theamericanconservative--2020-02-24--Why Bloomberg’s Campaign is Kind of Refreshing

He might be terrible , but it 's fun watching him try to circumvent the media and the usual political conventions .
Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg addresses to local leaders at Everett & Jones BBQ in Oakland , Calif. , on Friday , Jan. 17 , 2020 .
( Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group ) Ever since he entered the Democratic primary , the media has roundly panned Michael Bloomberg for trying to “ buy the election.
” And he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it : the latest Marist poll shows him coming in second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclined to ask who exactly put the election up for sale .
Of course , those journalists don ’ t mean that Mr. Bloomberg is paying people to vote for him .
He ’ s not bribing election officials to slip him a couple extra ballots .
No , they ’ re irritated that he ’ s foregoing the hallowed rites of retail politics .
He ’ s not drinking coffee with Vietnam vets at the Hamburg Inn or kissing babies in the Charleston City Market .
Mr. Bloomberg ’ s strategy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even at his stump speeches , he remains aloof from his supporters : he comes in , reads a 10-minute speech off a teleprompter , and then leaves .
Meeting and greeting is kept to a minimum , and there are no Q & As .
This doesn ’ t bother normal people one jot , which is why Mr. Bloomberg is surging in the polls ( or at least he was before Wednesday ’ s debate ) .
If we can ’ t attend a rally in person , we livestream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s stump speech doesn ’ t satisfy our questions , we can check the policy page on his website .
We don ’ t need to feel like he ’ s personally invested in our lives before we vote for him .
Few of us make our decisions based on who has the firmest handshake or the warmest smile .
Personally , I find the Bloomberg campaign refreshing .
I don ’ t like politicians , and I don ’ t enjoy having them clutter up New Hampshire every four years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an hour for my biscuits and gravy because Elizabeth Warren decided to casually drop by the Marketplace Diner for an egg white omelet .
I ’ d rather not have to beat my way through a mob of Buttigieg supporters en route the grocery store .
I don ’ t appreciate our nice little commons being annexed by screeching college students in skin-tight Tulsi T-shirts .
My attitude toward politicians is roughly same as my attitude toward politics in general : leave me alone .
But naturally that ’ s the last thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on politics intruding into every corner of our lives ; it ’ s how they earn their daily bread .
They ’ ve turned our election cycles into season finales of a tired , cringy sitcom that used to be known as history ’ s most successful experiment in self-government .
If Mayor Bloomberg wants to buy the Democratic primary , then , he ’ ll have to outbid the cable news networks .
If anyone “ owns ” our elections , surely it ’ s them .
Remember when that guy from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan forgiveness scheme ?
Or Joe Biden ’ s bizarre ( if shockingly true ) story about a local mafioso named Frosty Flake or whatever ?
Those were two small events in their campaigns , but they came to define them for at least two weeks , which is decades during a national election season .
The only reason candidates open themselves up to this kind of ritual humiliation is because it ’ s the only way they can guarantee televised coverage of their campaigns .
Mayor Bloomberg selfishly refuses to set himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s punchlines .
Other politicians have to chase the camera and hope it catches them at their best ; Mike just buys his own .
Again , your average voter couldn ’ t care less .
For most of us , the point of a presidential campaign is to choose our next president .
For the media , it ’ s just another way to monetize our democracy .
Take the televised debates .
The center ring of our presidential elections has become yet another staging ground for gladiatorial politics , all thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies .
We saw that on full display last Wednesday at the Nevada Democratic debate .
Bogotá native and debate moderator Vanessa Hauc seemed personally offended that Amy Klobuchar had forgotten the name of Mexico ’ s president during a recent Telemundo interview .
Worse , Ms. Hauc continued , “ you defended yourself saying , quote , ‘ This isn ’ t Jeopardy.
’ But my question to you is , shouldn ’ t our next president know more about one of our largest trading partners , you ignorant bigot ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call Senator Klobuchar a bigot .
But you could tell she really , really wanted to .
The senator ’ s response was outstanding : “ I said that I made an error .
I think that having a president that maybe is humble , and is able to admit that here and there , maybe wouldn ’ t be a bad thing.
” The crowd erupted in applause , and that should ’ ve been the end of it .
The senator admitted her mistake and promised to do better .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
They ’ re driven by conflict , not resolution .
And so Ms. Hauc naturally gave the floor to Senator Klobuchar ’ s rival , Pete Buttigieg .
This led to one of the longest sustained exchanges of the night , with Mayor Pete smugly piling on his moderate rival and Senator Klobuchar trembling with rage .
“ Are you trying to say that I ’ m dumb ?
” she asked .
“ Are you mocking me ?
” Well , yes : Ms. Hauc wouldn ’ t have called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Mayor Bloomberg .
He really should have stuck to his guns and declined the invitation .
There was no chance Wednesday was going to go well for him .
As expected , his opponents piled on him for his implementation of stop-and-frisk as mayor of New York City , for which he has since apologized ( needlessly , in my view ) .
Now it ’ s up to Democratic voters to decide whether his apology is sincere or not .
Nevertheless the routine piling-on by his fellow candidates was nothing but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them had been the chief executive of a town larger than South Bend , Indiana , they might have also implemented some policies they ’ re no longer proud of .
But that kind of verbal castration is exactly what these debates are all about .
Believe it or not , I ’ m no Bloomberg supporter .
In fact , I can ’ t stand the guy .
I wouldn ’ t vote for him in a thousand years and I don ’ t suggest anyone else do so either .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m a distributist : I have equal contempt for Big Business and Big Government .
Mayor Bloomberg represents a perfect and equal union of the two .
But that our Fourth Estate would cast themselves as his antithesis is laughable .
It has a certain Napoleonic whiff : the man who declares himself emperor in order to safeguard the republic .
They don ’ t care about democracy .
If they did , they ’ d refuse to sell Mayor Bloomberg that ad space .
No , journalism today is all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why they ’ ve turned our elections into a bloodsport .
It ’ s like WWE for the middle class .
Their debates don ’ t ( and can ’ t ) tell us anything about a candidate ’ s intelligence or the relative value of his policy proposals .
All they can measure is a politician ’ s skill at verbal riposte .
The medium itself precludes any consensus or compromise .
It encourages bickering , backbiting , and grandstanding—everything we claim to hate about politics .
Maybe that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a lie we tell ourselves .
We all say we want more bipartisanship in our politics , yet we can ’ t even abide partisanship in our politics .
Our national pastime is watching members of the same caucus rhetorically maul one another .
And you know what ?
That ’ s fine !
As long as politicians are savaging each other , they can ’ t savage us .
Yet I want to believe that , deep down , the American people know this is no way to do government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll wake up someday and decide we ’ ve had enough of the media ’ s stranglehold on our democracy .
I don ’ t mind politicians pandering ; it ’ s all they ’ re good at .
But they should be pandering to us , their constituents—not CNN or NBC .
Our elected officials dance for these hacks like marionettes .
It ’ s high time we cut the strings .
Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine .
He is the author of The Reactionary Mind ( @ @ @ @ @

