Sunday, February 28, 2021

The making of Madison Cawthorn: How falsehoods helped propel the career of a new pro-Trump star of the far right

The making of Madison Cawthorn: How falsehoods helped propel the career of a new pro-Trump star of the far right
Politics

Cawthorn has emerged as one of the most visible figures among newly arrived House Republicans, who have promoted baseless assertions and pushed a radicalized ideology that has become a driving force in the GOP

February 27, 2021
Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.

Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.

He promptly used his newfound fame to push baseless allegations about voting fraud on Twitter in a video viewed 4 million times, which President Donald Trump retweeted, saying, “Thank you Madison!” Then Cawthorn spoke at the Jan. 6 rally where a mob was incited to storm the U.S. Capitol, again alleging fraud and extolling the crowd’s courage in comparison with the “cowards” in Congress. He returned to the Capitol, where he falsely claimed that insurrectionists had been “paid by the Democratic machine.”


Trump supporters make their way to the Capitol after the rally that featured Cawthorn as a speaker. (Gabriella Demczuk)
Today, less than two months after being sworn in, Cawthorn has emerged as one of the most visible figures among newly arrived publicity-hungry House Republicans, including Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who have promoted baseless assertions and pushed a radicalized ideology that has become a driving force in the GOP.

The story of Cawthorn’s rise is, by any measure, an extraordinary accomplishment at a young age by a man who suffered a horrific injury. But an examination by The Post of how he ascended so quickly shows how even one of the most neophyte elected Republicans is adopting the Trump playbook, making false statements about his background, issuing baseless allegations about voter fraud and demonizing his political opponents.

Cawthorn won his campaign with a brief résumé that included working at a Chick-fil-A, a part-time role in a congressional office, the single semester of college and fledgling work as a real estate investor. He was boosted by a last-minute $500,000 blitz by a political action committee that trashed his primary opponent as a “Never Trumper,” which the opponent said was false. Cawthorn’s campaign website said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who is Black, wanted to “ruin” White males running for office, an assertion Booker denounced as “rank racism.”

Cawthorn’s election also came despite an extraordinary effort by former classmates and other alumni of Patrick Henry College urging that the voters of North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District reject him on grounds of alleged sexual misconduct. Three women told The Post in on-the-record interviews that they objected to Cawthorn’s behavior, with one saying he tried forcibly to kiss her after she rejected his advance.

Cawthorn declined an interview request. His press secretary, Micah Bock, who went to college with him, declined to respond directly to a list of questions that he had asked The Post to send to the congressman. Instead, Bock said that voters responded to such questions by electing Cawthorn, although some of the events — such as his speech before the storming of the U.S. Capitol — happened after the election.

The young North Carolinian now presents himself as the future of his party, brashly proclaiming that “I will put the Republican establishment on my shoulders and drag them kicking and screaming back to the Constitution.” Cawthorn was a featured speaker Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, attacking “vicious” opponents who are “trying to take away all of our rights” and “are trying to turn this country into a communist ash heap.”


Cawthorn speaks with staff members before the joint session of Congress to confirm Biden's victory. (Gabriella Demczuk)
A crash in Florida
By his account, Cawthorn led a charmed life growing up in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina. Handsome and athletic, he was home-schooled and played high school football. He sought admission to the U.S. Naval Academy under a process that enables a local member of Congress to recommend candidates.

That led Cawthorn to seek help from then-Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C), a conservative co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus. As it happened, Cawthorn was friends with Meadows’s son, Blake. The senior Meadows agreed in December 2013 to nominate Cawthorn to the Naval Academy, but Cawthorn’s acceptance depended on his grades, test scores and other measures.

After the Naval Academy rejected Cawthorn’s application, he said in the deposition, he went on a spring break trip in Florida with his friend Ledford.

During the 2014 trip, Cawthorn, then 18, and Ledford, then 17, traded positions between the driver and passenger seats while the vehicle was moving on the highway, Cawthorn said in his deposition. At the time, Cawthorn said, he thought he was invincible, “didn’t see any danger in it” and did it to save time.

The two were traveling back to North Carolina when Ledford nodded off while driving on Interstate 4 in Florida and crashed into a concrete construction barrier, Ledford said in a deposition. Ledford said Cawthorn, while wearing a seat belt harness, had been sleeping in a “laid back position” in a manner that the harness did not touch Cawthorn’s body, and with “his feet being on the dash[board].”

Ledford said in his deposition that when the van crashed, he saw Cawthorn was unconscious. The doors were jammed, and the vehicle began to be enveloped in flames. Ledford said he exited through a window, “unbuckled Madison and proceeded to pull him out while a bystander came in and helped me.”


Cawthorn heads to the joint session of Congress. During his speech earlier in the day, the lawmaker alleged election fraud. (Gabriella Demczuk)
In his chapel address, however, Cawthorn told it this way: “He was my brother, my best friend. And he leaves me in a car to die in a fiery tomb. He runs to safety deep in the woods and just leaves me in a burning car as the flames start to lick my legs and curl up and burn my left side. Fortunately, there was several bystanders who come by and they break the window open that they pulled me out to safety and they sat me down. The paramedics arrive and decided that I’m gone and I have no pulse, I have no breath. And I was, I was declared dead on the scene. For whatever reason, may it be adrenaline or divine intervention, I definitely believe it’s the latter, I had a deep inhale of breath."

Ledford said in an interview with The Post that he raced to save his friend’s life.

“That statement he made was false,” Ledford said. “It hurt very badly that he would say something as false as that. That is not at all what happened. I pulled him out of the car the second that I was able to get out of the car.”

Ledford said the two didn’t talk for a couple of years. He said pressure regarding insurance claims caused Cawthorn to say “crazy things.” Ledford said he has reconnected with Cawthorn, and “he told me that he didn’t believe those things anymore.”

In his deposition, Cawthorn did not say his friend left him for dead. Instead, he said, “I have no memory from the accident.” An accident report and other records from the Florida Highway Patrol say Cawthorn was incapacitated and in critical condition, not that he was declared dead.

As a result of the accident, Cawthorn has limited use of his legs, uses a wheelchair, and received a $3 million settlement from an insurance company, as well as other payments, and is seeking $30 million more, according to court records from several lawsuits related to the case.

Cawthorn attributed his poor grades in college to “suffering from a brain injury after the accident definitely — I think it slowed my brain down a little bit,” he said in the deposition. “Made me less intelligent. And the pain also made reading and studying very difficult.”


At 25 years old, Cawthorn is the youngest member of the U.S. House. (Gabriella Demczuk)
‘I told him no’
Cawthorn underwent multiple surgeries. Eventually, with a modified car, he was able to drive again, and he soon began asking young women to go on what they say he called “fun drives.”

Katrina Krulikas, who was part of a home-schooling network that included Cawthorn, said she was 17 years old and he was 19 when they agreed to go on a date. She said in an interview that she got into his car and he drove to a “deserted part of town and he took me to the woods.”

They got out of the car and Cawthorn talked about sex, which made her feel uncomfortable. “All these very intimate, pressing questions that at the time, for someone that grew up in a very conservative community and hadn’t really talked about sex, I didn’t really know anyone having sex. … It was a very religious community.”

Cawthorn then made his move from his wheelchair, Krulikas said.

“He tries to kiss me and I say no and I don’t let him kiss me,” she said. “We talk for like a little bit longer, like a few minutes. And then suddenly” he moved forward “as if to try to kiss me so quickly that I wouldn’t have a choice to say no or push him away. And at this point, I’m so startled that I fall back. My hair gets stuck in his chair. I’m ripping my hair out, trying to get out of the situation.”

Returning home, Krulikas said she texted a friend that she would never feel comfortable being alone with Cawthorn again. At the time, she didn’t complain because she felt she had “put myself in that situation.” But as she grew older, she said, she believed Cawthorn deserved blame, and “I definitely would classify it as sexual assault because he knew I said no.”

Krulikas first told of the encounter last August in World Magazine, a publication based in Asheville, N.C., that describes itself as “grounded in facts and biblical truth.”

Cawthorn, whose work experience had mainly been at a Chick-fil-A, got a part-time job working at the district office of then-Rep. Meadows.

Cawthorn told the Asheville Citizen-Times that he had worked “full time” for Meadows in 2015 and 2016. Congressional records show Cawthorn was listed as a part-time employee in 2015 and was paid about $15,000. In 2016, he received about $3,000 for part-time work.


Trump supporters gather on the National Mall on the day of the Capitol assault. (Gabriella Demczuk)
Cawthorn said in an earlier deposition he was accepted to Princeton and an online program at Harvard, along with other universities. He later revised his statements to say that he had not been admitted to Princeton and Harvard and that some of his statements about college admissions were “not accurate.”

Cawthorn eventually followed his friend Blake Meadows to become a student at Patrick Henry College, where the motto is “For Christ and Liberty.” In this conservative environment in Purcellville, Va., some female students said Cawthorn asked them to go on drives in his Dodge Challenger.

“He asked me to go on a ‘fun drive,’ ” said one classmate, Leah Petree. When she asked what that meant, Cawthorn “insinuated some sexual activity.” Petree said, “I had a boyfriend so I was not going in the car with him. I told him no.”

Nonetheless, Cawthorn continued to “pressure me and badger me.” One day in October 2016, she said, she was in the cafeteria with other students when Cawthorn arrived with some of his friends. Petree said Cawthorn began asking another female student questions about sex that Petree deemed inappropriate, and she tried to defuse the situation.

“He got really angry and looked at me and screamed at me with a lot of anger,” Petree said. She recalled he said she was "'just a little blonde, slutty American girl.’ And I remember that quote very well. … I remember at the time my eyes stinging with tears, the whole table going quiet.”

Petree sent The Post a screenshot of a text conversation she later had with Cawthorn in which he complained that a man approached him and “said I called you a slut.” She texted back that she didn’t know the person’s identity, and he responded that “I have some old friends who would love to meet him.”

Some former students said in interviews that they were advised by classmates not to go on a drive with Cawthorn. But a student named Caitlin Coulter said in an interview that she was not aware of those concerns when Cawthorn asked her to ride with him in that fall semester of 2016. She accepted.

Cawthorn took Coulter to “somewhere very rural,” she said.

“There was a specific point in which he grew frustrated and I shut him down, basically — by not responding to some of the advances he was making. And he got upset and he turned the car around and drove very, like, violently is the best way I can think of to describe it. Violently back to campus. It was very scary. … It seemed it was very clearly because he was upset that I had turned him down or refused his advances.”

After hurtling down back roads at speeds she said reached 70 or 80 miles an hour, they returned to campus and she never heard from him again.

Cawthorn addressed the allegations this way during the campaign: “If I have a daughter, I want her to grow up in a world where people know to explicitly ask before touching her. If I had a son, I want him to be able to grow up in a world where he would not be called a sexual predator for trying to kiss someone.”

It was shortly after Coulter went on the ride with Cawthorn that he testified at chapel about his relationship with God. The semester was over. Cawthorn never returned and did not attend college elsewhere.


Before Cawthorn was elected, a group of his former college classmates urged voters to reject him on several grounds, including alleged sexual misconduct. (Gabriella Demczuk)
Running for Congress
Three years after Cawthorn dropped out of Patrick Henry College, Cawthorn learned Meadows planned to resign his seat to become chief of staff for President Donald Trump. Meadows and his wife, Debra, who was executive director of a political action committee called Women Right, backed their friend, Lynda Bennett, a real estate agent, in the Republican primary.

Cawthorn announced his candidacy. The 24-year-old was given little chance because of his youth and short résumé.

A campaign video ad said Cawthorn had planned to serve in the Navy “with a nomination to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. But all that changed in the spring of 2014 when tragedy struck.” His campaign website made a similar statement.

By his own admission, however, that was not true. He had been asked in his deposition whether the rejection by the Naval Academy “was before the accident?”

