Thursday, June 30, 2022

THE BOY WHO CRIED WORK by Gabriel Sherman

THE BOY WHO CRIED WORK

Gabriel Sherman — Read time: 26 minutes


Skip to main content

Features

THE BOY WHO CRIED WORK

Adam and Rebekah Neumann grew WeWork to a $47 billion valuation by convincing mentors like Masayoshi Son and Jamie Dimon, along with much of Wall Street, that he had a near-mystical understanding of the working style of millennials. Then, on the eve of its IPO, people realized it was just a real estate company. Inside the crash of a unicorn


Holiday 2019/2020 Gabriel Sherman

On the afternoon of September 18, 2019, WeWork cofounder Adam Neumann was working out of his 6,000-square-foot Gilded Age triplex off Gramercy Park when he got a text alert on his iPhone. The Wall Street Journal had just published an explosive article chronicling what it said was his reckless management of the co working start-up, the era's preeminent unicorn. Neumann is dyslexic, and reading is a challenge, so advisers quickly briefed him on the story's most troubling details: vivid accounts of his heavy drinking, marijuana use, and habit of making grandiose pronouncements like wanting to be elected president of the world, live forever, and become humanity's first trillionaire.


The article could not have arrived at a more perilous moment. Two days earlier, the We Company, We Work's parent, announced that it was delaying its IPO after investors universally rejected the offering, even when WeWork slashed the valuation by 75 percent, to between $10 and $12 billion. In the run-up, a string of high-profile executives had walked out the door, including the chief communications officer, the co-head of the firm's real estate fund, and the global head of real estate partnerships. Just weeks earlier, WeWork had been privately valued at $47 billion—which was $10 billion more than the market capitalization of Ford and double the GDP of Iceland. Now, unless WeWork secured a new source of emergency funding, it would run out of cash before Thanksgiving.


For an embattled CEO running a company on life support, being the subject of a takedown by the business paper of record would mean instant career death. But Neumann, characteristically, assured colleagues that the article was not much more than a speed bump. He controlled 65 percent of the stock and had the power to fire the board of directors if the board moved against him. (So confident was Neumann of his job security that he once declared during a company meeting that his descendants would be running We Work in 300 years.)


We Work executives had long grown accustomed to Neumann's belief that the laws of economics—even reality itself— didn't apply to him. It was in the nature of unicorns that they bent reality, and that certainly had been true of We Work. Fueled by $12 billion of venture capital and debt, Neumann grew WeWork in less than a decade from a single coworking outpost in SoHo into a 12,500-employee company with 500,000 users in 111 cities across 29 countries. But in 2018, We Work had lost $2 billion and had a highly questionable business model—the company signed long-term leases and sublet space to freelancers and corporations on a short-term basis. Its valuation somehow kept rising.


The company's valuation put Neumann's net worth at $4.1 billion—and his spending more than kept pace, "It was Succession craziness," a colleague said. Neumann was chaufeured around in a $100,000-plus Maybach sedan and traveled the world on a $60 million Gulfstream G650. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, he and his wife, Rebekah Paltrow Neumann—Gwyneth's first cousin—spent $90 million on a collection of six homes that included the Gramercy condo, a 60-acre estate in Westchester County, a pair of Hamptons houses and a $21 million mansion in the Bay Area that features a room shaped like a guitar. They employed a squadron of nannies for their five children, two personal assistants, and a chef. "Adam went through money like water," a former executive said.


In a way, the spending made sense, because Neumann himself was the product. He pitched himself to investors as a gatekeeper to the rising generation. A new way of working. A new way of living. Work was 24/7, coworkers were friends, office was home, work was life. For baby boomers who experienced office life as cubicles and bad coffee, his message was irresistible. "Every investor who walked through was sold," a WeWork executive told me. They saw Neumann as a millennial prophet who did shots of Don Julio during meetings while preaching about the dawn of a new corporate culture, one in which the beer and kombucha flowed and MacBook-toting employees would love coming to work. After sitting with Neumann in his office, outfitted with a Peloton bike, infrared sauna, and cold water plunge, Steve Jobs biographer Walter Isaacson told Fast Company that Neumann reminded him of the Apple cofounder. Neumann later told colleagues that Isaacson might write his biography. (Isaacson did not respond to a request for comment.)


Through a combination of egomaniacal glamour and millennial mysticism, the Neumanns sold WeWork not merely as a real estate play. It wasn't even a tech company (though he said it should be valued as such). It was a movement, complete with its own catechisms ("What is your superpower?" was one). Adam said We Work existed to "elevate the world's consciousness." The company would allow people to "make a life and not just a living." It was even capable of solving the world's thorniest problems. Last summer, some WeWork executives were shocked to discover Neumann was working on Jared Kushner's Mideast peace effort. According to two sources, Neumann assigned WeWork's director of development, Roni Bahar, to hire an advertising firm to produce a slick video for Kushner that would showcase what an economically transformed West Bank and Gaza would look like. (Bahar told me he only advised on the video and no WeWork resources were used.) Kushner showed a version of the video during his speech at the White House's peace conference in Bahrain last summer.


To a passel of geezer capitalists, this was too big to miss, even if they didn't fully understand it—possibly, not understanding it was the point. Rupert Murdoch, Sir Martin Sorrell, and Larry Silverstein all took meetings. Mort Zuckerman, the billionaire cofounder of developer Boston Properties, told a real estate executive shortly after We Work launched that Neumann was creating the future of work. Zuckerman soon offered to buy WeWork for $500 million. (Neumann declined the deal but accepted a $2 million investment from Zuckerman.) "Adam was probably the best salesman of all time," a former WeWork executive told me.


In April 2012, Neumann secured his first venture capital funding from Benchmark Capital, the San Francisco-based firm famous for its bets on eBay, Twitter, and Uber. Benchmark cofounder Bruce Dunlevie joined WeWork's board after touring a WeWork with Neumann. "Bruce walked in and he said, 'You're not selling coworking, you're selling an energy I've never felt,' " recalled a former WeWork executive who attended the meeting.


JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was also an evangelist. In 2018, JPMorgan led a $700 million bond offering for WeWork. The bank extended Neumann nearly $100 million in loans and was among a group of banks that provided Neumann with a $500 million personal credit line. Neumann told an executive that Dimon was his "personal banker" and might leave JPMorgan to run Neumann's family investment office one day. (A source close to Dimon said that Dimon had no plans to leave JPMorgan.)


Neumann's most fervent believer, though, was Masayoshi "Masa" Son, the 62-year-old CEO of Japan's SoftBank Group. In recent years, Masa had transformed SoftBank from a telecom conglomerate into the world's most aggressive start-up investor, doing more than anyone to inflate the unicorn bubble. Backed by $60 billion from Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, SoftBank pumped billions into fast-growing but money-losing companies like Uber, DoorDash, and Slack. Masa would invest $10 billion in WeWork. "Adam later said, 'I'm crazy but Masa is crazier,' " a former WeWork executive recalled.


Reality came crashing down last August when WeWork filed its S-1 prospectus to go public. Investors were shocked by WeWork's spiraling losses and that the company had spent millions on Neumann vanity projects such as a wave-pool company and a start-up that sold turmeric coffee creamer. Most damaging, however, were disclosures that Neumann made $6 million by selling the "We" trademark back to the company and held ownership stakes in buildings WeWork leased from, essentially paying himself. (After criticism, Neumann returned the trademark money.) He gave his wife a large role in choosing his successor.


"Bruce said, 'You're selling an energy that I've never felt.' "

Suddenly, the pasha lifestyle that made Neumann an avatar of the new economy seemed like something else— millennial entitlement gone insane. (A collapsing unicorn bends reality the other way.) "When he was on the rise everyone painted the most beautiful picture. On the way down they only wanted to show the most ugly picture," Sam Ben-Avraham, a Neumann friend and early WeWork investor, told me. Neumann began hearing from We Work's bankers that Wall Street viewed him as "toxic," a person who spoke with Neumann told me. Looking for advice, he called Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and texted Travis Kalanick, who had been forced from Uber in 2017 amid a flurry of allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment.


Neumann retained lawyers from the white-shoe firm Paul, Weiss and P.R. advisers from Edelman to set up a war room. On Friday, September 20, Neumann arrived at WeWork's headquarters vowing to fight for his job. "I'm never not going to be CEO," he told a colleague. One of Neumann's favorite words is optionality, but he was rapidly running out of them. In the wake of the Journal expose, investor Michael Eisenberg and WeWork CFO Artie Minson held a conference call with WeWork's directors and argued that Neumann had to step down, two people briefed on the call said. On Sunday afternoon, he met with Dimon at JPMorgan's headquarters. Dimon made it clear that WeWork would never be able to secure fresh capital as long as Neumann remained CEO. And while Dimon didn't say it, the subtext was clear: WeWork was barreling toward bankruptcy, and Neumann would be unable to repay the $380 million he borrowed against the value of his now potentially worthless stock. Two days later, Neumann resigned.


Neumann's fall is one of the most spectacular flameouts in recent corporate history, an Icarus story for its time. Though in Neumann's case, he floated down under a golden parachute. When SoftBank bailed out WeWork on October 22 for $9.5 billion, Neumann walked away with a package that included $1 billion in stock, $500 million in credit to pay back loans, and a $185 million consulting fee. The money, though, didn't blunt the confusion and anger he was experiencing, people who spoke with Neumann said.


In the weeks after losing control of his company, he became paranoid that he was being followed. He heard a rumor from a reporter that one of his investors hired the Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube—the same firm Harvey Weinstein used to track Ronan Farrow—to dig up dirt on him to force him out as CEO. Mainly, he holed up in his Gramercy condo, trying to piece together what had gone so disastrously wrong.


Not long after Neumann started WeWork in 2010, the then-31-year-old Israeli entrepreneur showed up at a real estate industry conference on Park Avenue wearing his now-familiar uniform, T-shirt and jeans, with shoulder-length surfer hair that looked like it hadn't been washed in days. Neumann, who is six-foot-five and shares model good looks with his sister, a former Miss Teen Israel, was an instant object of fascination among the suit-clad executives, many of whom were twice his age. They were taken with his exotic backstory (he was raised on a kibbutz in southern Israel, not far from the Gaza Strip). But it was his hyper-confidence that one attendee most recalled. "I remember Adam asked me what company leases the most office space in New York. I told him JPMorgan. They have about 3.5 million square feet. And he said, 'Well, I'm going to lease more than they do.' "


It was a delusional idea at the time. Neumann was a college dropout with no commercial real estate experience and a business track record of having launched two failed start-ups: a company that sold women's shoes with a collapsible heel and a line of baby clothes called Krawlers that featured pants with kneepads sewn into the legs. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, Neumann had burned through an investment from his grandmother of nearly $100,000 and scrambled to hire a lawyer to renew his visa to stay in the country. To help pay rent, he let another company sublet space in Krawlers's Brooklyn loft.


It was the genesis of the WeWork idea: In the postcrash recession, Neumann had the foresight to bet landlords would need tenants, and that legions of underemployed professionals would pay for an appealing alternative to working from a Starbucks while they got back on their feet. Neumann partnered with a laconic 34-year-old architect named Miguel McKelvey, who grew up on an Oregon commune, and together they convinced Krawlers's landlord to let them convert an unused floor into a shared workspace called Green Desk. The concept did well. A little over a year later, they sold it to the landlord at a reported $3 million valuation and struck out on their own.


