Tuesday, November 2, 2021

Big government vastly expanded presidential power. Republicans use it to sabotage the administrative state.

Big government vastly expanded presidential power. Republicans use it to sabotage the administrative state.

By William Howell
 and 
Terry Moe
 
Yesterday at 5:00 a.m. EDT

Editor’s note: This article is part of a series on current challenges facing the federal bureaucracy from “Rethinking Our Democracy.” A joint initiative by the Center for Effective Government (@UChicagoCEG) at the University of Chicago and Protect Democracy (@protctdemocracy), “Rethinking our Democracy” produces written series on key areas of institutional and democratic reform. All other articles can be found here.


As Donald Trump’s term in office well demonstrated, presidential power has grown so dramatically during the modern era that any autocratically inclined president has the means to threaten democracy itself. How could this have happened to the oldest, best-established democratic government in the world? As our research shows, the answer has a lot to do with the rise of the administrative state.


The administrative state appeared long after the nation’s founding

For much of American history, government was skeletal and primitive. But by the late 1800s, as policymakers struggled to deal with the searing problems of modernity, progressive reformers sought to create a more effective government and an expert, professionalized bureaucracy capable of converting problem-solving policies into action. This bureaucracy was significantly expanded by the New Deal, the Great Society, and major regulatory programs of the 1970s, yielding a massive administrative state that by 1980 had grown to maturity.


Story continues below advertisement

In 1920, just under 700,000 people worked in the federal bureaucracy. By 1980, that number was nearly 2.9 million. Over the same period, federal spending rose from $26 billion to $590 billion in 1980-adjusted dollars. These increases were not just the result of rising military expenditures. Spending on the Department of Interior increased 24-fold, Agriculture 86-fold, and Labor 759-fold. Given these resources, the administrative state transformed previously private domains of action and exchange into vast subjects of government oversight and intervention.


The administrative state augmented presidential power

These changes increased presidential power through two logics that operate at the same time. One is symmetric, with common effects across all presidents. The other is asymmetric, with different effects for Republicans and Democrats. Together, these logics have increased presidential power to levels that threaten democracy.


Story continues below advertisement

The symmetric logic is straightforward. The administrative state has provided all presidents with countless opportunities for more power. This is partly because Congress and the courts both recognized that presidents were better positioned to manage and implement policy in a coherent way and granted them substantial discretion and deference to do that. The more potent reason, however, is that as all presidents want to establish legacies as great leaders, they seek power to do so — and the expanding administrative state provided them with a cornucopia of specialized agencies, new authority, trained personnel, positions for loyalists and bureaucratic means of shaping policy without Congress’s involvement.


Presidents have taken advantage of all this. They have built an institutional presidency within the executive office of the president that enhances their capacity to centralize policymaking and exert top-down control. They have politicized the bureaucracy through the appointment of loyalists. They have turned to unilateral action as a prime means of accomplishing many objectives. And they have asserted their legal right to exercise plenary authority over the administrative state and resist congressional “encroachments.” Big government has been a boon to presidential power.


But there is also a second logic at work. This one works asymmetrically for Democrats and Republicans, and it comes about because, except for the defense and national security agencies, the administrative state embodies Democratic commitments and values: the protection of workers, consumers and the environment, the regulation of business, aid to the poor and more. When Democrats look out upon the administrative state, they see allies performing vital government functions. When Republicans do so, they see enemies intruding on the private sector and threatening individual liberties.


Story continues below advertisement

But what could Republicans do? Congress offers little opportunity to curtail the administrative state, as Democrats stand ready to defend it and Republicans lack the votes to overcome the numerous veto points that line the legislative process. The courts are ill-equipped and disinclined to shutter bureaucratic institutions, while the bureaucracy itself has proved remarkably adept at defending itself against political attacks.


Lacking other recourse, Republicans took an ironic turn: The professed believers in weak, limited government became champions of a superpowered presidency. By this means, they wagered, Republicans might dominate the administrative state and impose their agenda unilaterally. Democrats haven’t needed to do that because they saw bureaucrats and agencies as friendly forces. Republicans, by contrast, sought vastly more power to overcome and retrench a hostile, resistant bureaucracy.


The first pioneering step was Richard Nixon’s “administrative presidency,” in which he used the appointment of loyalists and other means to govern through bureaucratic control rather than legislation. The truly historic move, however, came with Ronald Reagan, whose Justice Department lawyers developed the theory of the “unitary executive,” which claimed that, under the Constitution, presidents had the exclusive legal right to control everything and everyone within the executive branch and to exclude Congress.


Story continues below advertisement

The unitary executive theory was a Republican invention designed to solve a Republican problem: seizing and sabotaging the enemy. All subsequent Republican presidents have embraced it, as have numerous conservative judges, while Democratic presidents have relied upon it in smaller ways.


Presidents as threats to democracy

The unitary executive theory provides a veneer of legal authority for an authoritarian-inclined president to engage in a range of anti-democratic behaviors. By the time George W. Bush had shown what the unitary executive could justify — torturing prisoners, surveilling ordinary citizens, ignoring congressional statutes — constitutional scholars were already pointing to presidents as the chief threat to American democracy.


Story continues below advertisement

With the rise of right-wing populism and the election of Trump in 2016, this threat was magnified by the accompanying transformation of the Republican Party itself, with its elites in Washington and around the country abetting Trump’s authoritarian behavior in office, protecting him against charges of inciting an insurrection, embracing his dishonest “stolen election” claims, passing dozens of new laws to restrict voting, and more. The Republican Party is now an anti-democracy party, and its future presidents — empowered by the unitary executive theory — threaten the fundamentals of the U.S. democratic system.


The two logics of presidential power, then, each rooted in the administrative state, have jointly given us a strongman presidency. Democrats have been complicit, but Republicans have pushed the trajectory beyond democratic bounds. It remains to be seen whether anything can be done about it.


Story continues below advertisement

William Howell (@ProfWillHowell) is the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago, director of the Center for Effective Government, and co-host of the “Not Another Politics Podcast” at the Harris School of Public Policy.


Terry Moe is the William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.


Together, they are the authors of “Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy” (University of Chicago Press, 2020)


Why did Florida ban state professors from challenging Ron DeSantis’s voting law?

Why did Florida ban state professors from challenging Ron DeSantis’s voting law?

Columnist
Yesterday at 10:46 a.m. EDT

Last spring, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida took the reprehensible step of signing the state’s new voter suppression law on Fox News. In so doing, the Republican acted out an ugly truism: Restricting voting as governor in a high-profile way is bound to have great appeal to the national GOP base, possibly boosting future presidential aspirations.


Now this story has taken another ugly turn: The University of Florida has barred three professors from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit against the voter suppression measure.


This story is about to get worse for the university: The Democratic members of Congress from Florida are set to come out sharply against the decision, I’m told, and depending on how things go, this could result in congressional hearings.


Story continues below advertisement

This will ratchet up the stakes in this battle and draw more national scrutiny to a move that experts have denounced as a startling and inexplicable attack on academic freedom.


