Archives for category: Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Washington Post Asks Eight Left-Leaning Columnists About Biden

By dianeravitch
August 3, 2023 //
167

I enjoyed reading this candid conversation among left-leaning columnists at the Washington Post about Biden’s candidacy. The conversation was moderated by Chris Suellentrip, the politics opinion editor of the Post.

What do you think?

President Biden is 80 years old and is running for a second term, more or less unopposed, in the Democratic primary. So I gathered a group of our left-leaning columnists for a conversation over email and asked: How do you feel about that?

Has Biden failed to be a “bridge” to a new generation of leaders, as he pledged to be in 2020? Should he have declared himself “one (term) and done,” like a college basketball star? Should the party have held a competitive primary instead of clearing the field, as is traditional for an incumbent president? Is the fascination with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s not-gonna-happen campaign a sign of nervousness about Biden 2024 in some portion of the Democratic primary electorate? And will you change your mind about any of these things if someone other than Donald Trump is the 2024 Republican nominee?

Dana Milbank: If hand-wringing translated into votes, Democrats would never lose an election. I find their fretting over Biden’s age tedious — and probably exaggerated by the disinformation from the right portraying him as drooling and senile. The wandering speeches, the gaffes and the other traits people now assign to his advanced age are the same traits I observed when covering him in the 1990s.

As a Gen Xer, sure, I would have preferred if Biden had offered himself as a one-term anti-Trump savior and cleared the way for a new generation. But a competitive primary would only have turned him into Carter ’80. It’s also just as likely that a decision not to run for reelection would have had the effect of anointing Kamala D. Harris, who by virtue of being a woman of color would make it easier for Trump to foment a 2016-style backlash of racism and misogyny.

Would all this change if Trump (or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) isn’t the GOP nominee? Well, sure. I suppose if Asa Hutchinson were the nominee it wouldn’t matter as much whom the Democrats put up, because he wouldn’t pose the same existential threat to American democracy. But I’m not yet declaring victory for Hutchinson.

Jennifer Rubin: So Biden is 80. Live with it. He’s certainly sharp enough to have solidified and expanded NATO, snookered Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in the debt ceiling negotiations and racked up as impressive a first-term domestic record as any incumbent in memory. If inflation is less than 3 percent and job growth is still strong on Election Day, Biden will have pulled off the near-impossible soft-landing (with Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell as his co-pilot).

Paul Waldman: Of course Biden’s age is a concern, even if at the moment it’s only a theoretical one. The presidency is an extraordinarily demanding job, and it would have to be a pretty unusual 86-year-old (the age Biden would be at the end of a second term) who could handle it. But we haven’t yet seen any evidence of age having an effect on Biden’s decision-making or his energy. There are occasions when he appears old in public — a shuffling gait, a momentary inability to find the word he’s looking for — but that’s not the same as him not being able to perform the job.

For all the talk of building a bridge to the next generation, Biden was never going to serve one term and step down. He spent half a century trying to get to the Oval Office, and he won’t leave it voluntarily.

Perry Bacon Jr.: I am not thrilled that Joe Biden is running for a second term.

His approval ratings are significantly lower than Bill Clinton’s, George W. Bush’s or Barack Obama’s were at this stage of their presidencies, midway through their third years in office.

They are very similar to Trump’s numbers. In polls of a potential 2024 matchup, Biden is effectively tied with Trump. Biden would be the favorite against Trump (and probably DeSantis). But that’s because of how unpopular those two Republicans are, not Biden’s political strength.

I think the driving factor here is Biden’s age. People just feel like he is too old. I personally don’t see any evidence that Americans shouldbe worried about his health or mental capacity. But I hear concerns about his age all the time from people in my life who aren’t partisan Democrats. This concern about age shows up in basically every poll.

I think an incumbent Democratic president with Biden’s record who wasn’t 80 years old would be more popular and therefore have a better chance in next year’s election. And while I don’t think just any Democrat under age 80 (or 70) who was the party’s presumptive nominee would be polling better than Biden is against Trump, I think many younger Democrats would be stronger candidates in a 2024 general election.

For example, it seems pretty clear that if Democrats could agree, without a primary, that the party’s 2024 ticket would be Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (Mich.) as president and Sen. Raphael G. Warnock (Ga.) as vice president, that would be stronger electorally than Biden-Harris. Or say, Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.). What I mean is a ticket with a White person and a person of color, a man and a woman, two people who are generally in the mainstream of the party ideologically — and no one over age 70.

But there is no magic way to skip a primary, of course!

Ruth Marcus: Riffing off of how Perry phrased it, I wish Biden did not have to run for a second term. He is too old. No, he is not the drooler of overheated GOP imaginings, but he has slowed down, obviously and measurably. And 80 is too old, period, for the demanding job of the presidency. Let the torch be passed, etc.

Except for this: Biden needs to run. He (and Democrats) are correct about that assessment. If he were to have announced that he was stepping aside, the internecine warfare that would have erupted over Harris, the heiress apparent, versus everyone else, would have torn the party apart, or risked doing so, and opened the door too wide to risk a Republican president being elected.

And not just Trump. He is the biggest, most existential risk, and the primary driver of my “Biden must run” mentality. I used to believe Trump was a singular threat, and that there would not be Trumpism without Trump. But that was wrong. The forces he has unleashed are powerful and dangerous, and exist even in his absence from the scene. From my point of view, the risk to the Supreme Court alone is enough to justify doing whatever it takes to maximize the chance of a Democrat being elected (which means: Biden, Biden, Biden).

Eugene Robinson: Look, we all wish that Biden were, say, 60 instead of 80. But is there a younger Democrat who could have beaten Donald Trump in 2020? I doubt it. And is there a younger Democrat who could beat Trump in 2024? Maybe. I like Perry’s ticket of Whitmer and Warnock. But I don’t like the idea of taking another existential gamble with our democracy. If Trump is the GOP nominee, which seems likely, this will almost surely be another close election. We don’t have landslides anymore; and no matter how queasy Republican voters might be about four more years of Trump’s insanity, we should expect most of them to support their party’s nominee. It is unwise to count on the justice system to bail the nation out. On Election Day, Biden will be 82 and Trump will be 78. The “age issue” should be de minimus.

And, not incidentally, Biden has been a highly effective president who has instituted policies, at home and abroad, that I support. A president with his record deserves a second term — and congressional majorities to go along with it.