Neumann envisioned WeWork as a "capitalist kibbutz" where members would work, eat, and drink together. McKelvey designed WeWork branches that fostered community by keeping hallways narrow and packing in open desks to encourage spontaneous encounters. After hours, members participated in yoga classes, wine tastings, and networking panels. The WeWork aesthetic evoked a cross between a Silicon Valley start-up and a boutique hotel lobby. Offices had clean lines, Danish furniture—no leather or plastic utensils allowed—and neon signs on the walls with phrases like "Hustle Harder." By 2018, Neumann's improbable boast had come true: WeWork surpassed JPMorgan to become New York's largest private office tenant, with some 5 million square feet of office leases spread across more than 50 locations in the city.


But achieving this blistering growth resulted in barely controlled chaos inside the company. "The place made the Trump White House look like a well-oiled machine," a former senior executive said. At WeWork's first headquarters in the Financial District, there were twice as many employees as available desks in the early days. "They scattered employees throughout We Works around the city," a former executive recalled. Neumann had personally reviewed the first hundred leases, but as the company grew, it became a free-for-all. The company voraciously leased office space with seemingly little strategy, except to keep adding locations. To entice new customers, WeWork offered members free rent and bought out their existing leases. " We are in a consumption phase, like nothing that has ever been seen," Neumann declared at an industry conference in 2015. "There was no discipline to how Adam approved leases," an executive said. A broker who worked with the company during this time recalled, "No one knew what anyone was doing."


The torrid pace took a toll on morale. "We would joke that we worked like slaves," a former WeWork employee said. "Adam would have meetings on Sunday, and you could never miss those. And sometimes it wouldn't happen, or it'd happen hours late and you'd be there all night. You'd cry in the bathroom all the time," the employee recalled. At the same time the company was burning money to expand, staffers were made to feel expendable. WeWork's previous CFO Ariel Tiger, who served in the Israeli Navy with Neumann, talked openly about firing people. "Every two weeks Ariel would get a printout of payroll, and he would go through and redline the shit out of it, saying he wanted to reduce peoples' pay," a former executive said. "I remember walking through the office and Ariel would loudly say, 'Why do we have all these people? I could do what they're doing with two people! 'Everyone knew he was Adam's guy." (Tiger did not respond to a request for comment.)


The promise of IPO riches kept many employees from simply quitting. "The numbers they threw out at all-hands meetings was that this is going to be a multibillion-dollar company," a former employee said. The money was only part of it, though. Neumann inculcated in his postcollegiate staff a belief they were members of a vanguard changing the world—or at least a belief they may work in an office but they didn't have to grow up. Employees were expected to attend Neumann's weekly Thank God It's Monday parties and a roving annual retreat called Summer Camp held in different years at an upstate New York compound and an English country estate. The events were one part TED Talk (quantum physicist Michael Brooks gave a lecture) and another part Animal House (employees played beer pong and partied to performances by Florence and the Machine and Two Door Cinema Club).


Until a few years ago, the Neumanns were devout followers of Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical faith, and it infused WeWork's office culture. One employee said key meetings were often scheduled for the 18th of the month because 18 is a sacred number in Kabbalah's 32 paths to wisdom. Adam encouraged senior WeWork executives to participate in weekly study sessions with his spiritual adviser at the time, Rabbi Eitan Yardeni. "It was a lot about finding your inner peace and purpose," an executive who attended the meetings recalled.


Neumann's charisma was intoxicating to be around. "If you had to go to war, you wanted him to be your general," a former executive said. "His sense of himself is beyond human," recalled another. Neumann paraded through the office barefoot with celebrities like Drake and Ashton Kutcher and had an unnerving ability to maintain eye contact during conversation, lending him the aura of a guru. "When you're in a room with Adam, he can almost convince you of anything," a former employee said. Neumann used mass gatherings to spread his gospel. "I think the thing that all of us know is that if you want to succeed in this world you have to build something that has intention," he said on stage at Summer Camp in 2013, his hair pulled into a ponytail. "Every one of us is here because it has meaning, because we want to do something that actually makes the world a better place. And we want to make money doing it!" The crowd of thousands exploded in cheers. "So many of the people were young and had never worked in a real company. They bought all of it," a former senior executive said. " I realized after I got there it was a cult."


Neumann's gravitational pull was drawing in the world's biggest investors too. In the spring of 2016, Neumann met Masayoshi Son at a dinner. The following year, Neumann invited Masa to WeWork headquarters. Masa informed Neumann he had precisely 12 minutes to hear a presentation. Afterward, Neumann followed Masa outside to his car, hoping to continue the pitch. Masa told Neumann he didn't think his business plan would work. Neumann's problem was that he needed to think bigger. WeWork shouldn't just be leasing offices to small businesses—it should be leasing office space to all business. Masa scribbled on an iPad the number SoftBank was prepared to invest: $4.4 billion. "Adam dazzled Masa," an investment banker close to both men told me.


Pumped up by SoftBank's billions, Neumann's messianism became more like megalomania. "Adam's fantasy land became a reality," a former WeWork executive said. Neumann sat down with world leaders, discussing the Syrian refugee crisis with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and urban planning with London mayor Sadiq Khan. "When Adam got in front of world leaders, it was like he started thinking he was one," a former executive said.


"The place made the Trump White House look like a well-oiled machine."

In conversations with people inside and outside the company, Neumann's pronouncements became wilder. He told one investor that he'd convinced Rahm Emanuel to run for president in 2020 on the " WeWork Agenda." (Emanuel did not respond to a request for comment.) Neumann told colleagues that he was saving the women of Saudi Arabia by working with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to offer women coding classes, according to a source. In another meeting, Neumann said three people were going to save the world: bin Salman, Jared Kushner, and Neumann. Shortly after the news broke in October 2018 that Saudi agents tortured dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and carved his body with a bone saw, likely on order from the crown prince himself, Neumann told George W. Bush's former national security adviser Stephen Hadley that everything could be worked out if bin Salman had the right mentor. Confused, Hadley asked who that person might be, according to a source familiar with the meeting. Neumann paused for a moment and said: "Me."


Rebekah Neumann shared her husband's fervor that WeWork was a movement. "From the second I met Adam there was an energy between us that felt like it was larger than just the two of us," she told the style website Coveteur. They married in 2008, the year Green Desk launched, and she took on the role of WeWork's raven-haired five-foot-nine first lady. "I'm responsible for all of the messaging, the mission, the values, and, most importantly staying true to the DNA and mission of what we initially set out to do at WeWork," she told Coveteur She held several titles, including chief brand and impact officer, and cofounder.


Senior executives bristled at Rebekah's nebulous, free-ranging role and her thin resume. Prior to WeWork, she'd lived in Los Angeles trying unsuccessfully to make it as an actress and screenwriter. After college, she spent a few weeks working on Wall Street before quitting, telling a friend the job wasn't for her. "He has a wife who wants to leverage this to be her own major character," said a source who's interacted with Rebekah. Executives wondered why the marketing consultant Jonathan Mildenhall, whom WeWork hired to help develop its brand, was also advising Rebekah on her personal image. (He asked her questions like, "Are you a magician, maverick, or a muse?" said an executive who participated in the session.) At company events, Rebekah interviewed luminaries like Lin-Manuel Miranda and Red Hot Chili Peppers front man Anthony Kiedis.


Crossing Rebekah had consequences. SoulCycle cofounder Julie Rice, who'd been recruited to WeWork in 2017 to become the company's chief brand officer, quit in part because Rebekah decided upon returning from maternity leave that she wanted Rice's title and took it, sources said. (A source close to Rebekah said that Rebekah, as a WeWork cofounder, had always had that title.) Last year, Rebekah fired a mechanic for WeWork's Gulfstream, two executives told me, because she didn't like his energy.


In the fall of 2018, Rebekah opened WeGrow, a for-profit school costing up to $42,000 a year, at WeWork's headquarters. "We couldn't find the school that we felt would nurture growth," she told Fast Company, explaining how she got the idea to create a school for their five children. Rebekah had very specific ideas of what the ideal environment would be. "These children come into the world, they are very evolved, they are very special. They're spiritual," she told Fast Company. "They're all natural entrepreneurs, natural humanitarians, and then it seems like we squash it all out of them in the education system."


She hired Danish architect Bjarke Ingels to design an airy space that featured an indoor "vertical garden" and "acoustic clouds" hanging from the ceiling. To serve as her COO, she recruited education entrepreneur Adam Braun by acquiring Braun's college alternative start-up MissionU for $4 million (Braun's brother is Justin Bieber manager Scooter). The curriculum included classes in mindfulness, yoga, meditation, and farming. Students ate vegetarian meals and were taught Spanish and Mandarin, and parents could enroll their children in their Hebrew language immersion program. Children could even be paired with a professional mentor. "In my book, there's no reason why children in elementary schools can't be launching their own businesses," Rebekah told Bloomberg.


Although many families loved the whimsical little school (more than half the kids received financial aid, the school says), it was not entirely a utopia. Early on, a WeWork administrator called WeWork's HR department in a panic. The school's security guards were threatening to quit because they hadn't been paid in a month, a former executive recalled. It turned out human resources forgot to add them to the payroll, according to a source familiar with the matter. Another source recalled that parents protested Rebekah's rule that nannies picking up children were required to stand in the vestibule while parents were allowed to wait inside the school's lounge. (Rebekah didn't want her own nannies entering the school, two sources said.) "The whole thing was about her and what was right for her children," a person close to the school said.


Adam Neumann, meanwhile, was pushing WeWork in new directions all at once. In January 2019, WeWork rebranded itself The We Company. In addition to WeGrow, it launched an apartment rental division (WeLive) and a gym (Rise by We). WeWork signed deals to provide offices for Fortune 500 companies including Amazon, General Electric, and Facebook. The company tried selling software to companies that mapped how employees used office space (part of what they called "Powered by We"). But the new revenue streams didn't make up for ballooning losses. In 2018, WeWork's revenue climbed to $1.8 billion, but it lost $1.9 billion. "I didn't understand how this was working and the valuation kept going up," a former senior executive said. Employees sensed a bubble. "After Masa invested, I would sit in meetings and we'd talk about growing by 100 million square feet in 2019," recalled another. "And I thought, You can't spend that much money in the right way. "


Being seen as a visionary was part of Neumann's business model—but he increasingly was seen as a flake. Neumann skipped crucial meetings or showed up late for no reason, according to two sources. To secure face time, executives devised a strategy of riding with Neumann to the airport before he jetted off somewhere. Sources told me he basically stopped calling in for WeWork board conference calls. "It was a Vichy board. They had no power. So what the fuck do you do?" said a former senior WeWork executive.


Neumann was becoming increasingly self-destructive. In November 2018, he showed up late, looking hung over, to a meeting with Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, the CEO and managing director of Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund, at the St. Regis in Manhattan, according to a source familiar with the matter. WeWork executives were furious. Mubarak was having doubts about SoftBank's massive bet on WeWork, and Neumann was supposed to reassure him.


