vox--2020-02-11--Tech billionaires give away billions — but it’s just a small fraction of their staggering wealth

Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us .
On the surface , tech billionaires are very , very generous people .
But when you dig into the numbers , a more complicated portrait emerges .
New data collected by the Chronicle of Philanthropy offers the best yearly snapshot of the United States ’ 50 biggest philanthropists , and it ’ s no surprise that technologists once again rank among the biggest givers .
That ’ s because they ’ re also the country ’ s richest people .
And you need to put those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their generosity , and the scale of their bank accounts — side-by-side when assessing their commitments to charity .
That ’ s an essential assessment given that billionaires often use their philanthropy to resist attempts by governments to tax more of their wealth , even as some leading Democratic presidential candidates like Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren say they will tax the wealthy more if they ’ re elected in November .
Let ’ s not overgeneralize : Eric Schmidt , the largest tech philanthropist of 2019 , gave $ 1.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have some concerns about the impact of the things that Schmidt is funding , he was committing about 9 percent of his net worth to the cause .
That ’ s a lot , as a percentage too .
Sheryl Sandberg has a net worth of $ 1.7 billion , meaning she devoted about 7.5 percent of her money to charitable causes with her $ 128 million in gifts .
But others on the tech philanthropy leaderboard ?
The headline figures are big , but they shrivel when put against their net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as Sandberg to charity , but his $ 110 million is just 0.2 percent of his total assets .
That ’ s the same percentage gifted by Sergey Brin , who ranked as the sixth-most generous tech philanthropist in 2019 ( and is putting money behind some innovative efforts ) .
Pierre Omidyar and Marc Benioff , who consistently rank among the industry ’ s most generous givers and sat in third and fourth place on the most recent list , both sent out about 3.5 percent of their net worths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has provided a grant to fund Recode ’ s Open Sourced project . )
And keep in mind these are the country ’ s most generous donors .
There are , of course , some major tech philanthropists who would make these donations rates seem like less of a pittance .
To be sure , donating hundreds of millions to charity — regardless of whether it ’ s motivated by tax reasons , spent on misguided projects , or buys them unmerited PR value — isn ’ t something that most people can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy for outsiders to attack them .
But the percentage is important .
Philanthropy journalist Marc Gunther points out that , dating back to the biblical notion of tithing , charitable gifts historically were weighed against the person ’ s resources .
And here ’ s the ultimate catch : Even as rich people strive to give away their money — some as part of intentional , well-meaning projects like the Giving Pledge — they keep getting richer .
For instance , consider Schmidt .
Yes , he gave away $ 1.3 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s second biggest philanthropist , regardless of industry .
But his net worth grew by $ 3 billion during that same time period .
Brin and Zuckerberg both gave away $ 110 million in 2019 .
But Brin ’ s net worth grew by $ 14 billion , and Zuckerberg ’ s by $ 26 billion .
Needless to say , Zuckerberg ’ s charitable gifts are not making a dent in his attempt to part with all of his money before he dies .
The same is true for most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

On the surface, tech billionaires are very, very generous people.
But when you dig into the numbers, a more complicated portrait emerges.
New data collected by the Chronicle of Philanthropy offers the best yearly snapshot of the United States’ 50 biggest philanthropists, and it’s no surprise that technologists once again rank among the biggest givers. That’s because they’re also the country’s richest people.
And you need to put those two facts — the scale of their generosity and the scale of their bank accounts — side by side when assessing their commitments to charity. That’s an essential assessment given that billionaires often use their philanthropy to resist attempts by governments to tax more of their wealth, even as some leading Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren say they will tax the wealthy more if they’re elected in November.
Let’s not overgeneralize: Eric Schmidt, the largest tech philanthropist of 2019, gave $1.3 billion to charitable efforts. And while I have some concerns about the impact of the things Schmidt is funding, he committed about 9 percent of his net worth to the cause. That’s a lot.
Sheryl Sandberg has a net worth of $1.7 billion, meaning she devoted about 7.5 percent of her money to charitable causes with her $128 million in gifts.
But others on the tech philanthropy leaderboard? The headline figures are big, but they shrivel when put against their net worths.
Mark Zuckerberg gave just about as much as Sandberg to charity, but his $110 million is just 0.2 percent of his total assets, though a spokesperson for Zuckerberg’s personal philanthropy noted that it distributed $420 million in grants to nonprofits in 2019.
That’s 0.2 percent is the same percentage gifted by Sergey Brin, who ranked as the sixth-most generous tech philanthropist in 2019 (and he is putting money behind some innovative efforts).
Pierre Omidyar and Marc Benioff, who consistently rank among the industry’s most generous givers, sat in third and fourth place on the most recent list; both sent out about 3.5 percent of their net worths in 2019. (An Omidyar foundation has provided a grant to fund Recode’s Open Sourced project.)
And keep in mind, these are the country’s most generous donors. There are some major tech philanthropists who would make these donation rates seem like less of a pittance.
To be sure, donating hundreds of millions to charity — regardless of whether it’s motivated by tax reasons, spent on misguided projects, or buys them unmerited PR value — isn’t something that most people can boast of. So it’s easy for outsiders to attack them. But the percentage is important. Philanthropy journalist Marc Gunther points out that, dating back to the biblical notion of tithing, charitable gifts historically were weighed against the person’s resources.
And here’s the ultimate catch: Even as rich people strive to give away their money — some as part of intentional, well-meaning projects like the Giving Pledge — they keep getting richer.
For instance, consider Schmidt. Yes, he gave away $1.3 billion in 2019, cementing him as the country’s second-biggest philanthropist, regardless of industry. But his net worth grew by $3 billion during that same time period.
Brin and Zuckerberg both gave away $110 million in 2019. But Brin’s net worth grew by $14 billion, and Zuckerberg’s grew by $26 billion.
Needless to say, Zuckerberg’s charitable gifts are not making a dent in his attempt to part with all of his money before he dies. The same is true for most of the country’s biggest donors.


vox--2020-02-11--How to watch all 16 of the Oscar-winning movies

The statues have been handed out , the photos taken , the speeches given , the parties attended , and the snubs and surprises analyzed .
The 2020 Oscars are over .
But you can still enjoy what ’ s best about the Oscars : the movies themselves .
Sixteen films took home awards on February 9 .
Below , we ’ ve listed what they each won and how to watch them — and why you should .
Sam Mendes ( American Beauty , Revolutionary Road , Skyfall ) won a Golden Globe for directing this historical drama based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about World War I .
The plot is relatively simple : Two British soldiers are sent on an impossible mission to warn a battalion of an impending ambush .
Through trenches and peril and bombed-out cities , they are caught in the crossfire of a war that ’ s much bigger than them , and one where ordinary acts of heroism can go unnoticed .
1917 ’ s cast includes Mark Strong , Andrew Scott , Richard Madden , Colin Firth , and Benedict Cumberbatch , as well as rising stars George MacKay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s edited ( by the legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins ) to look as if it was all filmed in one shot , which adds intensity to the action .
How to watch it : 1917 is playing in theaters .
American Factory is a documentary about the 2014 reopening of a closed GM plant in Dayton , Ohio — by a Chinese company that makes automotive glass — and the ensuing cultural clashes that put some bumps in the road .
Veteran documentarians Julia Reichert and Steve Bognar train their cameras on not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tasks and materials of factory work .
In doing so , the pair gives less-familiar viewers an idea of how complicated and difficult it can be , as well as the value of skilled labor .
The resulting film tackles the challenges of globalization with much more depth and nuance than most other reporting on the topic , precisely because it steps back to watch a story unfold over time while resisting easy generalizations .
It ’ s both soberly instructive and fascinating .
( It ’ s also the first film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s production company , which has partnered with Netflix to distribute a slate of programming . )
How to watch it : American Factory is streaming on Netflix .
Bombshell is a movie about the women who accused Fox News founder Roger Ailes of sexual harassment and led , eventually , to his professional demise .
The movie stars Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly , Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson , and Margot Robbie as a fictional TV producer , tracing the women ’ s experiences as they slowly come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women are being treated at the network shouldn ’ t be ignored .
It ’ s a great story , but Bombshell unfortunately feels like it misses its own point .
Ailes was ousted from Fox News , sure , but that event was hardly the rah-rah tale of female empowerment that Bombshell makes it out to be .
What ’ s more , the film neglects to examine the underlying causes of misogyny and the attitudes that lead to a culture of harassment , and its attempts at satire fall flat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with a star-studded supporting cast ( including John Lithgow , Kate McKinnon , Connie Britton , Mark Duplass , Rob Delaney , Allison Janney , and more ) , give fine performances — and Theron completely disappears into the character of Kelly .
How to watch it : Bombshell is playing in theaters .
Ford v Ferrari is a classic crowd pleaser , a biographical film set in the 1960s about a real-life story that seems made for the big screen .
James Mangold ( Logan ) directs a cast led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who play legendary former racer and car designer Carroll Shelby and British driver Ken Miles .
