Saturday, August 29, 2020

A Carnival of Disinformation


A Carnival of Disinformation
by McKay Coppins, theatlantic.com
August 28, 2020 09:04 AM
Republicans warmly welcomed voters into their post-truth convention.


Photo by: Al Drago / Bloomberg / Getty / The Atlantic
Americans who tuned in to this week’s Republican National Convention were treated to a slickly produced, four-day dispatch from an alternate reality—one in which the president has defeated the pandemic, healed America’s racial wounds, and ushered in a booming economy. In this carnival of propaganda, Donald Trump was presented not just as a great president, but as a quasi-messianic figure who was single-handedly preventing the nation’s slide into anarchy.

Every presidential-nominating convention is, to a certain extent, an exercise in hype and whitewashing. But Trump’s 2020 convention went further—rewriting the history of his first term with such brazenness that it seemed designed to disorient. The setting of the convention’s final night reinforced the surreality: the made-for-TV stage on the White House’s South Lawn; the cheering, unmasked audience of more than 1,000 standing shoulder to shoulder; the speakers blaring Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” loud enough to drown out protesters at the gate.

Read: White House, petri dish

“This election will decide whether we will defend the American way of life, or whether we allow a radical movement to completely dismantle it,” the president declared in his speech formally accepting the Republican nomination. “That won’t happen.” By one count, the address contained at least 20 false or misleading claims.

Many of the Republican strategists I spoke with this week flatly acknowledged that their party was presenting a version of recent events that veered toward fan fiction. But given the bitter mood of the country and the dire state of the race, they said, the campaign’s desperation was understandable.

“In some ways, the speeches are reminiscent of the speeches one hears at a memorial service, where … everyone stretches the truth to say nice things,” A. J. Delgado, who worked for Trump’s 2016 campaign, told me. “And we’re all in the audience muttering, ‘Well, that’s not true, but I get it—what else can you say?’”

The rat-a-tat of distortions and conspiracy theories began with Trump’s address to delegates on Monday, when he accused Democrats of trying to rig the election with universal mail-in voting, which he called “the greatest scam in the history of politics.” (It is not.) Later, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana claimed that Joe Biden had “embraced the insane mission to defund” the police. (He has not.) Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida warned that Democrats would “disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door.” (They will not.) And Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee said Democrats wanted to “keep you locked in your house until you become dependent on the government for everything.” (They do not.)

When the coronavirus—which has so far killed more than 180,000 Americans—came up during the convention, it was in service of Trumpian revisionism. “From the very beginning, Democrats, the media, and the World Health Organization got the coronavirus wrong,” the narrator said in a video that aired Monday night. But “one leader took decisive action to save lives: President Donald Trump.”

Read: Remember the pandemic?

That this narrative was untethered from reality—Trump’s early refusal to take the virus seriously is well documented—didn’t stop his lib-owning fans from exchanging high fives on social media. “That video is going to make all the right heads explode,” tweeted the conservative talk-radio host Erick Erickson.

The myth that Trump has already beaten the virus pervaded the convention. As my colleague Russell Berman has noted, the pandemic was repeatedly referred to in the past tense. “It was awful,” Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in his speech on Tuesday.

Bryan Lanza, a former Trump adviser, defended this warped account as simply a “glass-half-full” version of the president’s record. When I challenged him on that, he countered, “What do you view as defeating the coronavirus? Because I know this administration is measuring by the death count.”

I pointed out that more than 1,000 Americans are dying every day from the virus.  

“Every death is a tragedy,” Lanza replied. “But remember where we were in March, when people were estimating 3–5 million deaths? Three hundred thousand is a fraction of that.”

Much of the Republican convention seemed to be organized around erasing the national memory of Trump’s bigotry. He presided over a naturalization ceremony. He surprised an ex-felon with a presidential pardon. A slate of Black speakers was invited to say nice things about the president, defend him against accusations of racism, and tout his role in passing a criminal-justice-reform bill.

Of course, in between these feel-good stunts and testimonials were bleak warnings about the “Marxist revolutionary” forces that are wreaking havoc in American cities—and could be coming for you next. The most potent of these segments featured the McCloskeys, an affluent Missouri couple who went viral after pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their house in June. “Make no mistake,” Patricia McCloskey told viewers, “no matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats’ America.” Protesters, she said, are “not satisfied with spreading chaos and violence into our communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether.” Police brutality—the issue at the heart of this summer’s unrest—received only glancing mentions during the convention.

Sarah Isgur, a former spokesperson for the Trump Justice Department, told me she didn’t believe the convention’s goal was to lure shaky Biden supporters into the president’s unreality. Instead, the campaign was targeting people who wanted an excuse to vote for Trump, but felt uneasy about it. Hence, the dual-message broadcast: “Reminding his voters why a Biden presidency should scare them,” and also “giving Trump-sympathetic voters permission to vote for Trump.”

Last fall, I created a fake Facebook account because I wanted to immerse myself in the MAGA information ecosystem. I wanted to witness the onslaught of pro-Trump propaganda firsthand, to see the president’s sophisticated disinformation campaign at work. In the months since I first wrote about my experiment for The Atlantic, I’ve periodically been asked by wide-eyed liberals to recount my journey into the fever swamps.

The truth is that anyone who watched this week’s convention has a pretty good idea of what it’s like. The programming may have been glossier, softer, more savvily pitched to certain demographics. But the goal seemed the same—not to persuade or convert, but to disorient and demoralize. Americans have spent the past four years watching the Trump presidency unfold, and they are not overwhelmingly impressed by what they’ve seen. His campaign appears determined to make voters second-guess themselves. As the political theorist Hannah Arendt once wrote, the purpose of propaganda “has never been to instill convictions, but to destroy the capacity to form any.”



The RNC Treated Blue America Like Occupied Territory


The RNC Treated Blue America Like Occupied Territory
by Eric Levitz, nymag.com
August 28, 2020 01:21 PM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
The last night of the Republican National Convention was replete with gestures of outreach and inclusion. The speaking lineup was strikingly diverse for a party whose elected leadership is overwhelmingly white. An array of formerly Democratic African-Americans endorsed Donald Trump’s reelection in primetime, from low-income New Yorkers who resented the eligibility of undocumented immigrants for subsidized housing to upwardly mobile professionals touting capitalism’s opportunities for self-betterment. There were the standard white lifelong Democrats who’d been driven from Blue America by its indulgence of criminality, and even a democratic socialist who’d discovered that Trumpism is the truly egalitarian ideology.

The president made this “big tent” pitch explicit toward the top of his own remarks, saying, the Republican Party was “ready to welcome millions of Democrats, independents, and anyone who believes in the greatness of America and the righteous heart of the American people.”

And yet, in ways large and small, the convention affirmed the sectarian strand of patriotism that has defined the first four years of the Trump presidency — a worldview that places the president’s detractors outside the category of “the American people.”

This ethos was most conspicuous in the event’s staging. As all responsible news outlets have noted, the GOP’s decision to hold its convention on the White House lawn constituted a brazen violation of federal statute. But the party’s nullification of the Hatch Act didn’t just demonstrate its indifference to the rule of law; it also conveyed its contempt for the majority of Americans who disapprove of the president. Republicans took grounds that belong to our democratic state and co-opted them for partisan advantage. In asserting immunity from the law — and ownership of federal property — the GOP evinced an entitlement to rule that transcends legal and democratic sanction. The party treats power less like a prize it leased from a sovereign public on an exacting set of terms, than like a long-withheld birthright that it has finally reclaimed.

As if to emphasize his use of @WhiteHouse as a political prop, TRUMP motions towards it: "What's the name of that building? … We're here, & they're not. To me, one of the most beautiful buildings anywhere in the world, & it's not a building, it’s a home, as far as I'm concerned” pic.twitter.com/gK30dfrGwc

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel)
This notion — that conservatives are in some sense more American than their political opposition, and thus, the only legitimate political agents in the American nation — was reflected in Ivanka Trump’s self-description as “the proud daughter of the people’s president.” In a democratic republic, “the people” are the fount of political legitimacy. To say that a president who was rejected by a plurality of the electorate in 2016 is the “people’s president” is to place Hillary Clinton’s supporters outside the realm of those entitled to exercise power over the state.

The GOP expressed its contempt for liberal America in concrete terms when referencing its urban areas. The party’s newest convert, formerly Democratic New Jersey congressman Jeff Van Drew, confided his displeasure with laboring under the thumb of a “San Francisco liberal” like Nancy Pelosi. Individual progressive intellectuals sometimes indulge in such performative contempt for staunchly Republican regions of the country. But no speaker at the Democratic National Convention used the name of deep red, rural areas as an epithet.

Numerous speakers, including the president himself, described “Democrat-run” cities as bastions of “violence and danger,” subject to “continuous riots,” and bereft of police. By itself, this rhetoric could be construed as expressing concern and solidarity with the victims of Democrats’ municipal misrule. But the fact that this supposed plague of anarchy was presented as an argument for Trump’s reelection — rather than an as indictment of his failure to “make America safe again” — reinforced the idea that our nation’s urban centers, and the Democrats who live in them, exist outside of Real America. After all, if Donald Trump viewed New Yorkers as his constituents, then much of Thursday night’s proceedings would constitute a case for the president’s dereliction of duty.