Remarkably, Neumann didn't think it mattered. Over the summer, he had negotiated a deal with Masayoshi to sell most of WeWork to SoftBank for $16 billion. WeWork was on track to lose nearly $2 billion, and Neumann had his escape plan. He and his investors would be insanely rich. "This was a pivotal moment," a former WeWork executive recalled. "Adam was acting like the SoftBank deal was done, and we would be flush with cash."


On Christmas Eve 2018, Masa called Neumann from Japan with the news that SoftBank wouldn't be buying most of WeWork after all. Instead, SoftBank would invest $2 billion more in WeWork at an eye-popping $47 billion valuation. It was supposed to buy Neumann enough breathing room to take WeWork public.


Neumann was blindsided by Masa's reversal and did what countless others have done seeking a new start—he headed west. That January, the Neumanns relocated to their mansion in Corte Madera, just across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. They brought their household staff and a teacher from WeGrow with them and planned to spend two months on the West Coast as Neumann hunted for deals. According to sources, he pitched Apple CFO Luca Maestri on doing a deal with WeWork. It's unclear why Apple would want to invest in WeWork, and not surprisingly, the company passed. (Apple didn't respond to a request for comment.) Neumann went to Google and proposed a partnership. They too passed. Neumann batted around other investment ideas. He earlier discussed buying Slack. "He sat there saying, 'What companies can we buy? Maybe we should buy Slack?' " a former executive recalled.


When Neumann returned to WeWork's New York headquarters later that winter, he seemed desperate. He barked orders and haphazardly reorganized divisions, at one point having as many as 20 direct reports, according to a former WeWork executive. "Masa said we're gonna be a trillion-dollar company!" he shouted, according to a former executive who heard it. "You're thinking billions and we should be thinking trillions! You people need to be better than you are!" Neumann seemed shocked by the scale of WeWork's losses. Sources said he tangled with WeWork's then-CFO Artie Minson over the cash squeeze. Minson declined to comment but a former senior executive said Neumann drove the decision making. "Nothing could happen without Adam."


Former executives said Neumann often reacted poorly. "You don't bring bad news to the cult leader," one said.


Neumann argued WeWork would survive the cash crunch because its gargantuan size gave Neumann the leverage to force WeWork's landlords to renegotiate leases at lower prices, according to a real estate executive. "In the major cities in the world, WeWork is propping up the office market," he told a colleague around this time. "If I say 'pencils down' to my people, the value of buildings will plunge, and I can go in and buy them on the cheap." The executive was chilled by the conversation. "We're not talking about a Harvard Business School analysis here. This has a predatory aspect to it."


WeWork's venture capital investors, meanwhile, had collectively poured more than $12 billion into the company, and they wanted to cash out. With no private buyer, the only option was to go public. "Adam never wanted to go public," a former executive said. "His ideal was Bloomberg. He wanted to remain private so he could do whatever the fuck he wanted."


It didn't help that Neumann was racing to find a financial lifeline as a darker side of his company was appearing in the papers. In October 2018, Ruby Anaya, WeWork's 33-year-old director of culture, sued the company, citing its "entitled, frat-boy culture" and claiming she had been fired after she reported to human resources that she had been sexually assaulted at a work event. The suit alleged that when Anaya walked offstage after presenting an award at a WeWork conference in January 2018, an intoxicated male employee forcibly kissed her. The lawsuit cited an earlier incident from Summer Camp in 2017, in which a drunk coworker allegedly groped her from behind. After both episodes, HR failed to discipline the men, the suit said. " It was awful," Anaya told me when we met one afternoon last fall. "I remember saying [to HR], who has to say something for it to be believed, Rebekah? Who is safe here? No one is safe." (A WeWork spokesperson said, "WeWork's new executive chairman Marcelo Claure has made clear he will not tolerate behavior of the kind alleged in this lawsuit.")


A more immediate problem was the air the unicorn bubble was leaking—fast. Uber shares debuted down nearly 10 percent. "The whole world shifted," a senior WeWork executive said. "Uber was a big part of it. The narrative of the unicorn was ending. Had we gotten out before that narrative shifted, we would have been fine."


WeWork's failed IPO vaporized as much as $40 billion of shareholder value in two months—a unicorn extinction event, at least in the near term. It was comparable to the end of tulipomania.


Those who are losing the most are WeWork's beleaguered staff, many of whom had small equity stakes. They'd believed deeply in Neumann, worked insane hours, and bought in fully to the WeWork dream. "They pushed the narrative that this is your family, and you're supposed to spend a lot of time with them. It was somewhat incestuous. It was like we were at war together," a former staffer said. The company's IPO, the blessed liquidity event, was part of their faith, built into their worldview. Now, thousands may lose their jobs, and any equity is a distant dream. It's hard to overstate their fury at Neumann, who's walking away a billionaire. Recently, the New York Times reported a group of WeWork employees circulated an open letter calling Neumann's payout "graft." "This company was designed and managed to make a handful of people ungodly wealthy at the expense of everyone," a former executive told me.


But WeWork was a group delusion, and Neumann is not the only guilty party. "SoftBank deserves a lot of responsibility," a former WeWork executive told me. " It's very difficult for anyone to control themselves if you have a sugar daddy like Masa." Neumann is telling friends he took the fall for financial decisions WeWork's board of directors and his advisers had all approved. He complains that he never wanted to sell the We trademark back to the company, but WeWork lawyers told him he couldn't give it away for free, people familiar with the transaction said. (WeWork didn't respond to a request for comment.) He feels victimized by the media and he insists the WeWork buildings he owned were actually money-losing investments. He bought them to prove the WeWork concept to skeptical landlords during the company's early days.


Wall Street too deserves blame, he's told people. Just last spring, bankers from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan were throwing themselves at him, trying to secure WeWork's IPO and the estimated $100 million in fees it would generate. Neumann tells people bankers told him that WeWork could be worth $90 billion. It wasn't strictly Neumann's fault that investors no longer had the appetite for money-burning start-ups like Uber and Slack. WeWork's botched S-1 is Wall Street's fault, he told people. Why didn't the bankers and lawyers warn Neumann the disclosures he put in the S-1 would spark an investor backlash, he asks his friends. Having once been a prophet, he now speaks of himself as a martyr, people close to him say.


The more Neumann stewed, the more he came to believe he was the target of a coup. Powerful interests wanted him out of the company, he tells friends. The crash of WeWork's IPO meant that investors who had pumped billions into WeWork were suddenly at risk of losing their shirts, and now they wanted to collect. Sources told me his prime suspect is Benchmark Capital. In 2017, Benchmark led a boardroom putsch that ousted Kalanick from Uber, and later sued Kalanick to force him off Uber's board. Neumann's suspicions of Benchmark increased when he learned that investor Michael Eisenberg, a Benchmark general partner, rallied WeWork board members to dump Neumann after the delayed IPO, sources said. (Eisenberg did not respond to a request for comment.)


For now, the Neumanns' dream is over. In September, the company announced it was getting rid of the Gulfstream and closing Rebekah's school. They withdrew all five of their kids. He tells friends he wants to learn from his crash. In his office, he keeps a card with three lessons he wrote: Listen. Be on time. Be a good partner. He thought about flying to Tokyo to see his onetime patron Masayoshi Son but decided not to. He tried drafting a letter to WeWork employees, but as of mid-November, he hadn't figured out what to say.



Opinion: The fall of Roe is the culmination of the Democratic establishment’s failures

Opinion by Perry Bacon Jr.
June 29, 2022 at 11:14 p.m. Japan Time


The overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the underwhelming reaction from senior Democratic leaders to that huge defeat, make the case even clearer that the party’s too-long-in-power leaders — including President Biden — need to move aside. On their watch, a radicalized Republican Party has gained so much power that it’s on the verge of ending American democracy as we know it.
On the day of the court’s momentous ruling eliminating a constitutional right that the Democratic Party had pledged to fiercely defend, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and House Democrats held a big event on the steps of the Capitol — to celebrate the passage of a fairly limited gun-control bill. Biden gave a short speech that didn’t include any ideas on how to reform an increasingly radical Supreme Court but did include a call for Democrats not to violently protest the ruling, as if his supporters would otherwise have started rioting en masse. Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) called the decision “anti-climactic,” as if it were at all important that the ruling was expected. Officials across the party, including Pelosi, sent out fundraising emails, unwilling to focus solely on the ruling’s terrible policy impacts for even a day before mining it for electoral upside.
That behavior was discouraging, but it was not surprising. The past year and a half of Democratic control of Washington has been a major disappointment: Biden is more unpopular than Donald Trump was at this time in his presidency; the party’s agenda has stalled; Republican judges and state-level officials have aggressively attacked voting and abortion rights and Black and transgender people in particular with little pushback from Democrats. Biden’s kind words for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), architect of so much of what is happening, are both infuriating to Democrats and ineffective in winning any Republicans to his side.
To be sure, inflation, the obstinacy of Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and the Republicans themselves have caused most of those problems. But the Democratic Party’s leaders have made constant blunders along the way. Most fundamentally, they have not adjusted to how politics is increasingly fought online, in state capitols and in other venues outside of Washington where Republicans are notching many of their victories. And while Republicans are attacking America’s democratic system itself, Democratic leaders and their allies are deeply invested in a far-less important cause: defeating candidates associated with star progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) in Democratic primaries in heavily liberal districts.
But the problem runs deeper than the past 18 months. Biden, Pelosi and the group of political and policy strategists who perpetually hold top jobs in Democratic politics have presided over disappointing results for more than a decade, setting the stage for the fall of Roe and the other struggles of 2021-2022 — most notably, the wipeout of Democrats in 2010 and 2014; Donald Trump’s victory in 2016; the narrower-than-expected Democratic win in 2020. The Republicans’ gains, particularly at the state level, have allowed them to pass restrictive abortion laws and other unpopular provisions, as well as gerrymander states so they don’t have to fear much electoral backlash. Trump’s victory resulted in the appointments of three of the five Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe. The failure to defeat Trump and Republicans resoundingly in 2020 left the Democrats with only 50 Senate seats, too few to change the filibuster rules and pass much of anything, including a national law guaranteeing abortion rights.
Pelosi, Biden and other Democratic leaders of course don’t sit on the Supreme Court or in state legislatures. But too many of them have been major players in the party over the past two decades as it has failed to create an apparatus of media, think tanks and other institutions to rival what exists on the right. They have been deeply involved in bland Democratic campaigns and candidates who often lose key races to Republicans, even as the GOP has much less popular policy goals.
It’s not that these leaders are terrible at politics. There are numerous structural factors, such as the electoral college, that disproportionately hurt the Democrats. And this group can point to considerable accomplishments, as well: blunting much of the agendas of Presidents George W. Bush and Trump; playing big roles in promoting Biden and Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president; the passage of the Affordable Care Act. They have won more elections (2006, 2008, 2012, 2018, 2020) than they have lost (2004, 2010, 2014, 2016). Pelosi’s decision to keep Trump-aligned Republicans off the Jan 6. committee was smart, and the highly engaging way that Democrats have conducted the hearings themselves would not have happened without the speaker’s blessing.
But it hasn’t been enough. Their losses have allowed a radicalized Republican Party to gut abortion and voting rights, take control of most state governments and the federal judiciary, elect democracy-eroding figures such as Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and now stand on the verge of taking control of Congress and even more state governments this November and potentially the entire federal government in 2024.
And it’s not that the Republican establishment has done better — it has lost half the time, too. The critical difference, though, is that there have been several different Republican establishments over the past two decades, allowing the party to test out different strategies. In contrast, the Democratic leadership has aggressively blocked fresher faces from having much of a role in the party’s decision-making. Instead, we have watched over the past 18 months as Democrats made many of the same strategic mistakes that they did in 2009 and 2010, with some of the same people involved in the foibles.
It’s worth emphasizing just how long many Democratic leaders have been at the helm. In 2003, Pelosi became leader of the House Democrats, Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) became the party’s No. 2, and Clyburn became, the third-ranking leader. Biden, then a senator, was the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) have been in the party’s Senate leadership since 2005. The Republicans who held equivalent roles when these Democrats took power were Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), Rep. Tom DeLay (Tex.), Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.). All the Republicans but McConnell are long gone from national politics.
Now, the fall of Roe v. Wade is the culmination of these Democrats’ failures. I think it’s still possible Democrats keep control of Congress this November, because the party base could aggressively mobilize against the Republicans, particularly in light of the abortion decision. But that’s really another indictment of party leaders, who spent 2021 downplaying GOP radicalism while emphasizing building roads years from now. No matter what happens this election cycle, their previous defeats, lack of new strategies and open disdain for the party’s activists is too much to allow this group to remain in charge. The Americans who will most suffer from entrenched GOP rule — Black people and other traditionally marginalized groups in particular — deserve leaders who will fight as hard and creatively as possible for them, not a leadership class so invested in defending its own power, legacy and political approach.
It is essential that Pelosi follows through on her previously announced plans to step down from congressional leadership after this election. Clyburn, Durbin, Hoyer and Schumer should do the same. Biden should not seek reelection and instead allow a fresh voice to lead the party. If he insists on running again, he needs to bring in new advisers and rethink his political approach.
I could write another several thousands words detailing the mistakes and failures of these Democratic leaders. But I will conclude on a hopeful note. There is a real ideological divide between the center-left and left in the Democratic Party. But I think an equally and perhaps more important fissure is between the political approach of the Old Guard and those who embrace a modern style of politics, such as Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker; Sens. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.); Reps. Jamie B. Raskin (Md.), Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.); Boston Mayor Michelle Wu; Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried; and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
That group has a wide range of policy views, but in watching all of them, I sense that they understand how politics in 2022 actually works. Unlike Biden and Pelosi, they are not wedded to polls and bipartisanship and do not constantly distance themselves from the party’s activists. They are much more open to new thinking.
And this new generation will be in power soon. The Pelosi-Hoyer-Clyburn triumvirate is likely on its way out after the midterms. Biden can only run once more — though it would be better if he didn’t. The consultants and strategists who are tied to them will have less power after those politicians are no longer in office.
We don’t know exactly what can save the country from this radicalized GOP. But Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden don’t either — and after about 20 years, it’s well past time to give others a chance to lead.

