The Cult Of Ignorance-- Will It Kill Us All?

 

Cult Of Ignorance by Nancy Ohanian

By the end of last week, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. passed 10 million. On Saturday there were 127,167 new cases reported in the U.S., along with 1,030 new deaths. Yesterday 102,726 new cases were reported. There are now over 31,000 cases per million Americans. Anything over 20,000 is a catastrophic out-of-control pandemic. In North Dakota, the most infected place on the planet, one in 10 residents will have been infected with the coronavirus before Trump is expelled from the White House. Some will die; some will recover fully; many will be side-effects for years if not for a lifetime. South Dakota is close behind (62,625 cases per million residents.) 10 other states-- all of which voted for Trump in 2016-- have over 40,000 cases per million residents:

• Iowa- 48,431 cases per million residents
• Wisconsin- 45,928 cases per million residents
• Nebraska- 42,594 cases per million residents
• Mississippi- 42,568 cases per million residents
• Alabama- 41,542 cases per million residents
• Utah- 41,367 cases per million residents
• Tennessee- 41,272 cases per million residents
• Idaho- 40,827 cases per million residents
• Louisiana- 40,432 cases per million residents
• Arkansas- 40,382 cases per million residents

In another couple of days, Florida (39,292 cases per million) will join that exclusive club of contagion. For comparison's sake, France has 29,691 cases per million, Spain has 29,691, the U.K. 17,526, Italy 15,474 and Germany 8,071. Our pals in Asia? Japan has 848 cases per million, South Korea has 537, Hong Kong 716, Thailand 55 and Taiwan 69. China? 60 cases per million residents.

Everyone in Asia is wearing a mask. Everyone in the Dakotas has decided mask-wearing infringes on their liberty. From the beginning I've been saying that somewhere between a million and two million Americans would have to die before Americans either started wearing masks on an Asian level or, started being shot down in the streets for not wearing them and infecting the rest of us. Maybe Pfizer will save us, the way it saved the stock market today. Maybe. This morning's report by Dan Goldberg and Miranda Ollstein for Politico, Pandemic on course to overwhelm U.S. health system before Biden takes office, wasn't exactly sanguine. Hoover left FDR the Great Depression. Trump-- a much worse president than Hoover-- is leaving Biden a depression and an out of control pandemic with a "surging coronavirus outbreak on pace to hit nearly 1 million new cases a week by the end of the year."

Congress, still feeling reverberations from the election, may opt to simply run out the clock on its legislative year. Meanwhile, the virus is smashing records for new cases and hospitalizations as cold weather drives gatherings indoors and people make travel plans for the approaching holidays.

“If you want to have a better 2021, then maybe the rest of 2020 needs to be an investment in driving the virus down,” said Cyrus Shahpar, a former emergency response leader at the CDC who now leads the outbreak tracker Covid Exit Strategy. “Otherwise we’re looking at thousands and thousands of deaths this winter.”

The country’s health care system is already buckling under the load of the resurgent outbreak that’s approaching 10 million cases nationwide. The number of Americans hospitalized with Covid-19 has spiked to 56,000, up from 33,000 one month ago. In many areas of the country, shortages of ICU beds and staff are leaving patients piled up in emergency rooms. And nearly 1,100 people died on Saturday alone, according to the Covid Tracking Project.

“That’s three jetliners full of people crashing and dying,” said David Eisenman, director of the UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters. “And we will do that every day and then it will get more and more.”

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation predicts 370,000 Americans will be dead by Inauguration Day, exactly one year after the first U.S. case of Covid-19 was reported. Nearly 238,000 have already died.

...Some governors in the Northeast, which was hit hard early in the pandemic, are imposing new restrictions. In the last week, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island activated nightly stay-at-home orders and ordered businesses to close by 10 p.m. And Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills on Thursday ordered everyone to wear a mask in public, even if they can maintain social distance.

But in the Dakotas and other states where the virus is raging, governors are resisting calls from health experts to mandate masks and restrict gatherings. On Sunday morning, South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem incorrectly attributed her state's huge surge in cases to an increase in testing and praised Trump's approach of giving her the "flexibility to do the right thing." The state has no mask mandate.

And unlike earlier waves in the spring and summer that were confined to a handful of states or regions, the case numbers are now surging everywhere.

In New Mexico, the number of people in the hospital has nearly doubled in just the last two weeks and state officials said Thursday that they expect to run out of general hospital beds in a matter of days... Minnesota officials said last week that ICU beds in the Twin Cities metro area were 98 percent full, and in El Paso, Texas, the county morgue bought another refrigerated trailer to deal with the swelling body count.

An “ensemble” forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-- based on the output of several independent models-- projects that the country could see as many as 11,000 deaths and 960,000 cases per week by the end of the month. Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory suggest that the U.S. will record another 6 million infections and 45,000 deaths over the next six weeks, while a team at Cal Tech predicts roughly 1,000 people will die of Covid-19 every day this month-- with more than 260,000 dead by Thanksgiving. The University of Washington model forecasts 259,000 Americans dead by Thanksgiving and 313,000 dead by Christmas.

Eisenman predicted that by January, the United States could see infection rates as high as those seen during the darkest days of the pandemic in Europe-- 200,000 new cases per day.

“Going into Thanksgiving people are going to start to see family and get together indoors,” he said. “Then the cases will spread from that and then five weeks later we have another set of holidays and people will gather then and by January, we will be exploding with cases.”

A report by Sarah Mervosh, Mitch Smith and Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio in the NY Times this morning indicated much the same: "hospitalizations have nearly doubled since mid-September, and deaths are slowly increasing again." A pandemic response expert in hard-hit South Carolina, Dr. Krutika Kuppalli: "We are in a terrifying place. All I see is cases continuing to go up, unless we do something." The Trump regime and their Republican allies in Congress have washed their hands of doing anything to fight the pandemic. In fact, the GOP would rather fight the Democrats trying to respond to it. The Republicans in Congress are like snipers taking aim at firefighters trying to put out a 10-alarm blaze.

Who Is Michèle Flournoy, Biden's Rumored Pick for Pentagon Chief?

Michèle Flournoy and Joe Biden (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

Despite all the focus on domestic and economic matters in the current election, foreign policy, never really discussed, should bear at least equal scrutiny.

Will Biden's "defense policy" (quotes because America's defense policy is really a war policy) turn more hawkish than Obama's, thus reflecting the Hillary wing of that cabinet? Or will Biden continue the "no stupid wars" admonition that kept Obama from initiating bloodbaths in Syria and Iran?

Time will tell, of course, but one of the chief indicators will be his pick for Secretary of Defense, the person who will reflect, influence and implement his foreign policy. On that pick, there's almost near consensus — Michèle Flournoy. (See here, here, here and here.)

So who is Michèle Flournoy?

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies, admittedly no fans of America's forever war, have written a nice run-down of her history and policy positions, and it's not a pretty one — unless you're a fan of America's forever war, in which case you'll be find it wonderful to behold. 

Some samples from their article:

 • As assistant secretary of defense for strategy under President Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which laid the ideological foundation for the endless wars that followed. Under “Defense Strategy,” the QDR effectively announced that the United States would no longer be bound by the UN charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, “when the interests at stake are vital, …we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.”