“It was, sir,” Cawthorn replied. That acknowledgment was not publicly known until after Cawthorn became the Republican nominee.


An excerpt of the deposition in which Cawthorn admits he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before he was injured in a car crash. (Auto-Owners Insurance Company)
Bennett seemed the prohibitive favorite, given her backing by Mark and Debra Meadows. But Cawthorn said in a Facebook post in February 2020 that his campaign was thriving thanks to their son. He thanked “one of my closest friends, Blake Meadows,” for helping with the campaign. Blake Meadows did not respond to a request for comment.

Cawthorn also received crucial help from George Erwin Jr., a former sheriff of Henderson County and former executive director of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police. Erwin helped the candidate gain endorsements from key law enforcement and political figures. He wrote on Facebook in February 2020 that “Congressman Cawthorn just has a sweet sound to it. I will do whatever I need to do to make this happen.”

Then came an extraordinary moment that turned the campaign in Cawthorn’s favor. Someone released an edited audio clip of Bennett saying forcefully, “I’m a Never Trump person. I don’t want Trump. I’m Never Trump, not going to vote for him.”

Bennett promptly denied that she was a Never Trumper, and soon a fuller audio clip was released that seemed to back her assertion that she had been mimicking someone who would never vote for Trump. She led the primary field but state law required that she exceed 30 percent of the vote. That led to a runoff between her and the runner-up, Cawthorn.

Bennett again was the favorite. But Cawthorn got an extraordinary boost from an outside group, a Georgia-based political action committee called Protect Freedom that sought to elect candidates in the mold of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The group’s largest contributor is Jeff Yass, a co-founder of the Pennsylvania-based investment company Susquehanna International Group, who gave the PAC a total of $8.5 million in 2019 and 2020, according to federal election records. Yass declined to comment.

The committee poured $500,000 into the race to support Cawthorn in the days before the runoff. The money was mainly spent on mailers and television ads that renewed the charge that Bennett was a Never Trumper.

Bennett said in an interview that the last-minute spending on what she called a “lie” devastated her campaign, and she ran an ad blaming “Madison Cawthorn’s DC friends.” She said it proved impossible to convince many people that she had been mocking a Never Trumper, even when Trump endorsed her just before the election.

Michael Biundo, a spokesman for Protect Freedom, said in an interview that he believed the committee’s advertising “played a big role in the race.” He said the committee was aware that an audio clip had been released in which Bennett said she was not a Never Trumper but nonetheless decided to air that charge.

“We stand by what we put out there,” he said.

With the committee’s help, Cawthorn beat Bennett by 31 points. He vowed to be the most pro-Trump member of Congress, and the president soon backed him effusively, saying he’s “a terrific young man. … He’s going to be one of the greats.”


Trump supporters gather near the Washington Monument on Jan. 6. At the rally that day, Cawthorn accused Democrats of “trying to silence” voters' voices. (Gabriella Demczuk)
Embraced by Trump
After Cawthorn became the Republican nominee for the 11th District seat, his background was scrutinized by a local news outlet called AVL Watchdog, which first reported on the deposition in which Cawthorn acknowledged that he was rejected by the Naval Academy before the accident.

Cawthorn attacked one of the outlet’s reporters, Tom Fiedler, who previously had been editor in chief of the Miami Herald and dean of Boston University’s College of Communication. Fiedler, who had a home in Asheville, had volunteered for Booker’s 2020 Democratic presidential campaign.

Cawthorn responded to Fiedler’s reporting by attacking his association with Booker. Fiedler “quit his academia job in Boston to work for non-white males, like Cory Booker, who aims to ruin white males running for office,” a Cawthorn campaign website alleged, as first reported by the Bulwark. Booker denounced the comment.

Cawthorn responded by saying, “The syntax of our language was unclear and unfairly implied I was criticizing Cory Booker.”

As Cawthorn headed to the general election, former classmates and other alumni at Patrick Henry College circulated the letter that leveled accusations against him.

“Cawthorn’s time at PHC was marked by gross misconduct towards our female peers, public misrepresentation of his past, disorderly conduct that was against the school’s student honor code, and self-admitted academic failings,” the letter said. “During his brief time at the college, Cawthorn established a reputation for predatory behavior. … We urge the voters of North Carolina to seriously reevaluate Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy in light of who he really is.”

After more than 150 alumni signed the letter, the organizers hoped it would lead to Cawthorn’s defeat in the general election. He faced Democrat Moe Davis, a former director of the Air Force Judiciary.

Cawthorn, meanwhile, traveled to the Texas border on July 30 and, echoing the views of a radicalized, far-right ideology, alleged that there was “a large group of cartels, kidnapping our American children and then taking them to sell them on a slave market, a sex slave market.” He said that “tens of thousands of our children” were taken in what he called “one of the greatest atrocities I can imagine,” blaming the media for failing to focus on the matter.

There’s no evidence that cartels have kidnapped large numbers of U.S. children and sold them on a slave market.

The Republican Party, meanwhile, saw Cawthorn as a star and gave him a coveted slot speaking on the third night of its national convention. Seeking to combat questions about his youth, Cawthorn said that if viewers didn’t think young people could change the world, “you don’t know American history.” He said that “my personal favorite, James Madison, was just 25 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence.”

In fact, Madison never signed the Declaration of Independence. He was known as the Father of the Constitution, which he signed.


Cawthorn speaks at the Jan. 6 rally. He urged the crowd to be part of a new Republican Party “that will go and fight.” (Gabriella Demczuk)
‘It’s time to fight’
Running in a heavily Republican district, Cawthorn won by a 12-point margin against Davis, who said in an interview that his opponent “has got to be the least qualified member of Congress.”

Cawthorn became one of the most loyal defenders of Trump, who claimed falsely that the 2020 election had been stolen from him. In a six-minute video posted to Twitter on Dec. 31, Cawthorn said, “My first act as a member of Congress will be to object to the electoral college certification of the 2020 election.”

To justify his decision, he repeated a host of false and misleading claims about the election, accusing various state election officials of violating the law even though courts across the country and Trump’s own attorney general, William P. Barr, rejected these allegations.

“Voter fraud is common in America. Those who tell you otherwise are lying,” Cawthorn said in the video.

Cawthorn alleged that a number of states had violated the Constitution and their own laws. Cawthorn said “ballots were shoved into duffel bags and left in parks and gas stations.” He said Nevada “allowed dead people and out-of-state voters to flood the electoral system,” a baseless assertion. He said mail-in ballots “are wildly susceptible to fraud.”

“Fact-check that,” Cawthorn said, adding, “Do not let your vote be canceled by these bastards.”

In fact, voter fraud is rare, mail-in ballots have been almost entirely free of fraud for decades, no widespread fraud was found in the fall election, and courts across the country dismissed more than 60 legal challenges filed by the Trump campaign.

Cawthorn’s video, however, made an impression on one person in particular. Trump gleefully retweeted it on Jan. 1. (The Post asked Twitter whether Cawthorn’s tweet met its civic integrity standards. After the inquiry on Feb. 11, Twitter attached the following statement to Cawthorn’s tweet: “This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence.”)

Cawthorn was sworn in on Jan. 3 and he amped up his rhetoric, tweeting the following day that “the future of this Republic hinges on the actions of a solitary few. … It’s time to fight.” He was invited to speak at the Jan. 6 rally and derided members of both parties.

“The Democrats, with all the fraud they have done in this election, the Republicans, hiding and not fighting, they are trying to silence your voice,” Cawthorn said, castigating members of his own party who “have no backbone” and deriding “the cowards of Washington, D.C., that I serve with.”

He urged the crowd to be part of a new Republican Party “that will go and fight. … Make your voice heard, because, do we love Donald Trump? But my friends, we’re not just doing this for Donald Trump, we are doing this for the Constitution. Our Constitution was violated.”

Cawthorn then went to the Capitol and, after taking refuge from some of the same people who had listened to his address, called into the Charlie Kirk radio show and made an incendiary, baseless claim that Democrats were behind the insurrection.


Cawthorn sits in the House chamber after the joint session of Congress reconvened on Jan. 6. (Gabriella Demczuk)
“I believe this was agitators strategically placed inside of this group,” Cawthorn said. “You can call them ‘antifa,’ you can call them people paid by the Democratic machine, but to make the Trump campaign, the Trump movement, look bad and to make this look like it was a violent outrage when really the battle is being fought by people like myself and other great patriots who were standing up against the establishment, standing up against this tyranny in our country.” He said the storming of the Capitol was “disgusting, impermissible.”

No evidence has emerged that Democrats or antifa, the anti-fascist protest movement, were behind the insurrection.

Cawthorn was among the 139 House Republicans who voted to object to the certification of some presidential election results. The Democratic Party of North Carolina’s 11th District, which covers western parts of the state, has called for an investigation into what it calls Cawthorn’s “seditious behavior.”

As the blowback mounted, Cawthorn defended his actions but changed his tone. Asked about his rally speech during an interview on OZY, he said: “If I could go back, I wouldn’t have changed any words that I did say, but I probably would have added some lines. I probably would have encouraged more peace.”

Without any mention of his video baselessly alleging massive voting irregularities, he said that he hadn’t promoted theories about fraudulent voting machines or “U-Hauls being backed up with tons of ballots and they were fraudulently marked. I couldn’t have personally proved that … so I definitely didn’t try and feed into that narrative.”

Erwin, the former sheriff who helped Cawthorn get endorsements, said in an interview that he increasingly is regretful for playing a crucial role in the election.

Erwin went on Facebook after the Capitol riot and wrote: “I apologize to all of my law enforcement friends, other politicians, family and friends — I was wrong, I misled you. When I saw [Cawthorn’s] speech to the crowd in Washington I thought this is not good. … Your words can incite or calm. I saw no calming words and people died and were injured.”

Erwin confirmed that he wrote the post and expressed profound remorse. “I was filled with hope for him,” Erwin said. “And that hope was dashed and it was crushed. And that’s on me. That’s why I had to apologize to folks.”

Republican House leaders, meanwhile, rewarded Cawthorn with assignments that belied his background of a single college semester of mostly D’s and rejection by the Naval Academy. He now serves on the Education Committee and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.


After the rally and the riot at the Capitol that followed, Cawthorn falsely claimed that insurrectionists had been “paid by the Democratic machine.” (Gabriella Demczuk)
Editing by John Drescher. Photo editing by Natalia Jimenez. Design by Tara McCarty. Copy editing by Gilbert Dunkley and Frances Moody.

Alice Crites and Salvador Rizzo contributed to this report.

Saturday, February 27, 2021

No, the Tuskegee Study Is Not the Top Reason Some Black Americans Question the COVID-19 Vaccine

No, the Tuskegee Study Is Not the Top Reason Some Black Americans Question the COVID-19 Vaccine

A group of men who were part of the infamous 'Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,' a government-sponsored study that ran for decades before it was officially shut down in 1972. (National Archives)

KQED

By April Dembosky Feb 25

As more surveys come out showing that Black Americans are more hesitant than white Americans to get the coronavirus vaccine, more journalists, politicians and health officials — from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to Dr. Anthony Fauci — are invoking the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study to explain why.


'If you continue to use it as a way of explaining why many African Americans are hesitant, it almost absolves you of having to learn more, do more, involve other people – admit that racism is actually a thing today.’Karen Lincoln, USC social work professor

“It's ‘Oh, Tuskegee, Tuskegee, Tuskegee,’ and it's mentioned every single time,” says Karen Lincoln, a professor of social work at the University of Southern California. “We make these assumptions that it's Tuskegee. We don't ask people.”


When she asks the Black seniors she works with in Los Angeles about the vaccine, Tuskegee rarely comes up. People in the community are more interested in talking about contemporary racism and barriers to health care, she says, while it seems to be mainly academics and officials who are preoccupied with the history of Tuskegee.