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

A Backlash to Dobbs Depends on How Much It Affects the Middle Class

A Backlash to Dobbs Depends on How Much It Affects the Middle Class

Read time: 4 minutes

By David A. Hopkins

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

A Backlash to Dobbs Depends on How Much It Affects the Middle Class

In the Atlantic on Monday, David Frum argued that the rise and fall of the Prohibition movement provides a useful historical parallel to the likely trajectory of abortion politics in the United States a century later. Prohibition sentiment grew steadily for decades after the Civil War, culminating in the nationwide banning of alcohol sales in 1919 via constitutional amendment and congressional legislation. Once imposed, however, the policy proved sufficiently unpopular that Prohibition was not only repealed within 14 years via a second constitutional amendment, but the entire national debate over the legality of alcohol was also permanently resolved. According to Frum, last week's Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health could well play an analogous role to the enactment of the Volstead Act: an apparent breakthrough victory for restrictionists that will turn out to presage a more enduring retreat.


This seems unlikely. Abortion and alcohol are sufficiently different—as are the 1920s and 2020s, for that matter—that the comparison feels imperfect in many respects. Yet Frum makes a perceptive observation that is crucial for anticipating how much of a backlash the banning of abortion is likely to provoke, even if the end result is not the fading conflict and stable compromise he envisions. As the piece explains, a powerful source of mobilized opposition to Prohibition came not merely from the immigrants and laborers whose reputation for intemperance (and resulting social disorder) had been the principal justification for its initial imposition, but also from influential middle-class metropolitans, accustomed to living mostly as they pleased, who became annoyed by the newfound restrictions on their own autonomy once the policy swung into place.


Now that a legal ban on abortion is moving abruptly from hypothetical objective to practical reality in much of Red America, the question of how it will be implemented becomes newly salient. The younger and lower-income women who are the primary population of abortion seekers, but who are not especially politically mobilized, will inevitably be the most directly affected by the Dobbs decision. But the stricter the enforcement regime, the more its effects will climb up the ladder of age and social status to reach citizens with greater political power and firmer standing expectations of deference from the world around them.


Will married thirty-something women of the bourgeoisie be left with permanent physical damage as a result of medical complications that could have been avoided with access to abortion procedures? Will their miscarriages be subjected to criminal investigation? Will they be denied fertility treatments, such as in-vitro fertilization, that involve the destruction of embryos? Will they be sent to prison for procuring illicit mifepristone pills, or face lawsuits for driving their daughters to clinics across state lines? The more the answer to these questions is yes, the more that dissatisfaction is likely to build across these women's well-connected social networks and provide fodder for news media stories and campaign commercials that portray them as victims of injustice.


Frum expects red-state officials to implement uniformly aggressive enforcement measures, which leaves him relatively confident in predicting a powerful backlash that will steadily undermine the strength of the pro-life movement. But our legal system gives substantial discretion to individual officials in charging and sentencing defendants. It's quite possible that abortion prohibitions on the books will be most strictly enforced among populations with the least political power. When combined with the fact that (unlike the Prohibition case) the regions of the country where opposition to restriction is the highest are, at least for now, free from being directly subjected to the same legal constraints, such selective implementation might keep popular opposition from becoming sufficiently strong to disrupt the close balance of electoral power between the two sides that has already endured for the past 30 years.


Moreover, many of the authorities now in position to enforce the new restrictions are not themselves conservatives. The local district attorneys and judges elected in pro-choice communities, such as most large metropolitan centers, will face strong personal incentives to use their discretion to minimally enforce the law, especially against politically sympathetic subgroups. Over time, red-state legislatures may respond to this shirking by transferring enforcement responsibilities from local to state-level officials elected by majority-Republican constituencies. But the questions of who will get punished how for what are, at this stage, unresolved and unclear, with a palpable tension arising between the substance and the politics of the abortion issue: strict enforcement of the bans would work to the electoral advantage of the pro-choice movement while lax enforcement would be relatively favorable to the political interests of the pro-life cause.


Until we have a better sense of how the post-Dobbs world will actually operate in practice, forecasting the larger consequences of the decision remains very difficult. But history can be a reliable guide in one respect. The amount of political risk incurred by proponents of a new policy often reflects how much the highly efficacious members of the American upper middle class view the change as disrupting the lifestyle of people like themselves.

Trump Has Steered Himself Into a Legal Morass

Trump Has Steered Himself Into a Legal Morass

Jonathan Bernstein | Bloomberg — Read time: 5 minutes


Democracy Dies in Darkness

Trump Has Steered Himself Into a Legal Morass

Analysis by Jonathan Bernstein | Bloomberg

June 28, 2022 at 8:19 p.m. EDT

We’ve run out of words to describe the magnitude of the evidence unearthed by the House Jan. 6 committee, or the enormity of what former President Donald Trump was responsible for in the period between the 2020 election and when he left office. But Tuesday’s surprise hearing with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, the close assistant to Mark Meadows, Trump’s final chief of staff, topped them all.


In two absolutely gripping hours that filled in one important detail after another, Hutchinson testified that, among other things, Trump knew that the rioters he urged to march on the Capitol were armed — and he wanted to keep it that way, because after all their weapons were not to be used against him.


Story continues below advertisement

I don’t think anyone can doubt that Trump committed crimes, based on the testimony we’ve heard. Serious crimes. We heard on Tuesday that White House counsel Pat Cipollone warned that the White House was moving into breaking the law. We also heard testimony that Meadows was on the list of those who sought pardons from the outgoing president after the events of Jan 6.


We still have no idea what Attorney General Merrick Garland is thinking, although we know that the Justice Department investigation is proceeding up the ladder. We also don’t know that Garland could get convictions or, if so, for what exactly. Still, we’re seeing more legal experts say that Trump is in serious jeopardy.


Despite that, as the political scientist Sarah Binder suggested, the committee target isn’t Merrick Garland: “It’s GOP elite — get them off the sidelines and into the fight to keep Trump from ever holding power again.”


Story continues below advertisement

That could be true. After all, a grand jury could have heard Hutchinson’s testimony in private. Today wasn’t so much about delivering new evidence (although there was plenty that had not yet been reported). It was about making a very public case about just how lawless Trump had become. And about how much evidence is lined up against him, which could matter for those deciding just how to position themselves right now.


I’ve found political scientist Richard Neustadt’s explanation of the inherent weakness of the presidency to be extremely helpful in understanding Trump in office. One of the key points is that presidents generally can’t get things done by giving orders (as opposed to bargaining and persuading), and that trying to govern by edict has all kinds of likely costs to anyone tries it.


So I couldn’t help but enjoy — if that’s the correct word — how many orders Trump gave before and on Jan. 6 that he couldn’t enforce. Perhaps the most consequential of those was, as we heard last week, how Trump tried to fire his attorney general but was rolled by the White House and the Justice Department.


Story continues below advertisement

If that was the high Neustadt example, we learned on Tuesday of perhaps a new low: The president repeatedly trying to lead the march to the Capitol as his own White House staff and the Secret Service were telling him he couldn’t — ultimately leading to his attempt to grab the steering wheel of the car he was in. And failing. We’ve seen this sort of episode before, in a way. President George W. Bush wanted to return directly to the White House on Sept. 11, 2001, but the Secret Service wouldn’t let him. But Trump’s version of it was both chilling and pathetic.


To be clear: It’s not that presidents can’t do these things. It’s that most things take bargaining, deal-making and skill to get done — not issuing orders. Trump never developed the skills needed to make things happen, and so he was regularly left to, well, throw his plate against the wall in frustration. The two chief executives who relied the most on governing by edict have been Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, and they both demonstrate how dangerous that is to both the president and to the nation.


I also can’t stop thinking of Trump as Jafar, the villain from Disney’s “Aladdin.” Jafar was undermined when he was tricked into wishing to be an all-powerful genie — not realizing that part of being a genie was, as the story goes, being the servant to whoever owns the magic bottle.


Story continues below advertisement

Trump never understood that the position he aspired to and won is a job with 330 million bosses. Trump trying to grab control of that vehicle while saying “I’m the f*** president, take me up to the Capitol now!” is the result.