The QDR defined U.S. vital interests to include “preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition” anywhere on Earth and “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.”

 • In June 2002, as Bush and his gang threatened aggression against Iraq, Flournoy told The Washington Post that the United States would “need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary’s weapons stockpile” before it “could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.” When Bush unveiled his official “doctrine of preemption” a few months later, Senator Edward Kennedy wisely condemned it as “unilateralism run amok” and “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.

 • Flournoy’s career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the Pentagon, consulting firms helping businesses procure Pentagon contracts, and military-industrial think tanks like the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which she co-founded in 2007.

 • In 2009, she joined the Obama administration as under secretary of defense for policy, where she helped engineer political and humanitarian disasters in Libya and Syria and a new escalation of the endless war in Afghanistan before resigning in 2012.

 • As Obama’s under secretary of defense for policy, she was a hawkish voice for escalation in Afghanistan and war on Libya. She resigned in February 2012, leaving others to clean up the mess. In February 2013, when Obama brought in Chuck Hagel as a relatively dovish reformer to replace Leon Panetta as defense secretary, right-wing figures opposed to his planned reforms, including Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, backed Flournoy as a hawkish alternative.

 • From 2013-2016, she joined Boston Consulting, trading on her Pentagon connections to boost the firm’s military contracts from $1.6 million in 2013 to $32 million in 2016.

 • In 2016, Flournoy was tapped as Hillary Clinton’s choice for secretary of defense, and she co-authored a CNAS report titled “Expanding American Power” with a team of hawks that included former Dick Cheney aide Eric Edelman, PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan and Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. 

The report was seen as a view of how Clinton’s foreign policy would differ from Obama’s, with calls for higher military spending, arms shipments to Ukraine, renewed military threats against Iran, more aggressive military action in Syria and Iraq, and further increases to domestic oil and gas production — all of which Trump has adopted.

 • In 2017, Flournoy and President Barack Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken founded their own corporate consulting business, WestExec Advisors, where Flournoy continued to cash in on her contacts by helping companies successfully navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning enormous Pentagon contracts.

(Remember that name, Tony Blinken. He'll turn up again too.)

There's more in the article, but this should be enough. Michèle Flournoy, as Secretary of Defense, will be the hawk from hell and put a gleam in every war contractor's eye. 

I keep warning that all this killing will come back to us — will blast our malls and movie palaces, our sports arenas and apartment complexes — but warnings like these go well unlistened-to, drowned by the voices of hubris and spread of empire that infuse what passes for minds in the DC world. 

I suspect (with no evidence yet) that on the domestic and economic front, the Biden administration will be a centrist-flavored disaster. But if Michèle Flournoy — or anyone like her — is picked for Secretary of Defense, his foreign policy will be even worse, a banquet of blood and a grave risk to us all.

_____ 

(For those who like my work, I'm launching a Substack site. You can get more information at neuburger.substack.com. If you decide to sign up — it's free — my thanks to you!)

   

How Much Damage Will Trump Do Between Today And January 20? He Badly Wants To Make A Deal For A Blanket Pardon

 

Who's still left?

Being better than Trump is the lowest imaginable bar but that doesn't mean that Biden isn't going to immediately make things better in a real way-- and for all of us. Reporting for the Washington Post yesterday, Laura Meckler, Danielle Douglas-Gabriel and Valerie Strauss wrote that "Trump tried to bully schools into opening their buildings, a hard-edge pandemic tactic that succeeded in places and backfired elsewhere. President-elect Joe Biden is hoping to pry them open with money for increased coronavirus expenses and clear guidance on how to do so safely, a shift that signals a new era for education policy in America. Under Trump, the Education Department has been led by Secretary Betsy DeVos, who alienated many by casting public schools as failures and promoting alternatives to them. Through executive action and negotiations with Congress, Biden wants to bolster public schools. Biden has promised hundreds of billions of dollars in new education spending, from preschool through college. He has proposed college debt forgiveness.

Many of Biden’s promises require new spending, and that will require support from Congress, a heavy lift, particularly if the Senate remains under Republican control.

Biden has promised to triple spending for the $15 billion Title 1 program, which targets high-poverty schools. He has said he would double the number of psychologists, counselors, nurses and social workers in schools. He has vowed new money for school infrastructure. And he has said he would dramatically increase federal spending for special education.

He also wants to fund universal prekindergarten for all 3- and 4-year-old children; make community college debt-free; and double Pell grants to help low-income students pay for college.

First up will be coronavirus-related spending, particularly if Congress has not passed a relief package before Inauguration Day. Some emergency funding for schools was approved in the spring, but the Trump administration has been unable to cut a legislative deal for additional money.

Biden has endorsed at least $88 billion to stabilize state education funding and help pay for protective equipment, ventilation systems, reduced class sizes and other expenses associated with operating school during the pandemic.

...[T]he new administration is likely undo many of the things that DeVos did, and redo some of the Obama administration policies that DeVos undid.

DeVos rescinded Education Department guidance meant to reduce racial disparities in school discipline, for instance, something the incoming administration can reinstate. The administration also spiked Obama-era guidance that offered protections for transgender students, including the right to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity. And it killed guidance on use of affirmative action in college admissions.

Other likely reversals: a Justice Department lawsuit alleging discrimination against White and Asian students at Yale University; a ban on federal grant recipients from holding diversity training, and an investigation into Princeton University, launched after the university’s president spoke of institutional racism on campus.

“It’s a new day around this national conversation about race and equity ... making sure communities are not intentionally or unintentionally left out opportunities will be key,” said Tiffany Jones, senior director of higher-education policy at the nonprofit Education Trust.

...Some observers expect the incoming administration to be even tougher on for-profit colleges than Obama was. Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris was instrumental in bringing down Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit giant, when she was California state attorney general and as a senator supported efforts to hold predatory for-profit colleges to account.

“Policies will be designed to protect students and taxpayers first,” predicted Dan Zibel, who worked at the agency under Obama and is now chief counsel at the National Student Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit he co-founded. He said that would likely include “taking harder stances against schools and companies using financial aid system to scam students.”

And that's one department. Biden's team is going to have to do that in every facet of government-- and start doing it even while we are still living through a disruptive, vengeful lame-duck presidency, a lame duck Congress, an hostile and obstructive Senate and two Senate races (in Georgia) that are "life-or-death" struggles for each very antagonistic "side." Congress is back in DC today, "confronting," as Erica Werner, Paul Kane and Yasmeen Abutaleb reported last night, "a number of major problems but lacking clear signals from President Trump-- even as President-elect Joe Biden and his team are poised to begin engaging with congressional Democrats on their priorities. Congress faces a government shutdown deadline and crucial economic relief negotiations at a moment of extraordinary national uncertainty, with Trump refusing to concede the presidential election and with coronavirus cases spiking nationwide. Even before Biden takes office on Jan. 20, Congress must contend with a Dec. 11 government funding deadline. Failure to reach a deal would result in a government shutdown, and Trump has not signaled whether he would sign a new spending bill. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have both expressed the desire to pass new economic and health-care relief measures to address the surging coronavirus pandemic-- something Congress has not been able to do since the spring. But it is uncertain whether they will be able to find common ground in the weeks ahead: McConnell is pushing for a narrow and targeted bill, while Pelosi continues to insist on a broader and bolder relief package."