Ever since he entered the Democratic primary, the media has roundly panned Michael Bloomberg for trying to “buy the election.” And he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it: the latest Marist poll shows him coming in second behind Bernie Sanders. Yet nobody seems inclined to ask who exactly put the election up for sale.
Of course, those journalists don’t mean that Mr. Bloomberg is paying people to vote for him. He’s not bribing election officials to slip him a couple extra ballots. No, they’re irritated that he’s foregoing the hallowed rites of retail politics. He’s not drinking coffee with Vietnam vets at the Hamburg Inn or kissing babies in the Charleston City Market. Mr. Bloomberg’s strategy is to carpet-bomb the nation with television ads. Even at his stump speeches, he remains aloof from his supporters: he comes in, reads a 10-minute speech off a teleprompter, and then leaves. Meeting and greeting is kept to a minimum, and there are no Q&As.
This doesn’t bother normal people one jot, which is why Mr. Bloomberg is surging in the polls (or at least he was before Wednesday’s debate). If we can’t attend a rally in person, we livestream it on Facebook. If a candidate’s stump speech doesn’t satisfy our questions, we can check the policy page on his website. We don’t need to feel like he’s personally invested in our lives before we vote for him. Few of us make our decisions based on who has the firmest handshake or the warmest smile.
Personally, I find the Bloomberg campaign refreshing. I don’t like politicians, and I don’t enjoy having them clutter up New Hampshire every four years. I don’t want to wait an hour for my biscuits and gravy because Elizabeth Warren decided to casually drop by the Marketplace Diner for an egg white omelet. I’d rather not have to beat my way through a mob of Buttigieg supporters en route the grocery store. I don’t appreciate our nice little commons being annexed by screeching college students in skin-tight Tulsi T-shirts. My attitude toward politicians is roughly same as my attitude toward politics in general: leave me alone.
But naturally that’s the last thing the mainstream media wants. They insist on politics intruding into every corner of our lives; it’s how they earn their daily bread. They’ve turned our election cycles into season finales of a tired, cringy sitcom that used to be known as history’s most successful experiment in self-government. If Mayor Bloomberg wants to buy the Democratic primary, then, he’ll have to outbid the cable news networks. If anyone “owns” our elections, surely it’s them.
Remember when that guy from Iowa confronted Elizabeth Warren about her student loan forgiveness scheme? Or Joe Biden’s bizarre (if shockingly true) story about a local mafioso named Frosty Flake or whatever? Those were two small events in their campaigns, but they came to define them for at least two weeks, which is decades during a national election season. The only reason candidates open themselves up to this kind of ritual humiliation is because it’s the only way they can guarantee televised coverage of their campaigns.
Mayor Bloomberg selfishly refuses to set himself up as one of Don Lemon’s punchlines. Other politicians have to chase the camera and hope it catches them at their best; Mike just buys his own.
Again, your average voter couldn’t care less. For most of us, the point of a presidential campaign is to choose our next president. For the media, it’s just another way to monetize our democracy.
Take the televised debates. The center ring of our presidential elections has become yet another staging ground for gladiatorial politics, all thanks to the sponsorship of our cable media companies.
We saw that on full display last Wednesday at the Nevada Democratic debate. Bogotá native and debate moderator Vanessa Hauc seemed personally offended that Amy Klobuchar had forgotten the name of Mexico’s president during a recent Telemundo interview. Worse, Ms. Hauc continued, “you defended yourself saying, quote, ‘This isn’t Jeopardy.’ But my question to you is, shouldn’t our next president know more about one of our largest trading partners, you ignorant bigot?” Well, she didn’t actually call Senator Klobuchar a bigot. But you could tell she really, really wanted to.
The senator’s response was outstanding: “I said that I made an error. I think that having a president that maybe is humble, and is able to admit that here and there, maybe wouldn’t be a bad thing.” The crowd erupted in applause, and that should’ve been the end of it. The senator admitted her mistake and promised to do better.
But that’s not how these debates work. They’re driven by conflict, not resolution. And so Ms. Hauc naturally gave the floor to Senator Klobuchar’s rival, Pete Buttigieg. This led to one of the longest sustained exchanges of the night, with Mayor Pete smugly piling on his moderate rival and Senator Klobuchar trembling with rage. “Are you trying to say that I’m dumb?” she asked. “Are you mocking me?” Well, yes: Ms. Hauc wouldn’t have called on him otherwise.
Then there’s Mayor Bloomberg. He really should have stuck to his guns and declined the invitation. There was no chance Wednesday was going to go well for him.
As expected, his opponents piled on him for his implementation of stop-and-frisk as mayor of New York City, for which he has since apologized (needlessly, in my view). Now it’s up to Democratic voters to decide whether his apology is sincere or not. Nevertheless the routine piling-on by his fellow candidates was nothing but righteous posturing. Maybe if any of them had been the chief executive of a town larger than South Bend, Indiana, they might have also implemented some policies they’re no longer proud of. But that kind of verbal castration is exactly what these debates are all about.
Believe it or not, I’m no Bloomberg supporter. In fact, I can’t stand the guy. I wouldn’t vote for him in a thousand years and I don’t suggest anyone else do so either. As I’ve said before, I’m a distributist: I have equal contempt for Big Business and Big Government. Mayor Bloomberg represents a perfect and equal union of the two.
But that our Fourth Estate would cast themselves as his antithesis is laughable. It has a certain Napoleonic whiff: the man who declares himself emperor in order to safeguard the republic.
They don’t care about democracy. If they did, they’d refuse to sell Mayor Bloomberg that ad space. No, journalism today is all about reaping profits by maximizing viewers, which is why they’ve turned our elections into a bloodsport. It’s like WWE for the middle class.
Their debates don’t (and can’t) tell us anything about a candidate’s intelligence or the relative value of his policy proposals. All they can measure is a politician’s skill at verbal riposte. The medium itself precludes any consensus or compromise. It encourages bickering, backbiting, and grandstanding—everything we claim to hate about politics.
Maybe that’s a lie. Worse, maybe it’s a lie we tell ourselves. We all say we want more bipartisanship in our politics, yet we can’t even abide partisanship in our politics. Our national pastime is watching members of the same caucus rhetorically maul one another. And you know what? That’s fine! As long as politicians are savaging each other, they can’t savage us.
Yet I want to believe that, deep down, the American people know this is no way to do government. I want to believe that we’ll wake up someday and decide we’ve had enough of the media’s stranglehold on our democracy. I don’t mind politicians pandering; it’s all they’re good at. But they should be pandering to us, their constituents—not CNN or NBC. Our elected officials dance for these hacks like marionettes. It’s high time we cut the strings.
Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. He is the author of The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).


theamericanconservative--2020-02-24--What Happens to the Conservative Realignment if Trump is Defeated?

