Wednesday, September 30, 2020

The Big Health Care Lie You Could Barely Hear In The First Presidential Debate

 The Big Health Care Lie You Could Barely Hear In The First Presidential Debate


Sept. 29, 2020 11:54 pm ET

Once again, Donald Trump tried to make Americans forget he’s threatening the Affordable Care Act’s protections for preexisting conditions.

By Jonathan Cohn

Health care was the first big flash point in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, although it was hard to follow because it played out like every other exchange in the 90-minute event: with interruptions, non sequiturs and over-talk from President Donald Trump.


Behind that cacophony, however, was a real and urgent issue: the future of the Affordable Care Act and what will happen to the millions of people who depend upon it. 


Former Vice President Joe Biden accused Trump of undermining protections for people with preexisting conditions. Trump responded by insisting “we guaranteed preexisting conditions” ― a brazen, if familiar, lie.


Trump has repeatedly tried to take away the Affordable Care Act’s guarantees of coverage for people with preexisting conditions. Most recently, he ordered the Justice Department to endorse a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality ― a lawsuit whose outcome is a lot more uncertain now that Trump has nominated arch-conservative Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.


That possibility is why health care is suddenly getting a lot more attention in the campaign, and undoubtedly why Biden kept bringing it up on Tuesday. 


Polls have shown, consistently and conclusively, that the public does not want the Affordable Care Act thrown out. Whatever their thoughts about “Obamacare,” voters want its expansions of insurance and protections for preexisting conditions to stay in place.


Trump knows that, too. It’s why he keeps insisting he wouldn’t take that coverage and those protections away ― and, presumably, why he kept interrupting Biden. But the record is clear.


Trump Backed And Celebrated The 2017 GOP Repeal Bill

Trump spent the first few months of his presidency urging the Republican Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In May 2017, after weeks of back-and-forth, the House passed a repeal bill called the American Health Care Act.


Trump famously celebrated that vote in the Rose Garden, with House Republicans as his guests. “This is a great plan,” he said. 


That bill would have reduced government spending, freeing up money for tax cuts, thus fulfilling longtime Republican goals. But it proposed to do so by taking huge sums out of Medicaid and reducing spending on subsidies for people buying private insurance. 


The House bill also proposed to let states waive rules on how insurers sell and price their policies. With state approval, insurers could have gone back to charging higher premiums to people with serious medical conditions ― to the point of making coverage unavailable.


The number of people without insurance would have ultimately increased by 23 million, the Congressional Budget Office predicted. (The number may have been too high, but there’s no question the bill would have led to significant coverage losses.)


As for people with preexisting conditions, here’s what CBO predicted would happen, word for word:  “People who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive non-group health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all.”


To be clear, some people would have saved some money. In particular, those in relatively good health or willing to take their chances with thinner coverage would see their premiums come down, sometimes dramatically.


But some people with serious medical conditions or looking to keep comprehensive coverage would have owed more ― so much more, in some instances, that they couldn’t get insurance at all. 


Subscribe to the Politics email.

From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.

That’s the opposite of protecting people with preexisting conditions.


Trump Is Backing The Lawsuit Before The Supreme Court

The other telling detail about Trump’s intentions is the one in the news now: the new lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. Conservative state officials filed the lawsuit two years ago. Its core arguments are so weak that even lawyers, activists and writers who supported previous legal challenges to the law have urged courts to reject it. But a federal district judge ruled in its favor and, by a 2-to-1 vote, a circuit court panel upheld the underlying argument.


The Supreme Court plans to hear the case on Nov. 10.


The Court rejected two previous challenges to the Affordable Care Act, but in both cases it was Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals. Saving the law now would require at least one more conservative to join him, and the potential vote of Barrett, who criticized earlier decisions upholding the law, is hard to predict. Trump appointed Barrett, well aware of her record, and said just last week that he hopes the court rules against the Affordable Care Act this time.


Instructing the Justice Department to file a brief in favor of the challenge was an especially unusual move, given that the administration in power usually defends federal laws, even those it doesn’t like. One widely respected career lawyer at the Justice Department actually resigned from his post over it.


Trump’s latest effort to wipe out the Affordable Care Act might very well fail, simply because even judges with previously expressed animus to the law may have little tolerance for such a shoddy argument. 


But it’s not a sure thing, thanks to Trump. If he doesn’t manage to kill off the Affordable Care Act and its preexisting condition protections, it won’t be for lack of trying.


Trump Keeps Repeating These Ludicrous Attacks on Voting By Mail


Trump Keeps Repeating These Ludicrous Attacks on Voting By Mail
by Ed Kilgore, nymag.com
September 29, 2020 04:14 PM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
In scholastic debates, one frequently deployed technique for winning a contest without really winning the argument is called “spreading,” which involves tossing so many points out there that your opponent fails to respond to them all. It helps if the “spreader” isn’t inhibited by facts, logic, or syntax, which is why it’s a likely tactic for Donald Trump in his debates with Joe Biden. Nobody tosses up a word salad like the 45th president.

Since one of the preannounced topics for the first debate is “the integrity of the election,” it would not be surprising if Trump were to dump a boatload of mendacious claims about voting by mail into the mix. In fact, he may have been rehearsing it at a Sunday press briefing where we heard some old, and new, howlers. Let’s categorize them with a degree of organization the president failed to use in presenting them.

Here’s Trump on Sunday, per the White House transcript:

We are gravely concerned about the Democrat assault on election integrity. In Brooklyn, 25 percent of mail-in ballots were ruled invalid in June’s Democrat primary. You saw that. In a special election in New Jersey, 20 percent of the ballots were thrown out … This is all in the mail-ballots.

Thirty-five thousand mail-in ballots were rejected in Florida’s primary, and one hundred thousand were rejected in California, and that’s just the beginning.

I guess the implication here is supposed to be that somehow Democratic election officials are selectively rejecting mail ballots based on the partisan leanings of the voters casting them (though the election machinery is in Republican hands in Florida and a number of other states with high rejection rates). If so, they’re getting it wrong, since rejection rates are significantly higher for Democratic-leaning voter groups.

More fundamentally, high rejection rates are hardly signs of “fraud,” since they generally flow from overzealous enforcement of measures designed to prevent fraud, typically promoted by Trump’s own party. Far and away the most common reason for rejecting mail ballots is missed deadlines; all over the country, Trump’s Republican allies are in court fighting extensions of deadlines to allow ballots mailed by Election Day but received later to be counted. Another common ground for rejection is signature-verification problems; Democrats are battling Republicans in many places to give voters with flawed signatures or other identification requirements a chance to “cure” the flaws with clear evidence of their identity and eligibility. Again, the idea is to reconcile voting rights with reasonable ballot security requirements. For Trump, it’s just a random negative statistic about voting by mail.

Next up, we’ve got counting delays. Trump said:

A week after Pennsylvania’s primary, half of the counties were still counting ballots, and you’ll be counting them here because this is a much bigger version of all of that …

And you can forget about November 3rd, because you’re going to be counting these things forever. And it’s very dangerous for our country.

Part of the reason mail ballots take a long time to count is that a number of states won’t allow election officials to process them (much less tabulate them) until Election Day. Guess which party is defending that practice in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? The Republican legislatures in those states. If you don’t want a slow count, let it start as early as possible. But here’s a classic Trumpian non sequitur on vote-counting delays:

In Iowa Caucuses last winter, you know what happened there. You all reported on it, I think, very well. Right? Do you remember that one? It was not good, right? But in Iowa, they still don’t really know who the winner was. I think they called somebody eventually, but it was many, many weeks later. But they really have no idea, and that’s being — continues to be — and that’s little, that’s just a small — it continues to be litigated in Iowa. They can’t run a simple caucus, yet now they’re trying to radically write election laws nationwide, just weeks before the presidential election.

Aside from the fact that Iowa Democrats do, in fact, know who won the Caucuses, comparing one party-run caucus with famously complicated rules for tabulating results to state-run general elections around the country is absurd. So too is the claim that fighting voter-suppression measures in court and seeking deadline relief during a continuing pandemic means “radically [rewriting] election laws nationwide.”

A frequent Trump lie involves states easing voting-by-mail application procedures to reflect the COVID-19 pandemic. He hit that point again on Sunday:

They want to require all states to do mail-in balloting, right? I call it “unsolicited.” Some people call it “universal.” I think “universal” doesn’t make sense, because nobody understands why universal. So it’s “unsolicited.” They want unsolicited mail-in ballots. In other words, you send these ballots to whoever you can think of.

This claim is a real mess. All states “do” mail-in balloting. A handful “do” voting by mail exclusively (and “did” before the pandemic hit), and even they typically have in-person alternatives available. Nobody is sending mail ballots “to whoever you can think of.” California, for example, responded to COVID-19 risks by mailing a ballot to every active registered voter, which wasn’t a big change, because over 70 percent of Californians voted by mail anyway in this year’s pre-pandemic primary. Most of the changes Trump is complaining about involve sending mail-ballot applications to all registered voters; they still have to fill them out, send them in and then fill out and mail in the ballots themselves with whatever signature-matching rules a particular state happens to have. It’s as far from being a random process as possible.

When all else fails, though, Trump relies on fraud anecdotes that don’t amount to a hill of beans at the foot of Mount Everest. He continued:

Just last week, a number of discarded military ballots were discovered in Pennsylvania. All of the recovered ballots — these were ballots that were thrown out — had been cast for a person named Donald J. Trump.

In Wisconsin, three trays of mail containing absentee ballots were found in a ditch; they were thrown in a ditch. Three trays.

In North Carolina, voters are reporting receiving two ballots in the mail. Many — many voters. I hear it’s thousands, but they’re getting two ballots. I wonder if those are Democrat areas, because the word is they are.

As CNN noted, the Pennsylvania case involved nine ballots. Nine. The Wisconsin case was a postal-service screwup in which mail ballots were collateral damage, and “three trays” is not that much in the context of a statewide election. And the 500 — not “thousands” — of North Carolinians receiving two ballots cannot cast more than one without evading additional safeguards and committing a felony.

It all adds up to a nonsensical case for questioning the legitimacy of many millions of perfectly legal mail ballots, which it appears the president wants to do in order to claim victory based on the in-person voting his partisans are expected to dominate. We’ll soon know which of these arguments Trump is repeating during the debates — and, worse yet, on and after Election Night.

