newrepublic--2020-07-31--An Inconvenient Lesson From the Pandemic: We Have to Stop Eating Meat

In November 2019 , the United Nations Environmental Programme , or UNEP , called for global greenhouse gas emissions to decline by nearly 8 percent every year until 2030 if there is to be any chance of restraining global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius ( 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit ) .
In the first four months of this year , anthropogenic emissions did indeed fall 8 percent due to shutdowns responding to the Covid-19 pandemic—for a brief moment , the prerogatives of short-term and long-term necessity coincided .
Many economies ’ emissions have since bounced back , however ; by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution will likely decrease by only 5.5 percent .
The worst shock in the history of capitalism—far surpassing the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 , Black Thursday in 1929 , and the Spanish Flu of 1918—sufficed to only briefly brush against the UNEP ’ s 8 percent target .
We are left with the paradox of climate change : UNEP ’ s target is feasible because we momentarily achieved it , but it also seems impossible , for how could we suffer worse recessions year upon year for a decade ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent problem is land , which provides ground for both hope and despair .
Only two activities changed drastically during the pandemic : transportation and land use .
The former , which accounts for 20 percent of fossil CO2 emissions , fell by half during the worst stages of the global lockdown due to canceled commutes and travel , but it has quickly recovered .
“ Fundamentally nothing has changed , ” Carbon Brief ’ s Simon Evans observed .
“ Once people get back in their cars , it ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big sectors , like industry , shipping , and electricity , only dipped slightly during the pandemic .
By contrast , deforestation—what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rather bloodlessly calls “ land-use change ” —has exploded .
Poring over satellite data of 18 countries , the World Wildlife Fund found that global deforestation in March 2020 jumped 150 percent compared to the three-year average .
Deforestation releases the carbon trapped in trees and soil and facilitates the expansion of the livestock industry , a huge greenhouse gas polluter that relies on vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed .
The climate effects of such wanton deforestation will partially vitiate any environmental gains from the collapse in ground and air transport this spring .
The coronavirus distracted us from noticing how patron states have quietly given their blessing to rapacious ranchers and loggers .
In April , Ricardo Salles , Brazil ’ s minister for the environment , advised his ministerial colleagues to further deregulate the Amazonian beef industry “ while we are in a quiet moment for press coverage because they only talk about Covid.
” While most countries ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the pandemic , Brazil ’ s are set to increase by 10–20 percent , despite Jair Bolsonaro ’ s administration finally having been forced by an international divestment campaign to announce a 120-day moratorium on fires in the Amazon .
Brazil is not unique , nor is it even the worst offender .
Forests in Indonesia and Congo have been razed this year at an even faster clip .
Land-use change and its close associate , the livestock sector , produce vast quantities of methane—a greenhouse gas that is many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Methane pollution , produced both by ruminant livestock—through their unusual digestive process—and the deregulated fracking industry , is now experiencing its fastest growth rate in the last twenty years .
To meet the targets researchers say are necessary to forestall catastrophic warming , we will likely have to reduce deforestation emissions as quickly as transport ’ s emissions fell during the pandemic .
Fortunately , where the will exists , giving up meat and reforestation can both happen quickly .
While it will take decades to rebuild our transport , energy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large part on what we sow next season .
The livestock industry currently provides only 18 percent of food calories but occupies 83 percent of all agricultural land , including billions of hectares of pasture that , until recently , had been forested .
That ’ s not to say that cutting meat and reforesting is entirely simple .
As the affluent eat most of these environmentally destructive products , their consumption should fall farthest and fastest .
Given the colonial history of wildlife conservation , care must be taken to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burden the world ’ s poor .
That means taking into account the rate of regrowth and carbon sequestration of potential forests as well as their biodiversity alongside true international solidarity in the form of reparations , technological and academic exchanges , and global scientific collaboration .
We will have to find safer , better paid , and less grueling jobs for former livestock workers from North Carolina to Chile .
And prioritizing reforestation should take place in conjunction with respect for Indigenous land rights , not in opposition to it .

The livestock industry directly produces more greenhouse gas than the ocean of petroleum burnt to power all the world’s planes, cars, ships, trains, and trucks. Abolishing the livestock industry and replacing it with vast new forests could achieve more than electrifying the entire transport sector, and it would be easier and quicker to accomplish because it requires no new technologies or dramatic infrastructural changes. The land/meat problem is so bad that addressing it offers rich dividends. Methane, for example, is a climatically destructive but short-lived gas, which means we’ll quickly reap the benefits of cutting it. By contrast, the half-life of CO2 is three times as long.
Finally, it’s worth remembering that while politicized tree-planting campaigns are often simplistic and will never in isolation be a realistic solution to the climate crisis, trees remain easily the cheapest technology for so-called carbon capture or “negative emissions”: Every ton of carbon sequestration through reforestation costs only $1, according to estimates from the National Academy of Sciences. Artificial carbon capture and sequestration technologies, by contrast, remain untested, unsafe, and around $400 per ton. Reclaiming pasture and mono-cropped soy and maize for protected, biodiverse forests could sequester 860 gigatons of CO2 by 2100, or roughly 10 gigatons a year, an amount that cannot be achieved by artificial sequestration technologies anytime soon—and that’s while healing ecosystems at the same time. If we don’t employ negative emissions technologies (and reforestation is the best we have) then greenhouse gas reductions might have to be 15 percent a year until 2040—twice the pace for twice as long. That’s the equivalent emissions effect of five Covid-19 pandemics a year for a generation.
Behavioral change must be collective to have an effect. Just as scientists have determined what fossil fuels can be dug up within the limits of 2 degrees Celsius, we have to consider that there are few animals left to safely slaughter on a damaged planet. There are many other benefits to abandoning carnivory: the land-hungry livestock sector is a major driver of habitat loss, which drives mass extinction and accelerates the emergence of zoonotic diseases like the current coronavirus. The choice between restricting meat consumption and running the risk of more frequent pandemics and climate change catastrophes should not be a tough one. Yet the silence of governments and experts on the meat question is deafening. Even UNEP, for example, emphasized in a report this month that two of the seven major causes of zoonoses were increased demand for meat and the intensification of factory farms; yet none of their 10 policy recommendations involved reducing meat production.


newrepublic--2020-08-01--The Dismal Politics of the Sports World’s
“Wokest” League

For this group of players , economic material concerns and social justice weren ’ t separate agendas or at odds with each other .
Rather , they were inextricably bound together .
In the words of one Black player , who spoke anonymously to Yahoo Sports : “ We ’ re out here marching and protesting , and yet we all leave our families in these scary times and gather to perform at a place where the owners won ’ t be at ?
” There was a growing recognition that , not unlike “ essential workers ” across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being asked to risk their lives to entertain the public , while the people that owned the league got to sit back and profit from a safe , social distance .
Positioned against the dissenting players was Irving ’ s erstwhile teammate , LeBron James .
While Bradley and Irving were fomenting a players ’ revolt , James argued that if players really wanted their message of social justice to reach the public , the best thing to do was play .
“ Because of everything that ’ s going on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us—we feel like we ’ re finally getting a foot in the door , ” he told The New York Times .
This argument–that playing provided players with “ a platform ” and thus could provide the protesters with another level of support and visibility—cast social justice and labor issues in direct opposition to each other .
Needless to say , James ’ s position prevailed .
The players would play—and in so doing , they revealed some of the irreconcilable political tensions at the heart of the “ wokest ” league in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become the dominant mode of NBA politics .
Under this paradigm , players see their interests as intertwined with that of the league .
James wants to play out the season because winning a championship is good for his brand .
Similarly , his loftier social justice goals are achieved in a putative partnership with the league itself .
What ’ s good for the NBA is good for James and vice-versa .
Achieving social justice starts to become synonymous with winning another ring .
The contrast between these competing factions could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefly , the fate of the restart seemed to hang in the balance .
But this window was short-lived , as the Irving and Bradley-led group abruptly faded .
The quixotic Irving , who was never the optimal figure to challenge the league ’ s prevailing politics , quickly faded from the discussion .
Bradley , whose immuno-compromised son would not have been able to join him in the Bubble , unobtrusively bowed out of the restart .
The media went to great pains to deem Bradley ’ s decision a family matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kicking up a fuss about the larger issues and implications of his decision .
What could have been a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about restarting sports in America , which subsequently grew more urgent following the news about the Marlins , ended with a whimper .
When the NBA announced in early July that it was partnering with the NBPA to put “ social justice messages ” on jerseys , it was framed as a concession to the players—when , in fact , the dissenting faction had long ago given up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the essential feature of NBA politics : It is premised on the NBA and NBPA agreeing on stuff .
Instead of seeing itself as an antagonistic relationship with the league , the union works to broker consensus , often in ways that primarily serve the narrow interests of its biggest stars .
The restart was treated as an inevitability that needed to be sold to the players ; worse , labor advocacy was subtly depicted as an impediment to players being able to exercise their “ voice ” on social justice issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more radical union—one that could have launched a very different understanding of labor in professional sports .
The financial stakes of the restart could not have been higher .
Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales , concessions , parking fees , and other income streams had already been lost for good .
A part of the league ’ s $ 24 billion national television deal , the single greatest source of league revenue , was now under threat as well .
If the NBA canceled the remainder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoke a “ force majeure ” clause in their contracts and suspend their obligations .
Corporate sponsors might very well follow suit , arguing that the truncated season undermined the value of their partnerships .
The revenue shortfall would have hit both the NBA and individual franchises hard .
It would also have been catastrophic for players ’ salaries .
Under the collective bargaining agreement ( CBA ) players receive roughly 50 percent of league revenue , and each year the salary cap is adjusted according to the size of the overall pie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of dollars in revenue , would mean huge reductions in next year ’ s cap .
This is to say nothing of how the financial ripple effects might undermine long-term league health .
Faced with massive losses , small-market teams would be unable to retain top talent , upsetting the league ’ s competitive balance and undermining the overall NBA product .