This blowup began when the New York Times reported that the university had informed the professors that they could not participate in a lawsuit against the law. The rationale was that assisting a lawsuit against the state is “adverse to U.F.’s interests.”


The lawsuit argues that the voting law’s provisions, such as the ones restricting drop boxes and making it harder to get absentee ballots in various ways, will impose disproportionate burdens on nonwhite voters. The professors — Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Wright Austin — were hired by the plaintiffs to testify to this and other matters.


Story continues below advertisement

The DeSantis angle here is potentially very troubling. DeSantis, it turns out, has top allies at the university, such as Morteza Hosseini, who is both head of the university’s board of trustees and a big GOP donor and close DeSantis adviser.


It’s not clear whether those allies — or DeSantis himself — are behind this decision. But the lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to question DeSantis about his potential involvement as part of their litigation, and the Times reports that DeSantis has “resisted questioning.”


The university’s rationale is strange and opaque. It’s not immediately clear why testifying in this lawsuit would be contrary to the university’s “interests.”


Story continues below advertisement

When I asked a university spokesman to clarify, he emailed me this:


To your question, the university views the professors’ request as a request to be paid to testify against the state, and the university, as a public institution, is part of the state — therefore, that would be adverse to the university’s interests. However, to be clear, if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do so.

But this raises more questions than it answers. First, one of the professors — Smith — has repeatedly testified in previous voting rights cases against the state of Florida. And Smith tells me these were approved by the university and that he was paid for his work on them.


“Quite the contrary, UF has celebrated my involvement in these high-profile cases, as it brings national recognition to the university,” Smith told me. So it’s not clear why getting paid is problematic this time.


What’s more, a lawyer for the three professors told me that at no point did the university indicate to them that working on the lawsuit pro bono was an option. This raises more questions about the integrity of the process here.


Story continues below advertisement

Smith’s point about the university celebrating previous cases raises still more questions. In what sense would the university’s role as part of the state mean the professors’ participation in the lawsuit is contrary to their interests? And even if you accept that absurd notion, why would doing it pro bono somehow mitigate that?


These and other questions are why Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) tells me she is circulating a letter among the Florida congressional delegation condemning the decision and asking for an accounting of how it was arrived at.


“We’ll be asking a series of questions, and we expect answers,” Wasserman Schultz tells me, adding that it’s likely that all 10 Democrats will sign it. Republicans will be invited to sign as well, but it seems inevitable that they will decline.


Story continues below advertisement

Wasserman Schultz noted that such activity by professors was routinely approved in the past, adding that the only difference now is “who is governor.” She noted that she had a private conversation with university president Kent Fuchs, in which she was “quite critical,” and found his answers “unsatisfactory.”


Wasserman Schultz, who attended the university herself, pointed out that it’s far more likely that it’s damaging its own interests with this stance. “This is activity that enhances the reputation of the university,” she told me, in that it showcases its “nationally renowned professors using their expertise.”


The big unknown here is how this is supposed to be harming the university’s interests. Regardless, it will soon be pressed to account for this: Wasserman Schultz says she and Democrats will pursue “every possible way to ensure that these professors can participate in this case.”


When I asked whether this might include congressional hearings, she said: “When I say ‘every,’ it includes every.”


With conservatives regularly railing against allegedly rampant liberal censoriousness on college campuses, how Republicans and their media allies approach this should prove instructive. Fox News will be all over this, right?


Val Demings wants to catch more murderers

Val Demings wants to catch more murderers

A smart way to fight crime


Nov. 1, 2021

RSVPs for the anniversary party are now closed — we got a tremendous response to Friday’s email and are currently trying to sort through the waiting list. But we hope to have more in the future.


One of my many contrarian takes is that murder is wrong, morally speaking, and that people who do it ought to be caught and punished.


But as the good people at the Murder Accountability Project have been documenting for years, a shockingly small share of American homicide cases are closed by the police. And amidst the 2020 murder surge and the seemingly related slowdown in police activity, the clearance rate dropped to a new low of less than 55%.


On Thursday, Rep. Val Demings introduced a bill she calls the VICTIM Act to create a Justice Department grant program that gives money to police agencies to try to improve this. Cash could go to hiring or training investigators, to evidence processing and related functions, or to victim services. In exchange, you’d need to report to DOJ how your spending plans are going to improve your clearance rate. Critically, the bill also has money for the National Institute of Justice to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the policies and procedures implemented by the grantees. You’re not just pushing money out to help solve crimes; you are hopefully generating useful social science evidence that can inform improved policing around the country.


Demings (if you don’t know her) is an interesting figure — she’s a Black woman who used to be Chief of Police in Orlando and did a great job as an impeachment manager in Trump’s first trial. Biden vetted her for the Vice Presidential nomination but decided to go in a different, safer direction. She’s the kind of person you’d normally call a “rising star,” but she’s leaving the House to run for U.S. Senate next year, and I’m kind of afraid that running in an R+5 state in a tough midterm cycle is a political suicide mission.


That said, she’s raised a ton of money, and I like her a lot. I just hope she doesn’t run one of these races where you raise bucketloads of cash from out-of-state donors and then get your butt kicked.


To try seriously to win the race, she’ll need to persuade some voters who pulled the lever for Trump twice, and that means distinguishing herself from the national Democratic Party possibly in ways that make some progressives uncomfortable. I don’t know whether trying harder to catch more murderers will do the trick, but I think it’s a great idea.



(Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty Images)

Police solve more crimes when they throw more resources at it

Solving serious violent crimes is hard. But the good news is, based on the research that’s available, we do have some idea how to do it. I wrote a bit about this over the summer:


A very telling study out of Boston looked at why the Boston PD was so much more likely to solve murder cases than non-fatal shooting cases. After all, the underlying differences between a shooting that the victim survives and one in which the victim dies don’t really seem all that relevant from an investigative perspective. If anything, you might think it would be easier to solve non-fatal shootings since you have a living victim who can, in many cases, be a witness.


Part of the answer is that homicide is a more serious crime than “shot a guy but he lived,” so they invested more detective hours in trying to solve the homicides. Philip Cook, Anthony Braga, Brandon Turchan, and Lisa Barao looked at how this plays out in practice and found that for the first two days, the department deploys similar amounts of manpower whether the shooting is fatal or not. But if it’s non-fatal, the investigation ends after day two, while for murders, they keep working the case. And while about half of all cleared homicides are solved within that two-day window, the other half is solved through prolonged investigation. Inside that window, fatal and non-fatal shootings are solved at the same rate. But fatal shootings are twice as likely to be solved overall because of the value of continued investigation.


As we see in Boston and elsewhere, these cases are solved when more officers are assigned to investigate. The non-fatal shooting bit appears to be particularly low-hanging fruit, and Demings’ bill smartly includes non-fatal shootings as a target variable.


One reason cracking down on non-fatal shootings seems particularly promising is that often the people doing the non-fatal shootings are also the people doing the murders. It’s just a case of how good your aim is and how close the victim is to a quality trauma center. What you want to do is make everyone generally more afraid to run around town shooting people.