Trump’s Tax Returns Show Lying Is His Only Marketable Skill


Trump’s Tax Returns Show Lying Is His Only Marketable Skill
by Jonathan Chait, nymag.com
September 29, 2020 10:19 AM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
The revelations about Donald Trump’s finances obtained by the New York Times have produced two distinct reactions. One is that he’s a terrible, failing businessman, and the other is that he’s a tax cheat. Seen in one light, the two interpretations are in tension. “The reporters can’t seem to decide if Mr. Trump is a shark exploiting the White House for personal gain or a sap who is bleeding cash while in office,” argues a Wall Street Journal editorial. “Brilliant or bumpkin? Make up your mind.”

But there is a different way to think about Trump’s career, which is that he is a brilliant con man, who has, throughout his career in business and politics alike, honed the singular skill of identifying marks and exploiting them with spectacular lies.

The new Times scoops merely flesh out the story that emerged in its revelatory 2018 report, which we now know came about with the cooperation of his niece, Mary Trump. That story reconstructs the creation of Trump’s image from the beginning. It is one of the most successful cons — and almost surely the most historically significant — in American history. For reasons I’ve never understood, its implications have not been absorbed.

In the mid-1970s, the Trump family set out to sell the world on a character of its own creation: Donald J. Trump, dashing and brilliant business genius. The story’s protagonist was the child of multimillionaire developer Fred Trump, a son who had accomplished almost nothing in business, and whose taxable income was under $25,000. The trick was quite simple: young Donald would squire reporters around his father’s business empire and claim he had built it himself.

In 1976, the Times produced a profile ushering the young star onto the stage. “He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates,” gushed a profile. “He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth ‘more than $200 million.’”

In reality, Donald Trump was in the money-inheriting business. In 2018, the Times revealed to its readers that this entire profile was a “spectacular con.” Forty-two years earlier, Trump had carefully taken the Times reporter through a Potemkin village of his father’s wealth:

In the chauffeured Cadillac, Donald Trump took the Times reporter on a tour of what he called his “jobs.” He told her about the Manhattan hotel he planned to convert into a Grand Hyatt (his father guaranteed the construction loan), and the Hudson River railroad yards he planned to develop (the rights were purchased by his father’s company). He showed her “our philanthropic endeavor,” the high-rise for the elderly in East Orange (bankrolled by his father); an apartment complex on Staten Island (owned by his father); their “flagship,” Trump Village, in Brooklyn (owned by his father); and finally, Beach Haven Apartments (owned by his father). Even the Cadillac was leased by his father.

The strategy was to convert Fred Trump’s fortune into publicity, which Donald could then monetize. The lies used to construct Trump’s image were massive. In 1984, Donald concocted a series of lies to persuade Forbes he was worth $900 million. Its reporter, Jonathan Greenberg, diligently unraveled every exaggeration and reduced the published sum to $100 million, only to discover decades later that the actual amount was a mere $5 million. The power of the lie was its scale. Greenberg could imagine Trump was exaggerating his wealth tenfold, but the idea he was exaggerating it 180-fold beggared imagination.

Trump’s career as a real-estate magnate failed, and he fell into bankruptcy as his father’s inheritance eventually ran dry. But as the second installment of the Times reports on his taxes shows, he revived his career by monetizing the publicity he had so carefully seeded. He developed a brand as a television star portraying a business genius. He lent his name to a dizzying array of products, from detergent to double-stuff Oreos. The image had become the business itself.

While Donald was never able to equal his father’s prowess as a builder and landlord, his talent as a confidence man far surpassed it. Trump leveraged his fame into a series of scams: “Trump University” (a fake real-estate-training seminar designed to bleed its victims dry); the “Trump Network” (selling its targets urine-testing systems, which would be used to direct them to buy overpriced vitamins); using the “Trump Foundation” as a racket to funnel supposedly charitable funds into his pocket, and so on.

At times, these scams have edged close to outright criminality. At other times, they have crossed over the line. Trump is currently under investigation for tax fraud. And, as law professor and tax expert Daniel Shaviro argues, the information in Trump’s recent returns strongly suggests more outright fraud — deductions like hairstyling and a country estate seem to violate black-letter rules governing tax deductions.

The arc of Trump’s career has been to exploit a series of victims, pocket his winnings, and use them to find new ones. He lied to a series of reporters, built and sold an image as a brilliant deal-maker, scammed his fans out of their money, and lied to the government about his income.

Trump’s political career is a natural step in the progression, one he had been contemplating for decades. The Republican Party was a perfect vehicle for a character like Trump. The mainstream media had grown steadily more resistant to his lies, but the conservative media ecosystem was fertile terrain, a propaganda machine so attuned to his needs that he didn’t even need to try to fool them. Whatever lies other Republicans would spout about Barack Obama or climate change or the wonder-working powers of tax cuts, Trump would exceed them. From Fox News to Hugh Hewitt to the anti-anti-Trumpers, his acolytes simply did not care whether anything he said was true.

Trump (or, more precisely, his ghostwriter) once claimed, “Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals.” The last four years have made it apparent Trump is bad at striking deals, despite being free of the burden of having principles. Deals are not his art form.

Lying is. Lying is how he rebuilt his fortune after he ran through his inheritance, and how he kept his head above water financially. Lying may or may not be enough to get him a second term, or even to keep him out of prison. But if you are betting that Trump’s lies will stop working, you are betting against the evidence of his entire adult life.

Trump’s Returns Make Case for Funding the Tax Police


Trump’s Returns Make Case for Funding the Tax Police
by Eric Levitz, nymag.com
September 29, 2020 08:46 AM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
The U.S. government is on pace to lose $7.5 trillion to unpaid taxes over the next decade.

If the Internal Revenue Service fully enforced America’s existing (historically lenient) tax laws, Congress could establish universal public day care, tuition-free college, paid family leave, and a national high-speed rail system — while simultaneously bringing every household in the nation above the poverty line through direct cash support — without raising taxes or increasing the deficit by a single cent.

Yet our elected representatives have been working diligently to leave this money on the table (and/or in the Cayman Islands). Since the tea party–wave election in 2010, Congress has cut the IRS’s enforcement budget by 25 percent — and compelled the agency to concentrate its newly scarce investigatory funds on preventing ineligible poor people from securing state support through the earned income tax credit (EITC). As a result, there’s never been a better time for American fat cats to stiff Uncle Sam.

In Donald Trump’s tax returns, one can find colorful illustrations of a wide variety of American social ills. As reported by the New York Times, the president’s filings spotlight the obscene regressivity of the U.S. tax code, the supremacy of image over reality in our nation’s popular culture, and the inequities in who can and cannot secure access to credit in private financial markets, among other things. But the civic sickness that Trump’s returns spotlight most vividly is the one outlined above: our government’s willful failure to hold the superrich accountable to its tax laws.

Previous reporting from the Times already provided probable cause for believing that the Trump family violated the law so as to evade taxes on intergenerational wealth transfers. The paper’s new exposé suggests that Trump fraudulently claimed a tax refund worth $72.9 million. This sum was, apparently, sufficient to raise eyebrows at the IRS, which launched an audit of Trump’s claim in 2011. And yet, for reasons that remain opaque, that audit still has not been resolved. The nature of the holdup is unclear. But it seems safe to assume that a properly funded tax-collection agency would be capable of ascertaining the legitimacy of a single tax refund in nine years’ time.

Meanwhile, Trump’s tax records are replete with gaming that straddles the line between “against the spirit of the law” and “against the law.” His apparent practice of reducing his family’s tax liabilities — while simultaneously increasing their effective income — by laundering “consulting fees” to his daughter and writing off a wide array of personal consumption as business expenses may well cross over into outright illegality. Regardless, in a nation where billionaires’ tax violations were tightly policed — and meaningfully punished — the incentive for families like the Trumps to push the envelope on creative accounting would be greatly diminished.

One can reasonably argue that the real scandal in Trump’s tax documents is what’s legal. Over the past four decades, the effective tax rates paid by America’s superrich have plummeted, even as their share of pretax income gains has skyrocketed. By some estimates, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower percentage of their earnings to the U.S. Treasury than the working poor. Meanwhile, according to one recent study from the Rand Corporation, had national income growth been distributed as evenly over the past 45 years as it was in 1975 (instead of being shifted toward those at the top), the median wage in the U.S. would be nearly double what it is today. In such an alternative economic universe, the bottom 90 percent of U.S. households would have earned $2.5 trillion more last year. As is, those trillions in annual market income accrue to the rich, who are then taxed at a fraction of the rate that their less-lavishly compensated predecessors face.

All this said, Trump’s returns are not a textbook example of plutocratic tax avoidance. It is not unusual for an American plutocrat to pay a lower tax rate than an ordinary worker. But it is deeply odd for a billionaire to pay less in federal taxes in absolute terms than the typical schoolteacher; for a billionaire to pay less than $800 in federal taxes is outright bizarre. Loopholes and regressive giveaways in the tax code abetted Trump’s tax avoidance. But a well-earned sense of impunity made it possible for the mogul to take his machinations to such unseemly extremes.

Progressives would be wise to emphasize this point. The Democratic Party’s growing reliance on affluent voters — and its persistent terror of backlash to broad-based tax increases — has led Joe Biden to forswear raising rates on those who earn less than $400,000. At the same time, superstitious fears of the national debt limit moderate Democratic senators’ appetites for deficit-financed social spending. In this context, the hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue that could be generated merely through the enforcement of existing laws are a vital tool for expanding the bounds of political possibility.

Tax enforcement is never going to be perfect. And a comprehensive approach to combating evasion will require a great deal of international cooperation. But the IRS has grown so feeble, large sums of revenue can be secured through modest investments in our domestic tax-collection apparatus. At present, the agency doesn’t merely fail to scrutinize the dodgy tax filings it takes in, it also fails to sanction one-third of the high-income Americans who decline to file any tax documents at all. Between 2014 and 2016, 300,000 U.S. residents with incomes above $100,000 decided not to file their taxes and suffered no consequences. If the IRS merely sought to collect the money it’s owed by high-income non-filers — a relatively cheap and easy form of enforcement — it would reap more than $100 billion in revenue over the coming decade, according Summers and Sarin’s calculations.

