thenation--2020-09-29--Trump Threatens America: Re-Elect Me, or Else

I could start this column with the 800-pound gorilla in the room , the mother of all Signals : the bombshell New York Times investigation pretty much nailing Trump as a tax fraud , a grifter , and a man who has turned the US government into a vehicle for personal enrichment .
But to do that one justice , you really need to read the full story for yourself .
( And try to filter out the Noise , the non-denial denials in which Trump and his allies don ’ t contradict the numbers in the Times ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refute the charges—but simply say the Times is purveying “ fake news.
” ) 1 Instead , let ’ s talk about Trump ’ s strategy to suppress the vote , as polls show that he is likely to handily lose an election already in process.2 What Trump is saying with his refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power is , “ Either you re-elect me , or you acquiesce in my holding on to power by other means , or I will trigger civil conflict.
” And what he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on polling stations to make sure things are going OK is that he wants his foot-soldiers to intimidate people into not voting .
And what he is really saying when he says that no matter what the voters decide , he hopes to compel a “ continuation ” of his presidency is that there ’ s no point in going out to vote , because he ’ s going to attempt to treat Americans like serfs rather than citizens.3 He has already said he wants a new Supreme Court justice in place soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will back him when—not if—he challenges election results and vote counts ; and he has said that he wants , and ought to have , a 9-0 court ruling in his favor for such an election dispute.4 Fascism Is the Core of Trump ’ s Message Let ’ s parse this : A president of the United States is saying repeatedly that the election will be rigged against him ; that any result other than one proclaiming his victory is fraudulent by definition ; that he knows in advance that too many votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the ballots aren ’ t counted he ’ d be the winner ; that he will order his team to make many legal filings disputing the results ; and that the Court ought to give its legal imprimatur to whatever legal arguments his team comes up with .
That ’ s the stuff of banana republics.5 We now know , from Barton Gellman ’ s reporting in the Atlantic , that Trump ’ s strategy involves a concerted effort to get courts around the country to not count ballots that arrive after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postmarked before election day and even if the reason they don ’ t arrive is postal service slowdowns .
That strategy , according to Gellman , involves a deliberate effort to run down the clock so votes can ’ t be counted in time for states to certify them .
And that if states do certify results that aren ’ t in Trump ’ s favor , Trump ’ s team will argue that the vote counts were flawed and will call on state legislators to hand-pick electors to the Electoral College who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s own words that he will push his case all the way up to his hand-picked Supreme Court majority.6 The strategy at this point is escalation-at-all-costs.7 Witness what happened in Pennsylvania last week , when a poorly trained contract worker hired by the elections board in Luzerne County didn ’ t realize presidential voting had already begun ( it had , but for military personnel serving overseas rather than for the general public ) , opened nine ballots , apparently assumed they were votes from the now-long-finished primary , and tossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal act and , quite rightly , was referred to the local DA , Republican Stefanie Salavantis , who also , quite rightly , referred it to the regional US Attorney ’ s office.8 From there , however , things took on a life of their own .
Despite the fact that there was no indication that it was a coordinated attack on the integrity of the election ( Keith Gould , a Republican who sits on the Luzerne County elections board , told me he was convinced that “ it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s third day .
I think it ’ s ineptitude ” ) and that the elections board issued a statement to this effect within hours of the problem having been identified , Team Trump began wailing that this was part of a massive , coordinated , national conspiracy to deprive him of re-election.9 On morning news shows—even before the Justice Department published an unprecedentedly political press release on the case , explicitly identifying which candidate the tossed votes had been cast for—Trump and his press team were already hyping the incident , using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment to redouble their attacks on the political process and urging further constrictions of access to the vote .
Trump only had this inside information because Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department had personally briefed the president on an ongoing investigation in a way that allowed Trump to fuel a conspiracy narrative.10 We also know that after the GOP-controlled Florida legislature shredded that state ’ s recent re-enfranchisement—approved by a huge majority of voters in a 2018 referendum—of ex-felons , and after Trump-nominated judges upheld this at the appellate level , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP politicians , is asking the FBI to “ investigate ” Michael Bloomberg ’ s efforts to pay the fines and other court fees of ex-felons to help them become eligible to vote .
We know that North Carolina GOP officials just resigned as a way to scupper a brokered agreement , which they themselves had agreed to just days earlier before receiving pushback from GOP higher-ups , that would have allowed for the counting of ballots that arrive late .
We know that in Pennsylvania , election officials are warning that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invalidate “ naked ballot ” could result in thousands of mail-in ballots being trashed .
We know that in Nevada and elsewhere , GOP attorneys are suing to block expanded mail-in voting options.11 In other words , the GOP , using multiple levers of power simultaneously , is accelerating efforts to limit the franchise and tailor it so that manufactured pro-Trump “ majorities ” are created out of minority support-pools .
In fact , Trump and his supporters see the very idea of an election as nothing more than a raw power game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the person currently in power , so be it—but if it doesn ’ t , the plan is to use any means necessary to keep in power an administration that has lost all pretense at popular legitimacy.12 Is Dutch Bad Boy Thierry Baudet the New Face of the European Alt-Right ?
The GOP is situating itself increasingly as an authoritarian , anti-democratic party—how apropos , given that Trump ’ s hand-picked ambassador to the Netherlands hosted a fundraiser for a right-wing extremist party in the US Embassy in Holland earlier this month.13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators who claim they are upholders of democracy and decency , and who pride themselves on their constitutionalist mindset—to Mitt Romney , for example , who says Trump ’ s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses is an abomination , but who also says he supports moving ahead with a Supreme Court confirmation that can ’ t be voted on until a few days before the election ; or to Ben Sasse , who claims to scrupulously adhere to constitutional values , which presumably makes the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax-avoidance proclivities all the more inconvenient : If you genuinely believe in American constitutional norms and the spirit of democracy , why not demonstrate your trust in the people ?
14 If the American people do indeed believe in the same values you do , and support the same sorts of judicial nominees you do , you will see this soon enough ; and then , after November 3 , you can move forward with the confirmation process .
But if it turns out the public isn ’ t in the same head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the stampede to seat a justice nominated by a president who has never been supported by a majority of the population , and who now appears to be up to his neck in unethical and possibly criminal tax avoidance—then surely you owe it to them to respect that difference and hold off on the rush to confirmation.15 Look in the mirror and ask yourself where your values , and your commitment to country , are at this perilous moment .
For if your expression of fealty to constitutional norms is more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you must slow down this process and not place someone on the Supreme Court during an ongoing election in which a desperate president , facing potential criminal liability , attempts to get the courts to keep him in office and protect him from indictment.16 This really isn ’ t a hard argument to follow .
Shredding democracy for short-term judicial leverage and putting all your trust in a con man is a losing bet ; ultimately , that Faustian bargain corrodes respect for the judiciary and for democracy more broadly .
