This page contains links to recent blogs by Lincoln Mitchell
By encouraging his supporters to get the disease and bring it back to their communities, Trump has thrown kerosene onto the burning embers of the collapse of the American project. It is comforting to believe that this will all end in November when we get a new president and shortly after that a vaccine, but that vision is increasingly disconnected from the reality of the America Trump has created.
The recent months of the Covid-19 pandemic have made Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses and mental instability, as well as the cult-like loyalty of his of his followers, even more apparent. In the last few weeks, even in the last few days, as Donald Trump has asserted his “total” authority while continuing to suggest that, in so many words, universal suffrage is prima facie election fraud, the acceleration of democratic rollback has increased substantially. Queries and earnest commentary about whether the US is in the beginning of a Constitutional crisis seem positively quaint now. We are not at the beginning of that crisis, nor, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, are we at the end of the beginning. We are in the middle, or perhaps more alarmingly, approaching the end of that crisis-and democracy is losing.
The most important thing happening in American politics today is not partisan fighting, the latest polling on Donald Trump or the election, Trump’s daily disinformation show or the minutia of how one state is trying to disenfranchise voters. Rather, it is the bigger picture-that the ruling party is trying desperately trying to consolidate a nondemocratic regime before they lose the election-and they are doing this under the cover of the darkness and fear cast by a genuinely dangerous and frightening pandemic.
Given the recent history of the Republican Party seeking to put barriers in front of young people, African Americans and Latinos seeking to exercise their franchise, the states where the Coronavirus crisis could lead to greater voter suppression having a major effect on the presidential election are those swing states that have Republican governors and state legislatures-Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Ohio, or where there are Democratic governors, but Republican control of the state legislature-Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If recent actions to make it harder for some groups to vote in states like Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin are any guideline, it is very possible the laws passed in these states, to adjust to the Coronavirus crisis will have a similar impact.
Trump and Paul share a core inability to accept scientific reality when it gets in the way of either ideology or partisan interest, as well as an astonishing inability to recognize how this pandemic is already affecting millions of Americans. These two powerful politicians are completely buffeted from the economic uncertainty and lack of access to healthcare that frame the crisis for the rest of us. Thus, it is no surprise that they can blithely issue statements about getting tested because they are “concerned” or say things like “we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem.” Like most Republicans Paul and Trump know and clearly don’t care that the lives and livelihoods that are lost because of their decisions are unlikely to be their own.
Donald Trump has acted exactly as we could have expected. He has been overmatched by the complexity of the problem, has seen this as a personal attack on him, doled out dangerous advice, ranted and Tweeted rather than offer helpful solutions and has called for shutting the borders long after the virus has become widespread here in the US. Trump’s narcissism, venality, unwillingness to learn anything and abject incompetence have combined into a perfect storm that has contributed to the spread of false information, made it extremely difficult to get tests for the virus and endangered the safety of every American. The presidential administration in general has focused not on solving the problem but on reacting to the president’s outbursts while simultaneously seeking to conceal the extent of his incapacity.
A central part of Biden’s comfortable old shoe appeal is that he will return the US to a more normal pre-Trump time. This has been an implicit, and at times, explicit, theme of Biden’s campaign. It is one of the reasons he frequently cites his close relationship with Barack Obama as well has his ability to work across the aisle in what he presents as the halcyon bipartisan days of a previous era. It is not hard to see why older and more moderate Democrats are drawn to this idea, but unfortunately it is not only impossible, but even dangerous to act as if we can simply unring the bell of the Trump administration and pretend it never happened.
Sanders is now at a key decision point. While he still has a chance at being the nominee, and therefore any calls for him to get out of the race are way too premature, he must carefully consider his options. 2020 will end in one of three ways for Sanders. Either he will get elected President of the United States, will have moved the party significantly leftward but still be stuck in the US Senate, or will be held responsible by many for helping elect Donald Trump-twice. The only reason this is a difficult choice is that Sanders seems to think that he can only achieve the first option, if he allows the third one to be possible. Sanders’ ongoing, and by now foolish, battle with what he calls the Democratic establishment has created this problem and led to the real fear and possibility that Bernie’s most ardent supporters will stay home if Biden is the nominee. The smart move for Sanders would be to do whatever is he can to ensure that does not happen.