A handful of Trump’s staunchest allies insisted Sunday that the election is far from over. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, claimed in an interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that there have been suspect voting incidents in Pennsylvania, Michigan and elsewhere.

“And I’m hellbent on looking at it,” Graham said. “Do not accept the media’s declaration of Biden. Fight back.”

Disorganized Crime by Nancy Ohanian

There is no evidence of any widespread fraud in the election. But the divisions among congressional Republicans over whether to acknowledge Biden as the president-elect mean that negotiations over a new spending package or coronavirus relief bill will proceed under something of a cloud.

Yesterday, on Fox, Lindsey Graham hissed that "If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again. President Trump should not concede. We're down to less-- 10,000 votes in Georgia. He's going to win North Carolina. We have gone from 93,000 votes to less than 20,000 votes in Arizona, where more-- more votes to be counted." Meanwhile, Axios reported last night that apart from a few die-hards, most people close to President Trump know the race is over-- but no one wants to be the sacrificial lamb who tells him to concede, people familiar with their thinking tell me... Top Trump advisers sat the president down at the White House on Saturday and walked him through the 'options for success'... [T]hey made clear to Trump the likely outcome of waging these legal battles, but he was firm that he wants to forge ahead anyway... [E]ven Trump has discussed the possibility of not winning. He has accepted that losing may be an outcome but insists on pursuing what he claims is mass fraud. Several of his close advisers, including social media guru Dan Scavino and personnel director Johnny McEntee, are egging him on. But people one rung out have privately accepted reality. They know the court cases are dead ends, and some are already putting out job feelers."

Jordan Fabian reported for Bloomberg that Trump's legal advisers say his legal challenges are futile

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

 

by Noah

Variations on a theme: I always love the Downfall videos. That people can take one key scene of the Downfall movie and rewrite it hundreds of times and still make us laugh is more than a bit of a phenomenon, and, no doubt, there will always be targets. The particular batch above, created by Mycah Braxton, is especially noteworthy. It's a look inside the White House bunker as it happened on Friday and Saturday in seven similar alternative universes in which the end is the same as ours.

Enjoy one. Enjoy all. The second one is my favorite because it simply has some perfect lines. I won't repeat them here. I'm not into spoilers.

Zany Rudy Giuliani Conveniently Tucked In His Shirt Before The Botched Trump Press Conference

 

Earlier today, former President George Bush gave an unsolicited lesson to soon-to-be former President Donald Duck. "I just talked to the President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden," he wrote. "I extended my warm congratulations and thanked him for the patriotic message he delivered last night. I also called Kamala Harris to congratulate her on her historic election to the vice presidency. Though we have political differences, I know Joe Biden to be a good man, who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country. The President-elect reiterated that while he ran as a Democrat, he will govern for all Americans. I offered him the same thing I offered Presidents Trump and Obama: my prayers for his success, and my pledge to help in any way I can... The challenges that face our country will demand the best of President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris-- and the best of us all.  We must come together for the sake of our families and neighbors, and for our nation and its future. There is no problem that will not yield to the gathered will of a free people. Laura and I pray for our leaders and their families. We ask for God's continued blessings on our country. And we urge all Americans to join us in wishing our next President and Vice President well as they prepare to take up their important duties."

Today, as the U.S. reported another six-figure death toll from COVID, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran the most perfect denouement for the whole of America's tragic Trump Anamoly. Hilarious reporters Jeremy Roebuck, Maddie Hanna and Oona Goodin-Smith wrote that "What began five years ago with the made-for-TV announcement of Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions from the escalator of his ritzy Manhattan high-rise, ended Saturday with his aging lawyer shouting conspiracy theories and vowing lawsuits in a Northeast Philadelphia parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium. In hindsight, the hastily arranged news conference featuring Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, just minutes after Joe Biden had been declared the victor of the 2020 race, delivered a fitting end to a campaign that had been at times characterized by its slapdash techniques. But the story of how a landscaping company in Holmesburg became the backdrop for what could have been one of the Trump team’s last public gasps in its bid to reverse the results quickly captured the public’s imagination."

It started Saturday morning, with a presidential tweet that, as has often happened during the last four years, Trump’s advisers quickly scrambled to correct.

Trump announced: “Lawyers News Conference Four Seasons, Philadelphia, 11 a.m.,” only to delete his post minutes later and replace it with one changing the venue from the upscale Center City hotel to a similarly named business: Four Seasons Total Landscaping on industrial State Road, next to Fantasy Island Adult Books and Novelties and across the street from the Delaware Valley Cremation Center.

“To clarify, President Trump’s news conference will NOT be held at Four Seasons Hotel Philadelphia,” the hotel’s management tweeted out minutes later. “It will be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping-- no relation with the hotel.”

But by then, many on social media were already delighting in a booking they assumed must have been a mistake.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Giuliani and Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski had always intended the news conference to take place in a section of Philadelphia where they might receive a more welcomed reception than at the raucous celebrations of Joe Biden’s victory going on in Center City. It was the president, the paper reported, who had misunderstood.

As for why Four Seasons Total Landscaping? Giuliani offered no explanation Saturday and made no mention of the company or its owner, Marie Siravo, during his remarks. Tom Matkowski, GOP ward leader for the neighborhood, said the news conference hadn’t been coordinated with the local Republican Party and that he didn’t believe the Siravo family was active in local party politics.

The phone at Four Seasons went unanswered throughout the day, and Siravo did not return calls for comment.

Her social media posts indicate she and some of her family members were vocal, but not necessarily unshakable, Trump supporters.

“We don’t need to invite him for dinner,” Siravo posted in August, in response to a “Conservative Hangout” Facebook page that listed Trump’s accomplishments in office. “We just need him to fix our country & all the democratic mess.” She added that she had been “raised a Democrat.”

In a Facebook post, the Four Seasons team described itself as a “family-owned small business run by lifelong Philadelphians” that would have “proudly hosted any presidential candidate’s campaign.”

“We strongly believe in America and in democracy,” the message read. It promised it would have merchandise ready to sell by next week.

While Giuliani spoke Saturday outside the business against a backdrop of “Trump-Pence” signs, he drew a local crowd of supporters, waving flags and booing reporters as campaign staff called on them to identify what news outlets they were representing. But as news of Biden’s victory spread, the group’s noise was rivaled by the honking horns of cars with “Biden-Harris” signs zipping down the nearby road.

Meanwhile, online, jokes about the locale proliferated. T-shirts popped up for sale featuring Gritty riding a tractor under the slogan “Not the Four Seasons Hotel” and the company’s online reviews took a turn for the zany.

By afternoon, Yelp slapped the business' page with an “unusual activity alert” and temporarily disabled comments so it could investigate that incoming reviews "reflect actual consumer experiences rather than the recent events.”

On Google, one five-star reviewer posted: “When I was losing an election back in 2004, I knew exactly where to turn for a desperate, last minute news conference. Four Seasons Total Landscaping has the best combination of gardening and Pennsylvania electoral law litigation services. I didn’t win the election, but I sure had a great news conference.”

Even Lewandowski joined in the fun, tweeting: “All great Americans in PA use Four Seasons Total Landscaping. They love this country and are American Patriots.”

