Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Two of Biden’s top DOJ nominees are subjected to baseless smear campaigns

Two of Biden’s top DOJ nominees are subjected to baseless smear campaigns

Opinion by Editorial Board

March 1, 2021 at 3:17 a.m. GMT+9

Vanita Gupta in Wilmington, Del., on Jan. 7. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)

VANITA GUPTA is among the nation’s most esteemed civil rights lawyers, revered by liberals for her decades of effective, levelheaded advocacy, and by many of the nation’s biggest police and law enforcement groups for her measured, constructive approach. That rare combination has evidently triggered a case of the vapors among extremists opposed to progress on voting rights, mass incarceration, systemic racism and law enforcement abuse.


How else to explain the categorically dishonest video hit job by a far-right outfit that labels Ms. Gupta, President Biden’s nominee for associate attorney general, the No. 3 Justice Department job, a “dangerous appointee”? In fact, that is an apt characterization only for those terrified at the prospect of expanding justice for the most vulnerable in American society.


Even in an era of florid mendacity, the ad, an $800,000 buy sponsored by the Judicial Crisis Network, is a doozy, mainly notable for the magnitude of the lies and distortions it crams into 30 seconds.


AD

It states that Ms. Gupta, chief of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under the Obama administration, supports defunding the police. Awkwardly, there’s zero proof of that, including in the ad’s own footnoted citation. The ad states she “led a group that wants to reduce punishments on white supremacists, even terrorists.” In fact, Ms. Gupta and the group she led until her nomination, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, are simply opposed to capital punishment, in line with 25 states that have ended it, including 10 since 2007. (Virginia is now on the verge of eliminating it, too.) In the absence of executions, federal death-row inmates would likely spend the rest of their lives in prison.


Finally, the ad charges that instead of supporting law and order during last summer’s violence following the killing of George Floyd, Ms. Gupta advocated “to let convicts out of jail.” As “evidence,” it cites her factually accurate tweet, in August, that the pandemic was “killing people in federal prison who could be released” — a stance then-Attorney General William P. Barr had embraced months earlier.


The idea that Ms. Gupta is a radical police-hater is risible given the positive reviews her nomination received from an alphabet soup of law enforcement groups, including the National Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed Donald Trump twice. In HuffPost, the FOP’s director, Jim Pasco, blasted the Judicial Crisis Network ad as “partisan demagoguery.” And on its Facebook page, the FOP praised Ms. Gupta, who led efforts to reform police departments in her time at the Civil Rights Division, as having “worked with us to find common ground even when that seemed impossible.”


AD

The smears against Ms. Gupta are of a piece with attacks on another woman of color, Kristen Clarke, nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division. In Ms. Clarke’s case, the allegations concern antisemitism — so what if the evidence is tissue-thin and there is no record she has ever uttered an antisemitic remark?


In another era, we might have opted not to dignify these attacks with a rebuttal. But in a time when elected officials have been known to embrace lies and conspiracy theories, it’s worth stating sooner rather than later: Both these nominees have serious, distinguished track records as champions of civil rights. For their opponents, that is the real rub.


Read more:


AD


The inevitable politicization of herd immunity

The inevitable politicization of herd immunity

By Daniel W. Drezner

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything.

March 1, 2021 at 9:00 p.m. GMT+9


What we will debate as the pandemic eases

Image without a caption

Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose coronavirus vaccine was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration on Saturday. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

By the end of March, Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson have pledged to have a combined 240 million doses available for Americans. Add that to the number already vaccinated (and those recovering from covid-19 and therefore also immune) and suddenly talk about being “at an inflection point” starts to feel real.


So … is that it? By May, 14 months after the pandemic transformed our daily lives, will it be “pretty much the ballgame” in this country?


AD

I have my doubts. Never underestimate the ability of 21st-century Americans to politicize something, even ridiculously good news. This past week there was a contretemps about vaccine selfies, for Pete’s sake.


