We could all save ourselves a lot of time watching or reading news if political reporters cut down on what are likely to be endless visits to diners, VFW halls, and Farm & Fleet stores, all asking Trump voters, “Are you still with Donald Trump?”
Because we already know the response: From most of them, it’s likely to be yes. And even if a reporter gets a “no” now and then, which they will from some, that’s not exactly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalistic coup.
Will Trump voters support impeachment of the guy they voted for three years ago when they’re fed a steady diet from Fox News, Republicans, and Trump himself about claims of “hoaxes,” “witch hunts,” “sham investigations,” and conspiracies about the “deep state”? Highly unlikely.
FiveThirtyEight.com’s ongoing aggregate polling of Trump’s approval rating shows numbers basically unchanged in the low 40s, give or take a few percentage points, during his entire presidency. Since news about the Ukraine phone call scandal exploded in September, similar aggregate polling shows that the number of people supporting the impeachment process started to outnumber those against it, although only a plurality, not a majority, now say Trump should be impeached and removed. Except for that reversal in September, the numbers tighten or grow further apart by only a few percentage points.
Attitudes toward Trump remain largely unchanged. Those who are true Trumpanistas remain so. Those who would rather swallow glass than ever vote for Trump have pledged to vote blue no matter who. So why do political reporters waste our time and attention asking simple questions to which everyone already knows the answers?
Interviewing voters is important throughout any political contest, especially when numbers and support are still fluid. An ongoing look at the still-volatile Democratic presidential primary contest is a perfect example — many voters in several early states and elsewhere admit that they are still making up their minds, even as horse race polling numbers rise and fall.
To be useful, though, voter interviews have to have more depth than just asking questions about which candidate a voter supports. For Trump backers, questions such as “Do you still support Trump?” or “What do you think of Trump’s impeachment?” are pretty useless.
Of course people at a Trump rally are still going to support Trump. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be waiting for several hours to see him in the first place. Getting a Trump backer to nearly break down in tears might seem like great television, but viewers don’t gain much insight.
Independent journalist Dan Froomkin of Press Watch recently delivered some advice on how to ask voters better questions with a piece headlined Political journalists are doing voter interviews all wrong.
But how reporters go about it, where they go, who they talk to, what they presuppose, and most importantly what questions they ask can make the difference between the stuff of parody and the best kind of political journalism.
The key is for reporters to explore not just voters’ political opinions, but their formative moments and their value systems. That’s particularly essential now because the prevalence and significance of intolerance — racism in particular — as a driving force in politics has not been sufficiently explored and discussed.
Voter interviews, at their best, can give voice to the voiceless, propound common sense, and tease out nuances missed by the polls, and even establish common ground.
At their worst, they can impose false balance, reflect preconceived notions, promote knee-jerk reactions, and stoke conflict.
Throughout the Trump presidency, political reporters (especially those inside the Beltway) and their editors have given us a steady stream of stories and interviews with Trump supporters. This was partly based on the surprise over Trump’s win and partly based on the belief that they had been ignoring too many voters.
But they overdid it. The Associated Press had an ongoing feature called Trump Country. CNN regularly features focus groups with panels of Trump voters—Googling those terms delivers story after story of such interviews. The New York Times seems to have set up permanent residence in red-state rural diners. USA Today interviewed Trump voters in all 50 states to learn about Trump Nation. Photos of those voters were nearly all white and male, with a few women thrown in.
Funny — these same media outlets never did a never-ending series on those who were still supporting President Obama months and years after his election or on those who voted for Hillary Clinton, even though she received nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.
Now the media have new questions to ask about impeachment, and the topic presents a learning opportunity for reporters and voters alike. Polls show that 60 percent of Americans are paying attention to impeachment news, with about 20 percent paying close attention. One-fifth of Americans say they still might change their minds about whether it’s worth it.
Of course, Americans have differing opinions on the various aspects of impeachment, and there’s lots of leeway between “impeach and remove” or “keep Trump in office no matter what.” There are still partisan divisions among poll respondents.
This roundup of polling with detailed explanations from FiveThirtyEight.com shows that a majority of Americans believe that Trump abused his power and acted in his own personal interest (YA THINK?). An even larger majority say Trump should cooperate with the impeachment investigation (not much chance there). Such reports explain more thoroughly why Democrats chose to narrow their impeachment focus to two articles, leaving out bribery and an obstruction of justice charge from the Mueller report and instead emphasizing obstruction of Congress.
That’s not so hard, is it media? Even polls that go just a little deeper by asking specific questions give us more insight than asking a Trump supporter at a rally what she thinks of impeachment and waiting for the tear ducts to overflow.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Dec. 15, 2019.
U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Laughing Stock) has filed yet another frivolous lawsuit in his series of ridiculous lawsuits.
The latest is a $435 million defamation suit against CNN, something he had been threatening ever since the cable network published information that Nunes had met with a former Ukrainian prosecutor on a trip to Vienna in 2018 to seek dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.
The California GOP lawmaker already infamous for suing a fictitious cow called the CNN story, which was first published Nov. 22, a “demonstrably false hit piece.” According to a Washington Post story on the suit:
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged violations of Virginia’s law against insults and said CNN reporter Vicky Ward, who wrote the article, and anchor Chris Cuomo, who discussed its details on air, conspired with the network “to boost CNN’s ratings and further the House Democrats’ impeachment ‘inquiry.’”
“In promoting fake news about secret meetings in Vienna with a corrupt former Ukraine prosecutor, CNN pandered to lurid curiosity,” the complaint said. “CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.”
Nunes says he was in Libya, not Vienna, on an overseas trip at the time. Yet Nunes claimed expenses of nearly $57,000 for a four-day trip to Europe for him and his staff, not Africa, a claim that shows up on a House expenditure report for foreign travel.
The Post story points out that CNN repeatedly asked Nunes for comment on its story, but he refused all requests. Nunes told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “he does not respond to any questions from CNN in protest of other ‘fake news’ stories on him.”
It’s always hard to take Nunes’ protestations seriously, but it’s especially hard after Nunes’ name appeared on telephone logs in the House Intelligence Committee impeachment report. Those phone records link Nunes to several players involved in the false narrative about Ukraine being peddled by Republicans. As a CNN story spelled it out:
The phone records, which are labeled in the report’s endnotes as coming from AT&T, show a web of communications between [The Hill’s John] Solomon, Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, Ukrainian American businessman Lev Parnas, Nunes and the White House’s budget office.
Devin Nunes is a public figure and obviously knows better than to file such nonsense. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right of parody in 1988, and the bar is set extremely high for public figures to win defamation suits. But the CNN lawsuit is just the latest in a series of Devin Nunes SLAPP suits.
Nunes filed his lawsuit against CNN in Virginia, not California, the state in which he has represented the people in two different congressional districts in California’s Central Valley since 2003. That’s because California has a law against SLAPP suits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. While Virginia has an anti-SLAPP law, it is generally regarded as ineffective.
A Wikipedia definition of a SLAPP suit is “a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.” Thirty-one states have anti-SLAPP laws on the books.
