vox--2020-12-04--The scariest thing about global warming (and Covid-19)

On Thursday , 2,800 Americans died from Covid-19 .
That is more than died on September 11 , 2001 in a horrific attack that sparked a national convulsion and two wars that are still ongoing .
If an accident or attack had violently killed this many US citizens in January of this year , there would have been a reckoning , a demand that authorities bring the full might of the country to bear on finding and addressing the causes .
It would have been experienced as an unbearable collective tragedy .
The names of the dead would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s not what happened .
Instead , infections started slowly and grew .
There was no line crossed , no sudden trauma that shook us awake , just a creeping death toll spread out over to which we have been incrementally adjusting for nine months .
But now there ’ s a 9/11 happening every day , and there ’ s still no real national mobilization .
We can ’ t even get everyone to wear masks .
Millions of people traveled for the Thanksgiving holidays , despite expert warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the virus crept up on us , we adjusted to it , like we ’ re adjusting to climate change , like we adjust to everything .
It ’ s called “ shifting baselines syndrome ” and it ’ s the theme of a piece I first published back in July .
It is , unfortunately , at relevant as ever .
For as long as I ’ ve followed global warming , advocates and activists have shared a certain faith : When the impacts get really bad , people will act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destructive hurricane , heat wave , or flood .
Maybe it will be multiple disasters at once .
But at some point , the severity of the problem will become self-evident , sweeping away any remaining doubt or hesitation and prompting a wave of action .
From this perspective , the scary possibility is that the moment of reckoning will come too late .
There ’ s a time lag in climate change — the effects being felt now trace back to gases emitted decades ago .
By the time things get bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes will already be “ baked in ” by past emissions .
We might not wake up in time .
That is indeed a scary possibility .
But there is a scarier possibility , in many ways more plausible : We never really wake up at all .
No moment of reckoning arrives .
The atmosphere becomes progressively more unstable , but it never does so fast enough , dramatically enough , to command the sustained attention of any particular generation of human beings .
Instead , it is treated as rising background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agitating , some of the more progressive countries are roused to ( inadequate ) action , and eventually , all political parties are forced to at least acknowledge the problem — all outcomes that are foreseeable on our current trajectory — but the necessary global about-face never comes .
We continue to take slow , inadequate steps to address the problem and suffer immeasurably as a result .
David Wallace-Wells , author of the popular and terrifying climate change book The Uninhabitable Earth , discussed this possibility in a New York Magazine piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in Australia .
One might have thought that fires consuming hundreds of millions of acres and killing more than a billion animals would be a wake-up call , but instead , Wallace-Wells writes , “ a climate disaster of unimaginable horror has been unfolding for almost two full months , and the rest of the world is hardly paying attention.
” Maybe climate chaos , a rising chorus of alarm signals from around the world , will simply become our new normal .
Hell , maybe income inequality , political dysfunction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become our new normal .
Maybe we ’ ll just get used to [ waves hands ] all this .
Humans often don ’ t remember what we ’ ve lost or demand that it be restored .
Rather , we adjust to what we ’ ve got .
Concepts developed in sociology and psychology can help us understand why it happens — and why it is such a danger in an age of accelerating , interlocking crises .
Tackling climate change , pandemics , or any of a range of modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s being lost , not just over our lifetimes , but over generations .
In 1995 , fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly published a one-page article in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution titled “ Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome in fisheries.
” It contained no original experiments , no numbers or equations , but it went on to be the most cited and widely discussed thing he ever wrote .
Pauly had something particular in mind about the transition from pre-scientific ( anecdotal ) to scientific data , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved to be incredibly fruitful in other contexts and went on to be “ revolutionary for the field of ecology , ” write Jeremy Jackson ( an emeritus professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography ) and Jennifer Jacquet ( an environmental studies professor at New York University ) .
The notion was later introduced to the public by filmmaker Randy Olsen in a 2002 LA Times piece and has since become a subject of much popular discussion .
So what are shifting baselines ?
Consider a species of fish that is fished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , 100 years .
A given generation of fishers becomes conscious of the fish at a particular level of abundance .
When those fishers retire , the level is lower .
To the generation that enters after them , that diminished level is the new normal , the new baseline .
They rarely know the baseline used by the previous generation ; it holds little emotional salience relative to their personal experience .
And so it goes , each new generation shifting the baseline downward .
By the end , the fishers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it does not seem that way to them , because their baselines were set at an already low level .
Over time , the fish goes extinct — an enormous , tragic loss — but no fisher experiences the full transition from abundance to desolation .
No generation experiences the totality of the loss .
It is doled out in portions , over time , no portion quite large enough to spur preventative action .
By the time the fish go extinct , the fishers barely notice , because they no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An animal that is very abundant , before it gets extinct , it becomes rare , ” says Pauly in his TED talk on shifting baselines .
“ So you don ’ t lose abundant animals .
You always lose rare animals .
And therefore , they ’ re not perceived as a big loss.
” The same phenomenon is sometimes called “ generational amnesia , ” the tendency of each generation to disregard what has come before and benchmark its own experience of nature as normal .
A 2009 study from researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of case studies , from “ hunters ’ perceptions of change in prey species populations in two villages in central Gabon ” to “ perceptions of bird population trends of 50 participants in a rural village in Yorkshire , UK.
” Sure enough , they found evidence of generational amnesia , “ where knowledge extinction occurs because younger generations are not aware of past biological conditions.
” It ’ s easy to see the same thing happening on a larger scale with climate change .
Few people are aware , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer days were normal for their parents ’ or grandparents ’ generation .
Recent research shows that “ extremely hot summers ” are 200 times more likely than they were 50 years ago .
Did you know that ?
Do you feel it ?
It ’ s not just intergenerationally that we forget , either .
The Imperial College researchers also demonstrated the existence of another form of shifting baselines syndrome : personal amnesia , “ where knowledge extinction occurs as individuals forget their own experience.
” Just as generations forget about ecological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that , over the course of their lives , individuals do just what generations do — periodically reset and readjust to new baselines .
“ There is a tremendous amount of research showing that we tend to adapt to circumstances if they are constant over time , even if they are gradually worsening , ” says George Loewenstein , a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon .
He cites the London Blitz ( during World War II , when bombs were falling on London for months on end ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Israel ) , during which people slowly adjusted to unthinkable circumstances .
“ Fear tends to diminish over time when a risk remains constant , ” he says , “ You can only respond for so long .
After a while , it recedes to the background , seemingly no matter how bad it is.
” He notes that big events , or “ teachable moments , ” can momentarily shock us into willingness to make big changes , but “ a teachable moment is only a moment , ” he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the willingness to take measures is also gone.
” Even those big personal moments fade quickly .
One of the most robust findings in modern psychology — made famous by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert — is that we have an incredibly robust “ psychological immune system.
” We tend to dramatically overestimate the effect that large events , good or bad , will have on our happiness .
We think the death of a family member will make us enduringly less happy , or winning the lottery will make us enduringly happier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again and again is that we quickly return to our personal happiness equilibrium .
A soldier who loses a leg and a soldier who returns home safe to a new baby will generally , a year or two later , be roughly as happy as they were before those events .
It ’ s called “ hedonic adaptation.
” Just as we adjust emotionally , we adjust cognitively .
We forget what came before ; we simply don ’ t think about it .
For the most part , only our recent experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our sense of normal .
The process of forgetting , of resetting , is almost impossible to resist , even for those acutely aware of it .
In 2013 , author JB MacKinnon released a book called The Once and Future World , about the extinction crisis and the abundant natural world that Americans are barely aware is draining away .
“ Even though I spent several years writing a book about things disappearing from the natural world , ” MacKinnon says , “ I can ’ t hold it in my head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reread it in order to refresh my eyes so that when I go out into the natural world , I think , ‘ there are things missing here ’ .
Otherwise , I ’ m just gon na go , ‘ What a beautiful day ’ .
” “ I mean , who remembers what the price of coffee was 10 years ago ?
” he asks .
Humans view the world through the lens of recent experience UC-Davis environmental economist Frances Moore thought of a clever way to test this phenomenon of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How many times must unusual temperatures be repeated before they cease to be experienced by individuals as unusual ?
How fast do unusual temperatures become unremarkable ?
To find out , Moore and colleagues turned to Twitter .
In a study published last year , they analyzed Twitter ’ s massive US database to correlate unusual heat or cold events with chatter about the weather .
In this way , they tried to track the “ remarkability ” of temperature anomalies .
“ Something crazy happens , and then the same crazy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are able to realize , ‘ Oh , it ’ s two crazy things ’ , ” Moore says .
“ Then it starts happening again , and people start to think , ‘ I guess this isn ’ t so notable anymore.
” Accordingly , tweets about the weather decline .
How quickly does the effect take hold ?
“ The reference point for normal conditions appears to be based on weather experienced between 2 and 8 years ago , ” the study concluded .
“ It ’ s a powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Moore says .
“ It ’ s not super-rational behavior.
” The study ’ s conclusion about what this portends for climate change is unsettling : “ This rapidly shifting normal baseline means warming noticed by the general public may not be clearly distinguishable from zero over the 21st century.
” Let that sink in .
Even though atmospheric temperatures are , on a geological time scale , changing at a headlong pace , on a human time scale , they are still changing too slowly to be perceptually or emotionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public may never notice that it ’ s getting warmer .
Research based on social media in a single country has obvious limitations , and Moore is reticent to speculate about how long the window of salience might be for other kinds of weather , or in other places .
But it stands to reason that something like the same window applies to other natural or even social phenomena .
It may be just as likely that the public never notices the increasing intensity of storms or frequency of flooding or regularity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might change , they rarely change fast enough to be dramatically different from conditions two to eight years ago .
The window of experience that humans find emotionally and cognitively salient is simply too narrow to take in long-term changes in ecological systems .
What was unthinkable to previous generations — say , regular nuisance flooding in southern Florida — is normal now .
What seems unthinkable to us now — say , stay-at-home orders in large swathes of the US Southwest for several weeks a year due to dangerous heat — will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , not that much worse than what came just before it .
We adjust ; we can ’ t help it .
If we wait for ecological change to thrust itself into the consciousness of ordinary Americans , we may be waiting forever .
Shifting baselines apply to several other social problems Once you start thinking in terms of shifting baselines , you start seeing them everywhere , not just in ecology .
What is the unending debate over the “ normalization ” of Trump but a debate over shifting baselines ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ norms of presidential behavior with astonishing speed and recklessness , but it has proven incredibly difficult for the press and the public to assess his record based on pre-Trump baselines .
This is why people are always asking , “ What if Obama did this ?
” They are trying to ask , “ Why have we shifted our moral and political baselines so quickly ?
” Similarly , the US is busy normalizing the grim reality that college graduates will enter a world of high debt , expensive housing , and parlous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a middle-class life with a family-supporting job and a reliable pension might as well be ancient history .
Shifting baselines are evident in the steady erosion of unions , the militarization of police , and the infusion of US politics with dark money .
They are even evident , as we ’ ll discuss in a moment , in our experience with Covid-19 .
For the generation of Americans coming of age today , Trump , gridlocked politics , and a rapidly warming planet have become normal .
Can the incoming Biden administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demand , something better ?
How to fight shifting baselines and personal amnesia The human propensity to rapidly adapt is part of our evolved cognitive and emotional machinery .
But our ability to heed and remember the past is also shaped by culture .
“ I looked at Native Hawaiian culture , ” MacKinnon says .
“ They had individuals within communities who were assigned to have a social relationship with species that were never even given names in English.
” North America ’ s indigenous cultures still carry an enormous amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s been lost .
That kind of historical consciousness — a day-to-day awareness of the obligations that come with being a good ancestor — has faded .
And modern consumer capitalism might as well be designed to erase it , to lock everyone into an eternal present wherein satisfying the next material desire is the only horizon .
One answer is for journalism and the arts to pull the lens back and try to recenter a richer historical perspective .
One ambitious effort to do that is journalist John Sutter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his team have picked four locations around the world that are particularly vulnerable to climate change — Alaska , Utah , Puerto Rico , and the Marshall Islands — and will visit them every five years until 2050 , documenting the changes facing the people who live there .
( It is modeled on director Michael Apted ’ s “ Up ” documentaries , which check in on the same group of Brits every seven years . )
“ Change is invisible in any one moment , ” Sutter says .
He notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years or decades , but “ that longitudinal approach just doesn ’ t happen in journalism.
” Taking the long view is one way to make changing conditions salient and emotionally impactful .
In a similar spirit , artist Jonathon Keats has designed a special camera to take a 1,000-year exposure of Lake Tahoe .
He calls it a “ sort of cognitive prosthesis , a mechanism for us to be able to see ourselves from that far-future perspective.
” The Long Now Foundation , established by Stewart Brand in 1996 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking for decades .
“ Culture will hang on to knowledge of things that are changing or gone longer , ” MacKinnon says , “ if those things are the kinds of things that they pay attention to.
” It ’ s not just about documenting decline , either .
There have been long-term victories , too — reductions in poverty , increases in the number of educated young girls , declines in air pollution , and so forth .
These also happen incrementally , often beneath our notice .
We adjust our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , over time , can be substantial victories .
Making those victories more visible can help show that decline is not inevitable .
There is no substitute for leadership and responsive governance It can not ultimately fall to ordinary people to hold baselines stable .
On these matters , as on much else , they take their cues from their leaders .
Studying and understanding the long arc of history , considering the experience of previous generations and the welfare of coming generations , making decisions with the long view — those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most reliable way to stop baselines from shifting is to encode the public ’ s values and aspirations into law and practice , through politics .
They can ’ t be held steady through acts of collective will .
They have to be hardwired into social infrastructure .
Unfortunately , US politics has become almost completely unresponsive , which reinforces rather than ameliorates our slipping baselines .
One crucial part of registering a crisis as a crisis is a sense of agency , and Americans increasingly feel that they have no ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ are normalized more quickly if you feel like there ’ s nothing you can do about it , ” says Moore .
“ That might be what ’ s going on with the coronavirus — people don ’ t feel like they have agency on a collective level , because the government is not doing anything , so their response is to say , ‘ well , I got ta live my life ’ .
” On top of that , it ’ s just tiring to feel anxious for so long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatigue is absolutely deadly in terms of our ability to respond to the virus at this point , ” says Loewenstein .
What if Americans simply accommodate themselves to thousands of coronavirus deaths a day ?
As writer Charlie Warzel noted in a recent column , it ’ s not that different from the numbness they now feel in the face of gun violence .
“ Unsure how — or perhaps unable — to process tragedy at scale , ” he writes , “ we get used to it.
” Biodiversity loss , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemics more common .
It is not difficult to imagine Americans forgetting a time when mingling freely was taken for granted .
When being in public did not mean constant low-level exposure anxiety .
When there weren ’ t regular waves of infection and death .
“ If we keep getting zoonotic disease pandemics , then we ’ ll just say , ‘ well , here comes the winter one , catch you on Zoom until June ’ , ” says MacKinnon .
“ Our baseline could shift to the point that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when people went most of their lives without hearing the word pandemic.
” Our extraordinary ability to adapt , to get on with it , to not dwell in the past , was enormously useful in our evolutionary history .
But it is making it difficult for us to keep our attention focused on how much is being lost — and thus difficult for us to rally around efforts to stem those losses .
And so , little by little , a hotter , more chaotic , and more dangerous world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleepwalk toward more tragedies .