The more serious reason is that there remain some fundamental uncertainties about America’s exit strategy from pandemic life. These uncertainties will likely produce two serious political cleavages as the weather warms up. The first will be the growing divide between the vaccinated and those resisting vaccinations. The second will be the gap between risk-averse public health officials and everyone else.


The good news on this is that over the last six months, the percentage of Americans interested in getting vaccinated has increased. The bad news is that there remains a rump group of people who seem adamant about not getting vaccinated. As Axios’s Bryan Walsh reported last week, some of this is political. In a recent Surgo Ventures poll, 17 percent of respondents “were conspiracy believers who tended to be Republican and had little fear of covid-19 itself. They often subscribed to more outlandish and harmful theories about vaccines.”


AD

If everyone else in the country but the Trump rump gets vaccinated, it seems like herd immunity could still be achievable. But as the New York Times’s Jennifer Steinhauer recently reported, resistance to vaccination permeates institutions like the U.S. military as well: “When it comes to taking a coronavirus vaccine, many troops — especially younger enlisted personnel as opposed to their officers — see a rare opportunity to exercise free will.”


That this resistance skews young is unsurprising. We know that covid-19 disproportionately harms older people. From the perspective of a young person who might be ambivalent about getting a shot, receiving this vaccine might seem unnecessary.


The tough issue here is that, much like staying home or mask-wearing, a significant benefit of getting vaccinated is to protect other people. The more Americans who get vaccinated, the less likely the disease can spread. This includes younger people who think of themselves as relatively safe even if they catch it.


AD

Persuading this demographic to get vaccinated, not just for their self-interest but for the national interest, will be a heavy lift. The WHO acknowledges that “the proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against covid-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known.” Anthony S. Fauci has acknowledged raising his estimate of the percentage needed to be vaccinated multiple times. Some conservative commentators believe that the threshold level is lower than the fraction of Americans resistant to getting vaccinated. This sounds like the perfect amount of uncertainty to generate fierce political debates well into the summer.


The other divide that will dominate the country is the battle between risk-averse public health officials and, well, everyone else. Last March, Fauci said presciently, “If it looks like you’re overreacting, you’re probably doing the right thing.” As the country wants to start returning to normal. public health officials will start sounding like Cassandras. They will warn about the worst-case scenarios of vaccine-resistant strains dragging the country back into social-distancing hell in the second half of the year.


As we start to emerge from the pandemic, there should be an honest discussion about balancing risks. The problem is that, to paraphrase George Carlin, anyone taking more covid-19 precautions than you is an idiot and anyone taking fewer precautions is a maniac.


AD

Fauci and President Biden have been more cautious than most. Perhaps that should change. The Atlantic’s Zeynep Tufekci has had as good a pandemic as any public intellectual out there, and her recent essay on the mistakes we keep making gets at the need for more frankness about the trade-off of risks:


Sometimes, experts and the public discussion failed to emphasize that we were balancing risks, as in the recurring cycles of debate over lockdowns or school openings. We should have done more to acknowledge that there were no good options, only trade-offs between different downsides. As a result, instead of recognizing the difficulty of the situation, too many people accused those on the other side of being callous and uncaring. …

Since the vaccines were announced, too many statements have emphasized that we don’t yet know if vaccines prevent transmission. Instead, public-health authorities should have said that we have many reasons to expect, and increasing amounts of data to suggest, that vaccines will blunt infectiousness, but that we’re waiting for additional data to be more precise about it. That’s been unfortunate, because while many, many things have gone wrong during this pandemic, the vaccines are one thing that has gone very, very right.

Because there are genuine trade-offs in risks, there will be genuine grounds for debate. That uncertainty will feed the politics of covid-19 for the rest of 2021.


The Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on the minimum wage did Democrats a favor.

The Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on the minimum wage did Democrats a favor. 

Opinion by Catherine Rampell


March 2, 2021 at 8:38 a.m. GMT+9


Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, seated in the back second row, third from right, talks as senators gather at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 10.

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, seated in the back second row, third from right, talks as senators gather at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 10. (Senate Television/AP)

Fire the referee! Tear up the rule book! Destroy every annoying procedural barrier so that Democrats can, at long last, deliver a nationwide $15-per-hour minimum wage!


So proclaim some loud voices on the left, in the wake of the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling that a minimum-wage increase cannot be included in the covid-19 relief bill that Democrats plan to pass through reconciliation. This procedural process, which allows passage with a simple majority and no threat of filibuster, is reserved for budget-related legislation; a minimum-wage hike doesn’t qualify, the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, decreed.


Some Democrats have vilified MacDonough. But, in a sense, she did the party a favor by allowing it to avoid an ugly intra-caucus fight.


AD

After all, the primary hurdle to passing a $15 federal minimum wage isn’t procedural. It’s that there isn’t unified support within the Democratic Party for the policy.


Already at least two Democratic senators have signaled reservations. This means that even if the parliamentarian had allowed the provision to remain, or even if Dems nuked the filibuster and could more easily pass any bill with a simple majority, a $15 federal minimum wage probably still wouldn’t receive enough votes to become law.


Firing or overruling the ref won’t help you if your own team can’t decide where the goal posts are.


This has been obvious for a while. Yet Democratic leaders chose to ignore the discord rather than adopt a compromise policy that might be acceptable to moderates — and still achieve, say, 90 percent of the left’s objectives. Which are, presumably, to raise living standards for as many of the working poor as possible.


AD

Raising the federal hourly minimum wage from $7.25 — where it’s remained since 2009 — is broadly popular among both voters and Democratic lawmakers. There’s disagreement, though, about what level it should be raised to.


The “Fight for 15” movement, launched in 2012 by fast-food workers with backing from organized labor, cultivated political support for this round-numbered, alliterative goal. The movement has had successes in places such as New York and Seattle, and the left wing of the Democratic Party has worked to expand the minimum to $15 nationwide.


But this policy’s economic and political effects might look different in areas where wages and costs of living are lower. In Mississippi, for instance, the most recent data available show that the median wage is $15 per hour. So if implemented immediately, a federal minimum at that level would apply to half of the state’s wage-earning workforce.


AD

It’s unclear how employers might react to a large mandated increase. Maybe they’d lay off lots of employees or reduce hours, as opponents of minimum wages generally argue. This would undercut the policy’s goal of helping low-wage workers. Or maybe employers would raise prices. Or demand higher productivity. Or accept lower profits. Or some combination of all these things.


There are, in short, a lot of margins on which employers might adjust, and economists simply don’t know what will happen. Research on the effects of past minimum-wage increases is all over the place; respected labor economists can’t even agree on how to summarize the existing literature.


It’s also unclear how well past experiences would map onto today’s unusual economic conditions. Small businesses are struggling with myriad pandemic-related challenges, and some employers are already automating out of existence low-wage jobs that might otherwise be subject to a minimum-wage hike.


AD

None of this has stopped advocates on either side of the debate from confidently predicting what great or terrible things a $15 federal minimum would do. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that if the increase is phased in slowly enough, the risk of large “disemployment” effects would be relatively small. And this bill does phase in increases gradually, starting with $9.50 this year and reaching $15 only in 2025.


But I’m not certain how this might play out, and you shouldn’t believe anyone who claims to be. There are risks to raising labor costs during a weak economy, when firms are already reluctant to hire. At the very least it’s safer to index the minimum wage to local economic conditions, such as median wages or cost of living, rather than implement a single nationwide rate.


Given the amount of uncertainty, it seems reasonable for someone like Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) to worry about the risks to his state — where the current median wage is $16.31, and where many voters are already skeptical of the Democratic agenda.


AD

Democrats from higher-wage states, though, have been reluctant to agree to calibrate the wage floor to local conditions, a modification that would help allay economic (and political) concerns. Perhaps some advocates have fallen so in love with an alliterative slogan that they’re not interested in designing something more politically feasible that would still help millions of low-wage workers. “Fight for a regionally calibrated wage formula!” doesn’t have quite the same ring.


Read more:


Trump’s big CPAC lie unmasks a vile truth. Democrats ignore it at their peril.

Trump’s big CPAC lie unmasks a vile truth. Democrats ignore it at their peril.

Opinion by Greg Sargent

March 2, 2021 at 12:11 a.m. GMT+9

Amid the stream of delusion, depravity, malevolence and megalomania that characterized Donald Trump’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday, one message should be regarded as arguably more important than all the others combined.


It’s this: The former president told his audience that the Republican Party’s success in coming years depends, in no small part, on its commitment to being an anti-democracy party.


Trump didn’t say this in precisely those words, of course. But that message blared through all the background noise like a loud, clanging alarm bell.


This will require Democrats to redouble their focus on passing their big package of pro-democracy reforms as soon as possible — and to be prepared to nix the legislative filibuster to get it into law. It may be tempting to dismiss or ignore Trump’s deranged rantings, but Democrats should see this one message as an actionable one.


Trump reveals an important truth

As expected, Trump’s CPAC speech doubled down on the big lie that the election was stolen from him — and then some. Aaron Rupar tallies up at least five different ways he told this lie, which drew at least one standing ovation.


AD

But embedded in that big lie was an unintentional truth. It was revealed when Trump uncorked an extended riff suggesting that the GOP’s future prospects depend on what he called “election reforms.”


“Another one of the most urgent issues facing the Republican Party is that of ensuring fair, honest, and secure elections,” Trump declared. “We must pass comprehensive election reforms, and we must do it now.”


By “election reforms,” Trump actually meant a redoubled commitment to making it harder to vote. We know this, because he said so: He went on to declare that Democrats had used the “China virus” as an “excuse” to make vote-by-mail easier.


“We can never let that happen again,” Trump said. “We need election integrity and election reform immediately. Republicans should be the party of honest elections.”


AD

This is absurd (GOP legislatures also facilitated vote-by-mail) and full of lies (the election’s legitimacy was upheld in dozens of courts). But that doesn’t change its underlying meaning, which is unambiguous: Trump lost because voting wasn’t hard enough; Republicans must push as forcefully as possible in the opposite direction; this is “urgent.”


The rub of the matter is that all across the country, Republicans are acting on exactly this reading of the situation.


Republicans are acting on the big lie

In a good piece, the New York Times reports on the extraordinary new barrage of efforts by GOP lawmakers to make voting harder in many states. These include sharp cuts to early voting; restricting vote-by-mail in numerous ways; and in the most extreme cases, proposals to allow state legislatures to appoint presidential electors in defiance of the state’s popular vote.


AD

Meanwhile, in numerous states, Republicans are gearing up to use this year’s decennial redrawing of electoral maps to entrench extreme gerrymanders. They have openly declared that this will help them win back the House in 2022, and some experts believe redrawn maps might ensure that this happens even if Democrats again win the national House popular vote.


Crucially, these efforts are increasingly animated by the same lie about the election’s illegitimacy that Trump told at CPAC. As the Times reports, they are “led by loyalists who embrace” Trump’s “baseless claims of a stolen election.”


In other words, Republicans are widely acting upon this lie as their excuse to continue entrenching anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian advantages wherever possible.


Democrats must respond

This simply requires Democrats to pass the For the People Act in the Senate and House. It includes numerous provisions that would make voting and registration easier; curb restrictions on voting and vote-by-mail; mandate nonpartisan redistricting commissions; and restore voting rights protections gutted by the Supreme Court.


AD

The GOP actions also require Democrats to be prepared to end the legislative filibuster when Republicans block the package in the Senate. Yes, Democrats face major obstacles to this in the form of Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.).


But a case must be made to those holdouts that Democrats cannot allow Republicans to grind their agenda to a screeching halt — in the face of multiple short and long term crises facing the country — through the exercise of minority rule, facilitated by what has become yet another cynically-wielded tool of counter-majoritarian obstructionism.


“The Big Lie about 2020 is built on an ugly truth: Trump and the Republican Party have turned their backs on our constitutional vision of government of, by, and for the people,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told me in an emailed statement.


AD

“You heard it from Trump himself,” Merkley continued. “We’ve got to get the For the People Act signed into law ASAP so the next elections are decided by the will of the voters, not rigged by corrupt politicians.”


Democrats keep telling us that the prospects for civic renewal in the wake of Trumpism’s continued degradations — and the GOP’s ongoing slide into authoritarianism — depend on making government and democracy more functional and responsive. If they really believe this, that imposes obligations on them to do just that.


Put another way, Democrats constantly point out that the GOP is increasingly captive to Trump and that Trump and his party remain captive to his destructive mythology about the stolen election. But this can’t be reduced to mere partisan messaging.


AD

Instead, taking this idea seriously requires acting where possible to prevent the GOP’s increasing radicalization from further wrecking our democratic system. We know exactly what this will look like. Trump just told us so himself.


Read more:


The GOP is now just the party of white grievance. by Michael Gerson

Opinion | The GOP is now just the party of white grievance
A supporter of then-President Donald Trump carries a Confederate battle flag through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
A supporter of then-President Donald Trump carries a Confederate battle flag through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. (Mike Theiler/Reuters)
March 2, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. GMT+9
One of the poisonous legacies of Donald Trump’s presidency has been to expand the boundaries of expressible prejudice. Through the explicit practice of White-identity politics, Trump has obviated the need for code words and dog whistles. Thus his strongest supporters during the Jan. 6 riot felt free to carry Confederate battle flags and wear “Camp Auschwitz” sweatshirts without fear of reproof from their political allies. Many in the crowd surely didn’t consider themselves racists, but they were perfectly willing to make common cause with racists. In social effect, it is a distinction without a difference.

The result has been an illuminating but horrifying clarity. A periodical called American Greatness — the closest Trumpism gets to an intellectual house organ — recently published an article by Alexander Zubatov that provided a night tour of New York City. Addicts he encountered lay in “piles of rags and filth and the stench of their own excrement.” Some “brown bums” were “like ungainly insects going through the motion of a mating ritual.” The city and nation, he explains, are filled with “a growing mass of fat, lazy leeches, slugs, thugs, gangbangers, rule-breakers, whiners and perpetual ne’er-do-wells.”

Suffice it to say that the New York City tourist office will not be linking to the article. But Zubatov’s reaction is worth quoting in full: “I know the unyielding ukase of my educated pedigree and those who share it is that empathy and compassion are the only sanctioned responses to this sorry spectacle. But that would require me to rationalize my way out of a feeling and override all my sound, sane animal instincts. Those instincts are of pre-cognitive repulsion and disgust, and I refuse to let them go. I refuse to humanize those who cannot be bothered to lift a finger to humanize themselves. The mentally ill need our care. The rest need the whip.”

AD
The intent, of course, is to shock, displaying the transgressive edge of Trumpism. But our lack of shock is a problem. By proposing the whipping of brown people, the author embraces the spirit of “Birth of a Nation.” By comparing human beings to “insects” and “leeches,” he practices a kind of genocide-chic. Yet it is now easy to imagine Zubatov headlining a panel at next year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. In a party led by a man who has embraced Confederate nostalgia, bigotry has been mainstreamed. This has pushed the edge of the Republican coalition deeper into the fever swamps and granted those who dwell there a broader hearing.

All this should create a tremendous philosophic tension within the GOP. The party has been swiftly repositioned as an instrument of white grievance. It refuses to condemn racists within its congressional ranks. Its main national legislative agenda seems to be the suppression of minority voting. Trumpism is defined by the belief that real Americans are beset by internal threats from migrants, Muslims, multiculturalists, Black Lives Matter activists, antifa militants and various thugs, gangbangers and whiners. And Zubatov is correct that this viewpoint implies and requires dehumanization; resisting our animal instincts is the evidence of political correctness. The whole Trump movement, and now most of the Republican Party, is premised on the social sanctification of pre-cognitive fears and disgust.

Yet the largest single group within the new GOP coalition is comprised of people who claim to be evangelical Christians. And the view of human beings implied by Trumpism is a direct negation of Christian teaching (as well as many other systems of belief). Christians are informed — not by political correctness, but by Jesus — that every addict and homeless person you might encounter on a nocturnal walk in New York is the presence of Christ in disguise. And the parable He told in Matthew 25 illustrating this point is a rather stern one. Those who follow their pre-cognitive disgust and refuse to treat the hungry, the stranger, the sick and imprisoned as they would Christ are told: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

AD
This Christian anthropology does not dictate specific policies. But it requires Christians to ask: How should we act in the political realm if every human being we encounter — everyone we admire and everyone we disdain; everyone we agree with and everyone we disagree with; everyone we love and everyone we hate — were actually the image of Christ in our midst? No one can live in this manner at every moment. But it is an ideal that should cause us to tremble.

No one could possibly accuse White evangelicals of consistently defending this view of humanity in the Republican coalition. There have been only scattered peeps of protest as an agenda of dehumanization has advanced. The complete lack of a debate on these matters is an indictment. At some point, the issue ceases to be hypocrisy, because hypocrisy requires the existence of a standard.

AD

Monday, March 1, 2021

Why false narratives so often trump reality

Why false narratives so often trump reality

By Robert G. Kaiser

Robert G. Kaiser, a former managing editor of The Washington Post, is author of “So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government.”

Feb. 26, 2021 at 10:00 p.m. GMT+9


Supporters of Donald Trump clash with police outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Many in the crowd believed the former president’s false claims that Democrats had “stolen” the 2020 election through fraud. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

By eerie coincidence, I began reading William J. Bernstein’s “The Delusions of Crowds: Why People Go Mad in Groups” in early January and was deep into it on Jan. 6. I kept reading in the days that followed the unprecedented insurrection at the Capitol, putting the book aside occasionally to look at the scores of videos taken by participants before and during the rioting. ProPublica, the investigative news site, acquired more than 500 of these videos and assembled them into a compelling new kind of documentary.


The people in these clips fit with what Bernstein describes as victims of delusions. In this instance they were victims of our deluder in chief, who concocted false tales of election fraud that he repeated again and again to convince his followers that Joe Biden had stolen the 2020 election. At a rally on Jan. 6, President Donald Trump urged the crowd to march on the Capitol, “show strength” and “stop the steal.” At his bidding, the believers set off for the Capitol. The rioters’ explanations of their actions in the ProPublica videos put on full display Bernstein’s conclusions about the delusions of crowds. Bernstein wants us to understand that human beings are not remotely as smart or as rational as we would like them to be. Only rarely are people truly analytical about anything. We make things up constantly, then claim that our inventions are true.


“Novelists and historians have known for centuries that people do not deploy the powerful human intellect to dispassionately analyze the world, but rather to rationalize how the facts conform to their emotionally derived preconceptions,” Bernstein writes. “Over the past several decades, psychologists have accumulated experimental data that dissect the human preference of rationalization over rationality. When presented with facts and data that contradict our deeply held beliefs, we generally do not reconsider and alter those beliefs appropriately. [Instead] . . . we avoid contrary facts and data, and when we cannot avoid them, our erroneous assessments will occasionally even harden and, yet more amazingly, make us more likely to proselytize them. In short, human ‘rationality’ constitutes a fragile lid perilously balanced on the bubbling cauldron of artifice and self-delusion.”


Storytelling trumps analyzing nearly always, Bernstein writes. Narratives, not analytical constructs or algebraic solutions, are what engage the human mind. But “the more we depend on narratives, and the less on hard data, the more we are distracted away from the real world,” he adds. This is how demagogic politicians and charismatic preachers can win us over, often despite their reliance on implausible narratives that beguile us. Reading Bernstein, I thought of Trump’s tales of Mexican rapists sneaking across our southern border, and Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen.”