Has there ever been a stranger election year budget than the one President Donald Trump released as Democrats started heading to the polls ?
Clocking in at $ 4.8 trillion , it is unlikely to win him many plaudits from the small but vocal contingent of consistent fiscal conservatives who , rather than building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border , would prefer to construct a dam to contain the rising tide of red ink .
It contains no structural reforms to the spending programs on which retiring baby boomers will rely for income and healthcare in their golden years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal activists can point to $ 850 billion in Medicare cuts here and $ 920 billion in Medicaid cuts there .
The budget has no chance of being adopted , of course .
Democrats control the House of Representatives , where all spending and revenue bills must originate ( that part of the Constitution is still operative ) , so the White House ’ s spending blueprint for the next fiscal year is dead on arrival .
But the president ’ s opponents may find it useful in the 2020 campaign , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any of the paradox of Trump ’ s approach to budgetary issues .
Trump ran to the left , if that is the correct term , of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on fiscal policy in 2016 .
He said cuts to Social Security and Medicare were off-limits .
He wanted the Republican alternative to Obamacare to be better—more “ terrific , ” to put it exactly—than the status quo , instead of more market-friendly .
He favored tariffs , getting tough on the trade practices of adversaries and allies alike , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America .
Trump broke with free-market orthodoxy to a greater degree than any GOP standard-bearer than Richard “ We ’ re all Keynesians now ” Nixon and was rewarded with the electoral votes of Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan .
Few Republicans are as serious about spending once in office as they are when campaigning , especially against the profligacy of Democratic incumbents .
It ’ s also been quite some time since Republicans have balanced the budget unaided by a Democrat in the White House ( or , for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nevertheless , Trump has been far more conventional on fiscal policy than one might have expected based on his election-year rhetoric : tariffs , yes , and bailouts to farmers who feel squeezed by his trade battles , but also tax cuts , deregulation , and proposed cuts to non-defense discretionary spending .
In 2017 , when all of Washington was still in awe of Trump ’ s upset victory and even the likes of James Mattis and Mitt Romney were lining up to come work for his new administration , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist agenda items with Congress .
He could have collaborated with Democrats on an infrastructure plan ; instead “ Infrastructure Week ” has come to be seen as a joke .
He could have sought to build the wall and have Paul Ryan , if not Mexico , pay for it .
Immigration , trade , jobs—these were all opportunities to scramble partisan politics , possibly for a generation .
What followed instead was a tax cut , including a reduction to the corporate rate , and a failed bid to repeal Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense at the time .
Trump had poor relations with Ryan , then the speaker of the House , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , during the campaign .
Now that they were his governing partners , focusing on areas where they all agreed—taxes , Obamacare , judges—seemed like a promising path to rapid legislative success .
There is also a policy case to be made for this mix : Republican presidents had married higher tariffs on foreign goods with lower taxes on income , savings , and investment before .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if Trump was supposed to represent a break with the old Reaganite consensus .
Still , Trump ’ s election has coincided with a rethinking of that consensus on the Right , even if it hasn ’ t brought one to fruition in Washington .
( There are some exceptions : the Trump budget seeks to boost antitrust enforcement by over 70 percent ; many of the immigration regulatory changes are designed to reduce rather than increase immigrant inflows . )
Conservatives are debating the use of government power to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media platforms , curb access to pornography , shore up middle American jobs , make it easier for families to have children , and counteract Chinese economic practices in ways that would have been unthinkable at the peak of Ryan ’ s influence on the GOP .
There is a prospect for conservative realignment on immigration , trade , and economic policy that even ambitious politicians traditionally in the Jack Kemp mold—think Marco Rubio—have begun to seriously entertain .
The question then becomes : what happens to all that if a progressive concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist Right wins the Democratic nomination—or , taking it one step further , the White House ?
To the extent that some of this intellectual ferment is a reaction to Trump and the chaos he has created , his defeat has the potential to lead Republicans back to the pre-Trump era .
Aside from a Josh Hawley here and a Matt Gaetz there , the GOP talent pool remains well disposed to a trip in the Wayback Machine to 2014 or earlier .
Do Fox News host Tucker Carlson , populist journalist Saagar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinvigorated First Things magazine become men without a country—or at least a political party—under this scenario ?
Republicans have also tended to react to Democrats wielding power by becoming more libertarian .
That was the case in the midterm elections of 1994 , 2010 , and 2014 , all good years for GOP candidates .
The Tea Party Congress even achieved some semblance of success by imposing the sequestration regime on an unwilling Obama administration .
The Gingrich Congress passed welfare reform .
It ’ s possible there will be a boy-who-cried-socialist effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a resolute anti-deficit stance after running trillion-dollar shortfalls in a time of relative economic growth .
It ’ s nevertheless the case that Democrats are running on far more ambitious spending plans than in recent years and one of their leading candidates—arguably the leading candidate—actually embraces the socialist label .
If Republicans are still trying to govern in response to the economic conditions that prevailed in 1981 , such as 70 percent marginal income tax rates , maybe that becomes less irrelevant if Democrats restore their old policies and perhaps even those conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum , one popular analogy is to compare Trump to Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders to Reagan .
Sanders is supposed to be too old and too ideological to be president .
So was Reagan , and he won 44 states .
Trump , like Carter , recognized his party needed to change but once in office had to work with a party leadership that was largely uninterested in policy innovation .
Ross Douthat argued in The New York Times that Trump and Carter were “ both outsiders who seized control of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political party , both men who tried to push their coalitions into a new ideological formation , both presidents who commanded legislative majorities but accomplished next to nothing with them.
” The key difference is that Trump is not presiding over stagflation , and the electorate might not be willing to gamble its 401ks and low unemployment rates on radical economic change .
To the extent that there is any malaise in the country , it was one inspired by exhaustion with Trump himself—the tweets , the petty fights , the purported inability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanksgiving dinners when faced with the mere prospect of discussing the current occupant of the Oval Office .
The Democratic establishment itself fears this outcome more than forcing Trump into the predictable terrain of a conventional Left-Right campaign .
Consequently , other alternatives exist .
One that may be more congenial to the populist Right is the nomination of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg .
Bloomberg is already backing away from his law-and-order past , essential to his mayoral victories but a liability in Democratic primaries .
He has not disavowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , a bit of reality that has yet to mug him .
Bloomberg remains very much a neoliberal technocrat , an apologist for globalization and China , a Davos Democrat .
A self-funding billionaire like Bloomberg could lead Republicans to reevaluate their position on campaign finance reform .
He already seems to be having that kind of influence on Democrats .
“ The Democratic Party faithful , given to shrieking like caged baboons when sighting such large sums of money in politics , have been oddly placid about Bloomberg ’ s investments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shafer .
Trump would almost certainly repeat the playbook he used successfully against Hillary Clinton and planned to deploy against Joe Biden in a general election match-up with Bloomberg .
If Bloomberg won the election anyway , Republicans might find more to oppose him on than just garden variety post-Great Society liberalism , though his administration would certainly deliver plenty of that .
That could include opposing endless wars , reining in the excesses of globalization , and trying to reform the tax code in a more pro-child , family-friendly direction .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take many of those issues away from Trump and the Republicans .
Don ’ t like free trade deals ?
Neither does Bernie .
Worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt ?
So is Bernie .
Sanders voted against the Iraq war and has advocates of foreign policy restraint prominently placed in his campaign braintrust .
There is no comparable pro-peace wing of the Trump national security team , which is a big part of the reason his campaign promises on shrinking America ’ s military footprint in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor has Trump done much to improve the likelihood that conservative realists will qualify for senior national security positions in future Republican administrations .
It ’ s entirely possible that Sanders ’ s economic nostrums will prove too radical for the American public .
Scrapping most private health insurance and restructuring the medical care system in ways that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton never dared has the potential to impose costs on ordinary , non-wealthy Americans that go far beyond arguing about comparatively small changes to the top marginal income tax rate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if voters , especially in the key swing states that will decide the Electoral College majority , aren ’ t repulsed by Sanders ’ s economics , he will so drench them in cultural liberalism and performative wokeness as to render himself unelectable anyway .
Still , Sanders will be advocating for trillions of dollars he will say will improve people ’ s lives while Republicans will likely be in the position of saying no , only on a more massive scale than ever before .
There are political risks inherent in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic if Trump wins reelection .
While that outcome will certainly create its own challenges , it gives people who want to see a far more thorough rewriting of the Republican playbook than Trump has so far offered an incentive to root for a second term .
Maybe Trump won ’ t end the wars , reform immigration , or turn the GOP into a workers party .
But if he is replaced by a progressive Democrat , will anyone ?