Every four years a subset of pundits and political junkies speculate about a brokered convention where no candidate comes into the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot, thus leading to discussions, multiple ballots and deal-making before a nominee is finally chosen. For much of American history this was common, but in the last half century or so that has changed. The last genuinely brokered Democratic convention was 1952 when the eventual nominee was Adlai Stevenson. Early opposition to Donald Trump among many Republicans led to speculation that the 2016 Republican convention would be brokered, but it didn’t work out that way.
Michael Bloomberg’s campaign for president is unprecedented in American political life. The sheer size and scope of Bloomberg’s campaign spending has vaulted a candidate who is out of step with the Democratic Party primary electorate on many important issues into the top tier of candidates. While the money is important, Bloomberg’s campaign has also been well run, on message and politically astute. Bloomberg, in contrast to the man he is trying to unseat, is not just some rich guy who has surrounded himself with grifters and hangers on. Rather, the three term New York City mayor has hired some of the best and smartest political professionals around.
Nonetheless, the big story of the Bloomberg campaign is that he has thus far outspent all of the other Democrats combined by a factor of probably around three to one. One of the most valuable fruits of his spending spree has been that it has contributed to a growing perception that Bloomberg, despite never having been tested in a campaign against somebody who can spend enough money to compete with him, is uniquely electable. Importantly, if Bloomberg wins the nomination, that notion will be tested in the fall because Trump will have enough money to campaign aggressively against Bloomberg.
The magnitude of Bloomberg’s wealth is not easy to comprehend. Unlike Donald Trump, who is a low rent caricature of a billionaire, Bloomberg, who outspent his Democrats by a margin of about 10-1 in each of his three campaigns for mayor, is the real deal. In other words, Bloomberg is a real oligarch, Trump just plays one on television. Much of the attention around how Bloomberg has used his money thus far focuses, rightly, on his television and social media ads which are very good, hard-hitting and pretty much everywhere. Additionally, Bloomberg has not only been able to hire top political talent, but has been able to staff operations all over the country including in important states like Florida, while his opponents do not have the money to create similar operations.
A lesser emphasis has been on the tertiary effects of Bloomberg’s philanthropical efforts. Bloomberg has been an influential and generous philanthropist for decades and has contributed billions to causes ranging from medical research to reforming gun laws to combating climate change. Much of this work has been very admirable. Unlike the grifter in the White House, Bloomberg is a rich man who has used some of his almost unfathomable wealth to make real and positive change.
The problem this raises for democracy is that because Bloomberg has spent, and continues to spend, so much money, and because it is clear now that, at least to an extent, the line between his philanthropic work and his political ambitions is blurred, every statement of support for him raises questions about a money trail. Thus, while politics has long been transactional, an oligarch like Bloomberg takes that to a different level. The word oligarch has negative connotations, but in a value neutral descriptive sense that is what Bloomberg is. He is a man of extraordinary wealth who puts his wealth to use to further, and in fact create, his political career and whose wealth is spread across many key sectors of the political landscape such as campaign funding, philanthropy and media.
The problem for democracy is that because we know that Bloomberg runs a media empire and has brought numerous social media influencers into his campaign, we now wonder whether every pro-Bloomberg Tweet or Instagram post comes from somebody who is on the payroll. Similarly, when a newspaper columnist writes a pro-Bloomberg piece, we begin to wonder about whether or not there is a money trail there. For example, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote a relatively standard fare pro-Bloomberg column last week that included these italicized words in parentheses at the end of the article (Disclosure: Bloomberg Philanthropies has donated to Planet Word, the museum my wife is building in Washington, to promote reading and literacy.) Friedman, and the Times, should get credit for being transparent, but the article leaves unanswered the question of how much money Bloomberg donated and how much influence that money has secured. Moreover, the reader begins to wonder whether every pro-Bloomberg piece, is written because the author is benefiting financially. Correspondingly, every time an anti-Bloomberg piece we can wonder whether the author is bitter because he is not getting money from Bloomberg. (Full disclosure-Neither my wife, my children or I am getting any money from Bloomberg, but I have friends in most of the Democratic campaigns including Bloomberg’s. I am undecided in the primary, but will support whoever is nominated against Trump.)
These concerns goes beyond media figures and pundits and extends to Bloomberg’s impressive list of endorsements. It is certainly possible that these people including mayors like Michael Tubbs of Stockton and London Breed of San Francisco, members of congress like Ted Deutch of Florida or Haley Stevens from Michigan support Bloomberg because they like his brand of centrism and think he can win. It is also possible that he contributed to their campaigns and they are repaying the favor or that they benefited from one of his philanthropic efforts. This is more or less normal politics, but the problem of oligarchy is that because Bloomberg has so much money, the suspicions that the financial tie was bigger than that, perhaps in the form of a promised major contribution to a favorite charity or something of that nature, always linger. This is a problem of oligarchy, not of Bloomberg himself, because even if he never gave another penny to causes supported by these politicians, the suspicion would still be there. The overall effect of this is to increase distrust in politics, politicians and government as voters come to believe that everything is simply about the money.