Greg Sargent: Improbably, Biden has been the guy with enough appeal to the middle needed to both beat Trump and to pass (parts of) a historically progressive agenda (bringing Bernie Sanders into the tent) while recasting it to the electorate (including affluent suburbanites who supposedly lean right economically) as sensible moderation. Biden seems uniquely well-positioned to not just beat Trump again but also to cement a broad, center-left ideological consensus with paradigm-shifting durability.

As for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., historically there have always been candidates who tap into disaffected pro-insurgent constituencies in the Democratic Party (Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, etc.). Kennedy represents a particularly ideologically heterodox and unbalanced version of this. It’s hard to imagine his support, such as it is, says anything meaningful or predictive about eventual support for Biden.

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Early in the administration, I thought Biden wouldn’t seek a second term. He would find it appealing, I thought, to declare that he had achieved what he promised when he decided to run in the first place. He saved the country from a Trump second term, defended democracy, solved a bunch of big problems, restored the country’s standing abroad, notched a number of bipartisan victories and created an opening for a better kind of politics. Call it the Cincinnatus Option. He would spend the rest of his term being more praised than damned, the Republicans would have less interest in attacking him, and his popularity would go up because a lot of Americans (with their instinctive mistrust of politicians) would admire someone who could walk away from power.

That still sounds pretty good to me, but it’s not what happened. The reason it didn’t is, as Greg suggested, that Biden might be the only Democrat who can sit atop the various factions of the Democratic Party and bring them together.

If you ask yourself why Democrats are united behind Biden, why only cranks are running against him, it’s because Democrats across their various divisions agree that now is not the time for ideological Armageddon, which is what would happen if Biden stepped aside. And anyone who claims that a tough primary would be good for Biden should consider history. When they were incumbents, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were all weakened by primary fights (against Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan, respectively), and they all lost in the general election.

Does Biden’s age create challenges? Of course. Especially against anyone other than Trump. At the margins, Biden’s age could cost him votes, and the margins matter. My hunch is that Biden’s camp will try to find subtle ways of making his age at least a partial asset by stressing his seasoning, wisdom, experience, etc. It won’t be easy, but they have to do some of this. His camp also made a mistake by not lifting up Harris early on and trying to turn her into an asset. They have realized this and are working on doing that now. Biden’s age means more voters will be looking at her as a possible successor, and her favorability ratings need to go up.

Rubin: It’s a relief to have an empathetic, decent human being in the White House. While it is fashionable to pine for someone new and young, with our democracy still frightfully fragile and with war raging in Europe, I don’t think a younger governor or senator would be a better choice. Biden can pass the baton in 2028. Maybe with age comes some old-fashioned sense of propriety, civic virtue, common courtesy and, dare we say, dignity. I’ll take it.

Milbank: I think the Biden-is-too-old theme is itself a demonstration that we’re all forced to live in a world shaped by disinformation from the right. We’ve been hearing from Fox News since the 2020 campaign (when Biden was hidden in his “basement”) about Biden’s “cognitive decline” and his struggle to “string two sentences together.” He has been routinely described since then as “senile,” as a man with “obviously declining mental faculties” who is “a cognitive mess, and he has no idea that today is Wednesday.” During the debt ceiling fight, Kevin McCarthy offered to bring “soft food” to the White House for Biden. After the debt deal, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) marveled that “Republicans got outsmarted by a president who can’t find his pants.”

There’s every reason to believe this “senile” old coot will outwit his Republican opponent in ’24.

Sargent: Democrats have won or outperformed in the last three national elections. Yet we’re still constantly running down rabbit holes into debates about why Dems suck so much at politics and how Trump continues to outfox them among working-class voters.

Democratic struggles with some working-class constituencies are real, but some proportion is in order here. MAGA continues to alienate a majority of the country.

Robinson: I’ve had a couple of occasions to spend extended periods of time with Biden, including a long chat on Air Force One, and I can attest that whatever else anybody thinks about him, he’s not senile. And I’ve seen him turn a scheduled quick half-hour of meet-and-greet with supporters into an hour-plus marathon, at the end of a long day, that exhausted aides half his age.

Dionne: Without formally breaking with either Clinton or Obama, Biden has moved the party’s policymaking past the consensus that influenced those earlier administrations. His appointments have given the party’s progressive wing a strong voice in areas such as labor rights, civil rights, trade and antitrust, even as he has kept the party’s more middle-ground legislators and voters on his side — by, for example, refusing to challenge the Federal Reserve’s efforts to contain inflation (even if the administration devoutly hopes it lets up on rate increases).

And the president’s economic record turns out to be very good. Inflation has come down much faster than Biden’s critics expected, and the country has so far avoided the recession many of those detractors predicted. It’s a long way between now and November 2024, but at least for now, Biden has the better of the economic argument.

The age issue is obviously one of the right’s favorite talking points, but from my own encounters, I share Gene Robinson’s view that a picture of Biden as some sort of doddering old guy is flatly wrong. Biden is especially sharp when he turns to U.S. foreign policy and makes a persuasive case that the United States is now in a much stronger position in the world, partly because it is building alliances across Asia to contain China’s power. Foreign policy won’t decide the next election, but voters who have a sense of security are more likely to support the incumbent.

But realism requires coming to terms with the age issue anyway. Like it or not, Biden’s age will be brought into play whenever he makes a miscue or garbles a sentence or stumbles or looks less forceful — even if whatever is going wrong has nothing to do with his age. Beneath the surface, the Biden forces know it’s something they have to struggle with, not because of what Fox News commentators will say but because of conversations among not particularly ideological voters over back fences and in neighborhood cafes.

Bacon: If the Democrats’ only potential options for the 2024 ticket were: 1) Nominate Biden without a real primary; 2) Conduct a primary in which Harris would likely win without any serious challenge; 3) Conduct a primary in which Harris carried the Black primary vote overwhelmingly but lost to someone with a heavily White base (say Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg), I can see why the party kind of informally opted for No. 1. After all, Harris wasn’t a great candidate in 2019, few Black voters backed Buttigieg in that primary and Biden has the electoral advantages of being White, male and the incumbent president.

But I suspect there were two other potential outcomes, if Biden had announced in January that he was not seeking a second term: 4) Harris wins against a crowded primary field and in doing so demonstrates she is a strong candidate for a general election, like Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016; or 5) Harris runs but another candidate (say, Whitmer) builds a broad coalition and decisively defeats her in the primary.

So I am frustrated that Democrats are running a candidate who in my view is too conciliatory and centrist in the face of a radicalized Republican Party, but also a candidate whose centrism and conciliation isn’t being rewarded by centrist/independent/swing voters with more approval and support. Biden’s age makes his reelection really dicey — something voters keep saying in poll after poll but the Democratic Party has decided to ignore.