“It's a scapegoat,” Lincoln says. “It’s an excuse. If you continue to use it as a way of explaining why many African Americans are hesitant, it almost absolves you of having to learn more, do more, involve other people – admit that racism is actually a thing today.”


It’s the health inequities of today that Maxine Toler, 72, hears about when she talks to her friends and neighbors in LA about the vaccine. Toler is president of her city’s senior advocacy council and her neighborhood block club. She and most of the other Black seniors she talks to want the vaccine, but are having trouble getting it, she says, and that alone is sowing mistrust.



Maxine Toler, 72, lives near Los Angeles, and has been asking her neighbors why they do or do not want the vaccine. (Heidi de Marco/KHN)

Those who don’t want the vaccine have very modern reasons for not wanting it. They tell Toler it’s because of religious beliefs, safety concerns or distrust for the former U.S. president and his relationship to science. Only a handful mention Tuskegee, she says, and when they do, they’re fuzzy on the details of what happened during the 40-year study.


Sponsored

“If you ask them what was it about and why do you feel like it would impact your receiving the vaccine, they can't even tell you,” she says.


Toler remembers, and says the history is a distraction; it’s not relevant to what’s happening now.


“It's almost the opposite of Tuskegee,” she says. “Because they were being denied treatment. And this is like, we're pushing people forward: Go and get this vaccine. We want everybody to be protected from COVID.”


Questioning the Tuskegee Legacy

The “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” was a government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded study that began in 1932. Some people believe that researchers injected the men with syphilis, but that’s not true. Rather, they recruited 399 Black men from Alabama who already had the disease, though the government doctors never told them they had it.


Instead, researchers told the men they had come to cure “bad blood,” though they never intended to cure anything. Even when a cure for syphilis – penicillin – became widely available in the 1940s, the researchers withheld it and continued the study for decades, determined to track the disease to its end point: autopsy.


By the time the study was exposed and shut down in 1972, 128 of the men involved had died from syphilis or related complications; 40 of their wives and 19 children had also been infected.



A group of Tuskegee study test subjects in 1972. (National Archives)

With a horrific history like this, many scientists assumed that Black people would never want to participate in clinical research again. Over the next three decades, various books, articles and films repeated this assumption until it became gospel.


“That was a false assumption,” says Dr. Rueben Warren, director of the National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care at Tuskegee University in Alabama, and former associate director of Minority Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1988 to 1997.


Several researchers began to question this assumption at a 1994 bioethics conference, where almost all the speakers seemed to accept it as a given. The doubters asked, what kind of scientific evidence is there to support the notion that Black people would refuse to participate in research because of Tuskegee?


When those researchers did a comprehensive search of the existing literature, they found nothing.


“It was apparently a ‘fact’ known more in the gut than in the head,” wrote lead doubter Ralph Katz, a dentist from New York.



Ralph Katz (left) and Rueben Warren, both dentists, together edited the book 'The Search for the Legacy of the USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee.' (Amos Ezra Katz)

So Katz formed a research team to look for this evidence. They completed a series of studies over the next 14 years, focused mainly on surveying thousands of people across seven cities, from Baltimore to San Antonio to Tuskegee.


The conclusions were definitive: While Black people were twice as “wary” of participating in research, as compared to white people, they were equally willing to actually participate. And, there was no association between knowledge of Tuskegee and willingness to participate.


“The hesitancy is there, but the refusal is not. And that's an important difference,” says Warren, who later joined Katz in editing “The Search for the Legacy of the USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee,” a book about the research. “Hesitant, yes. But not refusal.”


Tuskegee was not the deal breaker everyone thought it was.


These results did not go over well within academic and government research circles, Warren says, as they “indicted and contradicted” the common belief that low minority enrollment in research was the result of Tuskegee.


“That was the excuse that they used,” Warren says. “If I don't want to go to the extra energy, resources to include the population, I can simply say they were not interested. They refused.”


Now, researchers had to confront the real problem. Many of them never invited Black people to participate in their studies in the first place. When they did, they didn’t try very hard. For example, two studies of cardiovascular disease offered enrollment to more than 2,000 white people, compared to no more than 30 people from minority groups.


“We have a tendency to use Tuskegee as a scapegoat, for us, as researchers, not doing what we need to do to ensure that people are well-educated about the benefits of participating in a clinical trial,” says B. Lee Green, vice president of diversity at Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida, who worked on the early research.


“There may be individuals in the community who absolutely remember Tuskegee, and we should not discount that,” he adds. But hesitancy “is more related to individuals’ lived experiences, what people live each and every day.”



‘It’s What Happened to Me Yesterday’

Some of the same presumptions that were made about clinical research are resurfacing today around the coronavirus vaccine. A lot of hesitancy is being confused for refusal, Warren says. And so many of the entrenched structural barriers that are limiting access to the vaccine in Black communities are not being sufficiently addressed.


Tuskegee is once again being used as a scapegoat, says USC professor of social work Karen Lincoln.


“If you say Tuskegee, then you don't have to acknowledge things like pharmacy deserts, things like poverty and unemployment,” she says. “You can just say, ‘That happened then. Things are different now and there’s nothing we can do about it.’ ”


She says the contemporary failures of the health care system are causing more distrust than the events of the past.


“It's what happened to me yesterday,” she says. “Not what happened in the '50s or '60s, when Tuskegee was actually active.”



USC social work professor Karen Lincoln talks with attendees at an event hosted by the group she founded, Advocates for African American Elders. (Jason Duncan/for AAAE)

The seniors she works with, through her group Advocates for African American Elders, complain all the time about doctors dismissing their concerns and talking down to them, or nurses answering the hospital call buttons for their white roommates more often than for them.


'The hesitancy is there, but the refusal is not. And that's an important difference.'Dr. Rueben Warren, Tuskegee University

They point to the recent Facebook Live video of Susan Moore as a prime example of the unequal treatment Black people receive. Moore, a Black doctor from Indiana who got COVID-19, filmed herself from her hospital bed, an oxygen tube in her nose. She said she had to beg her physician to continue her course of Remdesivir, the drug that speeds up recovery from the disease.


“He said, ‘Ah, you don't need it. You're not even short of breath.’ I said ‘Yes, I am,’ ” Moore said into the camera. “I put forward and I maintain, if I was white, I wouldn't have to go through that.”


Moore died two weeks later.


“She knew what kind of treatment she should be getting and she wasn't getting it,” said Maxine Toler, the 72-year-old from LA. “We saw it up close and personal with the president, that he got the best of everything. They cured him in a couple of days, and our people are dying like flies.”


Toler and her neighbors are watching the same inequity play out with the vaccine. The first mass vaccination sites set up in LA – at Dodger Stadium and Disneyland – are difficult to get to from Black neighborhoods without a car, and you practically needed a computer science degree to get an online appointment for the early doses.


White people are snatching up appointments, even at clinics intended for disadvantaged communities, while people of color can’t get through. So far, Black people make up just 2.9% of Californians who have received the vaccination, even though they account for 6.2% of the state’s COVID-19 deaths.


It’s stories like these that stoke mistrust, Lincoln says. “And the word travels fast when people have negative experiences. They share it.”


The key to addressing this mistrust requires a paradigm shift, says Warren of Tuskegee University. If you want Black people to trust doctors and trust the vaccine, don’t blame them for distrusting it, he says. The obligation is on health institutions to first show they are trustworthy: to listen, take responsibility, show accountability and stop making excuses. That, he adds, means providing information about the vaccine without being paternalistic and making it easier to access in Black communities.


Sponsored

“Prove yourself trustworthy and trust will follow,” he says.


In defense of partisanship — the right kind. By EJ Dionne Jr

In defense of partisanship — the right kind. By EJ Dionne Jr

President Biden speaks prior to signing an executive order, aimed at addressing a global semiconductor chip shortage on Feb. 24.

Opinion by E.J. Dionne Jr.

Feb. 25, 2021 at 7:22 a.m. GMT+9

If we want our democratic system to work well again, we need to put aside lazy intellectual habits that misdiagnose the problems we face. Few mistakes are more destructive to the right ordering of American politics than misunderstandings of “partisanship.”


What we get wrong is casting all forms of partisanship as destructive.


In fact, political parties and a reasoned loyalty to them are essential to the functioning of a democratic system. At their best, parties organize conflict and channel it down constructive paths. In any healthy society, people will disagree about what they value most — think, for starters, about the relative priority of liberty, equality and community. Even when they agree on values, citizens will differ over which policies will best advance them.


As I have occasionally written to readers exercising their right to complain about my views, disagreement is one of the joys of freedom.


In her book “On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship,” the political philosopher Nancy L. Rosenblum notes that partisans accept “pluralism and political conflict” as a positive good. Partisans, she writes, “see themselves as firmly on the side of the angels,” but acknowledge their partiality. This encourages them to embrace both “political self-restraint” and “mental and emotional discipline.”


And that gets at our problem now — not partisanship as such, but a flight from those disciplines. And while you are free to accuse me of partisanship, I’d insist that what is happening in the Republican Party is objectively a grave threat to the proper functioning of the party system.


Functional partisanship demands, at the bare minimum, commitments to abide by the results of free elections, to tell the truth about those elections and to offer all citizens equal opportunities to participate in the electoral process.


Large sections of the Republican Party, led by former president Donald Trump, are failing on all three. Trump and a majority of self-identified members of his party have still not accepted President Biden’s election. At least as bad is the refusal by a large number of Republicans still serving in government to say the simple words: Biden won fair and square.


The shameful squirming of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday was just the latest example of a Trump supporter refusing to repudiate his Big Lie.


The best Scalise could do was to say of Biden that “once the electors are counted, yes, he’s the legitimate president.” Scalise then flipped into a lot of folderol about doubts about the election, including the assertion that “there are people concerned about what the next election is going to look like. Are we going to finally get back to the way the rule of law works?”


Scalise’s “get back to” stuff is double talk to rationalize the efforts of Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere to roll back advances during the pandemic that made it easier for Americans to vote. Some of the GOP moves (such as getting rid of Sunday voting) are designed specifically to disempower Black voters.


Stopping these attacks on participation will require action by Congress through the provisions of the democracy reform bill the House is expected to pass soon, and a renewal of the Voting Rights Act gutted by Supreme Court conservatives.


Voting rights were once a cross-party cause, but no longer. Yet if basic constitutional guarantees can pass only by a “partisan” vote (and by pushing back against the filibuster), are we supposed to abandon them because they fail to meet some “bipartisan” golden mean?


Of course not, and former congressman Tom Perriello (D-Va.) explains why. “The unity America needs is not between two parties but among all of those who are committed to inclusive democracy governed by the Constitution, fair elections, and the rule of law,” he writes in Democracy (a journal with which I have a long association). “Ironically today, these values are considered universal but not bipartisan.”


The best kind of partisanship, based on those universal values, promotes fierce but constructive arguments. It acknowledges that in a good society, most political differences involve not a choice between good versus evil, but among competing goods — efficiency, security, entrepreneurship, fairness, individualism and solidarity, to name a few. Compromise (along with, yes, bipartisanship) is easier when we’re honest about the trade-offs we’re making.


But that brand of small-D democratic partisanship requires agreement on certain fundamentals, not the least being a shared commitment to truth and a willingness to let the voters decide — all the voters, not an electorate rigged through voter suppression.


So our fight should not be against partisanship. It should be in favor of rehabilitating the vibrant and honest partisanship on which democracy depends.


Read more:


The missing piece of the minimum wage debate

The missing piece of the minimum wage debate

History shows that boosting the minimum wage leads to consumer spending

By Colleen Doody

Colleen Doody is associate professor of history at DePaul University and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.

Feb. 25, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. GMT+9

As part of his massive $1.9 trillion emergency pandemic relief plan, President Biden called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour from the current $7.25. Democratic senators are waiting for a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian on whether such a provision can be in the relief bill and debating whether to raise the minimum wage to $15 or some lower amount.