These rhetorical slights would be of little consequence if they did not reflect the Trump administration’s governing philosophy. The president’s mafioso ethics — which dictate the rewarding (and/or opportunistic exploitation) of friends and punishing of enemies — have rendered him uniquely indifferent to the fortunes of regions of the country that have no Electoral College votes to offer him. According to reports, and, in some instances, the president’s own words, Trump has repeatedly refused to abandon ill-advised courses of action until his advisers showed him that his actions threatened his people (i.e., Republican areas). Last month, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s aides struggled to get the president to take the pandemic seriously — until they showed him that its victims were no longer concentrated on the coasts:

In the past couple of weeks, senior advisers began presenting Trump with maps and data showing spikes in coronavirus cases among “our people” in Republican states, a senior administration official said. They also shared projections predicting that virus surges could soon hit politically important states in the Midwest — including Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, the official said.

This new approach seemed to resonate, as he hewed closely to pre-scripted remarks in a trio of coronavirus briefings last week.

Trump has made his belief that he is only answerable to U.S. citizens who’ve shown loyalty (and/or electoral utility) to him explicit on several occasions. During 2017’s heinous hurricane season, Trump routinely scolded Puerto Rico for its ingratitude, while providing faster and more extensive federal aid to (relatively less devastated) areas of Texas. Earlier that year, Trump only backed down on abruptly withdrawing from NAFTA after learning that this would not redound to Trump Country’s benefit:

[Agriculture Secretary Sonny] Perdue … brought along a prop to the Oval Office: A map of the United States that illustrated the areas that would be hardest hit, particularly from agriculture and manufacturing losses, and highlighting that many of those states and counties were “Trump country” communities that had voted for the president in November.

“It shows that I do have a very big farmer base, which is good,” Trump recalled. “They like Trump, but I like them, and I’m going to help them.”

If the Trump administration’s callousness toward Blue America were solely the product of the president’s personal pathologies, it would be less alarming; or at least, more easily solvable. But it is also indicative of a conservative moment that now understands itself as both having a unique claim on Americanness and the U.S. state, and being a minority within an alien dominant culture. These two beliefs have rendered the GOP increasingly hostile to democracy both in practice and theory. Today, Republicans believe that they have no obligation to keep their propaganda compliant with federal law, or to aid “Democrat-run” cities in their times of need. And once a ruling party has decided that it is above some laws — and unaccountable to some citizens, in certain respects — there’s no telling what it will deem permissible tomorrow.

Trump’s parade of desperate lies reveals one big and awful truth



Falsehoods fly as Trump headlines final night of the GOP convention
This video is currently not available

The last night of the Republican convention featured words from President Trump's closest allies, and an acceptance speech from the president himself. (Monica Akhtar, Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

Opinion by 
Greg Sargent
Columnist
August 28, 2020 at 11:04 p.m. GMT+9
When Donald Trump accepted the presidential nomination from the Republican Party in 2016, he declared to the nation: “I alone can fix it.”

Four years later, as he accepted the nomination for a second term on Thursday night, he delivered a speech that in effect told the nation: “I don’t take responsibility at all.”

Trump really did utter that latter quote in March, of course, while evading any responsibility for what turned out to be only one of many disastrous failures on coronavirus. But Trump’s speech is the moment that converted this quote into doctrine. It should convince us to treat “I don’t take responsibility at all” as an unmistakable declaration of what to expect from a second term.

AD
Keep Reading


Trump’s speech contained countless big lies and distortions. Some portrayed Joe Biden as radical and destructive: Trump falsely suggested Biden would open the borders and defund the police, and absurdly claimed his “socialist agenda” would “destroy” the “American way of life.”

Sign up for The Odds newsletter for election updates from data columnist David Byler

Other lies and distortions whitewashed Trump’s record: He falsely claimed he would protect preexisting conditions, even though he has tried to destroy the Affordable Care Act and continues to do so. He absurdly exaggerated his toughness on China and his revamping of trade deals.

But Trump’s biggest deception of all concerns what he didn’t say and what he didn’t acknowledge. In his telling, the depths of the current coronavirus crisis and the economic disaster it has unleashed simply don’t exist at all.

AD
Trump’s acknowledgment of the existence of the virus essentially treated his handling of it as uniformly a success story, one in which it has largely been defeated. This began with a concerted effort to disappear all the ways his failures led to the current moment:

Trump vastly inflated our testing, while claiming he marshaled a massive “national mobilization” via the Defense Production Act. This memory-holes the fact that he didn’t utilize the DPA to even remotely the degree needed and didn’t come anywhere near marshaling any such mobilization.
Trump again hailed his travel restrictions on China. This memory-holes the fact that his depraved dithering over many weeks allowed the virus to rampage wildly out of control here after that ban.
Trump absurdly vowed to hold China accountable for the coronavirus. This memory-holes the fact that early on he spent weeks propping up China’s claim of control over it to sustain his sociopathic lie that we didn’t have to worry about it here, which also let it rampage.
This magical act continued with an extraordinarily deceptive depiction of the present:

Trump falsely claimed the United States the lowest fatality rate of any major country. Even as we’ve seen nearly 180,000 deaths and we continue to see approximately 1,000 daily deaths, Trump’s reference to ongoing bereavement was limited. And you don’t get any empathy points if you’re lying in our faces.
Trump hailed “over 9 million jobs” gained in the last three months, which insultingly memory-holes that over 22 million jobs were lost and we’re still 13 million jobs down. As Paul Krugman details, the current spread unleashed by Trump-urged reopenings has produced another economic pullback.
Trump hailed his backing of previous economic rescue packages for getting the economy to roar back (it isn’t). This memory-holes the fact that help for small businesses and the unemployed is in limbo because he won’t agree to another generous package, a potential disaster for millions.
Trump essentially tore an enormous hole out of the reality that we all experience every day and have experienced for many months, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of the hole itself. Obviously this rendering also memory-holes his role in creating the reality that he tried to expunge.

In so doing, Trump and all those in the audience nodding along robotically with his wholesale rewriting of the last six months basically doctrinized his “I don’t take responsibility at all" declaration.

This matters for what’s next
But this is about much more than accurately accounting for how we got here, because Trump’s no-responsibility doctrine also taints his promises going forward. Trump also vowed a vaccine by the end of the year, but scientists inside and outside the government have already warned that this process is being thoroughly politicized to boost Trump’s reelection.

AD
And Trump piously pretended to care about “science” in reopening schools. But Trump already politicized this process: He relentlessly bashed the idea of showing caution (to recreate the illusion of normalcy on his reelection schedule), and the White House edited reopening guidelines to downplay risks.

It will be extraordinarily important to get things like the vaccine roll-out and school reopenings right next year. Trump has already shown he subverts judicious treatment of such incredibly consequential matters to his own perceived interests. Why would this ever change?

The journey of the Trump presidency has taken us from the false promise of “I alone can fix it” to the reality of “I don’t take responsibility at all.” Trump didn’t “fix it.” He smashed just about everything he touched.

AD
That Trump contemptuously assumes he can obliterate our own experiences with his magical lies; that he pathologically refuses to acknowledge the depths of what we’ve all been through; that he will never, ever show us the basic respect of taking a shred of responsibility for his own role in creating these national travails; that he will always see the presidency as a device for personal enrichment and ego gratification — all of this is terrible to contemplate.

Fortunately, we have recourse. And the parade of deceptions and lies he just insulted the nation with should only make us more resolved to avail ourselves of it.


Friday, August 28, 2020

The latest chaos at the convention reveals Trump as a miserable failure



Opinion by 
Greg Sargent
Columnist
August 28, 2020 at 12:03 a.m. GMT+9
Now that we’ve endured three nights of self-pitying grievance, openly advertised corruption, uncontrollable lying and cultish deification of President Trump, it’s time to focus on another aspect of the GOP convention: The chaotic and wildly implausible nature of what Republicans are asking Americans to believe about their country right now.

The convention’s big-picture depiction of the state of the nation isn’t just utterly divorced from reality in countless ways. It also asks viewers to perform a series of spectacular mental gymnastics that are useful to examine, because they reflect the excruciating task this convention set for itself.

Put simply, the convention’s big challenge is to depict Trump as a great success, when in fact, he’s been a miserable failure. Just about all of the follies and falsehoods we’re seeing flow from that basic disconnect.

AD
Keep Reading


All this was driven home by Vice President Pence’s smarmy string of lies on Wednesday night, which hailed Trump’s stupendous vanquishing of the coronavirus and his spectacular economy, while lamenting our slide into anarchy at the hands of the “radical left.”

That dual messaging was echoed by speaker after speaker, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who portrayed Trump as both a racial healer and an economic success, while depicting the country as sliding into full-scale civil collapse.

So let’s take stock of what this convention is asking you to believe about your country.

The story the convention is telling
On the one hand, the convention is telling you that in one sense everything is right and great in America right now. Trump’s stupendous leadership has utterly mastered the pandemic, and the economic calamity that his failures have unleashed simply doesn’t exist.

AD
On the other, the convention is telling you that America is tipping into total civil breakdown. The story offered here is not the truth, which is that large-scale protests have been mostly peaceful and grounded in legitimate grievances about the searingly real problem of deadly, racist police brutality, and have been marred by some unacceptable violence that can and should be brought under control.

Instead, the story is that the scenes of unrest reveal a deep sickness in the form of the aforementioned “radical left,” which is ravaging the country and threatening our very way of life. That’s absurd, but here it is actually true that we’re living through the most serious civil unrest in a half-century.

In one sense, this isn’t a direct contradiction. The argument is that on one front (the coronavirus and the economy) everything is stupendously terrific, and on another (the protests) we’re sliding into ruin.

AD
But this nonetheless requires viewers to make some truly extraordinary leaps.