All that said, Biden has been fairly good on policy and would be much better than any of the Republicans running. So I will be voting for him next November without any hesitation. I think he has been a better president than Clinton or Obama. He has been less centrist and cautious than I expected. He has embraced the progressive thinking that emerged from 2013 to 2020, instead of being stuck in old ways. He has appointed some great judges, most notably Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. He has also been very pro-labor and more skeptical of big business than other modern presidents.

The Democratic Party has moved in a more liberal direction — and Biden moved with the party. Great.

Waldman: The good news for Democrats is that, at the moment at least, they have so much going for them heading into 2024: a strong economy, a broadly popular agenda, and an opposition committed to a hateful politics that their base seems to want, but that a majority of the electorate finds repugnant.

Finally, you have the likely nomination of Trump, who cost the GOP the elections of 2018, 2020 and 2022. Everything that made people choose Biden over Trump three years ago — that Biden is a decent human being with conciliatory impulses who would govern in a responsible way — is no less true today than it was then. So for all the unease among Democrats (which Perry is absolutely right about), they’re in about as good a position as they could have hoped for.

Categories Biden, Democrats, Education Reform, Elections, Politics, Republicans, Trump

Robert Hubbell: An Unprecedented Indictment

By dianeravitch
August 2, 2023 //
61

Yesterday was a momentous day in American history. A former President was charged with the crimes of conspiracy to overturn the election that ousted him. We watched the events of January 6, 2021, unfold on national television. We did not know all the details of the conspiracy, which happened in secrecy. But independent counsel Jack Smith interviewed people who were in those secret sessions. Some of them blabbed.

Robert Hubbell summed up the dramatic events of last night. Open the link and keep reading.

Hubbell writes:

At 7:14 PM EDT on August 1, 2023, special counsel Jack Smith strode to a lectern in Washington, D.C., opened a folder, and said, “Today, an indictment was unsealed . . . .” With those plain words, Jack Smith announced the most remarkable legal proceeding in the history of our nation. The indictment (US v. Trump) alleges that a former president of the United States attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power between presidents—the hallmark of American democracy.

          Smith cut to the quick of the indictment in his brief remarks, saying:

The attack on our nation’s Capital on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. It was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant.

          And the indictment cuts to the quick of the injury inflicted by Trump: It alleges that Trump engaged in a conspiracy “against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.”

          There it is: Trump attempted to deny the American people the right of self-determination. If that right is abrogated, a free people become vassals of an authoritarian state that exists to perpetuate itself rather than serve the people.     

          In its economy and focus, the indictment lays bare Trump’s betrayal of the Constitution and the American people. In damning Trump with words of one syllable, it seeks to persuade the jury that will determine his guilt and the American people who will determine his fate.

          The indictment is the product of deep strategic thinking. Jack Smith seeks a conviction before the 2024 presidential election. To increase the likelihood of that outcome, the indictment charges a single defendant—Donald Trump. The indictment alleges that Trump was assisted by six un-indicted co-conspirators—five attorneys and one political consultant who can (and will) be tried later.

          In charging a broad conspiracy involving six un-indicted co-conspirators, Smith will be able to use the statements of the seven co-conspirators against one another. The indictment bristles with incriminating admissions and confessions of guilty knowledge by inept and clueless amateurs whose proximity to the presidency caused them to take leave their senses.

          The indictment deftly seeks to hold Trump accountable for the violence on January 6th without assuming the burden of proving he incited the violence. Rather, the indictment alleges that Trump exploited the violence by using it as an excuse to justify the unlawful delay necessary for the false electors plot to succeed.

          The indictment focuses on the false electors’ plot, one of the most straightforward and easily provable elements of Trump’s attempted coup. The indictment does not seek to hold Trump directly accountable for inciting the violence—a difficult proposition to prove.

          On August 2, 2023, Americans who yearn for justice and accountability should feel buoyed by the powerful indictment against Trump. We have much to be grateful for, including the following:

  • That Merrick Garland chose Jack Smith to prosecute Trump;
  • That Jack Smith and his staff (attorneys and FBI agents) acted with the urgency and dispatch appropriate after an attempted coup—and before a threatened second coup.
  • That former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had the foresight to proceed with a select committee to investigate the events of January 6th over objections from House Republicans.
  • That the dedicated members of the House J6 Committee (and their staff) presented an overwhelming case of Trump’s guilt to the American people.
  • That state prosecutors and civil litigants in Georgia and New York pursued justice against Trump when it appeared that federal prosecutors temporized.
  • That the men and women who defended the Capitol on January 6th were able to hold the line long enough for the coup plotters to lose their nerve. As Jack Smith said of the law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol, “They are patriots and they are the best of us.”

          The indictment is momentous. It should speak for itself and deserves to be read in full by you. Indeed, it is your civic duty to do so. The indictment is here: US v. Trump. It is eminently readable. To whet your appetite, here is the introduction:

1.    The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty -fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

          2. Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3,2020, Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

          3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

Early analysis of the indictment by legal commentators.

          We will spend months and years reviewing the indictment. The early analysis started to arrive on Tuesday evening. A good place to start is with the question of whether it is in the interest of the nation to prosecute a former president for resisting the peaceful transfer of power. It is. See Ruth Marcus op-ed in WaPo, Prosecuting Trump is perilous. Ignoring his conduct would be worse. Marcus writes,

There is a reasonable argument to be made that Trump is already facing criminal charges for his behavior in other matters and proceeding against him on the suite of election-related offenses is unwise and unnecessary.

I disagree, and reading Tuesday’s indictment bolsters that conviction. The Mar-a-Lago indictment charges a separate set of crimes: illegal retention of national defense information and obstruction of justice. These are serious allegations, but to say that their existence obviates the need to prosecute Trump for his efforts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is akin to arguing that it is not essential to bring murder charges if the putative defendant is already accused of armed robbery.

Prosecuting Trump on these charges is a grave, even perilous, step. Condoning his behavior by ignoring it would be far worse.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Elections, Trump

Dana Milbank: House GOP Discovers Aliens Among Us

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2023 //
71

Dana Milbank, a regular columnist for the Washington Post is always insightful and sees the humor in the antics of politicians. In this account of recent hearings about UFOs, he hits it out of the park. He explains why Trump supporters are avid believers in the presence of mysterious aliens: they believe the Deep State is hiding what it knows. Another conspiracy. The missing link in their conspiracy: why didn’t Trump release all this secret stuff during his four years in office? Milbank casts doubt on whether outer space aliens are real; I can answer him. They are; a few of them have been posting on this blog recently.