If the agency reinvested that money into building out its broader enforcement capacities, Summers and Sarin estimate that it would reel in over $1 trillion in new revenue by 2030. Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti argues that this is an underestimate, and that the agency could realistically generate $1.6 trillion, were its enforcement functions properly funded. Add that onto Biden’s proposed tax increases on the wealthy, and the amount of new social welfare that Democrats could enact, without raising taxes on the middle class or adding to the deficit, dramatically expands.

What’s more, cracking down on superrich tax evaders is a “pay for” that’s a political winner, in and of itself. A supermajority of Americans favor higher taxes on the rich. The percentage of voters who believe that the wealthy should be allowed to violate existing tax laws, even as ordinary Americans get hounded by the IRS, is surely miniscule.

It’s unclear whether the exposure of Trump’s tax dodging will cost him any votes. But Democrats should see to it that it costs his fellow miserly plutocrats billions of dollars. It’s past time for America’s rich to pay the government what’s due, so that the government can start paying down its unmet obligations to America’s working class.

Will Fox News Save Democracy With an Accurate Election Night Call?


Will Fox News Save Democracy With an Accurate Election Night Call?
by Ed Kilgore, nymag.com
September 29, 2020 06:29 AM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Fox’s most famous viewer was very pleased with this call on Election Night in 2016.
Those who want to dismiss the red mirage scenario of an early Trump victory claim on Election Night attributable to a big partisan tilt in voting methods have on occasion assured us Chicken Littles that the great big adults of the mainstream media will stop that by refusing to call the election for Trump if their “decision desks” see contradictory data. A more concrete assurance has now been offered by the New York Times’ Ben Smith, who has profiled the decision-desk captain of Fox News, the TV network most likely to accept instructions from the White House to cook the books on Election Night:

[A] new office on the third floor of [Fox News’] headquarters on the Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, known by employees as the “nerdquarium.” That’s where a prickly, bespectacled 65-year-old named Arnon Mishkin and his staff of data-crunching wonks will come to work on Election Day. And this Nov. 3, Mr. Mishkin may be the last bulwark against the most frightening prophecies of electoral insanity.

Mr. Mishkin runs Fox News’s “decision desk,” the team responsible for telling Fox viewers — also known as Donald Trump’s base — who won the election. The team and its sister polling unit are among the few endeavors at Fox that have proven immune to the president’s takeover of the network. Mr. Mishkin is a straight shooter — a registered Democrat who told me he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and is paid as a consultant, not as a Fox employee.

“There will be no one putting their finger on the scale in either direction,” he told me with matter-of-fact confidence[.]

Part of the argument Smith makes is that Fox News is too disorganized to put anyone in a position to make Mishkin a liar — or drive him to publicly blow the whistle on an order from The Top to cut Trump some slack. That is a rebuttable presumption at best. But Mishkin does have some street cred thanks to his famous refusal to bend to televised intimidation from Karl Rove on Election Night in 2012, when the decision desk pushed back at the Mishkin’s efforts to dispute a “call” of Ohio — and thus the election — for Barack Obama.

As Smith notes, a refusal by the Fox decision desk to ratify a Trump “victory” based on a grossly premature slice of votes will likely produce an on-air backlash far stronger than Rove could muster:

The nightmare scenario goes like this: It’s a close race, and Mr. Trump leads in the early vote count in Pennsylvania, and needs just that state to win the election. Tens of thousands of votes are still untallied, and the counting may take weeks — but Mr. Trump has already declared that he’s been re-elected. He’s demanding that Fox do the same, making calls to Fox Corporation’s co-chairman, Rupert Murdoch, or working back channels to the executive who effectively runs the network, Viet Dinh. Mr. Trump’s most loyal acolytes at Fox, the prime-time hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, are backing the president’s claim on the air. And Fox faces the temptation it often succumbs to: offering its audience the alternate reality it wants.

That’s not exactly right: The more likely scenario is an Election Night with Trump leading in multiple battleground states with perhaps a third to half of the total vote still uncounted. While the White House would lift heaven and earth to secure a major-network endorsement of an Election Night victory claim — thus neutralizing all the other news organizations’ determinations with we said/they said confusion — Trump’s Fox News friends could probably generate enough triumphalist noise to offset any sober pushback from the decision desk. And that would still set the stage for a Trump campaign effort to delegitimize or stop the counting of mail ballots later.

What would really throw sand in the gears of any Trump effort to steal the election would be decision-desk announcements that Biden would ultimately win, once heavily Democratic mail ballots are completely tabulated, even with Trump leading in the raw vote. There could well be data to support such an unprecedented claim. Check out these numbers from a new Times/Siena poll of (yes) Pennsylvania:

In a harbinger of a deeply lopsided election night/week count: Biden leads 75-18 among voters who have requested an absentee ballot, while Trump leads by 8 among voters who have not done so

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn)
At present, since Pennsylvania cannot begin to process, much less count, mail ballots until Election Day, the odds are very high that the above configuration would produce a temporary Trump lead certain to give way to a later Biden win. The models decision desks deploy, which combine exit polling of in-person voters with traditional opinion polling of those who vote by mail, should show that pretty clearly.

Would Mishkin and his Fox News superiors have the chutzpah to call an election for Biden with Trump in the lead, particularly with the president and his allies bellowing that all those subsequent mail-in ballots will be skewed by Democratic fraud? That’s the true acid test. Otherwise the country could drift into a post-November 3 twilight world in which “both sides” are making equally complicated claims as lawsuits to shut down and protect vote-counting swirl, protesters clash in the streets, and the December 8 deadline for certifying electoral votes approaches.

The Hate at the Heart of Conspiracy Theory

The Hate at the Heart of Conspiracy Theory

This essay is based, in part, on David French’s new book: Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation. He will discuss its themes with our community on September 29th, from 8 pm Eastern Time. Please join Persuasion as a Founding Member to take part in the conversation and our other amazing book clubs.

Subscribe
Something bothers me about the most common explanations for why conspiracy theories are spreading on the American right. When trying to account for the rise of the Q-Anon movement, for example, pundits and social scientists tend to use terms like “distrust.” But to understand how so many Americans can believe that “they” have dark and evil designs, we need to resort to a more primal emotion: hate.

Here’s what I mean. I don’t trust my car dealer. When it comes to matters like car pricing, car repairs, and car warranties, I adopt Ronald Reagan’s mantra from the days of the Cold War: “Trust, but verify.” 

But though I don’t trust my car dealer, I don’t dislike anyone at the dealership. So if you told me that the guy who sold me my 2018 Honda Accord was part of a global pedophile ring that cannibalizes slaughtered children—central elements of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory—my first response would be total confusion. Distrust alone wouldn’t come close to preparing me to hear those words. I’d have to hate him before I believed something so evil.

To be sure, conspiracy theories are nothing new in American life. But I’m continually stunned by how gross the allegations now shared by many Americans—including plenty of people I know—are. There are the occasional references to Q. But there are also claims that the lockdowns were implemented for the sole purpose of destroying the economy and harming Donald Trump, or that the virus “will go away” the day after the election. 

Behind it all is a simple conviction, an unstated premise that lends credibility to any claim, however outlandish: “they” are so evil and so loathsome that they’d happily unleash an epidemic on the world or crush the livelihoods of millions merely to obtain a political advantage. 

These are not the convictions of a healthy society. These are the convictions of people consumed by rage and fear.

This week I release my new book, Divided We Fall. It posits that the American union is growing increasingly fragile. Exposure to hate inspired me to write the book—and expanding levels of partisan hate are daily reaffirming its thesis. But it’s not just any kind of hate that should alarm Americans; it’s the kind of enmity that is rooted in a narrative of deep and abiding grievances. This, for example, is a common view of the world on the American right: 

They hate us, they lie about us, and they use all the instruments of their power to deprive us of our rights and our livelihoods.

Even worse, in the name of social justice and so-called reproductive freedom, they have legalized killing on a mass scale. In the years since the unelected Supreme Court read a right to abortion into a Constitution that’s utterly silent about the topic, tens of millions of innocent children have died in the womb. And leftists are fanatics about “the right to choose,” resisting even the most modest attempts to restrict the deadly practice—and using their economic power to sanction states that resist.

The left tramples individual liberty. In the name of “tolerance,” they restrict free speech. In the name of “justice,” they limit due process. In the name of “peace,” they seek to limit the fundamental human and constitutional right of self-defense.

And they’ll enlist any means in the ruthless pursuit of these goals. If they have a social media account, they’ll shame and humiliate you online. If they own a company, they’ll impose economic punishments on states, cities, and towns. If they run a university, they’ll openly discriminate against conservative and Christian students and faculty. They’ll harass people in restaurants. They’ll harass people at movie theaters. They’ll harass people in their own homes.

Leftist anger breeds violence. Remember the flames in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charlotte? Remember the police officers ambushed in Dallas and Baton Rouge? Did you see antifa beating journalists? And who can forget the angry leftist who almost changed history with his attempted massacre of Republican congressmen on a Virginia baseball field?

And now they disrespect the constitutional order. They abused the counterintelligence surveillance powers to obtain a warrant against a former campaign aide, they used a fake dossier full of Russian disinformation to spread conspiracy theories and undermine public trust in the president, and then they rushed to impeach that same president for—at worst—a minor diplomatic mistake, one that was corrected before any harm was done. 

If you see these facts, how can you not be alarmed? Isn’t it obvious that our political opponents are dangerous? Wouldn’t it be foolish to believe they mean well?

Subscribe
If you read this narrative with an open mind, you should immediately notice a few things.

First, it is rooted in multiple events that are real and, in fact, unjust. Cancel culture is real. These acts of violence were real. The misconduct in the Russia investigation was real. Many lies flower from seeds of truth.

Second, it collectivizes guilt. When we see atrocities from “our” ideological side, we claim they’re exceptional: Don’t judge the many by the few. But when we see atrocities from the opposing tribe, they’re emblematic: the natural and inevitable result of a bankrupt ideology. So the same people who would be indignant if you ascribed the sins of the Proud Boys to Donald Trump are also convinced that Antifa is inseparable from Joe Biden. 

Third, this narrative completely omits how the opposing side views the world. In my book, I also walk through the left’s case against the right. Trust me, it’s every bit as compelling and infuriating: a long tale of hypocrisy, corruption, and violence—rooted in truth, yet caricatural in its simplicity. 

All of this helps to explain why it is so difficult to use reason and evidence to rebut conspiracy theories. When you don’t approach a conspiracy theorist from within their frame of reference, they will think that you are the one who is naïve: Your basic regard for their opponents—your insistence that many of their actions can be explained with reference to good intentions and decent values—is by itself disqualifying and discrediting.