James’s approach has become the dominant mode of NBA politics. Under this paradigm, players see their interests as intertwined with that of the league. James wants to play out the season because winning a championship is good for his brand. Similarly, his loftier social justice goals are achieved in a putative partnership with the league itself. What’s good for the NBA is good for James and vice-versa. Achieving social justice starts to become synonymous with winning another ring.
The contrast between these competing factions could not have been more pronounced. However briefly, the fate of the restart seemed to hang in the balance. But this window was short-lived, as the Irving and Bradley-led group abruptly faded. The quixotic Irving, who was never the optimal figure to challenge the league’s prevailing politics, quickly faded from the discussion. Bradley, whose immuno-compromised son would not have been able to join him in the Bubble, unobtrusively bowed out of the restart. The media went to great pains to deem Bradley’s decision a family matter, and Bradley himself seemed uninterested in kicking up a fuss about the larger issues and implications of his decision. What could have been a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about restarting sports in America, which subsequently grew more urgent following the news about the Marlins, ended with a whimper. When the NBA announced in early July that it was partnering with the NBPA to put “social justice messages” on jerseys, it was framed as a concession to the players—when, in fact, the dissenting faction had long ago given up the ghost.
All of this points to the essential feature of NBA politics: It is premised on the NBA and NBPA agreeing on stuff. Instead of seeing itself as an antagonistic relationship with the league, the union works to broker consensus, often in ways that primarily serve the narrow interests of its biggest stars. The restart was treated as an inevitability that needed to be sold to the players; worse, labor advocacy was subtly depicted as an impediment to players being able to exercise their “voice” on social justice issues. What the situation really called for was a more radical union—one that could have launched a very different understanding of labor in professional sports.


newrepublic--2020-08-02--What Joe Biden Wants

What Joe Biden Wants

Most pundits also seem to assume that Biden is , in effect , choosing his successor , tapping not only a vice president but the probable Democratic presidential nominee in 2024 .
But the model of an ambitious politician using the vice presidency as a stepping stone to the White House is fast fading—the modern vice presidency has changed .
Part of Dick Cheney ’ s vast war-making powers in George W. Bush ’ s first term flowed from his disinterest in ever running for president himself , so his crazed hawkish plotting seemed selfless .
And , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
In truth , given the temporarily papered-over ideological fissures in the Democratic Party and the scores of people ( both men and women ) with presidential ambitions , it seems probable that Biden ’ s VP would , at best , have a bumpy road to the 2024 nomination .
What ’ s missing in this flurry of speculation is a sustained look at the vice presidential contenders from Biden ’ s perspective as a former VP .
He is undoubtedly considering these candidates with a single overriding question in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White House ?
Even in normal times , a twenty-first century president can ’ t do it all .
But with the pandemic , the economic collapse , America ’ s tattered international reputation , and the law-and-order thuggery Trump has unleashed from the White House , Biden would need a partner in governing .
In a sense , his choice of a running mate depends on what areas of authority he wants to delegate to his VP .
Let ’ s begin with those contenders who boast the credential that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legislative background in Congress .
: No one on the lists of potential VPs arouses more passionate emotions , both pro and con .
Harris brings years of experience with justice issues , dating back to her days as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general .
Less well known , but potentially important to Biden , is the fact that Harris has familiarity with top-secret classified information as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee .
But since Harris began running for president almost as soon as she arrived in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unlikely engineer of Biden ’ s legislative strategy on Capitol Hill .
: Were Warren the vice president , her obvious role would be to play a lead role in designing and advocating for Biden ’ s economic recovery plans .
After almost eight years in the Senate , she is probably a more adept legislative tactician than Harris , and she has national security experience from her service on the Armed Services Committee .
As a vice presidential candidate , she would also be able to speak eloquently about the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother died from the virus .
: Having grown up in Asia ( she lived in Phnom Penh when the Khmer Rouge arrived ) , Duckworth has a wider international perspective than the typical senator .
A war hero who lost both her legs as an Army helicopter pilot in Iraq , she is also particularly well versed in military policy .
But given Biden ’ s extensive foreign policy experience , it is unclear how much help he would need in dealing with the Pentagon .
: Probably no one on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve as Biden ’ s emissary to Congress .
Not only does Bass , who was first elected to the House in 2010 , chair the Congressional Black Caucus , but she was also the speaker of the California State Assembly .
She would appeal to Biden as the ultimate team player .
As her House colleague Emanuel Cleaver told The Wall Street Journal , “ She does not have the MacBethian ambition that damages or destroys many aspiring politicians.
” One potential downside , however , is her history of naiveté about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might inhibit Biden ’ s ability to give her a major foreign policy role .

Most pundits also seem to assume that Biden is, in effect, choosing his successor, tapping not only a vice president but the probable Democratic presidential nominee in 2024. But the model of an ambitious politician using the vice presidency as a stepping stone to the White House is fast fading—the modern vice presidency has changed. Part of Dick Cheney’s vast war-making powers in George W. Bush’s first term flowed from his disinterest in ever running for president himself, so his crazed hawkish plotting seemed selfless. And, of course, Biden himself chose not to run in 2016. In truth, given the temporarily papered-over ideological fissures in the Democratic Party and the scores of people (both men and women) with presidential ambitions, it seems probable that Biden’s VP would, at best, have a bumpy road to the 2024 nomination.
What’s missing in this flurry of speculation is a sustained look at the vice presidential contenders from Biden’s perspective as a former VP. He is undoubtedly considering these candidates with a single overriding question in mind: Who can help me govern from the White House?
Even in normal times, a twenty-first century president can’t do it all. But with the pandemic, the economic collapse, America’s tattered international reputation, and the law-and-order thuggery Trump has unleashed from the White House, Biden would need a partner in governing. In a sense, his choice of a running mate depends on what areas of authority he wants to delegate to his VP.


newrepublic--2020-08-03--The Cyclical Psychology of White Supremacy

Through documentary evidence , interviews with living descendants of the massacre ’ s survivors , and almost novelistic meditation on the meaning of it all , Ball characterizes P.C .
as a petty and disappointed man , outshone by his more successful brothers and embittered by the financial loss abolition had brought him .
Ball writes predominantly in the present tense , making us feel the structural ( and genetic ) links between himself—the white writer—and Lecorgne , the white supremacist : “ Constant is an agent of racist terror , and he is one of us.
” A comparable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , Sisters in Hate : American Women on the Front Lines of White Nationalism , which is otherwise written from the other end of the historical kaleidoscope .
Hers is a portrait of the fringe white supremacist personalities recategorized as culturally mainstream by that hater of the traditional media , President Donald Trump , and his publicity machine .
She trains her eye specifically on the heat map of feminine influence .
In profiling three female white supremacist media figures named Corinna , Ayla , and Lana , Darby ’ s book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s , demonstrates how precisely the mindset of men like P.C .
Lecorgne has survived into the present day and how women in the movement , by seeming relatively harmless , have generally escaped the judgment of history .
Darby ’ s three subjects are also disappointed people .
Corinna , for example , spent years struggling to make a living before eventually converting to Islam and becoming a successful professional embalmer .
She ’ d always had trouble relating to people , but in the depths of her troubles in 2008—rejected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her younger brother—Corinna turned to white supremacy online to find people who would praise her , find her important .
She posted her first message on the hate site Stormfront in spring of that year : Hello , I am new , so please forgive my ignorance .
A lot of the stuff I have read here says that WN [ white nationalism ] is not the same as supremacy and some members are adamant that they are not white supremacists .
But .
.
.
maybe I am one ?
I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , honest , decent , dignified , and intelligent than nonwhites ...
It goes on , but you get the picture .
Under a thin layer of reasonableness—she ’ s polite , hedging with “ but ” and “ maybe ” —Corinna couches her hatred of nonwhite people in an argument for whites ’ superior qualities .
Like an avalanche , the positive feedback from the majority-male online community deluged Corinna , and her fate for the next few years was sealed .
Lana Lokteff , host of the white supremacist podcast Radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s subjects .
In her virulently hateful broadcasts , you can hear her racism inflected by her gender and position in the media landscape .
“ To me , ” she once said on air , “ race is metaphysical ; the formation of different biological expressions is miraculous .
Racial differences are the manifestations of the spiritual expressed in physical form .
Racial awareness is spiritual to me—it ’ s mysticism when you combine the knowledge of one ’ s family lineage as well as a spiritual effort to delve into your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In these sentences , Lokteff blends the nineteenth-century myth of race as biologically essential—connected to a romantic and nationalist notion of natural purity—with the turn to wellness and spirituality in women ’ s online media .
The “ mysticism ” of her rhetoric is not just fascistic but also aspirational , almost Instagrammable—her ideal woman is white , of course , but also in touch with her soul .
Darby ’ s key intervention is to show just how far these women go in comparison to their male peers .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the white supremacist Tim Murdock , aka “ Horus the Avenger , ” told her that she must continue to repeat “ consistent messages ” because “ women are just as effective , if not more.
” Speaking to Lana , he said , “ You can get away with saying a lot more than I can get away with.
” Why do people believe things that are not true ?
Darby cites a 2015 study showing that “ reading a statement like , ‘ A sari is the name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ increased participants ’ later belief that it was true ... even if they could correctly answer the question ‘ What is the name of the short pleated skirt worn by Scots ?
’ ”