On Thursday, 2,800 Americans died from Covid-19. That is more than died on September 11, 2001 in a horrific attack that sparked a national convulsion and two wars that are still ongoing.
If an accident or attack had violently killed this many US citizens in January of this year, there would have been a reckoning, a demand that authorities bring the full might of the country to bear on finding and addressing the causes. It would have been experienced as an unbearable collective tragedy. The names of the dead would have been carved into a new national monument.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, infections started slowly and grew. There was no line crossed, no sudden trauma that shook us awake, just a creeping death toll spread out over to which we have been incrementally adjusting for nine months.
But now there’s a 9/11 happening every day, and there’s still no real national mobilization. We can’t even get everyone to wear masks. Millions of people traveled for the Thanksgiving holidays, despite expert warnings that the Covid surge is ongoing.
Because the virus crept up on us, we adjusted to it, like we’re adjusting to climate change, like we adjust to everything. It’s called “shifting baselines syndrome” and it’s the theme of a piece I first published back in July. It is, unfortunately, at relevant as ever.
For as long as I’ve followed global warming, advocates and activists have shared a certain faith: When the impacts get really bad, people will act.
Maybe it will be an especially destructive hurricane, heat wave, or flood. Maybe it will be multiple disasters at once. But at some point, the severity of the problem will become self-evident, sweeping away any remaining doubt or hesitation and prompting a wave of action.
From this perspective, the scary possibility is that the moment of reckoning will come too late. There’s a time lag in climate change — the effects being felt now trace back to gases emitted decades ago. By the time things get bad enough, many further devastating and irreversible changes will already be “baked in” by past emissions. We might not wake up in time.
That is indeed a scary possibility. But there is a scarier possibility, in many ways more plausible: We never really wake up at all.
No moment of reckoning arrives. The atmosphere becomes progressively more unstable, but it never does so fast enough, dramatically enough, to command the sustained attention of any particular generation of human beings. Instead, it is treated as rising background noise.
The youth climate movement continues agitating, some of the more progressive countries are roused to (inadequate) action, and eventually, all political parties are forced to at least acknowledge the problem — all outcomes that are foreseeable on our current trajectory — but the necessary global about-face never comes. We continue to take slow, inadequate steps to address the problem and suffer immeasurably as a result.
David Wallace-Wells, author of the popular and terrifying climate change book The Uninhabitable Earth, discussed this possibility in a New York Magazine piece written during the apocalyptic fires late last year in Australia. One might have thought that fires consuming hundreds of millions of acres and killing more than a billion animals would be a wake-up call, but instead, Wallace-Wells writes, “a climate disaster of unimaginable horror has been unfolding for almost two full months, and the rest of the world is hardly paying attention.”
Maybe climate chaos, a rising chorus of alarm signals from around the world, will simply become our new normal. Hell, maybe income inequality, political dysfunction, and successive waves of a deadly virus will become our new normal. Maybe we’ll just get used to [waves hands] all this.
Humans often don’t remember what we’ve lost or demand that it be restored. Rather, we adjust to what we’ve got.
Concepts developed in sociology and psychology can help us understand why it happens — and why it is such a danger in an age of accelerating, interlocking crises. Tackling climate change, pandemics, or any of a range of modern global problems means keeping our attention on what’s being lost, not just over our lifetimes, but over generations.
Shifting baselines are a form of generational amnesia
In 1995, fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly published a one-page article in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution titled “Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome in fisheries.” It contained no original experiments, no numbers or equations, but it went on to be the most cited and widely discussed thing he ever wrote.
Pauly had something particular in mind about the transition from pre-scientific (anecdotal) to scientific data, but the conceptual architecture of shifting baselines also proved to be incredibly fruitful in other contexts and went on to be “revolutionary for the field of ecology,” write Jeremy Jackson (an emeritus professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography) and Jennifer Jacquet (an environmental studies professor at New York University). The notion was later introduced to the public by filmmaker Randy Olsen in a 2002 LA Times piece and has since become a subject of much popular discussion.
So what are shifting baselines? Consider a species of fish that is fished to extinction in a region over, say, 100 years. A given generation of fishers becomes conscious of the fish at a particular level of abundance. When those fishers retire, the level is lower. To the generation that enters after them, that diminished level is the new normal, the new baseline. They rarely know the baseline used by the previous generation; it holds little emotional salience relative to their personal experience.
And so it goes, each new generation shifting the baseline downward. By the end, the fishers are operating in a radically degraded ecosystem, but it does not seem that way to them, because their baselines were set at an already low level.
Over time, the fish goes extinct — an enormous, tragic loss — but no fisher experiences the full transition from abundance to desolation. No generation experiences the totality of the loss. It is doled out in portions, over time, no portion quite large enough to spur preventative action. By the time the fish go extinct, the fishers barely notice, because they no longer valued the fish anyway.
“An animal that is very abundant, before it gets extinct, it becomes rare,” says Pauly in his TED talk on shifting baselines. “So you don’t lose abundant animals. You always lose rare animals. And therefore, they’re not perceived as a big loss.”
The same phenomenon is sometimes called “generational amnesia,” the tendency of each generation to disregard what has come before and benchmark its own experience of nature as normal.
A 2009 study from researchers at the Imperial College London examined a series of case studies, from “hunters’ perceptions of change in prey species populations in two villages in central Gabon” to “perceptions of bird population trends of 50 participants in a rural village in Yorkshire, UK.” Sure enough, they found evidence of generational amnesia, “where knowledge extinction occurs because younger generations are not aware of past biological conditions.”
It’s easy to see the same thing happening on a larger scale with climate change. Few people are aware, in a conscious way, of how many hot summer days were normal for their parents’ or grandparents’ generation. Recent research shows that “extremely hot summers” are 200 times more likely than they were 50 years ago. Did you know that? Do you feel it?
It’s not just intergenerationally that we forget, either. The Imperial College researchers also demonstrated the existence of another form of shifting baselines syndrome: personal amnesia, “where knowledge extinction occurs as individuals forget their own experience.”
Just as generations forget about ecological loss, so do individuals
It turns out that, over the course of their lives, individuals do just what generations do — periodically reset and readjust to new baselines.
“There is a tremendous amount of research showing that we tend to adapt to circumstances if they are constant over time, even if they are gradually worsening,” says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon. He cites the London Blitz (during World War II, when bombs were falling on London for months on end) and the intifada (the Palestinian terror campaign in Israel), during which people slowly adjusted to unthinkable circumstances.
“Fear tends to diminish over time when a risk remains constant,” he says, “You can only respond for so long. After a while, it recedes to the background, seemingly no matter how bad it is.”
He notes that big events, or “teachable moments,” can momentarily shock us into willingness to make big changes, but “a teachable moment is only a moment,” he says. “Once the fear is gone, the willingness to take measures is also gone.”
Even those big personal moments fade quickly. One of the most robust findings in modern psychology — made famous by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert — is that we have an incredibly robust “psychological immune system.”
We tend to dramatically overestimate the effect that large events, good or bad, will have on our happiness. We think the death of a family member will make us enduringly less happy, or winning the lottery will make us enduringly happier. In fact, what psychologists find again and again is that we quickly return to our personal happiness equilibrium. A soldier who loses a leg and a soldier who returns home safe to a new baby will generally, a year or two later, be roughly as happy as they were before those events. It’s called “hedonic adaptation.”
Just as we adjust emotionally, we adjust cognitively. We forget what came before; we simply don’t think about it. For the most part, only our recent experience is salient in defining our baselines, our sense of normal.
The process of forgetting, of resetting, is almost impossible to resist, even for those acutely aware of it. In 2013, author JB MacKinnon released a book called The Once and Future World, about the extinction crisis and the abundant natural world that Americans are barely aware is draining away.
“Even though I spent several years writing a book about things disappearing from the natural world,” MacKinnon says, “I can’t hold it in my head. I have to go back and reread it in order to refresh my eyes so that when I go out into the natural world, I think, ‘there are things missing here’. Otherwise, I’m just gonna go, ‘What a beautiful day’.”