In quality, if not in intensity, the mutual hatred between liberals and conservatives in today’s America reminds me of the conflict between Shias and Sunnis I observed during my deployment to Iraq, where I interacted with members of every Iraqi faction. 

The animating spirit of that civil war wasn’t law, policy, or even theology. It was a laundry list of very real and very recent grievances: “The Sunnis killed my cousin.” “The Shia killed my uncle.” 

Oh, and what else characterized the culture of that conflict? The fervent belief in lurid, fantastical conspiracy theories.

Liberty can survive disagreement even when it is very intense. But it cannot survive pure hate. For when you despise your adversary, you cease to see how any form of mutual tolerance or forbearance could be morally justified. “How is it compatible with the ‘common good’ (or ‘social justice’) if we permit these vile and dangerous people to speak? The very thought that those monsters might win converts makes what they say a clear and present danger to the body politic!”

This is why a full-spectrum defense of the liberal order requires not just a commitment to a particular doctrine, like freedom of speech, but to a particular disposition: an openness to the world, a determination to see opposing points of view, and a degree of grace and tolerance even in the face of profound disagreement.

Even if you successfully cultivate this disposition, you may not be able to persuade fervent conspiracy theorists, many of whom are in the grips of late-stage hatred. But if all of us show a little more tolerance and forbearance towards our ideological adversaries, we might just be able to undercut the hatred that allows conspiracy theories to have such wide reach in the first place. The best inoculation against the viral spread of hate is not education; it is humanization.

If the appeal of conspiracy theories like Q-Anon were based on mere distrust, we should be able to handle them. But those minds that are sliding ever deeper into darkness are fueled by hate. Unless we can contain the spirit of mutual loathing and contempt, these theories will continue to consume our country.

David French is a Senior Editor at The Dispatch and a Member of Persuasion’s Board of Advisors. His new book is Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Covid-19: Princeton University study dissects New Zealand's pandemic response



Covid-19: Princeton University study dissects New Zealand's pandemic response
Katarina Williams
17:16, Sep 29 2020


University of Otago Professor of Public Health Michael Baker was part of the group that advised the Government on coronavirus. Published June 16.


Social capital has been hailed as one of the reasons behind New Zealand's successful response to the Covid-19 pandemic, new Princeton University research suggests.

Stuff reports were among the bodies of work drawn upon in the Innovations for Successful Societies research centre analysis which examined the response from March to June by Princeton researchers including New Zealand-born Blair Cameron.

The research said Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her response team “always acted quickly” throughout the pandemic, opting to make “pivotal decisions that sometimes were based on limited information”.

Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield has been called a “remarkable communicator" by government communications specialist John Walsh.
ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF
Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield has been called a “remarkable communicator" by government communications specialist John Walsh.
In the early stages of the pandemic, government analyst Clinton Watson – who was involved in the establishment of the alert level system – told researchers there was no time to work through lengthy policy processes in standing up the country’s response.

READ MORE:
* Coronavirus: World Health Organisation praises NZ's Covid-19 response
* Coronavirus: We need to learn to be critical of Ashley Bloomfield 
* Coronavirus: The people leading New Zealand's fight against Covid-19

“The process was atypical; standard departmental consultation was cast aside .... we had to make some blunt decisions and just on with it in order to avoid total calamity,” Watson said.

Essential coronavirus information

Auckland at level 2
Rest of NZ at level 1
Full coverage

covid-icon
Get the daily newsletter

covid-icon
Latest NZ case numbers

covid-icon
Keeping NZ in business

covid-icon
Neighbourly: community support

covid-icon
Official Government Covid-19 page

covid-iconstuff-logo
Strong leaders – both elected politicians and civil servants – played “major roles in the successful communications”.

The research quoted John Walsh, who headed the communications effort, describing Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield as a “remarkable communicator”.

Play Video
STUFF
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Director General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield announce the most recent Covid-19 numbers and changes to alert levels for the country.
“Governments are big machines, but it is individuals that people look to. In Dr Bloomfield, New Zealanders saw someone they trusted, someone they could relate to, and someone they could have confidence in,” Walsh said.

Ardern’s leadership was also praised, with comments Otago University professor of public health Michael Baker made to the BBC referenced, describing her as a “brilliant communicator and an empathetic leader”.

The research praised Ardern for choosing to elevate the role of scientists during the pandemic.

Play Video
ROBYN EDIE/STUFF
Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern talks about trans-Tasman travel at a press conference in Invercargill on Monday.
“She relieved heavily on her science advisers, epidemiologists, and infectious disease experts and deferred to them for policy recommendations,” the research read.

Social capital and effective communication were essential in getting buy-in from everyday New Zealanders, particularly when it came to public health messaging and lockdown compliance.

Because the situation was changing rapidly, the Covid-19 website became a reliable source of facts. On the day New Zealand went from level 2 to 3, traffic on the site jumped from 7000 to 27,000 people in two seconds.

Play Video
RNZ
The Covid press briefing at 1pm have become a daily ritual for the press gallery, while thousands of Kiwis tune in.
“We never wanted to tell New Zealanders off. We wanted to maintain a firm but empathetic manner all the way through,” Walsh said.

With this in mind, the government shelved a prototype answer bot for the website because the machine lacked human qualities.

“We got really worried about its ability to get the tone wrong and to misread sensitive inquiries. We were worried about its ability to hear and be appropriately empathetic when people were displaying – through their questions – signs of stress. We did not want to get that wrong,” Walsh said.

But while much of the research commended New Zealand’s response, it wasn’t without criticism.

MORE FROM
KATARINA WILLIAMS • SENIOR REPORTER 
katarina.williams@stuff.co.nz
The research outlined a lack of coordination when it came to resourcing laboratories with Covid-19 testing supplies, as well as holes in the PPE supply chain and the difficulties in standing up a cloud-based platform for contact tracing.

Comments made by epidemiologist Sir David Skegg made to the Epidemic Response Committee, where he described the country’s health system as being “neglected for decades” and suffering from chronic underfunding, were included.

“Public health experts said New Zealand could have been better prepared – for example, by having a better-funded health sector with more intensive care beds and better systems in place to prepare for disease outbreaks,” it read.


Trump's Tax Returns Have Exposed Him as a Massive Failure Who Thrived in the Age of Plutocracy

 Trump's Tax Returns Have Exposed Him as a Massive Failure Who Thrived in the Age of Plutocracy

The New York Times report is the final and conclusive evidence that the president failed at a time in which politics and government were rearranged to keep his particular genre of failure ever from being fatal.

By Charles P. Pierce

Sep 28, 2020

By happy accident, the latest bombshell from The New York Times dropped one day after some nice folks in New York sent along a copy of Without Compromise, a collection of pieces written for the late, lamented Village Voice by the late (and equally lamented) Wayne Barrett, who wrote that newspaper's "Runnin' Scared" column for almost 40 years. There is absolutely no point in trying to understand the current president*, the sleazoid New York milieu that birthed him as a public figure, and our immediate peril without having read Barrett's dogged pursuit of Manhattan's landshark demimonde and how it put the screws to everyone else. From the Go-Go Gordon Gecko 1980s all the way through Rudy Giuliani's fealty to developers (and criminal cops) as the city's mayor, without fear or favor, as the old muckrakers used to say, and using the country's signature city as his index patient, Wayne Barrett traced the steady corruption that came along with nearly a half-century of shoving the nation's wealth upwards, a process that, hitched to retrograde politics, made someone like El Caudillo Del Mar-a-Lago not only possible, but inevitable. That Barrett died the day before this president*'s thoroughly corrupt inauguration is one of those episodes in which history and Providence get together to rob us blind.


Barrett was onto the president* early on. In 1979, Barrett published an insanely detailed two-part epic in the Voice describing not only the president*'s initial rise to New York power broker, but also his own battle with the president*, who already was ham-handedly trying to manage his own press. "In this two-part history," Barrett concludes, "we've been looking into a world where only the greed is magnified. The actors are pretty small and venal. Their ideas are small, never transcending profit. In it, however, are the men elected to lead us and those who buy them. And in it, unhappily, are the processes and decisions that shape our cities and our lives."


And, in 2016, those two groups merged into one vulgar talking yam, someone whose innate contempt for democratic government was reinforced, as Barrett explains, by how easy it was to buy his way into it, or around it, if needs be.


He had prided himself on never having met a public official, a banker, a lawyer, a reporter, or a prosecutor he couldn’t seduce. Some he owned, and others he merely manipulated. As he saw it, it was not just that everyone had a price, it was that he knew what the price was. He believed he could look across a table and compute the price, then move on to another table and borrow the money to pay it. "Everybody tries to get some money" was his assessment in one unpublished interview of what motivates the people he dealt with. It was his one-sentence summary of human nature.

So, as stunning as the Times series is, and the fact that he may have run for president in the first place because the revenue stream from The Apprentice was drying up is my personal favorite, it functions best as the final verdict on five decades in which the institutions of democratic government surrendered themselves to the implacable forces of plutocracy. The tax code—and therefore, the tax burden—has been rigged against most Americans. (As bad as the fact that the president* once paid $750 in federal income tax is, we should remember, that $750 is $750 more than Amazon paid in 2018.) There were giants who profited from this transformation of American society and politics, and there also were some bottom-feeders. Our current president* is one of the latter.


The Times report is the final and conclusive evidence that everything the president* has sold about himself to his business partners, his lackeys in the press, his bankers, the Republican Party and, ultimately, the country, is the purest moonshine. He stands exposed now as a massive failure. As a businessman, he's a debt-ridden mess, deeply in hock to God alone knows who. As a president*, he has set new standards for incompetence that may well stand for centuries, assuming the country does, of course.


But he stands also exposed as a failure who was allowed to thrive because he failed at a time in which politics and government were rearranged to keep his particular genre of failure ever from being fatal. In fact, if he hadn't run for president*—and, especially, had he not been elected president*—he likely would have floated gracefully into eternity, leaving a complex disaster for his heirs to straighten out, and remembered in history as a crude, wealthy wastrel with some interesting eccentricities. And measured only against his fellow plutocrats, posterity might have gotten away with remembering him that way. But measured against the presidency, he was what Wayne Barrett said he was in 1979: small and venal, with no ideas big enough to transcend profit, a fitting epitaph for the republic in the age of the money power.