Darby’s three subjects are also disappointed people. Corinna, for example, spent years struggling to make a living before eventually converting to Islam and becoming a successful professional embalmer. She’d always had trouble relating to people, but in the depths of her troubles in 2008—rejected by employers and traumatized by the death of her younger brother—Corinna turned to white supremacy online to find people who would praise her, find her important. She posted her first message on the hate site Stormfront in spring of that year:
Hello, I am new, so please forgive my ignorance. A lot of the stuff I have read here says that WN [white nationalism] is not the same as supremacy and some members are adamant that they are not white supremacists. But . . . maybe I am one? I believe: —white people are generally more hard-working, honest, decent, dignified, and intelligent than nonwhites...
It goes on, but you get the picture. Under a thin layer of reasonableness—she’s polite, hedging with “but” and “maybe”—Corinna couches her hatred of nonwhite people in an argument for whites’ superior qualities. Like an avalanche, the positive feedback from the majority-male online community deluged Corinna, and her fate for the next few years was sealed.
Lana Lokteff, host of the white supremacist podcast Radio 3Fourteen, is another of Darby’s subjects. In her virulently hateful broadcasts, you can hear her racism inflected by her gender and position in the media landscape. “To me,” she once said on air, “race is metaphysical; the formation of different biological expressions is miraculous. Racial differences are the manifestations of the spiritual expressed in physical form. Racial awareness is spiritual to me—it’s mysticism when you combine the knowledge of one’s family lineage as well as a spiritual effort to delve into your people’s primordial and mythical times.”


newrepublic--2020-08-03--How to Save Congress From Itself

How to Save Congress From Itself

Perhaps the most feasible reforms are those that reshape the legislative process itself—not the constitutional path by which a bill becomes a law , of course , but the internal mechanisms of each legislative chamber as they write bills and hammer out compromises .
In theory , Congress is supposed to fund the government each year through a series of bills crafted by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees .
In practice , however , lawmakers have increasingly used “ must-pass ” continuing resolutions to keep the government open , essentially turning the budgetary process into a series of ticking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes off .
In a report on congressional reform released in January , a task force of the American Political Science Association , or APSA , partly blamed power shifts within each chamber for the dysfunction .
“ Relative power has shifted from committees to parties , as party leaders have centralized authority over the spending process at the expense of Appropriations committee and subcommittee chairs and rank-and-file members , ” the report noted .
“ Legislative compromises now tend to be orchestrated by leadership and their staff , limiting the influence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The result is a coercive process where most lawmakers must either vote for a bill where they had no influence or vote to partially shut down the government .
The APSA ’ s task force avoided making recommendations where they could not reach a consensus on how to fix something , which makes the report somewhat more diagnostic than surgical .
In January , however , the conservative FreedomWorks Foundation also released a report on congressional reform that delved into some of the possible solutions .
It focuses more broadly on how legislators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers to the executive branch and concentrated most of the rest in the hands of congressional leadership.
” Some of their proposals for regulatory reform and changes to the budgetary process will be met with skepticism from the left , as will their dismissal of the federal bureaucracy in general as an “ unconstitutional fourth branch of government.
” Despite these differences , there is some room for common ground .
The FreedomWorks report ’ s authors call for the repeal of the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force , or AUMF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resolution reform that moves away from “ mere consultation ” when presidents carry out military strikes and instead imposes hard limits on a president ’ s war-making authority without Congress ’ s assent .
They also call for Congress to claw back some of its authority over trade policy , reversing delegations to the executive branch that Trump used to wage a costly trade war with China and the European Union .
Perhaps the report ’ s most ambitious proposals for reform are aimed at Congress ’ s inner workings .
Like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also expresses frustration about congressional leadership ’ s tight grip over rank-and-file members , which it maintains through control over committee assignments , party fundraising efforts , and more subtle means of influence .
The report called for the House to strictly enforce the rule that lawmakers get three days to read a bill before voting on it , reopening the amendment process for major legislation , giving minority parties an opportunity to amend the rules , and more .
( Though it unfortunately opposes filibuster reform , the FreedomWorks report also supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills as well . )
These changes , the report concludes , would help restore the House to its proper constitutional role .
“ Ultimately , the House of Representatives by its nature will always behave as more of a populist , majoritarian body , but that should not mean that the entire power of legislating rests in the hands of just a few of its 435 elected representatives , ” the report said .
“ Restoring the ability of individual members to participate in the process and actually represent their constituents with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance for Congress to regain relevance .
If instead we make all issues national and insist [ on ] monolithic party action , there is really no need for 435 local representatives.
” Some of the best congressional reforms would actually overturn previous efforts at reform .
Banning earmarks , for example , helped make Congress less effective by eliminating a means by which lawmakers could forge coalitions .
“ I would have done a lot for Obama if I got $ 30 million [ for a local road ] , ” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their report .
The APSA report also recommended bringing back earmarks , citing the potential legislative benefits and the broad anecdotal support among members .
The ban , they noted , only changed who decides which projects get funded .
“ Supporters [ of ending the ban ] note that eliminating earmarks has neither reduced overall spending nor eliminated political decision making , ” the APSA report noted .
“ Instead , the ban has only shifted power to the executive branch , since project-level decisions now get made by agency bureaucrats rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House in the 1994 midterms , Newt Gingrich and his allies enacted a wave of “ reforms ” that instead undermined Congress as an institution .
Gingrich shortened the legislative week so that lawmakers could spend more time running for reelection in their home districts , which left far less time for actual lawmaking and legislative work .
He oversaw deep cuts in member and committee staff budgets and closed Congress ’ s Office of Technology Assessment , leaving lawmakers reliant on the executive branch and think tanks for policy development and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these changes , billed as part of an effort to fix Washington , only made things worse .

Perhaps the most feasible reforms are those that reshape the legislative process itself—not the constitutional path by which a bill becomes a law, of course, but the internal mechanisms of each legislative chamber as they write bills and hammer out compromises. In theory, Congress is supposed to fund the government each year through a series of bills crafted by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In practice, however, lawmakers have increasingly used “must-pass” continuing resolutions to keep the government open, essentially turning the budgetary process into a series of ticking clock stand-offs. Sometimes, the bomb goes off.
In a report on congressional reform released in January, a task force of the American Political Science Association, or APSA, partly blamed power shifts within each chamber for the dysfunction. “Relative power has shifted from committees to parties, as party leaders have centralized authority over the spending process at the expense of Appropriations committee and subcommittee chairs and rank-and-file members,” the report noted. “Legislative compromises now tend to be orchestrated by leadership and their staff, limiting the influence of rank-and-file members in the legislative process.” The result is a coercive process where most lawmakers must either vote for a bill where they had no influence or vote to partially shut down the government.
The APSA’s task force avoided making recommendations where they could not reach a consensus on how to fix something, which makes the report somewhat more diagnostic than surgical. In January, however, the conservative FreedomWorks Foundation also released a report on congressional reform that delved into some of the possible solutions. It focuses more broadly on how legislators “ceded many of its constitutionally delegated powers to the executive branch and concentrated most of the rest in the hands of congressional leadership.” Some of their proposals for regulatory reform and changes to the budgetary process will be met with skepticism from the left, as will their dismissal of the federal bureaucracy in general as an “unconstitutional fourth branch of government.”


newrepublic--2020-08-03--Donald Trump Truly Is the Heir to the Legacy of Andrew Jackson