Has there ever been a stranger election year budget than the one President Donald Trump released as Democrats started heading to the polls?
Clocking in at $4.8 trillion, it is unlikely to win him many plaudits from the small but vocal contingent of consistent fiscal conservatives who, rather than building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, would prefer to construct a dam to contain the rising tide of red ink. It contains no structural reforms to the spending programs on which retiring baby boomers will rely for income and healthcare in their golden years. Yet at the same time, liberal activists can point to $850 billion in Medicare cuts here and $920 billion in Medicaid cuts there.
The budget has no chance of being adopted, of course. Democrats control the House of Representatives, where all spending and revenue bills must originate (that part of the Constitution is still operative), so the White House’s spending blueprint for the next fiscal year is dead on arrival. But the president’s opponents may find it useful in the 2020 campaign, and it is certainly as good an illustration of any of the paradox of Trump’s approach to budgetary issues.
Trump ran to the left, if that is the correct term, of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on fiscal policy in 2016. He said cuts to Social Security and Medicare were off-limits. He wanted the Republican alternative to Obamacare to be better—more “terrific,” to put it exactly—than the status quo, instead of more market-friendly. He favored tariffs, getting tough on the trade practices of adversaries and allies alike, and actively encouraging businesses to keep jobs in America. Trump broke with free-market orthodoxy to a greater degree than any GOP standard-bearer than Richard “We’re all Keynesians now” Nixon and was rewarded with the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Few Republicans are as serious about spending once in office as they are when campaigning, especially against the profligacy of Democratic incumbents. It’s also been quite some time since Republicans have balanced the budget unaided by a Democrat in the White House (or, for that matter, an internet-fueled economic boom). Nevertheless, Trump has been far more conventional on fiscal policy than one might have expected based on his election-year rhetoric: tariffs, yes, and bailouts to farmers who feel squeezed by his trade battles, but also tax cuts, deregulation, and proposed cuts to non-defense discretionary spending.
In 2017, when all of Washington was still in awe of Trump’s upset victory and even the likes of James Mattis and Mitt Romney were lining up to come work for his new administration, the president famously passed on pursuing any distinctly populist agenda items with Congress. He could have collaborated with Democrats on an infrastructure plan; instead “Infrastructure Week” has come to be seen as a joke. He could have sought to build the wall and have Paul Ryan, if not Mexico, pay for it. Immigration, trade, jobs—these were all opportunities to scramble partisan politics, possibly for a generation.
What followed instead was a tax cut, including a reduction to the corporate rate, and a failed bid to repeal Obamacare. It made a certain superficial political sense at the time. Trump had poor relations with Ryan, then the speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, during the campaign. Now that they were his governing partners, focusing on areas where they all agreed—taxes, Obamacare, judges—seemed like a promising path to rapid legislative success. There is also a policy case to be made for this mix: Republican presidents had married higher tariffs on foreign goods with lower taxes on income, savings, and investment before. But it now looks like a missed opportunity, especially if Trump was supposed to represent a break with the old Reaganite consensus.
Still, Trump’s election has coincided with a rethinking of that consensus on the Right, even if it hasn’t brought one to fruition in Washington. (There are some exceptions: the Trump budget seeks to boost antitrust enforcement by over 70 percent; many of the immigration regulatory changes are designed to reduce rather than increase immigrant inflows.) Conservatives are debating the use of government power to combat what they see as censorship on social media platforms, curb access to pornography, shore up middle American jobs, make it easier for families to have children, and counteract Chinese economic practices in ways that would have been unthinkable at the peak of Ryan’s influence on the GOP. There is a prospect for conservative realignment on immigration, trade, and economic policy that even ambitious politicians traditionally in the Jack Kemp mold—think Marco Rubio—have begun to seriously entertain.
The question then becomes: what happens to all that if a progressive concerned about the same economic anxieties as the populist Right wins the Democratic nomination—or, taking it one step further, the White House? To the extent that some of this intellectual ferment is a reaction to Trump and the chaos he has created, his defeat has the potential to lead Republicans back to the pre-Trump era. Aside from a Josh Hawley here and a Matt Gaetz there, the GOP talent pool remains well disposed to a trip in the Wayback Machine to 2014 or earlier. Do Fox News host Tucker Carlson, populist journalist Saagar Enjeti, and the editors of the reinvigorated First Things magazine become men without a country—or at least a political party—under this scenario?
Republicans have also tended to react to Democrats wielding power by becoming more libertarian. That was the case in the midterm elections of 1994, 2010, and 2014, all good years for GOP candidates. The Tea Party Congress even achieved some semblance of success by imposing the sequestration regime on an unwilling Obama administration. The Gingrich Congress passed welfare reform.
It’s possible there will be a boy-who-cried-socialist effect and it will be difficult to resume a resolute anti-deficit stance after running trillion-dollar shortfalls in a time of relative economic growth. It’s nevertheless the case that Democrats are running on far more ambitious spending plans than in recent years and one of their leading candidates—arguably the leading candidate—actually embraces the socialist label. If Republicans are still trying to govern in response to the economic conditions that prevailed in 1981, such as 70 percent marginal income tax rates, maybe that becomes less irrelevant if Democrats restore their old policies and perhaps even those conditions.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, one popular analogy is to compare Trump to Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders to Reagan. Sanders is supposed to be too old and too ideological to be president. So was Reagan, and he won 44 states. Trump, like Carter, recognized his party needed to change but once in office had to work with a party leadership that was largely uninterested in policy innovation. Ross Douthat argued in The New York Times that Trump and Carter were “both outsiders who seized control of a divided, exhausted, yet still powerful political party, both men who tried to push their coalitions into a new ideological formation, both presidents who commanded legislative majorities but accomplished next to nothing with them.”
The key difference is that Trump is not presiding over stagflation, and the electorate might not be willing to gamble its 401ks and low unemployment rates on radical economic change. To the extent that there is any malaise in the country, it was one inspired by exhaustion with Trump himself—the tweets, the petty fights, the purported inability of families to get along at their Thanksgiving dinners when faced with the mere prospect of discussing the current occupant of the Oval Office.
The Democratic establishment itself fears this outcome more than forcing Trump into the predictable terrain of a conventional Left-Right campaign. Consequently, other alternatives exist. One that may be more congenial to the populist Right is the nomination of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is already backing away from his law-and-order past, essential to his mayoral victories but a liability in Democratic primaries. He has not disavowed his dalliances with the neoconservatives on foreign policy, a bit of reality that has yet to mug him. Bloomberg remains very much a neoliberal technocrat, an apologist for globalization and China, a Davos Democrat.
A self-funding billionaire like Bloomberg could lead Republicans to reevaluate their position on campaign finance reform. He already seems to be having that kind of influence on Democrats. “The Democratic Party faithful, given to shrieking like caged baboons when sighting such large sums of money in politics, have been oddly placid about Bloomberg’s investments,” observed Politico’s Jack Shafer.
Trump would almost certainly repeat the playbook he used successfully against Hillary Clinton and planned to deploy against Joe Biden in a general election match-up with Bloomberg. If Bloomberg won the election anyway, Republicans might find more to oppose him on than just garden variety post-Great Society liberalism, though his administration would certainly deliver plenty of that. That could include opposing endless wars, reining in the excesses of globalization, and trying to reform the tax code in a more pro-child, family-friendly direction.
By contrast, a nominee like Sanders could take many of those issues away from Trump and the Republicans. Don’t like free trade deals? Neither does Bernie. Worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt? So is Bernie. Sanders voted against the Iraq war and has advocates of foreign policy restraint prominently placed in his campaign braintrust. There is no comparable pro-peace wing of the Trump national security team, which is a big part of the reason his campaign promises on shrinking America’s military footprint in the Middle East remain so conspicuously unfulfilled. Nor has Trump done much to improve the likelihood that conservative realists will qualify for senior national security positions in future Republican administrations.
It’s entirely possible that Sanders’s economic nostrums will prove too radical for the American public. Scrapping most private health insurance and restructuring the medical care system in ways that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton never dared has the potential to impose costs on ordinary, non-wealthy Americans that go far beyond arguing about comparatively small changes to the top marginal income tax rate.
It’s also plausible that even if voters, especially in the key swing states that will decide the Electoral College majority, aren’t repulsed by Sanders’s economics, he will so drench them in cultural liberalism and performative wokeness as to render himself unelectable anyway. Still, Sanders will be advocating for trillions of dollars he will say will improve people’s lives while Republicans will likely be in the position of saying no, only on a more massive scale than ever before. There are political risks inherent in that dynamic as well.
All this is academic if Trump wins reelection. While that outcome will certainly create its own challenges, it gives people who want to see a far more thorough rewriting of the Republican playbook than Trump has so far offered an incentive to root for a second term. Maybe Trump won’t end the wars, reform immigration, or turn the GOP into a workers party. But if he is replaced by a progressive Democrat, will anyone?


theamericanconservative--2020-02-24--Russiagate II: Return of the Low Intelligence Zombies