The debate over a minimum-wage increase has been fierce. Supporters claim raising the minimum wage would benefit women and people of color — the very demographics hurt the most by the coronavirus pandemic.


Yet opponents argue it would increase unemployment because higher wages would force small businesses, already under economic duress because of the pandemic, to lay off employees.


This conversation, however, ignores just what increasing the minimum wage does to the larger economy. To understand the intent of the federal minimum wage, it is necessary to look at the original minimum wage legislation — the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an enduring part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.


As with much New Deal legislation, the aim was to create what New Dealers called purchasing power. The basic idea: Raising wages would increase consumption, thus giving businesses the incentive to hire more workers. It worked, reminding us today that mandating higher wages doesn’t just increase standards of living. It boosts the economy.


Many New Dealers believed the Great Depression was caused by underconsumption. Productivity among American manufacturers doubled during the 1920s while wages lagged. As American manufacturers churned out increasing numbers of consumer durables, particularly automobiles, consumer spending did not keep up. Businesses couldn’t sell their inventories, and so they began cutting costs and laying off workers. The economy spiraled downward.


Advocates of increased purchasing power argued that raising wages would increase consumption, thus giving businesses the incentive to hire workers. Edward Filene, the founder of the Filene’s department store chain and an advocate for boosting consumption, argued that “increased production demands increased buying.” According to Filene, “the greatest total profits can be obtained only if the masses can and do enjoy a higher and ever higher standard of living. Mass production is production for the masses.”


Roosevelt agreed. In his 1938 State of the Union address, he explained that when millions of workers receive “pay so low that they have little buying power” they were unable to “buy their share of manufactured goods.” Raising wages would stimulate the national economy by allowing workers to purchase the goods and services they produced. Because the national economy depended on consumer spending, helping consumers buy would bene­­fit the nation as a whole.


Minimum-wage legislation, Roosevelt argued, was thus “an essential part of economic recovery.” Congress agreed and passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the first federal minimum wage (25 cents per hour, to increase to between 30 and 40 cents per hour) and restricted the workweek to 44 hours. After Roosevelt signed the bill, he said in one of his fireside chats, “Without question it starts us toward a better standard of living and increases purchasing power to buy the products of farm and factory.”


Along with stabilizing the economy to avoid the recurring economic downturns the nation suffered regularly between the 1870s and 1930s, a nationwide minimum wage would improve the quality of life for the poorest areas of the country. Communities where the average wages were low, Roosevelt pointed out, also had the “poorest educational facilities and the worst conditions of health” because their tax base was inadequate to support a functioning local government.


That was especially true for the South. The per capita income in Mississippi, for example, was $216 in 1940, compared with $676 in Michigan. At the same time, the life expectancy at birth in Mississippi was 60.7 years, while it was 63.4 years for men and 64.4 years for women in Michigan. The per capita income in South Carolina was $301 compared with $648 in Pennsylvania. The number of women in South Carolina who died during childbirth was more than twice the rate in Pennsylvania. The statistics certainly supported Roosevelt’s assertion that low wages and poor health conditions went hand in hand. Not surprisingly, the FLSA had its greatest impact in the South, where 54 percent of the workers earning less than 30 cents per hour in 1939 were located.


Southern Democratic congressmen, whose business constituents embraced the region’s low wages as a way to attract Northern businesses, objected to the law. They recognized that a federally mandated wage threatened legal segregation. Rep. Martin Dies (D-Tex.), for example, complained about the FSLA because “what is prescribed for one race must be prescribed for the others, and you cannot prescribe the same wages for the black man as for the white man.”


To get the bill through Congress, Roosevelt caved to Southern segregationists. The Roosevelt administration modified the legislation to ensure it passed Congress, notably excluding farmworkers and domestic workers, two professions that were heavily African American, from its provisions. As a result of these Jim Crow policies, many Southern African Americans didn’t earn the minimum wage. While Roosevelt sought to raise the living standard in the poorest region of the country, he was unwilling to challenge the system of legal segregation that kept Southern wages so low.


The FSLA applied only to employers involved in interstate commerce and so did not cover service employees, many of whom were women. As with other key New Deal laws like the Social Security Act, many women and minorities were therefore deprived of the legal protections the FLSA provided.


Despite its very real shortcomings, the federal minimum wage along with other New Deal programs helped lead to the doubling of inflation-adjusted income for the bottom 20th percentile of wage workers between the end of World War II and the mid-1970s. That increase went hand-in-hand with relatively widely shared national prosperity during this period.


However, since the 1970s, overall economic growth has decreased while the income gap has widened. Those at the very top have seen their income and wealth increase dramatically while those at the bottom have struggled to stay afloat.


These long-term issues have been exacerbated by the pandemic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10.1 million people are unemployed, up from 5.7 million at the start of the pandemic. The weak job numbers for January appear to show the recovery slowing, even as coronavirus rates have decreased. And the unemployment rate for African Americans (9.2 percent) and Latinos (8.6 percent) remains far higher than for Whites (5.7 percent). Over 2 million women, particularly women in traditionally low-paying service jobs, have left the labor force in the past year. All of these troubling statistics point to the need for action.


In the current debate over the $15 minimum wage, it is important to consider the type of economy that is best for most Americans. Is the intent to increase purchasing power and expand the population of workers who can afford to buy the goods and services they produce, as the New Deal did? Or is the goal to maintain an economy that ensures the lowest-paid Americans can barely afford food and shelter?


The choice seems obvious.


Republicans’ real beef with the Jan. 6 commission. By Jennifer Rubin

Republicans’ real beef with the Jan. 6 commission. By Jennifer Rubin


Opinion by Jennifer Rubin

Feb. 26, 2021 at 9:45 p.m. GMT+9

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is on a mission to pretend the violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 had nothing to do with the man whose name appeared on the insurrectionists’ banners. It is not surprising others are following Johnson’s lead.


Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has gotten into the act in fighting over the independent commission to study the insurrection. McConnell supports the “Ron Johnson school” of investigation, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) put it on Thursday, which would focus the commission either narrowly on Capitol security failures or on “the full scope of the political violence problem in this country,” as McConnell said on Wednesday. Both approaches would take the spotlight away from the real problem — the rise of white-supremacist extremism. While the media has fixated on the number of commission members each party would appoint (which Pelosi said could be negotiated), the speaker made clear the fight is over the scope of the commission.


On Feb. 13, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said former president Trump could still be held accountable within the criminal justice system. (The Washington Post)

Imagine if the 9/11 Commission was limited to focus only on the events of the day of the attacks and prevented from reviewing radical Islamist terrorism. Or imagine if it was focused more broadly on all international violence. Neither scope would be appropriate. What McConnell calls “some artificial, politicized halfway point” is precisely what the 9/11 Commission examined.


In the 9/11 Commission’s much-lauded report, the commissioners explained its mandate was to look “at the facts and circumstances relating to the 9/11 terrorist attack . . . including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.” The scope of the new commission should align with that of the 9/11 Commission.


The problem is that the GOP has transformed into a cult of the person who instigated the attack, fed propaganda to radicalize his party and refused to denounce white supremacists. The party is thus terrified of recognizing that the problem of violent white supremacists is intrinsically linked to the disgraced former president and his accomplices.


Two issues arise as to the composition of the commission. First, can any Republican who propagated the Big Lie or objected to counting electoral votes serve on the commission? Certainly not, for that would be a conflict of interest. Second, why does any politician need to sit on the committee? Pelosi and McConnell could each appoint a national security professional who has not participated in partisan politics for a decade. Former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta would be ideal. Let them each pick three or four other commissioners, hire staff and get to work.


Republicans would love nothing better than to “move on,” as they insist. Their frantic effort to turn the page or at least to divert our attention goes to the nub of the political crisis we face: One party is untethered to facts, to democracy and to the American creed that defines our nation (“All men are created equal”), not race or religion.


The notion of a truly apolitical body must scare the dickens out of them, especially if it had subpoena power (with a swift enforcement mechanism that can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia) and was responsible to no one but the American people. There will be no theatrics to delay the commission’s work. There will be no stonewalling. No sleazy attorney general to pre-spin the report. And that is precisely why we need a commission with ample scope, funds and power.


Early on Jan. 6, The Post's Kate Woodsome saw signs of violence hours before thousands of former president Donald Trump loyalists besieged the Capitol. (Joy Yi, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)

Read more:


Sputtering GOP opposition has given Democrats a big opening. Will they take it? By Paul Waldman

Sputtering GOP opposition has given Democrats a big opening. Will they take it? By Paul Waldman

Image without a caption

President Biden speaks about Small Business and the Paycheck Protection Program on Feb 22. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Right now, Democrats are tying themselves in knots trying to figure out how to increase the minimum wage, something President Biden ran on, their entire party believes in, and which is overwhelmingly popular with the public. There is some disagreement among them — some want $15 an hour, while others would prefer $11 — but even the former would accept a smaller increase.


Yet the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that a straight minimum wage increase can’t pass via the reconciliation process — the only way to pass a bill with a simple majority vote — the details of which are incomprehensible, or endlessly maddening, or both.


So Democrats have to find some kind of fiscal somersault to try to get the minimum wage increase into the covid relief bill. Maybe they could impose a tax on companies that don’t increase their wages, or do something else to satisfy the parliamentarian by cloaking a non-budgetary provision in budgetary clothing.


This is no way to make laws. And what’s even worse is that it’s happening at a moment when Republicans — who in the past have been nothing if not skilled at undermining, vilifying, and sabotaging Democratic presidents — have seldom looked more feckless.


If I asked you to explain the Republican case against the covid relief bill, what would you say? Well, they think it’s too expensive, and they’d rather not give too much help to states and localities. But their arguments against it seem halfhearted, anemic, almost resigned. In fact, that’s how you could describe much of the Republican opposition to the Biden presidency as a whole.


This presents an extraordinary opportunity for Biden and congressional Democrats if they can see their way clear to take advantage of it.


This ought to be a moment when the GOP is back in its comfort zone. It’s not a party built for governing; Republicans no longer have much of a policy agenda, their leaders have become much more skilled at obstruction than at passing laws, and they have an enormous propaganda machine with a talent for creating fear and outrage. The party’s specialty is opposition.


So with Democrats in charge, Republicans should be in flow, controlling the field and dominating the conversation. Yet that’s not what’s happening at all. In fact, Republicans seem unable to find their opposition mojo.


One of the things they’ve done in the past is cast every new Democratic or liberal move as a harbinger of an impending apocalypse. Obamacare, they said in 2010, would destroy the American health care system. If gay people are allowed to marry, they said in 2004, the result would be the end of families and the breakdown of society. Both predictions proved ludicrously wrong, but at the time, they were highly effective means of motivating opposition.


Today you can still find such rhetoric, but you have to look for it. Social conservatives are getting exorcised about transgender rights — but much of the party seems uninterested in taking up this rallying cry. There’s plenty of apocalyptic rhetoric on Fox News, but it isn’t doing much to affect the rest of the debate (and Fox’s greatest influence comes when it shapes mainstream news coverage).


It’s partly because they just haven’t been able to take the hatred and fear their hardcore base feels for Biden and scale it up and out, which then affects their ability to whip up frenzied opposition to the things he’s trying to do. And the broader context matters, too: When we’re caught in a pandemic and an economic crisis, only so many people will get worked up about whether a transgender girl is allowed to play softball.


That gives Democrats the chance to move forward confidently with their agenda, an agenda that is enormously popular. Yet some in the party are still in the grip of the nonsensical belief that it’s more important to retain a Senate procedure whose purpose is to thwart progress than to pass laws that solve problems.


In every American state legislature and in most every legislature around the world, if there’s majority support for a bill, it passes. In almost all cases supermajorities are only required, if ever, on things like constitutional amendments.