On the first front, Americans are being asked to pretend none of their everyday experiences and perceptions of what’s all around them exist at all — while crediting Trump’s spectacular leadership for bringing about a substituted (but nonexistent) miraculous state of affairs.

On the other front, Americans are being asked to stare squarely at the scenes of unrest they are seeing on their televisions — and then to exaggerate them into something grotesquely absurd, while also telling themselves Trump bears zero responsibility for any of it, even though it’s unfolding on his watch.

Mike Pence’s deceptions
Take Pence’s speech. He actually had the gall to tell us this about coronavirus:

AD
President Trump marshaled the full resources of our federal government from the outset. He directed us to forge a seamless partnership with governors across America in both political parties. We partnered with private industry to reinvent testing and produce supplies that were distributed to hospitals around the land.
This is the direct opposite of the truth. Trump squandered weeks and weeks early on, a key reason the virus rampaged out of control here. Trump utterly failed to marshal the full resources of the government. Trump relentlessly attacked governors who were pleading for help and often didn’t give it to them. Thanks in part to all these failures, nearly 180,000 are dead and we’re still averaging nearly 1,000 deaths a day.

Pence also told us this about the economy:

We are opening up America again. Because of the strong foundation that President Trump poured in our first years, we have already gained back 9.3 million jobs in the last three months alone.
Trump’s mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic simply disappears as a cause of the economic crisis. The economic crisis itself is largely reduced to only a massive jobs gain, never mind that we’re still 13 million jobs in the hole. Pence treats the current economy as largely a continuation of the pre-covid-19 one.

AD
What’s also striking is the combination of this straight up gaslighting with the lack of any real plan to contain the virus going forward, given that conventions should be about where the nominee will take the country:

Meanwhile, on the protests and the violence, Pence and many others portrayed Joe Biden as a radical leftist. But that was based on numerous lies — that Biden would defund police (nope), that he supports open borders (nope) and that he won’t condemn violence (nope).

On top of that, Pence didn’t level with the country about the actual cause of some of the violence. Incredibly, Pence lamented an officer “killed during riots in Oakland, California,” without noting that the man charged with that killing is a member of the extremist race-war-seeking “boogalo boys."

AD
Even more absurdly still, Trump is in power right now. The claim is literally that if you think America is a smoldering hellscape at this moment, reelect the guy who is presiding over it, because only he is strong enough to overcome it.

But Trump actually has a record on this front, too, and it’s also a record of failure. The convention asks us to believe Trump’s Bible-photo-op celebration of the violent clearing away of protesters and his threat to send troops into major cities (which his own military officials repudiated); his use of law enforcement in Portland, Ore. (which local officials said exacerbated matters); and his ceaseless racial incitement are playing no role at all in stoking unrest. You can’t point to a single thing he’s done to make things better.

The only consistency to all this runs as follows. In neither case (whether it’s the worst public health and economic crises in modern times, or the worst civil unrest since the 1970s) does Trump bear a shred of responsibility for any of it. In reality, as the chaotic and convoluted nature of the GOP festivities confirms, Trump is a miserable failure on both fronts.

Thursday, August 27, 2020

The Police Take the Side of White Vigilantes by Alex Pareene

 The Police Take the Side of White Vigilantes

Over the past week, cops have shown that they share a coherent ideology.

Alex Pareene/June 4, 2020

Who are the cops for? Over the last week, all across the country, in ways large and small, they’ve shown us.


In Philadelphia on Monday night, the cops made it fairly explicit on whose behalf they police the streets. As they unleashed tear gas on unarmed protesters marching on Interstate 676, getting caught on camera spraying gas directly into the faces of harmless, seated demonstrators, across town they allowed an actual roving mob of men armed with baseball bats and other improvised weapons to violate curfew and move about with impunity. Or something more than impunity: an endorsement. Residents reported attempting to get the police to arrest or disperse the would-be vigilantes and being mocked and dismissed.


“We don’t take sides,” Philadelphia’s police commissioner said the next day. “Our mission is to always protect all persons.” That is what she is supposed to say. But the untruth of that claim is well documented. Over and over again, cops take sides. They do so in broad daylight and at night, on cell phone–captured video and behind mysteriously nonfunctioning body cameras.


In Chicago last weekend, a man in tactical gear with a long gun brandished it menacingly at protesters. “Open carry” of firearms is illegal in Illinois. The police had a quick chat with him and sent him on his way unmolested. As police departments have everywhere else, this one gassed and beat unarmed demonstrators who were protesting police violence. “We don’t tolerate police misconduct—ever,” the mayor said. But they do. They have tolerated it among Chicago police officers for 100 years.


What would lead a police department—not a few misbehaving officers but every officer on the street, in this instance—to dismiss a heavily armed man as no threat (to either their own safety or the safety of the community) in one case, while, in another, viewing an unarmed local activist as so much of a threat that multiple cops decided to surround and brutally beat him with batons?


The incidents in Chicago and Philadelphia are evidence that American police across the country share a coherent ideology. Armed white boys don’t code as a threat to them; “anarchists” and angry black people do (even if the protesters are the ones at least attempting to engage in constitutionally protected behavior, while the roving white gangs are flagrantly violating the law). That disconnect, the galling image of watching the law so obviously tossed aside under certain circumstances, highlights a fundamental truth about what’s happening across the United States. The police are not using brutality to enforce “the law.” They’re using the law to enforce something else: a particular social order that is, to them, worth fighting for.


The words “white supremacy” make some people shut their brains off (especially when so many cops are indeed black and so many people they’re brutalizing during these clashes are white), but the order, and the ideology, that these police departments, from Kansas City to Minneapolis to Philadelphia, are enforcing is one that dates back to the beginning of our country’s history, one that relies on the domination and subjugation of particular classes and groups, often out of the fear that, if given power, they would turn around and return the favor. That is what makes the response to these protests so brutal, so urgent, for the police: In town after town, they seem to ignore any course of action that might de-escalate tensions in favor of the ones that only serve to prolong the conflict.


Make no mistake: Cops have allowed other demonstrations, even very large ones, to play out with minimal or no interference. Heavily armed right-wingers marched on statehouses last month decrying measures to arrest the spread of Covid-19, and the police universally treated them as peaceful and lawful demonstrators, even as they threatened lawmakers and burned at least one governor in effigy. There were no violent crackdowns, no curfews, no brawls on the streets, no kettling or mass arrests. There was no tear gas. No major George Floyd–inspired protest has received the same courtesy, as far as I can tell. Fifty cops decked out in full riot gear descended on 14 quietly protesting students in Hoover, Alabama, on Tuesday, and arrested them all.


A few weeks ago, in Huntington Beach, a city in Orange County, California, thousands were allowed to gather and demand the reopening of the beaches, in spite of a worldwide viral pandemic, with minimal police interference. A protest of police violence in the exact same place weeks later was met with the usual displays of force.


This disparity in cop reactions to demonstrations could be seen as a bias against the left and in favor of the right, but that’s not the whole picture. A wholly unregulated, seemingly impromptu militia is allowed to participate in the guarding of Philadelphia not strictly because it might be more likely to support the Republican president, but because it is white and vocally defending the extant system of dominance and hierarchy against those who seek to upend or even simply reform it.


Those afraid of the complete reimagining of American policing tend to prefer to treat cops as individual and discrete actors, in order to separate the “good” from the “bad”—to say that the majority of them never kill anyone, that hardly any commit the acts of brutality and criminality that capture headlines. The question then becomes simply finding more of the good and fewer of the bad, or somehow turning the bad into the good. But none of the good apples arrested any of those white guys with baseball bats in Philadelphia. None of the good apples enforced the curfew against them. They chose to exempt the one group that enjoys special privileges and immunity from state violence for reasons even the squishiest moderate has to acknowledge.


Why each individual cop turned a blind eye doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that good cops don’t seem to police the bad ones. (Unless directly ordered to do so by their superiors, cops simply never arrest cops for committing crimes in the line of duty.) And this means we can judge them for what they do collectively.


Cops aren’t even more interested, as their critics sometimes accuse them of being, in protecting “property” than they are in protecting people. In Manhattan, New York police allowed widespread looting while gearing up for a prearranged clash with non-looting protesters. Philadelphia cops who put up a huge show of force to protect a statue of a notorious racist aren’t protecting “property” so much as declaring their allegiance. Minneapolis cops, it has been reported, have completely abandoned the largely black north neighborhoods of the city where arsons (not protest- or riot-related fires) have been rampant, forcing citizens and community leaders to organize spontaneously for their own self-defense. (It serves, perhaps, as an accidental trial run for police abolition.)


At one point last weekend, Chicago police responded to a ridiculous claim of a caravan of antifa soldiers streaming over the border from Indiana by dispatching a chopper. Cops react in legitimate and genuine panic at the fantastical prospect of vans full of antifa coordinating violence in their towns, even as they mainly ignore actually extant far-right provocateurs streaming in from the sorts of outlying suburbs where the cops themselves live. Cops frequently lie to the press, understanding that journalists will disseminate whatever they’re told, but when police in Louisville, Kentucky, told the press that their officers were worried protesters were putting bleach in leaf blowers, you have to understand both that the Louisville Police as an institution did not actually believe this was happening, and that its officers still consider bleach-blowers a far more serious threat to their safety than actual firearms carried by actual anti-government extremists.


Democratic (and occasionally libertarian) politicians, liberal think tanks, and policy shops have produced lots of proposals designed to prevent what happened to George Floyd from happening again: implicit bias training, de-escalation training, body cameras, use of force restrictions. None of these figures have a plan to stop police from allowing a white mob to violate a curfew with impunity while brutally repressing protesters representing the “other side.” What is the reform plan for that, exactly? What is the reform plan for police choosing to believe deranged conspiracy theories about demonstrators?