This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io


Trump’s long-hidden tax returns make him look like a terrible businessman, or a cheat. Probably both.

Trump’s long-hidden tax returns make him look like a terrible businessman, or a cheat. Probably both.

Opinion by 

Catherine Rampell

Columnist

September 28, 2020 at 10:43 p.m. GMT+9

Richard Nixon famously said, “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” That comment was not about the Watergate break-in, but rather, some funny business in his tax returns. Under public pressure, Nixon ultimately released those returns, revealing a major underpayment on his income taxes and creating a new norm for at least partial tax disclosure that all his successors complied with.


Until President Trump, that is.


And now it may be clear why. Bombshell reporting Sunday from the New York Times — based on the examination of thousands of personal and business tax records — suggests that Trump, like his disgraced predecessor, engaged in a lot of financial activity that also looks pretty crooked.


Trump reportedly paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017, and none at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.


Remember when Mitt Romney was caught on tape condemning the moochers of America, the 47 percent who pay no income taxes? Turns out he was talking about Trump.


Trump claimed no tax liability for so many years because, according to the documents reviewed by the Times, he sustained mindbogglingly huge, chronic losses. The magnitude of these reported losses suggests he has been a thoroughly incompetent businessman or has been cheating Uncle Sam.


Most likely both.


Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization, said the Times report was inaccurate, and that Trump has paid “tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government,” a characterization that appears to conflate income tax payments with other kinds of taxes (such as those for Social Security). For his part, Trump has previously argued that shirking his tax obligations made him “smart.” He suggested that he merely took advantage of legal loopholes, the kind available to deep-pocketed Americans who can afford top-notch tax preparation advice. And as I’ve written before, the real estate industry enjoys tons of loopholes and other opportunities for legally minimizing tax obligations, most notably through depreciation deductions. But per the Times, Trump’s “three European golf courses, the Washington hotel, Doral and Trump Corporation reported losing a total of $150.3 million from 2010 through 2018, without including depreciation as an expense.”


That is: They were money pits.


Additionally, Times reporters Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire include details of tax practices that were, at best, extraordinarily aggressive and, at worst, suggest possible fraud on a massive scale.


These include deducting lifestyle expenses, such as the cost of haircuts, as if they were business expenses. Or appearing to pay Ivanka Trump consulting fees on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father’s business, an arrangement that may have been a way to transfer assets without paying gift taxes.


Or, writing off $2.2 million in property taxes as a business expense supposedly on an investment property that appears to instead be a vacation residence. According to the Times:


The tax records reveal another way Seven Springs has generated substantial tax savings. In 2014, Mr. Trump classified the estate as an investment property, as distinct from a personal residence. Since then, he has written off $2.2 million in property taxes as a business expense — even as his 2017 tax law allowed individuals to write off only $10,000 in property taxes a year.

Courts have held that to treat residences as businesses for tax purposes, owners must show that they have “an actual and honest objective of making a profit,” typically by making substantial efforts to rent the property and eventually generating income.

Whether or not Seven Springs fits those criteria, the Trumps have described the property somewhat differently.

In 2014, Eric Trump told Forbes that “this is really our compound.” Growing up, he and his brother Donald Jr. spent many summers there, riding all-terrain vehicles and fishing on a nearby lake. At one point, the brothers took up residence in a carriage house on the property. “It was home base for us for a long, long time,” Eric told Forbes.

Now, it’s unclear whether voters will care, after all this time, that Trump has apparently paid less in taxes than the typical teacher, waitress, retail clerk or whoever else was usually cast as “moochers” and “takers.” Trump supporters seem willing to forgive almost anything; and taxes may seem too arcane for the general public to care about, especially if voters believe Trump’s spin that he practiced “smart” tax avoidance rather than illegal tax evasion.


But a few other points are worth considering.


Even Trump joined Romney once upon a time in demonizing Americans who didn’t contribute adequately to Treasury coffers:


And when asked what really bothers them about the tax system, Americans’ top complaints aren’t that the poor are shirking, or that the tax code is too complicated, or even that their own tax bills are too big. They’re mad that corporations and the wealthy aren’t paying their “fair share,” legally or otherwise.


Let’s consider Trump’s tax bill in another context: Trump spent 87 times as much to allegedly pay off his porn-star mistress as he paid in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017, combined. Those taxes fund our military, roads, health-care system, etc. It’s hard to imagine such numbers sitting well with most Americans.


Whatever the optics surrounding fairness, the reason the public should care most, as I have long argued, involves conflicts of interest. These financial entanglements — whom the president is getting money from, owes money to and on what terms — are likely influencing executive-branch policy, presumably rigging it in favor of cronies and creditors and against the public welfare.


The Times report documents conflicts of interest up the wazoo. Previous reporting has revealed as much, though not with such precise dollar figures. Hordes of people and corporations have bought access to the president by patronizing Trump properties, such as Mar-a-Lago (his Palm Beach social club) or Trump National Doral (a golf resort near Miami):


Profits [at Mar-a-Lago] rose sharply after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy, as courtiers eagerly joining up brought a tenfold rise in cash from initiation fees — from $664,000 in 2014 to just under $6 million in 2016, even before Mr. Trump doubled the cost of initiation in January 2017.

Some of the largest payments from business groups for events or conferences at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump properties have come since Mr. Trump became president, the tax records show.

At Doral, Mr. Trump collected a total of at least $7 million in 2015 and 2016 from Bank of America, and at least $1.2 million in 2017 and 2018 from a trade association representing food retailers and wholesalers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce paid Doral at least $406,599 in 2018.

Those buying access, and presumably hoping for favors, included executives, lobbyists and foreign nationals. Exactly how much their patronage to Trump businesses might be influencing policy is unclear, though there have been plenty of hints.


Additionally, the Times reports that Trump is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, most of which comes due within four years. If Trump were still in the White House during that time, this creates some bad incentives. (The article does not provide details, alas, on the identity of all those lenders; hopefully, more reporting is forthcoming.) Further, an Internal Revenue Service audit over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund he received a decade ago has taken an unusually long time to resolve, possibly indicating it has stalled or been paused while Trump remains in office; an adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million, the Times estimates, inclusive of interest and possible penalties.


One might reasonably wonder why Trump, who appears to tweet, watch TV and golf more than he exercises his duties as president, has ever wanted a second term. Well, in addition to his desire to finally build his border wall or continue dodging potential indictments, we now know that Trump has about a half-billion dollars’ worth of motivation to stay in office four more years.


As Nixon advised decades ago, Americans have a right to know whether their president is a crook. As Trump’s tax returns illustrate, Americans should know whether their president is governing in the people’s interests, or his own.


Read more:


 

Monday, September 28, 2020

Is Left-Wing Illiberalism the Greatest Threat to American Democracy? Finale

Is Left-Wing Illiberalism the Greatest Threat to American Democracy?

Daniel Drezner

Finale

LAST UPDATED SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2020

I get the last word, so let me start by wishing all debates were as stimulating as this one. I obviously disagree with Cathy about the relative importance of left-wing illiberalism as a threat, but we agree that illiberalism writ large should be addressed. 

I want to focus on power, however. To flip Young’s formulation around: the dangers of right-wing illiberalism include the fact that it boosts left-wing illiberalism—especially in the age of Trump. This is the crux of our disagreement. Young looks at liberal institutions and sees an illiberal cancer on the rise. I share the concern to a degree, but then I look at conservative institutions and conclude that cancer is the only thing propping them up. 

No less a critic of cancel culture than Andrew Sullivan agrees with me on this point: “the most powerful enabler of this left extremism has been Trump himself…. He has tainted conservatism indelibly as riddled with racism, xenophobia, paranoia, misogyny, and derangement. Every hoary stereotype leveled against the right for decades has been given credence by the GOP’s support for this monster of a human being.” 

Young argues that “large-scale street violence threatens democracy,” and I would not disagree. In 2020, however, the overwhelming majority of protests have been peaceful. Furthermore, if that changes, the problem is self-correcting. Political scientists like Maria Stephan & Erica Chenoweth and Omar Wasow have detailed how nonviolent resistance is a far more potent tactic than violent action. If violent unrest persists, then Wasow would predict that the media framing of such violence will hurt liberals and empower a law-and-order shift in the electorate. What worries me here are actions like what the DHS did in Portland, which helped to inflame violence rather than contain it. 

Young acknowledges the right’s political power but asserts that the left’s cultural power is “dominant.” This is an empirical question, and again I doubt her assertion. Tucker Carlson cannot be written off as a cultural anomaly – he is literally the most-watched show in cable news history. Joe Rogan, who recently claimed that Portland protestors were responsible for starting wildfires in the West, has one of the most popular podcasts in America. Take a daily glance at the top performing link posts on Facebook, and 80 percent of them are on the conservative fringe. 

As I finish this essay, liberals are reacting to news that the Trump campaign is laying the groundwork to sow just enough confusion on Election Night to stay in power. When prompted by reporters, Trump refused to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power, criticized the balloting process, and asserted that without mail-in ballots there will not be a transfer of power. Rhetoric like this is far more dangerous than anything said by a professor this year. 

Let me conclude with this proposition to Young: if you want to reduce left-wing illiberalism, criticize right-wing illiberalism with equal vehemence. Once Donald Trump no longer holds political power, then we can rebuild small-l liberalism across the political spectrum.


Is Left-Wing Illiberalism the Greatest Threat to American Democracy? Response

Is Left-Wing Illiberalism the Greatest Threat to American Democracy?

Daniel Drezner

Response

LAST UPDATED SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2020

As the summer of cancel culture come to a close, the examples that Cathy Young cites in her opening salvo are indeed a source of concern about the future of the liberal idea. Just how worrisome, however, remains the subject of debate. A serious threat assessment would rank other threats more seriously. 

The importance of left illiberalism depends on how much relative power one thinks these groups have. Young acknowledges that, “social justice activists have no political power” but claims “their cultural influence… can hardly be overstated.” It is worth contesting a few of these claims. 

First, right-wing populists currently possess far greater political power and pose a far greater threat to American democracy. President Trump repeatedly describes the free press as the “enemy of the people.” He used the bully pulpit to excoriate peaceful protestors and then used a bevy of federal officers to violently break up a peaceful assembly in Lafayette Square. 