Since Democrats now hold majorities in both houses of the Virginia Legislature, there has been talk of Virginia passing a stronger anti-SLAPP law. But for now, Nunes has filed six lawsuits against journalists, media companies, Twitter, the afore-mentioned fictitious cow, and even against some of his own constituents. Swell representative, isn’t he?
Roll Call has a rundown on all six of Nunes’ suits, with the headline, It’s Devin Nunes v. World when it comes to lawsuits. He finally had to drop one while others are progressing. But Nunes is being mocked severely for looking like such a tool.
Besides the CNN suit, here’s where the rest of the lawsuits stand:
The fictitious cow. You’d think a lawmaker with any self-respect would fear being laughed out of the House chambers for suing a Twitter parody account of a cow, but this is Devin Nunes we’re talking about. In March, Nunes filed a $250 million defamation suit against Twitter, an account claiming to be Devin Nunes’ cow, an account claiming to be Devin Nunes’ mom, and Republican consultant Liz Mair. A judge is allowing the suit to move forward, but not before a legal brief in the suit highlighted cows’ lack of opposable digits, thus questioning the ability to tweet.
Cocaine and prostitutes and a winery. In April, Nunes sued the Fresno Bee and its parent company, McClatchy, for $150 million over a 2018 story about a winery Nunes has invested in. The winery is being sued for civil rights violations. “A winery employee alleged that a charity auction held aboard a winery-owned yacht featured cocaine and prostitutes, some possibly underage,” according to the Roll Call account. Nunes’ suit claims that the story falsely implied “that he was involved with cocaine and underage prostitutes.” (The story didn’t.) That suit is still moving forward.
Moving the farm. In a 2018 story in Esquire, journalist Ryan Lizza reported that Nunes’ parents had moved their dairy farm from California to Iowa (a fact Nunes has not disputed but apparently never bothered to tell constituents) and that they were employing undocumented immigrants. In September 2019, Nunes sued Lizza and Hearst Magazines for $77.5 million, claiming that Lizza and Esquire had “an axe to grind” against him and had engaged in a conspiracy to damage his reputation by sharing the story on the air and through social media (gasp!). That suit was filed in Iowa, which has no anti-SLAPP law.
Suing his own constituents. How bad can a representative be? Besides the fact that he hasn’t held a town hall meeting with constituents for nearly 10 years, Nunes sued four of his own constituents, “claiming they were part of a coordinated campaign with ‘dark money’ groups that accused him of falsely implying he was a farmer” in the 2018 election. He dropped the suit, filed in California’s Tulare County, in early September.
Interference with the Trump-Russia investigation. September must have been a slow month for Nunes, because he also filed a $9.9 million lawsuit against Fusion GPS and a watchdog group, the Campaign for Accountability, for “attempting to interfere with the Trump-Russia investigation” and racketeering. It’s a little rich for a Republican to accuse anyone else of interfering with that investigation, don’t you think? The watchdog group has filed to dismiss the suit.
Nunes didn’t always feel so righteous about the right to sue. In early 2017, Nunes co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act. The bill died in the last Congress, but its purpose was to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to discourage people from suing and remove the veto power of the Environmental Protection Agency over projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
That bill’s chief sponsor, Republican Tom Rice of South Carolina, issued a press release in February 2017 on his bill’s purpose: “to streamline the permitting process for infrastructure projects and hold special interest groups accountable for filing frivolous lawsuits. Under current law, it is too easy for special interest groups and the EPA to unnecessarily stall infrastructure projects, resulting in years-long delays and increased costs at taxpayer’s expense.”
So the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act was a great bill for Republicans to use against consumer groups and the EPA, but heaven forbid that any law would stop a publicity hound like Nunes from suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.
If you want a little bedtime reading to take your mind off Republican hypocrisy, consider this take on Margaret Wise Brown’s children’s classic:
“Good night @DevinNunes career.” If only …
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Dec. 8, 2019.
If you’re a progressive woman aiming to make a difference in public service, there are a lot of other women willing to help you out.
The 2018 midterm election saw a record number of women run for office. There were 235 women candidates for the House and 22 for the Senate. The winners were lopsided by party: Of the 127 women on Capitol Hill, only 21 are Republicans, and only 13 of those are in the House, down from 22 Republican women in the previous Congress.
Obviously, Democratic women don’t march in lockstep with every aspect of their political views. But they do support policies that help women and American families. In broad terms, they support reining in health care costs, passing common-sense gun laws, and strengthening environmental protections to fight the climate change crisis. They represent a range of women who look more like all of America than ever before. And as research from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation showed, women are as electable as men.
And let’s face it: Compared with their Republican counterparts, they’re way better than the alternative.
Besides the Democratic Party-affiliated groups helping women candidates, there are a growing number of separate groups that help women run for office. Some are old hands that have been around for a few decades, such as EMILY’s List. A few are brand new, such as Matriarch. Some aim to help women of color, such as She the People. and Higher Heights. Some want to help young progressives, both men and women, such as Run For Something. Some are nonpartisan nonprofits that accept tax-deductible donations, and some are strictly political organizations. Many of these groups also work together and support each other.
This is not an all-inclusive list, but it’s aimed at showing the variety of candidate support out there. There are other political action committees and state-level groups. If you’re a woman considering running for anything, from a local school board to a national office, contacting one of these groups can point you in the right direction. They raise money, they train candidates, they offer expertise, and they can provide needed mentoring.
Of course, all of them welcome financial donations, the pitches for which figure prominently on all of their websites. But how else will they get the job done?
The nonpartisan Center for Women and American Politics, established in 1971, is a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. It is considered the source of research and data about the participation of U.S. women in politics. The center regularly updates a list of potential women candidates, either those who have filed or who have indicated an interest in running, for U.S. Congress or statewide elective office. It also has a current Election Watch list of electoral results for women candidates in state contests, all broken down and searchable by state.
There are a lot more of those candidates these days, thanks in part to organizations promoting women candidates. So what are some of these groups, and what exactly do they do?
EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List was founded in 1985 specifically to fund campaigns for pro-choice Democratic women. The “Emily” name is an acronym for “Early Money Is Like Yeast,” and thus “makes the dough rise,” according to the group’s website. Its first winning candidate was Barbara Mikulski, who became the first woman to win a seat in the U.S. Senate in her own right. She served as a Maryland senator from 1987 through her retirement in 2017.
Although EMILY’s List started primarily as a fundraising tool, its mission has grown to focus on recruiting candidates, winning elections, and mobilizing voters. It now boasts 5 million people among its members and supporters. EMILY’s List famously had only 920 women contacts for the 2016 election. It has now been contacted by more than 50,000 women interested in running for office as part of its Run to Win program since then.
She Should Run. She Should Run got started in 2011 but really made a name for itself after the 2016 election, when its fundraising totals went up, finally reaching over $1 million in 2018. It’s a nonpartisan nonprofit that encourages women to run for office. Its website gives its vision and aim: 250,000 women candidates running by 2030. It offers a She Should Run Incubator that offers online courses for potential candidates. The incubator serves as a networking tool and gives directions and resources on how to develop leadership skills.