He was hardly the only president to fall into this trap. There’s a famous anecdote in which a young military aide tries to steer President Lyndon Johnson in the correct direction. “That’s your helicopter over there, sir,” the aide said, only to have Johnson reply: “Son, they are all my helicopters.”


Of course Johnson — and Trump — were wrong. They’re not his helicopters. Or his car. Or his Oval Office. Or his china that he smashed against the wall. All those things belong to the American people. And that’s why the presidency is set up the way it is, in the system of separated institutions sharing powers, and why presidents who attempt to govern by edict court disaster.


Story continues below advertisement

At least, that’s how it’s been since George Washington took the oath of office — to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution. Trump took the oath, but he never understood it or the presidency, and he tried to overthrow the Constitution. Whatever the legal situation may eventually be, it’s hard to believe that anyone could follow these hearings and not reach that conclusion. And to be terrified that he came close to succeeding, and that he or someone else will no doubt try again.


More From Bloomberg Opinion:


• How Watergate Helped Derail Trump’s Scheme: Jonathan Bernstein


• The Jan. 6 Committee Should Finish Its Job — Quickly: The Editors


• Will Jan. 6 Be a Factor on Nov. 8?: Julianna Goldman


Story continues below advertisement

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


Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.


More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

Most Americans are moderates

Most Americans are moderates
This piece is written by Milan the Intern, not the usual Matt-post.

Before we jump into today’s column, some personal news: as you may (or may not) know, I’ll be moving to New Haven to start my freshman year at Yale in 54 days. Thank you all for making my gap year amazing — I could not have asked for a better first job! Never fear, I’ll still be here at Slow Boring, but I’m going to be shifting to part-time work starting in August in order to keep up with my studies.

Now, on to the column…

Lately I’ve been thinking about something that my 10th grade U.S. history teacher, Mr. Landwehr, would tell our class all the time: most Americans are moderates. Today’s post takes a deep dive into the American political landscape in an attempt to gauge the accuracy of Mr. Landwehr’s statement, which (if true) has major implications for political strategy.

To spoil the conclusion, he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

What does “moderate” mean?
When you ask people to describe their ideology, the vast majority say they are either moderate or conservative, and that’s been the case for a long time. And moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states.


It is worth noting that “moderate” doesn’t necessarily mean holding centrist opinions down the board. In fact, it’s more often the case that moderates hold a mix of left- and right-wing ideas — such as someone who opposes gun control but supports raising the minimum wage.

And voters often hold inconsistent views. For example, polling indicates that a strong majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. But majorities also favor banning abortion after the first trimester, which wasn’t allowed under Roe.

Now, you might say that this proves that ideological self-identification isn’t a useful metric. Perhaps people don’t really understand certain terms or what certain policies actually are and just say they’re moderate because it sounds nice and reasonable. Or maybe they’re turned off by the stigma around the word “liberal,” even if they hold left-leaning views.

We can test this theory by looking at support for progressive policies among self-identified conservative, moderate, and liberal voters. If ideological descriptors are not just noise, then we’d expect to see more support for progressive policies among liberals than among moderates and more support among moderates than among conservatives. And in this chart from David Shor, that’s exactly what you see.

Image
Each dot represents a progressive policy that was polled. The x-axis is overall popularity, the y-axis is popularity among the relevant subgroup.
There is a substantial age gap among conservatives. Younger conservatives seem to be broadly less, well, conservative than older ones. And polling indicates that large majorities of Americans favor liberal policies such as legalizing marijuana or same-sex marriage, even as self-identified liberals are outnumbered three-to-one.

In order to square this circle, political scientist James Stimson argued that Americans are “symbolically conservative but operationally liberal.” What that means is that if you ask people questions about big-picture values — about the ideal size of government or support for traditional values — most Americans will pick the conservative option. But if you ask people about specific issues — say, whether we should expand Medicaid — then they often choose the liberal option.

People distrust the establishment
Since you’re reading Slow Boring, there’s a good chance that you follow politics closely. If I asked you for your opinion on, say, Chuck Schumer’s performance as majority leader, I’d be willing to bet that you have some thoughts to share.

If I asked my father that same question, he’d probably look at me funny. My dad votes and occasionally watches PBS NewsHour, but beyond that, he doesn’t think about politics that much. Both he and my mother say that their baseline assumption is that most politicians, including the ones they like, are at least somewhat corrupt and self-serving and therefore untrustworthy.

That’s a pretty typical attitude. Most people don’t care much for politics and don’t think a lot about it. They vote or don’t, and they might hear about a big news story like the Supreme Court overturning Roe, but they’re not keeping up with the latest developments in Build Back Better negotiations. Most people don’t really trust the federal government to do the right thing, and they don’t approve of the job Congress is doing.

Progressives sometimes like to read distaste for the establishment as evidence that the public craves big change. But that’s not actually true either.

People like the status quo
A lot of issue polling gives the impression that liberal policies are overwhelmingly popular with voters. You regularly see people argue that there is broad support for a national paid leave program, Biden’s Build Back Better plan, or passing the PRO Act. Progressives then say that the only thing preventing Democrats from enacting these policies is the corrupting influence of wealthy donors.

Twitter avatar for @AOC
The problem is that issue polling can often be misleading. There’s “acquiescence bias,” which is the tendency of respondents to pick the positive option when presented with a binary “yes/no” question. Plenty of polls neglect to tell people which party supports which side, but once you do, views often polarize on partisan lines. If you give people a neutral option such as “no opinion,” “no preference,” or “unsure” there’s often a sizable number of people who end up in the middle (for example, views on immigration are split almost equally between people who want more, less, or the same amount of it). Finally, pollsters can write questions in a deliberately biased manner in order to get a certain set of results for a press release.

David Dayen of The American Prospect has argued for “deliverism” as an alternative to poll-testing. He points out that Barack Obama’s bailout of General Motors ended up being a central part of his re-election campaign (“Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”) despite the bailout polling quite poorly when it was implemented in 2009. Therefore, Democrats should focus on delivering for the people rather than focus-grouping every policy decision.

This is often tied to the narrow argument that Democrats should do, say, student debt forgiveness in order to appeal to younger progressive voters who make up the party’s base. More generally, the argument advanced by progressives is that if Democrats nominate progressive candidates who run on bold policies that make concrete improvements to people’s lives, they will see increased turnout from the base and nonvoters alike, win elections, and implement those policies.

Since Matt has already written about the flaws in the progressive mobilization argument (here and here), I’ll keep things brief and just say that infrequent voters and nonvoters are less liberal than regular Democratic voters, so there isn’t actually that much of a tradeoff between persuading swing voters and getting more people to turn out for you — the marginal voter in both cases is fairly moderate.

In fact, there’s evidence that running more ideological candidates can backfire. Andrew Hall has found that when more ideologically extreme candidates win House primaries, their party sees a lower vote share in the general election. What happens is that the more extreme candidate energizes the other party’s base to turn out in opposition, causing the electorate’s composition to be less favorable to their own party.

If you look at the candidates who win in states usually hostile to their party, the trend is pretty clear. Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott are Republicans running some of the bluest states in the country, and they’re the most popular governors in America. In 2019, John Bel Edwards and Andy Beshear won gubernatorial races in states that would give Joe Biden less than 40% of the vote a year later. Joe Manchin overperforms dramatically in West Virginia and so does Susan Collins in Maine. What do they all have in common? Moderation!

Here progressives might note that their causes have won at the ballot box, too. In 2020, Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour even as the state went for Trump. Several red states have passed ballot measures legalizing marijuana and expanding Medicaid, often by large margins. These are all policies that I support, and I’m glad the measures passed. But they paint an incomplete picture. When Chris Warshaw looked at all contested ballot measures from 1958 to 2020, he found clear evidence of status quo bias, affecting both liberal and conservative measures.

Twitter avatar for @cwarshaw
Perhaps the best evidence of status quo bias is the well-known phenomenon of the president’s party losing seats in the midterms (averaging 26 in the House and 3 to 4 in the Senate for the postwar era).1

When Democrats control the federal government and pass liberal laws, the public reacts by voting Republican in the midterms (as in 2010), and when the GOP wins and passes conservative laws, people vote blue in the midterms (as in 2018). This pattern is borne out in historical data: Matt Grossman has documented a negative correlation between the number of ideological bills the majority party in Congress passes and its vote share in the next election.

US_Sat1
The reality is that most voters are pretty happy with things as they are. Gallup has been asking people if they’re satisfied with how their personal lives are going since 1979, and the lowest ever share of satisfied respondents was 73%. The measure is currently sitting at 85%. It shouldn’t be surprising that voters often prefer the status quo, even if they express discontent with how things are going in the country overall.

You need to meet people where they are
The fact is that there is not a hidden liberal majority in the United States. Most voters describe themselves as moderate or conservative, and that description means something. When you consider the underperformance of ballot measures on both sides of the aisle, midterm backlash, and the way issue polling can mislead, you see an electorate that also harbors a fair amount of status quo bias.

If you think about it, that makes sense. The United States is the richest country in the world, and while we have our challenges, most people here enjoy a relatively good standard of living and are happy with their personal lives.2

When I turned 18, I registered to vote as a Democrat. The reason I did is that my first real political memory was in 2017, watching the Republicans cut taxes for the rich and try to pay for it by taking healthcare away from poor people. I thought that what the GOP was doing was just morally wrong. That’s the core of why I got involved in politics — because I think we should ask the wealthy in this country to do more to help the needy. I imagine that’s the same reason many progressives got involved. But to accomplish that goal you need to convince people to vote for you, and that entails meeting people where they are.

If you tell everyone who isn’t an orthodox, ideological liberal that you’re not interested in their support, thank you very much, you’re just going to lose. If you talk about your policies as bold, sweeping, transformative changes, you’ll scare off moderate voters who are mostly content with the way things are. But if you go about things in a calmer way, by focusing on incremental change and talking about how progressive policies can also reflect moderate or conservative values, you can convince people to give you a shot.

The merits of a "narrow target" campaign / By Matthew Yglesias

The merits of a "narrow target" campaign  / By Matthew Yglesias — Read time: 8 minutes


The merits of a "narrow target" campaign

Peace in our time in the popularism wars?


Anthony Albanese recently won an election for the Australian Labor Party running what’s been characterized in the press Down Under as a “small target” strategy.


And with concepts like “popularism” and “moderating on policy” having grown contentious in the U.S. context, I think this framing could offer an appealing alternative.


Perry Bacon, who hates popularism, recently called for Democrats to run on a set of Contract With America-style promises that I think actually amounts to a small target strategy, so perhaps thinking in these terms could generate a useful consensus and offer a path forward.


What is the small target? It’s a strategy that calls for limiting the range of topics that are under discussion in a campaign. Australian conservatives (called the Liberal Party, which is confusing for Americans) tried to import U.S./U.K. culture war topics, and Albanese just refused to engage. He took a fair amount of crap from the media because it seemed like (and indeed was) an effort to duck the issue, but duck it he did. His campaign made a relatively small number of campaign promises on a relatively small number of issues, and he hammered those home, perhaps aided by the credibility that comes from his political origins in one of the more leftward factions of the party.


Bacon’s proposal for Democrats offers similar merits.