Such strong-arm tactics trickle down to lower-level governments. Tennessee, for example, recently enacted a law that would strip away someone’s voting rights if they were arrested for an illegal protest, whatever that means. Compared to these egregious actions of the carceral state, cancel culture shrinks in relative importance. 

Furthermore, Young’s claim that the cultural power of the illiberal left “cannot be overstated” might be overstated a wee bit. When I look around, I see scores of individuals who have made racist, sexist, speech a part of their brand and nonetheless manage to thieve in the modern marketplace of ideas. Illiberal thought leaders like Tucker Carlson have not been cancelled, but rather talked about seriously as a 2024 candidate for president. Jack Posobiec has promoted all sorts of racist conspiracy theories, and received a Claremont Institute fellowship for his troubles. 

The threat that the illiberalism of the left poses is limited to those institutions in which the left exercises actual power, and to be blunt there are not a lot of these sectors in the United States at this moment in time. Furthermore, their influence on the broader culture is open to interpretation. Academics affect the marketplace of ideas, but as John Maynard Keynes observed, those effects often take generations to kick in. At the present moment, any garden-variety YouTuber moves public opinion more than the most radical tenured academic. 

Young et al have identified a genuine threat, but it is worth being clear about its precise scope and scale. The problem is not that thought is being suffocated by a leftist monolith within the cultural elite. There are plenty of conservatives who have thrived in their belligerence. The problem is that there are intellectuals within these institutions who used to occupy the mainstream and now find themselves closer to the political margins. At the same time, those who were previously marginalized now possess a measure of political power. 

This shift within the left toward identitarianism is worthy of a longer conversation. Is it the Greatest Threat to American Democracy? No, and it is not close.


Sunday, September 27, 2020

Dems Should Turn Barrett Hearings Into an Anti-GOP Infomercial


Dems Should Turn Barrett Hearings Into an Anti-GOP Infomercial
by Eric Levitz, nymag.com
September 26, 2020 04:09 PM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Amy Coney Barrett won confirmation to the Supreme Court before she was even nominated. In the immediate wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Senate Republican after Senate Republican vowed to support Donald Trump’s handpicked replacement, no matter whom that happened to be. Had the president picked his old friend Gary Busey, it is possible Mitch McConnell’s caucus would not have reneged on this pledge. Now that he has selected the party’s 2018 runner-up — an impeccably pro-life woman with an immaculate résumé — a six to three conservative court is a foregone conclusion.

This reality has implications for how Democrats should message Barrett’s confirmation. In 2018, McConnell had a mere two-vote majority, which included the (relatively) moderate pro-choice members Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. In this context, it was conceivable that Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination could actually fall through — and, given the close proximity of the midterm elections, and theoretical possibility of Democrats retaking the Senate — that Chuck Schumer could prevent that seat from being filled until 2021.

Since the goal was to try to bring about this long-shot hypothetical — rather than to leverage the confirmation hearings for electoral advantage — Democrats had reason to focus their case against Kavanaugh on “character” grounds, even before Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation became public. Kavanaugh’s views on consumer rights, workplace safety, voting rights, and the government’s capacity to regulate private industry might have been unpopular with the general public. But they were inoffensive to the (business-friendly) Collins and Murkowski. As for choice, if those two senators wished to put Roe’s survival above partisan loyalty, they wouldn’t be Republicans to begin with. Thus, it was plausible that Democrats’ goal was to indict Brett Kavanaugh as an individual, rather than the conservative legal movement as a project.

This time, things are different. McConnell has two more votes to spare, no one has accused Barrett of a violent crime, and, of course, we now know that indicting Kavanaugh’s character didn’t work (even as the nominee did his best to make the case for Democrats by pitching a tantrum about being the victim of a Clintonian conspiracy). There is no reason to customize the case against her nomination to the tastes of moderate Republican senators. Instead, Democrats’ intended audience must be that idiosyncratic, endangered species of American we call “swing voters.” And that means focusing on policy, not personality.

Specifically, Democrats should put the pending legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act front and center. No major initiative of the Trump era has been more unpopular — or detrimental to the president’s approval rating — than his party’s 2017 attempt to repeal Obamacare. Recent polls have shown that only a third of the public supports ending the law, while a majority favors either expanding or maintaining it. And opposition to repealing the ACA’s Medicaid expansion or protections for those with preexisting conditions is even more overwhelming. What’s more, Democrats have long had more credibility with swing voters on health care, and polls routinely show that voters trust Joe Biden’s handling of the issue more than Donald Trump’s. For these reasons, it’s in the Biden campaign’s interest to increase the electoral salience of health-care policy as much as possible. In 2018, Democratic House candidates hammered the issue incessantly — and succeeded in winning backing a significant number of Obama-to-Trump voters who lean left on health care but right on immigration. This tiny but politically potent segment of the populace could play a decisive role in many Rust Belt battlegrounds.

Republican operatives recognize that their party doesn’t have a winning argument on health policy, which is why they spent the 2018 campaign either deliberately misrepresenting the actual GOP health-care agenda or trying to bury the issue in a manufactured “crisis” of migrant caravans. But the conservative legal movement retained hope of striking down the ACA by judicial fiat, and has therefore spent the past two years litigating a challenge to the law so juridically preposterous that it’s made the National Review blush. In a nutshell, the argument advanced by 20 red states is this: In 2012, the Roberts Court deemed the individual mandate constitutional on the grounds that it was a tax. But once Republicans lowered the penalty for violating the mandate to $0 in 2017, the mandate ceased to generate revenue for the government — and thus, ceased to be a tax, which means that this (functionally nonexistent) mandate is now an unconstitutional violation of Americans’ God-given right to forgo health insurance without incurring a $0 fine. And this means that the Supreme Court is constitutionally obligated to strike down the entirety of a health-care law that a majority of the U.S. public supports, and which Congress could not find the votes to repeal just three years ago.

Thanks to conservative judicial activism, this case has managed to wind its way up to the Supreme Court, which will entertain the argument for throwing millions of people off of Medicaid and discontinuing regulatory protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, so as to free Americans from the tyranny of a $0 mandate, one week after November’s election.

With a pandemic, economic crisis, and presidentially directed conspiracy to disenfranchise mail-in voters dominating headlines, turning the mundane question of health-care policy into a voting issue has been an uphill battle for the Biden campaign. Barrett’s nomination gifts Democrats an opportunity to raise awareness of the fact that — for millions of Americans — access to basic medical care in the middle of a pandemic may be on the ballot this November.

In 2012, four of the court’s five conservative justices voted to effectively veto a landmark health-care reform law that had been enacted by Congress after decades of advocacy and failed bills. Had there been one more Republican justice — who was exactly as radical on economic issues as the putative “moderate” Anthony Kennedy — the ACA would no longer exist. And there is every reason to believe that Barrett is such a Republican justice. In a 2017 book review, Barrett wrote that John Roberts had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

Of course, Democrats must also give due emphasis to Barrett’s jurisprudence on abortion rights. Although the Trump campaign has convinced itself that a fight over Roe v. Wade will redound to their benefit — by guiding Trump-to-Biden Catholic voters back home — the truth is that opposition to legal abortion is a minority position, however ambivalent the public is on the finer details of the reproductive-freedom debate. Further, a key segment of Trump’s 2016 coalition was secular white non-college-educated voters in the North, who had previously found the GOP’s Bible-thumping alienating, and assumed that a libertine like Trump wouldn’t actually implement the Christian right’s agenda. (Democratic senator Tammy Baldwin — a woman who knows a thing or two about winning swing voters in Wisconsin — has already made the stakes of Trump’s appointment for both health-care and abortion policy the centerpiece of her messaging on the nomination, saying this week, “The courts are the lynchpin in the Republicans’ anti-health-care and anti-choice agenda.”)

This said, Democrats may be well-advised to make the ACA their number-one issue in the confirmation fight. The conservative legal challenges to Obamacare don’t just constitute an attempt to strip millions of potentially life-saving insurance subsidies, or change health-care policy in a toxically unpopular manner; it also represents an assault on democracy itself. The American people’s democratically elected representatives entertained the question of whether this law should exist twice, first in 2009 and then in 2017. The verdict is clear. The unpopularity of the conservative alternative is unmistakable. Nevertheless, the right has refused to take the electorate’s “no” for an answer, and is now seeking to use its influence over the judiciary to override the will of the people. In this way, the Obamacare case conveniently weds the threat that Trump poses to the material interests of working people with the threat he poses to democracy itself.

Democrats may have no real chance of blocking Barrett’s confirmation. But the Senate’s hearings will provide the party an opportunity to clarify the stakes of the impending vote that they can still win.

Are Amy Coney Barrett’s Religious Views Fair Game for Tough Questions?


Are Amy Coney Barrett’s Religious Views Fair Game for Tough Questions?
by Ed Kilgore, nymag.com
September 26, 2020 04:09 PM

intelligencer is a Vox Media Network. © 2020 Vox Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Judge Barrett’s religion has been front-and-center throughout her career.
Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, 7th Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett, has a number of characteristics that recommended her to the president and his vetters: a solid conservative record both on the bench and in academia; relative youth (she’s 48, which means she’d have 39 years on the Court if she serves as long as the justice she will succeed if confirmed); the kind of big family (seven kids, two of them adopted) that humanizes a jurist and — for conservatives — separates Barrett from the professionally obsessed feminists they dislike.

But there’s no question her religious faith, as a practicing and apparently conservative Catholic, has been an asset for her as well. That is partially because midwestern Catholics like Barrett herself are a swing-voter target for both parties in a highly polarized general election. But more important is the fact that Barrett’s faith appears to guide her in a conservative direction on hot-button constitutional issues, particularly the endangered right to an abortion, which are all-important to elements of the Republican Party’s electoral base, including traditionalist Catholics but even more so to emphatically conservative Evangelicals.

It’s hard to overstate how improbable this situation would have seemed in the not-so-distant past. From its very founding the Republican Party was a bastion of mainline Protestantism that was forever flirting with or succumbing to anti-Catholic bigotry. And Evangelical Protestants, themselves largely Democrats or politically disengaged, regarded (as recently as the days of my own upbringing as a Southern Baptist) the Catholic Church with enormous suspicion, some echoing Luther’s description of the pope as the Antichrist and others referring to the whole Roman apparatus as the biblical Whore of Babylon. The Evangelical ministers who grilled John F. Kennedy in a famous Houston confrontation in 1960, questioning the compatibility of Catholicism with American liberties, would have been astounded to learn their successors would cheer an increasingly Catholic Supreme Court as the reward for all their political efforts.