And every argument the filibuster’s defenders make about it — that it produces deliberative debate, that it encourages bipartisanship, that it makes for cooperation and compromise — is simply wrong, as anyone who has been awake for the last couple of decades knows perfectly well.


The proof of all this is the fact that this covid relief bill will pass, because it’s the only thing Democrats can do without a supermajority. It’s a vital, popular bill that could have been done in cooperation with Republicans had they wanted, but instead they’ve decided to oppose it. Which is their right, but it also shows how a simple majority should be the requirement for more legislating — which can only happen if the filibuster is eliminated.


The first weeks of the Biden presidency show the path Democrats can take: Push forward with the popular and consequential parts of your agenda, don’t be distracted by bleating from Republicans, act as though the public is behind you (because it is), and you might find that the Republican opposition machine isn’t as potent as it used to be.


But none of that will be possible unless Democrats can deliver on their promises. If they let themselves be handcuffed by the filibuster, the Biden presidency will fail and Republicans will take control of Congress. In other words, Democrats will have done the job Republicans couldn’t do themselves.


Read more:


Friday, February 26, 2021

Back to normal means ignoring the CDC

Back to normal means ignoring the CDC. By Matthew Yglesias

As I wrote in Tuesday’s post, “‘Back to Normal’ isn’t a thing,” there’s a bit of a raging debate in the discourse about what “we” should say people ought to feel free to do after they get a COVID-19 vaccine.

David Leonhardt kicked this into high gear on February 19 with a column arguing that public health messaging about the vaccines has been bad, particularly in terms of not going far enough to tell people they can ease up and party if they get vaccinated.


Due to weird New York Times policies, his colleague Apoorva Mandavilli — who’s one of the paper’s COVID-19 reporters — isn’t allowed to argue with him directly. So instead we got this kind of weird subtweet.


My view of this is that American society is currently suffering from a bit of ambiguity as to who “we” are in terms of delivering messages, and what it means to say something like you “need” to wear a mask.

Because the pandemic is a weird, scary event, a lot of people who are not normally inclined to pay close attention to what the Centers for Disease Control say about things are suddenly tuning in to CDC guidelines — complete with media people echoing those guidelines and some sense that elected officials and non-health government agencies ought to be following what the CDC says. The reality, though, is that while the CDC’s scientists are great if you want to understand CDC guidance about COVID-19 vaccines, you need to contextualize it in the larger universe of CDC guidance about stuff in general.

Once you do that, you’ll see that life getting “back to normal” does not mean that the CDC will tell you that all the things you do in your normal life are okay. It means that you will go back to ignoring CDC guidance about lots of stuff and feeling good about yourself anyway.

The CDC is really underselling the vaccine
If you check out the CDC’s official vaccine factsheet, it’s a real bummer. Not only does it tell you the side effects may “affect your ability to do daily activities” for multiple days, but (in the portion I highlighted) they then go on to caution you against modifying your behavior post-vaccination.


Lame!

I am on Team Leonhardt much more than Team Mandavilli here and think this is a bad message to send to the public. Now what’s true is that with only 10% of the population vaccinated, I think mask mandates indoors are still a good idea. And it’s not really logistically tractable to say “it’s okay for vaccinated people to ditch their mask starting 10 days after receiving their second shot.”

But that’s an enforcement issue. My view is that if you’ve gotten your shots, you should feel free to invite a friend over to your house and breathe all over him. The thing about vaccines is that there are positive externalities associated with getting vaccinated — as the supply of doses keeps increasing, we really want to encourage people to get their shots, which means giving them happy news about the consequences of getting the vaccine.

On the science, though, the CDC is not “wrong.” I recommend Kelsey Piper’s article on the evidence that the vaccines block transmission of the virus. The evidence is very strong! But just as a vaccine that is 95% effective at blocking symptoms is not 100% effective at blocking symptoms, even a vaccine that is very very very good at blocking transmission is not perfect. The odds that you, after getting vaccinated, will nonetheless contract an asymptomatic case of COVID-19 and then infect your friend by going to his house are extremely low. But not zero!

The CDC doesn’t do cost/benefit
What some people on Team Leonhardt would like is for the CDC to stop being such a Debbie Downer about this and tell vaccinated people to go breathe on their friends.


Noah Rothman, for example, is annoyed that Dr. Fauci says "indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate” are all examples of things “that you’re not going to be able to do in society” even if you’re vaccinated.


I sympathize with this viewpoint.

But I think people in the media trying to intervene constructively in this debate need to keep two things in mind. One is that Dr. Fauci’s dicta at press conferences or on television interviews do not carry the force of law. Indoor dining is open in most of America. Movie theaters are reopening. As journalists, we are supposed to provide people with accurate information. Fauci is saying that he thinks you shouldn’t do those things — it’s not the case that you can’t do them.

The other is that you need to have an appropriate baseline for how public health agencies behave. It is unlikely that the CDC is going to respond to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout by completely revamping their institutional culture. Instead, we need to understand what that institutional culture is, and cover the CDC’s pronouncements accordingly. And the plain fact is that the CDC is extremely scold-y and conservative with its advice.

Nobody actually listens to the CDC
As I’ve mentioned previously, the CDC’s view is not only that pregnant women should abstain from alcohol, but that all women who aren’t on birth control should abstain from alcohol lest they accidentally have a night out drinking without being aware that they are pregnant.

And the context for that, in turn, is that the CDC thinks a man should never have more than two drinks in a day and a woman should never have more than one.


And to be clear, they are quite strict about this — “one drink” equals 12 ounces of 5% ABV beer or one glass of 12% ABV wine. I don’t know anything about wine, but this Real Simple article says that a normal chardonnay, pinot gris, or sauvignon blanc from California has ABV in the 13.5-14.5% range. So a woman who drinks a single glass of white wine is violating CDC guidelines. A Lagunitas IPA is 6.2% ABV, so a woman who drinks one is violating CDC guidelines. If a couple of guys split a six-pack while watching a football game, they are blowing through the guidelines.

I’m not here to say the guidelines are wrong. My understanding is that alcohol is in fact very hazardous to human health.

All I am saying is that we manage as a society to have a situation where these guidelines just kind of exist as a social fact. Libertarians don’t scream at the CDC for advising people to be healthy, and science journalists don’t scream at people for drinking more than this.

All hamburgers should be cooked to at least 160 degrees (i.e., well done)

All steaks should be cooked to at least 145 degrees (i.e., medium)

All eggs should have firm yolks (i.e., no sunny-side up)

I am not a foodie snob who judges people for eating well-done meat. But my personal preference is medium-rare. And lots of people eat medium-rare meat. And restaurants serve it. And recipes call for it. I personally know many people who think that we should “listen to the experts” and “science is real” who enjoy eating eggs with runny yolks.

But beyond cooking temperature, any scientist would tell you that a hamburger is not a very healthy thing to eat! But also the people eating the burgers are not confused about this. Throughout the pandemic, pretty much every Saturday I take my kid out for a hike or nature walk somewhere and then take him to a McDonald’s Drive-Thru. I don’t think the government should try to stop me from buying him his Happy Meal. But I also don’t think the government should try to gaslight me into believing McDonald’s is a healthy lunch.

Normal means ignoring Dr. Fauci
In other words, I actually think we are facing two distinct dangers during the COVID-19 transition.

One is that people will unnecessarily underestimate the benefits of getting vaccinated. The vaccines not only dramatically reduce your personal odds of contracting serious illness; they greatly reduce the chances of you spreading the virus. Precisely because vaccination has large positive externalities — it is an unselfish act that helps your community — we should really be encouraging people to get vaccinated, and that includes giving them a free pass to act a little selfish about it. Get your shots and celebrate a little! Build enthusiasm for the vaccine!

At the same time, we in the media should not encourage public health officials to lie to people.

The government says we should eat more vegetables, for example, which is almost certainly true.


Department of Health and Human Services
Are these recommendations efficacious? I don’t know. But it would be weird for the government to lie and say “nobody’s ever going to eat that many beets and sweet potatoes (I’m trying to think what the red and orange vegetables are), so let’s stop mentioning it.” They should try to recommend scientifically correct things.

One thing I think people don’t realize about the early COVID-19 recommendations that were maniacally focused on cleaning surfaces is that these were just carried over from longstanding flu recommendations.

Here are a few things the CDC has said forever about seasonal flu:

“Routinely clean frequently touched objects and surfaces like doorknobs, keyboards, and phones, to help remove germs.”

“Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth.”

“Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.”

In other words, if you are hoping to get “back to normal” in the sense that Dr. Fauci will stop lecturing you about hand-washing and face-touching, you are out of luck — he’ll never stop saying that stuff because he’s been saying it for years. You just never noticed, because life getting back to normal means that most people stop paying attention to what infectious disease specialists have to say, just like most people don’t eat as many vegetables as they should.

The big issue, it seems to me, is that Joe Biden is going to have to try to pivot us out of Fauci mode at some point.

Let’s not eat the marshmallow
Unfortunately, the latest COVID-19 case numbers suggest that the post-holiday case decline has now reversed as things started opening up. That’s not great.


“This isn’t over yet,” Derek Thompson says. “Don't eat the marshmallow. We still need masks and distancing. We still need to accelerate vaccinations.”

I agree with all that. But in that sense, I think we are being ill-served by political leadership that has reversed Trump’s flagrant dismissal of public health guidance in favor of the excessive deference of “a woman should never drink a full glass of white wine.”

It’s fine that the public health agencies are going to urge caution essentially indefinitely. But that means we need Joe Biden to clearly say something like:

I anticipate that a vaccine will be available to any adult who wants one around Day X, or at worst Day Y.

That won’t mean the virus magically vanishes, but it does mean that a few weeks after we achieve Vaccination for All Who Want It, the official national emergency will end.

In post-emergency America, it will still be true that virologists recommend washing your hands every time you pet your dog, but personally I’m going to return to my relaxed, no-malarkey lifestyle.

Specifically, I have been wearing a mask in public even though I was vaccinated a while ago because I’m trying to set a good example, but once vaccines are broadly available I will stop doing that.

I understand that everyone is impatient, but I’m asking you all to wait for six more weeks, not seven more months.

Then, I dunno, make a good-hearted joke. Say, “Fauci and Trump disagreed about a lot of stuff, but I read in Washingtonian that way before the pandemic Trump would obsessively hand sanitize before drinking a glass of Diet Coke, and Fauci probably thought that was great. And maybe we should all be more healthy all the time. But right now I’m gonna go get some Jeni’s with Nancy Pelosi.”

The nature of modern social media tends to polarize everything. And throughout the pandemic, the discourse has been pulled between “it’s just the flu” and public health stridency. And for most of the year, stridency has been approximately correct. But the more light there is at the end of the tunnel, the more tempting it becomes to eat the marshmallow, while at the same time the gap between public health stridency and reasonable cost-benefit analysis also grows. It’s not really the job of Fauci or the CDC to strike that balance, but it is the country’s elected leadership’s job, and you can’t just outsource it to them.

The U.S. need for foreign policy narratives

Perspective | The U.S. need for foreign policy narratives
Image without a caption
Secretary of State Antony Blinken introduces President Biden for remarks to State Department staffers on Feb. 4. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Feb. 24, 2021 at 9:00 p.m. GMT+9
Narratives matter. At least that is what Manjari Chatterjee Miller convinced me is true after reading her trenchant just-released book, “Why Nations Rise: Narratives and the Path to Great Power.” According to Chatterjee Miller, states that accumulate material power are not seen as rising unless they also engage with existing great-power norms and try to shape their own narratives through “idea advocacy” to achieve internal and external legitimacy.