Bloomberg is doing nothing illegal and, like every Democrat still meaningfully in the race, would be an infinitely better President than Donald Trump. The former New York City Mayor is also running a smart campaign and using whatever resources he can. In the context of American political competition, this is smart and rational behavior. Nonetheless, it is also sets a potentially very dangerous precedent that could lead to new challenges to American democracy at a time when the crisis is already profound.
Photo: cc/Money
Now that primary season is underway we are again reminded of just how flawed the current system is. Every four years the political class and some scholars raise questions about why we choose our presidents this way, but after the election these questions fade away as more seemingly pressing and urgent issues take over, so while we tinker with the rules changing them slightly for every nominating season, we never address the underlying problems.
The idea of waiting for the voters to decide whether or not Donald Trump should be removed from office is appealing in its simplicity and because it appeals to what seem like first principle understandings of democracy, but it is nonetheless wrong.
It is far more probable that the general outline of the next few weeks will remain the same as Trump is speedily and, to the extent possible, discreetly, acquitted by senate Republicans. Collins, Gardner and others facing potentially tough challenges in November can then turn their attention to trying to thread the needle of trying to appear like rational, patriotic, moderate adults, while running interference for a kleptocratic president with little respect for democratic principles and an enduringly disturbing relationship with the Kremlin.
Starr and Dershowitz are celebrities who are no longer practicing attorneys, but they are very much what a Fox News addicted member of the Cult of Trump imagines a good attorney looks like, so they are perfect for the role.
As it becomes increasingly clear that that there was no genuinely reliable intelligence revealing that Qasem Soleimani was planning an attack on the US, that could be thwarted by killing him, the domestic American impetus for targeting and killing Soleimani must be brought into sharper focus.
Bernie Sanders has been running for president essentially nonstop for almost five years now. For much of that time the question that has been the subtext of his candidacy has been can he win-first the Democratic Party nomination and then the general election. With the Iowa caucus, the first contest of the 2020 nominating season, less than a month away, it may be time to rephrase that question-at least the first half of that question-and ask if Bernie can lose the Democratic Party’s nomination. That is an overstatement, but a confluence of recent events and developments in the race have bolstered Sanders’ chances.
As the New Year begins it would be foolish to predict with any certainty who the Democratic nominee will be, particularly with a new and extremely well-funded, but untested outside of New York City, candidate competing in primaries beginning in March. However, there are several scenarios that could unfold in phase one. Each would lead to a different set of major contenders in phase two.
The decision by the non-Trump leadership of the Republican Party to cast their lot with Russia and Trump rather than with the US, and indeed with traditional conservative, even right-wing policies is baffling, but only if one ignores the corrosive influences of bigotry, ignorance and anti-democratic sentiments in the GOP since long before spring of 2015.
The shouts of “snowflake” by Trump supporters who were heading to the comparative warmth of the subway or the real warmth of a bar or restaurant at demonstrators who were braving the chilly December night to walk to downtown is an example of the kind of projection that is such a deep part of the cult of Trump. The irony of the moment was almost funny, but the larger pattern of a cult built around a faith in Trump’s ability to protect his supporters from change, whether in the form of racial equality, scientific reality or an evolving culture calling anybody a snowflake was hard to miss. Trump supporters are afraid of understanding, or even hearing about, American history with more nuance than they learned in middle school, yet they hurl the odd epithet “snowflake” at their opponents.
It is easy, and not entirely inaccurate, to describe the US has a deeply polarized country and to argue that the impeachment hearings demonstrate this as the Democrats and Republicans in the relevant congressional committees have such radically different understandings of the events in question. This explanation is insufficient because it glosses over the critical reality of the state of American politics as demonstrated during the impeachment hearings. The issue is not so much one of political polarization but that the Republicans in Congress, reflecting the position they share with the White House and the right wing media and punditry, are deeply committed to constructing and inhabiting a fantasy world built on a foundation of deliberate lies and held together with support from the Kremlin and almost solely dedicated to keeping Donald Trump, and those around him, in power and out of prison.