Early in his presidency , when he was still pretending to be a serious person , Donald Trump traveled to the birthplace of Andrew Jackson , our seventh president , to extol his virtues .
Trump praised Jackson ’ s support for tariffs and his hatred of elites .
( Ironically , Jackson , together with Thomas Jefferson , is considered one of the founders of the Democratic Party . )
But some of the things about Jackson that Trump failed to mention probably were equally , if not more , attractive to him–Jackson ’ s racism , support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal force against those who didn ’ t fit his racial or cultural concept of who is an American .
At Jackson ’ s behest , Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 .
It sought to resolve the Indian problem by authorizing the federal government to trade land west of the Mississippi for Indian land in the East .
Jackson and his backers hoped that this scheme would persuade Native Americans to relocate from areas where the encroachments of white settlers were creating tensions that could no longer be contained ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ removal ” to uninhabited areas where natives could live in peace and safety .
Jackson repeatedly emphasized that relocation was to be voluntary ; those Indians who wanted to stay in the East could , if they desired , and would be given allotments of land to which they would be given good title .
In his State of the Union message on December 8 , 1829 , Jackson said : This emigration should be voluntary , for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home in a distant land .
But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the states , they must be subject to their laws .
In return for their obedience as individuals they will without doubt be protected in the enjoyment of those possessions , which they have improved by their industry .
The promise that Indian removal would be voluntary was critical to the legislation ’ s passage .
Although the South , where most Native Americans lived , had no problem with using force to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the plight of the Indians and were uncomfortable with the removal policy .
Even with Jackson ’ s solemn promise that it would be done voluntarily , the Indian Removal Act passed the House of Representatives by just five votes ( 102 to 97 ) , with Northern congressmen voting heavily against it .
University of Toledo historian Alfred Cave believes that Jackson was fundamentally dishonest in his pledge to ensure that removal would be purely voluntary .
Jackson would use voluntary methods where possible—but he also had every intention of using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was specifically proscribed by the legislation .
He looked the other way at state harassment of Indians , threatened them with the loss of self-government , and did nothing to protect them from fraud perpetrated by corrupt officials .
Historian Mary Young has detailed many of the ways in which the Indians were defrauded of their property .
One technique was to send agents into Indian territory with goods and liquor , selling them to the Indians on credit and receiving the deed to their property as collateral .
When the borrowers could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loan , speculators got title to their property .
Speculators also used Black slaves to harass and intimidate Indians into selling their land .
( In the event that fraud was later claimed , the slaves were understandably unwilling to testify against their masters . )
Lastly , the states did everything in their power to evict Indians by failing to protect them from white intruders on their land ; they also routinely subjected the Indians to taxes , while requiring them to muster with the militia and work on public roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Indians who wanted to stay were forced off their land and emigrated west .

Alexis de Tocqueville was appalled by the perversion of law to exterminate the Indians, but he was also impressed by its ability to accomplish relatively peacefully what war had not. As he wrote in Democracy in America:
The Spaniards, by unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, did not succeed in exterminating the Indian race and could not even prevent them from sharing their rights; the United States Americans have attained both these results with wonderful ease, quietly, legally, and philanthropically, without spilling blood and without violating a single one of the great principles of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect to the laws of humanity.
Jackson turned a blind eye to the mistreatment of Indians and the theft of their land under the cover of law because he fundamentally believed that they needed to move west—and to vacate their settlements in the East among white people. The Indians were too backward and their racial and tribal ties were too strong, he thought, making them obstacles to national unity and a hindrance to economic growth. As Jackson put it in his fifth State of the Union message on December 3, 1833:
That those tribes cannot exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.
Native Americans were also troublesome to Jackson because they exacerbated growing problems with slavery. Tribal areas, which were mostly located in the midst of the slave states, were common places for runaway slaves to escape. There was also the possibility of a Black-Indian alliance that could threaten internal security. In an 1817 letter to the local army commander, the governor of Georgia warned that an Indian leader named Woodbine was stirring both Black slaves and Indians into “acts of hostility against this country.” In 1835, a group of African Americans and Indians annihilated an army unit of 100 men in Florida, spreading fear throughout the Southeast.


newrepublic--2020-08-03--Remote Work Won’t Save Us

Remote Work Won’t Save Us

Over the last three centuries , the conception of the home has varied widely .
In the seventeenth century , Patton notes , there was in the New England home “ no expectation of privacy , as rooms served multiple functions , with family members and sometimes strangers coming and going at will.
” Instead of dedicated bedrooms , they had “ multipurpose family rooms where all members of the family slept on makeshift beds.
” Abigail Adams wrote an annoyed letter to her husband John in 1775 , explaining that to accommodate a new boarder , she had moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Worse , she couldn ’ t have people over .
The house was so crowded as “ not to have a Lodging for a Friend that calls to see me.
” Before the introduction of wage labor in the Industrial Revolution , the home was a place where all members of the family contributed to some kind of cottage production and often took in boarders to make money ; this perpetually destroyed any notion of privacy .
But once wage labor became widespread in the nineteenth century , work moved outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a steel mill or a textiles factory , you can not easily bring your work home with you .
This changed notions of what the home was for and made it so that , as Walter Benjamin observed of the nineteenth century , “ the place of dwelling is for the first time opposed to the place of work.
” Especially for a new middle class composed of industrial managers , the home came to be a refuge from the public world of work .
But in the twentieth century , bits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business tools , like telephones and typewriters , slowly made their ways into the home .
Along with them came new ideas about running a business , like Frederick Winslow Taylor ’ s principles of scientific management .
In 1913 , an author named Christine Frederick wrote a book that argued homemakers could achieve more freedom if they adopted the efficient principles and organizational strategies of a modern office , assisted by files , binders , typewriters , lists , and telephones .
Running a home , while unpaid , was a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s book was , one might say , an early attempt to find work-life balance .
The booming post-war economy only retrenched the patriarchal middle-class life that emerged in the nineteenth century .
Many families could thrive on a single income earned outside the home , and a private , fenced-off suburban home began the ideal of middle-class life .
But once again , advances in communications technology would shred this arrangement .
Most prominently , the telephone gained widespread use and brought the outside world into the home ; a plumber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving the house .
And the portable typewriter allowed business people to conduct office-like activities at home .
As the United States industrial economy declined and moved overseas , upper-middle-class theorists , politicians , and business people threw all their economic hopes behind the creation of a new class .
The future would lie with highly educated professionals whose existence was divorced from the material limitations of the industrial economy .
Creative knowledge workers like marketing executives , lawyers , consultants , and journalists could perform most of their duties any time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new economic arrangement was Alvin Toffler .
In 1980 , he published a book called The Third Wave , in which he breathlessly theorized that soon the home would become an “ electronic cottage , ” a place where middle-class professionals in the suburbs could telecommute to their jobs and , as the mass media started to call it , work from home .
A strict technological determinist , Toffler didn ’ t limit his vision to the middle class .
He thought the electronic cottage would soon be ubiquitous and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place of pure information work .
The basis for his idea was a tool that integrated the telephone , the typewriter , and the filing cabinet : the personal computer .
Just like the makers of the telephone , most early computer companies like IBM focused on selling their products to businesses .
But executives at Apple , relatively late to the computer market in the 1980s , saw big business in the idea of the personal computer .
They also saw Apple as a company that would bring about Toffler ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer was part of the transition from “ an economy based on the foundations of the petrochemical industrial revolution to a new economy where information services and information products [ will ] become the building blocks that shape a very different world.
” This was a grandiose , utopian ideal , but their marketing literature suggested a more basic premise .
With the computer at home , sure , your kids could learn to write letters and play games , but you could also “ sneak in a little work on the side.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ catalyzed the insurgent neoliberal ideas about the changing nature of work .
That is to say , the hyper-connected , flexible and unstable employment , decentralized offices , and always-on schedules that are omnipresent today .
Simultaneously , real estate companies began to catch on .
House plans of this era began to include computer rooms , surely riding the wave of middle-class interest in computers .
It was a great excuse to sell even larger houses with more bedrooms than one family could possibly need .
The soon-to-be-overheated housing market was only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of computer rooms , extra guest bedrooms , home theaters , and other novelties .
Apple ’ s sales pitch picked up on Toffler ’ s techno-enthusiasm , and soon politicians embraced the idea .
In 1994 , Newt Gingrich suggested that Toffler ’ s book should be required reading for Congress .
Toffler ’ s writing made it seem like the future of completely digitally connected work was inevitable and predetermined .
But the application of the electronic cottage was limited .
In 1995 , a government survey found that home-based workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , often in the suburbs .
And at the turn of the millennium , close to 70 percent of telecommuting workers were either in technical or professional fields , a limited group of workers .
“ Technological advances in communication technology , ” Patton writes , “ did not radically decentralize the economy .
”

This was a grandiose, utopian ideal, but their marketing literature suggested a more basic premise. With the computer at home, sure, your kids could learn to write letters and play games, but you could also “sneak in a little work on the side.” Apple, as Patton notes, catalyzed the insurgent neoliberal ideas about the changing nature of work. That is to say, the hyper-connected, flexible and unstable employment, decentralized offices, and always-on schedules that are omnipresent today. Simultaneously, real estate companies began to catch on. House plans of this era began to include computer rooms, surely riding the wave of middle-class interest in computers. It was a great excuse to sell even larger houses with more bedrooms than one family could possibly need. The soon-to-be-overheated housing market was only too happy to oblige McMansions with fistfuls of computer rooms, extra guest bedrooms, home theaters, and other novelties.
Apple’s sales pitch picked up on Toffler’s techno-enthusiasm, and soon politicians embraced the idea. In 1994, Newt Gingrich suggested that Toffler’s book should be required reading for Congress. Toffler’s writing made it seem like the future of completely digitally connected work was inevitable and predetermined. But the application of the electronic cottage was limited. In 1995, a government survey found that home-based workers were likely to be high-income white males, often in the suburbs. And at the turn of the millennium, close to 70 percent of telecommuting workers were either in technical or professional fields, a limited group of workers. “Technological advances in communication technology,” Patton writes, “did not radically decentralize the economy.”
So what did it do? For one thing, it made it hard to stop working. Today, it is normal to hear of consultants crunching spreadsheets over dinner and start-up employees emailing late into the night. The technology that enabled the home office has now been made portable, so the office is not just brought home, it’s anywhere you carry your laptop and phone; all the world’s an office, and we are all merely workers, always working. It is sometimes suggested this creates a hyper-productive workforce and that we are more efficient than ever. If it has, we are not seeing the benefits. Wages have stagnated for workers across the board since 1973, and workers have also lost free time: the rise of work-from-anywhere technology has coincided with a stark increase in the number of hours that employees work. In 2018, one-third of Americans worked 45 hours a week or more, and 9.7 million worked more than 60 hours a week. In total, we work more than 7.8 percent more hours a year than in 1979. If hyperconnectivity has done anything, it has simply made it easier for bosses to heap more work on their employees, knowing that they can so easily continue their office work during unpaid hours at home. After the economic crisis of 2008 caused massive layoffs, this trend only increased.