When Henry Ford ( Tracy Letts ) decides he wants to beat the celebrated Ferrari company at its own car-racing game , Shelby and Miles join the Ford Motor Company to develop a vehicle that can beat Enzo Ferrari ’ s racing cars .
The big test will be at the grueling 24-hour Le Mans race in France .
And to beat Ferrari , Shelby and Miles will have to build a car from scratch — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an engrossing , often moving movie about masculinity as well as the risks , challenges , and obsessions that go along with trying to be the greatest at something .
How to watch it : Ford v Ferrari is currently in theaters .
It ’ s also available for digital purchase on iTunes , Amazon , Vudu , and Google Play .
Hair Love was a record-breaking Kickstarter before it was a movie ; after launching in 2017 , the crowdfunded film drew contributions totaling than $ 300,000 , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short film .
And no wonder .
Directed by BlacKkKlansman executive producer ( and former football player ) Matthew A. Cherry , Hair Love is the five-minute tale of a father attempting to help his seven-year-old daughter Zuri style her hair .
( The movie is narrated by Zuri ’ s mother , voiced by Issa Rae . )
Cherry has said that he wanted to make the film partly to project a positive image of black fathers , who “ have had one of the worst raps in mainstream media as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being involved.
” And it ’ s also a celebration of black hair textures — a theme that took on special significance when the production team was joined at the Oscars by Deandre Arnold , the Texas teen who was told he couldn ’ t attend his own high school graduation unless he cut his dreadlocks .
How to watch it : You can watch Hair Love above from Sony Pictures Animation ’ s official YouTube channel .
Director Taika Waititi followed up his 2017 Thor installment with Jojo Rabbit , a dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , who everyone dismisses as a “ scared rabbit , ” and the boy ’ s imaginary friend .
That imaginary friend is one Adolf Hitler , played by Waititi himself .
And while the film is a little too sprightly to land any heavy punches — it ’ s more of a comedy with satirical elements than a true satirical tale — it ’ s best as a coming-of-age story about a kid who ’ s gotten lost in a world where loyalty has displaced love and bravado has displaced true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move to marry the bildungsroman , which Jojo sets at the end of the Third Reich , to Waititi ’ s signature goofball aesthetic and frenetic self-awareness ; the film is more successful in some moments than others .
But by the end , it ’ s obvious what Jojo Rabbit is really about : how hate preys on the weak and the young , and how history keeps repeating itself .
How to watch it : Jojo Rabbit is playing in theaters .
It ’ s also available to digitally purchase on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Google Play .
( Digital rental will become available on February 18 . )
Joker was undoubtedly one of 2019 ’ s most-talked-about movies .
Starring Joaquin Phoenix , who won a Golden Globe for his performance , it ’ s a gritty reimagining of the character ’ s early days , directed and co-written by Todd Phillips .
Phillips has spent his career bringing a particular breed of pleasure-obsessed American masculinity to the big screen with successful side-splitters like Old School and the Hangover trilogy .
And Joker is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Phoenix as it tells the story of an impoverished , failed standup comedian who turns to violence and chaos because he feels the world has gone mad .
Joker actively courted controversy relative to the average superhero film , touting its “ hard-R rating ” even though there ’ s no such thing , but there ’ s nothing particularly “ bonkers ” about it .
It ’ s worth seeing , both for Phoenix ’ s performance and so you can participate knowledgeably in the conversation surrounding the film .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world turned upside down .
Robert De Niro , Zazie Beetz , Bill Camp , and Frances Conroy also star .
How to watch it : Joker is playing in theaters .
It is also available to digitally rent and to purchase on iTunes , Google Play , Vudu , YouTube , and Amazon .
Renée Zellweger plays Judy Garland in this biopic , which takes place in 1968 , one year before Garland died .
Thirty years after starring in The Wizard of Oz , and after battles with addiction and illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sold-out nightclub crowds — and that ’ s where she meets the man who will become her fifth husband , Mickey Deans ( Finn Wittrock ) .
To help explain Garland ’ s behavior , the London scenes are interspersed with glimpses of Judy ’ s early life as a child star ( played by Darci Shaw ) under contract at MGM , where her life is controlled entirely by studio head Louis B. Mayer .
Judy is , ultimately , a tragedy — a story of how the Hollywood system took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ star out of her , and then ultimately broke her .
Which is why Judy may leave you a bit uneasy by the end .
( I know it left me feeling that way . )
Hollywood has a love affair with its own mythology — movies about the industry ( from The Artist to Argo to La La Land ) often rocket straight to the top of Oscar-hopeful lists .
So it ’ s disheartening that the movie couldn ’ t make the extra leap into being at least a little self-critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film that tries to get at the woman behind the screen star , it ’ s sad to see the final word get its own message so wrong .
How to watch it : Judy is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes , Amazon , YouTube , Vudu , and Google Play .
Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone ( If You ’ re a Girl ) Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone ( If You ’ re a Girl ) peeks behind the high walls that protect a school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girls and women often live their lives out of sight .
The short centers on a school run by a charity called Skateistan , which features two kinds of learning .
The school offers classes in literacy , math , and other subjects in which Afghani girls from poor families are not typically educated ; the school focuses on educating those who wouldn ’ t be able to pay for education otherwise .
And then there ’ s the skateboarding , with the girls ’ lessons conducted at a large indoor skate park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board and move it , and then increasingly more complicated tricks , all from accomplished women skateboarders .
Building courage and confidence as well as mobility and goal-setting , the girls learn to become skillful skaters — and the short , which runs nearly 40 minutes , shows how powerful those lessons can be .
How to watch it : Eligible subscribers can stream Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone ( If You ’ re a Girl ) at the A & E website , Hulu , and other TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up her beautiful , heartfelt 2017 comedy Lady Bird with an adaptation of Little Women that boasts an inspired cast featuring Saoirse Ronan , Timothée Chalamet , Florence Pugh , Emma Watson , Eliza Scanlen , Meryl Streep , Laura Dern , Bob Odenkirk , Louis Garrel , Tracy Letts , and many more .
It is every bit as funny and loving and heart-wrenching as Little Women has always been , throughout its many adaptations .
But for those who ’ ve loved the story for years , Gerwig ’ s version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material without disrespecting it , taking into consideration what Louisa May Alcott wrote from a distance of more than 150 years .
It ’ s not revisionist ; instead , the movie functions like the best works of criticism , thinking about the circumstances in which a woman like Alcott would write a book like Little Women , and the world in which she lived .
The film is deft , lovely , and altogether wonderful .
How to watch it : Little Women is playing in theaters .
Noah Baumbach is America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disintegrating family units .
In Marriage Story , he pries open an impending divorce to find the beating heart inside .
The film sees the end of a marriage as both a cause for mourning and a source of bittersweet comedy : A relationship is changing , but not ending .
And its evolution is something to behold .
Marriage Story is a showcase for stars Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson as much as it is a triumph for Baumbach , recalling the wry humor and perfect pitch of Woody Allen ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less self-obsession .
( That is , even though the couple seems at least partly — and probably inevitably — modeled on Baumbach ’ s 2013 divorce from Jennifer Jason Leigh . )
Getting a story like this right requires a sense of the comical and the absurd along with the devastating , and Baumbach delivers .
How to watch it : Marriage Story is streaming on Netflix .
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the story of Rick Dalton ( Leonardo DiCaprio ) , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but whose star is fading in 1969 , when the movie takes place .
Rick ’ s stunt double , Cliff Booth ( Brad Pitt , mesmerizing in his Oscar-winning role ) , also acts as his driver , best friend , and pep talk provider .
Two main stories run on parallel tracks in the film : One concerns Rick ’ s neighbor and budding movie star Sharon Tate , who is carefree , innocent , and eager to please .
The other follows Rick and Cliff , and often splits into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s struggle to be an actor of real worth in a changing industry , and Cliff ’ s brush with a group of teenage girls ( and a few guys ) living on an abandoned ranch that once functioned as a movie set .
That group just so happens to be the Manson family .
The movie sparked controversy upon its release , but it ’ s done well at the start of awards season .
Tarantino weaves a fairy tale , a fantasy , and a wistful elegy for a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in — most of all , Tarantino himself .
Famously obsessed with the history of cinema and its preservation , the director has recreated an era he wishes he could have worked in with such care and skill and love that , for the most part , it feels like his most personal film .
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is lots of fun , but it ’ s also strangely , hauntingly sad .
How to watch it : Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is playing in select theaters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , Amazon , Vudu , YouTube , and Google Play .
It ’ s difficult to categorize a Bong Joon-ho film ; the director excels at making movies that explode boundaries .
His darkly comedic monster films .
like The Host and Okja , double as biting social commentaries , often aiming barbs at inequality , particularly in his native South Korea .
Parasite returns to those themes with superb control .
It ’ s a bleakly comic film about two families , one wealthy and one not so wealthy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( At times it plays like a dark inversion of 2018 ’ s Shoplifters . )
Bong is working at the top of his game here , constructing with his cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo a world where drastic shifts inside houses signify not just changing living conditions but the interior state of the inhabitants .
