided to show up and fight.


theatlantic--2020-02-19--The Debate That Progressives Have Been Waiting For

Team Bloomberg has been preparing for weeks for tonight ’ s debate , and the campaign has already previewed a rebuttal to criticisms like the kind that Sanders and Warren might offer : “ Promising to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money just to get yourself elected is buying an election , ” Bradley Tusk , a Bloomberg campaign adviser , told my colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere this week .
“ Using money you earned to run a campaign that does not need or take money from any outside interest is laudable.
” ( The Bloomberg campaign did not respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Tonight ’ s debate puts Bloomberg in a situation that he hasn ’ t been in for years , says Rebecca Katz , the founder of New Deal Strategies , a progressive political-consulting group .
“ That ’ s why we ’ re excited.
” Since announcing his candidacy in November of last year , the former New York mayor has shelled out about $ 183 million of his own money in TV advertising , more than all of the other candidates combined , plus nearly $ 50 million on digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has also skipped campaigning in the early-primary states in favor of spending time in Super Tuesday states , and he has invested deeply in the South , where the other presidential campaigns have less of a presence .
Those efforts , at least for now , are paying off : The former mayor has skyrocketed to the near-top of national polls , where he is currently vying for second place with former Vice President Joe Biden , according to FiveThirtyEight .
“ It ’ s the first time that the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York are going to have any real exposure to Bloomberg ’ s politics and character and personality , ” Raskin said , and candidates will use tonight to expose his vulnerabilities .
Senator Amy Klobuchar , in an interview on CNN last weekend , challenged Bloomberg to come onstage , saying she doesn ’ t think he “ should be able to hide behind airwaves and huge ad buys.
” And Warren tweeted yesterday that , while “ it ’ s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will “ get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.
” Raskin said he expects Warren to place special emphasis on Bloomberg ’ s defense of the NYPD ’ s controversial stop-and-frisk program , which has been criticized for unfairly targeting black Americans and Latinos , and to bring up Bloomberg ’ s past sexist comments and the dozens of sexual-harassment complaints and lawsuits brought against the candidate and his namesake company .
Warren can also be counted on to confront Bloomberg about his 2008 remark blaming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or racial discrimination in mortgage lending , says Adam Green , the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , a political-action committee that has endorsed Warren .
“ She is uniquely capable of connecting the dots between Bloomberg being an apologist for Wall Street , and that being synonymous with discrimination against black and brown communities , ” Green says .

Last month, when a late-stage change to the Democratic National Committee’s debate rules provided an opening for former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, his competitors claimed to be irate. “Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to play by different rules,” Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted. An adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders called it “the definition of a rigged system.”
But the Democratic-primary candidates and their allies also recognize that there is potential value in sharing a stage with the self-funding billionaire tonight. For the progressives in the race, Bloomberg’s appearance at the Las Vegas debate means they’ll get to directly confront the person who, in their view, exemplifies the racism, sexism, and elite-billionaire class they’ve been railing against since the race began. And tonight’s debate will double as a kind of debut for Bloomberg, whose glossy commercials have saturated the airwaves for months even though millions of Americans have likely never heard him speak before a live audience.
“He’s been able to float above the whole situation with his million-dollar media ads,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who has endorsed Warren, told me today. “The candidates who’ve been duking it out for many months in the fields of Iowa and the wilds of New Hampshire are certainly eager to bring [him] back down to Earth.”
Team Bloomberg has been preparing for weeks for tonight’s debate, and the campaign has already previewed a rebuttal to criticisms like the kind that Sanders and Warren might offer: “Promising to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money just to get yourself elected is buying an election,” Bradley Tusk, a Bloomberg campaign adviser, told my colleague Edward-Isaac Dovere this week. “Using money you earned to run a campaign that does not need or take money from any outside interest is laudable.” (The Bloomberg campaign did not respond to request for comment for this story.)
Tonight’s debate puts Bloomberg in a situation that he hasn’t been in for years, says Rebecca Katz, the founder of New Deal Strategies, a progressive political-consulting group. “That’s why we’re excited.”
Since announcing his candidacy in November of last year, the former New York mayor has shelled out about $183 million of his own money in TV advertising, more than all of the other candidates combined, plus nearly $50 million on digital platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. He has also skipped campaigning in the early-primary states in favor of spending time in Super Tuesday states, and he has invested deeply in the South, where the other presidential campaigns have less of a presence. Those efforts, at least for now, are paying off: The former mayor has skyrocketed to the near-top of national polls, where he is currently vying for second place with former Vice President Joe Biden, according to FiveThirtyEight.
“It’s the first time that the vast majority of Democrats who live outside of New York are going to have any real exposure to Bloomberg’s politics and character and personality,” Raskin said, and candidates will use tonight to expose his vulnerabilities. Senator Amy Klobuchar, in an interview on CNN last weekend, challenged Bloomberg to come onstage, saying she doesn’t think he “should be able to hide behind airwaves and huge ad buys.” And Warren tweeted yesterday that, while “it’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate,” at least tonight’s viewers will “get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.”
Raskin said he expects Warren to place special emphasis on Bloomberg’s defense of the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which has been criticized for unfairly targeting black Americans and Latinos, and to bring up Bloomberg’s past sexist comments and the dozens of sexual-harassment complaints and lawsuits brought against the candidate and his namesake company. Warren can also be counted on to confront Bloomberg about his 2008 remark blaming the financial collapse on the end of redlining, or racial discrimination in mortgage lending, says Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a political-action committee that has endorsed Warren. “She is uniquely capable of connecting the dots between Bloomberg being an apologist for Wall Street, and that being synonymous with discrimination against black and brown communities,” Green says.
Read: Mike Bloomberg and the underbelly of #MeToo
Sanders, who has spent two national election cycles thundering about billionaires and inequality, has already accused Bloomberg of attempting to buy the 2020 presidential election, and tonight he will almost certainly charge the former mayor with being an urgent threat to democracy. “Senator Sanders looks forward to drawing a clear contrast in their worldviews,” Representative Ro Khanna of California, a Sanders campaign co-chair, told me. The senator will frame the choice between Bloomberg and himself as rich versus poor; elite versus working class; plutocrat versus small-D democrat. “Senator Sanders has stood up for a people-powered campaign, with working-class people giving him the resources to campaign,” Khanna said. “That’s a direct contrast to someone who believes that they should pool their own resources.”
Bloomberg, in other words, could serve as the rich-white-guy foil that both Warren and Sanders need to help them further energize their respective lefty bases tonight. He’s sure to be a frequent target, and has surely been working on his counterpunches. The former mayor will likely focus on making the case that, with his years of experience in elected office and his boundless financial resources, he has the best chance to defeat Donald Trump in November—that the Democratic Party’s main job is to get rid of the Republican president, not support a social movement. “Bloomberg is extraordinarily smart,” says Hank Sheinkopf, a New York–based Democratic consultant. “He is very disciplined and very difficult to throw off track.”
But 78-year-old Bloomberg has not participated in a debate since 2009, while the rest of the Democrats onstage tonight will have had multiple debates and other public forums in which to present themselves to the American people.
“This will be his first time on a level playing field,” says Katz, the progressive consultant. The question is, to what extent will a one-night performance ultimately matter to a candidate who will never run out of money?