Back on State Road, by Sunday afternoon even tourists had flocked to the company’s barbed-wire gates, taking selfies with the signage and livestreaming the construction equipment and gravel parking lot.

“World’s greatest landmark!” said Katheryn Wlodarcyzk, who’d driven from Wayne with her dog, Emmett, just to see the building for herself. “No place more beautiful.”

The Four Seasons staff remained perplexed by their moment in the national spotlight. Kevin Moran, a foreman at the firm, simply shrugged when approached while opening the gate to the parking lot on Sunday. He said his boss got the call from Trump campaign staffers Saturday morning and thought they must have found the business on Google and been interested because it was a “secure location” set off from the street by a security fence.

As for the confusion with the hotel, Moran said, “everybody gets mixed up. There’s multiple Four Seasons. Four Seasons Hotel, there’s two Four Seasons Landscaping. We’re ‘Total;’ the other one, I think it’s just landscaping.” (There’s a Four Seasons Diner, off Cottman Avenue, too. They weren’t involved, either, the hostess there said.)

Changing it's name to Rudy's Adult Books & Viewing Booths

 

But not all in the neighborhood were so amused. The 78-year-old employee manning the counter at the Fantasy Island sex shop, who declined to give his name, said the phone had been ringing off the hook since Saturday with callers asking: “Is Rudy Giuliani there?”

And despite the stream of new interest in the neighborhood, it hadn’t led to an uptick in business. The Trump train had taken all his parking spots, the worker complained. Then, the day after, normally the store’s busiest day of the week, more people than ever were gawking outside but none were stopping in to sample his wares.

“It is a circus," he said. "But to be honest with you, it doesn’t surprise me. That’s Trump.”

Who's More Likely To Grant Biden A Honeymoon-- The Republicans Or The Progressives?

 

In her powerful Washington Post OpEd-- Working People Delivered Biden His Victory; Now He Needs To Deliver For Them-- early this morning, former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner noted that is was Black, brown and white families making under $100,000, along with the vast majority of young people who delivered Biden his victory. "These voters," she wrote, "are the heart and the future of a massive progressive movement inside and outside of the Democratic Party, and it is to them that Joe Biden and Kamala D. Harris must answer."

And in a letter to his supporters this afternoon, Bernie had a very similar message: while everyone claims credit for Biden's victory, it "multi-racial, multi-generational progressive grassroots organizations all across this country played an extraordinary role in helping to make this victory possible. We made phone calls, we texted, we registered voters, we did virtual rallies, we distributed literature and we knocked on doors when possible. Knowing the importance of this election we did everything that we could, and more. Together, we built widespread support for Biden among young people, people of color and the working class. In my view, Biden's success would not have been possible without those extraordinary efforts... [O]ver 53% of young people ages 18 to 29 voted, which not only eclipses 2016's turnout rate, but would be the highest youth turnout rate in American history. And those young people voted overwhelmingly for Biden and other Democrats... Further, the strong economic agenda that the progressive movement fought for helped bring out low-income working people to vote for Biden. National exit polls show that voters with an annual family income under $50,000 voted against Trump by a 15-point margin... [W]e're going to have to do everything possible to make sure that Congress and the new president move rapidly and aggressively to address the enormous crises facing our country."

On Thursday, Paul Krugman was already urging Biden to "claim that he has been given a strong mandate to govern the nation" (even though most of his votes were anti-Trump votes more than pro-Biden votes. Krugman warned that "there are real questions about whether he will, in fact, be able to govern. At the moment, it seems likely that the Senate-- which is wildly unrepresentative of the American people-- will remain in the hands of an extremist party that will sabotage Biden in every way it can." He then explained why divided government is such a problem and points to GOP obstruction during the Obama years.

Republicans used hardball tactics, including threats to cause a default on the national debt, to force a premature withdrawal of fiscal support that slowed the pace of economic recovery. I’ve estimated that without this de facto sabotage, the unemployment rate in 2014 might have been about two percentage points lower than it actually was.

And the need for more spending is even more acute now than it was in 2011, when Republicans took control of the House... We desperately need a new round of federal spending on health care, aid to the unemployed and businesses, and support for strapped state and local governments. Reasonable estimates suggest that we should spend $200 billion or more each month until a vaccine brings the pandemic to an end. I’d be shocked if a Senate still controlled by Mitch McConnell would agree to anything like this.

Even after the pandemic is over, we’re likely to face both persistent economic weakness and a desperate need for more public investment. But McConnell effectively blocked infrastructure spending even with Donald Trump in the White House. Why would he become more amenable with Biden in office?

Krugman is not without influence but it is Mohamed El-Erian, president of Cambridge's Queens' College, who is probably the single most respected voice in the world in the circle of serious investors and, like Krugman, he warns that A divided electorate spells trouble for the US economy. "The 2020 election," he wrote, "has confirmed that the US remains a deeply divided country facing mounting challenges that threaten both this and future generations. Despite a collective wake-up call in the form of a severe health and economic crisis, the country seems both unwilling and unable to embark on the decisive measures needed. The unwillingness comes from fundamental differences of views on how best to pursue economic and financial reforms while urgently dealing with the threats from COVID-19. The inability is due to a probably divided Congress, where the damage of the past few years to the most basic of cross-party working relationships has been accentuated by the past month's rush to approve a new Supreme Court justice."

What is at risk here is not just the longer-term oriented reforms seeking to limit another move down in productivity, yet more household economic insecurity, and a worsening in inequality. Also at risk is the short-term health and economic effort to help the nation recover from the considerable damage that the first COVID-19 wave left in its wake.

...[T]he Federal Reserve will be pushed yet again to do more with increasingly ineffective and inevitably distortionary policy tools. The traditional monetary policy mindset will continue to give even more ground as the Fed faces pressure to insure risks that are difficult to price, let alone underwrite properly.

This venturing into even bigger experimental unconventional monetary policies will do little to genuinely stimulate the economy. Instead, it is likely to create further distortions in financial markets, increase incentives for irresponsible risk-taking and lead to the misallocation of resources throughout the economy. This will heighten the threat of financial instability. In the process, the already large disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street will widen, adding political and social challenges.

...[This] translates into a more difficult outlook for both the short and longer term. It means less dynamic supply and less buoyant demand. The growth in the economic pie will not just be less than what's needed. It will also fall short of what the two sides of the political divide believe is possible under their different approaches, fuelling a messy blame game that will further undermine the social fabric.

The US plight is also problematic for a global economic recovery that is now more likely to become more uneven and more uncertain. America's internal divisions will preclude the early resumption of its traditional role in informing, influencing and sometimes imposing outcomes in multilateral economic co-ordination forums. They will also increase the risk of deglobalisation and the further weaponisation of economic and investment tools.

Ultimately, the combination of another health emergency, a weakening economy and increased financial instability will force the US government into decisive action-- but not before considerable damage to the lives, livelihoods and mental wellbeing of this generation, and perhaps future ones as well.