It is almost reassuring to believe that the police want peace but are, through ineptness or poor training, bad at achieving it. They have told us, over and over again, that they are a political force with specific goals. Are we ready to listen yet?


Alex Pareene @pareene

Alex Pareene is a staff writer at The New Republic.


Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Republicans Stage a Norm-Busting Convention by Jonathan Bernstein


Republicans Stage a Norm-Busting Convention
by Jonathan Bernstein, bloomberg.com
August 26, 2020 06:40 AM

Not normal.
Photo by: Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.

If political parties tell you who they are in their conventions, then the biggest message from Republicans on Tuesday night was that they have little respect for democratic norms. Also: They’re largely out of touch with the concerns of Americans who aren’t already fans of the Republican show, as seen on Fox News and other party-aligned media.

As far as norms, I’m willing to give President Donald Trump some leeway for using the White House as a backdrop for his appearances, given the pandemic and that he lives and works there. If it had just been (say) First Lady Melania Trump’s speech in the Rose Garden and the president’s own address from the White House on Thursday, I’d probably defend the idea. But Tuesday night Trump went way too far, staging first a pardon and then a naturalization ceremony. As Susan Hennessey and Scott R. Anderson explained even before those two stunts, Trump’s White House is probably violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits government officials (other than the president) from using their offices for partisan political activity. As they say, the administration’s response is basically that “rules are for other people.” Even if the White House’s increasingly implausible justifications somehow satisfied the letter of the law, Trump is thoroughly trampling on the basic principles involved.

And it’s not just Trump. Mike Pompeo not only shattered the tradition that secretaries of state avoid speaking at party conventions or otherwise engaging in explicit electioneering, but he took a trip to Jerusalem to emphasize the point. Same message: Rules, and even the law, are for others.

As for the rest of the night? There once again was plenty of stuff recognizable to consumers of conservative media. What the party didn’t offer was almost anything about the stuff that most voters presumably have on their minds: the pandemic and ensuing recession. Even those speakers who mentioned the coronavirus generally treated it as something from long ago, and the economic recovery was presented as something already achieved. Perhaps the most obvious version was from White House adviser Larry Kudlow, who put the the whole thing firmly in the past tense. Outside of a couple of paragraphs from Melania Trump’s speech, one would hardly know that many businesses are still closed and many more have failed. Or that thousands of Americans are still dying every week. While speaker after speaker mentioned school choice, there was no hint of the parents dealing with shuttered classrooms and day-care centers. Or the fears that parents feel if their children have returned to school.

Of course, there’s an obvious reason the party doesn’t want to talk about any of that: The president has botched it, and still has no serious plan for recovering. But it’s not as if the organizers didn’t have time to come up with a better story than the one they have — which is still, months into the crisis, that Trump valiantly stopped the pandemic by banning Chinese travelers, and that he’s taken unprecedented steps by simply pushing for a vaccine. That this inflates Trump few achievements while ignoring the long list of things that have gone wrong is bad enough. But the president and his campaign never have reckoned with the fact that U.S. cases and deaths per capita are among the worst in the world and still rising.

Oh, and by the way they had to pull a speaker at the last minute because of her anti-Semitic social-media postings, suggesting once again that haphazard organizing isn’t a great idea for national conventions.

1. Molly E. Reynolds on how Congress can fight back against presidents.

2. Charles Stewart III at the Monkey Cage on absentee voting.

3. Jonathan Chait on extremism.

4. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Francis Wilkinson on the Republican “true obsessions: persecution and aggression.”

5. William Saletan does some fact-checking on Trump, the Republicans and the pandemic.

6. Ariel Edwards-Levy on polls and predicting elections.

7. And Ed Kilgore on first ladies and conventions. Good item, but he guessed wrong about Melania Trump trying to “humanize her husband.” Her speech was pretty good, but she personalized herself while giving us nothing but platitudes about Donald Trump.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net

Published on
Comments 0

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Biden’s Economic Plan Gets a Lot of Big Things Right / Noah Smith

Biden’s Economic Plan Gets a Lot of Big Things Right

By Noah Smith

bloomberg.com

5 min

View Original

Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden has just released a major industrial policy plan for reviving U.S. manufacturing. The proposal is the first in a four-part series called Build Back Better, which will also address economic recovery, infrastructure, clean energy, racial equity, and modernization of health care, child care and elder care.


Biden’s plan should immediately make one thing clear: The era in which free trade was a centerpiece of the elite economic consensus is well and truly over. Although President Donald Trump embraced a blunt form of protectionism and thinkers on the right have been floating ideas about industrial policy, there was always the possibility that Democrats would hew to a Clintonite free-trade position. But Biden’s announcement proves that Democrats, too, are squarely in the industrial policy camp.


But even though Democrats and Republicans now agree that some sort of industrial policy is desirable, the harder question is what to do. Trump’s tariffs have resulted in economic losses for the U.S. and offended key allies, while failing to stem the decline of manufacturing or the out-migration of high-tech industries.


Stalled Out

Index of manufacturing production*


Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


* Index 2012 = 100



One good part of the proposal is a large federal investment in research and development. Biden’s plan would spend $300 billion on R&D, even more than the amount now being considered in Congress. This not only would revitalize the competitiveness of U.S. industry, it would help sustain college towns under threat from cuts in state funding and declining tuition revenue.


A second strength of the plan is education. Biden would invest in community colleges, apprenticeships and other alternatives to expensive four-year colleges. Alternative education of this sort has been used to great effect by Germany, and it has helped that country maintain a solid manufacturing base even in the face of Chinese competition. In addition to manufacturing competitiveness, this could shrink the gap between the educational haves and have-nots.


Another potentially good idea, if well executed, is supply-chain internalization to protect against pandemics and other disasters. The coronavirus outbreak has left top economists scratching their heads as to how the world’s greatest economy could fail to produce items as prosaic as face masks and cotton swabs. The problem is that during normal times, U.S. companies concentrate on the profitable parts of the supply chain -- design, marketing and the provision of final goods and services -- instead of on the boring, low-margin stuff. That makes economic sense right up until the point where a crisis strikes.


Biden’s plan would leverage public-private partnerships to identify the missing pieces of the U.S.’s internal supply chains and fill in those gaps. He’d use a number of other incentives, including taxes and subsidies, to encourage companies to retain the ability to make everything the country would need in an emergency. Though pandemic preparedness is the obvious goal, there’s also another concern -- the ominous possibility of intensified tensions or even conflict with China. Biden’s plan would also try to internalize the supply chains for semiconductors, electronics and other high-tech equipment that would be crucial in any clash.


With regards to the revitalization of U.S. manufacturing, Biden strikes the right notes -- public-private partnerships and manufacturing extension services.


Finally, Biden appears to take the correct approach to China -- rallying allies against predatory trade practices and intellectual property theft, while taxing the carbon content of imported goods in order to encourage China to pollute less.


All this is good. One troubling part of Biden’s plan, however, is his commitment to have the government buy $400 billion worth of U.S.-made goods. Domestic procurement orders can have positive effects, such as when technology companies can use government contracts to gain sufficient scale and know-how to compete in international markets. But Biden’s plan also proposes to have the U.S. government buy domestically made concrete, building materials and other products.


This is problematic, because there’s no need for the U.S. to specialize in mundane products like this; concrete, unlike cotton swabs, is not a strategic industry that the U.S. will suddenly find itself unable to produce in the event of a pandemic or war. “Buy American” provisions also have the potential to raise costs for U.S. government contractors, just as Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs raised costs for U.S. automakers. That would make U.S. companies less competitive, not more. It might also annoy U.S. allies by restricting imports from Canada, Europe, South Korea and so on, in addition to China. It could increase the price tag for needed government projects such as green energy and infrastructure. And it could become a vehicle for political patronage and pork.


Finally, there’s one big additional strategy Biden should add to his plan: export promotion. Competing on world markets often forces companies to raise productivity, but some businesses need a push to leave the comfort and familiarity of the domestic market. Successful developing countries often use a technique known as export discipline: Incentivizing companies to sell abroad, helping them to get started, then culling those that fail in international markets. For the U.S., this could involve implicit export subsidies -- trade credit, overseas marketing assistance, free consulting, R&D support and so on. It could involve destination-based corporate taxes that encourage domestic content. It could even involve explicit monetary subsidies for exporting, though this would require rewriting of World Trade Organization rules. But the assistance would have to be temporary, to avoid creating a conduit for political patronage.


So Biden’s plan needs a little bit of work. But overall, it’s a solid start toward the kind of industrial policy that the U.S. needs after a long period of laissez-faire.


This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.


To contact the author of this story:

Noah Smith at nsmith150@bloomberg.net


To contact the editor responsible for this story:

James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net


Published on July 10, 2020, 6:30 AM EDT

Comments 0

Monday, August 24, 2020

Trump is ‘Fox’s Frankenstein,’ insiders told CNN’s Brian Stelter — and here’s the toll it’s taken

 Trump is ‘Fox’s Frankenstein,’ insiders told CNN’s Brian Stelter — and here’s the toll it’s taken

Brian Stelter, the author of a new book about Fox News, at his CNN desk in March 2017.

Brian Stelter, the author of a new book about Fox News, at his CNN desk in March 2017. (Jesse Dittmar/for The Washington Post)

If anyone was born to write a juicy book about the democracy-threatening relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump, it had to be Brian Stelter.