newrepublic--2020-08-03--Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election

Last year , Project Veritas ’ s donor development team solicited big-ticket funders with a pitch deck—frequently tailored to a given patron ’ s pet ideological grievances and personal hang-ups—offering tantalizing details about the group ’ s undercover operations for the 2020 campaign cycle .
One iteration of this Apple Keynote file was prepared for an ask meeting with a person who appears to be Cognex Corporation founder Robert Shillman , a devoted funder of Islamophobic causes who was also one of O ’ Keefe ’ s would-be wedding guests .
( Shillman ended up pledging to donate $ 50,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of investigations in the “ Dr .
Bob ” pitch included schemes to procure evidence of “ illegal aliens voting , ” mail-in ballot tampering at “ nursing homes , ” and “ the sale of absentee ballots and voter profiles on the ‘ Dark Web.
’ ” By the end of summer 2019 , Diamond Dog had already grown to be a cross-country effort , based on internal Project Veritas memos , research notes , and other documents that we have obtained .
In California and Texas , Project Veritas has tasked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread mail-in ballot forgery .
In both states , Project Veritas has worked to infiltrate the groups of volunteers and paid canvassers who collect absentee and mail-in voter applications from low-income , elderly , and minority groups—a perfectly legal practice in most states that conservatives have tried to label as nefarious “ ballot harvesting.
” In Texas , Project Veritas has also coordinated in secret with a local Republican operative named Aaron Harris , codenamed “ Dragon , ” currently chief of staff to Republican congressman Lance Gooden .
In turn , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Action Texas , Harris has helped Project Veritas covertly strategize with a staffer working for the office of the state ’ s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton .
Paxton is leading the state ’ s “ election integrity initiative , ” one of many Republican efforts nationwide to suppress the vote under the guise of rooting out the nearly non-existent threat of voter fraud .
Granted , Project Veritas , whose fervor to own the libs is matched only by its comical incompetence , is hardly likely to tip the election in Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is at the vanguard of a larger , underhanded approach that Republicans , starting at the very top , are taking to the 2020 cycle .
If they want to win , they really have no other choice but to undermine the vote : Trump ’ s poll numbers are in the basement , and he appears constitutionally incapable of making appeals beyond his hardcore supporters on the right .
Republicans have all but admitted that this is their strategy .
In coordination with the Republican National Committee and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has staked the success of his entire reelection campaign to a widespread voter suppression effort built on the pretext of preserving election integrity .
The project , led by his campaign ’ s senior counsel Justin Clark , has worked to place operatives in at least ten battleground states to challenge voter rolls and procedures .
Between lawsuits and local advertising blitzes—all regularly relayed to Trump in the Oval Office—the effort could cost “ well over $ 20 million , ” as the RNC told the Washington Post .
Project Veritas has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these efforts , and has benefited substantially as a result .
According to internal Project Veritas documents , the group ’ s fundraising total for 2019 leapt up to more than $ 13.44 million , $ 4.58 million more than their 2018 returns and the group ’ s largest reported annual revenue figure to date .
The group may be comically incompetent , but in these cursed times we all know how dangerous comical incompetence can be , once enough money and clout line up behind it .
For an operation premised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paranoia , it will come as no surprise that the agents helping to spearhead Project Veritas ’ s election mischief are oddballs on the fringes of American political life .
In one slide prepared for Dr. Bob , a 69-year-old Florida resident and registered Republican named Joseph Vancheri notifies O ’ Keefe of his soon-to-be status as a poll worker in Broward County , likely for undercover Election Day snooping on Project Veritas ’ s behalf .
Vancheri , an ex-cop and die-hard Trump supporter , has routinely taken to Facebook to lash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ SHEEP , ” including “ SHIFTY SCHIFF ” and “ the Idiot Warren ” using Trump ’ s preferred epithet “ Pocohontas [ sic ] .
” A first-generation immigrant himself , Vancheri has nevertheless long harbored hardline views on immigration that echo his anxieties over the potential for illicit enfranchisement of foreigners .
In another slide , Project Veritas boasts of receiving a tip from a former broadcast meteorologist named Arch Kennedy who found it suspicious that 300 people were all registered to vote at the address for Emory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Atlanta .
( In all likelihood these voters , who constitute 2 percent of Emory ’ s total student population and .0028 percent of Georgia ’ s population , have their mail forwarded there . )
In 2017 , Arch organized one of the anti-Muslim group ACT !
For America ’ s 28 nationwide “ March Against Sharia ” rallies .
Held in Atlanta ’ s Piedmont Park , it was a sparsely attended affair , but still managed to include Republican Georgia state Senator Michael Williams , then mounting a doomed @ @ @ @ @

Only two principal targets, old Harris foes, were mentioned by name in the Project Veritas strategy document: Texas-based personal injury attorney Domingo Garcia, a former state representative and the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC; and the Harvest Project Food Rescue of Dallas, a community group that Harris seems to believe is an insidious front through which the state’s left-wing operatives entice immigrant communities, with the lure of unsold fresh produce donated by local distributors, into filling out their own mail-in ballots and thus enfranchising themselves. (“I wake up usually at 4:30 in the morning, I have to go pick up the food by six,” Harvest Project co-founder Danaë Gutiérrez-Martínez said when asked about Harris’s allegations. “I don’t get home ’til eight at night, nine at night, sometimes, to get up the next day and do it again, especially right now with everything that’s happening. You know, I must be Superwoman if I have time to do anything else.”)
A long-since-ousted co-founder of the Harvest Project, Jose Barrientos was very publicly implicated in a mail-in ballot forgery scheme in 2017. But Paxton and the local district attorney ultimately indicted someone else entirely, 27-year-old Miguel Hernandez, for the felony offense. After 180 days stewing in jail, Hernandez was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with the understanding that his sentence would be limited to time served.
Less well known than O’Keefe’s blunders on the national stage are the numerous documented instances in which his stings have been cited to justify new and more onerous voter I.D. laws.
The beef between Harris’s groups and LULAC has been considerably more fraught. In the fall of 2016, Garcia publicly offered a $25,000 reward, funded through LULAC, for any information leading to the conviction of individuals “trying to intimidate a senior in Fort Worth or anywhere in Texas.” The target of their bounty was pretty clear, teed-up as it was by a Texas state representative, Ramón Romero, who had called out Harris by name for his door-to-door inquisition of seniors in Fort Worth’s predominantly Hispanic north side. Later at that same press conference, a related community service nonprofit, the United Hispanic Council of Tarrant County, announced that it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice against Harris’s Direct Action Texas for creating “an atmosphere of fear and intimidation” in local Hispanic neighborhoods.


newrepublic--2020-08-03--The Occult, Terrorizing Politics of QAnon

This July , as police in Portland , Oregon , met protesters with grenades , pepper-ball rounds , and tear gas , the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo detailing the alleged crimes ( mostly vandalism ) of these “ anarchists.
” When unidentified federal officers showed up and began taking protesters away in unmarked vans , Oregon ’ s Democratic senator , Jeff Merkley , appeared on TV to reiterate what he had already said on Twitter : “ Trump is using these federal forces as a personal , paramilitary force.
” As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it fissured .
It shouldn ’ t have ; for three years , people had been predicting just such a domestic cataclysm .
In November 2017 , an anonymous message board user published a short post claiming that President Trump would soon order “ a state of temporary military control.
” Riots were being planned , the post warned .
“ Special ops ” would follow , and “ certain laws ” would be lifted “ to provide our great military the necessary authority to handle and conduct these operations.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the same person wrote , “ Any military seen is for your protection as well as to demonstrate our resolve .
Watch for confirmations tomorrow.
” As Paris Martineau pointed out in New York magazine , the whole month of November 2017 came and went without any such military activity .
But the quiet did not dull the fervor of the movement , now known as QAnon , that sprang up around that post and others laying out the sprawling , ever-shifting web of conspiracy theories and fantasies of impending authoritarian response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infancy , but hundreds of thousands of people were already convinced that “ Q , ” the person posting such “ crumbs , ” was a top government agent with access to high-level intelligence .
This heroic insider , according to the emerging lore , had taken it upon himself to prepare the public for the “ great awakening , ” “ the storm , ” when the president would prevail over their common enemy : the Democratic Party and all the Marxists and Satanists ( allegedly ) who keep it in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q ’ s followers claimed , belonged to a powerful , secret , child sex trafficking cabal .
This was , they knew , the “ deep state ” their president had referenced .
Only with their courageous support could he root it out .
The conspiracy theory had emerged from imageboards like 4chan , but it grew on Reddit and Twitter , and flourished on YouTube and Facebook .
Now , three years on and much closer to Trump ’ s reelection bid , QAnon has become a political movement .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of congressional candidates , mostly Republicans , who are sympathetic to Q ; some have merely used one of QAnon ’ s preferred hashtags , but most actively promoted the movement , and some clearly harbor its perverse obsessions .
According to a Washington Post analysis , these candidates won nearly 600,000 votes among them ; 11 have advanced toward the November election .
Trump himself has repeatedly nodded to Q ; on the Fourth of July alone , he amplified Q-related Twitter accounts 14 times .
By then , the dubious legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send militarized federal forces out to do his bidding around the country—just as Q had “ predicted ” he would three years earlier .
The media tends to associate QAnon with a belief in a secretive “ deep state , ” a pedophile cabal , a child sex trafficking conspiracy aided and abetted by the likes of George Soros , Hillary Clinton , and the model Chrissy Teigen—but these conspiracy theories only reveal a fraction of the movement ’ s activity .
On their online shows , Q followers concern themselves with many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media : Covid-19 , Black Lives Matter , and Trump ’ s quest for power .
Of course , they have a nakedly obvious point of view on current events .
All of these topics can be slotted into their battle against the deep state , and are augurs of the chaos to come .
Followers of QAnon slide freely from railing against protective masks to cheering on the president as he cracks down on Black activists .
This rolling interpretation of everyday events represents their field of play—not just a trove of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of arcane imageboard postings by someone ( or someones ) going by the moniker Q .