And @ @ @

I could start this column with the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the mother of all Signals: the bombshell New York Times investigation pretty much nailing Trump as a tax fraud, a grifter, and a man who has turned the US government into a vehicle for personal enrichment. But to do that one justice, you really need to read the full story for yourself. (And try to filter out the Noise, the non-denial denials in which Trump and his allies don’t contradict the numbers in the Times’ story—nor produce a single Trump tax document to refute the charges—but simply say the paper is purveying “fake news.”)
Instead, let’s talk about Trump’s strategy to suppress the vote, as polls show that he is likely to handily lose an election already in process.
What Trump is saying with his refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power is, “Either you reelect me or acquiesce in my holding on to power by other means—or I will trigger civil conflict.” And what he is saying when he tells supporters to check on polling stations to make sure things are going OK is that he wants his foot soldiers to intimidate people into not voting. And what he is really saying when he says that no matter what the voters decide, he hopes to compel a “continuation” of his presidency is that there’s no point in going out to vote, because he’s going to attempt to treat Americans like serfs rather than citizens.
He has already said he wants a new Supreme Court justice in place soon, as a guarantee that the court will back him when—not if—he challenges election results and vote counts; and he has said that he wants, and ought to have, a 9-0 court ruling in his favor for such an election dispute. More Signal:Noise Fascism Is the Core of Trump’s Message Sasha Abramsky In Trump’s America, It’s Cruelty as Policy Sasha Abramsky
Let’s parse this: A president of the United States is saying repeatedly that the election will be rigged against him; that any result other than one proclaiming his victory is fraudulent by definition; that he knows in advance that too many votes are being cast against him and that if those ballots aren’t counted he’d be the winner; that he will order his team to make many legal filings disputing the results; and that the court ought to give its legal imprimatur to whatever legal arguments his team comes up with. That’s the stuff of banana republics.
We now know, from Barton Gellman’s reporting in The Atlantic, that Trump’s strategy involves a concerted effort to get courts around the country to not count ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked before Election Day and even if the reason they don’t arrive is Postal Service slowdowns. That strategy, according to Gellman, involves a deliberate effort to run down the clock so votes can’t be counted in time for states to certify them. And that if states do certify results that aren’t in Trump’s favor, Trump’s team will argue that the vote counts were flawed and will call on state legislators to handpick electors to the Electoral College who favor Trump. And we know from Trump’s own words that he will push his case all the way up to his handpicked Supreme Court majority. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
The strategy at this point is escalation-at-all-costs. Current Issue View our current issue
Witness what happened in Pennsylvania last week, when a poorly trained contract worker hired by the elections board in Luzerne County didn’t realize presidential voting had already begun (it had, but only for military personnel serving overseas rather than for the general public), opened nine ballots, apparently assumed they were votes from the now-long-finished primary, and tossed them. It was a stupid, illegal act and, quite rightly, was referred to the local DA, Republican Stefanie Salavantis, who also, quite rightly, referred it to the regional US Attorney’s office.
From there, however, things took on a life of their own. Despite the fact that there was no indication that it was a coordinated attack on the integrity of the election (Keith Gould, a Republican who sits on the Luzerne County elections board, told me he was convinced that “it was a mistake. It was the employee’s third day. I think it’s ineptitude”) and that the elections board issued a statement to this effect within hours of the problem’s having been identified, Team Trump began wailing that this was part of a massive, coordinated, national conspiracy to deprive him of reelection.
On morning news shows—even before the Justice Department published an unprecedentedly political press release on the case, explicitly identifying which candidate the tossed votes had been cast for—Trump and his press team were already hyping the incident, using it as a sort of Reichstag fire moment to redouble their attacks on the political process and urging further constrictions of access to the vote. Trump only had this inside information because Bill Barr’s Justice Department had personally briefed the president on an ongoing investigation in a way that allowed Trump to fuel a conspiracy narrative.
We also know that after the GOP-controlled Florida legislature shredded that state’s recent reenfranchisement—approved by a huge majority of voters in a 2018 referendum—of ex-felons, and after Trump-nominated judges upheld this at the appellate level, the state’s attorney general, encouraged by GOP politicians, is asking the FBI to “investigate” Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to pay the fines and other court fees of ex-felons to help them become eligible to vote. We know that North Carolina GOP officials just resigned as a way to scupper a brokered agreement, which they themselves had agreed to just days earlier before receiving pushback from GOP higher-ups, that would have allowed for the counting of ballots that arrive late. We know that in Pennsylvania, election officials are warning that the state Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate “naked ballots” could result in thousands of mail-in ballots being trashed. We know that in Nevada and elsewhere, GOP attorneys are suing to block expanded mail-in voting options.
In other words, the GOP, using multiple levers of power simultaneously, is accelerating efforts to limit the franchise and tailor it so that manufactured pro-Trump “majorities” are created out of minority support-pools. In fact, Trump and his supporters see the very idea of an election as nothing more than a raw power game. If that game results in support for the person currently in power, so be it—but if it doesn’t, the plan is to use any means necessary to keep in power an administration that has lost all pretense at popular legitimacy. Related Article Is Dutch Bad Boy Thierry Baudet the New Face of the European Alt-Right? Sebastiaan Faber
The GOP is situating itself increasingly as an authoritarian, antidemocratic party—how apropos, given that Trump’s handpicked ambassador to the Netherlands hosted a fundraiser for a right-wing extremist party in the US Embassy in Holland earlier this month.
So here’s a question for Republican senators who claim they are upholders of democracy and decency, and who pride themselves on their constitutionalist mindset—to Mitt Romney, for example, who says Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses is an abomination, but who also says he supports moving ahead with a Supreme Court confirmation that can’t be voted on until a few days before the election; or to Ben Sasse, who claims to scrupulously adhere to constitutional values, which presumably makes the New York Times revelations about Trump’s tax-avoidance proclivities all the more inconvenient: If you genuinely believe in American constitutional norms and the spirit of democracy, why not demonstrate your trust in the people?
If the American people do indeed believe in the same values you do, and support the same sorts of judicial nominees you do, you will see this soon enough; and then, after November 3, you can move forward with the confirmation process. But if it turns out the public isn’t in the same head space as you are—if voters are discomfited by the stampede to seat a justice nominated by a president who has never been supported by a majority of the population, and who now appears to be up to his neck in unethical and possibly criminal tax avoidance—then surely you owe it to them to respect that difference and hold off on the rush to confirmation.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself where your values, and your commitment to country, are at this perilous moment. For if your expression of fealty to constitutional norms is more than simply a cloak for a raw power grab, you must slow down this process and not place someone on the Supreme Court during an ongoing election in which a desperate president, facing potential criminal liability, attempts to get the courts to keep him in office and protect him from indictment.
This really isn’t a hard argument to follow. Shredding democracy for short-term judicial leverage and putting all your trust in a con man is a losing bet; ultimately, that Faustian bargain corrodes respect for the judiciary and for democracy more broadly. And then everyone loses.


thenation--2020-09-29--Joe Biden Should Propose a $750 Tax Credit Tonight—Then Drop the Mic

Presidential debates are rarely won or lost on points .
The candidates who prevail are usually the ones who deliver the right line at the right moment and , in so doing , frame the discourse not just on the debate stage but for the rest of the campaign .