His 10 ideas are not the ones I would pick, and that’s in part the virtue of him drawing up the list — the goal is to come up with something that people who find me annoying could get on board with. But the basic exercise of picking a finite list is very different from how even moderate Democrats like Joe Biden ran in 2020. The options Democrats considered two years ago ranged from “sweeping, dramatic change on every single issue” to “more modest amounts of change on every single issue.” Bacon characterizes his proposal as an agenda to get excited about, but what I think is most exciting about it is that it offers a smaller target.


Perry Bacon’s 10-point plan

Here are the 10 ideas, which he suggests calling “Promises to the People,” exactly as worded in Bacon’s column:


Eliminate the filibuster.


A national law guaranteeing a right to an abortion in the first trimester and in all cases of rape and incest.


A democracy reform law mandating independent commissions to draw state and congressional districts lines free of gerrymandering; vote-by-mail and two weeks of early voting; proportional representation through multi-member congressional districts; and measures to prevent election subversion.


A ban on the sale of military-style weapons such as AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines, along with universal background checks for gun sales.


A minimum income tax of at least 20 percent on billionaires.


A ban on members of Congress buying individual stocks.


National marijuana legalization.


A climate change plan that puts the United States on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.


A required civics and life-skills course for high school seniors, with the same curriculum throughout the country.


Voluntary term limits of 12 years in Congress for all Democrats (six terms in the House, two in the Senate).


Again, this is not the list I would write if I got to write the list. But I think it’s pretty good!


On abortion, Bacon rightly recommends that Democrats recalibrate their stance to be popular while protecting the overwhelming majority of actual abortions. His election reform proposals in item 3 rightly jettison a lot of the provisions that were lumped into Democrats’ original political reform bill — notably, the unpopular idea of public financing and the also unpopular idea of opposition to voter ID rules. On marijuana, Chuck Schumer has been fighting not only for legalization but also to expunge the records of people with past marijuana convictions, and Bacon proposes a more narrow course.


The national civics idea is, I take it, intended to be a bone thrown to more conservative and centrist concerns about K-12 curriculum development, and I think it’s pretty smart. Whenever conservatives get into official high-profile discussion mode, they tend to concede that we should, in fact, teach people about the history of slavery and racism in the United States, about the Civil Rights Movement, and other such matters. But when the conversation devolves into people yelling at school board meetings, you end up with the racist parents who don’t want to read about Ruby Bridges. Having this conversation on a national level would perhaps let us get to a responsible, inclusive version of civically-minded patriotism in the spirit of bipartisan action to create the Juneteenth holiday.


Items 6 and 10 are classic populism, the billionaire minimum tax is solid, and while filibuster elimination is going to alarm some, its inclusion underscores the virtue of the small target strategy. Framed Bacon’s way, filibuster elimination means “we have this narrow list of things we want to do, and eliminating the filibuster means that it will happen.” If you keep the target small, I think that can work. If you tell people the filibuster is the only thing standing between the status quo and Elizabeth Warren’s big structural change, then you have a problem.


So while it’s not my list, I think it’s a huge improvement on the status quo, and it’s dramatically more moderate than recent Democratic Party positioning.


A charter of moderation

It’s worth remembering exactly how much of a goofy race to the left the Democrats’ 2020 primary became. You had Beto O’Rourke promising to confiscate people’s assault rifles, multiple candidates arguing we should decriminalize illegal entry into the United States, Kirsten Gillibrand endorsing ICE abolition, and virtually everyone endorsing the abolition of the death penalty.


What’s particularly striking is those promises weren’t from the leftmost candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.


And while Joe Biden ran and won as a moderate, he did so on a platform that was much more left-wing than Bacon’s Promises to the People. Biden promised trillions of dollars in new spending on an expanded welfare state, proposed a major immigration reform bill during his first month in office, and ran on a platform that pledged to “embed racial justice in every element of our governing agenda.”


Bacon’s list drops that new racial focus, makes no mention of trans issues, and gives up on welfare state expansion in favor of a narrow focus on climate, plus more moderate versions of the current progressive agenda on voting rights and abortion rights.


Of course focusing the party on a specific list doesn’t mean everyone needs to give up working issues that are outside of the scope of the small target. But for the concept to work, the party has to tolerate heterodoxy on everything that isn’t on the list. If you sign up for all 10 items, you’re a mainstream member of the party in good standing even if you love capital punishment or have doubts about the wisdom of creating a new federal child care program. If you support, say, nine of these ideas but aren’t sure about the assault weapons ban, then you’d be in the conservative wing of the party.


Bacon does not portray it this way in his column, but taking his idea seriously would be a genuinely transformative move back to the center for Democrats, one that would involve giving up on the mobilization delusion, reopening the door to Obama-style pandering, and reversing a decade of leftward ideological delusion. And that would be great!


Changing minds happens on a different track

The one item on this list that is clearly more progressive than Biden’s current position is the straightforward call to legalize marijuana.


This is a popular idea that lots of Democrats have embraced but that Biden hasn’t and that Obama didn’t while he was president. I find that frustrating. But I also think it is noteworthy and important to understand that marijuana legalization became popular in advance of high-profile politicians endorsing it. That’s the exact same trajectory we walked in the past with marriage equality, which started out as a cause that a minority of the public and virtually no elected officials supported. As it became more and more popular, more and more elected officials came out in favor of it.


It was through Bacon’s Twitter feed that I found Loop Me In, a blog that describes itself as written by an anonymous group of progressive staffers. They opened with two blistering posts criticizing “popularism” (and naming me as a target of the criticism), followed by a third post “Reimagining the Movement” that I largely agree with.


The whole point of that third post is that you don’t create durable political change by trimming your sails and pandering to public opinion to try to win elections, you do it by rolling up your sleeves and doing the hard work of building institutions and changing minds. They posit this as a counterpoint to popularism, but like Simon Bazelon, I think this is entirely compatible with what we are saying.


My view is that Kamala Harris, if she wants to become president of the United States, should pander relentlessly to public opinion and try to be super popular. But the “if” is important. If what she actually wants to do is long-term movement building, then she should not pander relentlessly, but she probably also shouldn’t run for president.


The hard part is priorities

The tricky thing is that while you can make big gains by narrowing the target, someone has to actually make the choices.


I think Bacon’s 10-point plan is a huge improvement over the status quo. But it’s not the 10-point plan that I would have written. And if you put Patty Murray in charge of writing the 10-point plan, she’d come up with some third thing. What would be in it? I’m not sure. But unless she went totally insane, it would be an improvement over the status quo. Because the gains come less from the specific details of the plan (though the details do matter) than from the simple fact that the target is narrowed, creating space for individual members to be heterodox, and the entire coalition gives off calmer vibes.


The problem is that someone does actually need to write the list and make it stick — someone needs to set priorities.


And prioritization is hard. Who does it? There’s no formal mechanism through which America’s loosely defined political parties can do priority setting. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Congressional parties do write “Contract With America”-style documents (Democrats had their “Six for 2006” back in the day), and it wasn’t a law of nature that the candidates running in the 2020 primary had to take such a both/and approach to everything. Part of building a more broadly appealing coalition is going to be rebuilding the muscle that knows how to set priorities.

Monday, June 27, 2022

It’s terrifying to live in a country where any revelation ... / By Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer

Follow @tzimmer_history

   Twitter logo

Jun 24 • 51 tweets • 10 min read

It’s terrifying to live in a country where any revelation about how the former president tried to abolish democracy can only dominate the news cycle for about 12 hours because the multi-level reactionary assault on the civil rights order is continuing with such brutal speed. 

Crucially, it was the reactionary counter-mobilization which made that guy president in the first place, and though his coup attempt failed, he remains the leader of a party and a rightwing movement fully committed to entrenching white patriarchal dominance by whatever means. 

The key is to see all of this as connected, all part of a multi-pronged, multi-level reactionary counter-mobilization that has a judicial arm, a political arm, an intellectual arm, and a paramilitary arm, all flanked by a massive, highly effective media/propaganda machine. 

There is nothing even remotely equivalent in the (small-d) democratic camp, on none of these levels, and especially not as a unified, coordinated political project. That’s a big reason why the Right is succeeding with the support of only a shrinking, radicalizing minority. 

The majority of Americans opposes the reactionary vision - but the Right is fully content to install authoritarian minority rule. They don’t care about democratic legitimacy - only about what they believe is the natural / divinely ordained order, what is “real America.” 

America is changing. Due to political, cultural, and most importantly demographic developments, the country has indeed become less white, less conservative, less Christian, more multicultural, more liberal. But that doesn’t mean the reactionaries can’t win. They are winning. 

We (in the pro-democracy camp) need to resist the false comfort of the demographic destiny fallacy: “We have the numbers” won’t cut it. Conservatives understand the numbers better than anyone else, and they have an all-encompassing strategy to succeed anyway. 

Every iteration of the “We have the numbers / Time is on our side” argument is based on a misjudgment of both the structural context of a political system defined by counter-majoritarian distortions as well as the depth of ideological commitment on the Right. 

In any realistic scenario, due to a combination of the current system’s anti-majoritarian distortions and the GOP’s many aggressive anti-democratic initiatives, Republicans are basically guaranteed enough power to obstruct and prevent functional Democratic governance. 

On the national level, Democrats might still have a decent chance to win the popular vote by enough that it actually translates into an electoral college majority. But as we are seeing right now, that’s not nearly enough to stop America’s accelerating slide into authoritarianism. 

Ideally, the Supreme Court would step in and stop the escalating attempts to roll back civil rights protections on the state level. But the rightwing majority on the Court is actually doing the opposite, providing cover and actively pushing the reactionary counter-mobilization. 

We are left with a situation in which Republican-led states undermine democracy and entrench white reactionary rule, with or without the support of a majority of voters; the Supreme Court says: Keep going! And Republicans in Congress block any national counter-legislation. 

In this particular moment, the two most dangerous ideas out there, closely intertwined and pervasive among centrists and liberals, are: “They will moderate once they realize the majority is against them” and “There’s a limit to what they can do – they won’t go *that* far.” 

The realization that their vision of what America – “real America” – should be has come under threat, that it is shared by a shrinking minority only, is actually what is driving the rightwing radicalization against democracy. This is not going to be a source of moderation. 

The reactionary counter-mobilization from the Right is not coming from a place of strength: Conservatives are radicalizing because they understand they are in the minority and feel their backs against the wall, leading to a veritable siege mentality. 

We see this most clearly articulated in the reactionary intellectual sphere. Those who accept the fact that a majority voted for Joe Biden are outraged because “real Americans” have become the minority in a county which they are supposedly entitled to dominate. 

The shift from “We are the silent majority, entitled to rule over those radical special-interest groups” to “We are the virtuous minority and there are fewer and fewer of us” corresponds directly with the shift from “No judicial activism” to “The Court needs to safe our America!” 

They will absolutely keep going – Clarence Thomas’ opinion is showing the way. The Right doesn’t accept *any* deviation from what they consider the natural / divinely ordained order of traditional white elite patriarchal rule.

That’s why no civil rights victories are ever fully secure, not even the ones with which conservatives seemed to have made their peace. The renewed and escalating assault on gay rights is the best, most pressing evidence that nothing is ever “settled” for the Right.