The conspiracy theory had emerged from imageboards like 4chan, but it grew on Reddit and Twitter, and flourished on YouTube and Facebook. Now, three years on and much closer to Trump’s reelection bid, QAnon has become a political movement. The watchdog group Media Matters has identified dozens of congressional candidates, mostly Republicans, who are sympathetic to Q; some have merely used one of QAnon’s preferred hashtags, but most actively promoted the movement, and some clearly harbor its perverse obsessions. According to a Washington Post analysis, these candidates won nearly 600,000 votes among them; 11 have advanced toward the November election. Trump himself has repeatedly nodded to Q; on the Fourth of July alone, he amplified Q-related Twitter accounts 14 times. By then, the dubious legal wheels were in motion for Trump to send militarized federal forces out to do his bidding around the country—just as Q had “predicted” he would three years earlier.
The media tends to associate QAnon with a belief in a secretive “deep state,” a pedophile cabal, a child sex trafficking conspiracy aided and abetted by the likes of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and the model Chrissy Teigen—but these conspiracy theories only reveal a fraction of the movement’s activity. On their online shows, Q followers concern themselves with many of the same issues as the mainstream media: Covid-19, Black Lives Matter, and Trump’s quest for power. Of course, they have a nakedly obvious point of view on current events. All of these topics can be slotted into their battle against the deep state, and are augurs of the chaos to come. Followers of QAnon slide freely from railing against protective masks to cheering on the president as he cracks down on Black activists. This rolling interpretation of everyday events represents their field of play—not just a trove of emails from the DNC server, or a series of arcane imageboard postings by someone (or someones) going by the moniker Q.


Beyond Big Meat

“ Big operations are extremely cost efficient , ” wrote Temple Grandin , a longtime proponent of humane animal handling , in a recent op-ed for Forbes .
“ The downside is the fragility of the supply chains , as Covid-19 proves .
This pandemic is going to be a wakeup call.
” As farmers across the country see “ herd-thinning ” expand into cattle feedlots , and as the losses for rural communities mount , many are asking whether the entire system needs dramatic reform .
In late June , Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large meat-packers , questioning their “ commitment to providing a safe , affordable , and abundant food supply to the nation.
” A tight network of smaller producers , they argue , could help ensure that our food economy is more equitable for farmers , safer for packinghouse workers , and , for consumers , more resilient and reliable in the face of crisis .
The current pandemic underscores that broader argument for a new system of meat production and distribution .
Droving nearly six billion animals , some two-thirds of the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States each year , onto the kill floors of barely 100 meatpacking plants owned by just six companies not only creates an impassable bottleneck ; it has also produced a potential national security threat should our food supply chain experience a sustained disruption .
The current system , however , didn ’ t evolve by accident—and it is important to recognize that it was never intended to protect the American consumer , much less the American farmer or the American worker .
To change , it will require nothing short of breaking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their fullest extent .
More than that , though , it will take a cultural change , in which we , as eaters , no longer see issues of labor , on the farm or the factory floor , as separate from questions of what is on our forks , and how it got there .
From the very dawn of the industrial meat era , going all the way back to when Upton Sinclair started serializing his novel The Jungle in 1905 , the American public has appeared unmoved by labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his book on two months in the Packingtown district of Chicago near the old Union Stock Yards , Sinclair graphically portrayed the killing floors at Armour and Swift , where supervisors moved through each room with a watch , pressing cutters to work faster while they increased the pace of the production chain .
“ The speeding-up seemed to be growing more savage all the time , ” Sinclair wrote , but his readers were less concerned by the dehumanizing treatment of workers or the inhumane handling of livestock than the possible contamination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roosevelt took up the cause of reform , Sinclair wrote , it was not “ because the public cared anything about the sufferings of these workers , but simply because the public did not want to eat tubercular beef.
” As a consequence , after the Supreme Court ruled in Swift & Co. v. United States that the federal government had antitrust jurisdiction over the interstate activities of big packers , Congress used that power to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906—measures aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices in the packinghouses .
Sinclair complained that the new laws were “ written by the packers ” and “ paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.
” Nothing would be truly reformed , least of all for workers .
Theodore Roosevelt , among other influential critics , dismissed Sinclair ’ s complaints as “ hysterical , unbalanced , and untruthful ” because they failed , as Roosevelt derisively put it , to consider “ the marvelous business efficiency ” of the big packers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whitewashing of some packing-house walls , ” Sinclair wrote in 1920 , “ but it left the wage-slaves in those huge brick packing-boxes exactly where they were before.
” By then , the Federal Trade Commission had concluded a new investigation of the big packers—a two-year inquiry ordered by President Woodrow Wilson “ to ascertain the facts bearing on the alleged violations of the anti-trust acts , and particularly upon the question whether there are manipulations , controls , trusts , combinations , or restraints out of harmony with the law or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission concluded that the big packers not only had “ a monopolistic control over the American meat industry ” but also were moving fast into eggs , cheese , fish , and vegetable oil .
And they were trying to take over not only “ nearly every kind of foodstuff ” but also control of supporting industries—stockyards , shipping and refrigeration cars , cold storage , and warehouses .
“ Elaborate steps have been taken to disguise their real relations by maintaining a show of intense competition , ” the report concluded—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all markets , the big packers were able to effectively restrain free trade by colluding against farmers and price-fixing to defraud consumers .
Rather than indicting the presidents of the five corporations named in the FTC report , however , Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer entered into a landmark consent decree , compelling the meat companies to divest from other food sectors as well as from supporting industries along the supply chain .
Congress subsequently passed the Packers and Stockyards Act , legally enshrining that agreement .
The arrangement held for 50 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , ” concluded a study of deconcentration in the meatpacking industry in 1971 , “ limited ability to use anti-competitive forms of conduct ” caused the largest companies “ to lose market shares continually to regional firms in a process that can and should be called market competition.
” Over that same period , conditions and wages improved considerably for meatpacking workers , livestock farmers and ranchers received increased prices , and the cost of food for consumers actually went down relative to hourly wages .
But at precisely the moment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unravel antitrust measures was beginning .
That transformation was rooted in a philosophy of intentional agricultural overproduction advocated by Earl L. Butz , President Richard Nixon ’ s secretary of agriculture .
Butz embraced deregulation and market concentration as a way to prop up industrial-scale agriculture , in order to artificially depress food prices worldwide—a strategy aimed at increasing American soft power on the world stage .
In short order , the federal government went from policing food trusts at home to running an international food ring , intended to undercut our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department fortified this system in the 1980s , when it loosened standards for approving mergers under the 1920 consent decree .
In 1986 , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cargill , Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado , Inc. that demonstrating a “ price-cost squeeze ” for farmers or even collusion between packers did not constitute an antitrust monopoly unless their market share were large enough “ to succeed in a sustained campaign of predatory pricing ” such that , per the established antitrust standard , competitors “ actually are driven from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The effect of these initiatives to tighten top-down market control of the U.S. food supply is hard to overstate .
In 1972 , there were nearly 3,000 packinghouses operating in the United States .
Twenty years later , that number had plummeted to fewer than 200 .
At the start of the Reagan administration , there were roughly 600,000 hog operations nationwide .
Twenty years later , there were only about 80,000 left .
And those who managed to hold on were often in desperate shape .
By 2001 , an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or below the poverty line .
Eventually , those farmers started filing antitrust suits under the Packers and Stockyards Act , and the 2008 Farm Bill required federal regulators to revisit the standards for antitrust enforcement in the food economy .
The DOJ and the USDA held joint hearings and proposed rule changes to make it easier for farmers to sue over anti-competitive practices and antitrust market advantages .
But the meat and poultry industry successfully lobbied to remove language from the rule about price-fixing , and Congress defunded implementation of the change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ever since .
Only when the Organization for Competitive Markets , a livestock farmer advocacy group , filed suit against the Trump USDA did the DOJ finally agree to investigate unfair practices and undue influences in the meat industry before the end of 2020 .