Everything on these characters ’ insides shows up outside , too — and that may be why their world is in chaos .
At Cannes , Parasite won Bong the Palme d ’ Or in a unanimous decision by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film to take home the festival ’ s top prize .
Now , it ’ s made history again by becoming both South Korea ’ s first Oscar winner and the first non-English-language film to win Best Picture in the history of the Oscars .
How to watch it : Parasite is playing in theaters .
It ’ s also available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes , Amazon , YouTube , Vudu , and Google Play .
Awards : Original Song ( for Bernie Taupin and Elton John ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again ” ) Any worthwhile movie about Elton John must be much , much larger than life .
John has been a legend for decades — his songs are ubiquitous , his stage presence iconic .
But Rocketman is smart enough to not try to outshine its star .
It ’ s flashy because its spectacular subject is a lightsource all his own .
Rocketman absolutely explodes with energy .
because Elton John is its pulse .
It stumbles a few times — as has John — but on the whole , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jukebox musical from start to finish , a movie rooted in a real story that nonetheless doesn ’ t tether itself too close to the ground .
Which is a bit of a relief .
You don ’ t have to be a fan of Elton John ’ s music to know his music ; even the most pop culture-oblivious person knows “ Your Song , ” or “ Tiny Dancer , ” or “ Rocket Man.
” And it ’ s easy , while watching Taron Egerton play Elton John whipping a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John ’ s genius .
Rocketman is a solid introduction to the singer that is also guaranteed to please his fans .
How to watch it : Rocketman is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes , Amazon , YouTube , Vudu , and Google Play .
Marshall Curry typically makes documentaries ( three of which , two shorts and a feature , were previously nominated for Oscars ) , but for The Neighbors ’ Window he turned to fiction to tell an extraordinarily sensitive and moving tale that ’ s familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lives of people living nearby .
A couple nearing middle age ( played by Maria Dizzia and Greg Keller ) have settled into a happy-enough life in a Brooklyn apartment with their preschool-aged twins , and they have another baby on the way .
One day , they realize they can see their younger neighbors ’ lives through the window , and start to wish they were still living the carefree lives they once lived .
But over time , events start to transpire that make them see their own lives differently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neighbors ’ Window captures empathetic performances ( particularly from the expressive Dizzia ) and functions as a reminder of how powerful it is , amidst the uncertainty of life , to be grateful for where we are , now , today .
How to watch it : You can watch The Neighbors ’ Window above , hosted by Vimeo .
It ’ s been nearly a quarter-century since the first Toy Story movie came out in November 1995 , and it ’ s hard to believe the franchise can still pack an emotional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can , bringing back Woody , Buzz , and even Bo Peep for another tale , this time about saying goodbye .
The new movie picks up where the last one left off , with all of Andy ’ s toys now belonging to Bonnie , the daughter of Andy ’ s mother ’ s close friend .
The toys end up on another adventure , of course , and even welcome a new recruit in Forky ( voiced by Tony Hale ) , a plaything with a special place in Bonnie ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they have to grapple with a difficult question : If toys exist to be loved , what happens if the love goes away ?
“ Toy Story 4 ’ s message to us is that we don ’ t have to stop loving someone just because they ’ re not in our lives anymore , ” Vox ’ s Alex Abad-Santos wrote in his review .
“ There ’ s going to be a time when we won ’ t be there for someone we love , and there will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there for us .
What matters is the time we did share , and the feelings we did , and do , have for each other.
” How to watch it : Toy Story 4 is streaming on Disney+ and available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes , Amazon , YouTube , Vudu , and Google Play .

The statues have been handed out, the photos taken, the speeches given, the parties attended, and the snubs and surprises analyzed. The 2020 Oscars are over.
But you can still enjoy what’s best about the Oscars: the movies themselves. Sixteen films took home awards on February 9. Below, we’ve listed what they each won and how to watch them — and why you should.
Awards: Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects
Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road, Skyfall) won a Golden Globe for directing this historical drama based partly on stories his grandfather told him about World War I. The plot is relatively simple: Two British soldiers are sent on an impossible mission to warn a battalion of an impending ambush. Through trenches and peril and bombed-out cities, they are caught in the crossfire of a war that’s much bigger than them, and one where ordinary acts of heroism can go unnoticed.
1917’s cast includes Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Colin Firth, and Benedict Cumberbatch, as well as rising stars George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. And it’s edited (by the legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins) to look as if it was all filmed in one shot, which adds intensity to the action.
How to watch it: 1917 is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.
Awards: Documentary Feature
American Factory is a documentary about the 2014 reopening of a closed GM plant in Dayton, Ohio — by a Chinese company that makes automotive glass — and the ensuing cultural clashes that put some bumps in the road. Veteran documentarians Julia Reichert and Steve Bognar train their cameras on not only the people involved, but also the tasks and materials of factory work. In doing so, the pair gives less-familiar viewers an idea of how complicated and difficult it can be, as well as the value of skilled labor.
The resulting film tackles the challenges of globalization with much more depth and nuance than most other reporting on the topic, precisely because it steps back to watch a story unfold over time while resisting easy generalizations. It’s both soberly instructive and fascinating. (It’s also the first film from Higher Ground, Barack and Michelle Obama’s production company, which has partnered with Netflix to distribute a slate of programming.)
How to watch it: American Factory is streaming on Netflix.
Awards: Makeup and Hairstyling
Bombshell is a movie about the women who accused Fox News founder Roger Ailes of sexual harassment and led, eventually, to his professional demise. The movie stars Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly, Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson, and Margot Robbie as a fictional TV producer, tracing the women’s experiences as they slowly come to realize that the way they and other women are being treated at the network shouldn’t be ignored.
It’s a great story, but Bombshell unfortunately feels like it misses its own point. Ailes was ousted from Fox News, sure, but that event was hardly the rah-rah tale of female empowerment that Bombshell makes it out to be. What’s more, the film neglects to examine the underlying causes of misogyny and the attitudes that lead to a culture of harassment, and its attempts at satire fall flat. But Theron, Kidman, and Robbie, along with a star-studded supporting cast (including John Lithgow, Kate McKinnon, Connie Britton, Mark Duplass, Rob Delaney, Allison Janney, and more), give fine performances — and Theron completely disappears into the character of Kelly.
How to watch it: Bombshell is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.
Related Bombshell turns the story of harassment at Fox News into a schlocky girl power anthem
Awards: Sound Editing, Film Editing
Ford v Ferrari is a classic crowd pleaser, a biographical film set in the 1960s about a real-life story that seems made for the big screen. James Mangold (Logan) directs a cast led by Christian Bale and Matt Damon, who play legendary former racer and car designer Carroll Shelby and British driver Ken Miles. When Henry Ford (Tracy Letts) decides he wants to beat the celebrated Ferrari company at its own car-racing game, Shelby and Miles join the Ford Motor Company to develop a vehicle that can beat Enzo Ferrari’s racing cars.
The big test will be at the grueling 24-hour Le Mans race in France. And to beat Ferrari, Shelby and Miles will have to build a car from scratch — and confront demons of their own. It’s an engrossing, often moving movie about masculinity as well as the risks, challenges, and obsessions that go along with trying to be the greatest at something.
How to watch it: Ford v Ferrari is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, and Google Play.
Hair Love
Awards: Animated Short
Hair Love was a record-breaking Kickstarter before it was a movie; after launching in 2017, the crowdfunded film drew contributions totaling than $300,000, the most raised to date on the platform for a short film. And no wonder. Directed by BlacKkKlansman executive producer (and former football player) Matthew A. Cherry, Hair Love is the five-minute tale of a father attempting to help his seven-year-old daughter Zuri style her hair. (The movie is narrated by Zuri’s mother, voiced by Issa Rae.)
Cherry has said that he wanted to make the film partly to project a positive image of black fathers, who “have had one of the worst raps in mainstream media as being portrayed as being deadbeats and not being involved.” And it’s also a celebration of black hair textures — a theme that took on special significance when the production team was joined at the Oscars by Deandre Arnold, the Texas teen who was told he couldn’t attend his own high school graduation unless he cut his dreadlocks.
How to watch it: You can watch Hair Love above from Sony Pictures Animation’s official YouTube channel.
Awards: Adapted Screenplay
Director Taika Waititi followed up his 2017 Thor installment with Jojo Rabbit, a dark comedy about a young boy in Nazi Germany, who everyone dismisses as a “scared rabbit,” and the boy’s imaginary friend. That imaginary friend is one Adolf Hitler, played by Waititi himself. And while the film is a little too sprightly to land any heavy punches — it’s more of a comedy with satirical elements than a true satirical tale — it’s best as a coming-of-age story about a kid who’s gotten lost in a world where loyalty has displaced love and bravado has displaced true bravery.
It’s a bold move to marry the bildungsroman, which Jojo sets at the end of the Third Reich, to Waititi’s signature goofball aesthetic and frenetic self-awareness; the film is more successful in some moments than others. But by the end, it’s obvious what Jojo Rabbit is really about: how hate preys on the weak and the young, and how history keeps repeating itself.