Milbank writes:

The aliens have landed. And they have a gavel!

That is as plausible a takeaway as any from this week’s House Oversight Committee hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena, the curiosity formerly known as UFOs. The panel’s national security subcommittee brought in, as its star witness, one David Grusch, a former Defense Department intelligence official who now claims:

  • That there are “quite a number” of “nonhuman” space vehicles in the possession of the U.S. government.
  • That one “partially intact vehicle” was retrieved from Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1933 by the United States, acting on a tip from Pope Pius XII.
  • That the aliens have engaged in “malevolent activity” and “malevolent events” on Earth that have harmed or killed humans.
  • That the U.S. government is also in possession of “dead pilots” from the spaceships.
  • That a private defense contractor is storing one of the alien ships, which have been as large as a football field.
  • That the vehicles might be coming “from a higher dimensional physical space that might be co-located right here.”
  • That the Roswell, N.M., alien landing was real, and the Air Force’s debunking of it a “total hack job.”
  • And that the United States has engaged in a nearly century-long “sophisticated disinformation campaign” (apparently including murders to silence people) to hide the truth.

I’d tell you more, but then they would have to kill me.

Alas, Grusch has no documents, photos or other evidence to corroborate any of his fantastic claims. It’s classified, you see.

Maybe everything he says is true, even the claim that “the Vatican was involved” in pursuing extraterrestrials, and Grusch has just exposed the best-kept secret and most sprawling conspiracy in the history of the universe. Or maybe Grusch himself is a conspiracy theorist, or he’s just having a lark at the subcommittee’s expense. Easier to discern was the motive of several Republicans on the panel: They greeted his out-of-this-world claims with total credulity, using them as just more evidence that the deep-state U.S. government is lying to the American people, covering up the truth and can never be trusted. Their anti-government vendetta has gone intergalactic.

“There has been activity by alien or nonhuman technology and/or beings that has caused harm to humans?” asked Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.).

Grusch said what he “personally witnessed” was “very disturbing.”

“You’ve said that the U.S. has intact spacecraft,” Burlison continued. “You’ve said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft?”

Grusch said the nonclassified setting prevented him from divulging “what I’ve seen firsthand.”

“Do we have the bodies of the pilots?” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) wanted to know.

“Biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah,” Grusch told her, and the remains were “nonhuman.”

Mace asked whether, “based on your experience,”Grusch believes “our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials.”

Classified, Grusch replied.

Just over a year ago, a House Intelligence subcommittee held a similar hearing on “unidentified aerial phenomena” but with dramatically different results. The panel’s bipartisan leadership said the matter should be taken seriously to protect pilots and to make sure enemies don’t develop breakthrough weapons. But they assured the public there was no evidence of “anything nonterrestrial in origin,” and they cautioned against conspiracy theories. In addition, Sean Kirkpatrick, the head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, where Grusch worked, testified to senators in April that his UAP-hunting office “has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology or objects that defy the known laws of physics.” NASA has said likewise.

At the start of this week’s hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia (Calif.), the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, reminded colleagues of Kirkpatrick’s testimony. One of the other witnesses, David Fravor, a retired Navy commander, told the subcommittee that the government is “not focused on little green men.” But this Republican majority has yet to meet a conspiracy theory it wouldn’t amplify, so it was only a matter of time before it landed on Roswell and Area 51.

There’s only one reason Trump failed to release the top-secret documents about extraterrestrials: he is part of the Deep State too! Shhhhhh.

Categories Ignorance, Politics, Republicans, Trump

Thom Hartmann: Trump’s Big-Lie Ad Threatens Our Democracy

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2023 //
23

Journalist Thom Hartmann shows that Trump’s latest ad is an exercise in the Big Lie Technique. It contains vile smears that simple-minded people are likely to believe. It resounds with echoes of fascism.

He writes:

Trump’s people are promoting a new lie-filled fascist advertisement, which even the normally unflappable Frank Luntz called “disturbing.” It follows a fairly ancient pattern of destructive Big Lies that goes back to Renaissance Italy and even the Roman republic and ancient Greece.

German filmmaker Fritz Hippler, one of Goebbels’ most effective propagandists (he produced the infamous movie The Eternal Jew), said that two steps are necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it.

The first is to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that “even the most feebleminded could understand.” 

The second is to “repeat the oversimplification over and over.” 

If these two steps are followed, Hippler and Goebbels both knew, enough people will come to believe a Big Lie that it can change the politics of a nation.

In Hippler’s day, the best example of his application of the principle was his 1940 movie “Campaign in Poland,” which argued that the Polish people were suffering under tyranny — a tyranny that would someday threaten Germany — and that the German people could either allow this cancer to fester, or preemptively “liberate” Poland.

Hitler took the “strong and decisive” path, the movie suggested, to liberate Poland, even though after the invasion little evidence was found that Poland represented any threat whatsoever to the powerful German Reich. The movie was Hitler’s way of saying that invading Poland was the right thing to do, and that, in retrospect, he would have done it again.

The Big Lie is alive and well today in the United States of America, and what’s most troubling about it is the basic premise that underlies its use. For somebody to undertake a Big Lie, they must first believe Niccolo Machiavelli’s premise (in “The Prince,” 1532) that “the ends justify the means.”

Hitler, after all, claimed to have based everything he did on the virtuous goal of uniting Europe — and then the world — in a thousand-year era of peace, which he claimed was foreshadowed in the Bible. If you believe that a thousand years of peace is such a noble end that any means is justified to reach it, it’s a short leap to eugenics, preemptive wars, torture of dissidents and prisoners, and mass murder.

Believing that the end justifies the means is the ultimate slippery slope. It will kill any noble goal, because even if the goal is achieved, it will have been corrupted along the way by the means used to accomplish it…

In real life, it’s the story of the many tinpot dictators around the world who quote America’s Founders while enforcing a brutal rule, of fossil fuel executives pushing for lax CO2 rules to “help the American economy,” of the legion of lobbyists who work daily to corrupt democracy in the name of GMOs, pharmaceuticals, and the insurance industry (among others).

Here in the US it was used by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to lie us into murderous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when there was little consequence to them personally or the GOP, Republicans decided to continue the Big Lie strategy and are using it to this day.

Gandhi, Jesus, and Buddha all warned us about this, as did Tolstoy, Tolkien, Hemingway, and Kafka.