Not very cheerful-- and quite ominous, considering the source. Matt Viser, Seung Min Kim and Annie Linskey reported for the Washington Post over the weekend that Biden plans immediate flurry of executive orders to reverse Trump policies. He'll start on January 20 by having the country rejoin the Paris climate accords, reversing Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, repealing the ban on Muslims, and reinstateing the DREAMER program. "Biden’s top advisers have spent months quietly working on how best to implement his agenda, with hundreds of transition officials preparing to get to work inside various federal agencies. They have assembled a book filled with his campaign commitments to help guide their early decisions." That's good-- since his campaign commitments are much better than his instincts. It's good that his team recognizes that pushing major legislation through Congress is pretty much off the table with McConnell running the Senate. [Reminder: this.]

Biden is planning to set up a coronavirus task force on Monday, in recognition that the global pandemic will be the primary issue that he must confront. The task force, which could begin meeting within days, will be co-chaired by former surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy and David Kessler, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

...“The policy team, the transition policy teams, are focusing now very much on executive power,” said a Biden ally who has been in touch with his team who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “I expect that to be freely used in a Biden administration at this point, if the Senate becomes a roadblock.”

A Republican-held Senate-- or even one with a narrow Democratic majority-- probably will affect Biden’s Cabinet picks given the Senate’s power to confirm nominees.

One option being discussed is appointing Cabinet members in an acting capacity, a tactic that Trump also used.

“Just by virtue of the calendar and how many positions are filled, that’s always a possibility,” the person said. “Because the Senate moves so slowly now, so much more slowly than it used to.”

...If Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stays as majority leader, he would be trying to manage a conference torn between two factions with different interests, but neither necessarily eager to help Biden-- one with senators running for reelection in swing states in 2022 [Note: Lisa Murkowski, Rubio, Chuck Grassley seat, Richard Burr seat, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey seat, and Ron Johnson] and another with those seeking the national spotlight as they vie for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination [Note: Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz].

“In the old days, the mandate meant that the other side would be more amenable, or feeling they had an impetus to work,” said Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA). “I’m not sure that applies any longer.”

It is unclear whether Biden has communicated with McConnell yet directly; aides have not commented on any conversation.

A closely divided Congress could hamper Biden’s efforts to do sweeping legislative actions on immigration changes. He has also said he would send a bill to Congress repealing liability protections for gun manufacturers, and close background-check loopholes. He has pledged to repeal the Republican-passed tax cuts from 2017, an effort that could be stymied if Republicans hold the Senate majority.

Without congressional cooperation, however, Biden has said that he plans to immediately reverse Trump’s rollback of 100 public health and environmental rules that the Obama administration had in place.

He would also institute new ethics guidelines at the White House, and he has pledged to sign an executive order the first day in office saying that no member of his administration could influence any Justice Department investigations.

...Much of Biden’s early agenda-- including which pieces of legislation to prioritize-- will be determined in the coming weeks as his transition team begins taking on a far more prominent role.

Biden’s transition effort is being overseen by Ted Kaufman, one of his closest advisers. Kaufman, who was appointed to replace Biden in the Senate when Biden became vice president in 2009, also helped co-write an update to the law governing the transition process, which was passed in 2015 and signed by President Barack Obama.

Biden’s transition team has been given government-issued computers and iPhones for conducting secure communications, and 10,000 square feet of office space in the Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, although most of the work is being done virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic. His advisers have been granted temporary security clearances and undergone FBI background checks to fast-track the processing of personnel who can receive briefings on intelligence.

But one important next step is for the head of the General Services Administration to rule that the election results are final, enabling Biden’s transition team to expand its work and gain access to government funds. Biden officials are prepared for legal action if that administrator-- Emily W. Murphy, a Trump political appointee-- delays that decision, according to officials familiar with the matter.

Trump has so far not conceded defeat, falsely claiming Saturday that he won the election.

Pamela Pennington, a GSA spokeswoman, said that Murphy would ascertain “the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution.” Until that decision is made, she said, the Biden transition team would continue to receive limited access to government resources.

The transition from Trump to Biden would have few historic parallels, rivaled perhaps only by 1860-1861, when southern states seceded before Abraham Lincoln took office, and 1932-1933, when Herbert Hoover sought to undermine Franklin D. Roosevelt and prevent him from implementing his New Deal policies.

The last time there was a prolonged delay in a transfer of power was in 2000, when uncertainty over the results in the contest between then-Vice President Al Gore (D) and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) stretched out until the Supreme Court ended a Florida recount that gave Bush the victory on Dec. 12.

The Bush administration’s sluggish start and lack of qualified personnel in place was cited by the 9/11 Commission Report as a critical vulnerability to U.S. national security for the attacks that occurred less than eight months after the inauguration. That prompted changes to the law and the granting of access at an earlier date following the political conventions.

“When George W. Bush left he made clear to his Cabinet that this is going to be the best transition of power that’s ever occurred. Because we weren’t treated very well when we came into power,” said Michael Leavitt, who at the time was the outgoing secretary of Health and Human Services. “Barack Obama to his credit said the same thing. There was a spirit of cooperation that went on and needs to continue. Whether it will or not I don’t know. But we’re better prepared.”

Chris Lu, the executive director of the Obama-Biden transition in 2008, said that within two hours of the election being called in 2008 he had a formal letter beginning the transition process.

“We literally at 9 a.m. the next morning walked into a transition office and had access to it,” he said. “It was the model for the smoothest transition of power.”

Making a clear break from the Trump administration's adversarial posture toward the civil service is also a top priority for the Biden transition team.

The Trump administration's suspicion of career officials and early calls for them to “get with the program” or “go” created tensions with incoming political appointees that never dissipated. Biden officials are hoping to create a positive atmosphere by avoiding some of the terminology and labels they think contributed to the mistrust.

Why Did The DCCC Fail So Spectacularly On Tuesday? Let's Ask 3 Really Smart Philosophic Types: AOC, Eric Zuesse And Anand Giridharadas

 

Today's most-talked about NY Times piece, at least in my universe, is Astead Herndon's post-election interview with AOC. Short version-- AOC: "People really want the Democratic Party to fight for them." If only Pelosi and Hoyer would tattoo that on their foreheads so they saw it whenever they checked the mirror! Their DCCC chair this cycle, Cheri Bustos, a protégée of centrist bankster Rahm Emanuel, aside from losing probably a dozen House seats while Biden won the election, nearly lost her own seat-- a D+3 district that was gerrymandered by the Democrat Party-controlled Illinois legislature to elect Democrats. With votes still being counted, the race was finally called for Bustos after a few harrowing days and it looks like she squeaked by with a 51.9-48.1% win over Esther Joy King, who enjoyed no significant help from the Republican Party (while Pelosi's SuperPAC used a late IE costing $1,044,002 to smear her). As of October 14 Bustos had spent $4,573,839 to King's $1,634,304. Bustos, in line with the DCCC, offered her constituents nothing at all to vote for her. Like her fellow New Dems and Blue Dogs, she opposes every popular systemic progressive initiative to ease the burdens conservatives have put on their lives. Yesterday, Politico noted that she is being considered for a Cabinet position.

Herndon began by affirming that AOC had been "a good soldier" for the party and Biden in the battle against the fascist threat. After Biden was declared the winner on Saturday, though, she "made clear the divisions within the party that animated the primary still exist. And she dismissed recent criticisms from some Democratic House members who have blamed the party’s left for costing them important seats." [Note: except that you may consider every seat "an important seat," not a single lost seat is even remotely important and the House Democratic caucus is MUCH better off without every one of the losers.] AOC put it differently, telling Herndon that some of the members who lost had made themselves "sitting ducks." Herndon's first question was to ask her for her macro takeaway. It certainly isn't what the pundits and high-priced consultants are saying to explain the abject failure of the DCCC last week. AOC:

Well, I think the central one is that we aren’t in a free fall to hell anymore. But whether we’re going to pick ourselves up or not is the lingering question. We paused this precipitous descent. And the question is if and how we will build ourselves back up.