“I mean, who remembers what the price of coffee was 10 years ago?” he asks.
Humans view the world through the lens of recent experience
UC-Davis environmental economist Frances Moore thought of a clever way to test this phenomenon of short-term salience in the context of weather.
How many times must unusual temperatures be repeated before they cease to be experienced by individuals as unusual? How fast do unusual temperatures become unremarkable? To find out, Moore and colleagues turned to Twitter. In a study published last year, they analyzed Twitter’s massive US database to correlate unusual heat or cold events with chatter about the weather. In this way, they tried to track the “remarkability” of temperature anomalies.
“Something crazy happens, and then the same crazy thing happens the next year, and people are able to realize, ‘Oh, it’s two crazy things’,” Moore says. “Then it starts happening again, and people start to think, ‘I guess this isn’t so notable anymore.” Accordingly, tweets about the weather decline.
How quickly does the effect take hold? “The reference point for normal conditions appears to be based on weather experienced between 2 and 8 years ago,” the study concluded.
“It’s a powerful phenomenon, this normalization or reference-dependent utility,” Moore says. “It’s not super-rational behavior.”
The study’s conclusion about what this portends for climate change is unsettling: “This rapidly shifting normal baseline means warming noticed by the general public may not be clearly distinguishable from zero over the 21st century.”
Let that sink in. Even though atmospheric temperatures are, on a geological time scale, changing at a headlong pace, on a human time scale, they are still changing too slowly to be perceptually or emotionally salient. Put more bluntly: The public may never notice that it’s getting warmer.
Research based on social media in a single country has obvious limitations, and Moore is reticent to speculate about how long the window of salience might be for other kinds of weather, or in other places.
But it stands to reason that something like the same window applies to other natural or even social phenomena. It may be just as likely that the public never notices the increasing intensity of storms or frequency of flooding or regularity of crop failures. However rapidly those phenomena might change, they rarely change fast enough to be dramatically different from conditions two to eight years ago.
The window of experience that humans find emotionally and cognitively salient is simply too narrow to take in long-term changes in ecological systems. What was unthinkable to previous generations — say, regular nuisance flooding in southern Florida — is normal now. What seems unthinkable to us now — say, stay-at-home orders in large swathes of the US Southwest for several weeks a year due to dangerous heat — will be, by the time it rolls around, not that much worse than what came just before it.
We adjust; we can’t help it. If we wait for ecological change to thrust itself into the consciousness of ordinary Americans, we may be waiting forever.
Shifting baselines apply to several other social problems
Once you start thinking in terms of shifting baselines, you start seeing them everywhere, not just in ecology.
What is the unending debate over the “normalization” of Trump but a debate over shifting baselines? President Trump has degraded and discarded longstanding norms of presidential behavior with astonishing speed and recklessness, but it has proven incredibly difficult for the press and the public to assess his record based on pre-Trump baselines. This is why people are always asking, “What if Obama did this?” They are trying to ask, “Why have we shifted our moral and political baselines so quickly?”
Similarly, the US is busy normalizing the grim reality that college graduates will enter a world of high debt, expensive housing, and parlous job prospects. The post-war expectation of a middle-class life with a family-supporting job and a reliable pension might as well be ancient history.
Shifting baselines are evident in the steady erosion of unions, the militarization of police, and the infusion of US politics with dark money. They are even evident, as we’ll discuss in a moment, in our experience with Covid-19.
For the generation of Americans coming of age today, Trump, gridlocked politics, and a rapidly warming planet have become normal. Can the incoming Biden administration convince them that they should expect, and demand, something better?
How to fight shifting baselines and personal amnesia
The human propensity to rapidly adapt is part of our evolved cognitive and emotional machinery. But our ability to heed and remember the past is also shaped by culture.
“I looked at Native Hawaiian culture,” MacKinnon says. “They had individuals within communities who were assigned to have a social relationship with species that were never even given names in English.” North America’s indigenous cultures still carry an enormous amount of accumulated knowledge that can help reveal what’s been lost.
That kind of historical consciousness — a day-to-day awareness of the obligations that come with being a good ancestor — has faded. And modern consumer capitalism might as well be designed to erase it, to lock everyone into an eternal present wherein satisfying the next material desire is the only horizon.
One answer is for journalism and the arts to pull the lens back and try to recenter a richer historical perspective. One ambitious effort to do that is journalist John Sutter’s Baseline 2020 project. He and his team have picked four locations around the world that are particularly vulnerable to climate change — Alaska, Utah, Puerto Rico, and the Marshall Islands — and will visit them every five years until 2050, documenting the changes facing the people who live there. (It is modeled on director Michael Apted’s “Up” documentaries, which check in on the same group of Brits every seven years.)
“Change is invisible in any one moment,” Sutter says. He notes that scientists often do studies that last for years or decades, but “that longitudinal approach just doesn’t happen in journalism.” Taking the long view is one way to make changing conditions salient and emotionally impactful.
In a similar spirit, artist Jonathon Keats has designed a special camera to take a 1,000-year exposure of Lake Tahoe. He calls it a “sort of cognitive prosthesis, a mechanism for us to be able to see ourselves from that far-future perspective.” The Long Now Foundation, established by Stewart Brand in 1996, has been hosting seminars to spur long-term thinking for decades.
“Culture will hang on to knowledge of things that are changing or gone longer,” MacKinnon says, “if those things are the kinds of things that they pay attention to.”
It’s not just about documenting decline, either. There have been long-term victories, too — reductions in poverty, increases in the number of educated young girls, declines in air pollution, and so forth. These also happen incrementally, often beneath our notice. We adjust our baselines upward and do not register what, over time, can be substantial victories. Making those victories more visible can help show that decline is not inevitable.
There is no substitute for leadership and responsive governance
It can not ultimately fall to ordinary people to hold baselines stable. On these matters, as on much else, they take their cues from their leaders. Studying and understanding the long arc of history, considering the experience of previous generations and the welfare of coming generations, making decisions with the long view — those are things leaders are supposed to do.
The most reliable way to stop baselines from shifting is to encode the public’s values and aspirations into law and practice, through politics. They can’t be held steady through acts of collective will. They have to be hardwired into social infrastructure.
Unfortunately, US politics has become almost completely unresponsive, which reinforces rather than ameliorates our slipping baselines. One crucial part of registering a crisis as a crisis is a sense of agency, and Americans increasingly feel that they have no ability to shape national policy.
Negative changes “are normalized more quickly if you feel like there’s nothing you can do about it,” says Moore. “That might be what’s going on with the coronavirus — people don’t feel like they have agency on a collective level, because the government is not doing anything, so their response is to say, ‘well, I gotta live my life’.”
On top of that, it’s just tiring to feel anxious for so long. “The combination of adaptation and fatigue is absolutely deadly in terms of our ability to respond to the virus at this point,” says Loewenstein.
"White House officials also hope Americans will grow numb to the escalating death toll and learn to accept tens of thousands of new cases a day, according to three people familiar with the White House’s thinking" https://t.co/mqD6oB1reE pic.twitter.com/J4nTAepM1M — Mark Berman (@markberman) July 6, 2020
What if Americans simply accommodate themselves to thousands of coronavirus deaths a day? As writer Charlie Warzel noted in a recent column, it’s not that different from the numbness they now feel in the face of gun violence. “Unsure how — or perhaps unable — to process tragedy at scale,” he writes, “we get used to it.”
Biodiversity loss, deforestation, and climate change may make pandemics more common. It is not difficult to imagine Americans forgetting a time when mingling freely was taken for granted. When being in public did not mean constant low-level exposure anxiety. When there weren’t regular waves of infection and death.
Related These 3 supertrees can protect us from climate collapse
“If we keep getting zoonotic disease pandemics, then we’ll just say, ‘well, here comes the winter one, catch you on Zoom until June’,” says MacKinnon. “Our baseline could shift to the point that we don’t remember there was a time when people went most of their lives without hearing the word pandemic.”
Our extraordinary ability to adapt, to get on with it, to not dwell in the past, was enormously useful in our evolutionary history. But it is making it difficult for us to keep our attention focused on how much is being lost — and thus difficult for us to rally around efforts to stem those losses.
And so, little by little, a hotter, more chaotic, and more dangerous world is becoming normal to us, as we sleepwalk toward more tragedies.