She the People. She the People points out the obvious: Women of color, specifically black women, are the most dependable Democratic voters, and they want women of color to start using that political muscle. Rather than just promoting candidates, the group aims to have women of color have a bigger part in the conversation and wants Democrats to stop taking their votes for granted. The group, which formed after Donald Trump’s election, wants to enlarge the voting pool of women of color to contain more Asian-American women, Latina women, Muslim women, and indigenous women. Instead of endorsing a candidate in the presidential primaries, She the People held a candidate forum for Democratic presidential hopefuls.
According to the group’s website, women of color are one in four voters in key swing states, and “Over the last decade, when turnout among women of color has been above the national average, Democrats have won. When their turnout is below, Democrats have lost.” In other words, candidates who don’t take their issues seriously do so at their peril.
Higher Heights for America. Higher Heights is another group aimed at capturing and elevating the power of black women and black women voters. Its website describes its purpose: to strengthen black women’s civic participation in grassroots advocacy and the electoral process. Higher Heights was founded in 2011 and will support not only black women candidates but also candidates who are “committed to advance policies that affect black women.” Higher Heights has a related political action committee, Higher Heights PAC, dedicated to electing progressive black women to national and statewide office and as mayors (there are already a record number of black women serving as mayors of major cities in the U.S.).
Emerge America. Since 2002, Emerge America has concentrated on helping to elect women, state by state. Its mission, according to its website, is “to increase the number of Democratic women in public office through recruitment, training, and providing a powerful network.” It has helped to create Democratic legislative majorities in three states, established Democratic supermajorities in three others, and has helped break Republican supermajorities in two battleground states. Emerge offers training in public speaking, media, fundraising, and more. It currently has networks in 29 states.
Run for Something. Run for Something was started on the day of Trump’s inauguration in 2017 for the specific purpose of recruiting young progressives, both men and women, to run for office. Its aim, according to the group’s website, is to “help recruit and support young diverse progressives to run for down-ballot races in order to build a bench for the future.” So far, so good: In 2017 and 2018, Run for Something helped elect more than 200 candidates in 40 states, from state senators to country sheriffs. Fifty-five percent of those winners are women, and half of them are people of color. Besides election support, it offers mentoring and candidate training. Run for Something has been contacted by more than 30,000 people interested in running overall.
“Our candidates come from all walks of life — teachers, doctors, activists, artists, parents, refugees — and they represent communities that have been historically excluded and discouraged from running for political office,” the website says. “Our candidates won because they ran grassroots-powered campaigns focusing on local issues — and we were there to help every step of the way.”
IGNITE. IGNITE is a nonpartisan group aimed at giving political power to young women. It started in 2010 and has local chapters, many on college campuses, registering people to vote and encouraging women to get involved politically. It offers an online guide to running for office in five steps, starting with “Get involved in your community.” It’s website reports that 37 percent of women involved in the group ran for office on their college campuses, and 79 percent of them won.
Matriarch. Matriarch is a new organization and political action committee founded by some three dozen current and former progressive women officeholders and is focused specifically on progressive working women. Its website describes the characteristics of candidates who will receive its backing:
- Little/no personal wealth or access to wealth.
- Platform focused on income inequality, economic, racial, labor, social and environmental justice.
- Working background, which we believe offers a more diverse field of candidates.
- Community support; experience; connection to issues; motivation for running.
A story in The Intercept described Matriarch as “a working-class version of EMILY’s List.” Matriarch vows to back women who focus on economic justice. It only launched in November, and it already has received 1,500 nominations for candidates to back in the 2020 congressional elections. It plans on making its first endorsements in January.
Get Her Elected. Get Her Elected is a group that aims to do just that—get more progressive women elected to office. Its website describes it as a group of volunteers working pro bono to help candidates. Founded in January 2017, it now boasts 3,400 volunteers worldwide. and currently works with over 260 women running for office all over the country. Volunteers come from all 50 states and from outside the U.S., too. Get Her Elected offers professional help that candidates normally would pay for, such as marketing and campaign strategies, graphic design, public speaking coaching, data analysis, and website and social media development.
VoteRunLead. VoteRunLead delivers a simple message on its website: “VoteRunLead trains women to run for office. And win.” The nonprofit group was founded in 2014 and boasts a successful track record for its diverse group of candidates: 70 percent of its first-time candidates won, and 60 percent of its candidates were women of color trained to run for office. It aims for 30,000 candidates in 2020. VoteRunLead offers both in-person and online training, and the website offers digital tools, fundraising tips, and advice on choosing which office to run for. The group has 60 training resources available on its website.
Victory Institute. The Victory Institute concentrates on helping LGBTQ candidates, offering campaign training and holding leadership summits for both men and women. Its website lists a total of 768 LGBTQ elected officials nationwide. Its International Census section is working to locate LGBTQ elected officials around the world. The group first started having LGBTQ Leaders Conferences in 1984 with a handful of attendees. The 2018 conference after the 2018 midterms had more than 500 people attending, with 60 elected officials. The group refers to 2018 as a “rainbow wave,” with 700 LGBTQ people running for office and more than 300 winning.
To learn more about any of these organizations, visit any of these groups’ websites. A 2018 story in Marie Claire magazine described several of these groups in more detail. But any budding woman politico is bound to find that help is available — all she needs to do is start reaching out.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Dec. 1, 2019.
“How come the president is doing stuff he’s not supposed to do?”
That was the question posed to me by my seventh-grade tutoring student. She’s studying for an upcoming test on the U.S. Constitution, and in 2019, you can’t teach the Constitution without having the biggest lesson on U.S. government staring you in the face.
In Illinois, all students must pass a test on the Illinois Constitution and U.S. Constitution before graduating from eighth grade. Many schools teach this in seventh grade. (I remember taking it as a junior high student.) The requirement causes anxiety, but the tests end up being pretty easy, as long as students do the reading. There’s no standardized test; students study the subject for several weeks and just have to show understanding of what the Constitution is about.
I’ve been a volunteer tutor since 1981, taking several years off when my own kids were growing up. I enjoy tutoring students who are middle school age, because they’re beyond the stage of learning to read but they’re young enough not to have too much of a teenage attitude.
By far, my favorite part of tutoring kids this age is when students are getting ready to take the Constitution test. Besides being a political junkie, I’m also something of a Constitution dweeb. I carry a pocket-size Constitution in my purse. Every year on Constitution Day, I look forward to the Constitution quizzes offered online (and yes, I almost always get 100 percent right). The U.S. observes Constitution Day on Sept. 17 as the anniversary of the day in 1787 that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document in Philadelphia. The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia is one of my favorite places to visit.
This year, besides teaching about the three branches of government and the Bill of Rights, there’s an extra constitutional lesson to pass on — what happens when a president gets impeached?
I started tutoring Akeelah this fall in a nonprofit volunteer tutoring program that serves students mostly from Chicago’s West Side. She’s a bright seventh grader and a conscientious student who gets excellent grades but needs to improve in writing and vocabulary skills. She’s working hard, hoping to be accepted into one of the Chicago Public Schools’ selective enrollment high schools, such as Michelle Obama’s alma mater, Whitney Young. Akeelah is a sweet kid who shares interests with many 13-year-old girls: music, hairstyles, reading, spending time with friends. She looks forward to seeing Frozen II.