Too many moderates, centrists, and liberals have bought into the idea that conservatives are just – and at least somewhat justifiably – pushing back against certain “excesses” of “woke” leftism, and that they will stop once those excesses are kept in check. That’s nonsense. 

But this is absolutely key: There is no appeasing them. They are not looking for a consolation prize, they are not interested in sacrificial lambs or partial victories, they are also not looking for an exit ramp, don’t want to just keep face. They really mean it.


There is also most definitely no persuading them or shaming them. They are entirely convinced to be the good ones. All those who prefer to live in a functioning democratic society - something this Court won’t allow - need to grapple honestly with what that means going forward. 

The problem with the idea that they “won’t get away with this” is that it assumes there’s a line they won’t cross, that there are anti-majoritarian measures – violence and coercion, specifically – they consider too radical. But there’s absolutely no indication that’s the case. 

Will they really go *that* far? By portraying their opponent as a fundamentally illegitimate faction seeking to destroy the country, conservatives have been giving themselves permission to embrace whatever radical measures they deem necessary to defeat this “Un-American” enemy. 

We are in deeply dangerous territory precisely because so many on the Right have convinced themselves they are fighting a noble war against unpatriotic, godless forces that are in league with pedophiles – and therefore see no lines they are not justified to cross. 

The reactionary counter-mobilization against multiracial, pluralistic democracy won’t stop because the people behind it have some sort of epiphany that they shouldn’t go *that* far. It will either *be stopped* or succeed in entrenching white Christian patriarchal rule. 

On this day, and every day, remember: Those who like to scold the “alarmists” with a hearty “They won’t go *that* far!” have been consistently wrong. The “alarmists” have been mostly spot on about what the reactionary end game would be. Adjust your expectations accordingly. 

Addendum: I wrote this in May for @GuardianUS - The impending end of Roe will not magically appease the Right. The Court will continue to operate as an integral part of an all-encompassing reactionary assault on multiracial, pluralistic democracy that is only going to accelerate.


I’m hearing quite a lot of “They can’t win - the demographics are getting worse for them every year”: Whether or not minority rule can be upheld largely depends on how far the ruling minority is willing to go to uphold it, how far into authoritarianism they’re willing to venture. 

If the ruling minority is willing to keep curtailing the rights of opposing groups, to further restrict their ability to take part in the political process, to mobilize state power and to enable paramilitary/vigilante forms of violence, minority rule can absolutely be sustained. 

I agree there is a glass-half-full reading of recent U.S. history and our current moment: The Right is radicalizing out of a sense of weakness, and they are reacting to something real - the country has indeed moved closer to becoming a true, multiracial, pluralistic democracy. 

America has the chance to demonstrate that such a true democracy, one in which the individual’s status is not significantly determined by race, religion, gender, sexual or gender orientation, is actually feasible under conditions of multiracial, multi-religious pluralism. 

It’s a chance of world-historic significance, as such a democracy has basically never existed anywhere. But we need to acknowledge that as of right now, it is, at best, an open question whether or not this vision of true democracy can overcome the radicalizing forces of reaction. 

As of right now, the country is rapidly turning into a dysfunctional pseudo-democratic system nationally – and on the state level will be divided into democracy in one half of the states and authoritarian one-party rule in the other. And that’s far from the worst-case scenario. 

Considering the tsunami of red-state legislation rolling back civil rights and entrenching white reaction rule, and the Right’s clearly stated intentions to impose this order on the entire country against majority will, things are only going to get worse in the immediate future. 

A few more thoughts, 48 hours after the ruling: America is now divided into a blue part that accepts the country’s changing social, cultural, and demographic realities vs. a white Christian nationalist red part that is led by people entirely devoted to rolling back those changes. 

From a liberal, blue-state perspective, it might be tempting to say: Well, let them! Let them ruin those states and turn them fully into reactionary backwaters! But that would be disastrous, and not just for the white Christian nationalists who are assaulting democracy. 

Remember that the “blue states vs. red states” narrative too often obscures the fact that America’s political geography is actually mostly shaped by an urban vs. rural divide. What are we telling the people who live in blue urban centers in the midst of red states: Tough luck? 

“Well, they’ll have to vote with their feet and move!” I’m sure a lot of young people, especially, will do exactly that. But it leaves those behind who aren’t able to uproot their entire existence – often precisely the people who will suffer most from white reactionary politics. 

Always remember that the Right us pursuing a deeply and fundamentally anti-democratic project, imposing the will of a shrinking, radicalizing minority on the majority - and that is true even in most “red” states. We cannot abandon those people. They deserve so much better.


I keep thinking about exactly this: The arc of history – and how too many people in the liberal camp have been invested in a narrative of progress that has acted as a tranquilizer, has allowed them to look at a radicalizing Right and conclude that things will be fine anyway.


No one should be surprised: This ruling constitutes the culmination of half a century of conservative legal activism, and rejecting Roe has been a key element of conservative political identity for decades. Conservatives could not be clearer about what their animating vision is. 

And yet, it is also important to point out how unusual this is: The U.S. just joined the very short list of countries that have restricted existing abortion rights since the 1990s – the overall trend internationally certainly has been towards a liberalization of abortion laws. 

And it’s also a basically unique development in U.S. history: While the Supreme Court has often upheld and codified a discriminatory status quo, it has never actively and officially abolished what had previously been recognized as a constitutionally guaranteed right. 

But the idea that whatever progress has been made could be interpreted as a manifestation of some metaphysical law of history that would inevitably propel us forward is deeply misleading. Progress is possible; some progress has been achieved. But there is no arc. Never was! 

I believe the progress narrative so pervasive among liberals - “Yes, there are still problems, but look how much better it’s gotten over the past 60 years or so! Just keep going! We’re getting there!” - is ultimately based on a romanticized understanding of the civil rights era. 

The idea, basically, is that America had its breakthrough towards proper liberal democracy in the 1960s, and has been on the path of perfecting that democracy ever since. And yes, America has indeed moved closer to realizing the promise of multiracial, pluralistic democracy. 

But not only do we need to let go of this idea that things have always, constantly gotten better since the 60s: Just look at how the wealth gap between Black and white has widened since about 1980, and school segregation has gotten worse since an inflection point the late 1980s. 

More importantly, we need to grapple with the fact that there is nothing inevitable about progress, that whatever progress has been achieved always came as a result of struggle and conflict, that the forces of reaction won’t simply come around if only we give them a little time. 

In fact, in U.S. history, the price for substantial racial, cultural, and social progress has always been political instability, because demands for racial equality and social justice are inherently destabilizing to a social order that’s always had white men at the top. 

We are experiencing another such moment of instability and counter-mobilization – and it could absolutely lead to the forces of reaction triumphing, re-installing and entrenching an anti-democratic order of sustained white patriarchal rule. It has certainly happened before. 

• • •


Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Saturday, June 25, 2022

SARS-CoV-Mailbag

SARS-CoV-Mailbag

Matthew Yglesias — Read time: 15 minutes


SARS-CoV-Mailbag

Cost-benefit, Long Covid, and building more parks


I’ve been down with Covid-19 this week and not feeling too bad but also not my best, so apologies if the answers are totally incoherent!


Ed: You recently attended the Heterodox Academy Conference in Denver. Is there space for heterodox liberals to take a more prominent and explicit role in the Democratic Party? What policies do you think a heterodox liberal should pursue to gain support?


I don’t really think there are “heterodox policies” that one could pursue.


What I do think is that Democrats would benefit from narrowing the list of “here are the things you need to accept to be a mainstream Democrat in good standing” and try to operate as a looser, bigger-tent coalition. Some of that is just good practice for a party in a two-party system, but some relates to the specifics of Senate geography. You need some people to run and win in states that are way to the right of the median voter, which means you need to run a pretty loose coalition. I think a party like that would, among other things, make the kind of people who join Heterodox Academy happier, but that wouldn’t really be the goal.


Antioch: Per the spirit of your recent piece, if you could invent a totally original holiday, what would that holiday be, and how would people celebrate it?


My first choice would be not to invent entirely new holidays but to kind of bastardize some existing ones in the spirit of how Christmas now exists as a largely secular celebration in parallel to the Christian one. Purim, for example, has minimal actual religious standing in the Jewish pantheon but it’s fun and could be a good holiday for everyone.


Beyond that, though, I think it would be good to have some kind of science-themed holiday — science punches below its weight in mass culture.


Brad: Which Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle was your favorite?


In the spirit of increasing the cultural clout of science, we must stand with Donatello.


Paul G: Last week the EPA issued health advisory levels for PFAS substances in drinking water, at levels thousands of times lower (e.g. 4 parts per quadrillion for PFOS) than the action levels issued during the Obama presidency (e.g. 70 parts per trillion for PFOS) , and in some cases, thousands of times lower than the minimum reporting level (4 parts per trillion for PFOS) , a form of detection limit. The levels issued last week are also far below any of the state regulations for maximum concentrations of these substances in drinking water. In its press release commenting on the EPA's action, the American Waterworks Association (AWWA) stated that the EPA's action was not in agreement with the draft advice issued by its Science Advisory Board.


Since the HAL concentrations for PFOA and PFOS can't be measured, and since they are thousands of times lower than the concentration that have been measured in raw water, it is impossible to install and operate treatment systems that would remove PFOA or PFOS to below the HAL levels in water where PFOA and PFOS have been found.


EPA continues to state that it will issue draft rules for PFAS in drinking water later this year and plans to finalize these by late 2023. The relevant statute (SDWA) requires that the final level should have a quantified positive cost-benefit profile, balancing the cost of compliance against the public health benefits.


It seems as if EPA is setting itself up for a very difficult rule-making process. The rules can't really be set below the minimum reporting levels, hence 1000x the HAL level for PFOS. How do you justify setting a legal limit at 1000x the concentration your organization has stated is the harm threshold?


This is a very good but extremely long question, and I need to confess that my potentially Covid-addled brain can’t fully parse the scientific issues here.


But I think the key context is a somewhat underplayed Biden administration drama: it is June of 2022 and he’s never put in place someone to run OIRA, which is the government agency that runs the cost-benefit analysis that an EPA rule on this issue would be subject to. The paralysis here is that progressives don’t like OIRA review and keep wanting Biden to nominate someone who’d be unconformably left-wing. Biden doesn’t want to do that but also doesn’t seem to want to tell them to pound sand. So instead, we have a career guy in that role. This prevents progressives from gutting cost-benefit review, but also means there isn’t a strong voice for cost-benefit review in the administration who would be in a position to do things like tell the EPA not to do things that will clearly flunk. And that in turn seems to encourage agency heads to do things like this, putting out a health advisory that implies the EPA would like to do a rule making that wouldn’t pass cost-benefit scrutiny.


What does it all mean? I’m not sure. But it’s an example of the kind of limbo we’re in where Biden thinks he’s coopting the left and the left thinks they’re doing effective entryism and a lot of things are stuck because it’s a 50-50 Senate.


n8: What's the most likely path to getting a moderate Democrat, like Andy Beshear or Roy Cooper to run in 2024 instead of Kamala?


There’s not really a “path,” someone just has to do it.