vox--2020-12-05--Trump’s Georgia rally was supposed to pump up Loeffler and Perdue. It ended up being a grievance-fes

Trump’s Georgia rally was supposed to pump up Loeffler and Perdue. It ended up being a grievance-fest.

Outgoing President Donald Trump traveled to Valdosta , Georgia on Saturday for a rally that was ostensibly meant to pump up voters and encourage them to support Republican Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue ahead of next month ’ s runoff elections .
But , perhaps unsurprisingly , Trump ended up having a hard time talking about anything but himself and his grievances .
Trump ’ s trip to Georgia for his first post-election rally came as he continues to push lies about the election being stolen from him — and as he makes a last-ditch push for Republican-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Much of Trump ’ s remarks consisted of variations on these themes , and his insistence that the election was rigged against him in states he lost like Georgia was at tension with the idea it ’ s important for Republicans to turn out for Loeffler and Perdue .
That incoherency was evident throughout Trump ’ s speech on Saturday , which began with him brazenly lying that he actually won Georgia .
“ We won Georgia , just so you understand , ” Trump said , even though his loss in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election officials .
Trump ended up repeating this lie so many times throughout his speech that by the end of it he was mentioning it in passing as if it ’ s settled fact .
Despite his insistence that the Georgia Republicans who run the state at best looked the other way while Democrats conspired to steal the election from him , Trump at other points urged his fans to go out and vote for Loeffler and Purdue , saying things like , “ If you don ’ t vote , the socialists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president didn ’ t bother trying to explain is why Republican voters should have any confidence the runoffs won ’ t be rigged just like he says the presidential election was , given that they will be run by the same officials .
Both Georgia senators are in tight races , and the slim margin by which Trump lost the state would make it seem that even a slightly depressed turnout could cost Loeffler and Perdue their seats come January .
And should they both lose , Democrats will regain control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President-elect Kamala Harris .
Republicans were counting on the president to help provide both candidates with some momentum .
But the downside of Trump ’ s difficulty talking about anything other than himself or the alleged terribleness of other people became evident when Loeffler and Perdue took the stage to tepid applause .
Their brief remarks were truncated by “ fight for Trump !
” chants that drowned them out .
The Georgia rally came hours after Trump reportedly phoned Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) and asked him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overturn the election results .
Kemp reportedly turned Trump down , and perhaps as a result , Trump attacked him a number of times throughout his speech , at one point telling his fans , “ Your governor should be ashamed of himself.
” Then , toward the end of the rally , Trump outlined the desperate two-front battle he ’ s trying to fight to overturn the election , saying “ hopefully our legislatures and the United States Supreme Court will step forward and save our country.
” But since neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has thus far shown much inclination to get involved in an election President-elect Joe Biden clearly won , Trump appears to have a backup plan — one he expressed in a fittingly incoherent manner .
“ We ’ re gon na win back the White House .
We ’ re gon na win it back , ” Trump said , teasing a 2024 run , but he then immediately added : “ I don ’ t want to wait until 2024 .
I want to go back three weeks.
” Unfortunately for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in the meantime , his refusal to concede has led to a fundraising bonanza that could end up helping him launch a bid to avenge his loss to Biden based on the “ they stole it from me ” lies he ’ s been pushing over the month since Election Day .

Outgoing President Donald Trump traveled to Valdosta, Georgia, on Saturday for a rally that was ostensibly meant to pump up voters and encourage them to support Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue ahead of next month’s runoff elections. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, Trump ended up having a hard time talking about anything but himself and his grievances.
Trump’s trip to Georgia for his first post-election rally came as he continues to push lies about the election being stolen from him — and as he makes a last-ditch push for Republican-controlled legislatures to overturn the election results. Much of Trump’s remarks consisted of variations on these themes, and his insistence that the election was rigged against him in states he lost, like Georgia, was at tension with the idea it’s important for Republicans to turn out for Loeffler and Perdue.
That incoherency was evident throughout Trump’s speech on Saturday, which began with him brazenly lying that he actually won Georgia.
“We won Georgia, just so you understand,” Trump said, even though his loss in the state has already been certified by Georgia election officials. Trump ended up repeating this lie so many times throughout his speech that by the end of it he was mentioning it in passing as if it’s settled fact.
Trump has repeated his lie about winning Georgia so many times during this rally that he's now mentioning it in passing like it's a settled truth pic.twitter.com/Ql4Rm2ipFk — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2020
Despite his insistence that the Georgia Republicans who run the state at best looked the other way while Democrats conspired to steal the election from him, Trump at other points urged his fans to go out and vote for Loeffler and Perdue, saying things like, “If you don’t vote, the socialists and communists win.”
But what the president didn’t bother trying to explain is why Republican voters should have any confidence the runoffs won’t be rigged just like he says the presidential election was, given that they will be run by the same officials.
Trump incoherently rants about the Georgia election being rigged against him while encouraging Georgia Republicans to go vote in the Senate runoffs next month pic.twitter.com/nJorjwE0yB — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2020
Both Georgia senators are in tight races, and the slim margin by which Trump lost the state would make it seem that even a slightly depressed turnout could cost Loeffler and Perdue their seats come January. And should they both lose, Democrats will regain control of the Senate thanks to the tiebreaking vote of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Republicans were counting on the president to help provide both candidates with some momentum.
But the downside of Trump’s difficulty talking about anything other than himself or the alleged terribleness of other people became evident when Loeffler and Perdue took the stage to tepid applause. Their brief remarks were truncated by “fight for Trump!” chants that drowned them out.
Loeffler can barely squeeze tepid applause out of the crowd. Perdue then starts talking but is drown out by "fight for Trump!" chants pic.twitter.com/OKp8riVE9r — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2020
The Georgia rally came hours after Trump reportedly phoned Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, and asked him to convene a special session of the legislature to overturn the election results. Kemp reportedly turned Trump down, and perhaps as a result, Trump attacked him a number of times throughout his speech, at one point telling his fans, “Your governor should be ashamed of himself.”
Then, toward the end of the rally, Trump outlined the desperate two-front battle he’s trying to fight to overturn the election, saying, “hopefully our legislatures and the United States Supreme Court will step forward and save our country.”
"Hopefully our legislatures and the United States Supreme Court will step forward and save our country" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/CbGHlbO9it — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2020
But since neither Republican-controlled state legislatures or the Supreme Court have thus far shown much inclination to get involved in an election President-elect Joe Biden clearly won, Trump appears to have a backup plan — one he expressed in a fittingly incoherent manner.
“We’re gonna win back the White House. We’re gonna win it back,” Trump said, teasing a 2024 run, but he then immediately added: “I don’t want to wait until 2024. I want to go back three weeks.”
Unfortunately for Trump, there’s no do-overs. But in the meantime, his refusal to concede has led to a fundraising bonanza that could end up helping him launch a bid to avenge his loss to Biden, based on the “they stole it from me” lies he’s been pushing over the month since Election Day.


vox--2020-12-05--Trump’s withdrawal of US troops from Somalia, briefly explained

The Trump administration will pull virtually all of the US ’ s roughly 700 troops in Somalia out of the country just five days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office .
The withdrawal , announced Friday by the Pentagon , ostensibly marks the latest attempt by President Donald Trump to scale back US presence overseas in what he ’ s described as costly and ineffective military operations across regions like the Middle East .
Acting defense secretary Christopher Miller announced in November that the US plans to reduce US troops from 4,500 to 2,500 in Afghanistan and from 3,000 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in Somalia appears to be something different .
Rather than a case of troops being brought home , many of the forces will be repositioned to neighboring Kenya , according to a Defense Department official , although it ’ s unclear so far what percentage of the Somali-based troops will be restationed there .
“ As a result of this decision , some forces may be reassigned outside of East Africa , ” the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday .
“ However , the remaining forces will be repositioned from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow cross-border operations by both US and partner forces.
” What the US was doing in Somalia The US forces stationed in Somalia were largely tasked with counterterrorism missions , with a particular focus on fighting the presence of al-Shabaab , an al-Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group .
And US troops have also worked on training Somali forces to conduct raids and capture al-Shabaab leaders .
According to the Pentagon , the mission against al-Shabaab won ’ t end — instead , the troops once stationed in the country will “ maintain pressure against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from bases in Kenya and elsewhere .
The Pentagon also said the military will “ retain the capability to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations in Somalia , and collect early warnings and indicators regarding threats to the homeland.
” How successful the US has been in Somalia at this mission isn ’ t exactly clear .
And the US ’ s methods for accomplishing its work against al-Shabaab have been met with sharp criticism from watchdogs , who argue counterterrorism operations in East Africa have been conducted without a proper level of accountability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools against al-Shabaab has been drone strikes , which it has been conducting in Somalia since 2007 .
The frequency of those strikes have increased significantly during the Trump administration , with 47 strikes carried out in 2018 and 63 in 2019 , according to the New York Times .
All told , the Trump administration has carried out at least 192 drone strikes in Somalia , an analysis by New America found .
Under Trump ’ s tenure , the oversight guidelines for strikes in Somalia , some of which are meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been loosened .
In the first seven months of the Trump administration , Trump oversaw more drone strikes than took place under George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined , and human rights groups have accused US officials of acknowledging a fraction of the known civilian casualties from those strikes .
Amnesty International has accused the administration of passing off civilian killings as successful al-Shabaab raids , and of refusing to offer compensation when innocent people are accidentally killed .
Al-Shabaab appears to be resilient in the face of US intervention .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that Somalia ’ s security forces appear to still be overwhelmed by the militant group .
“ Despite many years of sustained Somali , U.S. , and international counterterrorism pressure , the terrorist threat in East Africa is not degraded : al-Shabaab retains freedom of movement in many parts of southern Somalia and has demonstrated an ability and intent to attack outside of the country , including targeting U.S. interests , ” the report states .
And that ability has been on display of late .
Recently , a CIA contractor was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al-Shabaab staged a January attack on a US facility in Kenya that resulted in the death of a US solider , two contractors , and the destruction of expensive military equipment — including a US surveillance craft .
Particularly in light of the January attack , US military officials in East Africa reportedly began to push for greater flexibility to launch airstrikes from Kenya , and Kenya ’ s President Uhuru Kenyatta also reportedly asked Trump for greater aid with countering al-Shabaab earlier this year .
The troop redeployment would appear to accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while US training of Somali security forces is expected to end , airstrikes against militants in Somalia will be continuing , since the air bases housing the US drones that carry out strikes in Somalia are currently based outside the country .

The Trump administration will pull virtually all of the US’s roughly 700 troops in Somalia out of the country just five days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
The withdrawal, announced Friday by the Pentagon, ostensibly marks the latest attempt by President Donald Trump to scale back US presence overseas in what he’s described as costly and ineffective military operations across regions like the Middle East.
Acting defense secretary Christopher Miller announced in November that the US plans to reduce US troops from 4,500 to 2,500 in Afghanistan and from 3,000 to 2,500 in Iraq. But the strategy shift in Somalia appears to be something different.
Rather than a case of troops being brought home, many of the forces will be repositioned to neighboring Kenya, according to a Defense Department official, although it’s unclear so far what percentage of the Somali-based troops will be restationed there.
“As a result of this decision, some forces may be reassigned outside of East Africa,” the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday. “However, the remaining forces will be repositioned from Somalia into neighboring countries in order to allow cross-border operations by both US and partner forces.”
What the US was doing in Somalia
The US forces stationed in Somalia were largely tasked with counterterrorism missions, with a particular focus on fighting the presence of al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group. And US troops have also worked on training Somali forces to conduct raids and capture al-Shabaab leaders.
According to the Pentagon, the mission against al-Shabaab won’t end — instead, the troops once stationed in the country will “maintain pressure against violent extremist organizations operating in Somalia” from bases in Kenya and elsewhere.
The Pentagon also said the military will “retain the capability to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations in Somalia, and collect early warnings and indicators regarding threats to the homeland.”
How successful the US has been in Somalia at this mission isn’t exactly clear. And the US’s methods for accomplishing its work against al-Shabaab have been met with sharp criticism from watchdogs, who argue counterterrorism operations in East Africa have been conducted without a proper level of accountability.
One of the US’s primary tools against al-Shabaab has been drone strikes, which it has been conducting in Somalia since 2007. The frequency of those strikes have increased significantly during the Trump administration, with 47 strikes carried out in 2018 and 63 in 2019, according to the New York Times. All told, the Trump administration has carried out at least 192 drone strikes in Somalia, an analysis by New America found.
Under Trump’s tenure, the oversight guidelines for strikes in Somalia, some of which are meant to minimize civilian casualties, have also been loosened.
In the first seven months of the Trump administration, Trump oversaw more drone strikes than took place under George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined, and human rights groups have accused US officials of acknowledging a fraction of the known civilian casualties from those strikes. Amnesty International has accused the administration of passing off civilian killings as successful al-Shabaab raids, and of refusing to offer compensation when innocent people are accidentally killed.
Al-Shabaab appears to be resilient in the face of US intervention. A Defense Department inspector general report this year found that Somalia’s security forces appear to still be overwhelmed by the militant group.
“Despite many years of sustained Somali, U.S., and international counterterrorism pressure, the terrorist threat in East Africa is not degraded: al-Shabaab retains freedom of movement in many parts of southern Somalia and has demonstrated an ability and intent to attack outside of the country, including targeting U.S. interests,” the report states.
And that ability has been on display of late. Recently, a CIA contractor was killed in action in Somalia, and al-Shabaab staged a January attack on a US facility in Kenya that resulted in the death of a US solider, two contractors, and the destruction of expensive military equipment — including a US surveillance craft.
Particularly in light of the January attack, US military officials in East Africa reportedly began to push for greater flexibility to launch airstrikes from Kenya, and Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta also reportedly asked Trump for greater aid with countering al-Shabaab earlier this year. The troop redeployment would appear to accomplish both these aims.
And indeed, while US training of Somali security forces is expected to end, airstrikes against militants in Somalia will be continuing, since the air bases housing the US drones that carry out strikes in Somalia are currently based outside the country.


vox--2020-12-05--Trump’s legal team advances yet another far-fetched lawsuit in Georgia

President Donald Trump ’ s campaign has filed yet another lawsuit contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election , this time calling for a complete do-over of the election in Georgia .
That ’ s despite two recounts in the state — overseen by Republican officials — both indicating Biden ’ s victory in the state is unambiguous and not going to change .
Trump ’ s new lawsuit , filed in a Georgia state court on Friday , represents the latest of dozens of efforts by his campaign and its allies to contest the legitimacy of vote counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of which have failed to gain traction — or even be taken seriously by judges — with the exception of one minor win involving an insignificant number of ballots .
But while Trump ’ s quixotic legal efforts and evidence-free claims of voter fraud have no chance at overturning the results of the presidential election , according to legal experts , they continue to shape Republicans ’ widespread reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of President-elect Joe Biden ’ s incoming administration , potentially setting the stage for even higher levels of polarization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC News , Trump ’ s latest Georgia lawsuit alleges that the state ’ s election code was “ disregarded , abandoned , ignored , altered , and otherwise violated , ” resulting in “ a sufficient number of illegal votes ” being included in the count .
The lawsuit takes issue with rule changes regarding the eligibility of ballots , and includes allegations of fraud “ based on witness affidavits , but with little evidence , ” ABC ’ s Olivia Rubin and Matthew Mosk report .
Trump ’ s team is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new Presidential Election to occur at the earliest opportune time.
” Georgia is in the midst of its third tally of votes overseen by Georgia ’ s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , a Republican , and Biden ’ s margin of victory , while narrow , appears firm .
Georgia ’ s unprecedented hand-count audit confirmed Biden ’ s victory over Trump , modestly reducing his margin of victory from 13,558 votes to 12,284 votes .
And on Friday , preliminary results of a machine recount of the votes indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin of victory on the third count of the ballots .
The day that Trump ’ s team filed the Georgia lawsuit , they also suffered two more legal defeats .
In Nevada , a district judge denied a lawsuit from the Trump campaign contesting the state ’ s results based on allegations of malfeasance .
The judge said the legal team “ failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence.
” And the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear Trump ’ s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 46 lawsuits across the country and their efforts have gone poorly , with even conservative and Trump-appointed judges writing scathing rejections of lawsuits bereft of credible evidence of election official misconduct , incompetence , or fraud .
Earlier this week , Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop summarized the state of Trump ’ s “ stop the steal ” politicking : “ The lawsuits of the Trump campaign and its allies have flopped .
The key swing states Biden won have certified their results on schedule .
And GOP state legislative leaders don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to interfere with the appointment of electors.
” Trump has called on those state legislative leaders to aid him in stealing the election by appointing electors to the Electoral College who are willing to ignore the results of the election in their states and cast their votes for him rather than for Biden .
As Prokop has explained , this scheme would be difficult to pull off in states in which the GOP isn ’ t in control of the legislature , courts , and governorship — and is also one that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing states like Michigan .
Only in Pennsylvania have GOP lawmakers endorsed such a plan , and there , their plans appear set to be foiled by the state ’ s Democratic House and governor .
This leaves lawsuits as the president ’ s only remaining avenue for overturning the election ’ s results .
But these lawsuits have become so transparently filed in bad faith that state and local officials are beginning to call for judges to sanction Trump campaign and Republican lawyers .
Legal experts aren ’ t ruling out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deter future lawsuits , since Trump ’ s legal efforts in many states have involve repeatedly bringing recycled , discredited claims and affidavits to court , a practice that could be deemed abusive .
“ You could see a court saying , ‘ Enough is enough , ’ ” Daniel Weiner , deputy director of New York University ’ s Brennan Center election reform program , told ABC News .
Trump ’ s lawsuits might not be credible , but Republicans don ’ t care Despite Biden ’ s decisive victory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lawsuits failing to gain any traction , the majority of Republican lawmakers in Washington have declined to question their legitimacy or acknowledge Biden ’ s status as incoming president .
This week , the Washington Post surveyed every Republican in Congress , and found that fewer than 30 were willing to acknowledge Biden ’ s victory over Trump .
Meanwhile more than 200 Republican members of the House and Senate would “ simply not say who won the election.
” Trump responded to the results of the Post ’ s survey with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retaliate against the small minority of Republicans who acknowledged he lost the election .
“ I am surprised there are so many , ” Trump tweeted Saturday .
“ We have just begun to fight .
Please send me a list of the 25 RINOS.
” RINO is an acronym which stands for “ Republican in name only , ” typically used on the right to criticize a Republican for being insufficiently conservative .
Trump ’ s extended legal battles , combined with his weeks-long insistence on Twitter and other platforms that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong effect on public opinion .
For example , a mid-November Economist/YouGov poll found that 89 percent of Trump voters believe that voter fraud affected the election outcome , and a majority think it changed the outcome .
While Trump ’ s legal fights have surfaced no evidence of widespread fraud or misconduct , they have successfully lent credibility to his campaign to convince large swaths of the public that the election was stolen .
And that might be their most important legacy .

President Donald Trump’s campaign has filed yet another lawsuit contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, this time calling for a complete do-over of the election in Georgia. That’s despite two recounts in the state — overseen by Republican officials — both indicating Biden’s victory in the state is unambiguous and not going to change.
Trump’s new lawsuit, filed in a Georgia state court on Friday, represents the latest of dozens of efforts by his campaign and its allies to contest the legitimacy of vote counts in key states across the nation, all of which have failed to gain traction — or even be taken seriously by judges — with the exception of one minor win involving an insignificant number of ballots.
But while Trump’s quixotic legal efforts and evidence-free claims of voter fraud have no chance at overturning the results of the presidential election, according to legal experts, they continue to shape Republicans’ widespread reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration, potentially setting the stage for even higher levels of polarization in Washington than before.
According to ABC News, Trump’s latest Georgia lawsuit alleges that the state’s election code was “disregarded, abandoned, ignored, altered, and otherwise violated,” resulting in “a sufficient number of illegal votes” being included in the count. The lawsuit takes issue with rule changes regarding the eligibility of ballots, and includes allegations of fraud “based on witness affidavits, but with little evidence,” ABC’s Olivia Rubin and Matthew Mosk report. Trump’s team is using these claims to call for “a new Presidential Election to occur at the earliest opportune time.”
Georgia is in the midst of its third tally of votes overseen by Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and Biden’s margin of victory, while narrow, appears firm. Georgia’s unprecedented hand-count audit confirmed Biden’s victory over Trump, modestly reducing his margin of victory from 13,558 votes to 12,284 votes. And on Friday, preliminary results of a machine recount of the votes indicated that Biden is on track for a similar margin of victory on the third count of the ballots.
The day that Trump’s team filed the Georgia lawsuit, they also suffered two more legal defeats. In Nevada, a district judge denied a lawsuit from the Trump campaign contesting the state’s results based on allegations of malfeasance. The judge said the legal team “failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence.” And the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss.
Trump and his allies have filed at least 46 lawsuits across the country and their efforts have gone poorly, with even conservative and Trump-appointed judges writing scathing rejections of lawsuits bereft of credible evidence of election official misconduct, incompetence, or fraud.
Earlier this week, Vox’s Andrew Prokop summarized the state of Trump’s “stop the steal” politicking: “The lawsuits of the Trump campaign and its allies have flopped. The key swing states Biden won have certified their results on schedule. And GOP state legislative leaders don’t appear to be seriously trying to interfere with the appointment of electors.”
Trump has called on those state legislative leaders to aid him in stealing the election by appointing electors to the Electoral College who are willing to ignore the results of the election in their states and cast their votes for him rather than for Biden.
As Prokop has explained, this scheme would be difficult to pull off in states in which the GOP isn’t in control of the legislature, courts, and governorship — and is also one that has been routinely rejected by Republican lawmakers in swing states like Michigan. Only in Pennsylvania have GOP lawmakers endorsed such a plan, and there, their plans appear set to be foiled by the state’s Democratic House and governor.
This leaves lawsuits as the president’s only remaining avenue for overturning the election’s results. But these lawsuits have become so transparently filed in bad faith that state and local officials are beginning to call for judges to sanction Trump campaign and Republican lawyers.
Legal experts aren’t ruling out the possibility that judges could use financial penalties to deter future lawsuits, since Trump’s legal efforts in many states have involve repeatedly bringing recycled, discredited claims and affidavits to court, a practice that could be deemed abusive. “You could see a court saying, ‘Enough is enough,’” Daniel Weiner, deputy director of New York University’s Brennan Center election reform program, told ABC News.
Trump’s lawsuits might not be credible, but Republicans don’t care
Despite Biden’s decisive victory in the Electoral College, and the dozens of lawsuits failing to gain any traction, the majority of Republican lawmakers in Washington have declined to question their legitimacy or acknowledge Biden’s status as incoming president.
This week, the Washington Post surveyed every Republican in Congress, and found that fewer than 30 were willing to acknowledge Biden’s victory over Trump. Meanwhile more than 200 Republican members of the House and Senate would “simply not say who won the election.”
Trump responded to the results of the Post’s survey with anger, and suggested he wanted to retaliate against the small minority of Republicans who acknowledged he lost the election. “I am surprised there are so many,” Trump tweeted Saturday. “We have just begun to fight. Please send me a list of the 25 RINOS.” RINO is an acronym which stands for “Republican in name only,” typically used on the right to criticize a Republican for being insufficiently conservative.
Trump’s extended legal battles, combined with his weeks-long insistence on Twitter and other platforms that the election was rigged, have also had a strong effect on public opinion.
For example, a mid-November Economist/YouGov poll found that 89 percent of Trump voters believe that voter fraud affected the election outcome, and a majority think it changed the outcome.
While Trump’s legal fights have surfaced no evidence of widespread fraud or misconduct, they have successfully lent credibility to his campaign to convince large swaths of the public that the election was stolen. And that might be their most important legacy.


vox--2020-12-05--A federal court just reinstated DACA, and the implications go far beyond immigration

Late Friday afternoon , a federal district judge ordered the Trump administration to fully reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program , which allows nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to live and work there .
The case is Batalla Vidal v. Wolf .
Judge Nicholas Garaufis , who handed down the order , said the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) must “ post a public notice , within 3 calendar days of this Order ... that it is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ostensible leader tried to limit the DACA program without having the authority to do so .
The ruling is the latest blow to the Trump administration ’ s attempts to end the program .
In 2017 , Trump ’ s DHS issued a memo that sought to wind down the DACA program , but the Supreme Court ruled last June that DHS ’ s initial attempts to end it were void because the department did not adequately explain why it was doing so .
Rather than fully reinstating DACA following the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued a new memo in July signed by Undersecretary of Homeland Security ’ s Office for Strategy , Policy , and Plans Chad Wolf — and the lawfulness of this July memo was the central issue in Batalla Vidal .
“ I have concluded that the DACA policy , at a minimum , presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission , ” Wolf wrote in that memo .
The memo directs “ DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneficiaries may only receive one-year renewals of their DACA status , rather than the two-year extensions they would have received prior to this memo .
Wolf , moreover , purported to be far more than a mere undersecretary in his memorandum .
In November of 2019 , President Trump named Wolf acting Secretary of Homeland Security , and Wolf signed his July memo as “ Acting Secretary.
” This distinction matters because as undersecretary , Wolf lacks the power to make changes to DACA , but the Secretary of Homeland Security does have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Garaufis ruled in mid-November that Wolf “ was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act ( ‘ HSA ’ ) when he issued the July 28 , 2020 memorandum , ” thereby cutting the legs out from under Wolf ’ s attempt to water down the DACA program .
If Wolf is not the acting secretary , then his July memo is void .
The order Garaufis handed down on Friday lays out some of the consequences of the judge ’ s mid-November decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to serve as Acting Secretary of OHS , the Wolf Memorandum is VACATED , ” Garaufis wrote in his most recent order .
So the good news for DACA-eligible immigrants is that , barring a decision from a higher court blocking Garaufis ’ s most recent order , those immigrants will soon be able to obtain DACA status .
And even if the order is blocked , President-elect Joe Biden has also pledged to fully reinstate DACA once he takes office on January 20 .
Nevertheless , the future of DACA remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ’ s June decision blocking the Trump administration ’ s initial attempts to end the program was a 5-4 decision , with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority .
Since then , Trump has replaced Ginsburg with the far more conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
And even before Barrett arrived at the Supreme Court , several members of the Court had signaled that they thought DACA is illegal .
So there ’ s a reasonable likelihood that the Court ’ s new 6-3 Republican majority will strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tries to preserve it .
The logic of Garaufis ’ s November opinion — that presidents have only limited authority to make acting appointments — could also come back to bite Biden , especially if Republicans control the Senate and , with it , the power to block Biden ’ s nominees .
Chad Wolf is not the acting Secretary of Homeland Security The core issue in the Batalla Vidal case turns on whether Wolf was lawfully appointed acting secretary , and therefore is empowered to make changes to the DACA program .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not lawfully appointed is fairly straightforward .
The Homeland Security Act provides that , if DHS ’ s top job becomes vacant , the deputy secretary shall act as secretary .
If both jobs are vacant , then “ the Under Secretary for Management shall serve as the Acting Secretary if by reason of absence , disability , or vacancy in office , neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary is available to exercise the duties of the Office of the Secretary.
” A sitting secretary , moreover , “ may designate such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order of succession to serve as Acting Secretary.
” Currently , DHS ’ s top ranks are a bit a of ghost town .
All three of the top jobs are vacant .
Kirstjen Nielsen , the last person to serve as a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security , resigned in April of 2019 .
Before she left , however , she did lay out the order of succession that should apply if the top three jobs at DHS became vacant .
If all top three jobs were vacant , Nielsen determined , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Management Agency should become secretary — but this job has been vacant since the spring of 2019 .
Next in line would be the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) — a job that , until recently , was filled by Christopher Krebs .
Trump fired Krebs in mid-November after Krebs refuted false claims by Trump and some of Trump ’ s allies that Biden somehow stole the 2020 election .
But Krebs still was in his job as head of CISA in July , when Wolf handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Krebs , not Wolf , should have been the acting secretary in July .
It ’ s worth noting that , even with Krebs out of the picture , Wolf still is not next in line to be acting secretary .
After Krebs is the DHS ’ s undersecretary for science and technology , but this position is vacant and the job is currently being done by a “ Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
” The next person in line after that is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that position is vacant as well , and the relevant office is held by an acting official .
Eighth in line is the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection , but that position is also vacant and there , too , the office is led by an acting official .
Ninth in line is the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration .
The TSA actually does have a Senate-confirmed leader — David Pekoske was confirmed to lead the TSA in 2017 — and he still holds that office .
So it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should currently be serving as acting secretary of DHS .
Judge Garaufis ’ s order is bad news for Biden if Republicans try to sabotage his administration As this litany of vacant offices and acting officials suggests , the courts have thus far been fairly tolerant of President Trump ’ s attempts to bypass the Senate and fill top jobs with acting officials .
But Judge Garaufis ’ s order suggests that tolerance may be coming to an end just as Biden is preparing to take office .
We do not yet know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of the Biden administration .
Currently , Republicans hold a 50-48 seat majority in the incoming Senate , with two seats to be determined in a January 5 Georgia runoff election .
If Democrats win both of those seats , Vice President-elect Kamala Harris ’ s tiebreaking vote will give them a narrow majority in the Senate .
But if Republicans prevail in either Georgia race , then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) will continue to lead the Senate , and Republicans will have the power to block any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , meanwhile , may find himself unable to staff his administration if Republicans choose to sabotage his presidency .
While the Department of Homeland Security has a rigid order of succession for its top job , most agencies are governed by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act ( FVRA ) when a Senate-confirmed position becomes vacant .
Under the FVRA , the president may temporarily fill a vacant , Senate-confirmed job with an acting appointee .
But the president can not fill the job with just anyone — typically the acting appointee must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job , or be currently serving as a senior civil servant .
Thus , if a vacancy arises in the middle of a presidency , that ’ s typically no big deal .
After the first year of a new presidency , the president will normally have appointed hundreds of individuals to Senate-confirmed jobs .
So that gives the president a deep bench of officials to slide into acting roles as they are needed .
But , at the beginning of Biden ’ s presidency , he won ’ t be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as acting secretaries if the Senate refuses to confirm his nominees .
With rare exceptions , the only people in Senate-confirmed jobs when Biden takes office will be Trump appointees .
Biden could potentially fill the vacant jobs with civil servants — that is , with senior career officials in the relevant agencies — but that could prevent Biden from naming a Cabinet that shares his political and policy vision .
The FVRA imposes rigid limits on just how long an individual may serve in an acting role .
Under many circumstances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to just 210 days after a vacancy arises .
So even though Biden could fill many jobs temporarily with civil servants , many of those acting appointments will expire just seven months into his presidency .
As mentioned above , the courts haven ’ t exactly been rigorous in enforcing these restrictions under President Trump , but they now seem likely to take a new interest in enforcing laws like the FVRA once Biden takes office .
A 6-3 Republican Supreme Court is unlikely to bend the law in order to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law is quite clear that Biden does not have a limitless power to make acting appointments .
A tremendous amount , in other words , is potentially at stake in the Georgia Senate runoffs .
Those races could determine whether the Biden administration is able to perform many of the most basic functions of government — starting with actually getting people into top jobs within the administration .

Late Friday afternoon, a federal district judge ordered the Trump administration to fully reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to live and work there.
The case is Batalla Vidal v. Wolf. Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who handed down the order, said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must “post a public notice, within 3 calendar days of this Order ... that it is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under DACA” because the department’s ostensible leader tried to limit the DACA program without having the authority to do so.
The ruling is the latest blow to the Trump administration’s attempts to end the program. In 2017, Trump’s DHS issued a memo that sought to wind down the DACA program, but the Supreme Court ruled last June that DHS’s initial attempts to end it were void because the department did not adequately explain why it was doing so.
Rather than fully reinstating DACA following the Supreme Court’s order, however, DHS issued a new memo in July signed by Undersecretary of Homeland Security’s Office for Strategy, Policy, and Plans Chad Wolf — and the lawfulness of this July memo was the central issue in Batalla Vidal. “I have concluded that the DACA policy, at a minimum, presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission,” Wolf wrote in that memo.
The memo directs “DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA,” and it provides that current DACA beneficiaries may only receive one-year renewals of their DACA status, rather than the two-year extensions they would have received prior to this memo.
Wolf, moreover, purported to be far more than a mere undersecretary in his memorandum. In November of 2019, President Trump named Wolf acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and Wolf signed his July memo as “Acting Secretary.” This distinction matters because as undersecretary, Wolf lacks the power to make changes to DACA, but the Secretary of Homeland Security does have the authority to make such changes.
Judge Garaufis ruled in mid-November that Wolf “was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act (‘HSA’) when he issued the July 28, 2020 memorandum,” thereby cutting the legs out from under Wolf’s attempt to water down the DACA program. If Wolf is not the acting secretary, then his July memo is void.
The order Garaufis handed down on Friday lays out some of the consequences of the judge’s mid-November decision. “Because Mr. Wolf was without lawful authority to serve as Acting Secretary of OHS, the Wolf Memorandum is VACATED,” Garaufis wrote in his most recent order.
So the good news for DACA-eligible immigrants is that, barring a decision from a higher court blocking Garaufis’s most recent order, those immigrants will soon be able to obtain DACA status. And even if the order is blocked, President-elect Joe Biden has also pledged to fully reinstate DACA once he takes office on January 20.
Nevertheless, the future of DACA remains uncertain. For one thing, the Supreme Court’s June decision blocking the Trump administration’s initial attempts to end the program was a 5-4 decision, with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority. Since then, Trump has replaced Ginsburg with the far more conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And even before Barrett arrived at the Supreme Court, several members of the Court had signaled that they thought DACA is illegal.
So there’s a reasonable likelihood that the Court’s new 6-3 Republican majority will strike down the DACA program even as Biden tries to preserve it.
The logic of Garaufis’s November opinion — that presidents have only limited authority to make acting appointments — could also come back to bite Biden, especially if Republicans control the Senate and, with it, the power to block Biden’s nominees.
Chad Wolf is not the acting Secretary of Homeland Security
The core issue in the Batalla Vidal case turns on whether Wolf was lawfully appointed acting secretary, and therefore is empowered to make changes to the DACA program.
Garaufis’s opinion holding that Wolf was not lawfully appointed is fairly straightforward. The Homeland Security Act provides that, if DHS’s top job becomes vacant, the deputy secretary shall act as secretary. If both jobs are vacant, then “the Under Secretary for Management shall serve as the Acting Secretary if by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary is available to exercise the duties of the Office of the Secretary.” A sitting secretary, moreover, “may designate such other officers of the Department in further order of succession to serve as Acting Secretary.”
Currently, DHS’s top ranks are a bit a of ghost town. All three of the top jobs are vacant. Kirstjen Nielsen, the last person to serve as a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security, resigned in April of 2019. Before she left, however, she did lay out the order of succession that should apply if the top three jobs at DHS became vacant.
If all top three jobs were vacant, Nielsen determined, then the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency should become secretary — but this job has been vacant since the spring of 2019. Next in line would be the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — a job that, until recently, was filled by Christopher Krebs.
Trump fired Krebs in mid-November after Krebs refuted false claims by Trump and some of Trump’s allies that Biden somehow stole the 2020 election. But Krebs still was in his job as head of CISA in July, when Wolf handed down his DACA memo. That means that Krebs, not Wolf, should have been the acting secretary in July.
It’s worth noting that, even with Krebs out of the picture, Wolf still is not next in line to be acting secretary. After Krebs is the DHS’s undersecretary for science and technology, but this position is vacant and the job is currently being done by a “Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.” The next person in line after that is the undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, but that position is vacant as well, and the relevant office is held by an acting official. Eighth in line is the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection, but that position is also vacant and there, too, the office is led by an acting official.
Ninth in line is the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA actually does have a Senate-confirmed leader — David Pekoske was confirmed to lead the TSA in 2017 — and he still holds that office. So it would appear that Pekoske, not Wolf, should currently be serving as acting secretary of DHS.
Judge Garaufis’s order is bad news for Biden if Republicans try to sabotage his administration
As this litany of vacant offices and acting officials suggests, the courts have thus far been fairly tolerant of President Trump’s attempts to bypass the Senate and fill top jobs with acting officials. But Judge Garaufis’s order suggests that tolerance may be coming to an end just as Biden is preparing to take office.
We do not yet know who will control the Senate at the beginning of the Biden administration. Currently, Republicans hold a 50-48 seat majority in the incoming Senate, with two seats to be determined in a January 5 Georgia runoff election. If Democrats win both of those seats, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote will give them a narrow majority in the Senate.
But if Republicans prevail in either Georgia race, then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will continue to lead the Senate, and Republicans will have the power to block any Biden nominee to any Senate-confirmed job.
Biden, meanwhile, may find himself unable to staff his administration if Republicans choose to sabotage his presidency. While the Department of Homeland Security has a rigid order of succession for its top job, most agencies are governed by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) when a Senate-confirmed position becomes vacant.
Under the FVRA, the president may temporarily fill a vacant, Senate-confirmed job with an acting appointee. But the president cannot fill the job with just anyone — typically the acting appointee must either be currently serving in a Senate-confirmed job, or be currently serving as a senior civil servant.
Thus, if a vacancy arises in the middle of a presidency, that’s typically no big deal. After the first year of a new presidency, the president will normally have appointed hundreds of individuals to Senate-confirmed jobs. So that gives the president a deep bench of officials to slide into acting roles as they are needed.
But, at the beginning of Biden’s presidency, he won’t be able to rely on existing Senate-confirmed officials to serve as acting secretaries if the Senate refuses to confirm his nominees. With rare exceptions, the only people in Senate-confirmed jobs when Biden takes office will be Trump appointees.
Biden could potentially fill the vacant jobs with civil servants — that is, with senior career officials in the relevant agencies — but that could prevent Biden from naming a Cabinet that shares his political and policy vision.
The FVRA imposes rigid limits on just how long an individual may serve in an acting role. Under many circumstances, the tenure of an acting official is limited to just 210 days after a vacancy arises. So even though Biden could fill many jobs temporarily with civil servants, many of those acting appointments will expire just seven months into his presidency.
As mentioned above, the courts haven’t exactly been rigorous in enforcing these restrictions under President Trump, but they now seem likely to take a new interest in enforcing laws like the FVRA once Biden takes office. A 6-3 Republican Supreme Court is unlikely to bend the law in order to help a Democratic president — and really, the law is quite clear that Biden does not have a limitless power to make acting appointments.
A tremendous amount, in other words, is potentially at stake in the Georgia Senate runoffs. Those races could determine whether the Biden administration is able to perform many of the most basic functions of government — starting with actually getting people into top jobs within the administration.