Last week, after finishing with her homework (first rule of tutoring: Even if you have the world’s best lesson plan prepared, set it aside when they have homework, because it’s due tomorrow), we settled in to start with the basics of the U.S. Constitution: How the need for a stronger constitution grew from the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The duties of the three branches of government. The differences between the two houses of Congress, and the special responsibilities assigned to each body. The requirements for being elected as a representative, senator, and president, and how long terms for each office last.
She still has a few weeks before the test, and there’s still a lot more material to get through. I always make sure my students know more than the basics: They need to know the names of their two senators, their representative, the Illinois governor, the Chicago mayor, etc. She knew some but not all of these—she took notes and added them to her study pile.
But then she started asking me questions about impeachment, since that’s all over the news.
I pointed to the description of the reasons for impeachment in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
That description, of course, required more explanations and more questions, especially the part about “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“What did President Trump do wrong to get impeached?” Akeelah asked me. “And what’s a high crime?” (I think she figured out that committing treason is pretty bad.)
Where to start? “He hasn’t been impeached yet,” I said. “The House of Representatives is hearing from people in the government about what he might have done wrong.”
My job is to inform, not to indoctrinate. I didn’t want to come out and say, “He’s been breaking the law since his first day in office,” although that’s true. I could give her a laundry list about how he’s making a profit from foreign governments who stay at his hotel in Washington; how he broke election law in the 2016 election with help from Russia; how he obstructed justice into the investigation of how and why he fired James Comey as head of the FBI. But just like the House Intelligence Committee, I decided to keep it simple and stick to Ukraine, the facts of which get worse for Trump every day.
“So he was supposed to give this money to Ukraine and he didn’t?” (Another quick teaching opportunity: Look up Ukraine on a map to show her where it is.)
“Well, he did eventually, but only after it came out publicly that he didn’t.”
Akeelah looked at me skeptically. “So Congress told him to do that, and he didn’t? Why not?”
This gave me a chance to talk about the 2020 election, and how he wanted Ukraine to investigate his possible opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, even though there’s no evidence that Biden did anything wrong.
“So why is that illegal?”
With that, we launched into a discussion about emoluments, which sent us to the dictionary (more vocabulary words!) and how presidents aren’t supposed to accept anything of value from a foreign government, such as help in an election. All of which brought us back to the original question: “How come the president is doing stuff he’s not supposed to do?”
We discussed whether Trump eventually will get impeached and what will happen after that. She thought it was interesting that all three branches of government got involved in the process. “So do you think they’ll vote to kick him out?”
Probably not, I said, but it’s important for the House to stand up for the Constitution. She agreed.
This is why I love being a tutor and why I find it so rewarding when you see a light bulb go off, signaling a student’s new level of understanding.
You know who else is a volunteer tutor? Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. When President Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, among Garland’s evidence of public service was his many years as a tutor at the J.O. Wilson Elementary School in Northeast Washington, D.C. He goes to the school every other Monday afternoon to tutor students there. A quick call to his office confirmed that yes, judge Garland is still tutoring. Garland also requires the lawyers who clerk for him to become tutors.
This Washington Post story, published at the time of his nomination in 2016, described his tutoring service, which has now lasted longer than 20 years.
“For me, this is about so much more than tutoring,” Charlene Wilburn, a teacher at J.O. Wilson, said in a statement the White House released to The Washington Post on Saturday afternoon. “It’s about our children having another adult in their lives who encourages them when they need it, supports them when they falter, and tells them to never give up on their dreams.
“I’ll tell you what I appreciate most about this man: He never asks for recognition, or fanfare. He just does what he committed to do,” Wilburn said in the statement. “He even convinced some of his staff to volunteer too, so now we have a whole group of volunteers that come down from his office to help.”
At the time, the White House released a video of Garland’s service as a tutor.
I imagine Merrick Garland tutoring his student right now, talking about the Constitution as well as offering tips on reading, writing, and math. I bet he could provide some special insight.
Damn you, Mitch McConnell. Damn you to hell.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Nov. 24, 2019.
Donald Trump’s trade war with China is piling up a quite a list of people who have lost jobs, livelihoods, and sometimes their homes: farmers, autoworkers, and factory employees. Now you can add Republican politicians to the list.
An academic paper from Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business aims to answer the question, Did Trump’s Trade War Impact the 2018 Election? The authors of the paper, all economists and two of whom are Dartmouth faculty, conclude: No fewer than five Republican House candidates in competitive districts lost races in 2018 specifically because of Trump’s imposition of tariffs and how those tariffs affected the voters in those districts. Even worse for Republicans, concern over health care may have cost the GOP eight House seats. As one of study’s authors told NPR:
“It was all pain and no gain,” said Emily Blanchard, an economist at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business. “And we were sort of surprised by this.”
Blanchard and her fellow researchers found that the hit to Republicans was strongest in the most competitive districts, where opposition to the trade war rivaled health care as a politically powerful issue.
“If you’re in a close district, this is a little note to wake up and smell the coffee and maybe be worried about some of these pocketbook issues,” Blanchard said.
The study’s authors spell out their ideas in the paper’s abstract:
We find that Republican candidates lost support in the 2018 congressional election in counties more exposed to trade retaliation, but saw no commensurate electoral gains from US tariff protection. The electoral losses were driven by retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products, and were only partially mitigated by the US agricultural subsidies announced in summer 2018. Republicans also fared worse in counties that had seen recent gains in health insurance coverage, affirming the importance of health care as an election issue.
Imagine that. Trump screws over some of his base voters by starting a trade war with China. He imposes tariffs on $50 billion in imports from China. China retaliates by imposing their own tariffs of $50 billion on U.S. imports, agricultural products such as soybeans, and those farmers lose — likely permanently — nearly all of their biggest market. The retaliatory tariffs on both sides have only gone up from there. Meanwhile, farm bankruptcies are up 24 percent this year over 2018, and the total farm debt for 2019 is expected to hit a record high of $416 billion, with net farm income projected to be down 29 percent.
Trump still has much support in farm country. Before the midterm elections, an October 2018 poll showed that he was still supported by 62 percent of farmers. Yet by August 2019, Trump’s approval rating was nine points underwater in Iowa.
Farmers tend to vote Republican, and most still will. But for some, it could be the case that personal economics trumps party loyalty.
Even though farmers received $28 billion in agricultural subsidies over the last two years (more than twice the amount of the 2009 auto bailout of Detroit’s Big 3 automakers), the subsidy payments (SOCIALISM!) didn’t match the amount of income lost. Agriculture Dept. officials now say that a third round of agriculture subsidies is inevitable, no doubt to keep courting the farm vote.
As an Illinois farmer told Bloomberg Businessweek in September at a farm show attended by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue:
“The aid package that has come in is a relief, and it softens the landing, but it’s not a solution, it’s a Band-Aid,” says Stan Born, a farmer who attended the event. When asked if the payments make him whole, Born, who grows 500 acres of soybeans near Decatur, responds, “Of course not.” He’d rather have free trade, he says.
They’d rather sell their crops. At least some of those voters decided in 2018 that they didn’t want to vote for Republicans because of Trump’s trade war, and it was enough to tip those races to Democrats.
The swing districts in the Dartmouth study were identified as congressional districts where Trump won between 40 and 60 percent of the vote in 2016. The researchers used two constructs: the “tariff shock,” defined as a county’s average per-worker exposure to the increase in U.S. tariffs on imports, and the “retaliatory tariff shock,” defined as the corresponding per-worker exposure to the retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports.
Quantitatively, our regression estimates suggest that the trade war can account for roughly one-tenth of the observed nation-wide decline in Republican House candidates’ vote share between 2016 and 2018. In comparison, the role of health care policy accounts for about one-fifth of the decline in Republican support at the national level. Focusing on politically competitive counties, the estimated effect of retaliatory tariffs is substantially stronger and quantitatively commensurate to that of health care, with each force large enough to account for one-quarter of the decline in Republican support in these counties. The trade war and health care thus appear to have hurt Republican candidates where swing voters matter most.
Every time Trump faces a bad news cycle (lately, that’s most days), he tries to change the subject by promising that his team “almost” has a new trade deal with China. The trouble is, he’s been making these claims ever since he started the trade war, and that trade deal is no closer than it was when he and Chinese President Xi Jinping shared their beautiful chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago in April 2017, or when the first tariffs were announced in January 2018.
Trump recently gave a speech to the Economic Club in New York, and once again he claimed the two sides were “close,” but he had no deal to announce. As the NPR story put it:
“A significant phase-one deal with China could happen — could happen soon,” he said. “But we will only accept a deal if it’s good for the United States and our workers and our great companies.”
Every time Trump offers such a trade tease, the markets react positively. Then, when the bubble bursts when no such deal surfaces, the markets sink again.
The Dartmouth study showed a loss of only five seats because of the trade war and eight over health care, but a loss is a loss, and losses add up to winning or losing control of both Houses of Congress — and the White House. Today’s Democratic candidates, whether running for a House seat, a Senate seat, the presidency, or any state office, would be smart to campaign on Trump’s trade war and health care and not write off voters whom they consider beyond reach. As the Bloomberg Businessweek story points out:
Any waning of rural America’s enthusiasm for Trump could doom the reelection of a president who eked out his 2016 victory with a combined margin of fewer than 80,000 votes in three traditionally Democratic-leaning states.
Because if just enough of those voters change their minds, that could mean a victory for Democrats next November.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Nov. 17, 2019.
As promised, climate denier Donald Trump has made it official — on the first day he legally could, his administration declared that it wanted out of the landmark climate agreement adopted nearly four years ago.
After campaigning that climate change was a “hoax,” Trump announced in June 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, spewing nonsense about how the pact would hurt U.S. businesses and cost taxpayers too much money, charges that have been widely debunked. Luckily for us and for the rest of the world, the actual withdrawal can’t go into effect until the day after the 2020 election, and every single Democratic presidential hopeful has promised to rejoin the agreement as soon as he or she is inaugurated. Many of those Democratic candidates have climate action plans that would go much further in lowering greenhouse gas emissions than the original U.S. pledge, which was to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent of its 2005 levels by 2025.
At the Paris COP21 meeting in late 2015, 195 countries promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels while trying to further limit that increase to 1.5 degrees. The agreement, which formally went into effect in November 2016, is a roadmap of actions that each country promised to take to fight global warming. A few more countries were late signers—even Syria, meaning that virtually every country in the world signed on. Until now.
Only one — the United States — has now announced its intention to renege on the deal. So in addition to trying to undo all of the Obama-era climate protections, Trump has found another way to isolate the U.S. and damage the environment at the same time.
The Paris Climate Agreement was never going to stop or reverse global warming on its own. As soon as the agreement was announced, environmental leaders complained that it didn’t go nearly far enough. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben wrote in a 2015 opinion piece in The New York Times: “We need to build the movement even bigger in the coming years, so that the Paris agreement turns into a floor and not a ceiling for action.” But the fact that all countries signed on for the first time was more than symbolic — it was a new beginning and a point on which countries could build.
So what should be the next step, once the U.S. rejoins the climate agreement? Whatever it is, it won’t be enough without drastic action, and it will take more than one simple step.
A pact that was aspirational and nonbinding was bound to produce disappointments. Progress on climate action has been too slow, and countries aren’t meeting the goals set at the meeting.
A piece in The American Prospect points out that no G7 country is on track to meet its promised actions.
The U.S. will not be the only country letting down the planet. Among the world’s largest and most advanced economies, not a single country will achieve the mission of the Paris Agreement to prevent more than 1.5 degrees of warming by the end of the century.
In other words, if you want to know why young people around the world have taken to the streets by the millions, desperate for a commensurate response to the climate emergency, it’s because only one government in the world (Morocco) has properly stepped up to this point.
So industrialized countries are falling short. Here in the U.S., 24 governors, mostly Democrats, are telling the world that they still want to uphold the pact.
The governors, representing more than half the U.S. population (not hard, when two of the states they govern are California and New York), are part of the U.S. Climate Alliance. The alliance originally had 12 members and is now up to nearly half the states and Puerto Rico, now that there are more Democratic governors. Just one more example of why elections have consequences: With its unified Democratic executive and legislative branches, Virginia is now poised to start passing more aggressive climate legislation, such as boosting renewable energy.
A statement from the Climate Alliance criticizing Trump’s action outlined some of the steps those states already are taking:
Since launching the Climate Alliance, our states have adopted or strengthened 29 greenhouse gas reduction targets and ramped up zero-carbon power generation, with 19 states now enacting or pursuing goals for 100 percent carbon-free or clean power by 2030 or later. We are reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and saving residents money by transitioning to low- and zero-emissions vehicles, transportation systems, buildings, and appliances. We also are growing a clean energy economy and creating high quality jobs, enhancing our natural and working lands, and strengthening community resilience.
All of these actions, on a state and federal level, cost money. When Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the pact, thus not fulfilling the promises made by President Obama to help other countries financially to meet their goals, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg volunteered to foot the bill. He has pledged to cover $15 million of those costs.
Some countries are showing how to achieve measured successes. Their progress isn’t perfect, and many more drastic actions are needed to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate inaction. And for all these advances, these countries still have policies that produce serious environmental problems. Here are a few examples, according to a report from Phys.Org.
India. India, with its population of 1.4 billion people, has been one of the world’s main polluters and is third in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet mainly by embracing solar energy, it is on track to fulfill its pledge to the Paris climate accord.
In 2010, the country established the National Solar Mission, which set out to add 20 gigawatts of solar capacity by 2022. The country surpassed that goal back in 2018 and is now set to exceed its Paris pledge to supply 40% of the nation’s energy needs with non-fossil-fuel power by 2030. …
Plummeting prices for solar panels have greased the wheels, as has the low cost of labor in India. The government also helped by auctioning off contracts, creating competition among developers. These factors have combined to make India’s solar power the cheapest in the world.