We know that race is a problem, and avoiding it is not going to solve any electoral issues. We have to actively disarm the potent influence of racism at the polls.

But we also learned that progressive policies do not hurt candidates. Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.

Mike Levin and Harley Rouda were both elected in 2018 to represent adjoining districts. In Orange County, everything north of Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in part of Rouda's district and everything south of Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Madera Ranch is part of Levin's district. Before their victories, both districts were occupied by odious Republicans, Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa. Levin is a moderate Democrat; Rouda, a former Republican, is a conservative Democrat. Levin's victory was quickly called-- 192,105 (53.4%) to 167,423 (46.6%). With 99% of the vote counted Rouda is losing to Republican Michelle Steel-- 196,208 (50.9%) to 189,235 (49.1%). Since being elected, Levin has been on the right side of crucial progressive roll calls 79.01% of the time. Rouda, on the other hand, is a New Dem and rates an "F" from ProgressivePunch; he's voted with progressives just 64.20% of the time. Progressives in his district know him as a DINO and he campaigned as a Republican-lite candidate.

Herndon pressed AOC on this tendency among conservative Democrats to shy away from issues that are important to Democratic voters: "Democrats lost seats in an election where they were expected to gain them. Is that what you are ascribing to racism and white supremacy at the polls?"

I think it’s going to be really important how the party deals with this internally, and whether the party is going to be honest about doing a real post-mortem and actually digging into why they lost. Because before we even had any data yet in a lot of these races, there was already finger-pointing that this was progressives’ fault and that this was the fault of the Movement for Black Lives.

I’ve already started looking into the actual functioning of these campaigns. And the thing is, I’ve been unseating Democrats for two years. I have been defeating D.C.C.C.-run campaigns for two years. That’s how I got to Congress. That’s how we elected Ayanna Pressley. That’s how Jamaal Bowman won. That’s how Cori Bush won. And so we know about extreme vulnerabilities in how Democrats run campaigns.

Some of this is criminal. It’s malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.

And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.

...These folks are pointing toward Republican messaging that they feel killed them, right? But why were you so vulnerable to that attack?

If you’re not door-knocking, if you’re not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then you’re not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just don’t see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didn’t run a full-fledged campaign.

Our party isn’t even online, not in a real way that exhibits competence. And so, yeah, they were vulnerable to these messages, because they weren’t even on the mediums where these messages were most potent. Sure, you can point to the message, but they were also sitting ducks. They were sitting ducks.

There’s a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee. And there’s a reason that when he didn’t activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party-- in and of itself-- does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.

If I lost my election, and I went out and I said: “This is moderates’ fault. This is because you didn’t let us have a floor vote on Medicare for all.” And they opened the hood on my campaign, and they found that I only spent $5,000 on TV ads the week before the election? They would laugh. And that’s what they look like right now trying to blame the Movement for Black Lives for their loss.

...If you are the D.C.C.C., and you’re hemorrhaging incumbent candidates to progressive insurgents, you would think that you may want to use some of those firms. But instead, we banned them. So the D.C.C.C. banned every single firm that is the best in the country at digital organizing.

The leadership and elements of the party-- frankly, people in some of the most important decision-making positions in the party [Note: Pelosi, Perez, Hoyer...]-- are becoming so blinded to this anti-activist sentiment that they are blinding themselves to the very assets that they offer.

I’ve been begging the party to let me help them for two years. That’s also the damn thing of it. I’ve been trying to help. Before the election, I offered to help every single swing district Democrat with their operation. And every single one of them, but five, refused my help. And all five of the vulnerable or swing district people that I helped secured victory or are on a path to secure victory. And every single one that rejected my help is losing. And now they’re blaming us for their loss.

So I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the Movement for Black Lives is not the enemy, that Medicare for all is not the enemy. This isn’t even just about winning an argument. It’s that if they keep going after the wrong thing, I mean, they’re just setting up their own obsolescence.

Herndon then asked her what her expectations are as to how open the Biden administration will be to the left? And what is the strategy in terms of moving it?

She responded that she don’t know how open they’ll be but noted that the Democratic establishment gets all lovey-dovey with the grassroots leading up to an election "and then those communities are promptly abandoned right after an election. I think the transition period is going to indicate whether the administration is taking a more open and collaborative approach, or whether they’re taking a kind of icing-out approach. Because Obama’s transition set a trajectory for 2010 and some of our House losses. It was a lot of those transition decisions-- and who was put in positions of leadership [Note: Rahm Emanuel, who Biden is already talking about giving a role to, as well as others from the bottom of the Democratic Party battle: Cheri Bustos, Heidi Heitkamp, Michele Flournoy, Antony Blinken, Tom Perez, Meg Whitman, Terry McCauliffe, Pete Buttigieg]-- that really informed, unsurprisingly, the strategy of governance.

He followed up with the obvious question that all long-time Biden watchers are worried about: "What if the administration is hostile? If they take the John Kasich view of who Joe Biden should be? What do you do?

Well, I’d be bummed, because we’re going to lose. And that’s just what it is. These transition appointments, they send a signal. They tell a story of who the administration credits with this victory. And so it’s going be really hard after immigrant youth activists helped potentially deliver Arizona and Nevada. It’s going to be really hard after Detroit and Rashida Tlaib ran up the numbers in her district.

It’s really hard for us to turn out nonvoters when they feel like nothing changes for them. When they feel like people don’t see them, or even acknowledge their turnout.

If the party believes after 94 percent of Detroit went to Biden, after Black organizers just doubled and tripled turnout down in Georgia, after so many people organized Philadelphia, the signal from the Democratic Party is the John Kasichs won us this election? I mean, I can’t even describe how dangerous that is.

At the Strategic Culture Foundation blog on Friday, investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote a somewhat more in depth look at the struggle between progressivism and traditional liberalism, pointing to a partially flawed recent piece by Philip Giraldi, . Zuesse pointed out that Giraldi "criticized-- and very correctly so-- the U.S. Democratic Party’s mischaracterization of America’s main problem as its (supposedly) being a conflict between ethnic groups (religious, cultural, racial, or otherwise), and Giraldi unfortunately merely assumed (falsely) that the Democratic Party’s doing this (alleging that inter-ethnic conflicts are America’s top problem) reflects the Party’s being 'progressive,' instead of its being 'liberal'; but, actually, there are big differences between those two ideologies, and that Party-- just like America’s other major Party, the Republican Party-- is controlled by its billionaires, and there simply aren’t any progressive billionaires; there are only liberal and conservative billionaires. America has a liberal Party, the Democratic Party, and a conservative Party, the Republican Party, and both of those Parties are controlled by their respective billionaire donors; and there are no progressive billionaires... Giraldi was actually attacking progressivism by confusing it with liberalism."