After all, at not quite 35, the Maryland native has been reporting on cable news for more than 15 years. As a college undergraduate, he started a blog, CableNewser, that he eventually sold to a digital-publishing company.


At 22, straight out of Towson University, he was hired by the New York Times as a media reporter, where he had a starring role alongside the legendary columnist David Carr in the documentary “Page One,” about the inner workings of the paper.


And as CNN’s chief media correspondent, he is so ubiquitous — writing stories, producing a popular newsletter, tweeting prolifically and hosting the Sunday media-centric show, “Reliable Sources” — that Columbia Journalism Review called him “unavoidable.”


Turning this bottomless drive and energy to one of the most consequential media stories of our time, the symbiotic ties between Fox News and Trump, Stelter talked to hundreds of current and former network employees for a new book to be published Tuesday by Simon & Schuster: “Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth.” (I obtained an early copy and interviewed Stelter last week.)


Not surprisingly, almost everyone spoke to him only on the condition of anonymity, which gives the book a certain “just trust me” opacity. Still, the insider details are believable and often stunning — like ultimate Trump loyalist Sean Hannity reportedly calling Trump “bats--t crazy” when speaking privately.


Or this, from someone identified as a Fox News star: “Trump is like Fox’s Frankenstein. They helped make him and he’s out of control.”


The book’s depiction of the feedback loop between media company and president is undeniable. Media watchers and political insiders see it unfolding day after day, but Stelter pulls it together:


“Trump granted pardons because of Fox. . . . He raged against migrant ‘caravans’ because of Fox. He accused public servants of treason because of Fox. And he got the facts wrong again and again because of mistakes and misreporting by the network,” he writes.


“And then,” he adds, “there was the coronavirus.” Stelter writes about the deep reservations Fox News staffers harbor about the network’s early, mostly dismissive coverage of the pandemic, with some of them calling it “unforgivable” and “hazardous to our viewers.”


I asked Stelter what he found most surprising as he reported the book. (We overlapped briefly when I was the New York Times public editor, and I have been an occasional guest on his Sunday media show.)


First, he said, he was struck by “the number of staffers who miss Roger Ailes,” the network’s dictatorial co-founder who resigned in disgrace in 2016 after a horrifying string of sexual harassment allegations and died less than a year later. Under Ailes, these staffers told Stelter, there was at least some leadership, a clear vision and some journalistic standards — even if those standards were aimed squarely at maximizing ratings and pursuing an arch-conservative agenda. Ailes was the obvious “audience of one,” at the Murdoch-owned network, the boss whom all strove to please or suffer the consequences. With his fall from grace, a new, far stranger reality emerged: The audience that matters most now is President Trump.


The second surprise, Stelter told me, was the number of Fox News staffers who acknowledge the harm the network has done and its frequent failure to meet basic standards for truth-telling — and who struggle with whether to remain at the network. Some hesitate because they fear they are tainted by having worked at Fox News; others because the money is too good to walk away.


“These calculations are right there at the surface,” Stelter said, and not just among high-profile names such as news anchor Shepard Smith, whose abrupt departure as the network’s on-air conscience last fall captured the media world’s attention. “These are real moral and ethical struggles.”


Other staffers have reached a breaking point, he reports, such as former anchor Jenna Lee, who chose not to re-up when her contract expired in 2017, telling friends that “the real estate for real news was shrinking” at Fox News, though she wouldn’t say so publicly.


This was not long after the network’s disgraceful, conspiracy theory-fueled reporting about Seth Rich, the young Democratic National Committee staffer who was slain on a D.C. street in 2016; Hannity, among others, spent weeks trying to tie his death to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. How could such baseless reporting ever have been broadcast? Stelter delves into one reason: Fox News’s lack of traditional standards and practices, the kind that every respectable news organization has.


“The Seth Rich debacle happened because Fox operated without brake-tappers,” he writes. Stelter quotes a veteran Fox News anchor: “I was never never ever asked to get a second source.”


Then there was Abby Huntsman, the former co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend,” who couldn’t countenance Fox News’s full-throated support of the Trump policy that cruelly separated migrant families at the border. Huntsman “had been quietly talking to ABC executives about leaving Fox,” but was on the fence. “Family separations tipped her off the fence and onto ABC.” (She left ABC News’s “The View” early this year to help her father, Jon Huntsman, with his gubernatorial campaign; he lost in the Republican primary.)


As for the future of Fox News, much depends on November’s presidential election, Stelter said. Should Trump lose his reelection bid, he thinks that Fox may change course — going on the offensive against Joe Biden’s presidency as it did against President Barack Obama, and has never stopped doing against Hillary Clinton. Or, he speculated, it could return to meatier reporting overall.


But there may be a new player to consider: “The biggest question is does Trump become a competitor,” Stelter told me, no longer content to dominate a network but wanting total control in the form of a new entity that might be dubbed “Trump TV.”


That’s the problem, of course, with creating a Frankenstein — you may come to regret how he behaves.


But with Fox News “on a path to $2 billion in profits,” according to Stelter’s sources, that hasn’t happened yet.


READ MORE by Margaret Sullivan:


For more by Margaret Sullivan visit wapo.st/sullivan


QAnon Is the Future of the Republican Party


QAnon Is the Future of the Republican Party
Even if Trump loses in November, the influence of this unhinged conspiracy theory will only grow.
By Jeet HeerAUGUST 17, 2020
fbtwmail

QAnon demonstrators protest during a rally to reopen California. (Sandy Huffaker / AFP via Getty Images)



Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican nominee for Georgia’s 14th congressional district, is a harbinger of her party’s post-Trump future. She’s running in a strongly Republican district with an almost certain prospect of going to Congress. She disdains Black Lives Matter and argues that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to serve in government. She’s also an adherent of QAnon, the amorphous conspiracy theory that holds that Donald Trump is battling a secret cabal of Satanic cannibalistic pedophiles who control the Democratic Party, Hollywood, and the American government.


In a 2017 video, Greene said, “There’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.” For his part, Trump returned Greene’s regard. On August 12, the president tweeted, “Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up—a real WINNER.” Asked about QAnon on Friday, Trump avoided disavowing the conspiracy theory and reiterated his praise of Greene.

This tweet is in keeping with Trump’s general approach of aligning himself with the QAnon movement but not explicitly affirming it. As The New York Times notes, “Trump has not directly addressed QAnon, but he has conspicuously avoided denouncing it, and has shared dozens of posts from believers on his social media accounts.”



A few Republicans, to their credit, have spoken out against Greene and QAnon—but they all are much less well-known than Trump. On the same day as Trump’s warm words for Greene, Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois tweeted, “Qanon is a fabrication,” adding that there is “no place in Congress for these conspiracies.” Another Republican, Virginia Representative Denver Riggleman, tweeted, “QAnon is the mental gonorrhea of conspiracy theories. It’s disgusting and you want to get rid of it as fast as possible.”



But if QAnon is gonorrhea, more and more Republicans are getting infected, and party leaders are doing nothing to stop the spread. Kinzinger and Riggleman are lonely voices in their own party. As CNN reports, “Top Republicans, including President Donald Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, are embracing their party’s nominee for a House seat in Georgia, despite her history of racist and anti-Semitic remarks and promotion of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory.” Other Georgia Republicans, notably Senator Kelly Loeffler and Representative Doug Collins, have joined in welcoming Greene’s primary victory.

The response of the GOP to Greene echoes the way the party handled Trump in 2016. At first there was some trepidation about Trump, with a few voices denouncing what he was doing to the party. But eventually, Republicans made their peace with Trump when they realized that they had to support him as their standard-bearer or suffer humiliating defeat as a divided party.

“The future of the Republican Party very well may be Marjorie Taylor Greene,” argues Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama adviser. “Greene is one of eleven QAnon supporting Republican congressional nominees on the ballot this fall.”



The conservative writer Bill Kristol, although a critic of the Republican Party under Trump, disagrees with this assessment. According to The New York Times, Kristol is “skeptical about QAnon’s influence on the Republican Party. He pointed out that there had always been extreme outliers in both parties of Congress whose influence tended to be diluted by more moderate voices over time.”

But even Kristol acknowledged that Trump’s embrace could give QAnon a greater reach. “If Trump is the president, and he’s embracing this, are we so confident that it’s not the future?” Kristol wondered.

QAnon is a byproduct of the Trump era and is likely to be part of his lasting legacy, long outliving his presidency. QAnon is best understood as a myth that helps Trump supporters reconcile themselves to his manifest flaws as a man and political leader. Trump thrives on negative partisanship, which requires that he be seen as preferable to his rivals. Given numerous reports of his sexual predations and corruption, the only way he can be acceptable is if his foes have committed the worst crimes imaginable. The embryonic version of QAnon was Pizzagate, which painted Hillary Clinton as a leader of a child sex ring.

The current version of QAnon took off on social media in 2017 when Trump was enmeshed in the Russiagate investigation. The conspiracy theory emerged on 4chan, a message board that facilitates anonymous posting. “Q” claimed to be a high-level insider with “Q” security clearance who had information that the entire Mueller investigation was a false flag operation used by Trump to hide his war against powerful pedophiles. Again, it served a narrative function: Building on the Pizzagate story line, it portrayed Trump as a heroic battler against a “deep state” conspiracy, thus helping to wave away evidence of actual corruption. It’s no accident that prominent Russiagate figures like former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Trump crony Roger Stone have embraced QAnon.

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.