India has more work to do, experts say. Most of its electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, and the country continues to commission new ones, albeit fewer than it planned a few years ago, before the solar explosion. But observers say it is a model for incentivizing the rapid spread of renewables.
Norway. Besides its commitment to lowering emissions by 40 percent, Norway has undertaken an aggressive effort to clean up its transportation sector.
As of 2017, electric cars and plug-in hybrids accounted for half of the new cars sold in the country. And in March of this year, electric cars alone made up almost 60% of new car sales. By 2025, the government wants that number to be 100%. …
The government provides generous incentives for electric vehicles, such as waiving some of its famously high taxes and providing owners with plenty of perks, like electric-only parking lots in cities. Norway has also invested in vehicle charging infrastructure and supplies most of its electricity with clean hydropower.
Yet Norway’s biggest export is the oil it produces from its offshore pumps in the North Sea, with an average production of 2 million barrels per day. It’s one reason that environmental groups such as Greenpeace are suing to try to stop the country from drilling for Arctic oil. So far, the environmentalists haven’t gotten too far.
Switzerland. Switzerland is one of the few countries to adopt a carbon tax or levy, as the Swiss call it, first imposed in 2008. As of 2018, it charged $96 per ton of carbon dioxide.
Most of the carbon tax revenue — which totals $300 million — is returned to citizens, including as subsidies to workers in industries that are negatively affected by climate policies. About a third goes to improving the efficiency of buildings and to R&D for clean technologies. …
Switzerland has other tools in its toolbox, including a trading scheme that allows polluters to pay others to cut their greenhouse gas emissions if they can do so less expensively. The country also boasts an enviable public transportation network.
Swiss officials admit that the carbon taxes alone haven’t driven emissions down to where they need to be: The Swiss are not on track to meet their Paris pledge to reduce emissions to achieve a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2030.
Other countries have success stories, too. Next year, Italy will become the first country to require children to study climate change and sustainable development. “I want to make the Italian education system the first education system that puts the environment and society at the core of everything we learn in school,” Education Minister Lorenzo Fioramonti told Reuters.
The Paris Climate Agreement requires countries around the world to keep making future commitments and report on how they are meeting their pledges. Let’s hope pressure from climate activists such as Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg will convince the world’s officials to take their roles a lot more seriously.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Nov. 10, 2019.
Political prognosticators have been sounding the 2020 doom-and-gloom alarm for the Grandstanding Obsequious Party for a while now. And although any speculation at this point is just that — speculation — there is evidence that Republicans might face trouble up and down the ballot.
One of the traditional barometers for a party’s chances in the next election is to add up how many incumbent senators and representatives are calling it quits. Right now, those numbers stand at four incumbent GOP senators — Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming — and 18 incumbent GOP representatives bailing out on the chance for another term. Especially in the House of Representatives, being in the minority isn’t much fun. The GOP retirees include six in Texas alone and two of the already minuscule number of 13 GOP women in the House, Susan Brooks of Indiana and Martha Roby of Alabama.
On the Democratic side, the numbers are much smaller: five House Democrats, including California Rep. Katie Hill, who resigned, and one Democratic senator—Tom Udall of New Mexico—are leaving.
One of the planned GOP retirees, 12-term incumbent John Shimkus of Illinois briefly toyed with the idea of reconsidering his decision. The announced retirement of Greg Walden of Oregon would give Shimkus a chance at the top spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “I liken it to a triple-A ballplayer who gets the chance to get called up,” he told Roll Call.
Here’s the trouble for Shimkus, though, which is why he gave up the back-and-forth idea of sticking around. When he thought he was retiring, he was perfectly happy to disown Donald Trump, condemning Trump’s Syria strategy and telling his chief of staff in Washington to “Pull my name off the ‘I support Donald Trump’ list,” as he told an St. Louis-area radio station. Now that he might be back in the race, he’s forced to reboard the Trump train.
In almost the same breath, Shimkus began to walk back some of his recent comments criticizing President Donald Trump, stressing that, while he might have a “policy difference or two” with the president, there are many more issues on which their views align.
The about-face demonstrates the difficulty Republicans in solid red districts have had voicing opposition to Trump. Shimkus’ district, Illinois’ 15th, voted for Trump by 46 points in 2016.
And there’s the problem for Republicans running for reelection: They’ve got a 239-pound (HA!) orange albatross around their necks.
The headlines are chock full of bad predictions for Republicans, up and down the ticket, and Donald Trump is to blame.
From Paul Waldman of The Washington Post: How a small number of GOP defections could doom Trump in 2020. The opinion piece describes possible cracks in the GOP Senate wall. Seven Republicans, including three retirees and two incumbents facing tough reelection fights, refused to sign on to the inane impeachment-is-illegitimate resolution from South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, Trump’s ass-kisser-in-chief. (Graham’s likely Democratic opponent, Jamie Harrison, is raising enough money so that 2020 might be a real race for the incumbent.)
Here’s why even a few defections matter.
You don’t need a large number of Republicans to oppose Trump to have a profound impact on the 2020 election. All you need is some kind of critical mass, enough to signal to moderate Republican voters that you can still be a Republican and vote for a Democrat in 2020, or vote third party, or not vote at all.
Even if the Senate refuses to remove Trump from office after he’s impeached, any GOP votes to get rid of the Orange Menace would generate “Republicans Divided!” headlines, Walden argues.
The result would be a good-sized collection of Republican candidates opposing Trump all over the country — enough to signal Republicans everywhere that defection from this president is not treason against their party.
And that would almost guarantee Trump’s defeat.
Yeah, that’s wishful thinking. But those predictions are growing.
From Politico: Why Republicans should be worried about their chances of retaking the House. This argument is all about money, and how Democratic incumbents have a lot of it.
Thirty-three of the 44 most vulnerable House Democrats have stashed an impressive $1 million or more in the bank well before the election year even begins. …
“Last cycle, there were a lot of people talking about this massive Democratic online fundraising as if it was somewhat of an aberration,” said Cam Savage, a veteran GOP operative. “I think it’s the new normal.” …
Democrats have undoubtedly amassed a head start in a battle that will be waged in suburban districts that lie in the most expensive media markets in the country.
The story goes on to argue that Republicans are counting on an impeachment backlash. Good luck with that strategy. Here’s the difference in online fundraising for the two parties:
Republicans have been working quickly to launch WinRed, their online donor portal, which raised $30 million last quarter. But operatives admit it could take years or even cycles before it can match ActBlue, which funneled $297 million to Democratic candidates in the third quarter.
From Axios: The GOP’s nightmare scenario. More and more Republicans are afraid of losing the whole trifecta, so goes the logic. The signs show up in polling, fundraising, and dismal approval ratings for Trump. The six Texas retirements are even being described as a “Texodus.”
A growing number of Republicans are privately warning of increasing fears of a total wipeout in 2020: House, Senate, and White House. …
Scott Reed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce senior political strategist, tells me that third-quarter fundraising reports showing three Republican senators being out-raised by Democratic challengers (in Arizona, Iowa, and Maine) “are a three-alarm fire.” …
“We have to spend early because the climate stinks,” Reed said. “All these incumbent senators have terrible job approvals and terrible favorables.”