Chatterjee Miller’s book focuses on rising powers, but it sure seems as if countries perceived to be in relative decline need to cast about for new narratives as well. The Trump administration embraced the notion of “great-power competition” as its lens to navigate world politics, focusing on Russia and China. That narrative, however, did not prove terrifically enlightening. The United States did not effectively defend its interests against either country, unless alienating allies, inviting serious hacks and perpetrating a costly, ineffectual trade war counts. Donald Trump himself was all over the map on this topic, memorably contradicting his own National Security Strategy when he announced it.

There are nascent signs that the Biden administration might continue the great-power competition rubric in its approach toward Moscow and Beijing. That would be a mistake. As Daniel Nexon argued last week in Foreign Affairs, “great-power competition is not a coherent framework for U.S. foreign policy. Treating it as a guiding principle of American grand strategy risks confusing means and ends, wasting limited resources on illusory threats, and undermining cooperation on immediate security challenges, such as climate change and nuclear nonproliferation.”

AD
So if great-power competition is not the conceptual answer, what is? Longtime readers of Spoiler Alerts might remember that I have been somewhat pessimistic on this front. In recent years, I have argued that the U.S. ability to articulate coherent grand narratives has eroded badly since the days of containment.

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs features an essay by outgoing editor Gideon Rose that offers some light in a dark tunnel. He suggests that neither liberalism nor realism, nor any other approach, has provided a full explanation for how the world works. At the same time, he pushes back against the argument that Ron Krebs, Randall Schweller and I made last year about the end of grand strategic narratives: “Drezner, Krebs, and Schweller are correct when they argue that simplistic road maps are not very helpful in dealing with today’s complex international landscape. ... but that is not an argument for throwing the maps away. It is an argument for figuring out how to use two bad maps simultaneously.” In other words, policymakers must be able to intuit when a particular narrative applies.

I hope Rose is correct; in the past he has been. As Foreign Policy’s Jonathan Tepperman recently observed, “The country has developed a remarkable mechanism for self-correction, a history of ensuring that, after every one of its disastrous bouts of inattention (think the interwar period) or destructive Jacksonian rage (think the aftermath of 9/11), the national pendulum swings back to the middle.”

AD
To be right this time, however, will require three things to be true. The first is for conservatives in the public sphere to stop promoting bogus, badly reasoned apocalyptic “Flight 93″ narratives. Defining America’s principal adversaries as internal rather than external is a surefire recipe for continued policy incoherence and, you know, civil war.

The second is for scholars to follow Nexon’s lead and continue to act as good public intellectuals, swatting away bad narratives with compelling logic and offering more counter-narratives in their stead. I have faith in my fellow international relations scholars — they have become much better at policy engagement than is commonly believed.

The third is for the Biden administration’s national security team to have the skill and will to pay attention to what those outside the executive branch are saying. Having worked in the executive branch, I am painfully aware of how challenging that last task can be. That does not make it any less necessary.

R.I.P., Liberal Contrarianism


R.I.P., Liberal Contrarianism
by Michael Bérubé, democracyjournal.org
June 11, 2018 03:55 PM


Features
R.I.P., Liberal Contrarianism
Before #Slatepitch became a punchline, Slate (and others) really did thrive on a certain kind of anti-liberalism. It’s dead now—well, almost.


When liberals wouldn't take their own side in an argument.
It was another time, long ago in a galaxy far, far away—a time of roiling debates throughout the nation, vicious partisan political sniping, and heated personal exchanges. Off campus, a time of political soul-searching on the left, as Democrats in disarray sought a road out of the wilderness; on campus, a time of uncertainty about the direction of the humanities and the purpose of a liberal arts education. On campus and off, a time of unsettling questions about the prevalence of rape and sexual assault at every level of social life. A time when the very terms designating this or that group of people had become semiotically supercharged, so much so that even simple pronouns became treacherous. A time . . .

“Michael,” my dearest and oldest friend exclaimed, rudely bursting into my study before the premise of my essay was even established, “surely you’re not opening with that gambit?”

“What gambit?” I replied, only somewhat disingenuously.

“You know perfectly well what I’m talking about,” he said, giving me the sidelong look I have known since my college days. “You’re about to start an essay about the status of the culture wars, circa 2018, Year Two in the Trumpian calendar, and you’re trying to make it sound as if everything we’re living through now is just a rehash of the early 1990s.”

“And your point would be?” I asked, trying to maintain the faux-naif tone that had served me so well in my youth.

“Aha, see, you just typed ‘in my youth,’” my observant friend observed from over my shoulder. “The early 1990s, when you first appeared on the scene at the height of the ‘political correctness’ nonsense. Those were your salad days, and now you think you’re reliving them, almost a full generation later. Well, it won’t work, I tell you. The crises we’re dealing with now are light years from the stuff you were dealing with then.”

“How so?”

“Hello? The foundations of democracy and the rule of law are crumbling beneath our feet as we speak, and you’re going to suggest this is the same old same old from the days when Lynne Cheney was a thing?”

“Very well,” I said, turning in my chair, and offering my friend a seat and a drink. “If this is going to be a proper debate . . . ”

“A dialogue,” he countered. “It’s more civil.”

“Fine, a dialogue. Then let’s take our proper roles. I’ll be this guy, and you be that guy.”

ILLE: Why do I have to be that guy? Why can’t I be this guy, and you be that guy? I’ve never liked the name “ille.” And I think the whole Latin pronoun thing is silly.

HIC: Which kind of rhymes with ille, my friend.

ILLE: So if it’s good enough for Yeats, it’s good enough for you?

HIC: Damn straight. And you’re ille because I’m the one with the laptop. Besides, you are totally being that guy.

ILLE: That guy how?

HIC: You know, the guy who says, “OMG this crazy Trump came out of nowhere and now he has changed everything and now there are no more facts and nothing matters.” That guy. When in fact, this disaster has been decades in the making. The modern GOP is the result of the relentless radicalization of the National Rifle Association and the evangelical right, and the culture wars of yesteryear are still with us. It’s like World War I resolved nothing, right? And here we are again.

ILLE: Okay, fine. There are continuities; I won’t deny that. But seriously, did you really think in 1991 that by 2018 gay marriage would be common and widely accepted everywhere except among those evangelicals? As late as 2004, anti-gay-marriage ballots were wedge issues in swing states. Now there are gay wedding cakes galore, and we’re debating the status of trans bathrooms. Seriously, that’s progress.

HIC: It is.

ILLE: And you know something about the history of disability, right? Do you remember the open derision with which Reason magazine mocked that access ramp and handicapped parking spaces for that nude beach in Florida? Charles Oliver: “No clothes? No legs? No problem. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Dade County, Florida, has spent $18,500 to install a ramp to provide wheelchair access to the county’s only nude beach. The county will also have to spend another $30,000 to provide special parking for handicapped nudists.”

HIC: Like it was yesterday. Hell, that nude beach was legendary among the ADA-bashers, wasn’t it? You would think it was the most ridiculous thing in the world.

ILLE: And you would think it bankrupted poor Dade County.

HIC: When in fact the beach was clothing-optional and the most popular beach in the area. A serious tourist attraction. And why shouldn’t people with disabilities go to whatever beach they want in the first place? “No clothes, no legs, no problem.” Comedy gold, right? That ramp was like the equivalent of the hot-McDonald’s-coffee story . . . proof of our crazy over-regulated society, except that everyone who mentioned it got all the details wrong. Cripes. I can’t even begin to imagine anyone ridiculing access ramps today.

ILLE: Kind of proving my point. Plus ça change, plus ça change. It really is a different world. You need to admit as much.

HIC: I don’t know. Honestly I don’t. Even as we speak, Tucker Carlson and Fox News are having an outrage-fest over the fact that some college writing program at Purdue encourages students not to use “man” as a generic term for humans. I mean, come on, right? The Male Chauvinist Class of 1974 called . . . white courtesy phone in the lobby. . . .

ILLE: You cannot be serious. Fox exists precisely to remind the septuagenarian boys that the women’s libbers took all their things. That’s not a reliable index of the state of cultural commentary today.

HIC: Okay, what is? I want this reliable index. I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

ILLE: Here’s your reliable index: the death of the liberal contrarian.

HIC: Come again?

Mickey Kaus was once the #Slatepitch master—you know, “I’m a Democrat, but I hate unions and minorities.” Now he doesn’t even have a career.
ILLE: You know what I mean. Go back into the files of your youth. It’s 1990, 1991. Richard Bernstein of The New York Times is appalled by the campus craziness. It’s like a dictatorship of virtue! Paul Berman discerns the roots of PC: a toxic hybrid strain of post-structuralism and Stalinism! The New York Review of Books reviews Dinesh D’Souza—favorably. The Atlantic actually publishes him.

HIC: Hell, The American Scholar published him. It was like seeing David Duke elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

ILLE: Well, that decision cost Joseph Epstein his job editing that thing.

HIC: A few years too late, no?

ILLE: But still. You know where I’m going with this. As the age of the liberal contrarian reaches maturity in mid-decade, Andrew Sullivan is hawking The Bell Curve at The New Republic, by then known as “even the liberal New Republic.” A few years later, Michael Kelly, having spent his time at TNR fulminating against the liberal hegemony of Heather Has Two Mommies, takes over The Atlantic. Camille Paglia is ubiquitous. Slate emerges as the West Coast, online TNR, and within a few years, the #Slatepitch becomes shorthand for the liberal contrarian hot take. By 1997, it’s like, they may seem innocuous, but maybe Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy are the most corrupt public officials in the history of the republic! Democracy and public decency demand an investigation! That was an actual, real Slate essay by Jacob Weisberg about Herman in February 1997.

HIC: And then what? What changes?

ILLE: What changes, my boy? What changes? Why, everything! Look around you! Mickey Kaus was once the #Slatepitch master—you know, “I’m a Democrat but I hate unions and minorities.” Now he doesn’t even have a career. Paglia lies on the ash heap of history. The Atlantic that once published D’Souza and answered to Kelly is now known as the place where Ta-Nehisi Coates airs his searing critiques of white supremacy.

HIC: His searing neoliberal critiques, you mean. Because if he’s being read and celebrated by white people, you know he’s a sellout. A guy like Cornel West, say, would never accede to that kind of acclaim from white people.

ILLE: Let’s not even. You know perfectly well what I mean. Besides, now The Atlantic will forever be known as the publication that prevented Kevin D. Williamson from being published in any English-language publication except for all the English-language publications that have published his heartbreaking accounts of how he was silenced by the Twitter mob for advocating the hanging of women who have had abortions. But liberal contrarianism, as a mainstream media phenomenon, is dead. The Iraq War killed it. Bush the Younger killed it. The rise of the liberal blogosphere killed it. You know this. Hell, you were part of that blogosphere. You saw what happened. You yourself repeatedly mocked The Washington Post’s senior liberal-contrarian-in-residence, Richard Cohen, with a mighty bloggy mockery: You accused him, with some justice, of using up all the ways a person could be wrong. You were there for the origins of the jokes about Kaus, the ones involving goats. You witnessed the emergence of a kind of progressive-left snark that gave us Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Rachel Maddow. You know this is not the media environment of 30 years ago.

HIC: Right. It’s got Breitbart and Alex Jones, both with direct lines to the Oval Office.

ILLE: Oh, no question the right has its own networks, connecting the sludge of blogs like Red State and Gateway Pundit to the desk of Sean Hannity. But that was true even when Matt Drudge was in charge of the sludgengeschicte. That’s not the point.

HIC: Then what the hell is the point? You think the emergence of the liberal blogosphere was a good thing? It gave us goddamn Glenn Greenwald, Vladimir Putin’s favorite aide-de-camp (except maybe for Stephen Cohen, who’s been working that beat a bit longer), and Tucker Carlson’s BFF on Fox. It gave us the manic progressives of FireDogLake, who spent the first two years of Obama’s presidency howling that He. Didn’t. Even. Try. to get single-payer health care by giving a series of stirring speeches using the bully pulpit and moving the Overton Window and simply making 60 senators agree with him by the sheer power of his eloquence.