Be it “small sins” like the Green Party and No Labels getting into bed with Republicans to get on state ballots, or “big sins” like rightwing think-tanks working to turn America into a strongman oligarchy with their Project 2025, trying to accomplish a “good” by using the means of an “evil” like a Big Lie inherently corrupts the good.

Now the Trump campaign and its allies are encouraging a new series of Big Lies to assail President Biden and the very idea of democracy itself.

With the smug assurance of damage done to the enemy, Republican governors are rewriting American history (the Big Lie that white children are injured by learning about Black history), criminalizing the LGBTQ+ community (the Big Lie that queer people are “groomers”), and throwing millions of people in Blue cities off the voting rolls (the Big Lie of voter fraud).

They are pushing and celebrating nakedly fascist policies, tropes, and memes.

Most recently, a Trump-aligned group rolled out an ad that strings a whole series of Big Lies together. It says:

If I was the deep state and I wanted to destroy America, I would rig the election with a puppet candidate, one that was so compromised that they would never say a word about it. I would create a false flag that allows for mail-in ballots. I would be in charge of the ballot-counting machines. I would create a false flag to blame all who question the results of the election.

If I was the deep state, I would prosecute anyone that went against me. I would sue and prosecute anyone that spoke up about the fraudulent election. I would use my powers to shut down all your internet businesses and bankrupt you.

If I was the deep state, I would make everyone an example why you should never question a Democrat ever winning an election. I would imprison my foes. I would use my corrupt DAs and blackmail judges to destroy you. I would make sure all crimes I ever committed never happened. I would prosecute my biggest competition. I would make sure they could never run for office ever again.

If I was the deep state, I would convince everyone that Ukraine Nazis were good, and women are men.

If I was the deep state, I would own every politician that mattered.

If I was the deep state, I would push my pedophilia ambitions on you.

If I was the deep state, you’d question your sexual identity, but not the medical establishment.

If I was the deep state, you would fear to ever resist me.

If I was the deep state, you would wish I was really the devil.

If I was the deep state, I would say mission accomplished.

Frank Luntz wrote of it, “This is the most disturbing political ad I’ve seen this year.”

Defenders of the Trump campaign are overrunning social media, defending the lies and threats in this new ad and Trump’s previous, “If you fuck around with us…” statements. They claim that Joe Biden is reviving our economy with “socialism and communism,” and Jack Smith and the DOJ prosecuting Trump and the January 6th traitors is some sort of “deep state tyranny.”

There is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between the work the administration is doing to punish seditionists and rebuild our economy from the wreckage of the Trump years and these sorts of naked appeals to fascism.

Truths and issues — however unpleasant — cannot be weighed on the same scale as lies, threats, and character assassination, explicit or implicit.

Lee Atwater, on his deathbed, realized that the “ends justify the means” technique of campaigning he had unleashed on behalf of Reagan and Bush was both immoral and harmful to American democracy.

“In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I ‘would strip the bark off the little bastard’ and ‘make Willie Horton his [Dukakis’] running mate,’” Atwater said. “I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not. Mostly I am sorry for the way I thought of other people. Like a good general, I had treated everyone who wasn’t with me as against me.”

But Atwater’s spiritual and political protégés in the Trump campaign soldier on. He and his GOP allies in Congress are using Big Lies with startling regularity, and old Big Lies are being resurrected almost daily, most on social media, right-wing talk radio, podcasts, and TV.

The most alarming contrast in the coming election of 2024 is between those who will use any means to get and hold power, and those who are unwilling to engage in a Big Lie.

History tells us that, over the short term, the Big Lie usually works. Over the long term, though, the damage it does — both to those who use it, and to the society on which it is inflicted — is often incalculable.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, History, Ignorance, Lies, Propaganda, Trump

Trump Claims That He Is Prosecuted to Silence His Base

By dianeravitch
July 29, 2023 //
30

I heard it on the radio while driving and couldn’t believe it. Trump claimed that the prosecutors pursuing him for a variety of crimes are actually targeting his supporters. He portrayed himself in near-Biblical terms, as a savior who is being persecuted and crucified on behalf of his devout followers. He said, and I paraphrase, “When they come for me, they are really coming for you.” I couldn’t but think of the phrase “Jesus died for our sins.”

Then I read Philip Bump in The Washington Post, who explained how Trump has made this tack a central part of his campaign. He has done nothing wrong. He wrote a perfect letter. He made a perfect phone call. He is blameless. It is not he but his followers who are targets of wicked prosecutors.

Bump wrote:

Visitors to Donald Trump’s campaign website are immediately implicated in his current legal travails.

“They’re not after me,” text in the primary image on the site reads. “They’re after you … I’m just standing in their way!”

As though attribution were needed, the quote is sourced to Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States.

This idea that Trump faces a legal threat as a proxy for his base of support was offered explicitly during Trump’s speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition over the weekend.

“Every time the radical-left Democrats, Marxist, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it a great badge of courage,” Trump said. “I’m being indicted for you, and I believe the you is more than 200 million people that love our country.”

That phrasing is dripping with hyperbole. Trump’s federal indictment came at the hands of an experienced federal prosecutor who is in no realistic way a “radical-left Democrat,” much less any of the other (contradictory) categories offered. Trump’s implication that his base of support numbers 200 million is heavily inflated.

Those exaggerations have a purpose. Two-hundred-million Americans are more than three-quarters of the adult population, but they’re also obviously more than half of the country, bolstering Trump’s long-standing claim that he is leading a “silent majority” (despite earning less than a majority of the vote in the 2016 presidential primaries, 2016 election and 2020 election). His framing of his opponents as politically opposed to that base — using vaguely defined pejoratives very familiar to supporters who remember the Cold War — is also familiar in a terrain littered with “Republicans in name only.”

Everyone agrees with him and anyone who doesn’t is a traitor. Simple enough.

I have lived through many Presidential elections but I can’t remember any candidate saying that everyone who votes against him is “radical left Democrats, Marxist, communists, and fascists.”

I recall that John McCain defended Obama when one of his supporters called him a Muslim. McCain did not traffic in the politics of personal destruction.

Trump’s inflammatory language and his disrespect for democratic norms undermines our democracy, just as do his attacks on the Justice Department and the rule of law and on the press. He attacks the integrity of our electoral system, our judicial system, and every part of our government. He is a Samson who would dearly love to tear down the pillars of his society unless he controls it. He inspires violence and relishes his ability to mobilize an armed mob.