Bernstein is a neurologist with an MD and a PhD in chemistry who became an investment adviser and author. At the beginning of this, his eighth book, he warns that he won’t be writing about political delusions, but he adds coyly that “the reader will, however, encounter no great difficulty connecting the episodes described in the coming pages, as well as their underlying psychology, to manias of all types, particularly to the totalitarianism of the last century and the viral conspiracy theories of this one.” He is right about that.


His subjects are religious and financial manias. He succumbs to his own argument that narratives are more persuasive than analyses or calculations, and he loves telling stories, which he does well. That makes this a fun book to read, though a windy one, as the long quotation in the previous paragraph suggests. Bernstein is a good writer, but his internal editor occasionally takes an unearned vacation.


His inspiration and guide for this book was a 19th-century bestseller, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by a Scottish writer named Charles Mackay, who was just 27 when he wrote it. Mackay’s book is still in print 180 years later and still popular among students of stock market behavior. Bernstein’s version unabashedly echoes Mackay’s, enriching its analysis with the findings of modern social scientists who study the irrational human behavior that intrigues both authors.


Both Bernstein and Mackay put religious manias and economic bubbles in the same category of mass delusions. The most powerful narratives, Bernstein argues, involve “end-times” stories like the one in the last chapter of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, which foretells that Jesus will return to rule the world for 1,000 years — its final 1,000 years. “The most prominent, and dangerous, mass delusion running like a red thread through human history, [is] the end-times narrative,” he writes. He devotes a large portion of his book to examples of delusional crowds embracing end-times stories, from the Middle Ages to our day, in the United States, Israel and the Arab world.


Bernstein writes that secular Americans don’t appreciate the extent of fundamentalist Christian belief in the end-of-the-world scenario in the Book of Revelation or the associated notion that the reestablishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 foretold the fulfillment of the biblical prophesy of Armageddon. Many evangelical Christians believe that this will be a devastating military confrontation heralding the return of Jesus. Bernstein fears that an evangelical Christian believer in a key position — an Air Force officer commanding American intercontinental ballistic missiles, for example — could someday initiate a nuclear holocaust to try to bring on Armageddon, like a real-life Dr. Strangelove.


Mackay is famous for arguing that “men . . . think in herds [and] . . . they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses more slowly, and one by one.” Bernstein agrees, and he enjoys sending up the fakers who exploit the herd phenomenon, be they promoters of stock scams or self-serving proselytizers of religion. The shots he takes find their marks — the Rev. Pat Robertson, for example, the evangelist and onetime presidential candidate who has often claimed to be in direct communication with God. “Robertson . . . has misheard God with some frequency,” Bernstein writes, “as when He told him that the world would end in 1982, that a tsunami would hit the Pacific Northwest in 2006, that worldwide mass terrorist killings would occur in 2007, and that Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election.”


Americans believe in myths and concoct narratives in huge numbers, Bernstein writes, a fact that sets us apart from all the other industrialized nations, none of which is remotely as religious as we are. Bernstein recounts the astounding commercial success of what he calls “rapture fiction,” evangelical science fiction spun around the Book of Revelation’s prediction that on the eve of the end of the world, believing Christians will be whisked from Earth to heaven — “raptured” — while hundreds of millions of nonbelievers and non-Christians will be slaughtered. A series of novels based on this possibility by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the “Left Behind” novels, have sold more than 65 million copies. Equally impressive sales have been recorded by “The Late Great Planet Earth” by Hal Lindsey and Carole C. Carlson, purportedly a nonfiction work describing the biblical prophesies that put the future of the world and all of humanity in doubt.


Lindsey had many acolytes, Bernstein notes, including Reagan and several members of his Cabinet. Perhaps more important, LeHaye, Lindsay and like-minded preachers with large followings have had a palpable impact on public opinion. In a 2010 Pew Research Center poll cited by Bernstein, a third of Americans said they expected Jesus to return to Earth in their lifetime.