That transformation was rooted in a philosophy of intentional agricultural overproduction advocated by Earl L. Butz, President Richard Nixon’s secretary of agriculture. Butz embraced deregulation and market concentration as a way to prop up industrial-scale agriculture, in order to artificially depress food prices worldwide—a strategy aimed at increasing American soft power on the world stage. In short order, the federal government went from policing food trusts at home to running an international food ring, intended to undercut our Communist competitors. Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department fortified this system in the 1980s, when it loosened standards for approving mergers under the 1920 consent decree. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. that demonstrating a “price-cost squeeze” for farmers or even collusion between packers did not constitute an antitrust monopoly unless their market share were large enough “to succeed in a sustained campaign of predatory pricing” such that, per the established antitrust standard, competitors “actually are driven from the market and competition is thereby lessened.”
The effect of these initiatives to tighten top-down market control of the U.S. food supply is hard to overstate. In 1972, there were nearly 3,000 packinghouses operating in the United States. Twenty years later, that number had plummeted to fewer than 200. At the start of the Reagan administration, there were roughly 600,000 hog operations nationwide. Twenty years later, there were only about 80,000 left. And those who managed to hold on were often in desperate shape. By 2001, an estimated 71 percent of chicken farmers were at or below the poverty line. Eventually, those farmers started filing antitrust suits under the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the 2008 Farm Bill required federal regulators to revisit the standards for antitrust enforcement in the food economy. The DOJ and the USDA held joint hearings and proposed rule changes to make it easier for farmers to sue over anti-competitive practices and antitrust market advantages. But the meat and poultry industry successfully lobbied to remove language from the rule about price-fixing, and Congress defunded implementation of the change through an appropriations rider—and has repeatedly done so ever since. Only when the Organization for Competitive Markets, a livestock farmer advocacy group, filed suit against the Trump USDA did the DOJ finally agree to investigate unfair practices and undue influences in the meat industry before the end of 2020.
Then came the pandemic. By the middle of March, meat-packers across the country were seeing more and more of their workers calling in sick. Employees, too, were noticing fewer cars in the parking lot and gaps on the production line. But nearly 80 percent of frontline meatpacking jobs are occupied by immigrants, refugees, or people of color. Because more than half are non-native English speakers, union meetings and newsletters have been replaced with informal networks in dozens of different languages; word of changes to their work routines often travels slowly. Packing companies strongly discourage line workers from missing days for injury or illness, and line jobs are among the most dangerous in America, so even under such pressure, work absences are far from uncommon. Besides, most Midwestern and Southern states, where packing plants are concentrated, still had fewer than a handful of confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the early spring, so at first no one paid much attention to co-workers with a cough or a low-grade fever. During the week of March 16, however, Midwestern governors began instructing public schools to close. Workers with children suddenly had to find daytime childcare, and many also began hearing from their kids about social distancing.


newrepublic--2020-08-04--The Tide Is Turning Against the Filibuster

At Thursday ’ s funeral for Georgia Representative John Lewis , former President Barack Obama delivered a eulogy that ’ s made political waves and might very well shape a Biden presidency .
The best way to honor Lewis , Obama said , would be to continue the fight for the democratic rights he ’ d stood up for during the civil rights movement .
That would include passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act , which repairs the damage the Supreme Court did to the original Voting Rights Act in 2013 and revamps the federal government ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also pressed for much more , including automatic voter registration , an end to partisan gerrymandering , an Election Day holiday , and statehood for Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico .
“ And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster—another Jim Crow relic—in order to secure the God-given rights of every American , ” he concluded , “ then that ’ s what we should do.
” If the speech winds up becoming as consequential as many hope it will be—a tipping point that pushes hesitant Democrats and Biden himself to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibuster and making Biden ’ s agenda possible—it won ’ t be because Obama hadn ’ t previously spoken out against the filibuster .
He argued for eliminating its “ routine use ” in an interview with Vox ’ s Ezra Klein in 2015 , and in a 2018 interview with David Axelrod , he said that the filibuster makes it “ impossible for us to effectively govern , ” given the intransigence of Republicans .
Rather , Obama ’ s remark on the filibuster this time around was made significant by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the funeral of a civil rights hero , that the filibuster should be understood by Democratic voters and leaders alike as a vestige of our racist past .
This isn ’ t strictly true .
While it was used to great and notorious effect against civil rights legislation , the filibuster first emerged essentially as a procedural accident and began its evolution toward its current form in a dispute over arming merchant ships during World War I .
But highlighting the filibuster ’ s role in sustaining institutional racism dramatizes the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new political valence .
From here on out , Democrats who oppose eliminating the filibuster will be asked to explain their defense of a practice that the most revered figure in Democratic politics has called a “ Jim Crow relic.
” Obama ’ s eulogy might have offered some clarity , too , about when the actual moment of truth for the filibuster might finally arrive .
It ’ s been speculated that a Democratic Senate could do away with it in the course of advancing healthcare , climate , or coronavirus relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emphasis Democratic leaders have placed on voting rights over the last few years , and the likelihood that November ’ s election will be a logistical debacle all suggest instead that the final showdown might occur over a popular Democratic reform package .
This makes a great deal of strategic sense : It would presumably be harder for Democratic moderates to uphold the filibuster and functionally block a bill on gerrymandering and expanding voter registration than it would be for them to do the same on a more contentious policy bill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d still buck the party and defend the filibuster all the same , particularly if , as Obama advocated , the reforms in question include statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico .
No matter what happens , agitation from progressive activists will be critical .
And , perhaps crucially , the eulogy will make it more difficult for the press and moderates to frame them as naive radicals at odds with the party , at least on this particular issue .

As ought to have been expected, figures on the right have already begun accusing Obama of rank hypocrisy and of fomenting division. Tucker Carlson called him “greasy” and “one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures” in American political history on Thursday. More substantively, Representative Matt Gaetz pointed out in a recent Fox interview that Obama had endorsed and used the filibuster as a senator during the Bush administration. It’s possible that line of criticism—that the filibuster’s elimination will be a power grab rather than an act of principle—could find some purchase among the public beyond conservative circles once a filibuster fight gets underway. A Hill/HarrisX poll last year found that most voters, including nearly half of Democratic voters, opposed limiting the filibuster’s use. Those numbers might shift with a partisan transfer of power, but as it stands, most of the data we have suggests that voters generally aren’t terribly supportive of or invested in the most ambitious structural reforms progressives have been discussing since 2016.
Only time will tell whether most will be convinced that the filibuster is a racist relic as easily as Democrats probably will. And another extant mainstream justification for its elimination, the Republican refusal to compromise, may be actively counterproductive as it reinforces the political mentality that has made the filibuster so durable in the first place—that compromise is inherently good and a goal worth striving for. The rhetorical project for progressives to take on is dismantling bipartisanship as a political value by convincing ordinary voters not only that the current Republican Party can’t be worked with but also that our politics in general should be about implementing policies that serve the American people well, rather than consensus for consensus’ sake. For reasons that should be obvious, Obama isn’t an ideal messenger for that particular idea.