How to watch it: Jojo Rabbit is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and YouTube.
Awards: Actor (Joaquin Phoenix), Original Score
Joker was undoubtedly one of 2019’s most-talked-about movies. Starring Joaquin Phoenix, who won a Golden Globe for his performance, it’s a gritty reimagining of the character’s early days, directed and co-written by Todd Phillips. Phillips has spent his career bringing a particular breed of pleasure-obsessed American masculinity to the big screen with successful side-splitters like Old School and the Hangover trilogy. And Joker is a well-crafted film that boasts an excellent turn by Phoenix as it tells the story of an impoverished, failed standup comedian who turns to violence and chaos because he feels the world has gone mad.
Joker actively courted controversy relative to the average superhero film, touting its “hard-R rating” even though there’s no such thing, but there’s nothing particularly “bonkers” about it. It’s worth seeing, both for Phoenix’s performance and so you can participate knowledgeably in the conversation surrounding the film. Just don’t expect to have your world turned upside down. Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, and Frances Conroy also star.
How to watch it: Joker is available to digitally rent and purchase on iTunes, Google Play, Vudu, YouTube, and Amazon.
Awards: Actress (Renée Zellweger)
Renée Zellweger plays Judy Garland in this biopic, which takes place in 1968, one year before Garland died. Thirty years after starring in The Wizard of Oz, and after battles with addiction and illness, Garland is in London to perform to sold-out nightclub crowds — and that’s where she meets the man who will become her fifth husband, Mickey Deans (Finn Wittrock). To help explain Garland’s behavior, the London scenes are interspersed with glimpses of Judy’s early life as a child star (played by Darci Shaw) under contract at MGM, where her life is controlled entirely by studio head Louis B. Mayer.
Judy is, ultimately, a tragedy — a story of how the Hollywood system took a vulnerable young girl, made a star out of her, and then ultimately broke her. Which is why Judy may leave you a bit uneasy by the end. (I know it left me feeling that way.) Hollywood has a love affair with its own mythology — movies about the industry (from The Artist to Argo to La La Land) often rocket straight to the top of Oscar-hopeful lists. So it’s disheartening that the movie couldn’t make the extra leap into being at least a little self-critical of its own industry. In a film that tries to get at the woman behind the screen star, it’s sad to see the final word get its own message so wrong.
How to watch it: Judy is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.
Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone (If You’re a Girl)
Awards: Documentary Short
Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You’re a Girl) peeks behind the high walls that protect a school in the middle of Kabul, where girls and women often live their lives out of sight. The short centers on a school run by a charity called Skateistan, which features two kinds of learning. The school offers classes in literacy, math, and other subjects in which Afghani girls from poor families are not typically educated; the school focuses on educating those who wouldn’t be able to pay for education otherwise.
And then there’s the skateboarding, with the girls’ lessons conducted at a large indoor skate park. They learn at first to stand on the board and move it, and then increasingly more complicated tricks, all from accomplished women skateboarders. Building courage and confidence as well as mobility and goal-setting, the girls learn to become skillful skaters — and the short, which runs nearly 40 minutes, shows how powerful those lessons can be.
How to watch it: Eligible subscribers can stream Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone (If You’re a Girl) at the A&E website, Hulu, and other TV providers.
Awards: Costume Design
Greta Gerwig decided to follow up her beautiful, heartfelt 2017 comedy Lady Bird with an adaptation of Little Women that boasts an inspired cast featuring Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen, Meryl Streep, Laura Dern, Bob Odenkirk, Louis Garrel, Tracy Letts, and many more. It is every bit as funny and loving and heart-wrenching as Little Women has always been, throughout its many adaptations.
But for those who’ve loved the story for years, Gerwig’s version packs a twist, interrogating the source material without disrespecting it, taking into consideration what Louisa May Alcott wrote from a distance of more than 150 years. It’s not revisionist; instead, the movie functions like the best works of criticism, thinking about the circumstances in which a woman like Alcott would write a book like Little Women, and the world in which she lived. The film is deft, lovely, and altogether wonderful.
How to watch it: Little Women is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, YouTube, Amazon, Vudu, and Google Play.
Awards: Supporting Actress (Laura Dern)
Noah Baumbach is America’s foremost chronicler of rough-hewn and disintegrating family units. In Marriage Story, he pries open an impending divorce to find the beating heart inside. The film sees the end of a marriage as both a cause for mourning and a source of bittersweet comedy: A relationship is changing, but not ending. And its evolution is something to behold.
Marriage Story is a showcase for stars Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson as much as it is a triumph for Baumbach, recalling the wry humor and perfect pitch of Woody Allen’s best work, albeit with a touch less self-obsession. (That is, even though the couple seems at least partly — and probably inevitably — modeled on Baumbach’s 2013 divorce from Jennifer Jason Leigh.) Getting a story like this right requires a sense of the comical and the absurd along with the devastating, and Baumbach delivers.
How to watch it: Marriage Story is streaming on Netflix.
Awards: Supporting Actor (Brad Pitt), Production Design
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the story of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), an actor who was huge in the 1950s but whose star is fading in 1969, when the movie takes place. Rick’s stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt, mesmerizing in his Oscar-winning role), also acts as his driver, best friend, and pep talk provider. Two main stories run on parallel tracks in the film: One concerns Rick’s neighbor and budding movie star Sharon Tate, who is carefree, innocent, and eager to please. The other follows Rick and Cliff, and often splits into two stories of its own — Rick’s struggle to be an actor of real worth in a changing industry, and Cliff’s brush with a group of teenage girls (and a few guys) living on an abandoned ranch that once functioned as a movie set. That group just so happens to be the Manson family.
The movie sparked controversy upon its release, but it’s done well at the start of awards season. Tarantino weaves a fairy tale, a fantasy, and a wistful elegy for a world that many of us wish we lived in — most of all, Tarantino himself. Famously obsessed with the history of cinema and its preservation, the director has recreated an era he wishes he could have worked in with such care and skill and love that, for the most part, it feels like his most personal film. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is lots of fun, but it’s also strangely, hauntingly sad.
How to watch it: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, YouTube, and Google Play.
Awards: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, International Feature
It’s difficult to categorize a Bong Joon-ho film; the director excels at making movies that explode boundaries. His darkly comedic monster films. like The Host and Okja, double as biting social commentaries, often aiming barbs at inequality, particularly in his native South Korea. Parasite returns to those themes with superb control. It’s a bleakly comic film about two families, one wealthy and one not so wealthy, and a caustic tale of class conflict. (At times it plays like a dark inversion of 2018’s Shoplifters.)
Bong is working at the top of his game here, constructing with his cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo a world where drastic shifts inside houses signify not just changing living conditions but the interior state of the inhabitants. Everything on these characters’ insides shows up outside, too — and that may be why their world is in chaos.
At Cannes, Parasite won Bong the Palme d’Or in a unanimous decision by the jury, becoming the first Korean film to take home the festival’s top prize. Now, it’s made history again by becoming both South Korea’s first Oscar winner and the first non-English-language film to win Best Picture in the history of the Oscars.
How to watch it: Parasite is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, YouTube, Amazon, Vudu, or Google Play.
Awards: Original Song (for Bernie Taupin and Elton John’s “I’m Gonna Love Me Again”)
Any worthwhile movie about Elton John must be much, much larger than life. John has been a legend for decades — his songs are ubiquitous, his stage presence iconic. But Rocketman is smart enough to not try to outshine its star. It’s flashy because its spectacular subject is a lightsource all his own.
Rocketman absolutely explodes with energy. because Elton John is its pulse. It stumbles a few times — as has John — but on the whole, it’s a consistently good biopic and jukebox musical from start to finish, a movie rooted in a real story that nonetheless doesn’t tether itself too close to the ground.
Which is a bit of a relief. You don’t have to be a fan of Elton John’s music to know his music; even the most pop culture-oblivious person knows “Your Song,” or “Tiny Dancer,” or “Rocket Man.” And it’s easy, while watching Taron Egerton play Elton John whipping a crowd into a frenzy, to understand John’s genius. Rocketman is a solid introduction to the singer that is also guaranteed to please his fans.
How to watch it: Rocketman is available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.
Related The Elton John biopic Rocketman is nearly as shiny and explosive as its subject
The Neighbors’ Window
Awards: Live Action Short
Marshall Curry typically makes documentaries (three of which, two shorts and a feature, were previously nominated for Oscars), but for The Neighbors’ Window he turned to fiction to tell an extraordinarily sensitive and moving tale that’s familiar to anyone who’s wondered about the lives of people living nearby. A couple nearing middle age (played by Maria Dizzia and Greg Keller) have settled into a happy-enough life in a Brooklyn apartment with their preschool-aged twins, and they have another baby on the way. One day, they realize they can see their younger neighbors’ lives through the window, and start to wish they were still living the carefree lives they once lived.
But over time, events start to transpire that make them see their own lives differently. In just 20 minutes, The Neighbors’ Window captures empathetic performances (particularly from the expressive Dizzia) and functions as a reminder of how powerful it is, amidst the uncertainty of life, to be grateful for where we are, now, today.