A little-noted moment of supreme irony occurred during the last Supreme Court term when four Republican-appointed Catholic justices (and a fifth raised as a Catholic) declared state Blaine Amendments unconstitutional in a decision benefiting a conservative Evangelical school. These amendments — named after a longtime Republican congressman, secretary of State, and the GOP’s 1884 presidential nominee, James G. Blaine — banned use of public funds for religious schools; they were adopted wherever Republicans or militant Protestantism reigned; and were still in place in 37 states before Catholic Republican Supreme Court Justice John Roberts killed them with his opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

The religious composition of today’s Court would have astonished Catholics and non-Catholics alike until quite recently. There were only two Catholic Supreme Court justices in the 19th century. In the 20th century the tradition developed of a single “Catholic seat” (later accompanied by a “Jewish seat”) on the Court, which was maintained until 1986. If Barrett is confirmed, she will be the 15th Catholic justice ever — but the sixth Catholic on the current Court (a seventh, Neil Gorsuch, was raised and educated as a Catholic).

Now as it happens, U.S. Catholics as a whole do not differ much from Americans as a whole on the hot-button issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights that occasionally confront the Supreme Court; white Evangelicals are far and away the most fervent opponents of legalized abortion and marriage equality. But there are a number of reasons Judge Barrett’s supporters and opponents alike assume she views abortion as deeply immoral and its legalization as a preventible — or reversible — tragedy.

It’s actually hard to separate the religious and jurisprudential reasons for this presumption. Barrett is an unquestionably observant Catholic who spent years teaching at a Catholic law school, and has written gravely about the dilemma Catholic judges face in dealing with cases where the Church has a clear and compelling teaching (though the example she and her co-author gave involved death penalty cases). She signed an open letter affirming support for traditional Church teachings on abortion, marriage, and gender roles to the 2015 Synod on the Family at the Vatican. Some contemporaries describe her role in a movement at Notre Dame Law School (where she was a student and later a faculty member) to raise a new generation of religiously motivated conservative jurists.

At the same time, Barrett is a member of the Federalist Society (for many years led by Trump’s chief adviser on judicial appointments, Leonard Leo), where it is difficult to find anyone who doesn’t consider Roe v. Wade as an abomination or the very idea of constitutionally protected reproductive rights as the epitome of judicial overreach. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic apostle of constitutional “originalism” who never accepted the legitimacy of Roe. In her case, where do the religious motives end and the secular motives begin, or is it all a seamless web?

The possibility that she is unusually and inflexibly influenced by her faith was aired during the now-famous 2018 confirmation hearings the Senate Judiciary Committee held after Trump appointed her to the 7th Circuit, when after exploring her writings on the religious obligations of Catholic judges, Dianne Feinstein clumsily said: “The dogma lives loudly within you.” This incident has become the foundation for a hundred conservative opinion columns past, present, and future claiming Democrats are anti-Catholic bigots who are unfairly maligning Barrett’s religion. In truth, Feinstein was challenging Barrett’s alleged equanimity about reproductive rights, which the putative judge is, of course, like all Trump judicial nominees, professing with her fingers crossed. If Barrett actually is open to a constitutional right to choose, it will come as a rude and infuriating shock to those supporters of her confirmation who are accusing Democrats of anti-Catholic bias in questioning her.

If the intersection of religion and the Supreme Court confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett was as simple as the inevitable collision of plain old traditionalist Catholicism with the idea of women having reproductive rights, the Senate and the country might just replay the Kavanaugh hearings minus the Christine Ford Blasey allegations. But her faith is a bit more complicated, as Religion News Service explains:

[Barrett] is receiving scrutiny because she is part of the charismatic renewal movement within the Catholic Church and participates in a “covenant community” called People of Praise. … These are charismatic Catholics who see themselves as part of the historic Azusa Street Revival of 1906, when they believe the Holy Spirit showered thousands of Christians with supernatural gifts that had been held by Jesus’ apostles, such as the ability to heal, prophesy and speak in tongues.

The movement spread to the Catholic Church in 1967, when professors at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh held a retreat at which several people were baptized in the Spirit — that is, they believe they received those same gifts of the Holy Spirit. After that retreat, prayer groups began forming across the country, and the charismatic renewal movement within the Catholic Church took off.

It sure did, most recently thanks to the active encouragement of Pope Francis. But typically, the sort of ecstatic spiritual practices that characterize charismatic Catholics (their Protestant counterparts are usually known as Pentecostals) are expressed in small, less public gatherings, not in your local parish mass. And that’s where networks like the South Bend–based ecumenical People of Praise come in.

Some inquiring minds are concerned about the “covenants” members of People of Praise are expected to subscribe to after a period of “discernment,” as Catholic historian Massimo Faglioli explains:

Barrett’s nomination would raise an important new problem: Is there a tension between forthrightly serving as one of the final interpreters of the Constitution and swearing an oath to an organization that lacks transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to their members, to the Roman Catholic Church and to the wider public?

This is not a problem unique to the People of Praise. It is actually a typical feature of several new charismatic groups that arose in the late 1960s (after the Second Vatican Council), as a blend of Catholic traditions and Protestant Pentecostalism. Anthropologists, sociologists and theologians have documented not only the spiritual vitality and witness of such communities, but also their closed and secretive nature.

There have been some reports — hotly disputed by Barrett allies — that the People of Praise have insisted upon patriarchal subordination of women and interferes with the personal liberty of members. The one thing that is clear is that in the unbelievably white-hot glare of a Supreme Court confirmation fight — particularly one with this fight’s perceived consequences — Barrett’s involvement with the People of Praise is going to attract attention and scrutiny like a magnet attracts iron shavings. And the potential for confusion and prevarication is great, since a deeply divided U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is hardly an ideal venue for theological and ecclesiastical inquiries.

Standard questions about Barrett’s religious commitments — to her Church or to her “convenanted” charismatic group — and their impact on her legal thinking and concept of her own role in the judiciary are natural and indeed all but obligatory, and shouldn’t arouse any serious complaints about “anti-Catholicism,” though some Republicans will raise that charge metronomically no matter what Democrats do.

But Barrett’s inquisitors really need to educate themselves before launching themselves and the television viewing public down obscure rabbit holes chasing shadowy groups with complicated histories and allegiances. One decision they may face is whether the “charismatic spiritual gifts” the putative Justice presumably shares are in any way relevant. The People of Praise website affirms that “[l]ike hundreds of millions of other Christians in the Pentecostal movement, People of Praise members have experienced the blessing of baptism in the Holy Spirit and the charismatic gifts as described in the New Testament,” which is a reference to St. Paul’s discussion of such powers as miracle-working, prophecy, and the speaking and discernment of diverse “tongues.”

Those sorts of practices may seem alien to many non-charismatic Christians, not to mention those of non-Christian faiths and purely secular folk. But disparaging them may not only offend charismatic Catholics and pentecostal Protestants generally, but could create a particular if unlikely bond between Barrett and some Hispanic voters. According to a 2007 Pew survey, nearly three of ten Latino Christians say they “speak in tongues at least weekly.” Trump’s mouthpieces would just love to say that Democrats aren’t simply anti-Catholic apologists for baby-killing, but are anti-Latino and anti-Holy Spirit.

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Don, double agent and housewife: New light on old spies


Subscribe
Twentieth-century history & later|Book Review
Don, double agent and housewife
New light on old spies
By Christopher Andrew



September 25, 2020
Read this issue

George Blake|© PA Images/Alamy
IN THIS REVIEW
AGENT MOLIÈRE
The life of John Cairncross, the Fifth Man of the Cambridge spy circle
302pp. I. B. Tauris. £20.
Geoff Andrews
Buy
BETRAYAL IN BERLIN
George Blake, the Berlin Tunnel and the greatest conspiracy of the Cold War
530pp. John Murray. Paperback, £10.99.
Steve Vogel
Buy
AGENT SONYA
Lover, mother, soldier, spy
377pp. Viking. £25.
Ben Macintyre
Buy
The search for the Fifth Man in the KGB’s Cambridge “Ring of Five” led to the longest mole hunt in modern British history. Two of the five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, fled to Moscow in 1951, followed by Kim Philby in 1963. Anthony Blunt, who confessed secretly in 1964 to having worked for Soviet intelligence in return for immunity from prosecution, was identified by MI5 as the Fourth Man in 1974. But, as late as 1977, the MI5 Director-General, Sir Michael Hanley, told the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, that there was still no sign of success in the hunt for the Fifth Man. Five years later, the problem was unexpectedly solved by MI6’s penetration agent in the KGB, Oleg Gordievsky. Ben Macintyre’s last bestseller, The Spy and the Traitor (2018), confirmed earlier accounts of Gordievsky revealing to his MI6 case officer that KGB files identify the Fifth Man as John Cairncross.

Though Agent Molière by Geoff Andrews describes Cairncross’s public exposure as the Fifth Man in 1990, mainly from Cairncross’s perspective, it does not relate how Gordievsky’s intelligence had secretly ended the MI5 mole hunt eight years earlier. Gordievsky also identified the main recruiter and first controller of the Five as the brilliantly talented “illegal”, Arnold Deutsch (codenamed “Otto”), who had taken only five years at Vienna University to progress from first-year undergraduate to the degree of PhD with distinction.

Though Cairncross, like Blunt, had secretly confessed to MI5 in 1964 and been publicly identified as a Soviet spy by the Sunday Times in 1979, his importance to the KGB had been underestimated. In retrospect, it is not difficult to see why the KGB ranked him as one of the “Magnificent Five”. During his career as a Soviet spy, Cairncross worked successively for the Foreign Office, the Treasury, one of Churchill’s ministers and MI6. Most importantly, at a crucial moment in the Second World War when the tide was turning on the Eastern Front, he became the only Soviet agent to penetrate the codebreaking and signals intelligence (SIGINT) agency at Bletchley Park. Kim Philby joined MI6 only after being turned down by Bletchley. In this instance Cairncross succeeded where Philby failed.