Former CIA director John Brennan ( 2nd L ) and former director of National Intelligence James Clapper ( R ) arrive at a closed hearing before the Senate ( Select ) Intelligence Committee May 16 , 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images ) The Russians are back , alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections .
Who should we fear more ?
Hint : not the Russians .
On February 13 , the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ( ODNI ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump .
A few weeks earlier , the ODNI briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries , this time in his favor .
Both briefings remained secret until this past week , when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing his DNI , and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders .
Russiagate is back , baby .
Everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel “ community ” ( which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida somewhere ) weren ’ t going to play their games again , and that they wouldn ’ t learn from their mistakes ?
Those errors were in retrospect amateurish .
A salacious dossier built around a pee tape ?
Nefarious academics befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London ’ s pubs looking for young , fit Americans ?
Falsified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren ’ t dumb enough to sleep with FBI honeypots ?
You ’ d think after influencing 85 elections across the globe since World War II , they ’ d be better at it .
But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin like Trump once , they would keep trying .
Like any good intel op , you start with a tickle , make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves .
Get it out there that Trump offered Wikileaks ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state publicly that Russia wasn ’ t involved in the 2016 DNC leaks .
The story was all garbage , not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn ’ t the Russians .
And there was no offer of a pardon from the White House .
And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can ’ t comment .
Whatever .
Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile , white-collar criminals , so even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a side of Russian conspiracy , on their minds .
You could almost imagine an announcer ’ s voice : “ Previously , on Russiagate I… ” Then , only a day after the Assange story ( why be subtle ? )
, the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and WaPo .
The mainstream media went Code Red ( the CIA has a long history of working with the media to influence elections ) .
CNN concluded that “ America ’ s Russia nightmare is back.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here we go again , ” recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole .
Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was “ again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.
” Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts , another writer said , “ ’ Let the Voters Decide ’ doesn ’ t work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again.
” The NYT fretted , “ Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation ’ s intelligence agencies.
” John Brennan ( after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dry up and go away ) said , “ we are now in a full-blown national security crisis.
” The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , “ Putin ’ s Puppet is at it again.
” It is clear we ’ ll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November .
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait , it ’ s intel community 1 , Trump 0 .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He did well in Nevada despite the leaks , though Russiagate II has a long way to go .
Bernie himself assured us of that .
Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him , he instead gave it cred , saying , “ Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.
” Sanders handed Russiagate II legs , signaling that he ’ ll use it as cover for the Bros ’ online shenanigans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
That ’ s playing with fire : it ’ ll be too easy later on to invoke all this with “ Komrade Bernie ” memes in the already wary purple states .
“ Putin and Trump are picking their opponent , ” opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling .
Summary to date : everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election… ( adopts cartoon Russian accent ) but who is the cat and who is the mouse ?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin helping Bernie “ I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union ” Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump ?
Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist sleeper agent , the Emma Goldman of his time ( Bernie ’ s old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom ) ?
Or is it not the Russians but the American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump ?
Or is it the Deep State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg ?
Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus hallways trying to get to the front of the room ?
Who can tell what is really afoot ?
See , the devil is in the details , which is why we don ’ t have any .
The world ’ s greatest intelligence team can ’ t seem to come up with anything more specific than “ interfering ” and “ meddling , ” as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressed the ODNI for evidence , such as phone intercepts , to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump , but briefers had none to offer .
Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder , raised some doubts .
WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks , had to admit “ It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken.
” Yes , yes , they have to protect sources and methods , but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away .
Why not tell the public what media is being bought , which outlets are working , willingly or not , with Putin ?
Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden ’ s skull ?
Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim “ something something social media ” again ?
If you ’ re going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you ’ re obligated to provide a little bit more information .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the response is always something like “ Well , the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that weakens national unity ” as if we ’ re all not eating enough green vegetables ?
Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a second when it could all be shut down in an instant ?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I .
Details can be investigated .
That ’ s where the old story fell apart .
The dossier wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians in Prague .
The a-ha discovery was that voters don ’ t read much anyway , so just make claims .
You ’ ll never really prosecute or impeach anyone , so why bother with evidence ( see everything Ukraine ) ?
Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you .
After all , they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump ’ s primary purpose in running for president was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties .
Let the nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies—legitimize the accusations this time , not facts .
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom .
Is the goal to help Trump , help Bernie , or defeat both of them to support Bloomberg ?
But don ’ t let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious : the American intelligence agencies are once again inside our election .
The intel community crossed a line in 2016 , albeit clumsily ( what was all that with Comey and Hillary ? )
, to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When that didn ’ t work out and Trump was elected , they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I .
The media welcomed and supported them .
The Dems welcomed and supported them .
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means .
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared .
But they have learned much from those mistakes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSM is .
This election will be a historian ’ s marker for how a decent nation , fully warned in 2016 , fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm .
Forget about foreigners influencing our elections from the outside ; the zombies are already inside the house .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Story of the # 99 Percent .

The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more? Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks earlier, the ODNI briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn’t think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel “community” (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida somewhere) weren’t going to play their games again, and that they wouldn’t learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect amateurish. A salacious dossier built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London’s pubs looking for young, fit Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren’t dumb enough to sleep with FBI honeypots? You’d think after influencing 85 elections across the globe since World War II, they’d be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out there that Trump offered Wikileaks’ Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn’t involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn’t the Russians. And there was no offer of a pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can’t comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals, so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer’s voice: “Previously, on Russiagate I…”
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and WaPo. The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long history of working with the media to influence elections).
CNN concluded that “America’s Russia nightmare is back.” Maddow was ecstatic, bleating “Here we go again,” recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was “again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.” Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said, “’Let the Voters Decide’ doesn’t work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again.” The NYT fretted, “Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation’s intelligence agencies.” John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said, “we are now in a full-blown national security crisis.” The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Putin’s Puppet is at it again.”
It is clear we’ll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November. Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it’s intel community 1, Trump 0.
But it’s still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying, “Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.”
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he’ll use it as cover for the Bros’ online shenanigans, which were called out at the last debate. That’s playing with fire: it’ll be too easy later on to invoke all this with “Komrade Bernie” memes in the already wary purple states. “Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,” opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election…(adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie “I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union” Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist sleeper agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie’s old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don’t have any.
The world’s greatest intelligence team can’t seem to come up with anything more specific than “interfering” and “meddling,” as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper, a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo, which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit “It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken.”
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden’s skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim “something something social media” again?
If you’re going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house, you’re obligated to provide a little bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the response is always something like “Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that weakens national unity” as if we’re all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That’s where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn’t true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don’t read much anyway, so just make claims. You’ll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump’s primary purpose in running for president was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source—the brave lads of the intelligence agencies—legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support Bloomberg? But don’t let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn’t work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian’s marker for how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-28--The Democrats’ Narrative of Gloom Won’t Fly in 2020