How to watch it: You can watch The Neighbors’ Window above, hosted by Vimeo.
Awards: Animated Feature
It’s been nearly a quarter-century since the first Toy Story movie came out in November 1995, and it’s hard to believe the franchise can still pack an emotional wallop. Toy Story 4 proves it can, bringing back Woody, Buzz, and even Bo Peep for another tale, this time about saying goodbye.
The new movie picks up where the last one left off, with all of Andy’s toys now belonging to Bonnie, the daughter of Andy’s mother’s close friend. The toys end up on another adventure, of course, and even welcome a new recruit in Forky (voiced by Tony Hale), a plaything with a special place in Bonnie’s heart. But along the way, they have to grapple with a difficult question: If toys exist to be loved, what happens if the love goes away?
“Toy Story 4’s message to us is that we don’t have to stop loving someone just because they’re not in our lives anymore,” Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos wrote in his review. “There’s going to be a time when we won’t be there for someone we love, and there will be a time when they won’t be there for us. What matters is the time we did share, and the feelings we did, and do, have for each other.”
How to watch it: Toy Story 4 is streaming on Disney+ and available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.


vox--2020-02-11--Google’s head of HR is stepping down, but that won’t fix the company’s internal problems

Eileen Naughton , who oversaw Google ’ s HR department during a time of intense controversy around how the search giant treats its employees , is stepping down .
Executive leadership changes happen at major companies all the time — but at Google , Naughton ’ s move is notable because she was a key figure responsible for dealing with an unprecedented level of internal employee turmoil and dissent .
In recent years , Google workers feuded among themselves and with management over issues ranging from the company ’ s alleged mishandling of executive sexual harassment cases to its crackdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Naughton is also the fourth long-tenured Google executive , including the company ’ s cofounders , to step down from an executive position or resign altogether in recent months .
But Naughton , who has worked at Google for 13 years and oversaw the People Operations team ( what Google calls HR ) , says she ’ s stepping down for personal reasons , to be closer to her family in New York .
Fortune first reported the move , which Google confirmed to Recode .
“ My husband and I have decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first in London and now San Francisco — to return home to New York to be closer to our family , ” Naughton wrote in a statement that Google sent to Recode .
“ I ’ m at the very beginning of the process , and wanted to let everyone know upfront , as I ’ ll be working with Sundar and Ruth to find a great leader for the People Operations team.
” Google ’ s leadership praised Naughton ’ s accomplishments .
Google shared the following statement from Alphabet ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sundar Pichai : “ Over the past 13 years , Eileen has made major contributions to the company in numerous areas , from media partnerships , to leading our sales and operations in the UK and Ireland , to leading our People Operations team through a period of significant growth — during which over 70,000 people started their careers at Google .
We ’ re grateful to Eileen for all she ’ s done and look forward to her next chapter at Google.
” Under Naughton ’ s leadership , Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate controversial topics — including those involving the company itself — changed .
Management has limited employees ’ opportunity to publicly ask leadership tough questions ; it ’ s instituted stricter rules around what workers can say on internal message boards ; and it ’ s fired employee activists who were openly critical about the company ’ s contentious projects , such as its contracts with US immigration agencies .
( Google denies they were let go for political reasons . )
Software engineers have historically thought of Google as a dream employer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its competitive pay and prestige as a top tech giant but because it encouraged employees to publicly debate their opinions , no matter how controversial .
Some employees have criticized or even left Google over what they view as a radical departure from that ethos .
It ’ s unclear exactly what role Naughton played in shaping these culture and policy shifts , but she played a key role in implementing them .
Some Google employees and former employees questioned whether she ’ s a scapegoat for what they perceive as mismanagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , her role shift is a sign that Google ’ s leadership is changing , at the same time that it ’ s facing intense criticism by its employees over decisions ranging from paying out multimillion-dollar exit packages to executives accused of sexual harassment by employees to building a ( now paused ) censored search product in China to attempts to shut down talks of unionization .
The company has also faced criticism from a small group of conservative employees who say they were punished for voicing their political beliefs .
Several employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down but argued that it won ’ t solve the company ’ s problems around how it treats employees .
“ She oversaw a significant crackdown on legally protected worker organizing , and it ’ s great that she ’ s stepping down , ” Meredith Whittaker , a former Google employee activist who now leads the AI Now Institute .
“ But she ’ s not the problem .
The problem is a company that puts the interests of shareholders and executives over equity and the safe and ethical application of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally protected workplace speech and is currently the subject of an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board related to four employees Google recently fired who were involved in workplace activism .
“ Like every workplace , we have rules to safeguard business and customer information , and to protect our employees , ” a spokesperson for the company sent in a statement .
“ Disagreeing with business decisions does not give people a free pass to violate those rules .
If you breach our policies , as some former employees clearly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect fellow employees , users and customers.
” It ’ s worth noting Naughton wasn ’ t head of HR at Google when the most well-known cases of alleged executive sexual misconduct took place there , such as when the creator of Android mobile software , Andy Rubin , allegedly sexually coerced an employee ( which Rubin denies ) , and was reportedly paid $ 90 million in a severance package .
Since 2016 , the company says it ’ s fired 48 employees for sexual harassment and given them no exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improved its processes for reporting such issues .
The company also ended forced arbitration , a practice that prevents workers from taking their employer to court , for all full-time employees .
But the company has continued to face internal criticism for allegedly retaliating against employees who report workplace harassment cases , as Recode has reported — under Naughton ’ s watch .
Naughton has established some workplace standards for US temporary staff and contractors who work on behalf of Google , including requiring their direct employers to pay a $ 15 minimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a spokesperson for the company .
Yet many of these third-party contractors are still bound under third-party arbitration agreements , which prevent them from taking their employer to court over issues like discrimination or harassment .
Ultimately , the company has yet to fully address many of the alleged systemic issues employees have raised in the past few years .
Naughton ’ s departure isn ’ t going to change that — but it is a sign that times are changing at the top at Google .

Eileen Naughton, who oversaw Google’s HR department during a time of intense controversy around how the search giant treats its employees, is stepping down.
Executive leadership changes happen at major companies all the time — but at Google, Naughton’s move is notable because she was a key figure responsible for dealing with an unprecedented level of internal employee turmoil and dissent. In recent years, Google workers feuded among themselves and with management over issues ranging from the company’s alleged mishandling of executive sexual harassment cases to its crackdown on employee speech in the workplace. Naughton is also the fourth long-tenured Google executive, including the company’s cofounders, to step down from an executive position or resign altogether in recent months.
But Naughton, who has worked at Google for 13 years and oversaw the People Operations team (what Google calls HR), says she’s stepping down for personal reasons, to be closer to her family in New York. Fortune first reported the move, which Google confirmed to Recode.
“My husband and I have decided — after six years on the road, first in London and now San Francisco — to return home to New York to be closer to our family,” Naughton wrote in a statement that Google sent to Recode. “I’m at the very beginning of the process, and wanted to let everyone know upfront, as I’ll be working with Sundar and Ruth to find a great leader for the People Operations team.”
Google’s leadership praised Naughton’s accomplishments. Google shared the following statement from Alphabet (Google’s parent company) CEO Sundar Pichai: “Over the past 13 years, Eileen has made major contributions to the company in numerous areas, from media partnerships, to leading our sales and operations in the UK and Ireland, to leading our People Operations team through a period of significant growth — during which over 70,000 people started their careers at Google. We’re grateful to Eileen for all she’s done and look forward to her next chapter at Google.”
Under Naughton’s leadership, Google’s radically open culture of letting employees freely debate controversial topics — including those involving the company itself — changed. Management has limited employees’ opportunity to publicly ask leadership tough questions; it’s instituted stricter rules around what workers can say on internal message boards; and it’s fired employee activists who were openly critical about the company’s contentious projects, such as its contracts with US immigration agencies. (Google denies they were let go for political reasons.)
Software engineers have historically thought of Google as a dream employer. That’s not just because of its competitive pay and prestige as a top tech giant but because it encouraged employees to publicly debate their opinions, no matter how controversial. Some employees have criticized or even left Google over what they view as a radical departure from that ethos.
Do you work at Amazon and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com or Jason Del Rey at jasondelrey@protonmail.com to reach them confidentially. Signal numbers available upon request by email.
It’s unclear exactly what role Naughton played in shaping these culture and policy shifts, but she played a key role in implementing them. Some Google employees and former employees questioned whether she’s a scapegoat for what they perceive as mismanagement at the company. But either way, her role shift is a sign that Google’s leadership is changing, at the same time that it’s facing intense criticism from its employees over decisions ranging from paying out multimillion-dollar exit packages to executives accused of sexual harassment by employees to building a (now paused) censored search product in China to attempts to shut down talks of unionization. The company has also faced criticism from a small group of conservative employees who say they were punished for voicing their political beliefs.
Several employee activists welcomed the news of Naughton stepping down but argued that it won’t solve the company’s problems around how it treats employees.