Closed cases are the best deterrence

In my view, getting better at solving crimes is also the key to ultimately reducing some of the cruelty of the American criminal justice system.


Prison reduces crime in two ways: deterrence (people are afraid of going to jail so they don’t do crimes) and incapacitation (people are in prison so they’re not out on the street doing crimes).


Because people tend to “age out” of criminal activity (especially violence), a 10-year prison sentence contains more than half the incapacitation impact of a 20-year prison sentence. On the deterrence side, most people are somewhat impulsive and prone to discounting the future, and the people who get involved in serious criminal activity tend to have below-average intelligence and impulse control. So an 80% chance of doing 10 years in prison has more deterrence power than a 40% chance of doing 20 years. A major source of inspiration for America’s unusually harsh prison sentences was Gary Becker’s idea that since solving crimes is hard, we should invest in massive prisons instead. But this is an area where actual human behavior diverges spectacularly from cartoonish homo economicus models.


It would be more just, more effective, and more humane to punish a much larger share of serious offenders without keeping them locked up for so long.


Ideally, this means fewer people committing serious crimes (because they are effectively deterred) and plenty of investigative resources available for each serious crime (because there are fewer murders per detective), which locks in a high level of deterrence. Prisons with smaller populations don’t need to be hellish, and you can focus in a real way on treatment and rehabilitation in most cases.


After the steep 1990s crime drop, crime rates continued drifting downward year after year. When that trend continued even into the face of the Great Recession, I think reformers got complacent and out over their skis. They decided crime wasn’t really an issue anymore (even though America continued to have a very high murder rate compared to other rich countries) and that criminal justice reform had bipartisan prospects as a way to save money during a state budget squeeze. The bump in murders in 2015 should have unsettled that, but crime drifted down again for a few years until the 2020 murder surge. But with shootings still high and possibly rising in 2021, I think the old paradigm where you forget about crime and just focus on reform is dead. If you want to see meaningful reform of the punitive apparatus, the flip side has to be finding less cruel ways to deter.


Actually catching criminals seems like the obvious route.


Catching criminals is good, actually

Demings very reasonably focuses on the most serious crime, murder, and its close cousin, the non-fatal shooting.


But the general principle “it is good to catch people when they commit crimes” applies very broadly. I’ve been distressed by reports that some of the Biden administration’s tax enforcement ideas are getting stripped out of the reconciliation bill. But I do believe that money to fund the tax police at the IRS is still in the mix, and I think that’s very important. I also hope Biden’s Justice Department will try to revisit the softball approach to white-collar crime that took root after the Bush-era Enron prosecution.


More fundamentally, though, I think we ought to move away from the idea that spotty enforcement is a good way to create a humane criminal justice system.


A few years ago Caleb Watney and Nila Balala wrote a mostly sensible paper on reasonable guardrails for the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement that also included one sentence I found misguided: “Additionally, to prevent the use of facial recognition for minor offenses like shoplifting, lawmakers could identify which offenses rise to a level of seriousness that would warrant the privacy intrusion the technology creates.”


If facial recognition techniques can reliably identify the perpetrators of minor crimes, we should use them for that purpose. If we recoil from that idea because we fear meting out punishment to people who are committing relatively minor offenses, then we ought to make the punishment lighter. There would probably be very little shoplifting if shoplifters were highly likely to be caught, and that would be true even if the punishment was fairly light. And to the extent that some people would choose to blow off the punishment, you could make the sanction tougher on rare repeat offenders — since if you’re shoplifting constantly, that’s really not such a minor offense.


What’s probably true is that shoplifting is too minor to invest tons of law enforcement resources into investigating — we need investigators doing a better job of closing murders and non-fatal shootings. But if we can use technology to enhance investigative productivity for lower-level offenses we should absolutely do that. Right now, American criminal justice has very little consistency — there’s tons of crime, tons of people getting away with crimes, and very harsh sentences doled out sporadically. It’s really bad, and a renewed focus on sound investigations should be part of any reform agenda.


Monday, November 1, 2021

Another massive advantage the Right has, in addition to the one

 


Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

·

17h

Another massive advantage the Right has, in addition to the one 

@drvolts

 emphasizes, is the fact that it’s a much more homogeneous coalition, almost all white and conservative, easier to unify behind a single project of preserving “real” (read: White Christian-dominated) America.

Quote Tweet

David Roberts

@drvolts

 · Oct 30

The RW conjured a national movement of parents against CRT ***out of absolutely nothing***. The entire f'ing thing is invented. But it worked! Because the right has a giant propaganda machine. The left doesn't. All other talk about strategy is pointless as long as this is true.

Show this thread

Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

·

17h

By contrast, if what we mean by “the Left” here is roughly the Democratic coalition, then that’s a much more diverse beast - ideologically, racially / ethnically, in terms of cultural sensibilities. Much harder to get everyone on the same page on anything, harder to mobilize.

Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

·

17h

Crucially, the Right also has cultivated an image of “the Left” as this radically Un-American threat for decades, can built on decades of demonization of “the Left” as a fundamentally illegitimate force that is out to destroy “real” America. No equivalent to that among Democrats.

Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

·

17h

So, yes, this specific anti-“CRT” moral panic is conjured out of thin air - as Christopher Rufo, the guy who is chiefly responsible for conjuring it, has been proudly telling us himself! But it builds on a long list of rightwing crusades that came before it, going back decades.

Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

·

17h

Whatever the moral panic du jour - “pc”? Cancel culture? Wokeness? - and whatever the latest “The Libs are using public education to brainwash our kids!” crusade: The specifics matter less than what the Right accepts as the Higher Truth - “They” want yo destroy “real” America.

Thomas Zimmer

@tzimmer_history

Once that rubric is established - and it has been established for decades! - it gets a lot easier to rile up your side by plugging something in that you know will resonate with your relatively homogenous base’s ideological commitments and cultural sensibilities.

11:40 PM · Oct 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

The Supreme Court looks to the past to create a right-wing future

The Supreme Court looks to the past to create a right-wing future

Columnist
October 29, 2021 at 1:44 p.m. EDT

This coming week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could upend America’s gun laws, in essence forcing every state, no matter the preferences of its inhabitants and political leaders, to treat guns the way conservative states do.


Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.

Informed legal analysts will tell you that there’s still some uncertainty in how the court will rule. This is a complicated legal and policy question, and the decision could fall anywhere from maintaining the status quo to creating a national gun free-for-all — and will probably land somewhere in between.


But we’re about to get a lesson in just how different a 6-to-3 conservative majority is from a 5-to-4 conservative majority.


Story continues below advertisement

That may be the best way to understand not only this case but also the most consequential decisions the court will be issuing in the coming years. They’ll be revisiting a series of precedents that were limited in scope by the requirement to maintain those fragile 5-to-4 majorities. The conservatives won some of those cases, and the liberals won others.


But now the question for the court’s conservatives will be: How far do we want to go? And with a majority that has a vote to spare and is far to the right of where it was just a few years ago, they’ll likely be willing to go very far.


The case the court will hear next week concerns a New York state gun law that allows local officials to restrict people’s ability to carry guns wherever they please. The plaintiffs, who have licenses that allow them to use guns for hunting and target practice (and keep them at home), were denied unrestricted licenses because they didn’t show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”


Story continues below advertisement

One likely outcome of this case is that the Supreme Court will say the state has no right to make such a restriction. In other words, it could say that states can’t keep the average citizen from carrying their guns with them wherever they go.


The context here begins with D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 decision that struck down an extremely strict District of Columbia law that limited most gun ownership. At the time, Heller was a radical reimagining of the Second Amendment, which the court had never before ruled conferred an individual right to own guns, outside of what the amendment itself calls a “well regulated militia.”


But the key point about Heller now, as an even more conservative court considers the issue, is the way it was limited.


Story continues below advertisement

In 2008, there were five conservatives and four liberals on the court, with centrist Anthony M. Kennedy at the fulcrum. In the decision that Kennedy agreed to, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:


[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Because of that, in subsequent years most challenges to local and state gun laws have failed, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. lamented last year. Regulations of things like high-capacity magazines and relatively strict licensing regimes have remained in place.


Heller established a fundamental individual right to keep guns in the home for self-defense. Now, the court is poised to say that self-defense extends almost anywhere — perhaps not to government buildings, but certainly to the park, the supermarket or other public places.


Story continues below advertisement

If they do so, they will surely justify their decision by ransacking the historical record for a few 18th-century quotes to allegedly demonstrate that the result they want is what the Framers had in mind all along. That’s what Scalia did in the Heller decision, but as The Post’s Ann E. Marimow explains, even some conservative legal experts argued that Heller’s reimagining of the meaning of the Second Amendment was unsupported by any fair reading of history and the Constitution.


So what the Constitution actually says could barely be less relevant; the question is what these six justices want.


Or more precisely, how far five of them would be willing to go. The two newest justices, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are not only much more conservative than the justices they replaced, but also issued dissents in lower court gun cases that showed they find Heller too restrictive.


Story continues below advertisement

So what we have here is a pattern that is likely to be repeated: What’s on the books today is a 5-to-4 decision from the past limited by the divided nature of the court, in a case such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (on the right to abortion) or Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (on the constitutionality of commissions created by voter initiative). Those went the liberals’ way when Kennedy joined them, but there are others, like Heller, which the conservatives won but which didn’t go far enough for the court’s most right-wing members.


And now, with a 6-to-3 supermajority, all those decisions can be revisited. The most conservative justices will no longer have to grudgingly go along with anything. They will be able to get pretty much whatever they want.


‘Let’s go Brandon’ is Republicans’ vulgar governing agenda

‘Let’s go Brandon’ is Republicans’ vulgar governing agenda

By Dana Milbank


Columnist

|

Follow

October 29, 2021 at 3:51 p.m. EDT

At 7:30 Thursday morning, White House officials rolled out President Biden’s roughly $1.75 trillion framework to cut taxes for ordinary Americans and make it easier for them to afford health care and housing, send their kids to prekindergarten and college, and adopt clean new power for their homes and cars.


An hour later came the Republican response, from the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. It was succinct and to the point: “F--- Joe Biden.”


Technically, the message, a tweet from McConnell press secretary Doug Andres, showed a photo of a roadside sign that said “Let’s go Brandon.” For the uninitiated, that’s a MAGA meme in which the phrase stands for the slightly homophonous “F--- Joe Biden.” It’s a way to flip the bird at the president “without running afoul of technology censors,” as the right-wing Washington Times put it.


Story continues below advertisement

The substitute phrase has been chanted at rallies for Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin; used by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Republican Reps. Bill Posey of Florida (on the House floor) and Jim Banks of Indiana, and Donald Trump Jr.; and, on Thursday, adopted by the former president himself. He offered “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirts for those sending at least $45 to his grifter organization Save America.


Think about that.


Democrats clear the way for passage of a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that will provide broadband Internet and lead-free drinking water to every American, and better roads, bridges and ports for all to enjoy. And Republicans reply: Let’s go Brandon.


Story continues below advertisement

Democrats coalesce around a plan to raise taxes on those making more than $10 million a year, to crack down on tax cheating by the richest fraction of 1 percent of Americans and to make sure Fortune 500 companies can no longer pay zero in taxes. And Republicans reply: Let’s go Brandon.


Could the contrast be any greater? Half of America’s leaders are trying to govern, and the other half are hurling vulgarities.


Follow Dana Milbank‘s opinionsFollow

By the administration’s calculations, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and the $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan combined would add nothing — zip! zero! nada! — to the federal deficit. Yet Republicans, after approving nearly $8 trillion in new debt under Donald Trump, now howl about reckless spending.


During the Trump administration, most congressional Republicans voted to raise the debt limit. Now those same Republicans are refusing to raise it. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

Biden’s plan, the White House says, would not require anybody earning under $400,000 a year to pay a penny more in taxes, and it imposes a minimum tax only on businesses earning more than $1 billion a year in profits. It goes after profitable corporations that pay nothing, hedge fund managers who dodge taxes and businesses that hide money overseas. This is a crackdown on tax cheating by the filthy rich — and the GOP stands with the tax cheats.


Story continues below advertisement

If Democrats succeed in enacting both the infrastructure and Build Back Better bills (no sure thing, given the party’s tendency toward entropy), they should lean into this juxtaposition in next year’s midterms:


Do voters want a competently governed America with better airports and a reliable power grid? An America where parents can afford child care, old folks can get hearing aids and all tots can go to free pre-K?


Or do they want an unstable America of ill-mannered insults, conspiracy theories, rageful attacks on educators, irrational opposition to lifesaving vaccinations, ham-handed attempts to suppress voting, and extreme abortion bans without exceptions for rape or incest?


Story continues below advertisement

On Wednesday, the day before Biden rolled out his framework, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal — once an honorable voice of conservatism — published a letter from Trump repeating the fiction that Biden’s 2020 victory was “rigged.”


Also Wednesday, Fox News’s star host, Tucker Carlson, teased his “documentary” promoting the lie that the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection was a “false flag” operation orchestrated by Biden.


Republican lawmakers responded to Biden’s rollout Thursday with the usual name-calling: Liar! Socialism! Green New Deal!


Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) called it “class warfare” that would “crush small business.” (How many small businesses have $1 billion in annual profits?)


Story continues below advertisement

Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) tweeted that it would “raise taxes on working families.” (Shed a tear for those “working families” earning more than $10 million annually!)


Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) claimed Biden is “bankrupting Americans.” (By reducing the deficit?)


The National Republican Campaign Committee released ads this week targeting 15 Democrats, falsely saying the plan would let the IRS “spy on your bank account.” (There is no such proposal; as The Post’s Jeff Stein noted, requirements that banks report large transactions were removed from the bill.)


And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that Republicans are so angry about Build Back Better that they would vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill, too — even though, he admitted, “America needs infrastructure.”


Voting against what America needs, and Republicans support, out of spite?


There’s a name for that, and it almost rhymes with “Let’s go Brandon.” It’s the GOP’s governing agenda.


After a devastating wildfire, a California community faced another crisis: PTSD

After a devastating wildfire, a California community faced another crisis: PTSD - The Washington Post

The Coming Age of Climate Trauma

Three years after a devastating wildfire, a California community faces another crisis: PTSD. Is what’s happening there a warning to the rest of us?


By 

Jess Mercer received a call from her stepmom, Annette, that morning, a little after 8 a.m. “We’re coming,” Annette said, her voice so unrecognizable it sounded foreign. Jess was at her apartment in Chico, Calif., a slightly overgrown university town that sits in a valley below the hilltop community of Paradise, about 20 minutes away. She was confused. It was early, on a weekday: Thursday, Nov. 8, 2018. She wasn’t expecting a visit from Annette, or her dad, Tommie.


But then Annette was saying it again: “We’re coming.”


Things got stranger: The sky turned dark. Ash fell like black snow, except it was warm, and carried the smell of smoke. Her family, Jess realized, was trying to escape a massive wildfire.


She heard her dad’s voice on the line. Everything he spoke was in short phrases: “Remember everything I’ve ever said to you. I don’t know. I’m trying.”


And then nothing.


The call left Jess panicked, and it got her thinking that “I don’t know” must mean that they didn’t know if they were going to get out in time. She jumped in her car, pointed it toward Paradise, and went almost nowhere before realizing that the roads had already been closed. So instead, Jess stood at the mouth of the scenic highway known as the Skyway, near the Walmart parking lot, and watched as cars streamed away from Paradise. She called her family back 60, 70, 80 times, but the cell towers were burning like pitchforks and service was unreliable.


For an hour, she scanned the panicked faces inside every car that went by, looking to see if she recognized them. A woman with six kids inside her vehicle, good. Sedans piled with so many people their heads hit the ceiling, deep breath. No sign of Tommie and Annette’s green truck, damn.


[Forced from Paradise: Leaving home after one of America’s deadliest wildfires]


Jess, now 36, had moved to Paradise from Wyoming when she was 16. For the first year, she lived at the Lantern Inn, with Tommie and Annette. Their small motel room had thin walls and one bed; Jess slept on the floor. Money was tight. In the evenings, the staff at the Cozy Diner across the street would give Jess leftover food from the salad bar, usually rolls and vegetables.


Eventually, her family moved to a three-bedroom, light-beige house off Dolores Drive in Paradise. Jess remembers how proud her dad was to move in. It was the first house he’d been able to buy since moving to California, some 20 years earlier.


When Jess turned 18, she moved to Chico so she could be closer to her job as a cashier at a big-box store. Even then, she still somehow spent all her time back up on the hill, an area known to locals as the Ridge. Over the next decade, she’d bounce back and forth between Chico and Paradise, until 2018 when she moved into a bright-blue house in Paradise with her partner, Ashley, and planned to stay for good. But in May of that year, they discovered that the house had foundational issues, and once again they found themselves in an apartment back in Chico.


That’s where Tommie and Annette showed up at the door, four hours after they’d called Jess. Tommie, then 70, was wearing burned sweatpants, tattered shoes and no dentures. He carried a cat crate but had forgotten to put the cat inside.


By the time the Camp Fire was done burning, it would level the town of Paradise, and a large portion of nearby communities: Magalia, Concow, Pulga and Butte Creek Canyon. Over 150,000 acres would be burned, 18,000 structures destroyed. At least 85 people would be killed. It was, and is, the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California’s history.


Gone was the Lantern Inn off Skyway and the light-beige house on Dolores and seven other places that at one point Jess had called home. What remained, cruelly, was just enough to remind her that once upon a time she used to have a town: ash-faded advertisements at the Cozy Diner for $4.99 cheeseburgers, movie posters at the cinema for “A Star Is Born.” Three years later, the signs remain, which frustrates Jess. “To be vacant is one thing,” she says. “To be frozen in time is triggering.”


In May 2016, Jess had been formally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, largely due to living in a home with a schizophrenic brother. But after the fire, her trauma compounded. Now, she sees a therapist a few times a month and is on multiple medications. In the six months after the fire, her partner described her as “vacant.” The first time she had a panic attack was on the one-year anniversary of the fire. The second was last December. Both times she had to be hospitalized.


She always feels like she’s in fight-or-flight mode, she says. If she reaches down to pick something up, she never bends her knees. That way if she has to take off running, she’ll be ready to sprint. A split second can determine if you live or die. She knows this. Recently, a fire alarm went off during a work meeting and she ran out of the room.


An aerial view of a destroyed cul-de-sac in Paradise in 2018. (LiPo Ching/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News/Getty Images)

Sometimes she feels angry, like there’s a “beast” inside of her that could come out at any moment. Other times, she’s so numb, she can talk about painful memories like she’s ordering a sandwich.


She can feel the trauma in her body. Always being reminded of the fire has caused her to throw up and ache to the point where she has to soak in a tub; it has even led to seizures. When the seizures happen, it’s like her body is trying to release the PTSD, she explains.


To say that everyone in the area affected by the Camp Fire suffers from PTSD would be incorrect. But of the dozens and dozens of people I spoke with for this story, nearly everyone reported experiencing PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms. There were other things, of course: increased alcohol and drug use, anxiety, depression, anger, survivor’s guilt, grief. A select few were completely fine, telling me how the fire gave them a chance to rebuild their lives in a better way. But mostly, I heard about PTSD.


From Hippie, a 60-something war veteran who still has burn marks from the day he had to ride his motorcycle through flames. From Iris, a shop owner who lost her boyfriend in the fire. From Dawn, a mother of two who still has full-blown panic attacks. From Sean, who got so tired of fire sirens triggering his PTSD that he drove to a lake and thought of taking his own life. From Corinne, an artist who had a heart attack in her early 50s because of stress.


A more scientific gauge: A study conducted by scientists at the University of California San Diego that was published in February in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that an overwhelming number of Camp Fire survivors were suffering from various mental health disorders, most prominently PTSD. “The amount of PTSD we saw in individuals was striking and very significant,” says Jyoti Mishra, senior author of the study and a professor in the department of psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “It was on par with what we’d expect to see in war veterans, but now we’re seeing it in communities where individuals are exposed to wildfires. It really shows how climate change is a mental health stressor.”


What comes next, experts say, is a different kind of disaster. The mental health care system is not built to handle a world in which entire populations of people are routinely and consistently traumatized or living in a state of anxiety, and its outdated approaches mean most people will never get the help they need. “Therapists, counselors, the mental health community in general, is very late to the game,” says Susanne Moser, a leading expert on climate change adaptation. “They’re 20 years behind — at least.”


Lise Van Susteren, a general and forensic psychiatrist in D.C., says she “can’t think of anything more important than mental health and climate.” She adds, “In many cases, the physical damage from climate can be corrected. You can rebuild, you can restore, you can replant. But the profound impact on our mental health takes such a cumulative toll that it can determine how society functions. The problems of mental health are not invisible scars. They drip into our lives individually, politically, economically and socially, day after day.”


It’s impossible to ignore that climate change is a politicized topic. Not everyone acknowledges it as an existential threat. Maybe that’s why it’s even harder to admit, or easier to overlook, the slow strangle climate change will have on our mental health: that before the pollution from emissions engorges our lungs, it will likely drive many of us mad.


“Physical damage from climate can be corrected. ... But the profound impact on our mental health takes such a cumulative toll,” says psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren.

In 2014, Van Susteren flew to London. It felt like a last resort. For years, she and some of her colleagues had the sense that the mental health community was largely in denial about the impending wave of climate trauma. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, various studies revealed a sharp rise in long-term mental health issues, even as the floodwaters receded. It was casually called “Katrina brain,” but the reality was alarming: One study in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry found rates of serious mental illness doubled after the storm. A later report would show that 12 years post-disaster, 1 in 6 people were still struggling with PTSD.


For Van Susteren, and certainly others, it was a preview of what was to come, given that in a warming world, disasters like Katrina would only hit faster, harder, stronger and more often. The planet was changing, not only in a way we could see in crumbling, hurricane-battered houses along the coast, but feel in our crumbling, climate-battered minds.


[Here’s what you can do to cope with your anxiety about climate change]


Van Susteren’s meeting with the Climate Psychology Alliance in Britain would eventually lead to the creation of two groups back in the States: The Climate Psychiatry Alliance, formed in the fall of 2015, followed by the Climate Psychology Alliance North America in 2018.


Among other things, the groups work to influence policy and educate providers of mental health care. Earlier this year, they developed a climate-aware therapist directory. The network is currently made up of 97 psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and social workers located across the country (to put it into perspective, there are roughly 150,000 psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States). Each signs a pledge, which in part reads: “A climate-aware therapist accepts that new forms of distress are arising as a result of global crisis, and believes that the professional training of the allied mental health therapy and counseling community can attend to this distress.”


This is important, says Ariella Cook-Shonkoff, a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley, Calif., and a steering committee member of the North American psychology alliance. “Climate distress is on the rise, from eco-anxiety to PTSD to suicidality,” she says. “It is our responsibility as mental health practitioners to identify the evolving needs of our clients and respond accordingly, so that we can best serve and support them.”


California, a state of roughly 40 million people, has 19 mental health providers in the directory. The closest one to the Camp Fire area is an hour and a half away in Sacramento. States prone to climate disasters, like Florida, Texas, Louisiana or most states along the southern and lower-east coasts, have none. Nearly all of the providers are in urban areas, though membership continues to grow.


Yet the problem in Butte County isn’t just about finding a climate-aware therapist. It’s about finding any therapist. “There are very few counselors to help with the need,” Jess says. “It’s terribly sad. People bring it up in every town meeting.”


One woman, Pat Bryant, 66, tells me over coffee in a church auditorium in Magalia that she couldn’t find anyone to help her after the fire. Her home didn’t burn down, but her entire neighborhood did. Living in the debris and dust haunted her. For months she did nothing but sit in a chair in her living room, only getting up to go to the bathroom. She doesn’t remember eating, although she’s sure she did. As a breast cancer survivor, she eventually turned to her oncologist, who prescribed her medication. She ended up throwing the pills away and got involved as a volunteer at a church instead — a move that saved her life, she says.


In part, it’s nobody’s fault. The fire didn’t spare mental health providers. Their offices and homes burned down, too. In fact, the hospital was one of the first buildings to be destroyed. It still hasn’t reopened.


There were some services, like a program offered by the United Way that offered eight free therapy sessions to fire survivors. The program quickly ran out of money, though, and by the time many people had heard about it, it was gone. “The amount of people who needed aid was a little shocking to us,” says Melissa Jamison, a community service specialist with the United Way of Northern California. “We knew that people were struggling, but the need just kept growing. It’s a need that still exists. There is still so much work to be done. While the area is in the full swing of recovery, it still has many years ahead.”


The system isn’t necessarily broken; it’s working how it’s designed to. The mental health response set up after disasters is meant to be short-term. Yet as Katrina and the Camp Fire show, the mental health needs are not just acute and immediate, but chronic and long-term.


“The resources that organizations like [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] make available for mental health services post-disaster is time-limited,” Moser says. “After a year, the resources typically go away. And what they are providing is absolutely inadequate. You don’t heal trauma in 10 hours of therapy. That’s just ridiculous.” FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell responded through a spokesperson via email: “A survivor’s mental health is as much a part of their recovery from a disaster as shelter, employment and safety; they are all directly connected. FEMA will continue to leverage all of our capabilities, and those of our partners, to ensure survivors receive the support they need on the road to recovery.”


[Climate disasters will strain our mental health system. It’s time to adapt.]


Downed power lines during the Camp Fire in Paradise. (Scott Strazzante/San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images)

On a Saturday morning in late June, in the midst of a heat wave in the dry season, I drive 25 miles from Paradise to Concow, passing by grasses the color of exhaustion and a red sign warning me that I’m entering a wildfire zone. There are trees, many of them still charred. A visible reminder that the destruction of a wildfire hurts — that here, it still hurts.


Before the Camp Fire got to Paradise, it burned down Concow, a rural town that sits off State Route 70, deep in the Sierra Nevada foothills, where most people live off single-lane dirt and gravel roads. It’s a community of off-the-grid hippies and pot growers and artists and retirees. To outsiders, it’s a poor, middle-of-nowhere place, but to those who call it home, it’s a pocket of close-knit people.


There, Jenny Lowrey, 61, and her partner, Bruce Matthews, 72, are part of a group that runs Lake Concow Campground. The 80-plus-acre property has traditionally been used as a recreational getaway, a place where families can spot bald eagles, snag a fish or sneak in a swim, for $15 a night.


More recently, they’ve opened up the campground for displaced fire survivors to stay for free. Many are from Concow, but others have pulled in from Paradise and Magalia. “It’s rough living out here,” Jenny says. Most people live in RVs, some without water, air conditioning, electricity or plumbing.


There is a battle over housing in Paradise. Of the 12,000 houses burned in the Camp Fire, just over 1,000 have been fully rebuilt. Many people were underinsured. Many more had no insurance at all. In 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric, whose aging power lines sparked the blaze, agreed to pay victims $13.5 billion. Most people are still waiting for settlement money.


It’s common to see parcels of burn-scarred land with RVs parked on them. But when the town began telling people they could no longer live out of RVs on their own lots if they didn’t have a building permit, many felt they were being forced off their properties with nowhere to go.


As Jenny and Bruce walk me around the property, Jenny often calls the fire survivors living there “their PTSD community.” We pass by a run-down RV, the size of a middle-class living room, and Jenny tells me there are five people living inside. “PTSD is one thing, but brokenness is different, and these people are broken,” she says. “They’re traumatized on unimaginable levels.”


She and Bruce are, too. They’ve buried friends who died in the Camp Fire. Bodies burned, right there on the road. Even scarier, they almost lost Bruce’s daughter after she got trapped on Granite Ridge Road. A burning telephone pole hit a truck with a trailer and turned it over, blocking the only exit off the mountain. The fire was moving quickly. With nowhere to go, she put the car in reverse and drove until she got to the last house on the road. She put a running water hose on top of her car, secured it in place with a rock, and texted her husband. “I love you. Here it comes.” Three days later, she was rescued.


“That will mess up your head,” Jenny says. “Sitting in your car, watching the flames come at you with your dog and 12 chickens — how do you even process that? We can’t.” Bruce’s big, friendly eyes well with tears.


The temperature hits 104 degrees and Jenny introduces me to Dinah Coffman, a Camp Fire survivor from Paradise. She lives on the property in a white RV, neat and tidy with an air fryer outside the front door. We sit in mismatching plastic lawn chairs in the shade, and two other women join us, Tami Donnelson and Tamatha Romer, 53, both fire survivors from Concow.


In the hour I spend talking to Dinah, she tells me of everything she lost in the fire. Her cats, the irreplaceable possessions she’d just inherited from her mother, her sense of home. She cries as she tells me about the nightmares that won’t stop and how uneasy she gets when the wind blows. She cries when she tells me she can’t stop scrolling Facebook, obsessively checking community groups for news of any potential fires.


Then it’s Tamatha in tears. “Since the fire, I can’t do math in my head,” she says. “I can’t remember anything. I can’t do a job interview without crying.”


Here, people talk about PTSD symptoms fluently and matter-of-factly. But it’s not just that they tell me about it; I see it. When a firetruck pulls into the campground and disappears into the pine woods, the women’s demeanor visibly changes. “I feel like I have the shakes,” Tami says, pacing. “My hair is standing up on the back of my neck. My heart’s pounding.”


Already she can’t sleep most nights, waking up multiple times so she can go outside and smell for smoke. She doesn’t really want to talk about what she saw the day of the fire, except that her 11-year-old daughter had to help burn victims dress their wounds.


None of the women have been to therapy, mostly because their time is consumed with physically rebuilding their lives. This prioritization is typical in most places post-disaster — but therapy also doesn’t seem like an option for them. A drive to Chico, the nearest large town, means traveling 80 miles round-trip and spending as much as $30 in gas. There are online and telehealth options, but cell and Internet services are spotty.


Down the hill from the women, in an RV parked in a clearing, lives Lucas Anderson, 34. His partner Pamela, their two young kids, ages 3 and 7, and Lucas’s 71-year-old mother live there, too. Like everyone, Lucas has an evacuation story, and it ends the way so many of them do: He lost everything.


Lucas works six or seven days a week doing plumbing, landscaping and general construction, but finding permanent housing has been hard. They didn’t have insurance on their home in Paradise. Over the past three years, they’ve bounced from motels to a temporary house to living in an RV, parking it in vacant lots, their friends’ properties and once a church lot. “I have plenty of trauma,” Lucas says. “I can tell when it starts getting to me because I’ll get into fights with my boss, my wife.” Nightmares keep him up at night. When there’s a fire, how will he get his family out safely if he’s sleeping?


He’s never gotten therapy because he has kidney stones to deal with and a family to provide for and his boss calls people with mental health issues “weak” and other family members have dealt with hard stuff without going to therapy and how much does something like that cost anyway? He doesn’t call what he’s suffering from PTSD. He interchangeably refers to it as stress and trauma and “something he’ll eventually need to deal with.”


Experts quibble over this, but some say he isn’t wrong, and that what we’re seeing is a different form of PTSD — or a new type of trauma entirely. There’s even a push among members of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance to get the American Psychiatric Association to change the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). A formal diagnosis, using the DSM-5, could potentially open the door for insurance to cover different types of treatment and improve access to services. The process is slow, though, says David Pollack, a founding member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance and professor emeritus for public policy at Oregon Health and Science University, because “of the very convoluted and complex process that the APA has for making changes to the DSM.”


“The DSM-5 has not adapted to this particular situation,” Van Susteren says. “We need to have a proper nomenclature for it so that we can validate what people are suffering from.”


Moser agrees: “There are researchers who think of this as a new category of trauma. This is an existential kind of trauma, and so I’m not certain it’s the same thing as PTSD in the way we think of it now. There are three different kinds of trauma: trauma associated with distinct, time-limited events; trauma due to ongoing but clearly defined perpetrators; and trauma that is chronic with more diffuse perpetrators but typically not a threat to all of humanity. Climate change has aspects of all of these.” However, she says, a study that would establish this as a novel kind of trauma is still years away from happening, and it will be difficult to prove.


A rescue worker looks for possible human remains in Paradise in 2018. (Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)

There were clear signs that the students were not all right. Jess could see it in the way they slugged around in baggy sweatshirts on 100-degree days, the way the smell of smoke would make them hyperventilate or completely freeze, the constant mention of “fire brain” — a way to describe loss of memory, feelings of fatigue and lethargy, and trouble performing everyday tasks.


Administrators at Achieve Charter School saw it, too. Their high school campus in Paradise burned in the Camp Fire and the elementary school was seriously damaged, forcing some students to travel to Chico to go to school at a pop-up site of portable buildings and porta-potties in a megachurch parking lot.


Mary Tickle, Achieve’s school psychologist, tells me that over the past few years the number of suicide risk assessments conducted within the school population has more than doubled compared with previous years. A survey done this year among fourth- through eighth-graders revealed that more than 40 percent of students were still experiencing PTSD symptoms.


What they were seeing wasn’t unique. According to Scott Kennelly, director of the Butte County Behavioral Health Department, the area saw an increased risk of suicide, especially in teens. It’s impossible to know what can be blamed on the Camp Fire, given the effects of the pandemic, and even before the fire, the area had some of the highest ACE (adverse childhood experiences) scores in California. Still, Kennelly says the rise in PTSD, along with depression, anxiety and substance abuse, is undeniable and significant.


[There’s a score (ACE) to quantify childhood trauma. Some health experts want you to know yours.]


Immediately after the fire, Jess knew she wanted to help. She had a background in social work and previously worked with kids in foster care and juvenile hall. “We needed a changed mind-set in addressing the PTSD within our youth,” Jess tells me as we eat sandwiches in a back booth at Nic’s, one of the first restaurants to reopen in Paradise. “I really wanted to use art to help kids heal, to help myself heal.”


She got her first grant, for $15,000, in February 2019, along with a donated white van, which she named Gertie. She used the money she’d been awarded to load Gertie with art supplies and began taking it to schools, youth programs and community events. Kids would draw their feelings on the exterior of the van. PTSD as seen in crayon-colored graffiti. In one drawing, there’s a picture of a boy, his head scribbled in red flames. Next to it, another stick figure, this one blue, and a thought bubble above his head that reads, “Thanks for letting me do art because it helps cool me down.”


Over the next year, Jess upgraded Gertie to Marge, a newer van that she didn’t have to sit on a phone book to drive, and began developing something more formal. The result was a 13-part, trauma-informed art curriculum called the Balanced Brain Project. This fall, she began teaching it to kids at Achieve’s after-school program in Paradise and Chico, as well as at a local homeless shelter. The topics include nightmares, body language and communication, to help kids work through their “trauma residue,” Jess explains.