The current upsurge of QAnon is a response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As NBC news reports, “While QAnon bubbled on the fringes of the internet for years, researchers and experts say it has emerged in recent months as a sort of centralized hub for conspiracy and alternative health communities. According to an internal document reported by NBC News this week, Facebook now has more than 1,000 of these QAnon groups, totaling millions of members.”

The report goes on to note that social media users “who started off in wellness communities, religious groups and new-age groups on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram during the pandemic were then introduced to extremist groups like QAnon, aided by shared beliefs about energy, healing or God—and often by recommendation algorithms.”

QAnon has been resilient because it’s a myth that serves to explain Trump’s failures and wretched personal behavior. QAnon has helped recast a sexual predator as a covert fighter against pedophilia and an incompetent response to Covid-19 as a heroic battle against a pro-mask conspiracy.

If we understand QAnon as a conciliatory myth that evolves to excuse the horrific truth about Trump and Trumpism, then it is likely to have a long life after he is defeated. It’ll become a Lost Cause myth about how a great man was felled by a sinister conspiracy. Donald Trump Jr. has already shared an Instagram post suggesting that Joe Biden is a pedophile. The president’s son explained the post by saying he was only “joking around.”

QAnon is not a nonviolent movement. As Media Matters reports:

The QAnon conspiracy theory has been tied to multiple violent incidents and threats of violence, including a man accused of murdering his brother with a sword, a man accused of murdering an alleged crime boss, a man who reportedly threatened to kill YouTube employees, an armed man who blocked the Hoover Dam with an armored vehicle, and even a man who threatened to assassinate Trump, among numerous other incidents.

If Trump loses and QAnon evolves into a narrative about how a conspiracy of pedophiles won, then it’ll become even more violent than it already is.

QAnon is sometimes treated as if it were analogous to the Tea Party movement or the John Birch Society, a right-wing faction within the GOP coalition. But in fact it is much more violence-prone than those groups. It’s closer in spirit to terrorist organizations like the KKK, which had ties to political elites but also instigated extrajudicial violence.

Trump could leave the White House in January of next year, but QAnon will be with us for a long time to come.

Jeet HeerJeet Heer is a national affairs correspondent at The Nation and the author of In Love with Art: Francoise Mouly’s Adventures in Comics with Art Spiegelman (2013) and Sweet Lechery: Reviews, Essays and Profiles (2014).


To submit a correction for our consideration, click here.


Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Bernie Sanders has the right medicine for a country too sick to hold a convention

Bernie Sanders has the right medicine for a country too sick to hold a convention

This is exactly the right convention for our times.

by Dana Milbank

August 18, 2020 at 2:02 p.m. GMT+9


There are many losses to mourn since the pandemic, and President Trump’s woeful handling of it, shut down our lives — but the demise of the modern political convention is not among them.


Gone, mercifully, are the corporation-financed parties where lobbyists ply their trade and big donors buy access to public figures. Absent, thankfully, are the convention-floor pageantry and theatrics that haven’t meant a thing for decades. Missing, too, are the preening journalists bagging trophy interviews on media row. Vanished are the scores of interest groups threatening to withhold support if they don’t get their moments in the spotlight and their planks in a platform the nominee will eventually ignore.


As Democrats gather virtually for their 2020 political convention, they don’t have the luxury of a balloon-drop convention spectacle. None of us does. We are living in the worst of times. There is nothing to celebrate.


Instead, Democrats on Monday night gave us the somber moment we deserve: a recognition of the desperate condition Trump has put our country in, and a passionate call to action. Democrats of all variety — socialist and moderate, coastal and heartland, Black and White and Brown — may be geographically dispersed this week but they are uncommonly unified in one existential message.


“We are facing the worst public health crisis in 100 years and worst economic collapse since the Great Depression,” as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put it. “We have a president who is not only incapable of addressing these crises but is leading us down the path of authoritarianism.”


Sanders, once Biden’s most formidable primary opponent, became his most powerful advocate Monday night, demanding “a movement like never before” to fight for his former rival. “During this president’s term the unthinkable has become normal,” Sanders said, with a passion and urgency that eluded him in his 2016 support for the Democratic ticket.


“He has tried to prevent people from voting, undermined the U.S. Postal Service, deployed the military and federal agents against peaceful protestors, threatened to delay the election, and suggested that he will not leave office if he loses. This is not normal, and we must never treat it like it is. Under this administration authoritarianism has taken root in our country. I and my family and many of yours know the insidious way authoritarianism destroys democracy, decency and humanity. As long as I am here, I will work with progressives, with moderates and, yes, with conservatives to preserve this nation from a threat that so many of our heroes fought and died to defeat.”


Trump, who has governed by division, hoped for disunity among Democrats. “Great division between the Bernie Sanders crowd and the other Radical Lefties,” he tweeted Monday afternoon.


So he wishes. The Democratic Party — now joined by Republicans of conscience — has never been so unified. They are unified around Biden and his basic human decency. The resounding, reverberating message Monday night, and almost certainly for the rest of the week, is that Democrats are united in determination to end the catastrophe Trump’s presidency has been for the country.


“You have the most destructive, hateful, racist president in the history of the country who is tearing apart the fabric of the United States,” said former congressman Beto O’Rourke, another Biden rival for the nomination.


Kristin Urquiza, an Arizona woman whose Trump-supporting father died of covid-19, told the convention “his only preexisting condition was trusting Donald Trump, and for that he paid with his life.”


John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio and longtime Republican leader of Congress, declared that “we’re being taken down the wrong road by a president who has pitted one against another.”


New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo angrily pointed out “how many lives can be lost when our government is incompetent.”


And former first lady Michelle Obama closed the night with a portrait of America’s children seeing “our leaders labeling fellow citizens enemies of the state while emboldening white supremacists. They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown in cages, and pepper spray and rubber bullets are used on peaceful protesters for a photo op.”


Interspersed were memorials to some of the 170,000 Americans lost to the coronavirus, the many African Americans killed by police brutality, the infamous images of Trump throwing paper towels to hurricane survivors in Puerto Rico and holding a bible at his church photo-op, and testimonials from lifelong Republicans and former Trump voters who felt betrayed.


The virtual convention was undoubtedly weird, with actress Eva Longoria playing emcee and occasionally looking into the wrong camera, Biden himself attempting to lead a virtual roundtable, video and audio glitches, several pre-taped speeches and a couple of attempts at crowd applause using Zoom-style boxes.


Will any of it matter? Probably not. Biden already has a lead approaching double digits and can’t possibly get much more of a bounce. And the broadcast networks aired only an hour of the two-hour event — inexcusable stinginess at a time when other means of campaigning are impossible.


But give Democrats credit for capturing the moment — the infuriating reality of a great nation brought to its knees by a president who has botched twin crises and fomented rage and division.


“A president who fights his fellow Americans rather than fighting the virus that’s killing us,” said Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.


A president who isn’t “decent enough, stable enough, strong enough,” to get our economy back on track, said former Republican New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.


A man who “has not clue how to run a business, let alone a country,” said Republican businesswoman Meg Whitman.


But the most biting of all was the senator from Vermont, in front of neatly stacked firewood. “Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Trump golfs,” Sanders said. “His actions fanned this pandemic, resulting in 170,000 deaths, and a nation still unprepared to protect its people. Furthermore, Trump’s negligence has exacerbated the economic crisis we’re experiencing.”


In apocalyptic terms, Sanders made the case for his former opponent. “Joe Biden will end the hate and division Trump has created. He will stop the demonization of immigrants, coddling of white nationalists, racist dog-whistling, religious bigotry and the ugly attacks on women. My friends, I say to you, to everyone who supported other candidates in the primary, and to those who may have voted for Donald Trump in the last election: The future of our democracy is at stake. The future of our economy is at stake. The future of our planet is at stake. ... My friends, the price of failure is just too great to imagine.”


For a country too sick to hold a political convention, this is the right medicine.


Read more:


 

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Mitch McConnell Has Been Exposed as an Empty Suit


Mitch McConnell Has Been Exposed as an Empty Suit
by Charles P. Pierce, esquire.com
August 12, 2020 12:00 PM

Photo by: NICHOLAS KAMMGetty Images
The long view of history is going to conclude that the political genius of Mitch McConnell was strictly limited to his ability to muster a majority to employ every chokepoint in an 18th-century Constitution to make sure that a Black man who was elected to be president was not able to act fully as president. (He also managed to use a docile majority to lard up the federal bench with larval Scalias.) But now, as the Majority Leader of the Senate at a time of multiple national crises, McConnell has been exposed as the emptiest suit since Claude Rains’s pants ran down the street without him.

He has been both unwilling and unable to wrangle his majority behind even the shabbiest facsimile of an economic relief package, and every day he fails to do so attaches him more firmly to a corrupt and impotent presidency*. Judges aren’t going to count for everything ever. And now the Washington Post reports that even the powerful folks back in Kentucky have searched for their last nerve and found Mitch McConnell there, jumping on it.

The labor protest marked only the latest in a series of exasperated complaints from Kentuckians directed at McConnell (R), as some locals find themselves frustrated by the absence of their powerful political representative on Capitol Hill. In more than two dozen interviews, out-of-work residents, struggling restaurant owners and other business leaders, as well as a cadre of annoyed food, housing and labor rights groups, all said they are in dire need of more support from Congress — the likes of which McConnell has not been able to provide.
About five months after Kentucky reported its first loss of life from COVID-19, its economy continues to sputter amid the coronavirus pandemic. Many unemployed workers say their benefit checks aren’t enough to afford their bills, and some here simply have stopped looking for jobs. Businesses say they’re also hemorrhaging cash, and local governments fear they’re on the precipice of financial ruin, too. The economic tumult in Kentucky is vast, and it has added new urgency to the political standoff on Capitol Hill, where the prospect. of a prolonged deadlock could worsen the financial woes in a state that was hurting long before the pandemic arrived.
McConnell’s favorability numbers back home never have been as robust as a Senate Majority Leader’s ought to be and, nationally, the guy is cholera. The anger at him in Kentucky is starting to go national.