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren ( L ) , former Vice President Joe Biden ( C ) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participate of the seventh Democratic primary debate in Des Moines , Iowa on January 14 , 2020 .
( Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) The chaos of the primaries , the lack of a clear party vision in the last debate—are Democrats a progressive party , a party of moderates , a plaything for billionaires , or just people sniping each other for virtue points ?
It is time for concern .
Politics is always about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters see themselves in that story .
If the Democrats lose in November , one of the main reasons—and the competition is strong—will be that they ’ ve gotten trapped inside a set of false narratives .
Or they ’ re , in the words of James Carville , “ Losing our damn minds.
” Think how powerful the narratives of “ Morning in America ” and “ Hope and Change ” were , and contrast those with the Dems ’ “ things suck more than you realize , people , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the top of the list is the economy .
The Democratic narrative is that the economy is bad , with a recession just around the corner ( or maybe the corner after that , keep looking ) .
Yet outside the debate hall , 59 percent of Americans say they are better off than they were a year ago .
Overall quality of life is satisfactory for a massive 84 percent .
Unemployment is at historic lows .
Wages are up a bit .
The reality is bad enough for Dems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re confusing a strong economy with economic inequality .
The economy does benefit everyone , but it benefits a small percentage at the top much more .
They have not gotten this message across to an electorate that is happy to have any job , content with some rise in wages , and , for the half of Americans who own some stock , want to see just enough growth in their 401 ( k ) to suggest at least part of retirement won ’ t be dependent on canned soup being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a narrative that the economy is failing ; Americans believe that if it is failing , it ’ s failing less than it did before , and that ’ s good enough .
Holding Democrats back is their false narrative of all-you-can-eat white privilege .
Economic inequality across America is not primarily racial , though it does have a racial component .
But Dems are still telling the same old story , as if whites across the Midwest have the same union factory jobs that raised them and blacks never did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re all in this together ” is being thrown away for black victimization narrative votes that may or may not turn out on Election Day .
Dems also insist on lumping blacks , Hispanics ( 30 percent of whom support Trump ) , Chinese , and everyone non-lily into “ People of Color , ” a classic case of one size fits none .
It would be an award-winning SNL skit to watch Larry David ’ s Bernie try to convince a Chinese friend , a medical doctor with kids in the Ivies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” his personal concerns have significant crossover with what ’ s happening to a guy uptown as played by guest host Samuel L. Jackson .
It ’ s about money , stupid , not color .
Dems seem to be working this narrative into the ground in an effort to alienate as many voters as possible .
Poor whites , too meth-addled to see Trump making false promises , deserve to be replaced by driverless delivery trucks .
Poor blacks , it ’ s not your fault , because racism .
Everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the black folk on this one , ‘ kay ?
An issue that could unite 90 percent of Americans gets lost .
And if you don ’ t agree racism is the root cause of everything , from “ top to bottom , ” as Bernie says , well , you ’ re a racist !
James Carville says for the Democratic Party to win it has to drive a narrative that “ doesn ’ t give off vapors that we ’ re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.
” Instead the strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas to criticizing voters .
Much of the rest is a mighty credibility issue for the Dems .
They have stuck with so many proven false narratives so long , no one believes them anymore .
Trump did not work with Putin to get elected , yet Maddow on MSDNC is still pushing something similar even today .
Do we really need to talk about how few Americans cared so little about impeachment ?
Trump did not start World War III .
Roe v. Wade is still firmly the law .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative that trans rights are somehow a major issue among voters .
Biden tweeted , “ Let ’ s be clear : Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.
” While most voters want to see transpeople treated decently , there is no national election issue here .
Same for all the other virtuous baggage Dems drag around the social media .
For example , rights and benefits for illegal immigrants .
It makes them seem out of touch with mainstream America , a particular liability in an election likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Dems also cling too hard to the narrative of Barack Obama .
Maybe he deserves accolades for this or that , maybe not , but that the guy who seems to be the talk of the Democratic Party isn ’ t one of the people on the ballot does not indicate strength .
Barack ’ s and Michelle ’ s formal portraits are touring the nation , apparently so Democrats can worship them like artifacts from some lost cargo cult , a “ communal experience of a particular moment in time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gallery .
Five equally desperate candidates , with Biden in the lead Art Garfunkel role , are airing ads featuring St. Barack .
Health care is a kitchen-table economic issue .
A majority of Americans , regardless of party affiliation , rank cutting health care and drug costs as their top priority .
That polls as far more important than passing a major health system overhaul like Medicare for All .
Americans are not interested in converting the entire economy over to some flavor of socialism just so they can see a doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell , the more it frightens people away .
Same for all the other free stuff Dems are using to troll for votes ( college , loans , reparations ) .
Each good idea is wrapped in a grad school seminar paper requiring America to convert its economy from something people have grown to live with into something they aren ’ t sure they understand .
It is a hell of a narrative : Democrats turning an election against Trump into a sub-referendum on socialism lite at a time when Americans ’ personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
James Carville summed it up , saying , “ We have candidates talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration .
You ’ ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells .
It doesn ’ t matter what you think about any of that , or if there are good arguments—talking about that is not how you win a national election… .
By framing , repeating , and delivering a coherent , meaningful message that is relevant to people ’ s lives and having the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rabbit hole that somebody puts in front of you.
” Where once you had hope and change , now there ’ s the always exasperated Warren , the out-of-breath grumpy Bernie , that frozen Pete grin , Steyer giving his TED talks , Biden looking like the last surviving member of a rock band playing a Holiday Inn gig remembering when he and Barack once filled arenas , man .
And now , Mike Bloomberg , cosplaying a Democrat .
Oh well .
The Beto revival of 2024 isn ’ t that far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copy for the Republicans , I might try this : “ Voters , do me a favor .
Look out the window .
Do you see a republic on the edge of collapse , Rome , the U.S. in 1860 ?
Is your life controlled by an authoritarian ?
That ’ s what Democrats say is out there .
But you don ’ t see that , do you ?
You see more people with jobs .
You have a little more .
And more kids down the block are home from war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places like Libya and Syria that none of us really care about .
Your choice is pretty straightforward at this point .
Have a good night , and a good day at work tomorrow.
” Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent @

The chaos of the primaries, the lack of a clear party vision in the last debate—are Democrats a progressive party, a party of moderates, a plaything for billionaires, or just people sniping each other for virtue points? It is time for concern.
Politics is always about the biggest story you tell and how voters see themselves in that story. If the Democrats lose in November, one of the main reasons—and the competition is strong—will be that they’ve gotten trapped inside a set of false narratives. Or they’re, in the words of James Carville, “Losing our damn minds.”
Think how powerful the narratives of “Morning in America” and “Hope and Change” were, and contrast those with the Dems’ “things suck more than you realize, people,” and you see where this is headed.
At the top of the list is the economy. The Democratic narrative is that the economy is bad, with a recession just around the corner (or maybe the corner after that, keep looking). Yet outside the debate hall, 59 percent of Americans say they are better off than they were a year ago. Overall quality of life is satisfactory for a massive 84 percent. Unemployment is at historic lows. Wages are up a bit.
The reality is bad enough for Dems. But the narrative problem is that they’re confusing a strong economy with economic inequality. The economy does benefit everyone, but it benefits a small percentage at the top much more. They have not gotten this message across to an electorate that is happy to have any job, content with some rise in wages, and, for the half of Americans who own some stock, want to see just enough growth in their 401(k) to suggest at least part of retirement won’t be dependent on canned soup being on sale. The Dems are running on a narrative that the economy is failing; Americans believe that if it is failing, it’s failing less than it did before, and that’s good enough.
Holding Democrats back is their false narrative of all-you-can-eat white privilege. Economic inequality across America is not primarily racial, though it does have a racial component. But Dems are still telling the same old story, as if whites across the Midwest have the same union factory jobs that raised them and blacks never did. The powerful message of “we’re all in this together” is being thrown away for black victimization narrative votes that may or may not turn out on Election Day.
Dems also insist on lumping blacks, Hispanics (30 percent of whom support Trump), Chinese, and everyone non-lily into “People of Color,” a classic case of one size fits none. It would be an award-winning SNL skit to watch Larry David’s Bernie try to convince a Chinese friend, a medical doctor with kids in the Ivies, that as a “POC,” his personal concerns have significant crossover with what’s happening to a guy uptown as played by guest host Samuel L. Jackson. It’s about money, stupid, not color.
Dems seem to be working this narrative into the ground in an effort to alienate as many voters as possible. Poor whites, too meth-addled to see Trump making false promises, deserve to be replaced by driverless delivery trucks. Poor blacks, it’s not your fault, because racism. Everyone else not white, whatever, go with the black folk on this one, ‘kay? An issue that could unite 90 percent of Americans gets lost. And if you don’t agree racism is the root cause of everything, from “top to bottom,” as Bernie says, well, you’re a racist! James Carville says for the Democratic Party to win it has to drive a narrative that “doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.” Instead the strategy seems to be Dems turning from criticizing ideas to criticizing voters.
Much of the rest is a mighty credibility issue for the Dems. They have stuck with so many proven false narratives so long, no one believes them anymore. Trump did not work with Putin to get elected, yet Maddow on MSDNC is still pushing something similar even today. Do we really need to talk about how few Americans cared so little about impeachment? Trump did not start World War III. Roe v. Wade is still firmly the law.
But the transpeople! Dems have clung to the narrative that trans rights are somehow a major issue among voters. Biden tweeted, “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.” While most voters want to see transpeople treated decently, there is no national election issue here. Same for all the other virtuous baggage Dems drag around the social media. For example, rights and benefits for illegal immigrants. It makes them seem out of touch with mainstream America, a particular liability in an election likely to hinge on purple voters in swing states.
Dems also cling too hard to the narrative of Barack Obama. Maybe he deserves accolades for this or that, maybe not, but that the guy who seems to be the talk of the Democratic Party isn’t one of the people on the ballot does not indicate strength. Barack’s and Michelle’s formal portraits are touring the nation, apparently so Democrats can worship them like artifacts from some lost cargo cult, a “communal experience of a particular moment in time,” according to the National Portrait Gallery. Five equally desperate candidates, with Biden in the lead Art Garfunkel role, are airing ads featuring St. Barack.
Health care is a kitchen-table economic issue. A majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, rank cutting health care and drug costs as their top priority. That polls as far more important than passing a major health system overhaul like Medicare for All. Americans are not interested in converting the entire economy over to some flavor of socialism just so they can see a doctor. The bigger the change the Dems sell, the more it frightens people away.
Same for all the other free stuff Dems are using to troll for votes (college, loans, reparations). Each good idea is wrapped in a grad school seminar paper requiring America to convert its economy from something people have grown to live with into something they aren’t sure they understand. It is a hell of a narrative: Democrats turning an election against Trump into a sub-referendum on socialism lite at a time when Americans’ personal economic satisfaction is at a record high.
James Carville summed it up, saying, “We have candidates talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments—talking about that is not how you win a national election…. By framing, repeating, and delivering a coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to people’s lives and having the political skill not to be sucked into every rabbit hole that somebody puts in front of you.”
Where once you had hope and change, now there’s the always exasperated Warren, the out-of-breath grumpy Bernie, that frozen Pete grin, Steyer giving his TED talks, Biden looking like the last surviving member of a rock band playing a Holiday Inn gig remembering when he and Barack once filled arenas, man. And now, Mike Bloomberg, cosplaying a Democrat. Oh well. The Beto revival of 2024 isn’t that far away.
If I were writing ad copy for the Republicans, I might try this: “Voters, do me a favor. Look out the window. Do you see a republic on the edge of collapse, Rome, the U.S. in 1860? Is your life controlled by an authoritarian? That’s what Democrats say is out there. But you don’t see that, do you? You see more people with jobs. You have a little more. And more kids down the block are home from war than are gearing up to fight in places like Libya and Syria that none of us really care about. Your choice is pretty straightforward at this point. Have a good night, and a good day at work tomorrow.”
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-28--Will Trump Pass The Coronavirus Test?