newrepublic--2020-08-04--The Rise of the Creepy Reopening Industry

When I spoke to David Michaels , an epidemiologist at George Washington University ’ s Milken Institute School of Public Health and the former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration , he agreed that some of the frenzy around extreme deep-cleaning as a solution for reopening offices was misplaced .
“ I think it ’ s reasonable to disinfect areas where people with known infections were present , ” he said .
“ But the most important emphasis should be on controlling airborne exposure .
We know from many studies at this point that exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aerosolized particles , which can travel more than six feet.
” As he noted , more effective mechanisms of reducing airborne transmission in offices are measures like indoor masking , maintaining distance , and increasing airflow ; futuristic-looking germ-blasting devices designed for surfaces , in other words , can only go so far .
“ I think it ’ s very important to provide the option for workers to work remotely , ” Michaels said .
“ Clearly , in many cases , they can work just as productively from home and certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also eliminates exposure on public transportation.
” Beyond the hollow spectacle of flashy deep cleaning , the rise of the office reopening industry also tacitly acknowledges the risk involved in summoning employees back to the office , even as it claims to mitigate it .
In at least a few cases , efficacy might even be beside the point .
One goal of a given company ’ s hygiene theater—and the services they enlist to undertake it—may simply be to reduce their legal liability around worker safety , and some parties now advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In New York , for instance , a former New York Police Department officer launched Deep Clean U.S. , a cleaning and disinfecting service that bills itself as “ the next best thing to a Covid-19 vaccine.
” The company also offers workshops for employers dedicated to “ preventing infections , reducing absenteeism , and decreasing corporate and personal liabilities.
” Corporate liability has also been on the minds of Senate Republicans , who recently introduced a bill to protect businesses from Covid-related lawsuits as part of their stimulus package proposal .
Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers attempting to take legal action against employers for unsafe workplaces to meet a higher standard of proof than usual , and it would also grant immunity from litigation to businesses that demonstrated the most minimal effort to comply with federal safety standards .
According to Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik , the measure would even grease the wheels for employers to bring suits against workers pressing for safer conditions .
“ In plain English , ” Hiltzik wrote , “ the Republicans are proposing to eviscerate almost all workplace protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers ’ health may be its highest in a century.
” That very lack of worker protections in the pandemic—more than a surfeit of evidence that offices can be made safe while the country continues to battle outbreaks—is precisely what propels the office reopening industry .
And ultimately , making workplaces as safe as possible for employees in the wake of Covid-19 will require more than just compliance with reopening guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or third-party services , no matter how stringent they might be .
“ People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sneeze shields and so on .
And those are important , but until we fix certain underlying issues , we ’ re going to continue having outbreaks , whether it ’ s this or whether it ’ s the flu , ” Seema Yasmin , the director of Stanford University ’ s Health Communication Initiative , told me .
“ I do think it comes back to the lack of a safety net : Do we have systems in place that can curtail outbreaks because people know that they have good health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid if they stay home sick from work and won ’ t be punished ?
” In the end , then , legitimately safe office reopenings can ’ t occur without a host of other worker protections across the board as well as a significant boost in employees ’ control over their own conditions .
For instance , the United Federation of Teachers union , which represents New York public school teachers , has opposed the reopening of schools in the fall unless certain criteria are met , and on Friday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s infection rate stayed below 3 percent .
The union has also asked for additional safeguards for teachers and students : “ We need randomized testing of school communities throughout the year and a vigorous contact tracing system that gives schools test results and a course of action with a 24-hour turnaround , ” UFT president Michael Mulgrew said in a statement .
On the West Coast , after pressure from workers and unions earlier this month , the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion to establish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening plans .
“ Employees must be allowed to form public health councils without retaliation by their employer , ” the board wrote .
As the American Prospect ’ s Harold Meyerson has noted , Los Angeles so far appears to be the only county to institute such a measure .
But in the meantime , there ’ s at least one tried-and-true method of confronting one ’ s employer regarding working conditions when all else fails .
Alison Green , a workplace advice columnist and the author of the book Ask a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been filled with questions from office workers worried about unsafe or unethical reopenings .
In a recent column for The Cut , one reader wrote in to ask what to do about an erratic boss whose schemes for reopening were becoming increasingly haphazard .
“ Unionize , ” answered Green .
“ Seriously .
”

Corporate liability has also been on the minds of Senate Republicans, who recently introduced a bill to protect businesses from Covid-related lawsuits as part of their stimulus package proposal. Among other provisions, the bill would require workers attempting to take legal action against employers for unsafe workplaces to meet a higher standard of proof than usual, and it would also grant immunity from litigation to businesses that demonstrated the most minimal effort to comply with federal safety standards. According to Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik, the measure would even grease the wheels for employers to bring suits against workers pressing for safer conditions. “In plain English,” Hiltzik wrote, “the Republicans are proposing to eviscerate almost all workplace protections at the moment when the threat to workers’ health may be its highest in a century.”
That very lack of worker protections in the pandemic—more than a surfeit of evidence that offices can be made safe while the country continues to battle outbreaks—is precisely what propels the office reopening industry. And ultimately, making workplaces as safe as possible for employees in the wake of Covid-19 will require more than just compliance with reopening guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or third-party services, no matter how stringent they might be. “People want to talk about masks and disinfectants and sneeze shields and so on. And those are important, but until we fix certain underlying issues, we’re going to continue having outbreaks, whether it’s this or whether it’s the flu,” Seema Yasmin, the director of Stanford University’s Health Communication Initiative, told me. “I do think it comes back to the lack of a safety net: Do we have systems in place that can curtail outbreaks because people know that they have good health insurance, that they can still get paid if they stay home sick from work and won’t be punished?”
“Do we have systems in place that can curtail outbreaks because people know that they have good health insurance, that they can still get paid if they stay home sick?”
In the end, then, legitimately safe office reopenings can’t occur without a host of other worker protections across the board as well as a significant boost in employees’ control over their own conditions. For instance, the United Federation of Teachers union, which represents New York public school teachers, has opposed the reopening of schools in the fall unless certain criteria are met, and on Friday, the mayor promised to reopen schools only if the city’s infection rate stayed below 3 percent. The union has also asked for additional safeguards for teachers and students: “We need randomized testing of school communities throughout the year and a vigorous contact tracing system that gives schools test results and a course of action with a 24-hour turnaround,” UFT president Michael Mulgrew said in a statement. On the West Coast, after pressure from workers and unions earlier this month, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion to establish worker-led “health councils” to monitor reopening plans. “Employees must be allowed to form public health councils without retaliation by their employer,” the board wrote.


newrepublic--2020-08-04--Hugh Hewitt Has Always Been a Hack

Hugh Hewitt Has Always Been a Hack

Hewitt makes a big fuss about being an egghead .
He is fond of turning his radio show into a combination of an impromptu pub quiz and history lecture , quizzing his guests about subjects like the War on Terror and Alger Hiss , a particular obsession .
( Hewitt claims that a thorough knowledge of the Hiss case is required to bloviate , as he does , about politics . )
His website contains a page pointing his readers to the books that make up the “ necessary bookshelf , ” which includes tomes by Lawrence Wright , Dexter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of works about the dangers of Islam , and several thrillers .
His pamphlet-length Trump primer , The Fourth Way , contained three epigraphs and four appendixes , including the preamble to the Constitution and the Homestead Act of 1862 .
“ It is hard work to read widely and broadly , and on both sides of the political aisle .
Time consuming .
Not very fun actually .
But necessary .
If you intend to be taken seriously .
More importantly , if you intend the country to endure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining why it was important to “ embarrass journalists ” who didn ’ t read as widely as he did .
As conservative media turned more rabid and dogmatic , Hewitt continued to engage with mainstream media , which ate up his Henry Higgins act .
Here was a Republican you could really talk to , who didn ’ t always seem to be playing to the party ’ s flag-waving , immigrant-hating base .
Conservative media might be filled with demagogues and dimwits , but here was an intellectual .
He even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could be a jerk ( again , he loves to surprise guests with quizzes to show he ’ s smarter ) but was generally good-humored .
This was mistaken for being genuine , and it helped in his rise .
As conservative media went off the rails , Hewitt was embraced as a kind of third way .
Some saw through the act : Writing in The New Yorker in 2005 , Nicholas Lehmann observed that Hewitt was reflexively , unthinkingly conservative , refusing to even entertain liberal arguments .
But Hewitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on MSNBC , where he briefly hosted his own half-hour show and Meet The Press .
Hewitt might have a twinkle in his eye and a taste for fine wine , but he was never anything other than a bog-standard Republican .
He has bona fides , having worked for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan , but only consistently believes in conservative judges , deregulation , and increasing military spending .
The rest of it doesn ’ t really matter : He ’ s a team player and will root for whatever it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the case during every GOP administration for the last 40 years .
During the Obama administration , he turned Benghazi and the IRS scandal into issues of Watergate-like importance .
Many have seen Hewitt ’ s dismissal of far more serious Trump scandals as proof of hypocrisy .
Others have wondered why Hewitt was giving Trump a pass for being a moron of world-historical proportions .
But the same could be said of Hewitt ’ s treatment of George W. Bush .
It is , to some extent , understandable that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Trump is so incompetent and deranged that Hewitt ’ s schtick of normalizing pathological Republican behavior has finally come into focus .
Still , the media is just as desperate today for a Republican who can pass as reasonable and can say the most outlandish partisan claptrap on cable without raving or barking .
In six months , in all likelihood he ’ ll be on Meet the Press talking with Chuck Todd about the constitutional crises gripping the Biden administration .

Hewitt makes a big fuss about being an egghead. He is fond of turning his radio show into a combination of an impromptu pub quiz and history lecture, quizzing his guests about subjects like the War on Terror and Alger Hiss, a particular obsession. (Hewitt claims that a thorough knowledge of the Hiss case is required to bloviate, as he does, about politics.) His website contains a page pointing his readers to the books that make up the “necessary bookshelf,” which includes tomes by Lawrence Wright, Dexter Filkins, and James M. McPherson, a number of works about the dangers of Islam, and several thrillers. His pamphlet-length Trump primer, The Fourth Way, contained three epigraphs and four appendixes, including the preamble to the Constitution and the Homestead Act of 1862.
“It is hard work to read widely and broadly, and on both sides of the political aisle. Time consuming. Not very fun actually. But necessary. If you intend to be taken seriously. More importantly, if you intend the country to endure,” he wrote in a blog post explaining why it was important to “embarrass journalists” who didn’t read as widely as he did. As conservative media turned more rabid and dogmatic, Hewitt continued to engage with mainstream media, which ate up his Henry Higgins act. Here was a Republican you could really talk to, who didn’t always seem to be playing to the party’s flag-waving, immigrant-hating base. Conservative media might be filled with demagogues and dimwits, but here was an intellectual. He even wore glasses.
As an interviewer, he could be a jerk (again, he loves to surprise guests with quizzes to show he’s smarter) but was generally good-humored. This was mistaken for being genuine, and it helped in his rise. As conservative media went off the rails, Hewitt was embraced as a kind of third way. Some saw through the act: Writing in The New Yorker in 2005, Nicholas Lehmann observed that Hewitt was reflexively, unthinkingly conservative, refusing to even entertain liberal arguments. But Hewitt continued to flourish, becoming a regular on MSNBC, where he briefly hosted his own half-hour show, and Meet The Press.