ILLE: For that I don’t blame the blogosphere. I blame Aaron Sorkin. That’s his theory of government at work there.

HIC: Fair enough. But the reason it took hold among the so-called liberal-left “netroots” is that a lot of those people were total political neophytes. Greenwald admitted as much in his breakthrough book, How Would a Patriot Act?: “I never voted for George W. Bush—or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. . . . I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process.” Seriously. He slept through the stolen election of 2000, secure in the knowledge that everything was humming along just fine. Then all of a sudden he realizes there are some “theories of unlimited presidential power” floating around in the Bush Administration, and lo! He wakes up. Why, there is something amiss! And Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake—same deal. No previous history of political involvement, no substantial awareness of how the American political system actually works. The biggest megastars of the left blogosphere were total noobs. Oh, for the heady days when all we wanted was for Ned Lamont to unseat Joe Lieberman! When we thought Anthony Weiner was the straight-talking, charismatic liberal firebrand we needed!

ILLE: Stop. Just stop. This hurts.

HIC: No pain, no gain, my friend. Because you know what happened in 2008. The new guy gets in, and whoa, we’re not getting single payer after all, even though he didn’t campaign on that, and he’s using drones and all kinds of executive powers, just like he said he would, and oh, oh, the betrayal! It’s as if he looked Greenwald and Hamsher straight in the eyes and said, “I’ve come to break your hearts.”

ILLE: OK, I’ll give you Greenwald. Good lord, the man’s political illiteracy is exceeded only by his sense of self-righteousness. But think of the wonks who made their way into national publications from that blogosphere. People you would never have heard of but for that grassroots architecture. Scott Lemieux. Amanda Marcotte. Lindsay Beyerstein. Roxanne Cooper. Roy Edroso. Jessica Valenti. Matt Yglesias. Kevin Drum. They came from the bloggy swamps, and now they write for The American Prospect and Slate and Salon and Raw Story and In These Times and the Village Voice and Mother Jones and the Grauniad, I mean The Guardian; and Ezra Klein, for goodness’ sake. Ezra Klein who went from the earliest incarnation of the blog Pandagon with his friend Jesse Taylor, in what, 2004, to the Vox media empire he presides over today. This was a grassroots phenomenon, involving none of the traditional dead-tree-network connections of yesteryear.

Look at poor Katie Roiphe. She publishes her big takedown of #MeToo in Harper’s, and it’s even more of a nothingburger than the Devin Nunes memo.
HIC: Yep, and Klein was hated by the manic-progressive netroots. Maybe that was a crabs-in-the-barrel phenomenon. Maybe it was lefter-than-thou-ism, because Ezra always was a straight-up liberal wonk. But I have to say, the manic progressive blogosphere churned out the weirdest forms of lefter-than-thou-ism I have ever seen.

ILLE: How so?

HIC: Oh, goodness, it was the shallowest form of opportunism in the history of opportunities. There was a whole passel of FireDogLake and Corrente types and people with noms de blogs like Yves Smith (Susan Webber IRL) and Lambert Strether (real name unknown, but obviously someone familiar with Henry James’s The Ambassadors) who spent the 2008 primaries pretending that Hillary Clinton was a working-class hero, if not the reincarnation of Joe Hill, and that the new guy was neoliberal evil incarnate . . . and who then spent the 2016 primaries screaming that Hillary Clinton was the most neoliberalest evilest candidate ever, and that only Bernie could save us. And I say this as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary. There was only one consistent theme among these people: Democratic Party delenda est.

ILLE: I think that was Lemieux’s line, my friend. You probably owe him some royalties. Let it not be said that he and the crew of the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog didn’t do everything they could, in the blogosphere, to beat back the foolishness of the PUMAs in 2008 and the Bernie-or-Busters in 2016 and the 18 remaining followers of Dr. Jill Stein today.

HIC: Speaking of which. We have established this much as a political fact in the United States of America: Fully 2 to 3 percent of the electorate is made up of so-called “progressives” and “leftists” who will do their part to elect reactionaries, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the actual candidates on the ballot. This is a pattern unbroken in 50 years of lefter-than-thou-ism and hallucinations of a third major party. Only this time, the Republicans actually nominated Moloch himself, a candidate who promised to eat live babies while groping underage beauty pageant contestants and running the U.S. government as a family kleptocracy. And still, an appreciable chunk of the left, just enough to make a difference in close elections, found its reasons to vote for the guy who didn’t know what Aleppo was, or to vote for the quack who thinks that “quantitative easing” can forgive student loans, or to just stay home. This is a permanent political fact. Two to 3 percent of our ostensibly politically literate fellow citizens who profess a faith in social justice will help to elect presidents dedicated to realizing a future in which a boot stamps on a human face forever.

ILLE: Because Hillary was going to start World War III, of course. Over Syria, I believe?

HIC: When in fact the United States is totally to blame for the carnage in Syria, and criticism of Putin and Russia is Cold War redbaiting, and . . . and . . . I can’t even parody this crap anymore. It’s like the Manichean Left read my book The Left at War and decided, “That’s it! We need to be even more Manichean! Every enemy of the imperialist Yankee enemy is my friend.” It’s neither tragedy nor farce at this point. How bad has it gotten? One day Donald Trump tweets that the Russia investigation is just a way for Democrats to avoid coming to terms with the fact that Hillary ran a bad campaign (because of course her campaign was worse than Kerry’s and Gore’s and never mind the popular vote), and the next day Greenwald and Jacobin are saying the same exact thing: The whole “Russian interference” thing is a distraction from Hillary’s horrible, no-good, corporate neoliberalism. You have to hand it to them, I suppose—no one, until now, had realized that the best way to resist an authoritarian lunatic was to repeat his utterances word for word . . .

Damn. Where were we again? Agreeing with my arguments about the long-term continuities in American politics, I believe?

ILLE: No. Arguing about the disappearance of liberal contrarians, may they rest in peace.

HIC: You really think the professional liberal contrarian is a thing of the past?

ILLE: I know it is. Look at poor Katie Roiphe. The last time there was a national debate about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual mores, she was the go-to contrarian. The liberal media establishment loved her. Those guys needed a smart young woman to come along and question date rape statistics and roll her eyes at Take Back the Night, and Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers couldn’t do it by themselves, you know? Katie was 20 percent more hip. And now look at her. She publishes her big takedown of #MeToo in Harper’s, and it’s even more nothing of a nothingburger than the Devin Nunes memo. Rebecca Traister takes it apart even before the ink is dry, and for precisely the right reasons: Because Roiphe was playing that old canard, “I am being silenced by the new orthodoxy,” when in fact, as Traister pointed out, nobody is silencing Roiphe about anything (she’s being published in Harper’s!); people just aren’t giving her the credence she took for granted 25 years ago. Allow me to quote the piece: “[T]he dynamic Roiphe is describing is not really about being muzzled; it’s about speaking publicly with the understanding that you will likely be challenged on what you say, and in some cases profanely, nastily, even disrespectfully.” No one is listening anymore to people who behave as if principled criticism of their work violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and their United Nations-guaranteed right not to be made to feel uncomfortable at dinner parties. That’s how you know the whole PC era is over.

HIC: Okay, I’ll give you that much. The Roiphe essay totally bombed. And apparently Harper’s is still cleaning up the shrapnel. Here, let me pour you another drink. Let’s toast to the irrelevance of Roiphe and Paglia and Sommers, and to the Rise of the Rebeccas—Traister, and Solnit. National treasures, both of them.

ILLE: So. You see my point, right?

HIC: I see it, yes. But I have not granted it.

ILLE: Come again?

HIC: Because I haven’t yet played my trump card.

ILLE: I see what you did there.

HIC: Two words, my friend. Mark. Lilla.

ILLE: Oh, please no.

HIC: Right?

ILLE: I really don’t want to go there.

HIC: For good reason!

ILLE: Do you want me to play devil’s advocate on this one?

HIC: Sure. At whatever cost to your soul. Bring it.

ILLE: All right, fine. Tell me what’s wrong with Lilla’s diagnosis of Democrats’ electoral woes: “Rather than concentrate on the daily task of winning over people at the local level, they have concentrated on the national media and invested their energies in trying to win the presidency every four years. And once they do, they expect Daddy to solve all the country’s problems, oblivious to the fact that without support in Congress and the states a president under our system can accomplish very little.”

HIC: That is not wrong at all. Anyone who has followed the Democratic Party over the past 30 years and who has a functioning sensorium knows that the party has atrophied at the state and local levels. Hell, Republicans are this far away from being able to call a constitutional convention and repeal all the amendments except the Second. But blaming that on “identity politics,” as Lilla does, doesn’t make a fraction of a lick of sense. Take this bit, for instance: “[I]f identity liberals were thinking politically, not pseudo-politically, they would concentrate on turning that around at the local level, not on organizing yet another March on Washington or preparing yet another federal court brief.” I can take or leave some marches, sure, but you’re writing a book in the early days of the Trump Administration and you decide to piss on the women’s marches that constituted the first mass public show of resistance to the guy? More important, what’s this about “preparing another federal court brief”? Only someone with no understanding of American politics, someone even less literate about the separation of powers than Glenn Greenwald, would be so cavalierly dismissive of the judicial system.

Conservatives never make this mistake. Never. They run buffoons, jokers, miscreants, ignoramuses, jackasses, sexual predators, and every variety of incompetent for elective office, but when it comes to the judiciary, they are deadly serious. They know the federal bench is not a place for their buffoons—it is reserved for their evil geniuses. Just think of the massive freak-out on the right when Bush floated the idea of appointing Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court in place of one of the Scalian androids the Federalist Society had been grooming for years. Please. Tell me again, after National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, after Shelby County v. Holder, after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, how preparing federal court briefs is a distraction and a waste of time.

ILLE: I . . . I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think of the courts with ambivalence. Yes, liberals won some landmark victories, but at what cost?

HIC: At what cost? Seriously, look at this: “Most foolishly, liberals grew increasingly reliant on the courts to circumvent the legislative process when it failed to deliver what they wanted (and I wanted too). . . .  Liberals lost the habit of taking the temperature of public opinion, building consensus, and taking small steps.” You know where this nonsense comes from? It comes straight from the keyboard of David Brooks. April 2005: “Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it. When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that’s always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn’t have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate. . . Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.”

Just substitute “Warren” and “Brown v. Board” or “Loving v. Virginia” for “Blackmun” and “Roe v. Wade” and you’ll see how mind-numbingly foolish this argument is. Goddammit, more than 80 percent of Americans opposed inter­racial marriage in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was handed down. Were liberals supposed to defer to public opinion on interracial marriage lest they lose touch with “working-class Americans”?

ILLE: I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest that a 50-years-ago version of Lilla would have been uneasy with a decision striking down the illegality of interracial marriage.

HIC: Maybe not. But that’s the logic at work here. When you start talking about liberals using the courts to “circumvent” the legislative process instead of “taking small steps,” you are very definitely reading from the wrong playbook. And that’s as politely as I can put it. Sensible centrist white guys really need to remember how many of their white brothers and sisters were not ready for integration. And people who call themselves liberals really need to stop thinking of the judiciary as an illegitimate vehicle for social change. The courts aren’t the ideal vehicle, no. Or the only vehicle. But writing them off entirely, as Lilla does, is just ridiculous.

ILLE: Tell you what. Why don’t you just get all your Lilla complaints off your chest. Unburden yourself. Please. Vent away.

HIC: Thank you, my friend. Since we have the book right in front of us, shall we review some of its most ill-advised passages? Here, turn to page 35, if you will. This is Lilla on FDR’s four freedoms: “This vision filled three generations of liberals with confidence, hope, pride, and a spirit of self-sacrifice. And patriotism. They had no problem standing for the national anthem.” Again, leaving aside the question of the immediate occasion—as if this is the right time for soi-disant liberals to be kicking Colin Kaepernick to the curb—how historically ill-informed is this? Is Professor Lilla acquainted with one Jackie Robinson, who wrote, “I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world”? Does he have access to an Internet or a televisual device that can acquaint him with John Carlos and Tommie Smith on the Olympic medal stand in 1968?