But we don’t need a poll to confirm Mackay’s and Bernstein’s conclusion that people tend to believe what they want to believe, whether or not hard facts and cold reason support their views. We know, for example, that on Nov. 3, more than 74 million Americans voted to reelect a man whom a slew of serious historians have already identified as the worst president in American history, a man whose personal behavior was never remotely dignified, who often behaved like a compulsive liar with an uncontrollable need for approval and applause. His indifference to Americans who did not share his own attributes — European ancestry, white skin, economic comfort — was obvious. That indifference often became outright hostility that reeked of ethnic prejudice. He faced one huge crisis as president and utterly botched it. And yet, those 74 million-plus citizens evidently wanted four more years of making America great again. How could that happen?


Explains Bernstein: “When compelling narrative [Make America Great Again, for example] and objective fact collide, the former often survives, an outcome that has cursed mankind since time immemorial.”


The Delusions of Crowds

Why People Go Mad in Groups


By William J. Bernstein


Atlantic Monthly Press.

482 pp. $35


Weekend Update, February 27

Weekend Update, February 27

By Matthew Yglesias

SlowBoring.com

(Bill O'Leary-Pool/Getty Images)
Something to keep your eye on in March and April will be a legacy of Obama-era crisis legislation, wherein when Congress passes deficit-increasing bills, automatic provider-side Medicare cuts are theoretically triggered.

This got ignored a bunch of times under Trump (and even a few times under Obama), with big bipartisan majorities agreeing to waive the cuts. But in theory, Republicans could refuse to vote for waivers after Democrats pass a COVID-19 relief bill, and the waiver is subject to filibuster. I feel pretty confident (call it 90%) that Republicans will just agree to waive the cuts. But if they don’t, that creates a high-pressure situation to change filibuster rules.

Who wants free college?
Something I often hear from younger academics who are frustrated with the political conversation around campus speech stuff is that the “real threat” to free speech and academic freedom comes from right-wing state legislatures. A great example of this trend is Tennessee Republicans moving to ban athletes from engaging in acts of protest — though the good news is that what they are doing is likely unconstitutional.

But it reminds me that I think the tension between academics’ politics and interests and the views of the median state legislator is probably underrated in the free college conversation. After all, one consequence of the neoliberal turn within higher education financing has been to partially liberate public university faculty from state legislatures, who are no longer really footing the bill. The key questions become: Do the students (now conceived of as paying customers) want to keep coming, and are the donors happy?

And whatever else you may say about the leftward tilt of American academia, it’s been a successful business model at the high end, with robust demand from foreign students and plenty of donor money pouring in. If you changed to a model where state legislatures and the U.S. Congress finance 100% of the cost of undergraduate education, then the content of that education will have to reflect elected officials’ ideas of what’s worth doing, which will often be quite different from the ideas of faculty members.

Rule by parliamentarian
It’s wrong to think that Democrats won’t be doing the $15/hour minimum wage purely because of the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling. A key part of the backstory is that Senator Manchin (publicly) and others (privately) think the Raise the Wage Act goes to too high a number too quickly.

But the underlying process we are now working with is absurd.


The basic idea that a bill should pass a legislature if it has majority support, but not otherwise, shouldn’t be seen as some kind of radical idea. The Raise the Wage Act ($15/hr pretty quickly) doesn't have majority support, but raising the minimum wage does — we should legislate based on where we can find simple majorities, not by playing chicken with the Senate parliamentarian.

Two good reads on housing
Jerusalem Demsas is a talented young reporter carving out an interest in the housing beat over at Vox, and I want to recommend two of her recent articles — one is about the prospects of using federal civil rights law to sue exclusionary suburbs, and the other is on polling zoning reform, where an argument that centers economic growth outperforms one that centers racial justice.

This is not shocking to readers of our own Marc Novicoff’s work but it’s fascinating to see the same basic dynamic apply in a very different context from the one he was looking at.