“She oversaw a significant crackdown on legally protected worker organizing, and it’s great that she’s stepping down,” said Meredith Whittaker, a former Google employee activist who now leads the AI Now Institute. “But she’s not the problem. The problem is a company that puts the interests of shareholders and executives over equity and the safe and ethical application of its technologies.”
Google has repeatedly denied limiting legally protected workplace speech and is currently the subject of an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board related to four employees Google recently fired who were involved in workplace activism.
“Like every workplace, we have rules to safeguard business and customer information, and to protect our employees,” a spokesperson for the company sent in a statement. “Disagreeing with business decisions does not give people a free pass to violate those rules. If you breach our policies, as some former employees clearly and repeatedly did, we take appropriate action to protect fellow employees, users and customers.”
It’s worth noting Naughton wasn’t head of HR at Google when the most well-known cases of alleged executive sexual misconduct took place there, such as when the creator of Android mobile software, Andy Rubin, allegedly sexually coerced an employee (which Rubin denies), and was reportedly paid $90 million in a severance package. Since 2016, the company says it has fired 48 employees for sexual harassment and given them no exit packages, and that it has improved its processes for reporting such issues. The company also ended forced arbitration, a practice that prevents workers from taking their employer to court, for all full-time employees. But the company has continued to face internal criticism for allegedly retaliating against employees who report workplace harassment cases, as Recode has reported — under Naughton’s watch.
Naughton has established some workplace standards for US temporary staff and contractors who work on behalf of Google, including requiring their direct employers to pay a $15 minimum wage and provide health care, according to a spokesperson for the company. Yet many of these third-party contractors are still bound under third-party arbitration agreements, which prevent them from taking their employer to court over issues like discrimination or harassment.
Ultimately, the company has yet to fully address many of the alleged systemic issues employees have raised in the past few years. Naughton’s departure isn’t going to change that — but it is a sign that times are changing at the top at Google.


vox--2020-02-11--After Obama, Democrats need a new theory of change. Pete Buttigieg thinks he’s got it.

This piece was first published in April 2019 and has been lightly updated .
When I first wrote this piece in spring 2019 , Pete Buttigieg was just catching fire as a presidential candidate .
So I decided to sit down with Buttigieg for my podcast , The Ezra Klein Show , and came away unexpectedly impressed .
At the time , a lot had been made about Buttigieg ’ s résumé , but what struck me most was his coherent theory of what has gone wrong in American politics , and what ’ s required to fix it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit on these topics in the months since , I think this interview is still an important one for understanding Buttigieg ’ s appeal — and the warring theories of change at the heart of the 2020 Democratic primary .
In 2007 , Mark Schmitt wrote a piece I think about often .
In it , he argued that the contest between Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , and John Edwards was “ not a primary about ideological differences , or electability , but rather one about a difference in candidates ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the levers of power can be used to get the country back on track.
” It was , he said , the “ theory of change primary.
” Obama won that primary , and in the short period in which Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate , he managed to push through quite a bit of legislation .
But while Democrats broadly revere Obama , there ’ s a consensus that his theory of change ultimately crashed on the shoals of Republican obstruction .
As a result , many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — from inequality to climate change to wage stagnation to money in politics to gerrymandering — have worsened , and Democrats see President Trump as the poisoned fruit of those failures .
The central lesson of Obama ’ s presidency , Buttigieg argues , is that “ any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated.
” The hope that you can pass laws through bipartisan compromise is dead .
And that means governance is consistently , reliably failing to solve people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radicalizing them against government itself .
“ You can only go so long with this divergence that we have between the center of the American people and the center of the American Congress , ” Buttigieg says .
“ Donald Trump was not exactly a corrective , but he was a consequence of the fact that people watched their government drifting further and further away from them in terms of what it would deliver.
” Buttigieg ’ s response — one you also hear from 2020 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restructure government so that popular majorities translate more cleanly into governing majorities .
He ’ s discussed eliminating the Electoral College , scrapping the filibuster , and remaking the Supreme Court so each party nominates the same number of justices and vacancies become less “ apocalyptic.
” There ’ s nothing new about a Democratic candidate promising to fix the system .
Obama ran on similar themes in 2008 .
House Democrats opened their session by passing a sweeping package of good-government reforms .
But once Democrats take power , concrete policy change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tends to win out over the abstractions of procedural reform .
It ’ s easier to run for reelection bragging about a tax cut than about weakening the Electoral College .
Obama ’ s presidency , in this respect , was typical .
Once he was elected — and understandably , given the economic free fall — fixing the system took a back seat to moving legislation through the system .
Obama stabilized the financial sector and expanded health insurance to tens of millions of people , but he left the corrupting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What surprised me while talking to Buttigieg was his insistence that he would prioritize political reforms over policy wins .
“ This is the difference between somebody who ’ s thinking about 2024 versus somebody who ’ s thinking about 2054 , ” he says .
“ To me , yes , it ’ s worth it because we ’ re talking about setting the terms of the debate as they will play out for the rest of my life.
” Democrats need to debate their theories of change So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through ambitious policy promises , primarily , though not exclusively , around health care .
Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris ( who ended her campaign in December ) believe in creating a universal Medicare program and abolishing private insurance .
Sen. Cory Booker and former Texas Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke ( who ’ ve both also exited the race ) believe in creating a universally accessible Medicare program and keeping private insurance .
These differences seem vast , and ideologically , they are .
But what do they amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t going to have 60 votes in the Senate , and you can ’ t abolish private insurance with 51 votes , or even pass Medicare for America that way .
The key question here isn ’ t what the president believes , but how the Senate works .
If Democrats don ’ t remove the filibuster , their only chance to pass major legislation is the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process .
The main constraint on reconciliation is that each provision has to be primarily budgetary in nature , and reforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires a vast quantity of regulatory changes .
No one really knows what the Senate parliamentarian will and won ’ t allow , but experts I ’ ve spoken to believe both bills would be disqualified dozens of times over .
“ My sense has been that provisions that look like regulations — such as lowering the age to 55 for buying into Medicare — tend to be viewed as such by the parliamentarian , meaning that they would require 60 votes , ” says political scientist Sarah Binder , an expert in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poses to the progressive agenda — or really any agenda — is just one way the differences between the candidates ’ theories of political change matter as much as , or more than , the differences in their policies .
But the candidates rarely debate these questions openly , in part because we have almost no vocabulary for describing that dimension of politics .
The words we use to describe the ideologies of presidential candidates are imperfect , but at least they exist .
There are liberals , neoliberals , democratic socialists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , paleoconservatives , libertarians , and New Democrats , to name just a few .
The boundaries among these groups can be fuzzy , but overall , it ’ s a pretty flexible vocabulary for describing what this or that politician believes .
There ’ s no similarly accepted shorthand for the difference between candidates like Warren and Buttigieg , who envision sweeping reforms to the way laws are made , and people like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who emphasize that their relationships with Republicans better equip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have .
Nor are their categories clearly describing the approaches the candidates intend to take toward electing allies or mobilizing public opinion , or much discussion of whether they ’ d prioritize expanding the earned income tax credit over curbing money in politics .
Too often , we assume policy ambition corresponds with political style , but that shortcut often misleads us .
Sanders , for instance , has proposed raising tens of trillions in taxes to build a European-style welfare state in America .
But asked whether he ’ d eliminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not crazy ” about the idea .
And he ’ s not alone .
Sens .
Kirsten Gillibrand , Booker , and Klobuchar have offered outright defenses of the filibuster , and Harris has dodged the question .
As far as I can tell , the only senator running for president who seems to be seriously considering eliminating the rule is Warren .
By contrast , among others running for president , the filibuster isn ’ t nearly as revered .
Along with Buttigieg , Inslee and O ’ Rourke have both discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be noted , has President Trump ) .
Similarly , Republicans leveraged their obstruction of the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and the advantage they hold in the Electoral College to maintain generational control of the Court .
There ’ s been some talk in Democratic circles about restructuring the Court in response .
Buttigieg has embraced an interesting idea ( first proposed in this Vox article by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman ) by which Democrats and Republicans would get to name five justices each , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members to the Court .
Harris , Warren , Gillibrand , and Inslee have been open to the idea of adding justices , though they ’ ve shied away from offering specific plans .
But Sanders has thrown cold water on such proposals .
“ My worry is that the next time the Republicans are in power , they ’ ll do the same thing , ” he said .
That ’ s a reasonable view — arguably it ’ s the most reasonable view — but conservative control of the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s his plan for that ?
Democrats who want to reform the political system have a long list of policies to choose from .
Granting statehood and political representation to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico makes moral sense , and could well tip the balance of power in the Senate , where Democrats currently operate at a large geographic disadvantage .
Eliminating the Electoral College commands virtually unanimous support in the field , though no one has a viable plan for how to do it .
Campaign finance reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Washington Post has a useful overview of where the various candidates stand on some of these issues .
But these ideas require the power to implement them , and Democrats currently lack even that .