From Chris Cillizza of CNN: Here’s how you know Republicans don’t think they are winning back the House in 2020. I know, I know, it’s Chris Cillizza, but he has a good point about Greg Walden’s retirement in Oregon.
There is NO way — short of some sort of medical diagnosis — that if Walden truly believed Republicans were taking back the House in a year, he’d be voluntarily walking away from the chance at being a hugely powerful chairman for the following two years. No way. Just not how Washington works. …
While the economy is perceived as strong and Republicans need a relatively small number of seats to get back the majority (18-seat net gain), Trump’s weak job approval rating and wild unpredictability have combined to create a national political dynamic that appears to favor Democrats.
We’ve still got a year until the 2020 election, and after 2016, we should take any electoral predictions with Mount Everest-size mountains of salt. Republicans in many states are still trying to put up voter suppression roadblocks such as closing polling places in predominantly Democratic districts, trying new gerrymandering strategies, shortening early voting days, and removing voters from voting rolls.
Still, FiveThirtyEight’s generic congressional ballot tracker has consistently given Democrats about a six-point advantage. Trump’s approval ratings have been underwater forever, and in current match-ups, he loses to several Democratic contenders. If the 2018 midterm election results are any indication, there are an awful lot of Democratic voters itching to cast their ballots for Team Blue.
But voters in both parties are showing high levels of enthusiasm about 2020. There is an equal level of enthusiasm in voters itching to vote for and against Trump. Races will be close, and many races seen as cut and dry could turn into nail-biters.
So the usual caveats are more important than ever: Register new voters. Make sure your friends, coworkers, and relatives vote. Help out campaigns by donating and volunteering. Knock on doors, write postcards, and make phone calls. And VOTE.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Nov. 3, 2019.
One year ago, a white supremacist gunman shot and killed 11 worshipers in the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in the deadliest single attack on Jewish Americans. The U.S. Jewish community is still feeling the effects of that tragedy in multiple ways, through both anxiety and actual attacks.
The Pittsburgh mass shooting occurred during Saturday morning Shabbat services at the synagogue in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood, where three congregations shared the same building. The shooter, Robert Bowers, had a history of posting anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant sentiments on extreme right-wing websites. Shortly before the attack, he posted on the right-wing website Gab, “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
Bowers kept shooting for 20 minutes, armed with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault-style rifle and three semi-automatic pistols, all of which he used to shoot at worshipers at services in the basement and in an upstairs chapel. At one point in the shooting, according to police, Bowers shouted, “All Jews must die!” He wounded three police officers as they exchanged fire before he finally surrendered. In all, Bowers was charged with 63 federal crimes, including hate crimes, and 36 state crimes. He pleaded not guilty and is now asking for a plea deal in exchange for a life sentence.
On the six-month anniversary of the Tree of Life mass shooting, a white supremacist gunman opened fire at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California, on the last day of Passover, killing one worshipper and wounding several others. That shooter, John T. Earnest, was armed with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault-style rife. After the attack, he called 911 and told the operator that “Jewish people are trying to destroy all white people.” Earnest was charged with murder, attempted murder, and hate crimes. He pleaded not guilty and faces trial.
Since the Pittsburgh attack, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League, at least 12 white supremacists have been arrested for alleged roles in terrorist plots, attacks, or threats against the U.S. Jewish community. But that’s just the beginning.
According to the ADL report:
Since October 27, 2018, white supremacists have targeted Jewish institutions’ property on at least 50 occasions. From the Poway synagogue attack to a religious service interrupted by shouts of “Heil Hitler,” white supremacists have presented very real threats to Jews across the country. This includes 12 instances of vandalism using white supremacist symbols and 35 distributions of white supremacist propaganda, according to ADL Center on Extremism research. Four days after the Tree of Life attack, a synagogue in California was defaced with obscene anti-Semitic slurs. In November 2018, a New York synagogue was vandalized with the phrase “Jews Better Be Ready,” and references to Hitler.
White supremacists have also demonstrated outside AIPAC offices and Israeli consulates, and even disrupted a Holocaust remembrance event in Arkansas by waving swastika flags, holding anti-Semitic posters and shouting anti-Semitic slurs and phrases, including, “Six million more.”
The American Jewish Committee conducted a survey that examines how American Jews perceive anti-Semitism a year after the Tree of Life massacre. The survey showed that 84 percent of Jews think that anti-Semitism has risen in the last five years. Some details from the survey, according to a story in The Washington Post:
- One in five American Jews said they had been the target of anti-Semitic remarks online in the past five years.
- 23% said they had been targeted by anti-Semitic comments in person or through mail or phone.
- 25% said they avoid certain places, events, or situations out of concern for their “safety or comfort as a Jew.”
- One-third said they are affiliated with a Jewish institution that has been the target of vandalism, threats, or attacks.
- 2% said they had been the victim of physical attacks because they are Jewish.
And one in three Jews avoids wearing clothing or jewelry, such as a yarmulke or Star of David necklace, that would identify them as Jewish and thus leave them vulnerable to attack, the study added.
“It’s been a rough year, and it’s been an eye-opening and awakening year,” said David Harris, CEO of the American Jewish Committee. “Perhaps there was a time when some Jewish institutions … felt somehow more or less insulated from [anti-Semitic attacks]. The fact that the attacks took place in Pittsburgh and Poway triggered a feeling that we’re all at risk everywhere, equally — it can happen anywhere.”
One area of the country where those fears have come true is in New York City. The city’s police department says that more than half of the hate crimes reported in New York so far in 2019 are anti-Semitic. According to a story on CNN:
The incidents reported are mostly acts of vandalism, with graffiti or swastikas being scrawled on places that include synagogues, according to New York City Chief of Detective Dermot Shea. …
As a whole, anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York City are up 63% this year as compared with last year, officials said.
But it’s not just New York City, and it’s not just acts of vandalism. Preliminary data from the report from the ADL Center on Extremism shows that a total of 780 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in the first six months of 2019.
Social media also poses a way to spread anti-Semitism. The right-wing sites that are home to white supremacy serve as a breeding ground for more hate crimes. The Poway synagogue shooter said he was inspired by both the Pittsburgh attack and the mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, where a gunman killed 51 people in March.
It’s not just far-right websites that offer platforms for hate. Other ADL data show that 4.2 million anti-Semitic tweets were posted and retweeted on Twitter during a one-year period from 2017 to 2018.
Synagogues have been forced to take extra steps for safety. As The Washington Post story reported:
The Secure Community Network, which helps synagogues protect their buildings and members, said in a statement that it received about 500 requests for assistance from Jewish groups in the year before the Pittsburgh shooting. This year, it has received about 2,000 requests.
Most of the Tree of Life Synagogue victims were elderly. They went to their regular Saturday morning Shabbat service and had no idea it would be their last.
One regular worshipper was four minutes late — four minutes that saved his life. Judah Samet, a Hungarian-born 81-year-old and a longtime member of the synagogue, lived for 10 months in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II “and was just a stopped train ride away from Auschwitz,” according to a story in USA Today. When he realized what was happening, he stayed in his car, and he saw the shooter “with a large, black gun.”