Now to page 117. “Democratic politics is about persuasion, not self-expression. I’m here, I’m queer will never provoke more than a pat on the head or a roll of the eyes.” Where to start? Let’s start with the pronoun. It’s “we,” not “I.” It’s a collective statement made by gay people taking part in a public demonstration, it’s not some kind of solipsistic declaration made by the flamboyantly dressed guy who shows up late to the dinner party. (But that is Lilla’s strategy throughout—to cast “identity liberals” as narcissists incapable of thinking of the common good.) More to the point, it leaves out the demand: Get used to it. “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.” Lilla repeatedly insists that he is happy that so many, though not all, Americans did indeed get used to it. You would think he would refrain from rolling his eyes at those among his fellow citizens who engage in same-sex relations, never mind mentally patting them on the head.

Moving ahead to page 118. Here we encounter the claim that—hey, don’t get me wrong, I believe a woman should have the right to control her own body, I’m not opposed to reproductive rights or anything, but . . . the Democrats just have to stop being so rigid about this abortion thing. They should be more like Republicans—a big tent on abortion rights, with lots of rigorously debated alternatives! Why, did you know that the Democrats are so intransigent on abortion that they did not let Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey Sr. speak at the Democratic National Convention in 1992?

ILLE: Oh, God, not the Casey-at-the-DNC canard. Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket, the sell-by date for that one expired more than a decade ago.

HIC: You would think. But then, you would underestimate the resilience of the Democratic Party’s concern trolls, for whom Casey will always be a martyr—even though he hadn’t endorsed the Clinton/Gore ticket and proceeded to decline to campaign for them in Pennsylvania. You want to tell me the liberal contrarian is dead? You want me to believe that Will Saletan’s “We can be pro-choice only if we acknowledge that abortion is really, really icky and disgusting and wrong and should be made even harder to obtain” schtick has been interred? Hah. Welcome to the world of zombie trolls. Zombie trolls are very hard to kill, I assure you.

ILLE: Okay, at this point, I’ve got nothing. I am Glaucon to your Socrates. Please proceed.

HIC: And I haven’t even gotten to page 129, where Lilla accuses Black Lives Matter of engaging in “Mau Mau tactics.” I assure you I am not making this up. As sheer gratuitous culture-war insults go, I am thinking of the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., telling his readers in 1992 that “The West needs no lectures on the superior virtue of those ‘sun people’ who sustained slavery until Western imperialism abolished it.”

ILLE: But wasn’t “sun people” a deservedly dismissive citation of CCNY professor Leonard Jeffries’s crackpot “sun people/ ice people” theory?

HIC: Yeah, but the problem isn’t the term “sun people.” The problem is blaming black folk for sustaining slavery.

ILLE: Still, that is a low blow. Lilla doesn’t go there.

HIC: I prefer to consider it an unforced error on Lilla’s part. Really, “Mau Mau tactics.” Who are the flak catchers these days, I wonder? But wait. Flip back to the beginning of the book. Page nine. I promise you this is my favorite sentence in the entire book. “A recurring image of identity liberalism is that of a prism refracting a single beam of light into its constituent colors, producing a rainbow. That says it all.” That says it all. Yes, well, let’s start with the fact that the image of a prism refracting a single beam of light into its constituent colors comes from Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon, not from the rainbow flag or the Rainbow Coalition. Dude, don’t bogart that joint, my friend. Then let’s reflect—I mean, refract—on the fact that the rainbow coalition is in fact an accurate image of the Democrats’ voting constituency, without which Roy Moore would be Alabama’s junior senator today.

ILLE: Maybe it’s just a version of e pluribus unum?

HIC: Maybe, but that was Schlesinger’s complaint as well, so I think the comparison to Schlesinger is entirely apt. And what to make of the tin-ear cluelessness of “Equal protection under the law is not a hard principle to convince Americans of”? By Grabthar’s Hammer, that is precisely the principle against which millions of Americans fight whenever it is applied to women and to racial and sexual minorities. That line is straight out of Paul Berman’s playbook— you know, the spiel that goes come, come; all good people agree on what is obviously right and just, but these PC identitarians go too far, too far, I say.

ILLE: Okay, I understand your frustration. The late great Ellen Willis found the League of Concerned White Guys exasperating beyond measure back in the day, and I suppose it is a mercy that she is not around to witness the reunion. But he does make one argument that hits close to home for straight cis white guys like you and me: “Only those with an approved identity status are, like shamans, allowed to speak on certain matters. Particular groups—today the transgendered—are given temporary totemic significance.” You know this is true. What do you make of it?

HIC: Oh, boo-hoo. Straight cis white guys don’t get to opine about everything. It’s the end of the world as we know it. Listen, I saw this happen at a post-election event at Penn State. About 200 students and faculty jammed into an auditorium to participate in a panel discussion of What It All Means, and this one white young man in the crowd stood up, took the mic, and said that although everyone he knows talks about “safe spaces,” still, there are times and places on campus when he is made to feel uncomfortable simply because he is a white guy. And a young black woman responded by saying, yeah, you should be uncomfortable sometimes, STFU and sit down. It was a painful moment for him, you know? Because most white guys aren’t used to nonwhite nonguys telling them to be quiet for a change.

ILLE: And you think that’s a good thing? You think that someone’s identity does or does not authorize them to speak about matters that concern us all? Isn’t it possible that that young woman sent that young man scurrying off to Fox News or Breitbart for succor?

As I write, I see two Times op-eds devoted to defending Christina Hoff Sommers, one of them by liberal-contrarian- in-training Bari Weiss.
HIC: Maybe so. Maybe some easily bruised white guys—snowflakes, perhaps?—rush to the arms of Sean Hannity whenever a black woman with an opinion gets in their grill. Or maybe they don’t totally freak out, and merely sign up for monthly newsletters from Jordan Peterson or Jonathan Haidt. But then again, maybe some thoughtful white guys might say, wait, you know, I’m not nearly as vulnerable in most social situations as black women or trans folk or international students or DREAMers. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for me to chill and listen to them for a bit. I know I’ve been spending more time lately checking out people like Jelani Cobb and Roxane Gay and Jamelle Bouie and Melissa Harris-Perry. Maybe they should too.

Look. Lilla talks about “campuses that are largely detached socially and geographically from the rest of the country—and in particular from the sorts of people who once were the foundation of the Democratic Party.” Again, this is David Brooks telling the elites they don’t know how to talk to the regular people at the Applebee’s salad bar.

ILLE: Um . . . Applebee’s doesn’t have a salad bar.

HIC: That’s the point, my friend. Anyone who has actually been to an Applebee’s knows that. And I teach in the heart of Trump country, as do my colleagues at some of the great Midwestern public universities—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Purdue; never mind the major schools of the South. We have thousands of international students, most of them from East Asia. And you know what? The Chinese students will tell you (if they get to the point of trusting you) that it is a dead certainty that at some point during their time in this fair land, someone will angrily admonish them to speak English. This year, a couple of Chinese students at Penn State reported one of those incidents to campus officials, and the only reason they reported it to anyone (so routine is the occurrence) was that they were shocked at how much profanity was involved—from someone with a small child in tow. Were those international students engaging in identity politics, do you think?

ILLE: Okay, fine. I take the point. But I have one last sally. Let’s say Kimberly Peirce, the director of the acclaimed 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry, comes to the People’s Republic of Reed College. And she is greeted by trans students who are outraged that the film cast Hilary Swank as the young transgender person Brandon Teena and even more outraged that Peirce herself is merely lesbian and “gender fluid” rather than properly trans. They scream “bitch” at her and put up posters saying “Fuck this cis white bitch.” And let’s even say that this is not the most important or even the 38th most important thing to happen on an American campus in the past ten years. Even still. Surely this is not okay with you?

HIC: It is not. I would imagine, in fact, that even people dogmatically opposed to the idea of universal moral principles might entertain the thought that “Fuck this cis white bitch” is never an acceptable response to anything, let alone a plausible speech act with which to address the director of a trans-friendly film many years ahead of its time. Although I have to say I am perversely pleased to have lived so long as to see this day, when Boys Don’t Cry is denounced as transphobic, along with Lou Reed’s “Walk on the Wild Side.” And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

ILLE: Stop dodging the question.

HIC: I’m not. I’m as appalled as you are that 19-year-olds don’t have any sense of historical context. But you know what? If I try to tell them how mistaken they are, or how straight-up misogynist it is to be saying “Fuck this cis white bitch,” they’re going to write me off as a grumpy old white guy (straight, cis, tenured, etc.) telling them to get off the lawn. Whereas if a renowned gender-non conforming scholar like Jack Halberstam responds to the protests, the aggrieved students might more readily understand that they are dealing with someone who has walked the walk, who does not have to check off any “ally” boxes. For the record, Halberstam’s response to the protest at Bully Bloggers (“Hiding the Tears in My Eyes—BOYS DON’T CRY—A Legacy”) was really brilliant. It gave due respect to the students, acknowledging that they raised “interesting critiques and queries” that were “worthy of conversation in their own right,” but it nevertheless insisted that “spending time and energy protesting the work of an extremely important queer filmmaker is not only wasteful, it is morally bankrupt and misses the true danger of our historical moment.” (It was posted a month after Trump’s election.)

Now, of course you could say that if I’m outsourcing my critique of the Reed protest to Jack Halberstam, I’m giving in to the logic of identity politics. But as Earth, Wind & Fire sang in “Critique of Practical Reason,” that’s the way of the world. Some people are going to have more credibility on some subjects than others, and sometimes their identities are going to be part of that credibility, because sometimes, perhaps often, those identities will entail distinct social and political experiences that you and I don’t have. Get used to it.

ILLE: Very well. What then shall we say of the once and future liberal contrarian?

HIC: Oh, there will be a ready market for liberal contrarianism for the rest of our natural lives, and perhaps even for our artificially extended lives when we are downloaded into the matrix of self-driving cars. Even as I type, I see two New York Times op-eds devoted to defending Christina Hoff Sommers from the campus hordes, one of them by young liberal-contrarian-in-training Bari Weiss. You remember that big 1995 Times Magazine spread on the new renegade conservative intellectuals, with Laura Ingraham in a leopard skirt? Someone ought to get Weiss to do a big Times Magazine spread on the new renegade conservative inellectuals. They could call it “The Counter Counterculture of the Intellectual Umbrageous Web,” or something like that. Seriously, I keep having to check the decade hand on my watch to be sure I haven’t been sucked into one of those nasty hot tub time machines. But hey, the dinosaurs hung around for almost 200 million years. Yet today, there is something of a global consensus that they were dinosaurs. That gives me hope.

ILLE: Hope. For change?

HIC: For evolution. Let it lead us where it will.

THE LATEST FROM DEMOCRACY
Sign up for our email newsletter! We'll send periodic reminders of what's new and what's coming. Don't miss out!

Recommended
Arguments
The New Old Democrats
It's not the 1990s anymore. People want the government to help solve big problems. Here's how the Democrats must respond.
By Jake Sullivan
– 41 MIN READ
Features
The Pro-Growth Minimum Wage
By Robert Atkinson
Summer 2018, No. 49 – 16 MIN READ
Book Reviews
Moving Beyond the Snake Pit
By Nancy Tomes
Summer 2018, No. 49 – 14 MIN READ
Arguments
Middle America Reboots Democracy
We spent months talking with anti-Trump forces—and they're not who pundits say they are.
By Lara Putnam Theda Skocpol
– 21 MIN READ
Features
R.I.P., Liberal Contrarianism
By
Summer 2018, No. 49 – 34 MIN READ