What are the candidates ’ theories of party building , such that they ’ re likelier to have the congressional allies necessary to make these kinds of changes ?
How would they approach governing if Republicans hold the Senate , as is the likeliest 2020 outcome ?
We are better at discussing what candidates want to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That hole in our political vocabulary matters , as it makes it hard to debate the core question of any political campaign : How will the candidates actually make real people ’ s lives better ?
Toward the end of our conversation , I asked Buttigieg for his vision of America ’ s national identity .
“ The only semi-convincing justification for American exceptionalism , ” he replied , “ is this idea that America represents a way of governing , a way of doing things , that makes us all better off.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I expected , but it frames the challenge for Buttigieg , and the rest of the Democrats , well : How does the party that believes in government make governing great again ?
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .

This piece was first published in April 2019 and has been lightly updated.
When I first wrote this piece in spring 2019, Pete Buttigieg was just catching fire as a presidential candidate.
So I decided to sit down with Buttigieg for my podcast, The Ezra Klein Show, and came away unexpectedly impressed. At the time, a lot had been made about Buttigieg’s résumé, but what struck me most was his coherent theory of what has gone wrong in American politics, and what’s required to fix it.
While Buttigieg’s rhetoric has shifted a bit on these topics in the months since, I think this interview is still an important one for understanding Buttigieg’s appeal — and the warring theories of change at the heart of the 2020 Democratic primary.
In 2007, Mark Schmitt wrote a piece I think about often. In it, he argued that the contest between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards was “not a primary about ideological differences, or electability, but rather one about a difference in candidates’ implicit assumptions about the current circumstance and how the levers of power can be used to get the country back on track.” It was, he said, the “theory of change primary.”
Obama won that primary, and in the short period in which Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, he managed to push through quite a bit of legislation. But while Democrats broadly revere Obama, there’s a consensus that his theory of change ultimately crashed on the shoals of Republican obstruction. As a result, many of the problems Obama sought and failed to address — from inequality to climate change to wage stagnation to money in politics to gerrymandering — have worsened, and Democrats see President Trump as the poisoned fruit of those failures.
The central lesson of Obama’s presidency, Buttigieg argues, is that “any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated.” The hope that you can pass laws through bipartisan compromise is dead. And that means governance is consistently, reliably failing to solve people’s problems, which is in turn radicalizing them against government itself.
“You can only go so long with this divergence that we have between the center of the American people and the center of the American Congress,” Buttigieg says. “Donald Trump was not exactly a corrective, but he was a consequence of the fact that people watched their government drifting further and further away from them in terms of what it would deliver.”
Buttigieg’s response — one you also hear from 2020 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former candidate Gov. Jay Inslee — is to restructure government so that popular majorities translate more cleanly into governing majorities. He’s discussed eliminating the Electoral College, scrapping the filibuster, and remaking the Supreme Court so each party nominates the same number of justices and vacancies become less “apocalyptic.”
There’s nothing new about a Democratic candidate promising to fix the system. Obama ran on similar themes in 2008. House Democrats opened their session by passing a sweeping package of good-government reforms. But once Democrats take power, concrete policy change, with the immediate benefits it promises, tends to win out over the abstractions of procedural reform. It’s easier to run for reelection bragging about a tax cut than about weakening the Electoral College.
Obama’s presidency, in this respect, was typical. Once he was elected — and understandably, given the economic free fall — fixing the system took a back seat to moving legislation through the system. Obama stabilized the financial sector and expanded health insurance to tens of millions of people, but he left the corrupting influence money has in our politics untouched.
What surprised me while talking to Buttigieg was his insistence that he would prioritize political reforms over policy wins. “This is the difference between somebody who’s thinking about 2024 versus somebody who’s thinking about 2054,” he says. “To me, yes, it’s worth it because we’re talking about setting the terms of the debate as they will play out for the rest of my life.”
Democrats need to debate their theories of change
So far, the 2020 Democratic primary has been fought through ambitious policy promises, primarily, though not exclusively, around health care. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris (who ended her campaign in December) believe in creating a universal Medicare program and abolishing private insurance. Sen. Cory Booker and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (who’ve both also exited the race) believe in creating a universally accessible Medicare program and keeping private insurance.
These differences seem vast, and ideologically, they are. But what do they amount to when translated into practical politics? Democrats aren’t going to have 60 votes in the Senate, and you can’t abolish private insurance with 51 votes, or even pass Medicare for America that way.
The key question here isn’t what the president believes, but how the Senate works. If Democrats don’t remove the filibuster, their only chance to pass major legislation is the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process. The main constraint on reconciliation is that each provision has to be primarily budgetary in nature, and reforming the health care system on that scale requires a vast quantity of regulatory changes. No one really knows what the Senate parliamentarian will and won’t allow, but experts I’ve spoken to believe both bills would be disqualified dozens of times over.
“My sense has been that provisions that look like regulations — such as lowering the age to 55 for buying into Medicare — tend to be viewed as such by the parliamentarian, meaning that they would require 60 votes,” says political scientist Sarah Binder, an expert in congressional procedure.
The challenge the filibuster poses to the progressive agenda — or really any agenda — is just one way the differences between the candidates’ theories of political change matter as much as, or more than, the differences in their policies. But the candidates rarely debate these questions openly, in part because we have almost no vocabulary for describing that dimension of politics.
The words we use to describe the ideologies of presidential candidates are imperfect, but at least they exist. There are liberals, neoliberals, democratic socialists, leftists, conservatives, neoconservatives, centrists, paleoconservatives, libertarians, and New Democrats, to name just a few. The boundaries among these groups can be fuzzy, but overall, it’s a pretty flexible vocabulary for describing what this or that politician believes.
There’s no similarly accepted shorthand for the difference between candidates like Warren and Buttigieg, who envision sweeping reforms to the way laws are made, and people like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who emphasize that their relationships with Republicans better equip them to maximize change in the system we have. Nor are their categories clearly describing the approaches the candidates intend to take toward electing allies or mobilizing public opinion, or much discussion of whether they’d prioritize expanding the earned income tax credit over curbing money in politics.
Too often, we assume policy ambition corresponds with political style, but that shortcut often misleads us. Sanders, for instance, has proposed raising tens of trillions in taxes to build a European-style welfare state in America. But asked whether he’d eliminate the filibuster, he pronounced himself “not crazy” about the idea. And he’s not alone. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Booker, and Klobuchar have offered outright defenses of the filibuster, and Harris has dodged the question. As far as I can tell, the only senator running for president who seems to be seriously considering eliminating the rule is Warren.
By contrast, among others running for president, the filibuster isn’t nearly as revered. Along with Buttigieg, Inslee and O’Rourke have both discussed scrapping the practice (as, it should be noted, has President Trump).
Similarly, Republicans leveraged their obstruction of the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and the advantage they hold in the Electoral College to maintain generational control of the Court. There’s been some talk in Democratic circles about restructuring the Court in response. Buttigieg has embraced an interesting idea (first proposed in this Vox article by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman) by which Democrats and Republicans would get to name five justices each, and then those justices would jointly name another five members to the Court. Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Inslee have been open to the idea of adding justices, though they’ve shied away from offering specific plans.
But Sanders has thrown cold water on such proposals. “My worry is that the next time the Republicans are in power, they’ll do the same thing,” he said. That’s a reasonable view — arguably it’s the most reasonable view — but conservative control of the Supreme Court endangers Sanders’s broader agenda. What’s his plan for that?
Democrats who want to reform the political system have a long list of policies to choose from. Granting statehood and political representation to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico makes moral sense, and could well tip the balance of power in the Senate, where Democrats currently operate at a large geographic disadvantage. Eliminating the Electoral College commands virtually unanimous support in the field, though no one has a viable plan for how to do it. Campaign finance reform is both popular and long overdue. The Washington Post has a useful overview of where the various candidates stand on some of these issues.
But these ideas require the power to implement them, and Democrats currently lack even that. What are the candidates’ theories of party building, such that they’re likelier to have the congressional allies necessary to make these kinds of changes? How would they approach governing if Republicans hold the Senate, as is the likeliest 2020 outcome?
We are better at discussing what candidates want to do than how they will do it. That hole in our political vocabulary matters, as it makes it hard to debate the core question of any political campaign: How will the candidates actually make real people’s lives better?
Toward the end of our conversation, I asked Buttigieg for his vision of America’s national identity. “The only semi-convincing justification for American exceptionalism,” he replied, “is this idea that America represents a way of governing, a way of doing things, that makes us all better off.”
It wasn’t the answer I expected, but it frames the challenge for Buttigieg, and the rest of the Democrats, well: How does the party that believes in government make governing great again?
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.


vox--2020-02-11--Trump’s New Hampshire rally showed how he’s already sowing discord about the 2020 election

President Donald Trump was impeached for trying to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election .
Events at and surrounding his first post-acquittal rally in Manchester , New Hampshire , on Monday night indicate that there is plenty more where the Ukraine scandal came from .