If you don’t support him, you are a traitor. You don’t love your country. You are radical left. Or a Marxist or a communist or a fascist.

Categories Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Fraud, Lies, Trump

William Galston: How Will Third Party Candidates Affect the Election of 2024?

By dianeravitch
July 29, 2023 //
27

William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a long-time analyst of national politics. He speculates here on the effects of independent candidacies on the 2024 election.

In 1948, President Harry Truman was on the ropes. He was personally unpopular and faced breakaway candidates to his left (former Vice President Henry Wallace, running as the head of the Progressive Party) and to his right (the Dixiecrats, headed by Strom Thurmond). Although Truman lost 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes to Thurmond and another 2.4% of the vote to Wallace, he managed to beat Republican Thomas Dewey by 49.6% to 45.1% (4.5 percentage points).

The story of the 2024 presidential campaign could be a rerun of 1948 — with a different ending. As in 1948, an unpopular incumbent Democratic president may well face Democratic defections to his left and his right. A leading Black public intellectual, Cornel West, will be filling Henry Wallace’s slot as the presidential nominee of the Green Party. To Joe Biden’s right, No Labels is threatening to run an “independent bipartisan” ticket that could be headed by centrists such as Larry Hogan, the former never-Trump Republican governor of Maryland; Joe Manchin, the moderate Democratic senator from West Virginia; or Arizona’s independent senator, Kyrsten Sinema.

It is much too early to assess the impact of this dual threat, but the early signs are not encouraging for Biden. A recent poll by Echelon Insights, a Republican-leaning survey research firm, found that while Biden would narrowly defeat Donald Trump in a rematch of their 2020 contest, Cornel West would receive 4% of the vote in a three-way race, giving the edge to Trump. West would draw about three-quarters of his support from potential Biden voters, especially Blacks, young people, and voters with graduate degrees.

Meanwhile, a poll by Data for Progresssuggested that a centrist independent candidacy would also hurt President Biden more than former President Trump. Like Echelon Insights and other polling firms, Data for Progress found that Biden would defeat Trump in a closely contested two-way race. But in a three-way race featuring Trump, Biden, and an unnamed “moderate Independent candidate,” Trump would come out on top, because the third choice would draw 6 percentage points from Biden’s support versus 3 points from Trump. Otherwise put, in a two-way race, 41% of the potential supporters of a moderate independent choice would support Biden, compared to just 24% who would opt for Trump.

It is very early in the race, of course, so these findings should be read with a healthy pinch of skepticism. Still, they suggest that a four-way race might not go as well for Joe Biden in 2024 as it did for Truman in 1948. The difference, I would suggest, is the baseline balance between the two major parties. In 1944, Democrats were on a roll. In that election, Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Thomas Dewey by 7.5 percentage points, 53.4% to 45.9%. The Republicans nominated Dewey a second time in 1948, and the Republican candidate ended up with roughly the same share of the popular vote as he had four years earlier. Truman could afford to lose almost 5% of the baseline Democratic vote to breakaway candidates to his left and right and still prevail. Still, it was a narrow victory. If Dewey had done 1 percentage point better in the popular vote, he probably would have won three large states — Ohio, Illinois, and California — that he lost by less than 1 percentage point, allowing him to win a majority in the Electoral College despite losing to Truman in the popular vote.

By contrast, Joe Biden begins with a narrower advantage in what I am calling the “baseline” vote. In 2020, when just about everything went right for him, he defeated Trump by 51.3% to 46.8% (4.5 percentage points) in the popular vote. Because Biden’s baseline edge is 3 percentage points lower than Truman’s, he cannot prevail with losses to his left and right as large as those Truman experienced. If a four-way election were held tomorrow, Biden would probably lose.

Fortunately for the incumbent, the election will not occur for another 16 months. As often happens with new Third-Party possibilities, Cornel West’s 4% showing in the Echelon Insights poll may well prove to be a high-water mark. Running on the Green Party ticket in 2016, Jill Stein received just 1.1% of the popular vote. And notably, when the Data for Progress poll replaced the generic No Labels candidate with an actual candidate (Larry Hogan), support for the moderate independent option fell by more than half.

Still, Joe Biden’s room for maneuver is dangerously small. Even though Stein received just over 1% of the vote in 2016, her vote total was higher than Trump’s margin of victory in three key states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — with enough electoral votes to turn Hillary Clinton’s defeat into a narrow victory. Although we cannot say for sure that Stein cost Clinton the election, we cannot rule out the possibility that she did.

Even though Biden gained a healthy popular vote victory in 2020, a shift of a handful of votes in three states — Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin — would have created a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, throwing the election into the House of Representatives, where Trump would have prevailed. If Cornel West ends up with even half of his current support, he will double Stein’s share, imperiling Biden’s reelection chances. If a No Labels candidate were also in the race, the hill Biden must climb would be even steeper.

Categories Biden, Elections, Politics, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: Good News for Biden, Bad News for Trump

By dianeravitch
July 28, 2023 //
37

Heather Cox Richardson applies her excellent skills as a historian to analyze the news. Open the link to finish reading and to read footnotes.

More good news today for Bidenomics, as the gross domestic product report for the second quarter showed annualized growth of 2.4%, higher than projected, and inflation rose at a slower pace of 2.6%, down from last quarter and well below projections. Economic analyst Steven Rattner noted that as of the second quarter, “the US economy is over 6% larger than it was before COVID (after adjusting for inflation). At this point in the recovery from the Great Recession, 2011, the economy was just 0.7% larger than it had been in 2007.”

Both consumer spending and business investment, which is up 7.7% in real annualized terms, drove this growth. Business spending makes up a much smaller share of gross domestic product, but it drives future jobs and growth, and much of this growth is in manufacturing facilities. In keeping with that trend, the nation’s largest solar panel manufacturer, First Solar, announced today that it will build a fifth factory in the U.S. as alternative energy technology takes off. This commitment brings to more than $2.8 billion the amount First Solar has invested in the U.S. to ramp up production…

While many of us were watching the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., to see if an indictment was forthcoming against former president Trump for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a different set of charges appeared tonight. Special counsel Jack Smith brought additional charges against Trump in connection with his retention of classified documents.

The new indictment alleges that Trump plotted to delete video from security cameras near the storage room where he had stored boxes containing classified documents, and did so after the Department of Justice subpoenaed that footage. That effort to delete the video involved a third co-conspirator, Carlos De Oliveira, who has been added to the case.