I know there are plenty of donors and other influential people who’d like to support someone else if Biden doesn’t run again. It’s possible, of course, that the thing holding folks back is they don’t know that there are people who are looking for alternatives. So if you run into Andy Beshear tomorrow, tell him what I wrote here.


Policy Wank: Why are your favorite movies big budget, middlebrow, action blockbusters? Are you some kind of philistine?


The top two picks on my Favorite Movies of 2021 were “The Power of the Dog” and “No Sudden Move” — those aren’t big budget, middlebrow, action blockbusters! My favorite movie of 2022 so far (and I doubt it will be beaten) is Norwegian (go watch “The Worst Person in the World” on Hulu).


So I think I am innocent! But if you’re a political columnist rather than a film critic, I think the best movies to write about are big budget, middlebrow, action blockbusters because when I write about “Terminator 2” or “Jurassic Park,” I’m not really writing about “Terminator 2” or “Jurassic Park” — I’m writing about AI safety policy or our cultural attitude toward technological progress. The utility of blockbuster movies for those purposes is that lots of people have seen them so they will know what the hell I’m talking about, and the fact that they are popular means I can assert that they reflect important trends in mass opinion.


I actually think “The Worst Person in the World” contains some incidental commentary about cancel culture that’s incredibly insightful, but I don’t want to write a column about it because I can’t reasonably expect that any significant fraction of the audience has actually seen the movie.


Estate of Bob Sagat: Why is the NY Metro much smaller than Tokyo despite US being much larger? Is it all due to public transportion and zoning?


I think it’s pretty clear if you look at the price of housing not just in New York City but throughout the inner-ring suburbs that with different zoning, the population of the region would expand dramatically. That expansion might choke off due to transportation bottlenecks before it caught up to Tokyo, but if we were able to copy Japanese passenger rail operations we could blow past those limits, too.


Daniel: There's a lot of discussion about the ‘lost’ decade of low inflation rates, and the investment that could have happened. What infrastructure or social programs, that were available post-banking crisis, do you think should have been funded? And what do you think the impact would be had that infrastructure or funding happened?


Energy, energy, energy. We should have had a 15 year run of massive buildout of interregional transmission lines, exploratory geothermal projects, offshore wind, next-generation nuclear, etc.


Cameron Parker: Larry Summers just came out and said the US needs 5% unemployment for 5 years (or some more severe unemployment for shorter periods) to break inflation. He seems emboldened by having been largely correct in worrying about inflation a year ago when a lot of people were saying it was transitory. What say you? Is The Fed deluding itself on what needs to be done? Should it abandon forward guidance?


I did not understand his argument about this. Which is not to say that he’s wrong, I just literally did not understand what calculation was driving that conclusion.


The main thing I would say is that the Biden administration has been emphasizing supply-side factors as driving inflation because that exculpates the American Rescue Plan. That’s fair enough as far as it goes. But on a forward looking basis, if everything is ARP’s fault, that’s good news for Biden because ARP is largely over. If everything is supply-side disruptions, by contrast, then you realistically could get a years-long spell of highish unemployment and highish inflation. That would be really bad and the Fed can’t fix it. So what we really need to hear from Biden is a comprehensive, all-in supply-side agenda.


Sharty: Many folks who live financially comfortable lives and have some flexibility in their consumption and spending habits turned to *increased* overall restaurant patronage (albeit carry-out) in 2020, as a modest but real microscale economic buffer in their communities. Keep the service workers employed, etc.


What, if anything, is the 2022 inflationary equivalent? What are some small but concrete actions we can take on a personal level?


This is pretty easy: buy less, save more.


It is particularly helpful to economize on energy consumption. If Ukrainians can fight for their country, you can stick it to Vladimir Putin by air conditioning your house to 76 degrees rather than 72 degrees during the summer for the same cause. But really, anything you can cut back personal consumption spending on helps to reduce inflation. Take advantage of the recent decline in stock prices to buy cheap shares and save for the long term.


Simon_dinosaur: Matt now that you have contracted Covid have your feelings about Long Covid changed at all?


I am against Long Covid. I think it’s bad.


Andy: National Parks and other parts of public lands are exceeding capacity or getting loved to death. The National Park system has started lottery and reservation systems for many of the most popular places and even national forests near urban areas are seeing increasing problems from too much visitation. Add in what's happening in Yellowstone, and the problem gets even bigger.


What is the Slow Boring solution to this? You can't create another Zion or Arches or Yellowstone and carving more roads and parking lots and infrastructure damages what makes these places unique and attractive. Are these and other places only destined for visitation by the lucky and/or rich (Particularly in a nation of 1 billion Americans)?


And what is the best course for less spectacular but overcrowded public lands near urban areas? There is more opportunity for regulation and infrastructure there (which would require federal $$$), but this seems to be a topic the DC pundit class knows and cares little about. Would love to read your thoughts on this, which is an important topic in many parts of the western US.


For starters, while it’s true that you couldn’t “create another Zion or Arches or Yellowstone,” I think that we absolutely can and should create more national parks. Let’s build the Maine Woods National Park!


But I think the issue you are pointing to is just one specific instance of the “overtourism” narrative that was building a lot of steam before Covid-19 put tourism on hold. Basically there are a lot of places that people like to visit. But too many visitors degrade the quality of the experience and at a certain point could actually destroy it. And yet the number of people who can afford air travel is growing, and so naturally the number of people who want to see Cool Thing X is growing for all kinds of values of X. More people want to go to Venice and more people want to go to Yellowstone and that’s good; those are great places and it’s good for people not to be poor.


The solution ultimately has to involve some mix of lotteries and fees, depending on your priorities. For U.S. national parks, I’d like to see some rigorous work done on the distributional impact of higher or lower fees. You could imagine cheap is progressive because it makes the parks more accessible to lower-income folks. But I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that in practice the income of park-visitors is higher than the national average. You’d need to look at it and do some modeling.


Normie Osborne: Have you seen FOR ALL MANKIND? Any thoughts on the premise that America winning the space race was the worst thing that could happen to the world?


This has been one of my Covid isolation watches, and it’s very interesting.


I don’t think that the literal thesis “getting beaten to the moon by the Soviet Union would have led to a dramatically more progress-oriented public culture in the United States” makes a ton of sense. But the deeper theme that feeling more worried about stagnation and thus more tolerant of risking people’s lives in pursuit of progress would have been better on net is, I think, correct. One of the little things they bury in the opening montage to season three is a newscaster mentioning James Hansen (who in the real world was one of the early voices on climate change) giving congressional testimony in the early 1990s about global average temperature trending downward due to the rise of nuclear power.


And that is correct analysis. If the people of the 1960s and 1970s had been somewhat more tolerant of people losing their lives in nuclear accidents, then nuclear power would be much cheaper and more widespread and it would have saved a bunch of lives on net due to reduced particulate pollution and less climate change.


TB Nichols: Do you feel like you’ve moved to the right on trans issues since moving to substack? I recall you mostly trying to distance yourself from other substackers who started at a similar time on an explicitly IDW, anti-trans brand. But now you’ve made comments about the reaction to Bazelon’s article and seem think trans women shouldn’t be allowed to play sports. How did you arrive at this shift?


I don’t really think this is a fair characterization of what I’m saying about sports, and that in turn speaks to some of my larger frustrations with how the trans rights movement is engaging with the world.


But to back up a little bit, I think it’s actually very important that people be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, including the full array of gender presentation. And unlike cranky right-wingers, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people pushing for linguistic change as part of that. But I think it really endangers people’s rights and personal freedoms and other important values when you start equating the case for those rights with specific factually dubious empirical claims. You see that happening strongly in the sports arena, and to an extent in the youth transition arena where to be on “the right side,” you now need to sign up for very strong and empirically contested claims about the reversibility of puberty-blockers.


Some states are trying to do some really cruel and harmful things to trans people, and those of us who think that’s bad should be trying to fight back against it as a basic question of liberty and equality, not going all-in on questionable science.


Eric H: Lots of road upkeep is funded by gas taxes. Short-term, this is a nice incentive to switch to electric vehicles - but longer-term it seems like that will lead to underfunded road upkeep. Do you have any thoughts on how that shift could best be managed?


We ought to do a vehicle-miles-traveled tax to fund roads, and then separately tax gasoline just for the environmental externalities.


Rana Foroohar: The NY Times' Ezra Klein recently had Rana Foroohar of the Financial Times on his podcast to discuss the state of the economy. She made a quite compelling case for the Fed-skeptic view that in many ways seems the opposite of your own: that the Fed for the last decade has done too much loose monetary policy which caused asset price inflation, which isn't coded as inflation, that has now crept into the broader economy. If you are familiar with her work and views, I was wondering where you agree and disagree with her analysis given your view that the past decade's issues are due to monetary policy not being inflation-dovish enough. What does she get right, and where is she wrong?


I think one really annoying thing that’s happened over the past year is that people who spent over a decade being constantly wrong about inflation have now turned around and claimed to be vindicated about inflation.


But that’s crazy. Since 2020 the developed world has had:


A massive negative supply shock in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic.


A huge — and basically successful — fiscal and monetary effort to stabilize nominal demand in the face of that supply shock.


A second additional negative supply shock from the Russia/Ukraine war.


Of course there is now a lot of inflation. In the face of those two giant supply shocks the only way to avoid inflation would have been to fail to stabilize the economy and drive the wold into a deep depression. Now if you compare the U.S. to Europe, we did more stimulus and we also have more core inflation. So if you want to blame the delta between U.S. core inflation and European core inflation on fiscal stimulus, that’s fine. But inflation is, in fact, distressingly high in Europe because the supply shock situation is just legitimately very bad.


Absolutely none of this in any way validates the people who were standing around a decade ago claiming that quantitative easing was going to lead to inflation. It’s total nonsense. It would be like if an FDR critic said in 1936 “this New Deal is going to generate inflation” and then claimed vindication in 1946 without mentioning that World War II happened in the interim.


Pancake: What's your impression of the quality of discretionary grants announced so far from IIJA? Any standout projects, good or bad?


It’s a little bit hard to say because part of the expansion of discretionary authority in the law is also making the grants somewhat less discretionary. So for example, there is a (small, thankfully) discretionary grant program in IIJA where the grants have to go to passenger ferry projects. This is so misguided as a concept that it’s hard to know whether the discretion is being used well or not.


On the flip side, there is a bigger program to do grants for purchasing low-emission or zero-emission buses. I don’t know enough about bus procurement to say for sure whether the discretion here is being used wisely, but it also strikes me as a very smart place to be investing money, so it’s probably all fine. I’ve been trying to look for grants that are local to me and I might know something about; I see one to improve the capacity at the Port of Baltimore by adding some stub train tracks that seems good. They are making one of the commuter rail stations in Virginia ADA compliant, which is good. I’m not seeing anything that is either egregiously bad or reflective of visionary change, mostly because the grants are all very small.


I think a big future test will be Amtrak’s effort to secure $10 billion to essentially turn Union Station in D.C. into a larger, nicer shopping mall without improving the train service in any way. We know from the Moynihan Train Hall project that in America people say yes to this kind of idea. I would love to see DOT say no way, that you should come to them with an expensive plan to dramatically improve passenger rail transportation in the D.C. area and then have a serious discussion about the money. But don’t spend money on things that have no transportation utility!