Will Trump Pass The Coronavirus Test?

During this crisis , nations are going to put their people first .
As they should .
President Donald Trump speaks at the beginning of a new conference with members of the coronavirus task force , including Vice President Mike Pence in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House February 26 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images ) Not until well into the Democratic debate Tuesday night did the COVID-19 coronavirus come up , and it was Mike Bloomberg , not a CBS moderator , who raised it : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country two years ago , ” the former New York mayor said .
“ There ’ s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing .
And he ’ s defunded the CDC.
” Not 24 hours later , President Donald Trump , home from India , was in the White House briefing room , flanked by the nation ’ s foremost health experts , deputizing Vice President Mike Pence to head the task force to lead America ’ s battle against the spreading disease .
Yet by Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down 3,000 points on the week , a 10 percent plunge from its recent all-time high .
Trillions of dollars in equity value had been wiped out .
The great bull market of the Trump presidency may be history .
Though only 60 Americans are known to have been infected , and none has yet died , fear has begun to grip the nation as well as the world .
Yet as of now , the numbers don ’ t justify the emotion .
The death toll as of Thursday was 2,800 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The great majority of these are in China , where the virus originated , though the disease has spread to every continent , with Italy and South Korea the hardest hit outside of China .
Whatever happens medically—the mortality rate of the virus is between 2 and 3 percent—it ’ s hard to see how the world averts a recession if COVID-19 is not soon contained and controlled .
Already Democrats are piling on Trump for cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and failing to reflect the seriousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does present a challenge to Trump ’ s presidency .
His handling of it may determine his stature as chief executive .
Yet the issue is also tailor-made for Trump .
First , the disease comes out of Xi Jinping ’ s China , not Trump ’ s USA .
Second , the president occupies what Theodore Roosevelt called the “ bully pulpit , ” the White House .
He can use that pulpit daily to command the airwaves and inform , lead , unite , and direct the nation during what could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone has the power to declare a national emergency , should that be needed .
If Trump acts as a leader , urging unity in the struggle to contain the virus and discover a vaccine , the hectoring from the Democratic left , already begun , can come to be seen as unpatriotic .
Also , Trump ’ s probable opponent this fall , who would be in charge of preventing the coronavirus from spreading like the Spanish Flu of 1918-19 , is Bernie Sanders .
And what are Sanders ’ credentials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Sanders intends to nationalize the entire U.S. heath care system and abolish the private health insurance plans of 140 million Americans who now depend on them .
As for the pharmaceutical industry , uniquely situated to assist in the crash effort to find a cure for the coronavirus , Sanders will confiscate its profits and put those profiteers out of business .
Still , given the alarming news coming from countries all over the globe , there is a risk that by November , the U.S. and the world may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already canceling flights to and from Asia .
Cruise ships are pulling into ports and off-loading passengers .
Travel and tourism are suffering terribly .
Schools are closing .
Chinese factories that produce essential parts for factories and finished products in the U.S. , Europe , and Asia are shutting down .
Supply chains are being severed .
Shortages are cropping up .
The Japanese are talking of canceling the Olympics .
If the virus spreads here , the question arises : will our two parties still hold their nominating conventions this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of globalization are coming home to roost .
In recent decades , America ’ s economic and political elites of both parties surrendered her economic independence for globalism , a new interdependence of nations , where we Americans no longer rely on ourselves alone for the vital necessities of our national life .
That decision is now being exposed as the folly against which Hamilton and economic nationalists always warned .
According to The Washington Post , critical ingredients of medicines and drugs , upon which many American lives depend , are made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being shut down .
In the ongoing struggle between nationalism and globalism , the globalists are taking a beating .
Like the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans , Americans are not going to be looking to the WHO or U.N. to ensure their health , but to their own nation-states .
And if a pandemic threatens , transnationalism ’ s “ open borders ” ideology is not a policy that will bring universal acclamation .
Like Trump ’ s America , all nations , in this crisis , are going to put their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 .

Not until well into the Democratic debate Tuesday night did the COVID-19 coronavirus come up, and it was Mike Bloomberg, not a CBS moderator, who raised it: “The president fired the pandemic specialist in this country two years ago,” the former New York mayor said. “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded the CDC.”
Not 24 hours later, President Donald Trump, home from India, was in the White House briefing room, flanked by the nation’s foremost health experts, deputizing Vice President Mike Pence to head the task force to lead America’s battle against the spreading disease.
Yet by Thursday noon, the Dow Jones average was down 3,000 points on the week, a 10 percent plunge from its recent all-time high.
Trillions of dollars in equity value had been wiped out. The great bull market of the Trump presidency may be history.
Though only 60 Americans are known to have been infected, and none has yet died, fear has begun to grip the nation as well as the world. Yet as of now, the numbers don’t justify the emotion.
The death toll as of Thursday was 2,800, out of 82,000 cases of coronavirus worldwide. The great majority of these are in China, where the virus originated, though the disease has spread to every continent, with Italy and South Korea the hardest hit outside of China.
Whatever happens medically—the mortality rate of the virus is between 2 and 3 percent—it’s hard to see how the world averts a recession if COVID-19 is not soon contained and controlled.
Already Democrats are piling on Trump for cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and failing to reflect the seriousness of the threat. And the issue does present a challenge to Trump’s presidency. His handling of it may determine his stature as chief executive.
Yet the issue is also tailor-made for Trump.
First, the disease comes out of Xi Jinping’s China, not Trump’s USA.
Second, the president occupies what Theodore Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit,” the White House. He can use that pulpit daily to command the airwaves and inform, lead, unite, and direct the nation during what could be a months-long crisis. And Trump alone has the power to declare a national emergency, should that be needed.
If Trump acts as a leader, urging unity in the struggle to contain the virus and discover a vaccine, the hectoring from the Democratic left, already begun, can come to be seen as unpatriotic.
Also, Trump’s probable opponent this fall, who would be in charge of preventing the coronavirus from spreading like the Spanish Flu of 1918-19, is Bernie Sanders. And what are Sanders’ credentials and plans?
Under “Medicare for All,” Sanders intends to nationalize the entire U.S. heath care system and abolish the private health insurance plans of 140 million Americans who now depend on them.
As for the pharmaceutical industry, uniquely situated to assist in the crash effort to find a cure for the coronavirus, Sanders will confiscate its profits and put those profiteers out of business.
Still, given the alarming news coming from countries all over the globe, there is a risk that by November, the U.S. and the world may have tumbled into a recession. Airlines are already canceling flights to and from Asia. Cruise ships are pulling into ports and off-loading passengers. Travel and tourism are suffering terribly. Schools are closing.
Chinese factories that produce essential parts for factories and finished products in the U.S., Europe, and Asia are shutting down. Supply chains are being severed. Shortages are cropping up.
The Japanese are talking of canceling the Olympics. If the virus spreads here, the question arises: will our two parties still hold their nominating conventions this summer in Milwaukee and Charlotte?
The chickens of globalization are coming home to roost.
In recent decades, America’s economic and political elites of both parties surrendered her economic independence for globalism, a new interdependence of nations, where we Americans no longer rely on ourselves alone for the vital necessities of our national life.
That decision is now being exposed as the folly against which Hamilton and economic nationalists always warned.
According to The Washington Post, critical ingredients of medicines and drugs, upon which many American lives depend, are made in Chinese factories now in danger of being shut down.
In the ongoing struggle between nationalism and globalism, the globalists are taking a beating. Like the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans, Americans are not going to be looking to the WHO or U.N. to ensure their health, but to their own nation-states. And if a pandemic threatens, transnationalism’s “open borders” ideology is not a policy that will bring universal acclamation.
Like Trump’s America, all nations, in this crisis, are going to put their own people first. As they should.
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--2020-02-27--Why Is the FDA Stalling on More Coronavirus Testing?