Joe Biden needs to remember that when he faces Donald Trump tonight in the first presidential debate of the fall campaign .
Trump ’ s in trouble—down in the polls and recently exposed as even more of a fraud than his critics imagined—and he will hit the debate stage with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he will distract .
But Biden can be smart about this and harness Trump ’ s energy , turning the president ’ s offensive against him .
Ronald Reagan was a master of this .
The 40th president understood the political potency of a barb delivered with a smile at precisely the point when the audience is paying attention .
In the second presidential debate of 1980 , Reagan tripped up President Jimmy Carter ’ s line of attack on Medicare issues with the sly line , “ There you go again.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1984 when , in answer to a question about whether at 73 he might be a bit old for a second term , the wily Republican replied , “ I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign .
I am not going to exploit , for political purposes , my opponent ’ s youth and inexperience.
” That got a laugh from former vice president Walter Mondale , the man Reagan would defeat a few weeks later in a 49-state landslide .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Constitutional Legitimacy Bernie Sanders Has Given Us a Tool Kit for Defending Against Trump ’ s Threat to Democracy Ilhan Omar Pushes Back Against the Desperate Racist Politics of Trump ’ s ‘ Cult-Like ’ Rallies Rivals called Reagan “ glib.
” Perhaps .
Yet , as a candidate who was often underestimated , he secured the 1980 Republican presidential nomination and swept to two general election victories at least in part on the strength of strikingly effective performances in key debates .
That ’ s a lesson that Biden—who like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent president—can take from the historical presidential debates as he steps onto the stage tonight at Case Western University .
The Democratic nominee for president need only read the headlines and listen to what people are talking about ( and to what comedians are joking about ) in order to frame his remarks in such a way that will rise above Trump ’ s chaos strategy and deliver a message everyone will “ get.
” Biden knows full well that Democrats , Republicans , and the handful of remaining “ swing ” voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on Trump ’ s decades of business failures , financial manipulations , and , above all , tax avoidance .
As CNN Brian Stelter wisely observed , “ The New York Times ’ coverage of Trump ’ s taxes is an emperor-has-no-clothes moment.
” “ This is the kind of information that we are going to be hearing about for days and weeks to come—and including on the debate stage in front of 60 , 70 , 80 million people on Tuesday night , ” says Stelter .
“ No doubt Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times story and thinking about how to bring it up in the debate.
” That ’ s more of a challenge than it might seem .
Biden ’ s an experienced politician , and he ’ s more than held his own in debates with Republicans as distinct as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former speaker of the House and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan .
But during the 2020 Democratic nomination race , he was often knocked off message by fellow debaters , including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump knows this , and he ’ ll be aiming for every vulnerability , just as he did with his Republican rivals and Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
In this debate , however , Biden has everything he needs to upend Trump .
The tax story already has the president screaming “ fake news ” and overcompensating .
That gives Biden an opening that the Democrat can seize .
He doesn ’ t have to be sanctimonious ; he doesn ’ t have to over-talk things ; and he certainly doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , ranging from Covid-19 to the Supreme Court to racial justice to the climate crisis .
All Biden has to do , at the proper moment , is highlight the stark injustice of a president whose recent tax payments have been lower than those paid by individual workers making $ 18,000 a year .
In other words , Biden ’ s got a chance for a mic drop moment .
The best way to achieve it is by focusing on something every working American will understand : the absurdity of a self-proclaimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income taxes in 2016 and 2017 .
That would be troublesome at any time .
But it ’ s infuriating when Trump and his Republican allies have stalled a desperately needed stimulus package to help working people survive the mass unemployment and underemployment that have resulted from Trump ’ s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic .
Biden ’ s campaign has already been making this point , with a video released early Monday that juxtaposes the Times report with examples of what essential workers actually chip in to fund the government .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 7,239…Firefighter $ 5,283…Registered Nurse $ 10,216 , ” goes the message .
“ federal income tax paid : Donald Trump $ 750.
” The campaign has also produced buttons and stickers that read , “ I paid more income taxes than Donald Trump.
” If a tax policy debate breaks out tonight , Biden can borrow a few lines from Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding our rigged system .
He can echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s concerns about the national security risks that arise with a debt-burdened president .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s long-standing commitments to cap itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans and to restore the top-bracket 39.6 percent personal income tax—which was lowered to 37 percent in 2017 by Trump and his Republican allies .
He can even highlight the Democratic platform ’ s pledge to With more than enough ammunition to deploy , Biden can afford to let Trump make his desperate excuses and his even more desperate attacks .
There will come a moment , the right moment , when the Democratic nominee can say , “ Speaking of tax credits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we provide an immediate tax credit of $ 750 to every American who pays more than that amount in taxes.
” Then he can drop the mic .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Presidential debates are rarely won or lost on points. The candidates who prevail are usually the ones who deliver the right line at the right moment and, in so doing, frame the discourse not just on the debate stage but for the rest of the campaign.
Joe Biden needs to remember that when he faces Donald Trump tonight in the first presidential debate of the fall campaign.
Trump’s in trouble—down in the polls and recently exposed as even more of a fraud than his critics imagined—and he will hit the debate stage with a vengeance, where he will attack and he will distract. But Biden can be smart about this and harness Trump’s energy, turning the president’s offensive against him.
Ronald Reagan was a master of this. The 40th president understood the political potency of a barb delivered with a smile at precisely the point when the audience is paying attention. In the second presidential debate of 1980, Reagan tripped up President Jimmy Carter’s line of attack on Medicare issues with the sly line, “There you go again.” But Reagan was even more memorable in 1984 when, in answer to a question about whether at 73 he might be a bit old for a second term, the wily Republican replied, “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” That got a laugh from former vice president Walter Mondale, the man Reagan would defeat a few weeks later in a 49-state landslide. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Rivals called Reagan “glib.” Perhaps. Yet, as a candidate who was often underestimated, he secured the 1980 Republican presidential nomination and swept to two general election victories at least in part on the strength of strikingly effective performances in key debates.
That’s a lesson that Biden—who like Reagan in 1980 is challenging a vulnerable incumbent president—can take from the historical presidential debates as he steps onto the stage tonight at Case Western University.
The Democratic nominee for president need only read the headlines and listen to what people are talking about (and to what comedians are joking about) in order to frame his remarks in such a way that will rise above Trump’s chaos strategy and deliver a message everyone will “get.” Biden knows full well that Democrats, Republicans, and the handful of remaining “swing” voters are absorbing the blockbuster New York Times report on Trump’s decades of business failures, financial manipulations, and, above all, tax avoidance. As CNN Brian Stelter wisely observed, “The New York Times’ coverage of Trump’s taxes is an emperor-has-no-clothes moment.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
“This is the kind of information that we are going to be hearing about for days and weeks to come—and including on the debate stage in front of 60, 70, 80 million people on Tuesday night,” says Stelter. “No doubt Joe Biden will be studying this New York Times story and thinking about how to bring it up in the debate.”