The first thing that came to Samet’s mind after the shooting: his time at a concentration camp. “It never ends. That was my thought.”
No one should have to live through that kind of horror twice.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Oct. 27, 2019.
Of all the ridiculous arguments Donald Trump makes for his reelection, perhaps none is repeated more often than his claim that the U.S. economy is “the greatest economy in the history of our country.”
The claim is gibberish, of course, which is why the claim (or some variation thereof) continually rates three out of four Pinocchios from The Washington Post. And one of the reasons why the claim is wrong is that the nation’s manufacturing sector is on a downward spiral.
The Institute of Supply Management’s manufacturing index dropped to 47.8 in September, down from 49.1 the previous month, the lowest number in more than a decade. Any number above 50 indicates manufacturing expansion. A number below 50 indicates that manufacturing is in recession territory.
Companies are blaming the slowdown on Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, which have escalated into a full-blown trade war with China as that country retaliates with tariffs of its own. According to a story from The Washington Post:
Manufacturing fell into a technical recession in the first half of the year, and the latest ISM data indicates the situation appears to be getting worse.
Concerns are rising that the contraction in manufacturing could spill over into the rest of the U.S. economy.
Even worse than a technical number from the index, numbers for manufacturing employment, new orders, backlogs, and production all fell in the Institute of Supply Management report. Because of Trump’s tariffs, parts cost more, so companies are ordering fewer of them, which also affects suppliers. In some cases, manufacturers worried about the future are laying off employees. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the manufacturing unemployment rate went up six-tenths of a percentage point just since June, and the manufacturing sector lost 2,000 jobs in September. The official September numbers from BLS showed that U.S. employers added only 136,000 jobs.
And guess where manufacturing job numbers are bad? In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, three states Trump won narrowly in 2016. Losses in those three states could very well tip the election to a Democratic challenger in 2020.
A Bloomberg opinion piece points out that Trump’s trade policies are hurting both the farming and manufacturing sectors. A 2016 manufacturing recession may have contributed to Trump’s slim win in those three states that Democrats were counting on as a “blue wall.”
Manufacturing is still a major employer in those states — think steel and automobiles — and there have been layoffs as manufacturing has weakened. Even though Trump ran in 2016 promising to revive the country’s manufacturing sector, that promise sounds more hollow as time goes on.
Manufacturing employment growth in Wisconsin and Michigan has already fallen below the 2015 rate. Pennsylvania is dangerously close. At best, this makes it difficult for Trump to claim that his policies have led to a revival. At worst, it suggests that his policies have backfired.
Trump could conceivably turn the situation around, but at this point it’s hard to see how. Even if he announced an official end to the trade war tomorrow, it would be months before farmers and businesses could be confident that he was serious. After that, there would be yet more delays before equipment orders rebounded, and still more before a rise in manufacturing employment.
The 2016 manufacturing recession likely convinced some Trump voters that he would be an economic savior and save their jobs. “Now Trump has to campaign against a similarly weak backdrop,” the Washington Post story says.
Manufacturing accounts for about one-tenth of the U.S. economy, making it less of a barometer of what’s ahead of the U.S. economy than it once was. But most analysts agree that what’s happening to manufacturing is evidence Trump’s tariffs are doing real harm to the U.S. economy and is a warning sign for what could happen to other industries, especially as the tariffs expand by the end of the year onto nearly all Chinese products.
“We have now tariffed our way into a manufacturing recession in the U.S. and globally. What’s the strategy now? It better be more than the Chinese buying more soybeans,” said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, in an email.
Many factors affect a manufacturing recession, of course, including the global economy. In addition to concerns about trade wars with China, indicators in Europe also are pointing in the wrong direction. A joint forecast from several of Germany’s leading economic institutes sharply downgrades predictions for that country’s economy. Add to that the uncertainty about what will happen to the economy of European countries when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union — whether it’s a no-deal Brexit or not — and the economic future looks even bleaker.
But Trump’s tariffs have screwed U.S. manufacturers more than anything else. While the tariffs initially helped the steel industry, that bump was short-lived, and now some steel plants are closing.
A story from Markets Insider explains how this slowdown is Trump’s doing:
While US manufacturing has faced separate challenges, including a broader slowdown abroad, economists said a drop in demand for new orders showed how the sector has been directly affected by trade policy.
“The continued decline in new export orders suggests that the trade war is an important source of the ongoing slowdown in the manufacturing sector,” said Torsten Slok, the chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities.
By effectively taxing American importers, tariffs on Chinese products have disrupted global supply chains and threatened to upend trading relationships that have been built over a span of decades. Domestic jobs have been put increasingly at risk as heightened costs and uncertainty weigh on the outlook.
Trump continues to spout nonsense on how the manufacturing slump should somehow be blamed on the Federal Reserve, because … I don’t know, something to do with interest rates?
Three out of four economists surveyed by the National Association of Business Economics are predicting a recession by 2021, if not sooner, perhaps even before the 2020 election. When you add the record number of bankruptcies for Midwest farmers, the higher prices U.S. consumers will pay for goods because of Trump’s new round of tariffs, and a prediction from Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue that small dairy farms might not survive, remember to take Trump’s words on how great the economy is doing with mountains of salt.
Originally posted on Daily Kos on Oct. 13, 2019.
The ancient sites may be fragile, but they still have much to teach us. We’re off to Greece to see the wonders of the Parthenon, the Temple of Apollo, the site of the first Olympic Games, and more. Maybe the Oracle of Delphi will give us a hint on who’s going to win the 2020 election.
So you’ll see only a few new posts at this site. But I’ll try to update the Political murder of the day every day (unless we’re drinking too much ouzo or we’re out of Wi-Fi range), so check out who died on this day in history by clicking the link above.
If you missed some posts from the past, click on Complete list of posts. You can revisit past opinions on the still-relevant news of the day. We have several about impeachment, such as Trump impeachment is now all but certain. Gun violence and mass shootings are still rampant, so you have to wonder: How many voters are Republicans willing to lose over guns? With the 2020 election just over a year away, Republicans want more GOP women in office. Good luck with that. Of course, the media started its sexist coverage early. ‘Democrats must nominate a white guy in 2020.’ Oh, really? And here’s a look at why the media can’t seem to get enough of Trumpland: 6 reasons for media’s obsession with Trump voters. While we’re at it, here are Six rules for the media on how to cover the 2020 election.
Of course, it’s not all bad news. Swedish teenager and climate activist Greta Thunberg has inspired a worldwide climate action movement. #ClimateStrike: Thanks to Greta Thunberg, the kids are all right. But the reason for her urgency is well-founded: #ClimateChange report states the obvious: Time is running out.
Finally, don’t forget about reading both books in the political murder series. The Political Blogging Murder, a funny mystery set at a Netroots Nation-type of convention, and Off With His Talking Head, in which murder infiltrates the world of Sunday morning talk shows, are both available at this site for a mere $2.99. You can read the initial chapters of both books by clicking the Book excerpts link above. Or check out how to order the books in a variety of electronic formats by clicking the Books: How to order link above.
So, go ahead. Read. We’ll be back with a new post later in October.