In the face of those financial difficulties, many Kentucky residents had counted on enhanced unemployment payments that offered them an additional $600 in weekly support. Congress authorized the aid program as part of the wide-ranging $2 trillion Cares Act that President Trump signed into law in late March. For residents such as Michael Holland, the additional federal aid offered a critical cushion. A contract industrial engineer by trade, the 59-year-old resident of Lexington had been wiring Amazon facilities and Toyota factories for years until the coronavirus crisis forced him off the job in February and into the ranks of the unemployed.
“There are some people, I’m sure, that are bringing home more than they were making before the pandemic,” Holland said. “But there’s also those of us who’s making a lot less. … What about those of us who need a job, and can’t get a job, because the coronavirus is coming back?” Holland, an independent voter, said McConnell in particular had only left him “madder,” adding: “Democrats and Republicans have made this a fricking political issue when it shouldn’t be political, it ought to be what’s best for the country.”
None of which should be taken as completely dispositive as regards McConnell’s re-election race against Democratic candidate Amy McGrath. Polls have danced all over the place for the past month, but McGrath still has a longer, harder road than many of her party’s other upset-minded hopefuls. But Mitch McConnell’s hour of influence on the national stage is passing swiftly. Right now, I’d say he isn’t even a good bet to be Senate Minority Leader next January.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics 

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Trump’s latest Social Security con by Helaine Olen,


Trump’s latest Social Security con
by Helaine Olen, washingtonpost.com
August 12, 2020 05:09 PM
There is a lot wrong with President Trump’s announcement on Saturday that he would order the federal government to cease collecting Social Security payroll taxes for the majority of workers for the rest of the year.

The move is quite possibly unconstitutional. It’s a logistical nightmare. Employers could get stuck owing money. Workers almost certainly will. It won’t do a thing to help the unemployed, who obviously don’t have a paycheck. It’s not a permanent suspension, but something more akin to an interest-free loan. As of right now, the money will need to be paid back.

All that’s bad. But here is the worst part: When combined with his comments that he would like to “terminate” the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, Trump is revealing yet another con. He’s not, as he’s claimed from the day he announced his run for president, going to save Social Security. Instead, Trump is promoting a scheme to weaken the program that keeps a majority of the elderly out of poverty.

And since this is Trump, he’s doing it just when the need for it to offer seniors an income is about to become more pressing than ever. (Also, in true Trump fashion, he picked his moment. This Friday is the 85th anniversary of the day President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. Talk about a birthday gift.)

According to research recently released by the Retirement Equity Lab at the New School (disclosure: where I serve as an editor for the publication Public Seminar) the covid-19 recession is pushing millions of Americans over the age of 55 into unemployment. They are, it turns out, more likely to lose their jobs than those younger than them. That, in turn, will likely lead to a sudden and unexpected retirement for many.

All of this leads to cascading financial effects, none of them good. People will draw down retirement savings at an age when they are harder to replace. Because older workers are more likely to have health concerns, they are more likely to shell out funds for expensive COBRA health insurance coverage, instead of narrow network but subsidized Affordable Care Act exchange plans. And, finally, they will sign up for Social Security retirement benefits at the first opportunity, at age 62, instead of waiting till they are 66-67, when they can receive full benefits, or 70, when they get a bonus — almost certainly leading to more straitened financial circumstances in old age.

For years, many experts have warned Americans that we are likely on the verge of a retirement crisis. The culprit: the decline of guaranteed pensions and the rise of the 401(k). As it turns out, many Americans did not put aside the recommended 10 to 15 percent of their salary in a workplace tax-deferred account — if they even had one, that is, as many workers lack one altogether. Figures released by Vanguard show the median 401(k) balance for those 55 to 64 is below $72,000. That’s not nothing, but it’s not enough to make people feel secure for more than 20 years of retirement.

One response to this reality? The less-than-accurate conviction of many workers — and not a few advice-givers — that they can work in fulfilling and well-paid positions well past traditional retirement age.

This is, as I’ve pointed out in the past, so much hogwash. All of us — except the very unlucky — will not only get old, but middle-aged, which is when age discrimination starts. Studies show that a majority of people exit the workforce earlier than they expect — sometimes due to health, but often because they are unable to regain their professional footing after a layoff. Age discrimination is an immense problem in almost every single profession, and it impacts women at earlier ages — think 40 — than men.

A more realistic approach than what Trump is offering? Payroll taxes should be increased — most certainly on earned income in excess of $137,700, which is where the social security tax cap is set now. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has contemplated cuts to the program in the past, is now also on record as supporting raising Social Security payments for the low-income, the widowed and those collecting benefits for more than two decades — in other words, the eldest of the elderly — and paying for it by subjecting earnings above $400,000 to payroll taxes.

But Trump is doing the opposite. He’s offering up a poisoned chalice. The pressure to make the payroll tax postponement permanent will be immense, especially as recession-wary Americans are preparing their 2020 returns. But the decision to do so will further undercut the Social Security trust funds. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand that will put the popular program in almost existential danger.

Daniel Hemel: Trump’s actions on pandemic relief aren’t illegal. They’re just ineffective.

Catherine Rampell: Trump’s inadvertent tax hike

Henry Olsen: Trump’s executive actions are overreach. The next president will likely do worse.

The Post’s View: Trump’s executive orders won’t cut it. Congress needs to make a deal.

Letters to the Editor: Trump’s payroll-tax executive order would hurt Social Security

Want The Washington Post to come to you? Explore all our email newsletter and alert options here.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

The Kamala Coalition by Ronald Brownstein

The Kamala Coalition
The Atlantic - Politics / by Ronald Brownstein / 22min
August 12, 2020 09:18 AM

In the final rally Joe Biden held before COVID-19 shut down the country in March, he clasped hands on a stage in Detroit with a group of emerging Democratic stars. “I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he declared a few minutes later. “There is an entire generation of leaders that you saw standing behind me. They are the future of this country.” Yesterday, Biden took a major step toward redeeming those words when he chose Senator Kamala Harris of California, one of the Democrats on that stage, as his vice-presidential nominee.

By selecting Harris, Biden has positioned the Democratic Party for a profound generational and demographic transition, and he’s addressed the fundamental incongruity of his candidacy: the inherent strain of a nearly 78-year-old white man leading a political coalition that relies on big margins among young voters, people of color, and women.

Biden represents the Democratic Party of his post–World War II coming of age: a coalition centered on blue-collar white people who worked with their hands, mostly in smaller industrial cities such as Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he was born. From almost every angle, Harris embodies the Democratic Party of the 21st century: a biracial child of immigrants (who is herself in an interracial marriage) who rose to political prominence from a base in San Francisco, a diverse, globalized hub of the emerging information economy.

Many obstacles still prevent women and people of color from achieving power in the Democratic Party’s leadership commensurate with their influence in its voting base. But Harris makes the concept of Biden as a bridge more concrete—and potentially more attractive to younger nonwhite voters displaying lagging enthusiasm for him—by embodying the other side of that span: a party that potentially makes more room at the table for people who look like her. “I think Kamala Harris has the potential to activate a voter that otherwise has not seen themself reflected in the Democratic Party,” says Terrance Woodbury, an African American Democratic consultant who studies younger voters.

[Read: Why Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris]

Many members of the Democrats’ “coalition of transformation,” including professional women, immigrants, and African Americans, can see aspects of their experience reflected in Harris’s life. That could make her a resonant symbol of the Democrats’ embrace of a changing America, and offer a rebuke—not only in her words but through her sheer presence—to a president who has openly wielded racist and sexist language. Yet the fact that she personifies the changing country so clearly will also make her a more tempting target than Biden for Trump and his allies, who are trying to convince the GOP’s “coalition of restoration” that a Democratic victory will threaten to erase the America they have known.

Attacks from the right won’t completely muffle complaints on the left either. As Woodbury and other activists note, Harris will “have some things to prove” with younger racial-justice advocates skeptical of her record as the district attorney of San Francisco and as California’s attorney general, particularly her reluctance to pursue prosecutions against law-enforcement officials involved in the killing of civilians. But no one I’ve spoken with disputes the power of Biden acknowledging that Black voters—especially Black women voters—deserve representation at the very apex of the Democratic Party’s leadership. Harris’s new role is especially meaningful because of the possibility that Biden, if he wins, might not run for reelection in 2024, which would position her as a front-runner, if not the front-runner, for the Democratic nomination that year.

When Biden made his announcement yesterday afternoon, I was on the phone with Aimee Allison, the founder of She the People, which advocates for advancing more women of color in the Democratic Party. We were discussing her ambivalent feelings about how Biden’s vice-presidential selection process had unfolded over the past few weeks. She considered the large number of Black women, and other women of color, considered for the position an overdue recognition of their pivotal role in the modern Democratic coalition. “For me, the VP discussion reflects a new way of thinking about and valuing the leadership of women of color,” she told me.