While Trump isn ’ t facing a significant primary challenge in the state , he and his campaign deployed a number of dirty tricks designed to disrupt Tuesday ’ s Democratic presidential primary — including holding his rally ahead of the primary to depress turnout , a barrage of disinformation , and straight-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secret Service moves in downtown Manchester to secure the area for the president ’ s arrival would also make it harder for Democratic candidates and their supporters to transverse the state ’ s largest city in the hours before the primary ’ s first votes are cast , according to Trump campaign officials not authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly , ” the Jill Colvin and Jonathan Lemire reported for the Associated Press on Tuesday .
You ’ d hope the supposed leader of the free world would respect the principle of free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make life difficult for people trying to exercise their right to vote .
This president does not .
And while physical roadblocks impeding poll access are about as blatant as election interference can gets , Trump deployed a number of more subtle tactics toward that same end during his speech .
Sen. Bernie Sanders is perhaps the current frontrunner not only to win New Hampshire ’ s primary , but to ultimately become the Democratic nominee for president .
But in the event Sanders does not prevail , Democratic hopes of defeating Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which the senator ’ s supporters prove willing to vote for whoever the nominee is .
Trump seems to understand this , and so he devoted part of his speech on the eve of the New Hampshire primary by taking a page out of the 2016 playbook to simultaneously demoralize Sanders supporters and sow seeds of division among Democrats .
“ I think they ’ re trying to take it away from Bernie again .
I think Bernie came in second .
Can you believe it ?
” Trump said , alluding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucuses .
“ They ’ re doing it to you again , Bernie !
They ’ re doing it to you again.
” Suffice it to say , there is no evidence the Democratic National Committee is conspiring against Sanders .
And in the event that a Democrat prevails in November , Trump seems to have a plan for trying to hold onto office — tossing out wild accusations of election fraud in hopes of drawing the results in question .
Referring to his narrow loss in New Hampshire in 2016 , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election , but they had buses being shipped up from Massachusetts .
Hundreds and hundreds of buses.
” As I explained earlier on Tuesday , this conspiracy theory is bunk .
But the merits of it don ’ t really matter .
In the not-far-fetched possibility that Trump is defeated by a narrow margin in the Electoral College , he could use conspiracy theories of this sort to sow doubt .
It ’ s not hard to imagine a compliant judiciary and Senate giving merit a veneer of legitimacy to them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results of an election he ultimately won shows that a sense of shame won ’ t deter him from such desperate measures .
Trump 2020 will be a bit like Nixon running for a third term after a Watergate acquittal Perhaps even more shameless than his election fraud conspiracy theory was Trump ’ s repeated calls to his supporters to tarnish New Hampshire ’ s semi-open Democratic primary by casting ballots for weak candidates .
“ I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
You people wouldn ’ t do that , ” Trump said sarcastically at one point on Monday , adding later : “ If you want to vote for a weak candidate tomorrow , go ahead .
Pick the weakest one.
” To be clear , even if we ’ d like to expect better from the president , urging supporters to use a Nixonian dirty trick of that sort isn ’ t illegal and , since it falls within the rules , arguably falls short of cheating .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used during Trump ’ s successful impeachment trial defense was that anything the president does to help his reelection chances short of explicit crimes is in the national interest , and hence not impeachable .
As I detailed during the trial , that line of argument excuses almost anything Trump might do to defeat whoever prevails in the Democratic primary — including benefiting from foreign interference , strategically deploying the Secret Service to make life difficult for Democratic campaigns and their supporters , or sensationalizing purported national security threats to scare people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s efforts to cheat in the 1972 election .
The full scope of the scandal only came into public view in 1973 and ’ 74 , and he was ultimately forced to resign under pressure from Republicans .
Trump was similarly caught in the act , but instead of being pushed out of office , he was given a clean bill of political health by Republicans .
If Monday is any indication , what this means in practice is that the Democrat running against Trump will not only have to overcome the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , but also misinformation , dirty tricks , and perhaps even last-ditch conspiracy theories .
And the president isn ’ t even trying to hide it .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

President Donald Trump was impeached for trying to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Events at and surrounding his first post-acquittal rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Monday night indicate that there is plenty more where the Ukraine scandal came from.
While Trump isn’t facing a significant primary challenge in the state, he and his campaign deployed a number of dirty tricks designed to disrupt Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary — including holding his rally ahead of the primary to depress turnout, a barrage of disinformation, and straight-up physical intimidation.
“Advisers hoped that Secret Service moves in downtown Manchester to secure the area for the president’s arrival would also make it harder for Democratic candidates and their supporters to transverse the state’s largest city in the hours before the primary’s first votes are cast, according to Trump campaign officials not authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly,” the Jill Colvin and Jonathan Lemire reported for the Associated Press on Tuesday.
You’d hope the supposed leader of the free world would respect the principle of free and fair elections enough to not intentionally make life difficult for people trying to exercise their right to vote. This president does not. And while physical roadblocks impeding poll access are about as blatant as election interference can gets, Trump deployed a number of more subtle tactics toward that same end during his speech.
Trump is preemptively delegitimizing the election results
Sen. Bernie Sanders is perhaps the current frontrunner not only to win New Hampshire’s primary, but to ultimately become the Democratic nominee for president. But in the event Sanders does not prevail, Democratic hopes of defeating Trump will hinge in part on the extent to which the senator’s supporters prove willing to vote for whoever the nominee is.
Trump seems to understand this, and so he devoted part of his speech on the eve of the New Hampshire primary by taking a page out of the 2016 playbook to simultaneously demoralize Sanders supporters and sow seeds of division among Democrats.
“I think they’re trying to take it away from Bernie again. I think Bernie came in second. Can you believe it?” Trump said, alluding to the results of the botched Iowa caucuses. “They’re doing it to you again, Bernie! They’re doing it to you again.”
"I think they're trying to take it away from Bernie again ... They're doing it to you again, Bernie! They're doing it you again" -- Trump tries to sow dissension between Democrats and Bernie supporters pic.twitter.com/4vpoDs7YPT — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 11, 2020
Suffice it to say, there is no evidence the Democratic National Committee is conspiring against Sanders. And in the event that a Democrat prevails in November, Trump seems to have a plan for trying to hold onto office — tossing out wild accusations of election fraud in hopes of drawing the results in question.
Referring to his narrow loss in New Hampshire in 2016, Trump claimed that “we should have won the election, but they had buses being shipped up from Massachusetts. Hundreds and hundreds of buses.”
"We should have won the election, but they had buses being being shipped up from Massachusetts. Hundreds and hundreds of buses" -- Trump pushes a completely unfounded conspiracy theory about massive election fraud costing him New Hampshire in 2016 pic.twitter.com/tCC3cclvW5 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 11, 2020
As I explained earlier on Tuesday, this conspiracy theory is bunk. But the merits of it don’t really matter. In the not-far-fetched possibility that Trump is defeated by a narrow margin in the Electoral College, he could use conspiracy theories of this sort to sow doubt. It’s not hard to imagine a compliant judiciary and Senate giving merit a veneer of legitimacy to them. And the fact Trump refuses to accept the results of an election he ultimately won shows that a sense of shame won’t deter him from such desperate measures.
Trump 2020 will be a bit like Nixon running for a third term after a Watergate acquittal
Perhaps even more shameless than his election fraud conspiracy theory was Trump’s repeated calls to his supporters to tarnish New Hampshire’s semi-open Democratic primary by casting ballots for weak candidates.
“I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible, of the Democrats. Does that make sense? You people wouldn’t do that,” Trump said sarcastically at one point on Monday, adding later: “If you want to vote for a weak candidate tomorrow, go ahead. Pick the weakest one.”
"I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible, of the Democrats. Does that make sense? You people wouldn't do that" -- Trump encourages Republicans to ratf*ck the Democratic primary in New Hampshire pic.twitter.com/QOzt4MdjDI — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 11, 2020
To be clear, even if we’d like to expect better from the president, urging supporters to use a Nixonian dirty trick of that sort isn’t illegal and, since it falls within the rules, arguably falls short of cheating.
It’s also worth remembering that one of the arguments used during Trump’s successful impeachment trial defense was that anything the president does to help his reelection chances short of explicit crimes is in the national interest, and hence not impeachable.
As I detailed during the trial, that line of argument excuses almost anything Trump might do to defeat whoever prevails in the Democratic primary — including benefiting from foreign interference, strategically deploying the Secret Service to make life difficult for Democratic campaigns and their supporters, or sensationalizing purported national security threats to scare people.
The Watergate scandal stemmed from Nixon’s efforts to cheat in the 1972 election. The full scope of the scandal only came into public view in 1973 and ’74, and he was ultimately forced to resign under pressure from Republicans. Trump was similarly caught in the act, but instead of being pushed out of office, he was given a clean bill of political health by Republicans.
If Monday is any indication, what this means in practice is that the Democrat running against Trump will not only have to overcome the power of incumbency to ultimately be sworn into office, but also misinformation, dirty tricks, and perhaps even last-ditch conspiracy theories. And the president isn’t even trying to hide it.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.