Though the Democratic (liberal) billionaires blacklisted Bernie-- and only Bernie, "had the most-passionate supporters, and vastly more donors, than did any other candidate in the contest; and, the polls throughout the Democratic primaries showed that he was virtually always either #2 or (occasionally) #1 in the preferences of all of the polled likely Democratic primary voters. But, Sanders got no billionaire’s money. He got as far as he did, only on his mass-base. He was running as the lone progressive in the field. And, unlike any of the others, he focused on the class-conflict issue, instead of on the ethnic-conflict issue-- he focused against the money-power, instead of against “racism” (which was his #2 issue). All of the other candidates placed the ethnic-conflict issue (in the form of anti-Black racism) as being America’s most important problem."

Sanders was the only candidate who blamed America’s billionaires (the people who control both of its Parties) for being the cause of America’s problems and the beneficiaries from those problems. He was the only progressive candidate in the entire contest. Sanders’s competitors were blaming the public (as if the majority of it were anti-Black bigots)-- not the aristocracy (not the super-rich-- the few people who actually control America). So: all of Sanders’s competitors had billionaires already funding them; and, still more billionaires were waiting in the wings to do so for whomever the Party’s nominee might turn out to be-- except if it would be Sanders (who would get nothing from any of them). (And, even if Sanders had won the Democratic nomination, what chance would he have had to win against Trump if even the Democratic Party’s billionaires were donating instead to the Trump campaign?)

Back in 2016, the two most-heavily-funded-by-billionaires candidates were Hillary Clinton (#1) and Donald Trump (#2). And they became the nominees. In today’s America, the billionaires always get their man (or their woman). It’s always a contest between a Republican-billionaires-backed nominee, versus a Democratic-billionaires-backed nominee.

What Giraldi blames on “progressivism” is instead actually “liberalism” (which accepts being ruled by its billionaires) but there are more ways than only this that Giraldi misunderstands the difference between these two ideologies.

...Giraldi writes as a conservative who uses the falsehoods that are intrinsic to liberalism as cudgels with which to attack progressivism. He doesn’t understand ideology-- especially progressivism. Clearly, it’s not within his purview; and, therefore, his intended attack against progressivism misses its mark, and doesn’t even squarely hit its intended target, which is actually liberalism.

Throughout history, the aristocracies have been of two types: outright conservatives, versus the “noblesse oblige” type of aristocrats, which are called “liberals.” The main actual difference between the two is that, whereas the self-proclaimed conservatives boldly endorse their own supremacism, liberals instead slur it over with nice and kindly-sounding verbiage. Whereas conservatives are unashamed of their having all rights and feeling no obligations to the public (even trying to minimize their taxes), liberals are ashamed of it, but continue their haughty attitudes nonetheless, and refuse to recognize that such extreme inequality of wealth is a curse upon the entire society. Progressives condemn both types of aristocrat: the outright conservatives, and the hypocritical conservatives (liberals). Progressives recognize that the more extreme the inequality of wealth is in a society, the less likely that society is to be an authentic democracy, and they are 100% proponents of democracy. Liberals talk about ‘equality’, but don’t much care about it, actually. That’s why aristocrats can support liberalism, but can’t support progressivism. Progressives recognize that the super-wealthy are the biggest enemies of democracy-- that they are intrinsically enemies of the public. Progressives aren’t bought-off even by ‘philanthropists.’

Scientific studies (such as this) have documented that the more wealth a person has, the more conservative that person generally becomes. Furthermore, the richer a person is, the more callous and lacking in compassion that person tends to be. Moreover, the richer and more educated a person is, the likelier that person is to believe that economic success results from a person’s having a higher amount of virtue (and thus failure marks a person’s lacking virtue). And, studies have also shown that the wealthiest 1% tend to be extreme conservatives, and tend to be intensely involved in politics. Consequently, to the exact contrary of Giraldi’s article, the higher levels of politics tend to be filled with excessive concerns about how to serve the desires of the rich, and grossly deficient concerns about even the advisability of serving the needs of the poor. Such attitudes naturally favor the aristocracy, at the expense of the public. Confusing liberalism with progressivism advances the conservative, pro-aristocracy, agenda, at the expense of truth, and at the expense of the public, and even at the expense of democracy itself.

Furthermore: throughout the millennia, aristocracies have been applying the divide-and-conquer principle to set segments of the public against each other so that blame by the public for society’s problems won’t be targeted against themselves (the aristocrats), who actually control and benefit from the corruption that extracts so much from the public and causes those problems. Thus: Black against White, gay against straight, female against male, Muslim against Christian, and immigrant against native, etc. This divide-and-conquer strategy is peddled by both conservative and liberal aristocrats, and has been for thousands of years. Giraldi’s focusing on that as being instead generated by progressives, is not only false-- it is profoundly false. It is a fundamental miscomprehension.

So, the popular confusion between progressivism and liberalism is beneficial to the aristocracy, but harmful to the public.

Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, is not confused and his Friday OpEd for the NY Times, Biden Can’t Be FDR He Could Still Be LBJ. On one level that scares people who lived through the "Hey, hey, LBJ, How many boys have you killed today" era. Giridharadas wrote that "if this election is to have lasting meaning, we cannot see a Biden campaign victory as license to cast away politics as a presence in our daily lives. We cannot succumb to the liberal temptation parodied by the comedian Kylie Brakeman to 'vote for Biden so we can all get back to brunch.' However effective it might have been at closing this race, this restorationist fantasy would be a terrible governing philosophy. Because the pre-Trump world-- in which voting rights were being gutted and 40 percent of Americans couldn’t afford a $400 emergency bill -- is no kind of place to go back to. Mr. Biden himself seemed to concede this point by tempering his restoration message with the slogan 'Build Back Better.'"

Giridharadas spoke with Schumer the day before the election-- when he still was tying to decide on whether to have diamonds or rubies in his Majority Leader crown-- and he wrote that Schumer, like Biden, "is an institutionalist and a moderate." He asked him about this idea of restoration versus transformation. "Almost as soon as he heard me say the word 'normalcy,' he began, for lack of a better term, to filibuster: 'No, no, I don’t buy that. My view,' he told me, 'is if we don’t do bold change, we could end up with someone worse than Donald Trump in four years' What passed for change in the past two decades (including during the Obama years) had not, he acknowledged, been 'big enough or bold enough.' When I asked if Democrats bore some responsibility for that, he deflected: 'There’s plenty of blame to go around.'"

Even if, improbably, the Senate is on Mr. Biden’s side in 2021, he and his advisers will have to pull off a grueling balancing act: pushing federal policy to reflect popular will so that people’s lives can measurably improve, while making fundamental changes to the workings of American democracy and managing to heal rather than inflame the cultural resentments, racial hatred and party polarization that still imperil the Republic (and that the Republican Party thrives on).

...If Democrats win the two presumed Georgia runoffs, Senate Democrats will represent roughly 41 million more people than the Republican half of the chamber. If Mr. Biden is to meet this moment, he can’t let his cautious temperament and deep hankering for civic comity stop him from making the policy changes families need.

...For tens of millions, the economic traumas of the pandemic have come on top of decades of stagnation and precariousness. Since 1989, the wealth of the bottom 50 percent of Americans has fallen by $900 billion. Before Covid-19, 44 percent of American workers were being paid median annual wages of $18,000. And the evictions now surging are coming in the wake of a housing market that has long been unaffordable. Even if high unemployment were reversed, it would hardly repair our increasingly classist and Uber-ized labor market.