But she was frustrated and angered that several of the Black women candidates, particularly Harris, had faced what Allison saw as a hazing in the press from some older white male Democrats, including former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who was part of the small committee Biden had assigned to assess his choices. “What’s very clear is we have political institutions and a political culture that has a very unique way of tearing down women who are standing for leadership, who have impressive experience [and] come with impressive resumes, with a capacity to inspire voters in a way white guys can’t,” Allison told me. “The conversation was very racist and very sexist. It’s a problem. It’s a problem we have with Republicans. It’s a problem with Democrats. It’s bigger than a political party.”

Those words had barely left Allison’s mouth when the news broke that Biden had selected Harris. For a moment, she was overcome with emotion. “It’s pretty remarkable. I get emotional—she’s just made history,” she said, her voice cracking. Harris “stands on the shoulders of remarkable generations of Black women who have fought and bled for this moment.” The selection, she thought, showed that Biden meant what he said onstage in Detroit. “She represents a new America,” Allison told me. “She already knows how to speak to that language of solidarity, to that multiracial coalition. She is showing up in the moment we need. This is what the country needs.”

[Megan Garber: The world that Kamala Harris will navigate]

This ticket always seemed to some observers (myself included) the most logical choice for Democrats in their fight against Trump. That’s because the pairing reflects the party’s promising but tenuous position as demographic shifts inexorably transform the electorate. By any measure, Harris symbolizes a Democratic future rooted in groups and places that are growing as a share of society: the well-educated and diverse voters centered in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. A massive recent compilation of survey research by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that the non-college-educated white voters Biden grew up around now comprise only about three in 10 self-identified Democrats, while white voters with a four-year college degree or more constitute nearly as many. People of color represent the plurality, at about 40 percent of Democrats.

But because of lagging turnout among some of those people of color—and also because white voters without a college degree are overrepresented in key Rust Belt states—many Democrats concluded after 2016 that they needed a nominee who could win back working-class whites. A solid majority of Democratic primary voters, including all but the youngest African American voters, in effect hired Biden to perform that very specific job.

Polls have generally found that Biden is making at least some progress on that front. But he’s continually struggled to generate much excitement among younger people, especially those who are nonwhite. Many Democrats are hopeful that Harris will provide more of the spark with younger people of color that he has not (within the limits of the vice-presidential nominee’s capacity to influence the race).

In 2016, just 60 percent of eligible African American voters turned out, down from 67 percent in 2012, according to the Census Bureau. Kasim Reed, the African American former mayor of Atlanta, told me last night he is confident that Harris’s position—combined with antipathy toward Trump and Biden’s own connections with older Black voters—will ensure a dramatic rebound in Black participation. “I am going on the record that Black turnout is going to exceed President [Barack] Obama’s Black turnout,” Reed said. Harris’s selection “sends a very important message that high achievement and dedication matter.”

Others are more cautious about her potential to energize younger voters. Harris is a demographic bridge between Biden and the modern Democratic Party, but she’s not nearly as much of an ideological bridge. Though she ran sharply to the left during the early stages of her unsteady presidential bid, her record, like Biden’s, is fundamentally moderate.

Stanley B. Greenberg, the veteran Democratic pollster, told me, overall, he believes that Harris will boost Biden. “I think this will be viewed as real, historic, and likely to be helpful to him in many ways,” Greenberg said. “It will look like a generational change, like someone who is in touch with the country, who can prosecute the case against the administration and against [Mike] Pence” during the vice-presidential debate this fall.

[Read: Joe Biden’s vice president could be the most powerful in history]

But to the extent that lagging youth enthusiasm for Biden represents ideological suspicion of him, Greenberg said, Harris isn’t likely to solve the problem. Instead, that will probably require sustained engagement from other, more liberal figures in the party, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Uncertainty about Biden’s and Harris’s commitment to the full slate of ambitious policing and civil-rights reforms pushed by many racial-justice advocates threatens friction if the ticket wins, Steve Phillips, the founder of the advocacy group Democracy in Color, predicts. “These are people who have been strong voices for far-reaching change, and they have found a lot of leaders, including Kamala, wanting,” he told me.

But he believes that between now and November, those concerns will be eclipsed by the powerful message Biden has sent about “the centrality of African Americans in general, and Black women in particular” to the Democratic Party. “I think that given the depth and the pervasiveness of the … racism and sexism of this president, to be able to put up a strong, unapologetic, culturally relevant woman of color is really going to resonate with people,” Phillips said.

This far into Biden’s career, it’s unlikely that Democrats would have picked him as their nominee in any circumstance other than the pressing need many saw to recapture working-class white voters from Trump. Even in this environment, there’s little chance that the grassroots movements focused on racial justice, climate, and gun control (among other issues) will turn to him for inspiration or direction. “If we look at Biden for leading, we are going to be disappointed,” Allison said. “He himself has evolved as a candidate and a leader, but he needs to be surrounded by especially women of color that can speak to the issues of racial and gender justice in a way that I don’t think he’s able to do.”

Biden’s inner circle has tilted heavily toward older white men, but by choosing Harris, he’s taken one significant step toward acknowledging his need to open more doors to younger and more racially diverse leaders. Many activists of color were deeply frustrated this year that, even with the party’s most diverse presidential field ever, all of the race’s finalists were white candidates in their 70s: Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Harris’s selection won’t eliminate all the structural inequities that produced that incongruous result. But whether Biden wins or loses in November, her nomination may be remembered as a moment when the pinnacle of Democratic Party leadership came to more closely resemble the base of voters that elects it to power. Even as the GOP at every level remains dominated by white men—starting with Trump and Pence—the Democrats haven’t nominated a presidential ticket of two white men since 2004. It’s difficult to imagine when they ever will again.

SHARE
VISIT WEBSITE

Trump’s Stimulus Strategy Has Already Failedby Jonathan Bernstein


Trump’s Stimulus Strategy Has Already Failed
by Jonathan Bernstein, bloomberg.com
August 12, 2020 06:33 AM

Think this one through.
Photo by: Photographer: Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg
Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.

Last week, I said that President Donald Trump would only walk away from stimulus-bill negotiations and attempt self-destructive executive actions if he somehow thought that the economy would thrive without new federal support, a dubious proposition according to most economists.

As it turns out, Trump wasn’t bluffing. But there’s now another theory about what he — or at least what his chief of staff, Mark Meadows — is up to. And it’s even more concerning than bad economics.

Politico reported on Tuesday that “the administration feels confident they have the upper hand politically. One official said the White House feels it has Democrats in a ‘real pickle’ and if they try and block the executive actions they will look like they are trying to hurt people.”

Got it? Team Trump thinks that they’ve set the perfect trap for Democrats to walk into. First, remove the support that’s propping up the economy. Then claim that executive action, even if it’s not necessarily legal, can fix everything. Then wait for Democrats to challenge it in courts, and … Boom! Democrats get the blame for economic collapse.

You may have noticed a few problems with this plan. In fact, it’s all problems.

One is that it’s not clear that Trump’s executive actions are actually going to work. Employees may never see the effects of the payroll-tax holiday he has proposed. His idea for expanded unemployment-insurance benefits may never get off the ground. And his protection against evictions, which Trump touted at his press conference Tuesday as a substantial accomplishment? It’s just a suggestion to the bureaucracy to look into the issue. Hard to see how Trump’s orders are an effective trap against Democrats if they fail of their own accord.

Another problem is the one I talked about last week: Even if they’re more or less successful, Trump’s actions aren’t likely to impress voters. Trump can brag about them all he wants, but even if his orders are implemented, unemployed workers will be seeing their benefits cut from previous levels. They’re hardly likely to reward Trump for that. And the payroll-tax holiday is an invitation to Democrats to attack him for harming Social Security, something that former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign was quick to do.

But the biggest problem with this strategy is that spin doesn’t matter; results matter. If a failure to reach a deal on new pandemic relief and stimulus measures leads to a worse economy, then the incumbent will almost certainly suffer, no matter how clever his attempts are to blame everybody else. Everything we know about voters suggests that (in the aggregate) they reward incumbents for good times and punish them for bad times. They don’t care who blames who; that’s mostly Washington noise, especially for those most likely to shift their votes or to not vote at all, who tend to be the least likely to carefully follow political news.

Is Trump really following this strategy? It’s not clear what he’s thinking. But it’s no surprise that Meadows, who’s pushing the plan, would engineer a train wreck that he mistakenly thought would help his side politically; after all, he often did so while in the House. And that suggests one of Trump’s biggest weaknesses as president. It doesn’t seem likely that he chose Meadows as his fourth chief of staff in order to relive the 2018 government shutdown, which was one of the low points of his administration. It’s more likely that Trump picked him because Meadows flattered him in person or on TV, or that he looked the part in Trump’s mind. But personnel are policy, and when you choose someone as chief of staff who favors schemes that don’t make sense even if they go right, you wind up with schemes that don’t make sense even if they go right.

The result is bad news for the economy and, most likely, for Trump’s re-election chances.

1. Chryl Laird on Senator Kamala Harris and Black women in U.S. politics.

2. Dan Drezner on the trade war with China.

3. Tom Holbrook on convention bumps.

4. Eric McGhee and Jennifer Paluch on the census.

5. Caroline Kitchener speaks with Nadia Brown about Harris.

6. Ryan Goodman and Asha Rangappa on Senator Ron Johnson and disinformation.

7. And Reid Wilson on Harris as the first politician from west of the Rockies on a Democratic national ticket. At least, as he notes, if you don’t count President Barack Obama, who is from Hawaii but represented Illinois. This is partly just happenstance, but it also is a good reminder of how the Democrats were a Southern-based party for a long time — and how, even after that, they put a lot of effort into retaining Southern votes.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net

Published on
Comments 0