Leading mental health experts say that this is exactly the kind of approach that will have a life-changing impact on communities. “The existing mental health system focuses on crisis and illness, one person at a time, only after they show symptoms of psychopathology,” says Bob Doppelt, coordinator of the International Transformational Resilience Coalition, a network of professionals working to address the mental health effects of climate change. “For decades, this has been shown to be extremely ineffective and inefficient. Even in the best of times, only 50 percent of those who need mental health assistance receive it. The crisis clinical treatment approach has zero chance of addressing the scale and scope of mental health problems, or the alcohol and drug abuse, adverse childhood experiences, violence, or other psychosocial problems generated by the climate emergency.”


“No part of the country is going to remain untouched” by climate trauma, says Gary Belkin, founder of the Billion Minds Institute.

Instead, we need more programs like Jess’s, says Gary Belkin, former deputy health commissioner of New York City and founder of the Billion Minds Institute, an organization working to modernize the country’s mental health infrastructure. “We need to think of mental health as a community-owned function and build up programs that will allow the community to respond,” he says. “Help should be so easy to find, you should trip over it.”


Alternative approaches are not just for kids, either. Thanks to the Ecological Reserves at California State University Chico, healing is happening through a forest therapy pilot program. “Other countries are sending their firefighters who have PTSD out into the forest as a way to receive trauma care, and it’s working,” says Eli Goodsell, director of the reserves. “In talking with my friends who were definitely suffering from significant PTSD after the Camp Fire, I wanted to change the outdoors from being a triggering environment to a healing environment.” Goodsell started the pilot program in late July, after years of grant writing and training and pandemic delays.


How forest therapy works is both woo-woo and grounded in science: It’s based on a Japanese practice called shinrin-yoku (also known as forest bathing), and the idea is that nature can be therapeutic. A trained guide walks a small group of people through the outdoors. The aim is to go slowly and take in things around you, mostly in silence. The process ends with a tea ceremony made of items foraged along the route. Sessions normally take one to two hours. The program is offered free to fire survivors and had over 200 participants within the first few weeks of operating.


Guides go through six months of training to become certified through the Association of Nature and Forest Therapy and can be from any background. The Chico State program has guides who are mental health practitioners, outdoor educators and Parks Department employees.


“Too many of our approaches to mental health are about staying in the frontal lobe,” says Kate Scowsmith, who became a trained ANFT guide through the pilot program. (The front lobe of the brain focuses on executive functioning.) “There needs to be a lot of ways to process trauma out of your body. Forest therapy is a beautifully simple approach where nature is the therapist. It’s very healing centered.”


After Scowsmith lost her home in Magalia to the Camp Fire, she too, experienced PTSD, causing her to have nightmares, difficulty sleeping and frequent visualizations of her home and belongings burning. “Forest therapy was part of my continued healing from the fire,” she says. “It has helped me find peace, calm and something dependable.”


Like anything, these programs take money. Before Jess got hired as a staffer at Achieve this summer to teach her art therapy program, she had to apply for 14 grants just to keep her work going.


[Climate disasters will strain our mental health system. It’s time to adapt.]


The hope is that funding from the federal government may help: In February, Democratic lawmakers put forth the Climate Emergency Act of 2021, which proposes that climate change be declared a national emergency, a designation that could help drum up money for myriad things, from more electric-vehicle charging stations to mental health services. But the bill hasn’t seen much movement.


A doll hangs from a string in the backyard of a home that burned in the Camp Fire in Paradise. (Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)

Since we choose to live in burn-prone zones, in houses made of wood, coveted for their nearness to trees and privacy, it would appear the easiest solution would be to move. Leave the street named for the generations of family that lived there before you and the land where you made a living raising cattle or growing apricots in the California sun. Leave your job, your school, your community.


After the Camp Fire, many residents did just that. The town of Paradise clocked in at just over 26,000 people before the fire. Three years later, about 6,000 remain. There were similar exoduses in other towns affected by the fire. People migrated to Washington and Tennessee and Idaho and anywhere but there. Abandoned lots sit where family barbecues used to be.


But the idea that we can just move, just outrun the threat, is an illusion. A place that won’t be affected by climate trauma? Experts like Belkin don’t know of one. “We used to think of disaster trauma as reactions to one-off events, where one could escape to recover, regroup and rebuild,” he says. “But no part of the country is going to remain untouched.”


Wildfires are becoming more destructive and frequent. More than 5 million acres have burned in the United States this season. The Bootleg Fire, which hit Oregon in early July, was a blaze so massive that it became capable of generating its own weather: fire whirls (spinning vortexes of air and flames), lightning and wind. In August, a fire swept through the Greek island of Evia, burning more than 100,000 acres. The country’s prime minister declared it one of Greece’s greatest ecological disasters. At the same time, historic droughts in Siberia, an area typically known for its exhaustingly harsh winters, led to fast-spreading wildfires that raged bigger than all of the other fires burning in the world combined. This is an incomplete list.


If it’s not a wildfire, then it’s something else. California is also experiencing devastating droughts, and there were recent floods in Miami and Houston as well as hurricanes battering cities like New Orleans and New York. This past July was the Earth’s hottest month on record, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s a record that will likely be short-lived, given the dire findings in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Just this summer, nearly 1 in 3 Americans experienced a weather disaster.


[Five key excerpts from the United Nations’ climate change report]


Climate trauma isn’t unique to the Camp Fire area. The Northern California disaster is a microcosm of the problem, and a warning. It’s a reminder that there are questions we have been unwilling to prioritize: What should a mental health response look like in the wake of a climate disaster? How can we better prepare communities for the moment when they are forced to confront climate change? Do we need to prepare people for a climate dystopia, where climate trauma is ever-present and ambient? What do we call what we’re all feeling?


The second time I talk to Dinah, it’s via text in mid-July after she just evacuated the Lake Concow Campground: “My PTSD is going … Blood pressure up, heard racing, stomach churning, anger, helplessness … you name it I feel it lots of tears.”


Then two minutes later: “I’m a mess I can’t even spell.”


There’s another fire.


It would come to be known as the Dixie Fire, and, unbelievably, it started in the same spot (Camp Creek Road) and allegedly in the same way (a PG&E power line sparking) as the Camp Fire. At the time of publication, it had been burning for months and was still not fully contained. Already it had engulfed nearly 1 million acres, including the entire gold-rush community of Greenville, making it the second-largest blaze in California’s history.


Paradise was at risk of evacuation, too. Videos uploaded to Facebook by Camp Fire survivors of the smoke across Feather River Canyon came with PTSD warnings about how the content might be triggering.


Everyone was ready to run. Jess told me she was feeling angry but was trying to stay calm. “It’s eerie to relive flashbacks in real life,” she wrote in an email.


Days later, the smoke from the Dixie Fire made its way to New York, turning the sun into a hazy, gray pearl. On a midafternoon call while staring at the sky, I ask Moser: What does this kind of trauma feel like? “As if you lost your mother in a car accident four times,” she says. If we’re lucky, that’s all it will be.


Andrea Stanley is a writer and editor in New York.