And if Democrats do win the Senate? Senator Schumer told me he envisions a first 100 days filled with a raft of measures on the virus and economic relief, mixed in with policies that address inequality, climate change, student debt, immigration and more. A Biden administration’s early days “ought to look like F.D.R.’s,” he said. “We need big, bold change. America demands it, and we’re going to fight for it.”

Much, however, could still get in the way. First, Mr. Biden’s own instinct toward caution-- which can easily end up enabling paralysis at a time when Democrats’ window for proving the promise of an active government could be closing. Any measure of success is likely to be determined by how seriously a Biden administration takes the inevitable calls for fiscal conservatism and austerity (despite historically low interest rates).

...And there are early warning signs: Ted Kaufman, who is leading the Biden transition team, recently told The Wall Street Journal that because of Trump-era deficit spending, “when we get in, the pantry is going to be bare.”

A Biden administration could also perceive itself as owing a political debt to the most influential and visible center-right elements of his sweeping, unwieldy alliance of supporters. Young leftists of color from cities in major swing states are arguably more responsible for his win than Republican defectors like former Senator Jeff Flake and the former Republican operatives turned media darlings of the Lincoln Project. But who will have more of a voice in Washington?

On various matters of policy, Mr. Biden could find himself in an awkward fox trot with wealthy donors in liberal power centers like Silicon Valley and Wall Street-- the kind of people who may love hanging “Black Lives Matter” signs in their yards more than they love Biden proposals like a Section 8 expansion that would allow more working-class Black families to live in their midst.

...The growing sense, among both the party’s technocrats and its populists, is that their midterm fate lies in whether voters give Democrats credit for improving their lives-- not on the processes used or norms violated to do so.

“A public health and economic crisis is not the time for incremental steps, small ideas or meekness,” Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a leading Democrat in the House Progressive Caucus, told me. “Joe Biden can deliver on this from Day 1 with executive orders and administrative actions that cancel student debt, lower drug prices, strengthen workers’ rights and cut emissions.” The American Prospect recently published “277 Policies for Which Biden Need Not Ask Permission,” based on the results of the Biden-Sanders unity task force.

Mr. Biden has an opportunity to seize on policies that, thanks to the heterodoxy of Trumpism, now have surprising resonance in both parties-- but not for the traditional reasons of being milquetoast or appealing to corporatist moderates. A wealth tax polls surprisingly well among Republican voters. Using the Department of Justice to crack down on monopolies and threats from China has some bipartisan support. As does actual infrastructure investment and, to a limited extent, raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Biden also does not need Mr. McConnell’s permission to build a down-ballot pipeline. One of the failures of the Obama years was the attrition of the Democratic Party beneath the president: By 2017, its Senate seats had dwindled to 48 from 59, and it lost 62 House seats, 12 governorships and a whopping 948 seats in state legislatures.

Amanda Litman, the executive director of Run for Something, a progressive group that grooms candidates for office at all levels, proposes this corrective: “Bring back the 50-state strategy. Invest in all state parties to build grass-roots infrastructure,” she told me. “Set the direction and tone: No office is too small, no community too unimportant. Then raise money for all of it.”

To the extent that, for the next two years, divided government severely limits the sort of public action that progressives dreamed about in their 2020 primaries, Mr. Biden could use his office to create task forces that normalize and build a public consensus for more significant small-d democratic changes to American politics achievable only down the road.

...In the end, a basic choice may stalk Mr. Biden: What matters more, the radiation of personal decency or the pursuit of structural fairness?

There are some reasons to hope that he could be a bolder president than anticipated. He is that rare candidate who tacked toward the party base rather than the center in the general election. In certain areas, such as climate change and student debt, he has shown a willingness to have his initial policy view revised by others. He is less motivated by ideology than by the path of least resistance. Whether that path aligns with donors, the Beltway consensus or organized popular movements, he takes it.

The example of Lyndon Johnson-- a longtime senator and a vice president less charismatic than the president he served and succeeded who, nevertheless, became more consequential-- provides a possible historical analogue. Mr. Biden could turn out to be an improbably deft salesman for progressive priorities, using his disarming, folksy, median-voter-friendly patois, that “C’mon, man” Americana vibe, to make major changes seem like common sense.

“Joe Biden’s magic is that everything he does becomes the new reasonable,” Andrew Yang, once Mr. Biden’s rival for the Democratic nomination, told me. “He has shown the ability to move the mainstream of the Democratic Party on issues before. As president, whatever he does, he will bring the whole center with him.”

A Post-Election Message To Blue America Members By Digby: Orange Julius Caesar's Reign Is Over!

YR FIRED by Nancy Ohanian

 

The streets of every city and town in America erupted on Saturday morning when the networks (finally) announced that America had fired Donald Trump.

I think Senator Bernie Sanders said it best:

“To be honest with you, I haven’t been sleeping so well lately. I was very worried about four more years of Trump. It appears that that is not going to be the case, so I feel exhilarated. I feel relieved.”

Trump himself was at one of his personal golf properties grifting off the taxpayers as usual when the race was called. The Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was quarantined with COVID after having spent the week in the White House wantonly spreading his precious bodily aerosols all over the staff. His devoted henchman Rudy Giuliani was holding a press conference next door to a sex shop called Fantasy Island.

What a long, strange trip it's been. And it's not over yet, unfortunately.

The normal people immediately started celebrating, as one might expect. Cheers went up simultaneously all over the world. The 70 million Trumpers seemed to be momentarily stunned, as one might expect since they have been brainwashed by right wing media into believing it wasn't even possible. But there are a lot of them and I expect they will find their voices soon enough. And the silence of GOP officials in the wake of the results being announced says that Trump may have lost the election but he hasn't lost his hold on the GOP.

So far, Mitch "grim reaper" McConnell is keeping his powder dry. As of now he holds the Senate but the massive Georgia turnout (thanks Stacey Abrams!) has given Democrats one last chance to take his majority away from him.

Reverend Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will have another chance to remove the corrupt Trump bootlickers David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler from the US Senate in January. Neither one of those odious reprobates were able to get above 50% so there will be a runoff. And we all know the stakes could not be higher.

These will be the most consequential Senate races in history. It is the difference between Democrats having control of the Senate agenda and Mitch McConnell successfully furthering the destruction of America, which seems to be his only goal in life. Any hope of passing the progressive legislation we desperately need to deal with the carnage left in Trump's wake will be thwarted by this misanthropic monster, if he is allowed to remain the Majority Leader.

So our work is not done. Blue America has set up an ActBlue donation page for the two challengers for one last campaign in this cycle-- if you would like to help secure a senate majority and a progressive agenda for the next two years. Having Biden and Harris in the White House will stop the bleeding but this country needs major surgery and we can't do it with the Grim Reaper standing in the way.

If you have any more to spare, we would encourage you to help Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win their runoffs in January. Just tap the thermometer on the right and give what you are able.

And take a moment to let relief and joy wash over you: our long national nightmare is over. Donald Trump has been defeated!

Thank you all so much for your generosity,

Digby, for the entire Blue America team

Ralph Warnock's presence would make the U.S. Senate a much better place