According to Cairncross’s post-war Soviet controller, Yuri Modin, who saw his KGB file, Cairncross was secretly presented in London with the Order of the Red Banner and visibly elated – despite having to return it to Moscow for safe-keeping. Cairncross later claimed to have no recollection of the award. He also claimed that he had never been a Soviet spy – merely “an independent and voluntary agent, using the KGB as a channel to the Russians”. This, Andrews euphemistically concludes, “sounds implausible”: “Evidence produced after [Cairncross] died confirms that he did not reveal the full extent of his espionage work, downplayed some aspects and ignored others entirely, notably in the post-war period”.

Andrews deserves credit for being the first to go through the Cairncross papers in Cambridge University Library. The problem, unsurprisingly, is that they contain little information on espionage he denied committing. The assessment by Modin of the intelligence provided by Cairncross from the Treasury in the early years of the Cold War is far more credible than that of Cairncross himself. Modin was “overjoyed by the quality of [his] information”. Cairncross’s responsibilities at the Treasury included authorizing expenditure on defence research. According to his colleague, G. A. Robinson, “He thus knew not just about atomic weapons developments but also plans for guided missiles … and all other types of weapons”. Research in Treasury files at the National Archives will be required to establish more precisely what Cairncross had access to.

On his recruitment in 1937, the NKVD (forerunner of the KGB) had given Cairncross the codename “Molière” – his favourite French writer, on whom he later published three books in French. Andrews rightly emphasizes the range of Cairncross’s literary talents. He would have made a successful, though highly argumentative, full-time academic, and was a formidable linguist. While he was at Trinity College, Cambridge, the college magazine, which called him “The Fiery Cross”, complained that he “learns a new language every fortnight”. The TLS later headed its review of Cairncross’s translation of Racine’s Phaedra and Other Plays: “Racine Well Englished At Last”. His translations of poems from a number of languages, remarkably including Chinese, are sometimes brilliant. Cairncross’s book After Polygamy Was Made a Sin (1974) was also well received. His friend Graham Greene called it “a book that will strongly appeal to all polygamists”.

There was also a prickly side to Cairncross. In 1977, over forty years after his Cambridge graduation, he went to a reunion at Trinity College. Though the dinner and overnight accommodation would have been free of charge, Cairncross took the trouble to write afterwards to the Bursar to complain that dining arrangements had fallen far below his expectations. At the end of Agent Molière, Geoff Andrews finds it “tempting to think” that, when Cairncross later recalled such episodes, he was able to laugh at P. G. Wodehouse’s mildly xenophobic assertion that “it is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine”.

Just as Soviet espionage by the Cambridge Five was winding down in the 1950s, the KGB achieved one major new penetration of British intelligence with its recruitment of the MI6 officer George Blake, codenamed “Diomid”. At a meeting with his controller on the top deck of a London bus in January 1954, Blake handed over details of one of the most ingenious US/UK intelligence operations of the Cold War, codenamed Operation Gold – plans for the secret construction of a 500-metre underground tunnel from West to East Berlin to intercept landlines running from Soviet military and intelligence headquarters at Karlshorst in the East Berlin suburbs. Blake was posted to the MI6 Berlin station on April 14, 1955, one month before the tunnel became operational. By the time the KGB staged an “accidental” discovery of the tunnel in April 1956, Operation Gold had produced more than 50,000 reels of magnetic tape recording intercepted Soviet and East German communications.

There is one significant gap in the mostly meticulous research for Steve Vogel’s gripping, well-written Betrayal in Berlin. When MI6 investigators discovered in 1961 that Blake was a KGB agent, they initially feared that, unless he confessed (which seemed unlikely), there would be insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. MI5 records (quoted in The Defence of the Realm, MI5’s centenary history) show that they sought the advice of its head of counter-espionage, Martin Furnival Jones (later Director-General): “Their first question was whether it would be in order for them at an appropriate stage in the interrogation to tell Blake, as an inducement, that he would not be prosecuted if he confessed”. It seems likely that MI6 was willing to make the same offer to Blake that MI5 later made to Blunt after failing to gain adequate evidence to secure a conviction.

In the event, Blake unexpectedly confessed. As an ideological agent, he was – as Vogel shows – affronted by the suggestion that he had worked for the KGB not out of principle but because he had been tortured while a POW in Korea and blackmailed after his release: “No, nobody tortured me! No, nobody blackmailed me! I myself approached the Soviets and offered my service to them of my own accord!” At his Old Bailey trial in May 1961, Blake was given a record sentence of forty-two years in jail.

Most of the story of his betrayal of Operation Gold did not become public until he made a remarkable escape from Wormwood Scrubs in 1967, crossed to the Continent hidden in a camper van, and reached Moscow. In an interview with Izvestia three years later, Blake revealed that he had told the KGB about the Berlin Tunnel even before it was constructed, boasting that it was “doomed to failure” from the outset. Western commentators then widely assumed that the intercepted Soviet communications must have been fabricated. The bestselling British spy-writer Chapman Pincher claimed that Operation Gold “produced nothing but a carefully prepared mass of misinformation”. In reality, as Vogel shows, all the intercepted communications were genuine. The intelligence yield was so considerable that it took more than two years after the end of the operation to process all the intercepts. The KGB did not interfere either with the tunnel’s construction or with its early operations, partly for fear of compromising Blake, by far its most important British agent. It also seems likely that, though the KGB successfully protected the security of its own communications, it was less concerned by the interception of those of the rival GRU and of Soviet forces.

Ben Macintyre’s Agent Sonya makes a notable – and, as always, very readable – contribution to the little-researched gender history of intelligence agencies. The German-born Ursula Kuczynski (1907–2000; codenamed “Sonya”) was probably the most successful female spy in Soviet history – the first woman in military intelligence (later known as the GRU) to be promoted to the rank of colonel. For more than twenty years, there has been reliable evidence from Russian sources that, in the middle of the Second World War, Kuczynski was case officer for both Klaus Fuchs, the most important of the British atom spies, and Melita Norwood, who became Britain’s longest-serving Soviet agent. Macintyre, however, is the first to piece together her extraordinary, peripatetic intelligence career, which ranged from Britain to Manchuria.

Sonya began work as a spy in Shanghai in 1930 as a member of the Soviet espionage network run by Richard Sorge, arguably the ablest Soviet spy of his generation. She also became one of Sorge’s lovers, later writing lyrically of riding pillion on his motorbike: “I was in ecstasy from this ride and shouted to him to ride faster. He was racing the bike as fast as it would go. When we stopped, I felt as though I had been born again”. Though Sorge later claimed that most women “are absolutely unfit for espionage work”, his chief assistant in Shanghai was the American writer Agnes Smedley, who later had a number of meetings with Mao in Yan’an after the Long March. Sorge could only rationalize her success by arguing that she had somehow acquired male characteristics. Smedley had, he wrote, a “brilliant mind and fitted in well as a news reporter … In short, she was like a man”.

Kuczynski and Smedley first met in 1930 in the Cathay Hotel, Shanghai, then the most luxurious hotel east of Suez. (On intelligence operations in Shanghai, it would be worth including in the paperback edition of Agent Sonya the additional sources discovered by Dr Alexander Millar for his path-breaking Cambridge PhD thesis, “British Intelligence and the Comintern in Shanghai, 1927–37”.) Both were carrying bunches of red roses to mark the thirteenth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. For the next two years, wrote Sonya later, “There was hardly a day when we did not telephone or see each other”. Then they quarrelled. Smedley told Sonya, “You do not have what it takes to make a real revolutionary”. Though they were later reconciled, their friendship was never as close as before.

In 1940, after divorcing her first husband, Sonya married Len Beurton (or Burton), “a nice, modest young man”, and a fellow communist with a British passport, seven years her junior. She was a more successful spy in Britain than in China, partly because experience had taught her to be inconspicuous; she no longer attracted attention either as pillion passenger on a speeding motorbike or by rendezvous in luxury hotels. Sonya’s apparently humdrum life as a wartime housewife was almost perfect cover for running Fuchs and Norwood. Roger Hollis of MI5 (later its director-general) wrote in response to an enquiry from the FBI: “Mrs Burton appears to devote her time to her children and domestic affairs … She has not come to notice in any political connection”.

Like Sorge, Hollis – as Ben Macintyre shows – underestimated housewives. What makes Hollis’s misjudgement particularly remarkable is that he was more alert than most in wartime MI5 to male Soviet penetration and was the first to become suspicious of Blunt. Philby later recalled that “Hollis was always vaguely unhappy about him”. Blunt told his MI5 interrogators, “I believe [Hollis] disliked me – I believe he slightly suspected me”. As Gordievsky told MI6 (as well as Ben Macintyre and me), KGB headquarters found it difficult to understand the publicity given in the final decade of the Cold War to the conspiracy theory of the maverick former MI5 officer Peter Wright, that Hollis himself was a Soviet agent. “If the head of MI5 had been a Soviet super-mole”, concludes Macintyre, “Putin would be unable to resist boasting about it.”

Soviet intelligence learnt few lessons from Sonya’s remarkable wartime successes. So far as is known, no post-war female KGB or GRU officer was entrusted with Cold War agents as important as Fuchs and Norwood. At the end of the Cold War, the wholly male-run KGB made a bizarre attempt to use female glamour to improve its now tattered public image. In 1990 it announced, amid a blaze of Russian press and TV publicity, the appointment of Katya Mayorova as “Miss KGB”, the world’s first holder of a “security services beauty title”. Sonya must have been outraged.

Christopher Andrew’s next book, written in collaboration with Julius Green, Stars and Spies: Intelligence operations and the entertainment business, will be published next year

Keep reading
Twentieth-century history & later|Essay
The new peace?
Israel’s unexpected ray of light

By Ari Shavit
Twentieth-century history & later|Book Review
Citizens in arms
The defence of Israel

By Edward N. Luttwak
Twentieth-century history & later|Book Review
Alternative Ulsters
Ways of looking at the Troubles after half a century

By Richard English
Twentieth-century history & later|Book Review
His own man
John F. Kennedy’s path to the White House

By Eric Foner
HOME
REGULAR FEATURES
THE ARCHIVE
EXPLORE
CATEGORIES
ABOUT US
SHOP
SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST
Google Products
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Terms & ConditionsPrivacyCookie Settings
Copyright © The Times Literary Supplement Limited 2020. The Times Literary Supplement Limited: 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF. Registered in England.
Company registration number: 935240. VAT no: GB 243 8054 69.
0 articles remaining

Subscribe today: only £1 a week
For 12 weeks|Subscribe now