That’s more of a challenge than it might seem. Biden’s an experienced politician, and he’s more than held his own in debates with Republicans as distinct as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former speaker of the House and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. But during the 2020 Democratic nomination race, he was often knocked off message by fellow debaters, including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and California Senator Kamala Harris—his eventual running mate. Trump knows this, and he’ll be aiming for every vulnerability, just as he did with his Republican rivals and Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
In this debate, however, Biden has everything he needs to upend Trump. The tax story already has the president screaming “fake news” and overcompensating. That gives Biden an opening that the Democrat can seize. He doesn’t have to be sanctimonious; he doesn’t have to over-talk things; and he certainly doesn’t have to neglect other vital issues, ranging from Covid-19 to the Supreme Court to racial justice to the climate crisis. All Biden has to do, at the proper moment, is highlight the stark injustice of a president whose recent tax payments have been lower than those paid by individual workers making $18,000 a year.
In other words, Biden’s got a chance for a mic drop moment.
The best way to achieve it is by focusing on something every working American will understand: the absurdity of a self-proclaimed billionaire paying just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. That would be troublesome at any time. But it’s infuriating when Trump and his Republican allies have stalled a desperately needed stimulus package to help working people survive the mass unemployment and underemployment that have resulted from Trump’s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Biden’s campaign has already been making this point, with a video released early Monday that juxtaposes the Times report with examples of what essential workers actually chip in to fund the government. “typical income tax: Elementary School Teacher $7,239…Firefighter $5,283…Registered Nurse $10,216,” goes the message. “federal income tax paid: Donald Trump $750.”
The campaign has also produced buttons and stickers that read, “I paid more income taxes than Donald Trump.”
If a tax policy debate breaks out tonight, Biden can borrow a few lines from Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding our rigged system. He can echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s concerns about the national security risks that arise with a debt-burdened president. He can speak about his own campaign’s long-standing commitments to cap itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans and to restore the top-bracket 39.6 percent personal income tax—which was lowered to 37 percent in 2017 by Trump and his Republican allies. He can even highlight the Democratic platform’s pledge to
reform the tax code to be more progressive and equitable, and reduce barriers for working families to benefit from targeted tax breaks, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Our program of reform will provide immediate, marked relief for working families, including more generous, refundable tax credits to benefit low- and middle-income families, and easier and more equitable access to tax provisions that help working families build wealth, including by equalizing tax benefits for retirement contributions and providing more accessible tax breaks for home ownership.
With more than enough ammunition to deploy, Biden can afford to let Trump make his desperate excuses and his even more desperate attacks.
There will come a moment, the right moment, when the Democratic nominee can say, “Speaking of tax credits, I want to propose tonight that we provide an immediate tax credit of $750 to every American who pays more than that amount in taxes.”
Then he can drop the mic.


thenation--2020-09-29--Trump Paid Less in Taxes Than a Schoolteacher or a Nurse

The new revelations about President Trump ’ s tax returns confirm what we already suspected .
Trump might be a lousy businessman , but he is a master tax-dodger .
He paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the 15 years before his election .
In 2016 and 2017 , he paid all of $ 750 a year .
The self-proclaimed billionaire paid less than many of the lowest-paid workers in America , many of whom are risking their lives providing essential services during the pandemic .
That said , Trump ’ s tax returns don ’ t expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We already knew he was a bounder surrounded by grifters .
What ’ s truly shocking about the returns is what is legal , not what is illegal .
The returns are another glimpse at how our corrupt political system is rigged by the wealthy and gamed by the greedy .
Yes , Trump ’ s tax-dodging may include illegal or fraudulent claims .
The IRS is auditing a dubious $ 72.9 million tax refund he claimed in 2010 , which erased years of tax payments .
He apparently writes off his 200-acre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an investment property , even though it serves as a family home .
He also writes off mysterious consulting fees , including some paid to his daughter Ivanka when she was a full-time employee of his companies .
Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The new revelations about President Trump’s tax returns confirm what we already suspected. Trump might be a lousy businessman, but he is a master tax-dodger. He paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the 15 years before his election. In 2016 and 2017, he paid all of $750 a year. The self-proclaimed billionaire paid less than many of the lowest-paid workers in America, many of whom are risking their lives providing essential services during the pandemic.
That said, Trump’s tax returns don’t expose anything shockingly new about his character. We already knew he was a bounder surrounded by grifters. What’s truly shocking about the returns is what is legal, not what is illegal. The returns are another glimpse at how our corrupt political system is rigged by the wealthy and gamed by the greedy.
Yes, Trump’s tax-dodging may include illegal or fraudulent claims. The IRS is auditing a dubious $72.9 million tax refund he claimed in 2010, which erased years of tax payments. He apparently writes off his 200-acre family estate in Bedford, N.Y., as an investment property, even though it serves as a family home. He also writes off mysterious consulting fees, including some paid to his daughter Ivanka when she was a full-time employee of his companies.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-09-30--That Time Hillary Clinton Warned Us We Had to Get Serious About the Supreme Court

Four years ago , as she was bidding for the Democratic nomination for the presidency , she delivered the strongest speech of her campaign , on the subject of the United States Supreme Court .
The address she presented was not a reflexive response to the news of the day .
It was not a set of talking points repackaged to fill a passing news cycle .
It was a major policy address—comprehensive in scope and character , ambitious in its goals , yet nuanced in its recognition of the challenges facing her party and her country .
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks and , as someone who was often critical of the former secretary of state , I wrote that “ Clinton ’ s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies , and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations , was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents.
” Yet I also noted that the speech was largely neglected , observing , “ In this absurd campaign season , when media outlets devote hours of time to arguments about which Republican candidate insulted which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aides , about whatever soap-opera scenario comes to mind , thoughtful discussions of issues get little attention .
And deep and detailed discussions of issues get even less coverage.
” Indeed , to the extent that the speech was covered at all , it was in reference to what the Democratic contender had to say about the race for the Republican nomination , especially Clinton ’ s observation , “ What the Republicans have sown with their extremist tactics , they are now reaping with Donald Trump ’ s candidacy.
” That neglect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments on the courts was unsettling at the time , and it remains unsettling , because of what it says about the challenge of making judicial selection a campaign issue .
We face that challenge again , in the midst of another campaign and an even more pitched battle over the court ’ s future .
President Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the high court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has put this country at a critical juncture where a Republican president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconfigure the Supreme Court before the voters deprive them of the power to do so .
Yet , much of the media is already on to the next story : Trump ’ s tax troubles , Trump ’ s outrageous tweeting , Trump ’ s latest outburst .
Trump and McConnell Are Undoing the Supreme Court ’ s Constitutional Legitimacy Bernie Sanders Has Given Us a Tool Kit for Defending Against Trump ’ s Threat to Democracy We did not pause , as Clinton asked us to do in 2016 , to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the courts .
And I fear that we will not pause sufficiently this fall .
It was with this in mind that I revisited Clinton ’ s speech , which remains as salient today as it was when she delivered it on March 28 , 2016 .
Clinton spoke that day as a Yale Law School graduate , the author of scholarly articles on children and the law , a former law school instructor , and a former board chair of the Legal Services Corporation , with a long history of engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She recognized that “ the Court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the United States—from whether you can marry the person you love , to whether you can get healthcare , to whether your classmates can carry guns around this campus.
” And that “ If we ’ re serious about fighting for progressive causes , we need to focus on the Court : who sits on it , how we choose them , and how much we let politics—partisan politics—dominate that process.
” What stood out was the way in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial nominations into historical , political , and legal context .
She delivered a compelling response to the question of how and when to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that had been created with the February 13 , 2016 , death—before either party had nominated its presidential candidates and long before the fall campaign—of Justice Antonin Scalia .
But she also observed , correctly , that “ this battle is bigger than just one empty seat on the Court.
” “ By Election Day , two justices will be more than 80 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age .
The next president could end up nominating multiple justices , ” she explained , after presciently referencing Justices Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy .
“ That means whoever America elects this fall will help determine the future of the Court for decades to come.
” Clinton then—in a move 2020 Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would do well to emulate—worked her way through the Court ’ s 2016 docket : • “ The Court is reviewing how public-sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social workers , and first responders is at stake .
This is something the people of Wisconsin know all too well , because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public-sector unions , and working families have paid the price .
I think that ’ s wrong , and it should stop.
” • “ The Court is reviewing a Texas law imposing unnecessary , expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions .
If that law is allowed to stand , there will only be 10 or so health centers left where women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole state of Texas , a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age .
So it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women.
” • “ The Court is also reviewing whether Texas should have to exclude non-voters when drawing its electoral map .
That would leave out , among others , legal residents , people with felony convictions , and children .
The fair representation of everyone in our society—including 75 million children—hangs in the balance.
” • “ And on top of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action and President Obama ’ s executive actions on immigration , which called for halting the deportation of DREAMers and undocumented parents of citizens and legal residents .
It ’ s also put a hold on the president ’ s clean-power plan .
Either America can limit how much carbon pollution we produce , or we can ’ t .
And if we can ’ t , then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the Paris agreement is greatly diminished.
” Trump Threatens America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and McConnell Are Undoing the Supreme Court ’ s Constitutional Legitimacy More in this series “ In short , ” said Clinton , “ in a single term , the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement .
And as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades , I see this as a make-or-break moment .
If you care about the fairness of elections , the future of unions , racial disparities in universities , the rights of women , or the future of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins the presidency and appoints the next Supreme Court justices.
” Finally , Clinton took on the Court ’ s biggest failure—addressing an issue that her rival for the Democratic nomination , Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders , had made central to his campaign .
Describing “ the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people , ” she decried the 2010 Citizens United ruling that knocked down barriers to corporate influence on elections .
“ If the Court doesn ’ t overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections , ” she said .
“ It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.
” Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think But , to her credit , Clinton did not stop with Citizens United .
“ This Court has voted on the side of corporations—against the interests of workers , unions , consumers and the general public—in case after case , ” said Clinton , who explained that the Court has “ made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue a corporation , even if they are collectively suffering from corporate behavior .
So 2 million Comcast subscribers in Philadelphia were told they each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for fairer prices .
One-and-a-half million women working at Walmart each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for sex discrimination .
That ’ s a burden that the vast majority of people can not afford.
” Clinton closed by putting the arguments that Democrats always make about the Supreme Court into political perspective—and into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal circles .
“ The Court used to—in the 20th century anyway—protect the little guy against the rich and powerful .
More and more , it ’ s doing the opposite—protecting the rich and powerful against the little guy , ” said the former secretary of state .
“ If I ’ m fortunate enough to be president , I will appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests ; who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender , sexual orientation or political viewpoint ; who will protect a woman ’ s right to choose , rather than billionaires ’ right to buy elections ; and who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress , not a barrier to it.
” What Hillary Clinton said in 2016 was right .
It ’ s even more right now .
Democrats should make a deep and determined discussion of the Supreme Court , the Constitution , and the future of the rule of law central to the 2020 campaign—so central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media or by the voters .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Hillary Clinton warned us.
Four years ago, as she was bidding for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, she delivered the strongest speech of her campaign, on the subject of the United States Supreme Court. The address she presented was not a reflexive response to the news of the day. It was not a set of talking points repackaged to fill a passing news cycle. It was a major policy address—comprehensive in scope and character, ambitious in its goals, yet nuanced in its recognition of the challenges facing her party and her country. I was in the room when Clinton delivered her remarks and, as someone who was often critical of the former secretary of state, I wrote that “Clinton’s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies, and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations, was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents.”
Yet I also noted that the speech was largely neglected, observing, “In this absurd campaign season, when media outlets devote hours of time to arguments about which Republican candidate insulted which wife, about violent and irresponsible campaign aides, about whatever soap-opera scenario comes to mind, thoughtful discussions of issues get little attention. And deep and detailed discussions of issues get even less coverage.” Indeed, to the extent that the speech was covered at all, it was in reference to what the Democratic contender had to say about the race for the Republican nomination, especially Clinton’s observation, “What the Republicans have sown with their extremist tactics, they are now reaping with Donald Trump’s candidacy.”
That neglect of the substance of Clinton’s comments on the courts was unsettling at the time, and it remains unsettling, because of what it says about the challenge of making judicial selection a campaign issue. We face that challenge again, in the midst of another campaign and an even more pitched battle over the court’s future. President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the high court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has put this country at a critical juncture where a Republican president and his Senate allies are rushing to reconfigure the Supreme Court before the voters deprive them of the power to do so. Yet, much of the media is already on to the next story: Trump’s tax troubles, Trump’s outrageous tweeting, Trump’s latest outburst. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
We did not pause, as Clinton asked us to do in 2016, to consider the crisis that was emerging with regard to the courts. And I fear that we will not pause sufficiently this fall. It was with this in mind that I revisited Clinton’s speech, which remains as salient today as it was when she delivered it on March 28, 2016.
Clinton spoke that day as a Yale Law School graduate, the author of scholarly articles on children and the law, a former law school instructor, and a former board chair of the Legal Services Corporation, with a long history of engagement with legal issues and the judicial-nomination process. She recognized that “the Court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the United States—from whether you can marry the person you love, to whether you can get healthcare, to whether your classmates can carry guns around this campus.” And that “If we’re serious about fighting for progressive causes, we need to focus on the Court: who sits on it, how we choose them, and how much we let politics—partisan politics—dominate that process.”
What stood out was the way in which Clinton put the 2016 debate over judicial nominations into historical, political, and legal context. She delivered a compelling response to the question of how and when to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that had been created with the February 13, 2016, death—before either party had nominated its presidential candidates and long before the fall campaign—of Justice Antonin Scalia. But she also observed, correctly, that “this battle is bigger than just one empty seat on the Court.” Current Issue View our current issue
“By Election Day, two justices will be more than 80 years old—past the Court’s average retirement age. The next president could end up nominating multiple justices,” she explained, after presciently referencing Justices Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy. “That means whoever America elects this fall will help determine the future of the Court for decades to come.”
Clinton then—in a move 2020 Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would do well to emulate—worked her way through the Court’s 2016 docket:
• “The Court is reviewing how public-sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work. The economic security of millions of teachers, social workers, and first responders is at stake. This is something the people of Wisconsin know all too well, because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public-sector unions, and working families have paid the price. I think that’s wrong, and it should stop.”
• “The Court is reviewing a Texas law imposing unnecessary, expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions. If that law is allowed to stand, there will only be 10 or so health centers left where women can get safe, legal abortions in the whole state of Texas, a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age. So it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women.”
• “The Court is also reviewing whether Texas should have to exclude non-voters when drawing its electoral map. That would leave out, among others, legal residents, people with felony convictions, and children. The fair representation of everyone in our society—including 75 million children—hangs in the balance.”
• “And on top of all that, the Court is reviewing affirmative action and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which called for halting the deportation of DREAMers and undocumented parents of citizens and legal residents. It’s also put a hold on the president’s clean-power plan. Either America can limit how much carbon pollution we produce, or we can’t. And if we can’t, then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the Paris agreement is greatly diminished.” US Supreme Court It’s Time to Abolish Legacy Admissions Harold Klapper Inside the Cynical Campaign to Claim That Affirmative Action Hurts Asian Americans Kali Holloway Let Trump Run Bill Lueders
“In short,” said Clinton, “in a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement. And as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make-or-break moment. If you care about the fairness of elections, the future of unions, racial disparities in universities, the rights of women, or the future of our planet, you should care about who wins the presidency and appoints the next Supreme Court justices.”
Finally, Clinton took on the Court’s biggest failure—addressing an issue that her rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, had made central to his campaign.
Describing “the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people,” she decried the 2010 Citizens United ruling that knocked down barriers to corporate influence on elections.
“If the Court doesn’t overturn Citizens United, I will fight for a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections,” she said. “It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.” The Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal
But, to her credit, Clinton did not stop with Citizens United. “This Court has voted on the side of corporations—against the interests of workers, unions, consumers and the general public—in case after case,” said Clinton, who explained that the Court has “made it harder for consumers to band together to sue a corporation, even if they are collectively suffering from corporate behavior. So 2 million Comcast subscribers in Philadelphia were told they each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for fairer prices. One-and-a-half million women working at Walmart each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for sex discrimination. That’s a burden that the vast majority of people cannot afford.”
Clinton closed by putting the arguments that Democrats always make about the Supreme Court into political perspective—and into language that should have resonated far beyond legal circles.
“The Court used to—in the 20th century anyway—protect the little guy against the rich and powerful. More and more, it’s doing the opposite—protecting the rich and powerful against the little guy,” said the former secretary of state. “If I’m fortunate enough to be president, I will appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; who will protect a woman’s right to choose, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections; and who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress, not a barrier to it.”
What Hillary Clinton said in 2016 was right. It’s even more right now.
Democrats should make a deep and determined discussion of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the future of the rule of law central to the 2020 campaign—so central that it cannot be neglected by the media or by the voters.


thenation--2020-09-30--How Kendrick Lamar Became the Voice of a Generation

“ Compton—and Los Angeles as a whole—was chock-full of great lyricists with something viable to say , ” Marcus Moore writes about rapper Kendrick Lamar ’ s hometown , “ so what made Kendrick the one to rise above it all ?
” It ’ s a question at the heart of his new book , The Butterfly Effect : How Kendrick Lamar Ignited the Soul of Black America , out in October , and one Moore uses to guide readers through wider discussions of artistic achievement and what it means to be the voice of a generation .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examines the course of Lamar ’ s career with an eye on the relationship between his body of work and Black American culture at large .
It ’ s a unique project that Moore was particularly geared for , having about a decade of music journalism under his belt .
Most recently , he served as a senior editor at online music publication Bandcamp Daily , covering everything from alt-pop and soul to every iteration of his central love , jazz .
( He ’ s also a contributing writer for The Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore eschews traditional biographical focus on the minutiae of the artist ’ s personal life to examine the mechanisms and meaning behind the oft-repeated phrase “ Do it for the culture.
” The result is a deeply personal yet critical look at how Lamar brought the anxieties , joys , struggles , and achievements of Black America to the forefront of pop culture .
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
nn- errick aillot : Did you find any advantages to writing about a living , working artist ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his career ’ s end ?
arcus oore : There was definitely some advantage in terms of dissecting music that ’ s still very new and evokes such a visceral reaction for people .
It was fun to sit back and soak all of that in and write from that perspective .
I felt like I could go off to the side and reengage with some music that maybe I hadn ’ t heard in a year or two years .
And I just wanted to write about history as it was happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anybody that was in and around music or in and around Black culture—there was no denying the impact that [ Lamar ] made .
But admittedly , there was also some stress because it seems like everybody has a strong opinion about Kendrick and everybody is an expert .
There are whole podcasts dedicated to people breaking down his lyrics .
As I was writing it , I was concerned , like , “ Man , hopefully , I dissected this correctly , ” because everybody has such strong opinions about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to just be totally off base .
There definitely was just me being a stressed writer .
ADG : How did you navigate parsing his artistic intentions and how much of his lyrics are truthful biography versus artistic expression ?
MM : I knew pretty early on that I wasn ’ t going to get Kendrick .
When he ’ s not promoting an album , he ’ s pretty quiet .
So when I started reporting the book , admittedly , my approach was a little bit off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these different names that either were on tour or weren ’ t interested or what have you .
I had to realize quickly that [ because it ’ s ] the first book on him ever , everybody is in wait-and-see mode .
So then I changed my approach to say , well , this is a book about Black culture .
Let me actually talk to Black culture .
Let me talk to people in the liner notes who would have more to say and who would be fine with me talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ] such a private guy , I did as much as possible to keep it to the music and see how much I can actually parse from the music .
I also made it a point to talk to people around him , whether it was talking to his best friend growing up or talking to his creative writing teacher or collaborators and people who have known him for years .
I ’ m not going to be able to get him , but let me try to paint a picture of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old interviews , by citing records and things of that nature .
ADG : You write about Kendrick ’ s greatness , comparing him with people like Serena Williams and Kobe Bryant .
How do you conceptualize greatness ?
MM : In this age of social media , we ’ re all really quick to deem something is great .
Something is either classic or it ’ s trash within 10 minutes of the project coming out .
I ’ ve always been of the mindset that greatness isn ’ t right away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work on alone .
It ’ s time spent alone .
The thing with Kendrick is he spent a lot of time alone just working on his rhymes , working on his craft , popping up at Sounwave ’ s house when he had an idea , doing takes over and over again .
That ’ s what I noticed about him , and that ’ s the thing that I noticed about all great people .
The work comes first .
That ’ s why , to me , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s LeBron [ James ] .
He ’ s Serena .
He ’ s all of these people who didn ’ t just wake up and be great .
They worked really hard at it .
Greatness is going to last over everything .
If I ’ m blessed enough to have something I do be called great , I want people to be able to pick it up 10 years later , 20 years later and say , “ Man , that was great .
And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t really determine greatness until years later , until you look back at it .
That ’ s why I felt comfortable calling Kendrick great .
When good kid , Section.80 , and all that stuff came out , it was a moment of greatness .
But you can still go back and listen to that stuff , and it ’ s still just as great .
And you may be picking up something different .
That ’ s true greatness to me .
ADG : In the book you speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as having spent time in Africa and , in the last chapter , experiencing the 2016 election in Hyattsville , Md.
, near where you ’ re from .
How did you navigate how much of your experiences to include ?
MM : I really wish that I was very calculating toward that , but I tend to be more of a sort of free-form kind of guy .
It ’ s a book about him , but it reminded me , “ You and Kendrick have a lot of the same experiences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to talk about yourself a little bit.
” I wrote the part about Nairobi specifically after reading about how he felt landing in South Africa and then going back to LA .
I felt the exact same way .
I ’ ve been here back and forth for a year , and I didn ’ t realize how traumatized [ by the United States ] I was until being [ in Kenya ] for a few months .
I would be doing myself a disservice if I didn ’ t put this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ last chapter ] as therapy for myself , because I didn ’ t realize until I ’ d been living [ in Nairobi ] for a while that I ’ ve been holding a lot of stuff in , that a lot of stuff that we ’ re told as African Americans , none of it is true .
That PTSD doesn ’ t go away .
As a journalist , I ’ m used to writing about everybody else and being behind the scenes , but then this light bulb went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ You should have an opportunity to talk about yourself a little bit.
” I also didn ’ t want to just divert into making it about me , but I wanted to put myself in there because those memories were very vivid .
I still remember the day after the election in Hyattsville and landing [ in Nairobi ] and walking around and stuff like that .
I wanted to get a little bit personal as a way to let people know that this is something that I ’ ve also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course of writing the book , did you have any thoughts like “ I need to put on my fan hat ” or “ I need to have a more critical distance here ” ?
MM : It ’ s a very delicate line .
I didn ’ t want to write just a straight-up love letter to Kendrick Lamar .
I definitely had more positive than negative thoughts , but at the same time , I couldn ’ t shy away from the interview gaffes .
I didn ’ t shy away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people were like , ‘ Wait , what ?
We didn ’ t need this right now.
’ And when “ King Kunta ” came out and wasn ’ t as good as good kid , m.A.A.d city .
I felt myself jumping rope every day , because I wanted to unpack exactly what was going on in the music .
I lean more toward the critical side , more toward my album review side , but I also save space at the end of these chapters to say exactly what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m.A.A.d city feel like ?
What did To Pimp a Butterfly feel like ?
What did it do ?
So I lean more toward being the critical journalist , realizing that I ’ m also a huge fan , too .
I wanted to split it down the middle as much as I could while being positive .
ADG : It feels as if people right now are so hungry for new types of music writing and new ways of examining artists and their work .
There was Hanif Abdurraqib ’ s Go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tribe Called Quest from a critical fan perspective , for example .
Did you have any sort of current-state-of-music-writing thoughts while doing this book ?
MM : A lot of current music writing is—and I fall into this , too—if you don ’ t like a project , you don ’ t have to write about it because there ’ s so much music out here .
It ’ s impossible to cover everything and to have a voice on something , even if you don ’ t like it .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be a fan of something , but at a certain point you have to bring the critical aspect in there and somehow come down the middle as much as you can .
So I had a lot of that in mind .
When I was writing , I had to tap into all aspects of journalism that I ’ ve done over the years .
So there was some local reporting in LA .
There was some business reporting and , obviously , music journalism in there .
I tried to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that ’ s why I wanted the pace of the book to be more leisurely and feel like a conversation .
Because I do read a lot of books and stories where you can tell that the writer is just trying to show you how smart they are off rip .
They ’ re trying to hit you with all the words and $ 50 sentences .
And that ’ s fine , but that ’ s not my style .
I wanted , when you read this , to feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me about this thing.
” I wanted it to feel like a conversation between the two of us .
That ’ s what I was thinking when I wrote it .
ADG : Where do you think music journalism is going right now ?
MM : There is definitely more of a palate for stuff that isn ’ t on mainstream platforms .
The mainstream acts who we love , like Kendrick and Drake and people like that , they ’ re still around .
But naturally there ’ s just going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art and other kinds of music .
And I ’ ve also got to give music publications credit because editors , it seems , are now more open to music that isn ’ t necessarily going to be at the top of the Billboard charts .
For instance , a piece that I wrote about Nubya Garcia ran in The New York Times .
And she ’ s just coming out with her debut album .
A mold is definitely breaking , where there ’ s just bigger room for more esoteric forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just in music .
You have Michaela Coel ’ s I May Destroy You , which is an amazing show .
A couple of years ago , you had Terence Nance with Random Acts of Flyness .
You had Donald Glover with Atlanta .
Overall , there ’ s a wider palette for stuff that is off the beaten path and is different .
And it just so happened to extend to music as well .
It ’ s a good thing because there ’ s a lot of very interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered like that .
Now because of editors being more open to different forms of music , it ’ s helping other artists break through .
I love it .
It ’ s something I ’ ve been clamoring for for probably a decade now .

“Compton—and Los Angeles as a whole—was chock-full of great lyricists with something viable to say,” Marcus Moore writes about rapper Kendrick Lamar’s hometown, “so what made Kendrick the one to rise above it all?” It’s a question at the heart of his new book, The Butterfly Effect: How Kendrick Lamar Ignited the Soul of Black America, out in October, and one Moore uses to guide readers through wider discussions of artistic achievement and what it means to be the voice of a generation.
As a cultural biography, The Butterfly Effect examines the course of Lamar’s career with an eye on the relationship between his body of work and Black American culture at large. It’s a unique project that Moore was particularly geared for, having about a decade of music journalism under his belt. Most recently, he served as a senior editor at online music publication Bandcamp Daily, covering everything from alt-pop and soul to every iteration of his central love, jazz. (He’s also a contributing writer for The Nation.) In The Butterfly Effect, Moore eschews traditional biographical focus on the minutiae of the artist’s personal life to examine the mechanisms and meaning behind the oft-repeated phrase “Do it for the culture.” The result is a deeply personal yet critical look at how Lamar brought the anxieties, joys, struggles, and achievements of Black America to the forefront of pop culture. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
—Ann-Derrick Gaillot
A nn- D errick G aillot: Did you find any advantages to writing about a living, working artist’s body of work rather than waiting until his career’s end?
M arcus M oore: There was definitely some advantage in terms of dissecting music that’s still very new and evokes such a visceral reaction for people. It was fun to sit back and soak all of that in and write from that perspective. I felt like I could go off to the side and reengage with some music that maybe I hadn’t heard in a year or two years. And I just wanted to write about history as it was happening, because it was still very impactful. Anybody that was in and around music or in and around Black culture—there was no denying the impact that [Lamar] made.
But admittedly, there was also some stress because it seems like everybody has a strong opinion about Kendrick and everybody is an expert. There are whole podcasts dedicated to people breaking down his lyrics. As I was writing it, I was concerned, like, “Man, hopefully, I dissected this correctly,” because everybody has such strong opinions about what they’re hearing that I don’t want to just be totally off base. There definitely was just me being a stressed writer. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
ADG: How did you navigate parsing his artistic intentions and how much of his lyrics are truthful biography versus artistic expression?
MM: I knew pretty early on that I wasn’t going to get Kendrick. When he’s not promoting an album, he’s pretty quiet. So when I started reporting the book, admittedly, my approach was a little bit off. I was reaching out to all of these different names that either were on tour or weren’t interested or what have you. I had to realize quickly that [because it’s] the first book on him ever, everybody is in wait-and-see mode.
So then I changed my approach to say, well, this is a book about Black culture. Let me actually talk to Black culture. Let me talk to people in the liner notes who would have more to say and who would be fine with me talking to them. Since [Kendrick’s] such a private guy, I did as much as possible to keep it to the music and see how much I can actually parse from the music. I also made it a point to talk to people around him, whether it was talking to his best friend growing up or talking to his creative writing teacher or collaborators and people who have known him for years. I’m not going to be able to get him, but let me try to paint a picture of what’s going on by citing old interviews, by citing records and things of that nature.
ADG: You write about Kendrick’s greatness, comparing him with people like Serena Williams and Kobe Bryant. How do you conceptualize greatness?
MM: In this age of social media, we’re all really quick to deem something is great. Something is either classic or it’s trash within 10 minutes of the project coming out. I’ve always been of the mindset that greatness isn’t right away. Greatness is something that you have to work on alone. It’s time spent alone.
The thing with Kendrick is he spent a lot of time alone just working on his rhymes, working on his craft, popping up at Sounwave’s house when he had an idea, doing takes over and over again. That’s what I noticed about him, and that’s the thing that I noticed about all great people. The work comes first. That’s why, to me, he’s like Kobe shooting in the gym. He’s LeBron [James]. He’s Serena. He’s all of these people who didn’t just wake up and be great. They worked really hard at it.
Greatness is going to last over everything. If I’m blessed enough to have something I do be called great, I want people to be able to pick it up 10 years later, 20 years later and say, “Man, that was great. And it’s still great.” I feel like you can’t really determine greatness until years later, until you look back at it. That’s why I felt comfortable calling Kendrick great. When good kid, Section.80, and all that stuff came out, it was a moment of greatness. But you can still go back and listen to that stuff, and it’s still just as great. And you may be picking up something different. That’s true greatness to me.
ADG: In the book you speak to some of your experiences, such as having spent time in Africa and, in the last chapter, experiencing the 2016 election in Hyattsville, Md., near where you’re from. How did you navigate how much of your experiences to include?
MM: I really wish that I was very calculating toward that, but I tend to be more of a sort of free-form kind of guy. It’s a book about him, but it reminded me, “You and Kendrick have a lot of the same experiences, so now you can take this opportunity to talk about yourself a little bit.”
I wrote the part about Nairobi specifically after reading about how he felt landing in South Africa and then going back to LA. I felt the exact same way. I’ve been here back and forth for a year, and I didn’t realize how traumatized [by the United States] I was until being [in Kenya] for a few months. I would be doing myself a disservice if I didn’t put this in the book. I use that [last chapter] as therapy for myself, because I didn’t realize until I’d been living [in Nairobi] for a while that I’ve been holding a lot of stuff in, that a lot of stuff that we’re told as African Americans, none of it is true. That PTSD doesn’t go away.
As a journalist, I’m used to writing about everybody else and being behind the scenes, but then this light bulb went off, where I’m like, “You should have an opportunity to talk about yourself a little bit.” I also didn’t want to just divert into making it about me, but I wanted to put myself in there because those memories were very vivid. I still remember the day after the election in Hyattsville and landing [in Nairobi] and walking around and stuff like that. I wanted to get a little bit personal as a way to let people know that this is something that I’ve also gone through.
ADG: Over the course of writing the book, did you have any thoughts like “I need to put on my fan hat” or “I need to have a more critical distance here”?
MM: It’s a very delicate line. I didn’t want to write just a straight-up love letter to Kendrick Lamar. I definitely had more positive than negative thoughts, but at the same time, I couldn’t shy away from the interview gaffes. I didn’t shy away from when “i” came out and people were like, ‘Wait, what? We didn’t need this right now.’ And when “King Kunta” came out and wasn’t as good as good kid, m.A.A.d city. I felt myself jumping rope every day, because I wanted to unpack exactly what was going on in the music.
I lean more toward the critical side, more toward my album review side, but I also save space at the end of these chapters to say exactly what they mean. What did good kid, m.A.A.d city feel like? What did To Pimp a Butterfly feel like? What did it do? So I lean more toward being the critical journalist, realizing that I’m also a huge fan, too. I wanted to split it down the middle as much as I could while being positive.
ADG: It feels as if people right now are so hungry for new types of music writing and new ways of examining artists and their work. There was Hanif Abdurraqib’s Go Ahead in the Rain talking about A Tribe Called Quest from a critical fan perspective, for example. Did you have any sort of current-state-of-music-writing thoughts while doing this book?
MM: A lot of current music writing is—and I fall into this, too—if you don’t like a project, you don’t have to write about it because there’s so much music out here. It’s impossible to cover everything and to have a voice on something, even if you don’t like it. But I came up in old-school newsrooms where you can be a fan of something, but at a certain point you have to bring the critical aspect in there and somehow come down the middle as much as you can. So I had a lot of that in mind. When I was writing, I had to tap into all aspects of journalism that I’ve done over the years. So there was some local reporting in LA. There was some business reporting and, obviously, music journalism in there. I tried to be as old-school newspaper reporter as I could. And that’s why I wanted the pace of the book to be more leisurely and feel like a conversation. Because I do read a lot of books and stories where you can tell that the writer is just trying to show you how smart they are off rip. They’re trying to hit you with all the words and $50 sentences. And that’s fine, but that’s not my style. I wanted, when you read this, to feel like, “Marcus is talking to me about this thing.” I wanted it to feel like a conversation between the two of us. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote it.
ADG: Where do you think music journalism is going right now?
MM: There is definitely more of a palate for stuff that isn’t on mainstream platforms. The mainstream acts who we love, like Kendrick and Drake and people like that, they’re still around. But naturally there’s just going to be a curiosity for other kinds of art and other kinds of music.
And I’ve also got to give music publications credit because editors, it seems, are now more open to music that isn’t necessarily going to be at the top of the Billboard charts. For instance, a piece that I wrote about Nubya Garcia ran in The New York Times. And she’s just coming out with her debut album. A mold is definitely breaking, where there’s just bigger room for more esoteric forms of Black art. And it’s not just in music. You have Michaela Coel’s I May Destroy You, which is an amazing show. A couple of years ago, you had Terence Nance with Random Acts of Flyness. You had Donald Glover with Atlanta. Overall, there’s a wider palette for stuff that is off the beaten path and is different. And it just so happened to extend to music as well. It’s a good thing because there’s a lot of very interesting art that just isn’t being covered like that. Now because of editors being more open to different forms of music, it’s helping other artists break through. I love it. It’s something I’ve been clamoring for for probably a decade now.