If the feds ca n't get it together , let private health labs across the country do their own research .
The coronavirus is coming yet the federal government ’ s response remains lackluster .
Bizarrely , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) has so far refused to green-light American labs ’ attempts to test for the life-threatening illness , thereby prompting plenty of criticism and angry letters .
The Association of Public Health Laboratories has asked the agency for permission to develop tests for the virus , but their pleas have been met with persistent foot-dragging .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing new , and things will not change absent a wholesale reevaluation of the agency ’ s mission .
The country can not wait for bureaucrats ’ delay tactics .
The saga began on February 4 , when the FDA announced that it had granted “ emergency use authorization ” to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to test for coronavirus detection at qualified laboratories across the country .
There have been a number of kinks in CDC testing , and currently , only a handful of states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois , Nebraska , Nevada , and Tennessee .
So while the CDC has been busy working out problems with the diagnostics , private labs are champing at the bit to develop their own tests .
It ’ s up to the FDA to grant those labs the permission to make their own rival tests , yet there ’ s little indication that the agency intends to do that anytime soon .
By most accounts , the Food and Drug Administration ’ s ( FDA ) track-record in approving new products and testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The cost of bringing a new medication to market is now more than $ 2 billion and patients have to wait more than a decade to see life-saving drugs become available .
Even if the FDA does finally get around to approving coronavirus testing , drug development to defeat the disease will prove prohibitively pricey thanks to agency regulations .
This is especially true for therapies aimed at rare diseases ( that may not be so rare in the near future ) , because in many cases there aren ’ t enough patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recent guidance , the agency acknowledged these issues , stating , “ For rare diseases , there may be a limited number of patients who may qualify for enrollment into a clinical study .
A single-arm trial using historical controls , sometimes including an initial observation period , may be considered if there are feasibility issues with conducting a randomized , controlled trial.
” But there are also plenty of drugs under FDA evaluation for common diseases and afflictions , and overall , the process remains far too difficult for manufacturers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , the struggle of manufacturer AstraZeneca to get a new inhaler to market to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD ) .
Already approved in Japan , the medication promises significant relief from an ailment that has no cure .
Plenty of evidence has been produced showing that the experimental triple combination inhaler improves lung function and reduces flareups .
But the FDA has likely rejected the drug because the most compelling evidence for PT010 ’ s effectiveness came after AstraZeneca submitted their application to the agency .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life for sufferers , yet the FDA wouldn ’ t budge because the results didn ’ t come out until after all the other clinical data were released and submitted .
In other words , the FDA cares more about regulatory filing deadlines than patient well-being .
According to a 2018 assessment from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development , study protocol complexity is increasing to meet the tedious needs of the FDA “ despite high industry awareness in the adverse impact that protocol complexity has on clinical trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA seems to agree that the product under evaluation is safe and effective , but has some nitpick that sets the medication back months or years .
In June 2018 , Valeant Pharmaceuticals announced they ’ d received a “ Complete Response Letter ” ( read : rejection ) from the FDA for their medication ( Duobrii ) designed to treat plaque psoriasis .
Never mind that Duobrii ’ s safety and effectiveness were confirmed in two large-scale peer-reviewed studies with more than 400 participants total .
The FDA “ noted questions regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 2019 .
Clearly , the FDA sees no urgency in approving medications and tests that are safe and effective in improving millions of lives .
The agency needs to reevaluate its regulatory approach and the current coronavirus catastrophe offers a prime opportunity .
The agency can be a force for good but only by letting innovators get life-saving medications and tests to market .
Ross Marchand is the director of policy of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance .

The coronavirus is coming yet the federal government’s response remains lackluster. Bizarrely, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far refused to green-light American labs’ attempts to test for the life-threatening illness, thereby prompting plenty of criticism and angry letters.
The Association of Public Health Laboratories has asked the agency for permission to develop tests for the virus, but their pleas have been met with persistent foot-dragging. The FDA’s frustrating risk aversion is nothing new, and things will not change absent a wholesale reevaluation of the agency’s mission. The country cannot wait for bureaucrats’ delay tactics.
The saga began on February 4, when the FDA announced that it had granted “emergency use authorization” to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to test for coronavirus detection at qualified laboratories across the country. There have been a number of kinks in CDC testing, and currently, only a handful of states are even qualified to use it—California, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, and Tennessee. So while the CDC has been busy working out problems with the diagnostics, private labs are champing at the bit to develop their own tests. It’s up to the FDA to grant those labs the permission to make their own rival tests, yet there’s little indication that the agency intends to do that anytime soon.
By most accounts, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) track-record in approving new products and testing procedures isn’t very good. The cost of bringing a new medication to market is now more than $2 billion and patients have to wait more than a decade to see life-saving drugs become available. Even if the FDA does finally get around to approving coronavirus testing, drug development to defeat the disease will prove prohibitively pricey thanks to agency regulations.
This is especially true for therapies aimed at rare diseases (that may not be so rare in the near future), because in many cases there aren’t enough patients to conduct a large trial. In a recent guidance, the agency acknowledged these issues, stating, “For rare diseases, there may be a limited number of patients who may qualify for enrollment into a clinical study. A single-arm trial using historical controls, sometimes including an initial observation period, may be considered if there are feasibility issues with conducting a randomized, controlled trial.”
But there are also plenty of drugs under FDA evaluation for common diseases and afflictions, and overall, the process remains far too difficult for manufacturers to get their products to patients.
Take, for example, the struggle of manufacturer AstraZeneca to get a new inhaler to market to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Already approved in Japan, the medication promises significant relief from an ailment that has no cure. Plenty of evidence has been produced showing that the experimental triple combination inhaler improves lung function and reduces flareups. But the FDA has likely rejected the drug because the most compelling evidence for PT010’s effectiveness came after AstraZeneca submitted their application to the agency.
The late-stage ETHOS trial found significantly improved quality of life for sufferers, yet the FDA wouldn’t budge because the results didn’t come out until after all the other clinical data were released and submitted. In other words, the FDA cares more about regulatory filing deadlines than patient well-being. According to a 2018 assessment from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, study protocol complexity is increasing to meet the tedious needs of the FDA “despite high industry awareness in the adverse impact that protocol complexity has on clinical trial performance….”
In other cases, the FDA seems to agree that the product under evaluation is safe and effective, but has some nitpick that sets the medication back months or years. In June 2018, Valeant Pharmaceuticals announced they’d received a “Complete Response Letter” (read: rejection) from the FDA for their medication (Duobrii) designed to treat plaque psoriasis. Never mind that Duobrii’s safety and effectiveness were confirmed in two large-scale peer-reviewed studies with more than 400 participants total. The FDA “noted questions regarding pharmacokinetic data” and delayed approval until April 2019.
Clearly, the FDA sees no urgency in approving medications and tests that are safe and effective in improving millions of lives. The agency needs to reevaluate its regulatory approach and the current coronavirus catastrophe offers a prime opportunity. The agency can be a force for good but only by letting innovators get life-saving medications and tests to market.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.