De Oliveira is a former valet at the Trump Organization’s Mar-a-Lago property who became property manager there in January 2022. Allegedly, he told another Trump employee that “the boss” wanted the server deleted and that the conversation should stay between the two of them.

In the Washington Post, legal columnist Ruth Marcus wrote, “The alleged conduct—yes, even after all these years of watching Trump flagrantly flout norms—is nothing short of jaw-dropping: Trump allegedly conspired with others to destroy evidence.” If the allegations hold up, “the former president is a common criminal—and an uncommonly stupid one.”

This superseding indictment reiterates the material from the original indictment, and as I reread it, it still blows my mind that Trump allegedly compromised national security documents from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (surveillance imagery), the National Reconnaissance Office (surveillance and maps), the Department of Energy (nuclear weapons), and the Department of State and Bureau of Intelligence and Research (diplomatic intelligence).

It sounds like he was a one-man wrecking ball, aimed at our national security.

The Justice Department has asked again for a protective order to protect the classified information at the heart of this case. In their request, they explained that, among other things, Trump wanted to be able to discuss that classified information with his lawyers outside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, a room protected against electronic surveillance and data leakage.

Former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division Peter Strzok noted that there is “[n]o better demonstration of Trump’s abject lack of understanding of—and disregard for—classified info and national security. He is *asking the Court* to waive the requirements for classified info that EVERY OTHER SINGLE CLEARANCE HOLDER IN THE UNITED STATES must follow.”

The Senate today passed the $886 billion annual defense bill by a strong bipartisan margin of 86 to 11 after refusing to load it up with all the partisan measures Republican extremists added to the House bill. Now negotiators from the House and the Senate will try to hash out a compromise measure, but the bills are so far apart it is not clear they will be able to create a bipartisan compromise. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has passed on a bipartisan basis for more than 60 years.

The extremists in the House Republican conference continue to revolt against House speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) deal with the administration to raise the debt ceiling. They insist the future cuts to which McCarthy agreed are not steep enough, and demand more. This has sparked fighting among House Republicans; Emine Yücel of Talking Points Memo suggests that McCarthy’s new willingness to consider impeaching President Biden might be an attempt to cut a deal with the extremists.

As the Senate is controlled by Democrats, the fight among the House Republicans threatens a much larger fight between the chambers because Democratic senators will not accept the demands of the extremist Republican representatives.

The House left for its August recess today without passing 11 of the 12 appropriations bills necessary to fund the government after September, setting up the conditions for a government shutdown this fall if they cannot pass the bills and negotiate with the Senate in the short time frame they’ve left. Far-right Republicans don’t much care, apparently. Representative Bob Good (R-VA) told reporters this week, “We should not fear a government shutdown… Most of what we do up here is bad anyway.”

Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA), the second ranking Democrat in the House, disagreed. “The Republican conference is saying they are sending us home for six weeks without funding the government? That we have one bill…out of 12 completed because extremists are holding your conference hostage, and that’s not the full story: the extremists are holding the American people hostage. We will have twelve days…when we return to fund the government, to live up to the job the American people sent us here to do. This is a reckless march to a MAGA shutdown, and for what? In pursuit of a national abortion ban? Is that what we are doing here?

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democrats, Economy, Environment, Extremism, Funding, Republicans, Trump

The Hartmann Report: Trump’s Plans Are Alarming

By dianeravitch
July 25, 2023 //
23

A few days ago, the New York Times published a description of the policies envisioned by Trump’s inner circle. The goals is to take control of independent agencies and to strip the independence of federal civil servants. Thom Hartmann wrote here about those plans and their danger to democracy.

Earlier this week, The New York Times published a partial exposé of Trump’s plans for his second administration. It involved basically turning America into Russia or Hungary, where the president becomes the singular center of federal power, eclipsing Congress and the Courts.
For example, the Times writes:

For example, the Times writes:

“Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.”

How would this play out? The FCC has power over the internet, as well as all broadcast media in America; it’s how the Trump administration killed Net Neutrality and gave the giant Internet Service Providers (ISPs) the legal right to track everything you do and sayon the web right down to the last keystroke of your posts and your every email.

Thus, President Trump could mandate that any media critical of him — including online media like Daily Kos, Raw Story, or Common Dreams— must be heavily “regulated,” just like in Russia and Hungary. And he could do this in the first weeks of his presidency, to tamp down the ability to organize protests around his other fascist policies.

Taking over the Federal Trade Commission would allow him to do all kinds of favors for his CEO and billionaire backers, bringing industry behind his Fascism, just as happened in the early years of Nazi Germany.

In addition, Trump has already proclaimed his intention to turn the FBI, IRS, and DOJ into weapons against his political enemies. Just like Putin and Orbán.

Lest you think Trump doesn’t have plans to take on the “fake news” media and “liberals” he regularly lambasts, consider what he reposted on his Nazi-infested social media site just three days ago:

“If you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before.”

They have been done before, just not here in the US.

And the fact that not one single currently elected Republican stood up and called this fascist rhetoric what it is tells us that the next GOP president need not be Trump for this nation to fall from democracy to fascism: strongman authoritarianism is now the governance model the Republican Party and the “conservative” movement have fully embraced.

Please open the link to finish reading.

Categories Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Politics, Trump

Michael Hiltzik: “No Labels” Is a Front to Protect the 1%[

By dianeravitch
July 25, 2023 //
28

Michael Hiltzik is my favorite columnist at the Los Angeles Times. In this post, he exposes the emptiness behind the “No Labels” platform. The possibility that No Labels will run a third party candidate in a Trump v. Biden race seems likely to elect Trump by drawing independent votes away from Biden. If ever there was an election where a third party is not needed, it’s 2024.

Hiltzik writes:

Presidential campaigns start earlier and earlier these days, and so too do pleas that politics in the U.S. would be so much more effective if we could, in the words of Rodney King, “all just get along.”

So here comes the purportedly centrist political group No Labels, which recently released a 72-page political manifesto entitled “Common Sense,” in an overt echo of Thomas Paine.

“Most Americans are decent, caring, reasonable, and patriotic people,” declares the document’s preamble. “Instead, we see our two major parties dominated by angry and extremist voices driven by ideology and identity politics rather than what’s best for our country.”

There’s a clue right there to the “both-sides-ism” of this fake party. Who are the “angry and extremist voices” on the Democratic side? No one like Greene, Boebert, and Gaetz.

No Labels says it may back a third-party candidate for president next year unless President Biden seems to be running well ahead of Donald Trump. That sounds more like a threat than a promise.

