theamericanconservative--2020-03-02--Tit-for-Tat Coronavirus Politics Are Making Us Sick

Trump needs to get his head out of the campaign and start acting like the leader of the free world .
The outbreak of COVID-19 ( coronavirus ) has left the United States struggling to craft a medically and scientifically sound response in a highly politicized atmosphere .
While almost every aspect of the outbreak to date has an air of inevitability about it , there is much that can be done going forward to better prepare for , and respond to , a pandemic , if and when one materializes .
The United States , as a world leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in formulating and implementing any such response but finds itself hobbled by political incompetence and infighting .
The result could be catastrophic .
Over the past few weeks , the world has watched as a new , deadly , and highly contagious disease took hold in the Chinese city of Wuhan , infected passengers onboard luxury cruise ships , and subsequently spread to three dozen countries on every continent except Antarctica .
Reports indicating the virus can be spread by victims who exhibit no symptoms has thrown health professionals into a panic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been infected , and more than 2,800 have died to date , most of them Chinese .
The fatality rate for the coronavirus is greater than 2 percent , a major increase over the 0.1 percent for the common flu .
As the coronavirus has progressed , more than 110 Americans have been hospitalized for treatment and/or monitoring across 26 states .
Uncertainty has derived from the mixed messages being sent by the Trump administration over the severity of the outbreak and the preparedness of the U.S. government .
This has sent Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dow Jones losing nearly 10 percent of its value over the course of two days .
On the evening of February 25 , President Donald Trump delivered a televised address to the American people , hoping to inspire confidence .
The president had been under pressure to appoint a so-called “ czar ” to oversee his administration ’ s response to the crisis .
The expectation had been that he would choose a scientist , an expert of epidemiology with the knowledge and experience to manage the outbreak .
Instead , he appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futures immediately sank more than 300 points , and the next day—February 27—the Dow Jones collapsed an additional 1,200 points , the largest single day drop in its history .
The United States is in the midst of political silly season , with the Democratic Party knee-deep in a contentious primary process focused singularly on defeating Trump .
President Trump is sensitive to anything that could be used against him by the Democrats in the upcoming election .
One of Trump ’ s biggest selling points to date is the healthy state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , however , combined with a major disruption in global supply chains brought on by the quarantining of production centers in China and elsewhere , threatens to slow global economic growth .
It could even trigger a global recession .
While the chronology of the coronavirus shows a strong cause-effect relationship between the outbreak , the lack of a viable U.S. government response , and the collapse of financial markets , President Trump still sought to deflect blame onto the Democrats , who had engaged in a chaotic televised debate on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the financial markets are very upset when they look at the Democratic candidates standing on that stage , making fools out of themselves , ” Trump said .
In his televised press conference , Trump repeatedly made the case that his administration was “ very , very ready ” for a coronavirus outbreak .
This position , however , has been directly contradicted by Nancy Messonnier , director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases , who in a speech delivered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference warned , “ Ultimately , we expect we will see community spread in this country .
It ’ s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness… [ a ] t this time , there ’ s no vaccine to protect against this new virus and no medications approved to treat it.
” Confidence in the Trump administration ’ s approach to the coronavirus outbreak was further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alex Azar , who joined the president at the White House dais to proclaim , “ Our containment strategy has been working.
” Immediately following the press conference , however , the Centers for Disease Control announced that a person in California had contracted the disease without having recently traveled to impacted areas or having contact with individuals known to be infected .
“ It ’ s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19 , which would be the first time this has happened in the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Secretary Azar ’ s confidence regarding containment was found to be little more than wishful thinking .
The seeming disconnect within the Trump administration between the science of epidemiology and the politics of a presidential election season emerged when trying to put a price tag on the response to the outbreak .
Trump has put forward a request to Congress for $ 2.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding .
This number was openly mocked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , who put forward his own bill requesting some $ 8.5 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi decried Trump ’ s proposal as “ shameful , ” noting that it was “ too late , too anemic.
” Trump immediately fired back .
“ I think Speaker Pelosi is incompetent , ” Trump said .
“ She ’ s trying to create a panic and there ’ s no reason to panic .
All they ’ re trying to do is get a political advantage .
This isn ’ t about political advantage .
We ’ re all trying to do the right thing.
” Continuing the tit-for-tat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s response to the coronavirus as “ opaque and often chaotic , ” declaring that “ lives are at stake ” and , without any apparent irony , concluding , “ This is not a time for name-calling or playing politics.
” Trump was not only fighting the Democrats , but also members of his own party , in particular Senator Richard Shelby , the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee .
Shelby declared that Congress , working with the administration , should “ do everything we can to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to do the job to prevent the spread [ of the coronavirus ] as much as they can , and if it spreads to mitigate it.
” He added , “ Let ’ s not try to low-ball it and be pennywise and pound foolish.
” The president is , perhaps rightfully , coming under attack for his haphazard and disjointed approach to the coronavirus outbreak .
But the American presidency isn ’ t the most powerful office on earth for nothing .
Even after stumbling out of the gate , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue than anyone else .
He is currently considering invoking special powers given to him under the Defense Production Act to expedite the domestic production of protective masks and clothing .
But even this won ’ t be enough to halt the potentially catastrophic spread of the coronavirus in the United States .
The Centers for Disease Control , promoted by Trump ’ s political rivals as the pinnacle of professionalism when it comes to epidemiology and related emergency response , has fumbled badly .
It denied doctors in California access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus in a patient to whom it had spread , failing to do so because “ the patient did not fit the existing CDC criteria.
” Even if a test had been ordered in a timely fashion , it still might not have detected the virus : the CDC sent out faulty test kits to hospitals around the world that generated “ inconclusive ” results .
The ongoing political infighting between Trump and his critics has impaired proper oversight of the CDC , magnifying errors that should have been corrected early on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have come at a worse time for the United States .
There remains an inherent tension between the executive and legislative branches of government in the aftermath of President Trump ’ s acquittal during his impeachment trial .
This tension , when combined with the toxic political environment of the ongoing presidential race , means that everything Trump does will be subjected to highly politicized scrutiny .
Politics is trumping science and medicine , diluting the effectiveness of any response .
The consequences could very well be catastrophic .
Scott Ritter is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties , in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm , and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD .
He is the author of several books , most recently Deal of the Century : How Iran Blocked the West ’ s Road to War ( 2018 ) .

The outbreak of COVID-19 (coronavirus) has left the United States struggling to craft a medically and scientifically sound response in a highly politicized atmosphere.
While almost every aspect of the outbreak to date has an air of inevitability about it, there is much that can be done going forward to better prepare for, and respond to, a pandemic, if and when one materializes. The United States, as a world leader, is positioned to play a critical role in formulating and implementing any such response but finds itself hobbled by political incompetence and infighting. The result could be catastrophic.
Over the past few weeks, the world has watched as a new, deadly, and highly contagious disease took hold in the Chinese city of Wuhan, infected passengers onboard luxury cruise ships, and subsequently spread to three dozen countries on every continent except Antarctica. Reports indicating the virus can be spread by victims who exhibit no symptoms has thrown health professionals into a panic. Hundreds of thousands of people have been infected, and more than 2,800 have died to date, most of them Chinese. The fatality rate for the coronavirus is greater than 2 percent, a major increase over the 0.1 percent for the common flu.
As the coronavirus has progressed, more than 110 Americans have been hospitalized for treatment and/or monitoring across 26 states. Uncertainty has derived from the mixed messages being sent by the Trump administration over the severity of the outbreak and the preparedness of the U.S. government. This has sent Wall Street into a dive, with the Dow Jones losing nearly 10 percent of its value over the course of two days. On the evening of February 25, President Donald Trump delivered a televised address to the American people, hoping to inspire confidence.
The president had been under pressure to appoint a so-called “czar” to oversee his administration’s response to the crisis. The expectation had been that he would choose a scientist, an expert of epidemiology with the knowledge and experience to manage the outbreak. Instead, he appointed Vice President Mike Pence. Wall Street futures immediately sank more than 300 points, and the next day—February 27—the Dow Jones collapsed an additional 1,200 points, the largest single day drop in its history.
The United States is in the midst of political silly season, with the Democratic Party knee-deep in a contentious primary process focused singularly on defeating Trump. President Trump is sensitive to anything that could be used against him by the Democrats in the upcoming election. One of Trump’s biggest selling points to date is the healthy state of the economy. The collapse on Wall Street, however, combined with a major disruption in global supply chains brought on by the quarantining of production centers in China and elsewhere, threatens to slow global economic growth. It could even trigger a global recession.
While the chronology of the coronavirus shows a strong cause-effect relationship between the outbreak, the lack of a viable U.S. government response, and the collapse of financial markets, President Trump still sought to deflect blame onto the Democrats, who had engaged in a chaotic televised debate on the evening of February 24. “I think the financial markets are very upset when they look at the Democratic candidates standing on that stage, making fools out of themselves,” Trump said.
In his televised press conference, Trump repeatedly made the case that his administration was “very, very ready” for a coronavirus outbreak. This position, however, has been directly contradicted by Nancy Messonnier, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who in a speech delivered a day before the president’s press conference warned, “Ultimately, we expect we will see community spread in this country. It’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness…[a]t this time, there’s no vaccine to protect against this new virus and no medications approved to treat it.”
Confidence in the Trump administration’s approach to the coronavirus outbreak was further shaken by comments made by health secretary Alex Azar, who joined the president at the White House dais to proclaim, “Our containment strategy has been working.” Immediately following the press conference, however, the Centers for Disease Control announced that a person in California had contracted the disease without having recently traveled to impacted areas or having contact with individuals known to be infected. “It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC noted in a statement. Secretary Azar’s confidence regarding containment was found to be little more than wishful thinking.
The seeming disconnect within the Trump administration between the science of epidemiology and the politics of a presidential election season emerged when trying to put a price tag on the response to the outbreak. Trump has put forward a request to Congress for $2.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding. This number was openly mocked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who put forward his own bill requesting some $8.5 billion in funding. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decried Trump’s proposal as “shameful,” noting that it was “too late, too anemic.”
Trump immediately fired back. “I think Speaker Pelosi is incompetent,” Trump said. “She’s trying to create a panic and there’s no reason to panic. All they’re trying to do is get a political advantage. This isn’t about political advantage. We’re all trying to do the right thing.”
Continuing the tit-for-tat, Pelosi urged bipartisanship, then criticized Trump’s response to the coronavirus as “opaque and often chaotic,” declaring that “lives are at stake” and, without any apparent irony, concluding, “This is not a time for name-calling or playing politics.”
Trump was not only fighting the Democrats, but also members of his own party, in particular Senator Richard Shelby, the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Shelby declared that Congress, working with the administration, should “do everything we can to make sure they have the tools, the money, to do the job to prevent the spread [of the coronavirus] as much as they can, and if it spreads to mitigate it.” He added, “Let’s not try to low-ball it and be pennywise and pound foolish.”
The president is, perhaps rightfully, coming under attack for his haphazard and disjointed approach to the coronavirus outbreak. But the American presidency isn’t the most powerful office on earth for nothing. Even after stumbling out of the gate, Trump can still pour more focused resources into an issue than anyone else. He is currently considering invoking special powers given to him under the Defense Production Act to expedite the domestic production of protective masks and clothing.
But even this won’t be enough to halt the potentially catastrophic spread of the coronavirus in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control, promoted by Trump’s political rivals as the pinnacle of professionalism when it comes to epidemiology and related emergency response, has fumbled badly. It denied doctors in California access to critical testing that could have detected the virus in a patient to whom it had spread, failing to do so because “the patient did not fit the existing CDC criteria.” Even if a test had been ordered in a timely fashion, it still might not have detected the virus: the CDC sent out faulty test kits to hospitals around the world that generated “inconclusive” results. The ongoing political infighting between Trump and his critics has impaired proper oversight of the CDC, magnifying errors that should have been corrected early on.
The outbreak of the coronavirus could not have come at a worse time for the United States. There remains an inherent tension between the executive and legislative branches of government in the aftermath of President Trump’s acquittal during his impeachment trial. This tension, when combined with the toxic political environment of the ongoing presidential race, means that everything Trump does will be subjected to highly politicized scrutiny. Politics is trumping science and medicine, diluting the effectiveness of any response. The consequences could very well be catastrophic.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most recently Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War (2018).


theamericanconservative--2020-03-03--The Establishment Takes Aim at Bernie as an Historic Day Looms

This Super Tuesday will decide even more than usual : whether Democrats will nominate a socialist for president .
After Joe Biden ’ s blowout victory in South Carolina Saturday and the swift withdrawal of Tom Steyer , “ Mayor Pete ” Buttigieg , and Senator Amy Klobuchar , the decisive day of the race for the Democratic nomination , Super Tuesday , is at hand .
Fourteen states—including California , Texas , delegate-rich Colorado , North Carolina , and Virginia—hold primaries today , where 40 percent of the delegates to the Democratic convention will be chosen .
Yet consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of diversity , America ’ s “ progressive ” party , the all-inclusive party of persons of color , African Americans , Asians , and Hispanics , the party of women and LGBT , will close out this day .
Of the 24 candidates who sought the nomination in 2019 , all the black candidates , including Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris and Governor Deval Patrick , have been eliminated .
The sole Asian American , Andrew Yang , is gone .
The Hispanic candidate , Julian Castro , is long gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black vote in South Carolina , 38-year-old gay candidate Pete Buttigieg is gone .
After South Carolina , the last two women in the race , Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar , were put under pressure from the Democratic establishment in its hair-on-fire panic .
To do what ?
These female senators were to sacrifice their hopes and dreams to advance the establishment ’ s plot to derail the nomination of the unapologetic progressive who has run the best and boldest campaign of this election year—Bernie Sanders .
Klobuchar packed it in Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ does that leave the party of diversity this first week in March ?
With three potential nominees .
All three are aging white men—Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , and Mike Bloomberg .
All three , if nominated and elected , would soon celebrate their 80th birthday in the White House .
The establishment ’ s ultimatum : everyone get with the program of breaking Bernie and “ Go with Joe !
” or face retribution .
Of what is the establishment terrified ?
That if Sanders is nominated , Donald Trump will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only will the White House be lost , all hopes of winning the Senate and blocking Trump ’ s second-term Supreme Court nominees will also be lost .
And not only the Senate but Nancy Pelosi ’ s House could also be lost .
And not only the House but hundreds of down-ballot candidates could also lose , leaving the GOP with the whip hand in redistricting congressional seats through the decade .
For Democrats , the fear is of the Harding-Coolidge Roaring ’ 20s revisited .
And if Trumpists rule the roost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ Crazy Bernie ” dominates the Democratic Party , what happens to the agenda of the establishment ?
Today promises to be a fateful one in the history of the Democratic Party , and it will answer many questions .
Will Sanders win enough delegates to give him an insurmountable lead for the nomination ?
Or will he have a good , but not a great , night , winning most of the states but not a large enough pile of delegates to reach 50 percent before the convention in Milwaukee ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being urged to drop out and back Biden before he got the first returns on his $ 500 million investment in his campaign , what did he buy with that half billion ?
We shall find out today .
If his performance is disappointing , will he yield to the establishment and do what it demands to advance the killing of Sanders ’ candidacy ?
As for Biden , the questions are clear and crucial : will the momentum from Saturday ’ s victory be sustained and replicated in Alabama and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share of the Democratic electorate is similar to South Carolina ’ s ?
Will today provide the clarity the establishment and Biden want and make this a Biden-Sanders race , with those two coming into the convention with large blocs of delegates but neither with a majority ?
What the establishment wants is for the first ballot to end without a nominee—if that nominee would be Sanders—and the pledged delegates to be freed of their commitments .
The superdelegates can then vote on the second ballot , sparing the party from falling into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the Democratic establishment , the stakes could not be higher .
Thus that establishment , after Biden ’ s landslide in South Carolina , is not disguising its interests or demands : Sanders must be denied the nomination , and Biden is the only one who can accomplish that .
Biden might have won South Carolina without the endorsement of veteran African-American Congressman Jim Clyburn .
But it was Clyburn ’ s blessing that gave Biden his landslide .
And if Biden wins Alabama and other states today , the major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina landslide and his support from African Americans .
Should Biden win the nomination , still a long shot , he will be in deep political debt .
Look for Biden to put an African-American woman on his ticket .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

After Joe Biden’s blowout victory in South Carolina Saturday and the swift withdrawal of Tom Steyer, “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, and Senator Amy Klobuchar, the decisive day of the race for the Democratic nomination, Super Tuesday, is at hand.
Fourteen states—including California, Texas, delegate-rich Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia—hold primaries today, where 40 percent of the delegates to the Democratic convention will be chosen.
Yet consider where the Democratic Party, the party of diversity, America’s “progressive” party, the all-inclusive party of persons of color, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics, the party of women and LGBT, will close out this day.
Of the 24 candidates who sought the nomination in 2019, all the black candidates, including Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris and Governor Deval Patrick, have been eliminated. The sole Asian American, Andrew Yang, is gone. The Hispanic candidate, Julian Castro, is long gone. Winning just 2 percent of the black vote in South Carolina, 38-year-old gay candidate Pete Buttigieg is gone.
After South Carolina, the last two women in the race, Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar, were put under pressure from the Democratic establishment in its hair-on-fire panic. To do what?
These female senators were to sacrifice their hopes and dreams to advance the establishment’s plot to derail the nomination of the unapologetic progressive who has run the best and boldest campaign of this election year—Bernie Sanders.
Klobuchar packed it in Monday. Warren is barely hanging on. Where does that leave the party of diversity this first week in March?
With three potential nominees. All three are aging white men—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Mike Bloomberg. All three, if nominated and elected, would soon celebrate their 80th birthday in the White House.
The establishment’s ultimatum: everyone get with the program of breaking Bernie and “Go with Joe!” or face retribution.
Of what is the establishment terrified?
That if Sanders is nominated, Donald Trump will crush him in November. And not only will the White House be lost, all hopes of winning the Senate and blocking Trump’s second-term Supreme Court nominees will also be lost.
And not only the Senate but Nancy Pelosi’s House could also be lost. And not only the House but hundreds of down-ballot candidates could also lose, leaving the GOP with the whip hand in redistricting congressional seats through the decade.
For Democrats, the fear is of the Harding-Coolidge Roaring ’20s revisited.
And if Trumpists rule the roost in the Republican Party and the populist-left of “Crazy Bernie” dominates the Democratic Party, what happens to the agenda of the establishment?
Today promises to be a fateful one in the history of the Democratic Party, and it will answer many questions.
Will Sanders win enough delegates to give him an insurmountable lead for the nomination? Or will he have a good, but not a great, night, winning most of the states but not a large enough pile of delegates to reach 50 percent before the convention in Milwaukee?
As for Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who was being urged to drop out and back Biden before he got the first returns on his $500 million investment in his campaign, what did he buy with that half billion? We shall find out today.
If his performance is disappointing, will he yield to the establishment and do what it demands to advance the killing of Sanders’ candidacy?
As for Biden, the questions are clear and crucial: will the momentum from Saturday’s victory be sustained and replicated in Alabama and other Southern and border states where the African-American share of the Democratic electorate is similar to South Carolina’s?
Will today provide the clarity the establishment and Biden want and make this a Biden-Sanders race, with those two coming into the convention with large blocs of delegates but neither with a majority?
What the establishment wants is for the first ballot to end without a nominee—if that nominee would be Sanders—and the pledged delegates to be freed of their commitments. The superdelegates can then vote on the second ballot, sparing the party from falling into the custody of an angry septuagenarian socialist.
For the Democratic establishment, the stakes could not be higher. Thus that establishment, after Biden’s landslide in South Carolina, is not disguising its interests or demands: Sanders must be denied the nomination, and Biden is the only one who can accomplish that.
Biden might have won South Carolina without the endorsement of veteran African-American Congressman Jim Clyburn. But it was Clyburn’s blessing that gave Biden his landslide.
And if Biden wins Alabama and other states today, the major factors of his victory will be his South Carolina landslide and his support from African Americans.
Should Biden win the nomination, still a long shot, he will be in deep political debt.
Look for Biden to put an African-American woman on his ticket.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-03--The Democrats Shun AIPAC, Except for One

Led by Sanders , the grassroots are more open than ever about their disdain for the pro-Israel group and Netanyahu .
Democratic Presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) 2020 Policy Conference in Washington , DC , March 2 , 2020 .
( Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images ) WASHINGTON — Speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ’ s ( AIPAC ) annual policy conference used to be a rite of passage for Democratic presidential candidates vying for their party ’ s nomination—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came in person to speak at AIPAC this year : former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg .
The 2020 conference , taking place from Sunday to Tuesday in Washington ’ s cavernous Convention Center , boasts a roster of powerful and influential speakers , including Vice President Mike Pence , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .
Yet three days before the AIPAC conference was to begin , Bloomberg was the only confirmed speaker among the Democratic presidential candidates .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former vice president Joe Biden announced they would address the gathering remotely , after AIPAC loosened restrictions barring video messages , reports The Forward .
AIPAC blocked Sanders from delivering a video message in 2016 .
“ The fact that Democrats are unwilling to go to AIPAC , and that they ’ re even willing to criticize AIPAC , is a sign of the changing views of the Democratic constituency , who are more questioning of Israel and more progressive than ever in the past , ” said author and foreign policy analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Conservative .
The choice to speak at AIPAC would appear to be less controversial for political figures that are not running for the Democratic nomination , as evidenced by the rousing speech in support of Israel given by former candidate for president Senator Cory Booker .
Senator Bernie Sanders said he would not attend the 2020 policy conference because AIPAC provides a platform “ for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.
” Sanders excoriated Israel ’ s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “ reactionary racist ” during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m very proud of being Jewish .
I actually lived in Israel for some months , ” Sanders said in Charleston , S.C. , ahead of the state ’ s primary .
“ But what I happen to believe is that right now , sadly , tragically , in Israel through Bibi Netanyahu , you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country.
” “ We don ’ t want Sanders at AIPAC .
We don ’ t want him in Israel , ” Danny Danon , Israeli Ambassador to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyone who calls our prime minister a ‘ racist ’ is either a liar , an ignorant fool , or both.
” Netanyahu ’ s toxicity may be part of the problem , according to sources who spoke with The American Conservative .
Netanyahu is running for his fifth term in office .
On Monday , Israelis headed for the ballot box for the third general election within a year .
“ It ’ s harder for AIPAC to appear to be bipartisan when they have a mandate to represent who is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few decades that ’ s been Netanyahu , ” who himself has abandoned neutrality and bipartisanship , said American businessman Jeff Aronson in an interview with The American Conservative .
In 2010 , Netanyahu humiliated then-vice president Joe Biden by announcing a plan to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem just hours before Biden was to publicly pledge strong support for the Israeli government .
Five years later , on the invite of Republican then-Speaker John Boehner , Netanyahu eviscerated President Obama ’ s JCPOA Iran deal before a joint session of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden had a bone to pick ” with AIPAC and with the American Jewish community in general , said Aronson .
“ The most interesting of the Democrats and their responses was that of Bernie Sanders , ” said Aronson .
“ He ’ s the one who announced his refusal to appear , which is certainly unusual in the annals of American political relationships with Israel.
” Aronson believes Warren and Sanders ’ s decision to skip AIPAC was a missed opportunity , and Perry agrees .
The candidates should have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an audience that might disagree , rather than voluntarily surrender the stage , said Perry and Aronson .
There are , after all , a lot of voices at AIPAC that “ are uncomfortable ” with Netanyahu and his pro-settlement policies , said Perry .
During his speech Monday , Bloomberg blasted rival candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders for skipping the conference .
“ Unfortunately , not all of my fellow Democrats in this race have attended an AIPAC conference , ” Bloomberg said .
“ One of them , Senator Sanders , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as you ’ ve heard by now , he called AIPAC a racist platform .
Well , let me tell you , he ’ s dead wrong.
” “ Calling it a racist platform is an attempt to discredit those voices [ in support of Israel , ] intimidate people from coming here , and weaken the U.S.-Israel relationship , ” he said .
Bloomberg ’ s approach to AIPAC , and his speech , were traditional in every respect .
But while this rhetoric would have been commonplace in the 90s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure in the convention center .
“ I was surprised by what Bloomberg said ; he is not acting like he ’ s running for national office .
He seems tone deaf about what the Democratic constituency are thinking , ” said Perry .
He added that Bloomberg ’ s speech seemed tailored for a New York City audience , rather than the national one whose support he will need to win the nomination .
“ He ’ s distancing himself from the very supporters he needs.
” Michael Ellman , a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Jewish Federation of Baltimore and long-time AIPAC donor and attendee , believes the media is exaggerating the problem .
“ I think the more attention we give to fringe candidates , the more power we give to them , ” said Ellman .
“ I think the message we ’ re hearing here is that pro-Israel advocacy transcends political parties and it shouldn ’ t be hijacked by any side.
” “ Support for Israel has remained in the mid to high 60s , and that has not really wavered .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ” said Ellman , but the proof will be in what is put in the Democratic party platform at the convention .
Howard Kohr , CEO of AIPAC , opened the annual conference by promising to “ defeat ” political movements and “ leaders and their supporters ” who are threatening the relationship between the U.S. and Israel .
The Hill dubbed the speech “ a veiled attack against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
” The divide between young progressives and the old Democratic establishment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zionists , is “ one of the most significant ” political realignments “ in my lifetime , ” said Perry .
“ We ’ re seeing a real chasm open up , ” said Perry .
“ I can remember not too long ago when criticizing Israel was embracing the most marginal of positions , ” he said .
“ What ’ s happening now is what Hannah Arendt predicted in 1944 : that the adherents of Zionism in Israel would become different than American Jews , that the communities would drift apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren realize it ; Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton don ’ t get it yet .
”

WASHINGTON — Speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual policy conference used to be a rite of passage for Democratic presidential candidates vying for their party’s nomination—but no longer. Only one Democratic candidate came in person to speak at AIPAC this year: former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg.
The 2020 conference, taking place from Sunday to Tuesday in Washington’s cavernous Convention Center, boasts a roster of powerful and influential speakers, including Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Yet three days before the AIPAC conference was to begin, Bloomberg was the only confirmed speaker among the Democratic presidential candidates.
At the eleventh hour, Senator Amy Klobuchar and former vice president Joe Biden announced they would address the gathering remotely, after AIPAC loosened restrictions barring video messages, reports The Forward. AIPAC blocked Sanders from delivering a video message in 2016.
“The fact that Democrats are unwilling to go to AIPAC, and that they’re even willing to criticize AIPAC, is a sign of the changing views of the Democratic constituency, who are more questioning of Israel and more progressive than ever in the past,” said author and foreign policy analyst Mark Perry in an interview with The American Conservative.
The choice to speak at AIPAC would appear to be less controversial for political figures that are not running for the Democratic nomination, as evidenced by the rousing speech in support of Israel given by former candidate for president Senator Cory Booker.
Senator Bernie Sanders said he would not attend the 2020 policy conference because AIPAC provides a platform “for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.” Sanders excoriated Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “reactionary racist” during the last Democratic debate.
“I’m very proud of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months,” Sanders said in Charleston, S.C., ahead of the state’s primary. “But what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country.”
“We don’t want Sanders at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel,” Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations said Sunday morning. “Anyone who calls our prime minister a ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool, or both.”
Netanyahu’s toxicity may be part of the problem, according to sources who spoke with The American Conservative. Netanyahu is running for his fifth term in office. On Monday, Israelis headed for the ballot box for the third general election within a year.
“It’s harder for AIPAC to appear to be bipartisan when they have a mandate to represent who is in power in Israel, and for the last few decades that’s been Netanyahu,” who himself has abandoned neutrality and bipartisanship, said American businessman Jeff Aronson in an interview with The American Conservative.
In 2010, Netanyahu humiliated then-vice president Joe Biden by announcing a plan to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem just hours before Biden was to publicly pledge strong support for the Israeli government. Five years later, on the invite of Republican then-Speaker John Boehner, Netanyahu eviscerated President Obama’s JCPOA Iran deal before a joint session of Congress.
“Due to that history Biden had a bone to pick” with AIPAC and with the American Jewish community in general, said Aronson.
“The most interesting of the Democrats and their responses was that of Bernie Sanders,” said Aronson. “He’s the one who announced his refusal to appear, which is certainly unusual in the annals of American political relationships with Israel.”
Aronson believes Warren and Sanders’s decision to skip AIPAC was a missed opportunity, and Perry agrees.
The candidates should have taken the opportunity to deliver their message to an audience that might disagree, rather than voluntarily surrender the stage, said Perry and Aronson.
There are, after all, a lot of voices at AIPAC that “are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu and his pro-settlement policies, said Perry.
During his speech Monday, Bloomberg blasted rival candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders for skipping the conference.
“Unfortunately, not all of my fellow Democrats in this race have attended an AIPAC conference,” Bloomberg said. “One of them, Senator Sanders, has spent 30 years boycotting this event. And as you’ve heard by now, he called AIPAC a racist platform. Well, let me tell you, he’s dead wrong.”
“Calling it a racist platform is an attempt to discredit those voices [in support of Israel,] intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the U.S.-Israel relationship,” he said.
Bloomberg’s approach to AIPAC, and his speech, were traditional in every respect. But while this rhetoric would have been commonplace in the 90s and aughts, Bloomberg cut a lonely figure in the convention center.
“I was surprised by what Bloomberg said; he is not acting like he’s running for national office. He seems tone deaf about what the Democratic constituency are thinking,” said Perry. He added that Bloomberg’s speech seemed tailored for a New York City audience, rather than the national one whose support he will need to win the nomination. “He’s distancing himself from the very supporters he needs.”
Michael Ellman, a member of the board of governors of the Associated Jewish Federation of Baltimore and long-time AIPAC donor and attendee, believes the media is exaggerating the problem.
“I think the more attention we give to fringe candidates, the more power we give to them,” said Ellman. “I think the message we’re hearing here is that pro-Israel advocacy transcends political parties and it shouldn’t be hijacked by any side.”
“Support for Israel has remained in the mid to high 60s, and that has not really wavered. There’s always signs of alarm from people” said Ellman, but the proof will be in what is put in the Democratic party platform at the convention.
Howard Kohr, CEO of AIPAC, opened the annual conference by promising to “defeat” political movements and “leaders and their supporters” who are threatening the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. The Hill dubbed the speech “a veiled attack against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).”
The divide between young progressives and the old Democratic establishment, and between American Jews and Israel’s Zionists, is “one of the most significant” political realignments “in my lifetime,” said Perry.
“We’re seeing a real chasm open up,” said Perry. “I can remember not too long ago when criticizing Israel was embracing the most marginal of positions,” he said.
“What’s happening now is what Hannah Arendt predicted in 1944: that the adherents of Zionism in Israel would become different than American Jews, that the communities would drift apart,” said Perry. “I think people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren realize it; Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton don’t get it yet.”


theamericanconservative--2020-03-03--The Census and Facebook: Working Hand-in-Glove to Censor the Internet

The same agency that once helped the Army round up Japanese Americans has now achieved protected status on social media .
America ’ s social media giants are rallying behind the 2020 Census .
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg recently assured a congressional committee that his company would have a “ census suppression policy ” to eliminate attacks on the Census Bureau .
Facebook is devoted to “ prohibiting census interference on our platforms , ” according to its vice president Kevin Martin .
By that , Martin didn ’ t mean a government agency interfering , but comments by private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with mandatory Census reporting .
Facebook will delete any content that suggests filling out a Census form could have “ law enforcement consequences ” or that census forms “ will be shared with another government agency.
” Similarly , Pinterest public policy manager Aerica Shimizu Banks promised that if the Census Bureau “ provides verified misinformation or disinformation to us , we ’ ll look for it on our platform and take anything we find down.
” Social media monoliths are seeking to place the Census on par with motherhood and apple pie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconcile with history .
In the early 1940s , the Census brazenly violated federal law by sharing key information from its forms on 120,000 Japanese Americans , which enabled the Army to round them up into internment camps ( sometimes described as “ concentration camps ” ) .
The detentions were among the worst civil liberties violations in modern American history .
For more than 60 years , the Census Bureau lied about its role in this debacle , declaring that it had played no role in betraying people who were wrongfully locked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Census Bureau had , in fact , disclosed to the Army how many Japanese Americans lived on each city block .
The Census Bureau responded by proudly stating that it never provided the names and addresses of specific Japanese Americans to law enforcement or the military .
But in 2007 , academic investigators proved that the Census Bureau gave the Secret Service just that information on all persons of Japanese ancestry living in the Washington , D.C. area during World War II .
The Census Bureau nowadays acts as if its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in 2003 , it provided the Department of Homeland Security with a massive report on how many people of Arab ancestry lived in every zip code .
Yet because Army trucks didn ’ t then show up and start hauling away Arab Americans , the Census Bureau caught almost zero flak .
And even if every current Census Bureau official promised to keep Americans ’ responses confidential , they wouldn ’ t be able to stop Congress from changing the rules after census forms are complete .
A law is merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-interest by a majority of a legislative body .
A single clause in a massive appropriations bill could nullify privacy protections for census respondents .
Congress seriously considered undermining the Census privacy requirement less than 20 years ago .
And don ’ t forget that it was the Census Bureau that led the charge in 1942 to sway Congress into passing a law permitting disclosure of census responses to federal law enforcement and other agencies .
That law expired in 1947 but Census officials did not bother waiting for Congress to act before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Besides , since 9/11 , federal laws protecting privacy have routinely been trampled at politicians ’ behest .
Perpetrators have been more likely to receive promotions at the NSA or FBI than face criminal charges .
Millions of Americans rely on social media for their news .
Even before its partnership with the Census Bureau , Facebook spurred controversies by suppressing material that embarrassed the government .
The company likely deleted thousands of postings of the notorious 1972 photo of a young Vietnamese girl running naked after a plane dropped napalm on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mine that included an illustration of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco , Texas , in flames after an FBI tank assault that included pyrotechnic grenades .
Facebook eventually rescinded those bans but we have no idea how many other photos or posts it ’ s automatically deleting .
Facebook ’ s censorious Census policy harmonizes with its heavy-handed approach abroad .
Its training materials assure its employees that it “ will not censor content unless a nation has demonstrated the political will to enforce its censorship laws.
” Lamentably , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Myanmar to Pakistan to Germany , Facebook routinely and massively censors its users to placate official decrees .
Judith Bergman of the Gatestone Institute warned : “ When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state ’ s private thought police…free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale.
” If Facebook is going to airbrush the Census Bureau , could Mark Zuckerberg ’ s wizards also help paper over the FBI ’ s persecution of black civil rights leaders , including Martin Luther King Jr. ?
The Pentagon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iraq , and Afghanistan ?
The CIA ’ s torture regime during the war on terror ?
Maybe Congress could establish a statute of limitations banning social media mentions of federal abuses after five years or one presidency , whichever comes first .
Democracy can not afford to pretend that government is irrevocably trustworthy .
Partnerships between social media companies and federal agencies to suppress both criticism and history are another step towards Nineteen Eighty-Four .
If the Census Bureau again betrays Americans ’ privacy , we can rest assured that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the matter .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

America’s social media giants are rallying behind the 2020 Census. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg recently assured a congressional committee that his company would have a “census suppression policy” to eliminate attacks on the Census Bureau. Facebook is devoted to “prohibiting census interference on our platforms,” according to its vice president Kevin Martin.
By that, Martin didn’t mean a government agency interfering, but comments by private citizens or groups that could spur noncompliance with mandatory Census reporting. Facebook will delete any content that suggests filling out a Census form could have “law enforcement consequences” or that census forms “will be shared with another government agency.” Similarly, Pinterest public policy manager Aerica Shimizu Banks promised that if the Census Bureau “provides verified misinformation or disinformation to us, we’ll look for it on our platform and take anything we find down.”
Social media monoliths are seeking to place the Census on par with motherhood and apple pie. But such canonization is hard to reconcile with history.
In the early 1940s, the Census brazenly violated federal law by sharing key information from its forms on 120,000 Japanese Americans, which enabled the Army to round them up into internment camps (sometimes described as “concentration camps”). The detentions were among the worst civil liberties violations in modern American history.
For more than 60 years, the Census Bureau lied about its role in this debacle, declaring that it had played no role in betraying people who were wrongfully locked away. In 2000, researchers revealed that the Census Bureau had, in fact, disclosed to the Army how many Japanese Americans lived on each city block. The Census Bureau responded by proudly stating that it never provided the names and addresses of specific Japanese Americans to law enforcement or the military. But in 2007, academic investigators proved that the Census Bureau gave the Secret Service just that information on all persons of Japanese ancestry living in the Washington, D.C. area during World War II.
The Census Bureau nowadays acts as if its role in the internments is ancient history. But in 2003, it provided the Department of Homeland Security with a massive report on how many people of Arab ancestry lived in every zip code. Yet because Army trucks didn’t then show up and start hauling away Arab Americans, the Census Bureau caught almost zero flak.
And even if every current Census Bureau official promised to keep Americans’ responses confidential, they wouldn’t be able to stop Congress from changing the rules after census forms are complete. A law is merely a reflection of the momentary perception of self-interest by a majority of a legislative body. A single clause in a massive appropriations bill could nullify privacy protections for census respondents. Congress seriously considered undermining the Census privacy requirement less than 20 years ago. And don’t forget that it was the Census Bureau that led the charge in 1942 to sway Congress into passing a law permitting disclosure of census responses to federal law enforcement and other agencies. That law expired in 1947 but Census officials did not bother waiting for Congress to act before dishing personal info to the Army.
Besides, since 9/11, federal laws protecting privacy have routinely been trampled at politicians’ behest. Perpetrators have been more likely to receive promotions at the NSA or FBI than face criminal charges.
Millions of Americans rely on social media for their news. Even before its partnership with the Census Bureau, Facebook spurred controversies by suppressing material that embarrassed the government. The company likely deleted thousands of postings of the notorious 1972 photo of a young Vietnamese girl running naked after a plane dropped napalm on her village. Facebook blocked a 2017 post of mine that included an illustration of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas, in flames after an FBI tank assault that included pyrotechnic grenades. Facebook eventually rescinded those bans but we have no idea how many other photos or posts it’s automatically deleting.
Facebook’s censorious Census policy harmonizes with its heavy-handed approach abroad. Its training materials assure its employees that it “will not censor content unless a nation has demonstrated the political will to enforce its censorship laws.” Lamentably, that includes most of the world. From Myanmar to Pakistan to Germany, Facebook routinely and massively censors its users to placate official decrees. Judith Bergman of the Gatestone Institute warned: “When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state’s private thought police…free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale.”
If Facebook is going to airbrush the Census Bureau, could Mark Zuckerberg’s wizards also help paper over the FBI’s persecution of black civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr.? The Pentagon’s false claims on military breakthroughs in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The CIA’s torture regime during the war on terror? Maybe Congress could establish a statute of limitations banning social media mentions of federal abuses after five years or one presidency, whichever comes first.
Democracy cannot afford to pretend that government is irrevocably trustworthy. Partnerships between social media companies and federal agencies to suppress both criticism and history are another step towards Nineteen Eighty-Four. If the Census Bureau again betrays Americans’ privacy, we can rest assured that our great grandchildren will learn the facts of the matter.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-04--Has Trump Delivered the Promised Revolution? Not Necessarily.

In its ridiculous dual endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar , the New York Times Editorial Board divided the Democratic field into those candidates who “ view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible ” and those who “ believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.
” I ’ ve already written about how arbitrarily the Board sorted candidates into one group or another , but the dichotomy itself is useful .
Recently , I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parable of it .
Some Democratic candidates think Trump has flipped over the political table .
They want to set it back up , dab at the tablecloth , enforce better manners , reheat the entrées , and put a second scoop of ice cream on the pie à la mode .
Biden and Bloomberg are currently the frontrunners in this category , but even the supposedly radical Elizabeth Warren , by virtue of her moderating compromises and general palatability to the party elite , deserves ( at least in part ) the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , Trump never actually flipped the table .
Sure , he promised to , but as soon as he sat down and dug into his well-done steak , something changed .
Many of his signature dishes never materialized .
And although he continued to insist that the kitchen staff were defiling the food , he seemed awfully chummy with the management .
The management , for their part , obligingly looked the other way while he belched , used the wrong knife , and generally flouted the edicts of Emily Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table where pickings were slim , many of whom had played a part in elevating Trump to his lofty position , wondered what had gone wrong .
Was the table bolted invisibly to the floor ?
Or had Trump betrayed them ?
Meanwhile , the food , rotten long before Trump had sat down , continued to attract flies .
Into this category , I would place Bernie Sanders , Andrew Yang , and perhaps Tulsi Gabbard , of whom only Bernie remains standing .
Biden thinks he can still salvage dinner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramsay .
To be clear , neither of these is exactly my position .
My question is how Trump will respond to the latter .
Sure , Biden ’ s guy ’ s-guy persona might be enough to take back the Rust Belt and push him over 270 .
It seems to me , though , that running on little more than people ’ s fond memories of the Obama administration won ’ t be enough in de-industrialized , opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin ( Bernie outperforms Biden in all three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won there by a combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who , after eight years of Obama , had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change .
This feeling of being let down by Obama ’ s messianic promises , what Sarah Palin eloquently called his “ hopey-changey thing , ” could cut both ways , though .
Trump still hasn ’ t built his wall .
Manufacturing jobs have not returned en masse ; tariffs on China have squeezed farmers and failed to produce the speedy victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end still rage , and we ’ ve gone to the brink with Iran .
Yes , the economy is strong , and conventional wisdom has it that the incumbent only loses if the economy tanks .
But Bernie makes a strong case that the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the economy are not the same thing .
Six out of 10 Americans feel they ’ re better off than they were three years ago , but I wonder whether the frustrated Midwesterners who swung the election in 2016 have gotten what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , they might be willing to try something new .
The distance between left-populism and right-populism is , after all , far shorter than the distance between the center-left and the center-right .
If Obama let you down and Trump let you down , why not vote Sanders ?
You ’ ve already switched parties once .
Trump shot to the top of the Republican primary polls because he had the energy of a disruptor .
The media showered l ’ enfant terrible with free advertising .
Since the impeachment , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s white-hot Trump derangement has cooled at precisely the wrong time .
These days , it ’ s Bernie drawing all the outrage , including accusations of Russian stoogery and wild speculation about anarchic brokered conventions .
Slowly , a narrative is solidifying : if you ’ re ready to say “ the hell with it , ” vote Sanders ; if you want more of the same , vote Trump .
This perception could prove fatal to the incumbent .
Trump will give Bernie both barrels with “ you ’ re a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to pay for that ?
” But those might actually work in Bernie ’ s favor .
On the campaign trail , Trump proposed a number of fanciful policies , from punishing post-abortive women to deporting 12 million people to the possibility of nuking Europe , and all it got him was more free media .
He never explained how the hell he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall , but nobody cared .
Trump was bold , brash , and unconcerned with breaking rules or offending people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equally brash , has usurped that brand positioning .
This move could force Trump into the role of a brake-pumping Deng Xiaoping , persecuting the authentic radicals while hollowly insisting that he remains the true custodian of the populist revolution .
Badgering Bernie about his lavish Medicare-for-All plan and his lack of clarity about how to fund it could induce sticker shock in the American electorate , but it could also solidify voters ’ perception that Sanders is the dynamic visionary and Trump the static naysayer .
Bernie seems to actively cultivate this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call himself a “ democratic socialist ” rather than a “ social democrat , ” a term that more accurately describes his policies and leaves out the scary S-word to boot ?
On the debate stage , Bernie will almost certainly castigate Trump for exploiting the anxieties of those coveted 77,744 and delivering on little of what he promised .
If Trump counters that he ’ s been stymied by the Deep State , he loses again .
His die-hard supporters will buy it , but at least some voters at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , if Trump couldn ’ t hit hard enough to shatter the ossified bureaucracy , maybe Sanders can .
Or maybe he ’ ll get it rolling in the direction he wants , transforming that bureaucratic mass from an immovable object into an unstoppable force.
” I worry that our politics have entered a downward spiral .
Hyperpartisan polarization has ensured that everyone feels precarious all the time , and thanks to the ever-morphing values of liquid modernity , moderate candidates can no longer run fast enough to stay in place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it must be made great again by whatever means necessary .
If it was never great , it must be radically transformed .
As checks , balances , bureaucrats , and practicalities frustrate the sweeping aims of each successive political messiah , they prepare the way for one even more extreme to follow .
If this happens enough times , the populists of whichever stripe , thwarted again and again , will finally turn against the institutions of their own society .
Enter Thomas Hobbes , stage right or left .
I recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ milquetoast of centrists , the status quo has plenty of problems .
I even admit that my own sympathy to populism has grown since 2016 .
But the trend I ’ ve described in American politics is enough to make me sympathize with C.S .
Lewis , who grew fed up with an electorate that demanded “ such qualities as ‘ vision , ’ ‘ dynamism , ’ [ and ] ‘ creativity ’ ” from candidates .
Lewis longed for a political leader “ who will do a day ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will refuse bribes , who will not make up his facts , and who has learned his job.
” He even sardonically proposed founding “ a Stagnation Party—which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place.
” It ’ s enough to make me miss Jeb Bush .
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A .
at Georgetown University .

In its ridiculous dual endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, the New York Times Editorial Board divided the Democratic field into those candidates who “view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible” and those who “believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.”
I’ve already written about how arbitrarily the Board sorted candidates into one group or another, but the dichotomy itself is useful. Recently, I’ve found that it helps to make a parable of it.
Some Democratic candidates think Trump has flipped over the political table. They want to set it back up, dab at the tablecloth, enforce better manners, reheat the entrées, and put a second scoop of ice cream on the pie à la mode. Biden and Bloomberg are currently the frontrunners in this category, but even the supposedly radical Elizabeth Warren, by virtue of her moderating compromises and general palatability to the party elite, deserves (at least in part) the label of table re-setter.
For others, though, Trump never actually flipped the table. Sure, he promised to, but as soon as he sat down and dug into his well-done steak, something changed. Many of his signature dishes never materialized. And although he continued to insist that the kitchen staff were defiling the food, he seemed awfully chummy with the management. The management, for their part, obligingly looked the other way while he belched, used the wrong knife, and generally flouted the edicts of Emily Post. Those at the far end of the table where pickings were slim, many of whom had played a part in elevating Trump to his lofty position, wondered what had gone wrong. Was the table bolted invisibly to the floor? Or had Trump betrayed them? Meanwhile, the food, rotten long before Trump had sat down, continued to attract flies.
Into this category, I would place Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, of whom only Bernie remains standing.
Biden thinks he can still salvage dinner; Bernie wants to go full Gordon Ramsay.
To be clear, neither of these is exactly my position. My question is how Trump will respond to the latter. Sure, Biden’s guy’s-guy persona might be enough to take back the Rust Belt and push him over 270. It seems to me, though, that running on little more than people’s fond memories of the Obama administration won’t be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Bernie outperforms Biden in all three, according to current polls). Trump won there by a combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who, after eight years of Obama, had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change.
This feeling of being let down by Obama’s messianic promises, what Sarah Palin eloquently called his “hopey-changey thing,” could cut both ways, though. Trump still hasn’t built his wall. Manufacturing jobs have not returned en masse; tariffs on China have squeezed farmers and failed to produce the speedy victory he promised. The wars he promised to end still rage, and we’ve gone to the brink with Iran. Yes, the economy is strong, and conventional wisdom has it that the incumbent only loses if the economy tanks. But Bernie makes a strong case that the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the economy are not the same thing. Six out of 10 Americans feel they’re better off than they were three years ago, but I wonder whether the frustrated Midwesterners who swung the election in 2016 have gotten what they wanted out of Trump. If not, they might be willing to try something new. The distance between left-populism and right-populism is, after all, far shorter than the distance between the center-left and the center-right. If Obama let you down and Trump let you down, why not vote Sanders? You’ve already switched parties once.
Trump shot to the top of the Republican primary polls because he had the energy of a disruptor. The media showered l’enfant terrible with free advertising. Since the impeachment, though, it seems like the press’s white-hot Trump derangement has cooled at precisely the wrong time. These days, it’s Bernie drawing all the outrage, including accusations of Russian stoogery and wild speculation about anarchic brokered conventions.
Slowly, a narrative is solidifying: if you’re ready to say “the hell with it,” vote Sanders; if you want more of the same, vote Trump.
This perception could prove fatal to the incumbent.
Trump will give Bernie both barrels with “you’re a communist” and “how are we supposed to pay for that?” But those might actually work in Bernie’s favor. On the campaign trail, Trump proposed a number of fanciful policies, from punishing post-abortive women to deporting 12 million people to the possibility of nuking Europe, and all it got him was more free media. He never explained how the hell he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, but nobody cared. Trump was bold, brash, and unconcerned with breaking rules or offending people. Now Sanders, less crass but equally brash, has usurped that brand positioning. This move could force Trump into the role of a brake-pumping Deng Xiaoping, persecuting the authentic radicals while hollowly insisting that he remains the true custodian of the populist revolution.
Badgering Bernie about his lavish Medicare-for-All plan and his lack of clarity about how to fund it could induce sticker shock in the American electorate, but it could also solidify voters’ perception that Sanders is the dynamic visionary and Trump the static naysayer. Bernie seems to actively cultivate this edgy persona. Why else would he call himself a “democratic socialist” rather than a “social democrat,” a term that more accurately describes his policies and leaves out the scary S-word to boot?
On the debate stage, Bernie will almost certainly castigate Trump for exploiting the anxieties of those coveted 77,744 and delivering on little of what he promised. If Trump counters that he’s been stymied by the Deep State, he loses again. His die-hard supporters will buy it, but at least some voters at the end of their rope will think, “Well, if Trump couldn’t hit hard enough to shatter the ossified bureaucracy, maybe Sanders can. Or maybe he’ll get it rolling in the direction he wants, transforming that bureaucratic mass from an immovable object into an unstoppable force.”
I worry that our politics have entered a downward spiral. Hyperpartisan polarization has ensured that everyone feels precarious all the time, and thanks to the ever-morphing values of liquid modernity, moderate candidates can no longer run fast enough to stay in place. If America is no longer great, it must be made great again by whatever means necessary. If it was never great, it must be radically transformed. As checks, balances, bureaucrats, and practicalities frustrate the sweeping aims of each successive political messiah, they prepare the way for one even more extreme to follow. If this happens enough times, the populists of whichever stripe, thwarted again and again, will finally turn against the institutions of their own society. Enter Thomas Hobbes, stage right or left.
I recognize that, for all but the most milquetoast of centrists, the status quo has plenty of problems. I even admit that my own sympathy to populism has grown since 2016. But the trend I’ve described in American politics is enough to make me sympathize with C.S. Lewis, who grew fed up with an electorate that demanded “such qualities as ‘vision,’ ‘dynamism,’ [and] ‘creativity’” from candidates. Lewis longed for a political leader “who will do a day’s work for a day’s pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job.” He even sardonically proposed founding “a Stagnation Party—which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place.”
It’s enough to make me miss Jeb Bush.
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A. at Georgetown University.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-04--How Trump Could Still Lose 2020

How Trump Could Still Lose 2020

Bernie Sanders is not George McGovern .
And Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon when he ran for reelection in 1972 .
Thus the oft-heard analogy explaining why Sanders couldn ’ t beat Trump this year—that he is too liberal , just as McGovern was too liberal 48 years ago—doesn ’ t hold .
McGovern didn ’ t lose his presidential bid because he was too liberal .
He lost because he ran against an incumbent , Nixon , who had logged an exemplary record as president in his first term .
American voters don ’ t discard presidents for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents when presidents prove themselves to be too small for the job .
Thus it can be said that no Democrat , however liberal or centrist , was going to beat Nixon in 1972 .
The corollary is that when presidents lose the confidence of the American people—as Jimmy Carter did in the late 1970s , for example—any opponent will suffice to expel him from office .
The pols and pundits of 1980 , when Carter sought reelection against challenger Ronald Reagan , considered the Californian to be just too conservative to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought Carter would be the inevitable winner .
Wrong again .
Voters don ’ t get hung up on the views of challengers ; they focus on the performances of incumbent presidents and parties .
That , primarily , is what drives presidential elections .
I explored this referendum thesis of presidential elections in my 2012 book , Where They Stand , and again in the fall of 2016 in a piece for TAC magazine ( later republished on this website ) , which posited that “ Trump actually can win , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the polls.
” I based this not on anything said or done by Trump or by his Democratic opponent , Hillary Clinton , but on Barack Obama ’ s second-term record , which I adjudged to have been a mild failure ( after a first-term record that I considered a mild success—hence his 2012 reelection ) .
The subhead on the TAC piece posed a thought that was highly unconventional , even outlandish , at the time : “ The keys that predict victory could pose bad news for Clinton.
” To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presidential election in terms of referendum politics , we must first dispose of the McGovern analogy , which can be done only through a look at Nixon ’ s first-term record ( leaving aside , of course , his second-term fiasco ) .
He inherited the presidency in January 1969 when the country was beset by multiple crises .
It was bogged down in a war widely considered unwinnable , with 540,000 troops in Vietnam and large numbers of casualties every week .
The economy was beginning to sputter under the weight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and butter ” policies , with meager economic growth mixed with a rising threat of inflation .
Mass antiwar demonstrations on college campuses and in Washington , D.C. raised questions about civic stability , rendered all the more urgent with race riots in multiple cities that claimed dozens of lives .
Yet over the course of the next four years , Nixon reduced America ’ s Vietnam troop commitment to just 70,000 soldiers and brought the war very close to a negotiated end ( realized shortly after the 1972 election ) .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other actions , notably his support for an all-volunteer army , he managed to calm the waters of protest .
Through an economic stimulus program , he boosted GDP growth in the election year to a robust 4 percent .
He stunned his country and the world with his bold overture to China , which transformed the geopolitical dynamics of Asia .
He also scored a major domestic triumph with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency .
In their 1990 book exploring the dynamics of referendum politics , The 13 Keys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ken DeCell write that Nixon ’ s early presidential performance seemed too mediocre for any 1972 victory .
But he managed to recoup brilliantly .
“ The reality of 1971 , ” they wrote , “ was that Nixon ’ s prospects for reelection looked bleak.
” But then , they added , he pulled off “ one of the most remarkable turnarounds in presidential history , ” marked by an economic boom , the unexpected foreign policy triumph with communist China , and his remarkable success in defusing the Vietnam controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with 60.7 percent of the popular vote and 570 electoral ballots to just 17 for McGovern .
Is it really realistic to suggest , based on any analysis of history , that Nixon could have been defeated if only the Democrats had put up a more centrist opponent or if McGovern hadn ’ t positioned himself so far to the left ?
No , Nixon won on his record , and McGovern ’ s liberalism had little to do with it .
Thus will Donald Trump rise or fall this year on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent is .
Lichtman and DeCell , in their book ( updated in later editions by Lichtman alone ) , posited an analytical matrix designed to lay bare the essence of voters ’ presidential decision-making .
They identify 13 “ keys , ” or fundamental analytical statements , that illuminate the political standing of the incumbent president or incumbent party .
They note that , since Abraham Lincoln ’ s 1860 victory , when five or fewer of these statements disfavor the incumbent , the incumbent wins .
When six or more disfavor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is all based on complex “ pattern recognition ” algorithms designed to illuminate the politics of today by discerning patterns of circumstance that guided the country ’ s past political paths .
Some of the keys deal directly with questions of success and failure—for example , whether the economy has grown beyond that of the previous eight years , whether there is an election year recession , whether the president has scored a major foreign policy success , whether he has suffered a major foreign policy failure , whether he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether he has been beset by scandal , whether civic unrest has reached a point of violence and major disruption .
But others deal merely with circumstances surrounding the incumbent—whether he must fight for the nomination , whether there is a serious independent challenger in the general election , whether the party in power has gained or lost seats since the last presidential election , whether he or his opponent is a person of charisma or a military hero , whether the nominee of the party in power is the incumbent .
Based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I concluded that no Democrat was likely to win the presidency for the reason that Obama ’ s second-term performance precluded it .
Hence , I took Trump seriously , not because of Trump himself but because of the referendum factors .
If we apply those same keys today to Trump ’ s presidency and reelection bid , it appears they could point either way , to victory or to defeat .
Some remain indeterminate for now ; others can be answered only through subjective reasoning .
It would be a mistake to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other such thesis , too literally .
The subjective nature of some of the questions suggest caution , as does the idea that every aspect of past campaigns can be captured by algorithms that will hold indefinitely into the future .
But the outlines of the referendum reality can be discerned through some of their questions .
As for Trump , has he been beset by scandal ?
Yes .
Has his party lost standing in Congress since his election ?
Yes .
Has he scored a major foreign policy or military triumph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes in national policy ?
Probably not .
Has his stark persona been a net positive or net negative ?
Probably a negative .
On the other hand , he has not been challenged for the nomination , there is no independent candidacy of note , the economy is better than it was in the immediate previous era , and there has been no social unrest of serious concern .
Whatever it all adds up to by November 3 , Trump will rise or fall on his own record , as he should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic nomination , his impact on the outcome will be secondary .
And in that event , if Trump is adjudged by the voters to have been an unsuccessful president , his successor will be the socialist from Vermont .
Robert W. Merry , journalist , author , and former publishing executive , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

Bernie Sanders is not George McGovern. And Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon when he ran for reelection in 1972. Thus the oft-heard analogy explaining why Sanders couldn’t beat Trump this year—that he is too liberal, just as McGovern was too liberal 48 years ago—doesn’t hold.
McGovern didn’t lose his presidential bid because he was too liberal. He lost because he ran against an incumbent, Nixon, who had logged an exemplary record as president in his first term. American voters don’t discard presidents for the fun of it. They discard presidents when presidents prove themselves to be too small for the job.
Thus it can be said that no Democrat, however liberal or centrist, was going to beat Nixon in 1972.
The corollary is that when presidents lose the confidence of the American people—as Jimmy Carter did in the late 1970s, for example—any opponent will suffice to expel him from office. The pols and pundits of 1980, when Carter sought reelection against challenger Ronald Reagan, considered the Californian to be just too conservative to be president. Hence, many of them thought Carter would be the inevitable winner. Wrong again. Voters don’t get hung up on the views of challengers; they focus on the performances of incumbent presidents and parties. That, primarily, is what drives presidential elections.
I explored this referendum thesis of presidential elections in my 2012 book, Where They Stand, and again in the fall of 2016 in a piece for TAC magazine (later republished on this website), which posited that “Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing in the polls.” I based this not on anything said or done by Trump or by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, but on Barack Obama’s second-term record, which I adjudged to have been a mild failure (after a first-term record that I considered a mild success—hence his 2012 reelection). The subhead on the TAC piece posed a thought that was highly unconventional, even outlandish, at the time: “The keys that predict victory could pose bad news for Clinton.”
To understand the dynamics of this year’s presidential election in terms of referendum politics, we must first dispose of the McGovern analogy, which can be done only through a look at Nixon’s first-term record (leaving aside, of course, his second-term fiasco).
He inherited the presidency in January 1969 when the country was beset by multiple crises. It was bogged down in a war widely considered unwinnable, with 540,000 troops in Vietnam and large numbers of casualties every week. The economy was beginning to sputter under the weight of Lyndon Johnson’s “guns and butter” policies, with meager economic growth mixed with a rising threat of inflation. Mass antiwar demonstrations on college campuses and in Washington, D.C. raised questions about civic stability, rendered all the more urgent with race riots in multiple cities that claimed dozens of lives.
Yet over the course of the next four years, Nixon reduced America’s Vietnam troop commitment to just 70,000 soldiers and brought the war very close to a negotiated end (realized shortly after the 1972 election). With his famous “Silent Majority” speech and other actions, notably his support for an all-volunteer army, he managed to calm the waters of protest. Through an economic stimulus program, he boosted GDP growth in the election year to a robust 4 percent. He stunned his country and the world with his bold overture to China, which transformed the geopolitical dynamics of Asia. He also scored a major domestic triumph with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In their 1990 book exploring the dynamics of referendum politics, The 13 Keys to the Presidency, Alan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell write that Nixon’s early presidential performance seemed too mediocre for any 1972 victory. But he managed to recoup brilliantly. “The reality of 1971,” they wrote, “was that Nixon’s prospects for reelection looked bleak.” But then, they added, he pulled off “one of the most remarkable turnarounds in presidential history,” marked by an economic boom, the unexpected foreign policy triumph with communist China, and his remarkable success in defusing the Vietnam controversy. The result was a landslide reelection, with 60.7 percent of the popular vote and 570 electoral ballots to just 17 for McGovern.
Is it really realistic to suggest, based on any analysis of history, that Nixon could have been defeated if only the Democrats had put up a more centrist opponent or if McGovern hadn’t positioned himself so far to the left? No, Nixon won on his record, and McGovern’s liberalism had little to do with it.
Thus will Donald Trump rise or fall this year on his record, not on who his opponent is. Lichtman and DeCell, in their book (updated in later editions by Lichtman alone), posited an analytical matrix designed to lay bare the essence of voters’ presidential decision-making. They identify 13 “keys,” or fundamental analytical statements, that illuminate the political standing of the incumbent president or incumbent party. They note that, since Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 victory, when five or fewer of these statements disfavor the incumbent, the incumbent wins. When six or more disfavor the incumbent, the result is defeat. This is all based on complex “pattern recognition” algorithms designed to illuminate the politics of today by discerning patterns of circumstance that guided the country’s past political paths.
Some of the keys deal directly with questions of success and failure—for example, whether the economy has grown beyond that of the previous eight years, whether there is an election year recession, whether the president has scored a major foreign policy success, whether he has suffered a major foreign policy failure, whether he has scored a major domestic policy success, whether he has been beset by scandal, whether civic unrest has reached a point of violence and major disruption.
But others deal merely with circumstances surrounding the incumbent—whether he must fight for the nomination, whether there is a serious independent challenger in the general election, whether the party in power has gained or lost seats since the last presidential election, whether he or his opponent is a person of charisma or a military hero, whether the nominee of the party in power is the incumbent.
Based on the answers four years ago, I concluded that no Democrat was likely to win the presidency for the reason that Obama’s second-term performance precluded it. Hence, I took Trump seriously, not because of Trump himself but because of the referendum factors.
If we apply those same keys today to Trump’s presidency and reelection bid, it appears they could point either way, to victory or to defeat. Some remain indeterminate for now; others can be answered only through subjective reasoning.
It would be a mistake to take the Lichtman-DeCell thesis, or any other such thesis, too literally. The subjective nature of some of the questions suggest caution, as does the idea that every aspect of past campaigns can be captured by algorithms that will hold indefinitely into the future. But the outlines of the referendum reality can be discerned through some of their questions.
As for Trump, has he been beset by scandal? Yes. Has his party lost standing in Congress since his election? Yes. Has he scored a major foreign policy or military triumph? No. Has he effected major changes in national policy? Probably not. Has his stark persona been a net positive or net negative? Probably a negative. On the other hand, he has not been challenged for the nomination, there is no independent candidacy of note, the economy is better than it was in the immediate previous era, and there has been no social unrest of serious concern.
Whatever it all adds up to by November 3, Trump will rise or fall on his own record, as he should. Even if Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, his impact on the outcome will be secondary. And in that event, if Trump is adjudged by the voters to have been an unsuccessful president, his successor will be the socialist from Vermont.
Robert W. Merry, journalist, author, and former publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).