The politician the group has been most assiduously promoting lately is Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). Manchin has demonstrated his centrist bonafides by doing things such as killing an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, an anti-poverty program of proven effectiveness, and blocking initiatives for renewable fuels in favor of protecting coal and other fossil fuels (he’s an investor in the coal industry).

That might tell you all you need to know about No Labels, but there’s more. The organization doesn’t disclose its donors, but Mother Jones has reported that they include private equity investors, a natural gas billionaire and real estate and insurance industry figures.

The best window into No Labels’ approach is its “Common Sense” policy document, which boasts of providing “a clear blueprint for where America’s commonsense majority wants this country to go.”

Would that were so. In the flesh, the document is an agglomeration of misinformation, platitudes and premasticated nostrums.

The document tends to make its points by listing problems and saying, in effect, “something must be done”—but doesn’t give many specifics about what that something would be. It makes assumptions about what is desired by “commonsense Americans” (whoever they are) without actually showing that its assumptions are valid.

Housing? “Building more homes in America will make housing more affordable for Americans,” says No Labels. No kidding? So what are you going to do about it? The policy document doesn’t say, beyond endorsing a couple of federal tax credit proposals in Congress that on the gonna-happen scale are a “not.”

On some issues, No Labels merely tries to split the difference between two sides, never mind that one side may be right and the other wrong. Abortion? No Labels calls for a “compromise” between the belief that “women have a right to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.”

That word salad gets us nowhere, skating glibly over the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade, as played out in states where stringent antiabortion statutes have had devastating consequences for the health of pregnant women and their access to medical care. If that’s the best that No Labels can offer, why does the organization exist at all?

Social Security? No Labels calls its fiscal condition “a textbook example of how leaders kick the can down the road in a manner that makes a foreseeable problem even harder to solve for the next generation.” This is a textbook example of balderdash.

“The longer Washington waits to fix Social Security,” No Labels says, “the harder it will be to do so.” The truth, as the political geniuses behind No Labels surely understand, is just the opposite. The closer the deadline, the easier it is to come together for a solution.

No Labels bases its argument on the fact that if Congress defers a decision on shoring up the program’s finances, the solutions will require more stringent benefit cuts or tax increases than they would today. But acting now would mean reducing benefits or raising taxes long before that’s necessary, and possibly more than will be necessary.

And who would pay that price? No Labels says that “no one in retirement — or close to it — should face any benefit changes.” Why not? Why place the burden of benefit cuts only on the younger generation? If “fixing” Social Security is “a challenge that we can and must solve together,” how come those in their fifties or older get a free pass?

The real reason that Social Security may need more funding is that wealthier Americans aren’t paying their fair share of the payroll tax that funds most benefits. Removing the cap on the payroll tax, which exempts wage income over $160,200 (this year’s limit), would eliminate almost all the program’s funding deficit for the foreseeable future. But that, obviously, would hit the taxpayer class No Labels seems determined to protect….

No Labels calls for a deficit reduction commission to issue proposals for spending cuts and revenue increases that Congress would have to vote on as a unified package. The model here is the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Responsibility Commission of 2010. No Labels calls its report “sensible and responsible, and dead on arrival.”

That’s a neat bit of historical revisionism. The reason the report went nowhere was that the commission itself was so split that it never got around to issuing recommendations at all. The co-chairs, the noxious former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and the conservative Democrat Erskine Bowles, traveled the country trying to sell their snake oil, with no success.

The truth was that the commission was a front for the wealthy. The Simpson-Bowles plan was a road map for cutting services and benefits for the working and middle class — including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits and disaster relief — while preserving the tax breaks that the rich valued most highly. By taking Simpson-Bowles as a model, No Labels shows us what it’s really about.

Some of the policy document’s “ideas” are based on popular mythologies and received wisdom (or really, received misinformation). Some are self-contradictory. On crime, for example, the document says, “Americans are worried about the surge of crime,” but two paragraphs later acknowledges that violent crime is “down 44 percent since the 1990s.”

What’s the solution? To No Labels, it all boils down to putting more cops on the street. “It’s a simple equation: the more cops patrolling a given community, the less crime that community experiences.” There’s no hint there that among law enforcement experts this is a heavily disputed claim.

It’s based on dubious data and a very narrow definition of “crime” — leaving out offenses such as wage theft and air and water pollution, for instance — and overlooks numerous proven approaches to reducing street crime that don’t require more cops. Nor does it recognize that in some contexts, more police leads to morecrime. But why claim to be exploring the complexity of criminal justice, when you’re just parroting the simple-minded conclusion that more cops invariably make a community safer?

On these and many other issues, No Labels is claiming to map out a middle ground between Democrats and Republicans that doesn’t really exist. No Labels says its goal is to combat political polarization in America, but the country is not, in fact, polarized. Large majorities favor abortion rights, gun control, making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, and protecting voting rights.

No Labels tries to both-sides the GOP’s allegiance to an extremist former president and its platform of eliminating abortion rights, constricting voting rights and advancing discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals. That Democratic Party policies are the polar opposites of those hardly makes it as “extremist” as the GOP. Where’s the middle ground when one side wants to expand rights and opportunities, and the other wants to destroy them?

Categories Biden, Elections, Politics, Trump

Pollsters: 2024 Will not Be a Rerun of 2020

By dianeravitch
July 23, 2023 //
16

Celinda Lake and Mac Heller have written a hopeful analysis of the 2024 electorate. The voters of 2024 are different from the voters of 2020 or any other year. To read their article in full, open the link.

They write:

It’s easy to envision the 2024 presidential election becoming the third straight contest in which a veteran Democrat goes up against Donald Trump. Once again, the Democrat wins the popular vote but swing states are tighter. Could go either way — and has, right?

But things are very different this time, and here’s why: The candidates might not be changing — but the electorate has.

Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.

Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.

Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.

And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.

Similarly, though not as drastic, we have seen a 7 percent increase in voter registration among under-30 voters since Gen Z joined the electorate. In midterm elections, under-30s have seen a 20 percent increase in their share of the electorate, on average, since Trump and Gen Z entered the game.

Yet Trump is not the deciding factor for these voters. When pollsters ask why, Gen Z voters say their motivation is not a party or candidate. It is, instead, strong passion on one or more issues — a much more policy-driven approach than the more partisan voting behavior of their elders.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic Party strategist, was one of two lead pollsters for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. Mac Heller is a documentary film producer, most recently of “Rigged: The Voter Suppression Playbook.”

Categories Biden, Elections, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »