Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

I have never understood why an adult would want to wear blackface (I didn't do it when I was 8 either), but when someone is found to have done so I think something like "I apologize, I just wasn't thinking" should suffice. Maria Callas dressed as a gypsy for Carmen. Of course her role was as a gypsy, but it was a stereotypical gypsy role. So do we have to stop performing Carmen? Maybe so, but really I hope not. Intent matters, at least some. Carmen was considered scandalous when it was first performed but not because of its insensitivity to Roma culture. I once took a date to a Halloween party who was dressed as a rather provocative cat. No disrespect to cats was intended. I realize that cats don't mind and people do mind, but a toga party (I have never been to one) is not meant as disrespect for Romans, either historically or modern.

 

 

So respect for other cultures is good, blackface seems, and to me always has seemed, really stupid but I think an apology, an acknowledgment of error, should suffice for us to then move on. And I don't know what should be done about Carmen, but I really like the music.

Context and history matters. While gypsies may have been discriminated against in parts of Europe, there hasn't been much of that in the US (most probably wouldn't even know what you meant by "Roma culture"), so dressing as a gypsy for Halloween doesn't suggest any kind of disrespect.

 

But blackface was historically used as a way to lampoon black people. It was part of minstrel shows, which were full of derogatory stereotypes about African-Americans (and the blackface they wore was cartoonish, another way of ridiculing the subjects). While someone wearing blackface in modern times would not actually be putting on such a show, the mere act of calling back to those practices is felt to be disrespectful, much like monuments to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.

 

It's also kind of like why there's almost no context in which a white person can use the N-word without getting into trouble.

[kenberg]

Context and history matters. While gypsies may have been discriminated against in parts of Europe, there hasn't been much of that in the US (most probably wouldn't even know what you meant by "Roma culture"), so dressing as a gypsy for Halloween doesn't suggest any kind of disrespect.

 

But blackface was historically used as a way to lampoon black people. It was part of minstrel shows, which were full of derogatory stereotypes about African-Americans (and the blackface they wore was cartoonish, another way of ridiculing the subjects). While someone wearing blackface in modern times would not actually be putting on such a show, the mere act of calling back to those practices is felt to be disrespectful, much like monuments to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.

 

It's also kind of like why there's almost no context in which a white person can use the N-word without getting into trouble.

I might be dragging this a little off track but I am at least a bit serious. My reference to gypsies was not for Halloween (that was the cat), it was for the opera Carmen. I'll let it go. Anyway, we can agree that blackface is not only out, anyone should easily see that it is out and why it is out. But then a person can apologize, admit error, acknowledge why it is an error, and move on. I really would have felt stupid ni blackface as a kid in the 50s, and I can't see why this is difficult for anyone. Some tings my mother told me, other things I could figure out on my own.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

Democrats have bungled the Russia investigation since taking control of the House this year. The investigation has persuaded virtually nobody who wasn’t already persuaded that President Trump is unfit for office — and also frustrated many people who are persuaded.

 

The “collective shrug” of Congress, as Lawfare’s Quinta Jurecic calls it, in the face of Trump’s outrageous attempts to interfere in the 2016 election had a predictable side effect: He quickly began trying to interfere in the 2020 election.

 

In May, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, announced that he would urge the Ukranian government to conduct a potentially politically damaging inquiry into Joe Biden, who obviously could end up being the Democratic nominee. “Encouraged by lawmakers’ passivity, the president is taking the same approach to 2020 that he took to 2016,” a subheadline on Jurecic’s May article for The Atlantic put it.

 

We still don’t know the details of a whistle-blower’s recent complaint about Trump’s conversation with a foreign leader, but the inspector general of the intelligence community considered the complaint credible enough to refer it to Congress. It seems to involve Ukraine, which raises the possibility that Trump is continuing to use foreign governments to meddle in American elections. Whatever it involves, I hope congressional Democrats are aware that their next attempt to hold the president accountable needs to be better than their last.

 

For more

 

Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg Opinion points out that Republicans could stop Trump’s lawlessness whenever they choose: “Republicans have been okay with all this, presumably because they’re getting what they want on policy. Or perhaps out of pure partisanship. Or maybe because they’re so deep in the conservative information-feedback loop that they’ve convinced themselves none of it is real. But they should be taking stock now of just how much lawlessness they’re willing to tolerate.”

 

The Times editorial board writes: “The No. 1 task of America’s intelligence and law-enforcement communities is to identify and deal with threats to national security. The problem, as explained by Jack Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, is that Mr. Trump’s behavior has repeatedly revealed ‘the extent to which our constitutional system assumes and relies on a president with a modicum of national fidelity, and decent judgment and reasonableness.’”

How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

[johnu]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

 

How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

If you are talking about modern day Republican politicians, most will tolerate any level of lawlessness up to the point that they are about to be indicted with a chance of going to prison. When they talk about being law and order candidates it doesn't apply to themselves or their Republican colleagues. They love to cloak themselves in the flag, as the only true believers in God, and the only true Americans.

[johnu]

Not for John though.

He has not doubts.

He knows everything.

 

Tell us John: what/when/with whom was discussed?

andrei - It is against my better instincts (and previous observations that show otherwise), but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can google search the Manchurian President and the whistleblower incident that has been erupting in the news the past couple of days. Maybe you could check with your President Putin and see what he has to say about his American puppet.

[Winstonm]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

 

How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

 

Giving you a chance to get even, I'm willing to bet another cold drink that the whistleblower story leakers to the WSJ are in Trump's circle. How else would they know what the whistleblower said and why would they emphasize no quid pro quo about arms?

[hrothgar]

 

Not for John though.

He has not doubts.

He knows everything.

 

Tell us John: what/when/with whom was discussed?

 

Simple question Andrei: If these accusations are true, should Trump be removed from office?

 

Your repeated use of bold face suggests that you are disputing the accuracy of these claims, not the magnitude of the supposed offense.

[Winstonm]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

 

How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

 

Actually, the better question is how much lawlessness will Nancy Pelosi tolerate?

[y66]

From Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register:

 

Elizabeth Warren has surged in Iowa, narrowly overtaking Joe Biden and distancing herself from fellow progressive Bernie Sanders, the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.

 

Warren, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts, now holds a 2-percentage-point lead, with 22% of likely Democratic caucusgoers saying she is their first choice for president. It is the first time she has led in the Register’s poll.

 

Former Vice President Biden, who had led each of the Register’s three previous 2020 cycle polls, follows her at 20%. Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont, has fallen to third place with 11%.

 

No other candidate reaches double digits.

 

“This is the first major shakeup” in what had been a fairly steady race, said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “It’s the first time we’ve had someone other than Joe Biden at the top of the leader board.”

 

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg follows the three leaders as the favorite of 9% of poll respondents. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California is at 6%. U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey are at 3%.

 

Polling at 2% are U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, businessman Tom Steyer and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

 

Eight others are polling at 1% or less.

 

But the race is far from settled: Just one in five likely Democratic caucusgoers say their minds are made up, while 63% say they could still be persuaded to support a different candidate.

 

“The data in this poll seem to suggest the field is narrowing, but my sense is there’s still opportunity aplenty,” Selzer said. “The leaders aren’t all that strong. The universe is not locked in.”

 

The poll of 602 likely Democratic caucusgoers was conducted Sept. 14-18, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Far from settled but encouraging.

[hrothgar]

The following is wll worth reading

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/witness-and-whistleblower-some-thoughts

 

If it is true that the president used the threat of withholding congressionally authorized funds to—in the Post’s words—“extort” a foreign leader into investigating a domestic political opponent and his family, that would be a very big deal indeed. That allegation, if true, would unambiguously constitute an impeachable offense, indeed an offense that positively demands impeachment from any Congress that wishes to be taken seriously. It would be impeachable for at least three separate reasons: first, because it would involve the extortion of a foreign leader for personal and political gain; second, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s involvement in a U.S. election; and third, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s investigation of a political opponent in a fashion that grossly violates the civil liberties of a U.S. person, namely Biden’s son.

 

Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

[Winstonm]

The following is wll worth reading

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/witness-and-whistleblower-some-thoughts

 

 

 

Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

 

One of the difficulties Pelosi has caused is the reliance on the courts to do battle for the House. Each filing is being treated independently - just as if a next door neighbor sued over the new tree you planted - and those cases go onto the court calendar and proceed normally, with only the force of the House versus whomever as basis.

 

We have already seen Jerry Nadler try to get two cases fast-tracked as common source cases and was denied by the judge.

 

This is the problem with not starting impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings bring the power of constitutional authority to bear and there is no argument that it is not proper and within the purvey of the House. Impeachment would bring all these varied matters together under one umbrella and the courts could then fast track them all.

[kenberg]

The following is wll worth reading

 

https://www.lawfareb...r-some-thoughts

 

 

 

Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

 

An extremely interesting article. It addresses the complexity of wanting to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations weighed against the possibility that such conversations could be used for personal benefit instead of national benefit. The preferred solution is to not elect someone like Donald Trump. This obvious remark has consequences. If the people who elected DT see no problem with having such a person as president, then impeachment might well be only a very temporary solution, lasting until election day when DT II is elected.

 

The LF article pretty much concedes that extracting testimony about the conversation will be difficult and time consuming, it recommends going ahead with impeachment anyway on the basis that the lack of forthcoming information makes it clear DT is deserving of impeachment..Or at least that is how I understand the argument they present. That's a bit tricky but not crazy. Maybe my memory is off, but my thinking is that by the time Nixon left there was very broad public agreement that he had to go. Whether or not I am right about that, it is what I would like to see for Trump. There are now people who voted for trump who have had second thoughts. I would like this to broaden. If that is not possible, I think we are in deep stuff, impeachment or no impeachment.

 

Side note: I left the "elect" in smaller font. For the last few months some computer ghost seems to be randomly changing the font on various places in my posted notes. Perhaps it is some glitch in my computer, but it doesn't happen elsewhere, not in my emails for example. In this post I fixed a couple of examples of this, but then noticed "elect" was now (or still?) in a smaller font. Any suggestions are welcome. Yes, I try to correct them as I find them.

[Winstonm]

 

An extremely interesting article. It addresses the complexity of wanting to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations weighed against the possibility that such conversations could be used for personal benefit instead of national benefit. The preferred solution is to not elect someone like Donald Trump. This obvious remark has consequences. If the people who elected DT see no problem with having such a person as president, then impeachment might well be only a very temporary solution, lasting until election day when DT II is elected.

 

The LF article pretty much concedes that extracting testimony about the conversation will be difficult and time consuming, it recommends going ahead with impeachment anyway on the basis that the lack of forthcoming information makes it clear DT is deserving of impeachment..Or at least that is how I understand the argument they present. That's a bit tricky but not crazy. Maybe my memory is off, but my thinking is that by the time Nixon left there was very broad public agreement that he had to go. Whether or not I am right about that, it is what I would like to see for Trump. There are now people who voted for trump who have had second thoughts. I would like this to broaden. If that is not possible, I think we are in deep stuff, impeachment or no impeachment.

 

Side note: I left the "elect" in smaller font. For the last few months some computer ghost seems to be randomly changing the font on various places in my posted notes. Perhaps it is some glitch in my computer, but it doesn't happen elsewhere, not in my emails for example. In this post I fixed a couple of examples of this, but then noticed "elect" was now (or still?) in a smaller font. Any suggestions are welcome. Yes, I try to correct them as I find them.

 

Your memory serves you well. There indeed was broad support to impeach Nixon. However, it wasn't until May of 1973 that his approval ratings in the polls turned slightly negative. By the time 1974 rolled around, Nixon's approval rating were in the 20's. That August 9th, he resigned.

[kenberg]

Your memory serves you well. There indeed was broad support to impeach Nixon. However, it wasn't until May of 1973 that his approval ratings in the polls turned slightly negative. By the time 1974 rolled around, Nixon's approval rating were in the 20's. That August 9th, he resigned.

 

And with Nixon, the downward spiral began with a break-in to DNC headquarters to gain political advantage for his re-election. Maybe history does repeat itself. But similar beginnings can have different endings. Something about butterflies flapping their wings.

[Winstonm]

 

And with Nixon, the downward spiral began with a break-in to DNC headquarters to gain political advantage for his re-election. Maybe history does repeat itself. But similar beginnings can have different endings. Something about butterflies flapping their wings.

 

Actually, it wasn't until May 1973, well after the break-in but coinciding more with start of the Senate Watergate hearings and a string of guilty pleas from Watergate burlars earlier in the year that Nixon's approval rating first crossed over and more people disapproved of him than approved. He never recovered after that.

 

The issues we face today are, of course, different, especially in that with Nixon there was someone who actually cared about the country and respected the office of the president.

 

What we have done is elect the mafia boss version of Andrew Jackson and allowed him to place his "family" members throughout government, his personal consigliere as head of the Justice Department, and he has "won" over the other families who control the Senate, allowing his people onto the Supreme Court so now even the highest court would seem to be under his sway.

 

But here is the primary difference between having Nixon in office and having mafia boss Andrew Jackson in office: Nixon respected the rulings of the SCOTUS; mafia boss Andrew Jackson understands that the SCOTUS has no way of enforcing its rulings, so even if they go against him, he can ignore them and do as he pleases.

 

This is why he must be impeached, even if not removed. As a country we have to say, this we will not tolerate.

[Winstonm]

Addendum:

 

It is amazing when I consider that the U.S. Republic has lasted this long relying more on norms and the expectations of respect for different opinions than on any ideological strength. We now have a government where these norms are no longer holding; in fact, they are being laughed at and disregarded.

 

It may already be too late, but again I cannot overemphasize the importance of this book: How Democracies Die

It is in most libraries so you don't even have to buy it.

 

“This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy—packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence), and rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.”

― Steven Levitsky, How Democracies Die

[barmar]

Addendum:

 

It is amazing when I consider that the U.S. Republic has lasted this long relying more on norms and the expectations of respect for different opinions than on any ideological strength. We now have a government where these norms are no longer holding; in fact, they are being laughed at and disregarded.

And in the past I think most of us have laughed at countries like Venezuela -- disputes over the legitimate President only happen in Third World countries and "banana republics".

 

But now I can easily imagine Trump losing the election and refusing to leave the White House, the GOP not fighting it, and the rest of the free world laughing at us over this.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

President Trump’s latest attempt to put his own interests above those of the United States — by pressuring Ukraine’s government to help his 2020 presidential campaign — inspired me to put together a list.

 

It’s a list of ways that Trump has behaved like no other modern president, and it spans his corruption, disrespect for women, violation of the law and disdain for American democracy.

 

I deliberately avoided any traditional matter of policy — even those, such as climate change, on which I think his approach is downright dangerous. This is instead meant to be a just-the-facts catalog of how Trump has altered the presidency.

 

It’s only 40 sentences, and the sentences are not long. I recognize that I left out several examples — of his corruption or his racism, for example — that furthered a theme already on the list.

 

When you get to the end of the list, I wonder if you’ll have the same reaction that I had after putting it together: It sure seems like it’s time for Congress — both the Democratic leaders in the House and the Republican leaders in the Senate — to use its constitutional power to hold the president accountable for the harm he’s causing the United States.

The (partial) list:

 

He has pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.

 

He urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.

 

He divulged classified information to foreign officials.

 

He publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat.

 

He hired a national security adviser who he knew had secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist.

 

He encourages foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels.

 

He genuflects to murderous dictators.

 

He has alienated America’s closest allies.

 

He lied to the American people about his company’s business dealings in Russia.

 

He tells new lies virtually every week — about the economy, voter fraud, even the weather.

 

He spends hours on end watching television and days on end staying at resorts.

 

He often declines to read briefing books or perform other basic functions of a president’s job.

 

He has aides, as well as members of his own party in Congress, who mock him behind his back as unfit for office.

 

He has repeatedly denigrated a deceased United States senator who was a war hero.

 

He insulted a Gold Star family — the survivors of American troops killed in action.

 

He described a former first lady, not long after she died, as “nasty.”

 

He described white supremacists as “some very fine people.”

 

He told four women of color, all citizens and members of Congress, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

 

He made a joke about Pocahontas during a ceremony honoring Native American World War II veterans.

 

He launched his political career by falsely claiming that the first black president was not really American.

 

He launched his presidential campaign by describing Mexicans as “rapists.”

 

He has described women, variously, as “a dog,” “a pig” and “horseface,” as well as “bleeding badly from a facelift” and having “blood coming out of her wherever.”

 

He has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by multiple women.

 

He enthusiastically campaigned for a Senate candidate who was accused of molesting multiple teenage girls.

 

He waved around his arms, while giving a speech, to ridicule a physically disabled person.

 

He has encouraged his supporters to commit violence against his political opponents.

 

He has called for his opponents and critics to be investigated and jailed.

 

He uses a phrase popular with dictators — “the enemy of the people” — to describe journalists.

 

He attempts to undermine any independent source of information that he does not like, including judges, scientists, journalists, election officials, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Congressional Budget Office and the National Weather Service.

 

He has tried to harass the chairman of the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates.

 

He said that a judge could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage.

 

He obstructed justice by trying to influence an investigation into his presidential campaign.

 

He violated federal law by directing his lawyer to pay $280,000 in hush money to cover up two apparent extramarital affairs.

 

He made his fortune partly through wide-scale financial fraud.

 

He has refused to release his tax returns.

 

He falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him.

 

He claimed that federal law-enforcement agents and prosecutors regularly fabricated evidence, thereby damaging the credibility of criminal investigations across the country.

 

He has ordered children to be physically separated from their parents.

 

He has suggested that America is no different from or better than Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

He has called America a “hellhole.”

 

He is the president of the United States, and he is a threat to virtually everything that the United States should stand for.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

 

It’s time for people who think that President Donald Trump should be removed from office to get on the phone and tell their senators and representatives. Now is when it matters. And yes: That kind of direct contact really does make a difference.

 

Many details remain unknown about the whistle-blower complaint that is now roiling Washington. But Trump himself has confirmed the core of the story: He pressured the new president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, or perhaps to just invent some dirt on him.

 

By all objective standards, this is a monster story. It’s a clear-cut case of not just an impeachable offense, but one that demands impeachment and removal. For a president to invite foreign interference in a U.S. election is a flat-out abuse of power. And that’s not even to mention the widespread suspicion that Trump held up military aid to Ukraine as an added inducement. Just what we know is more than enough; add it to all the other ways in which Trump has violated his oath of office (and see David Leonhardt’s tour de force summation), and it’s not a close call.

 

By all objective standards, that is. Politics, like it or not, isn’t in most cases about objective standards. Which is why on Monday the big test will be very simple: Will Americans light up the phones of their representatives in Congress to demand action? Or is this just more background noise for them – just fodder for partisans to yell about, but nothing more?

 

It’s refreshingly simple. Although politicians care deeply about what their constituents think, on most matters they know that only those voters and organized groups that are directly affected will pay attention to what’s happening in Washington. But sometimes a significant policy question or major event can break through.

 

If Capitol Hill is flooded by calls demanding impeachment on Monday, it will have an effect. Not necessarily impeachment and removal! But a real effect. As a group, pro-impeachment Democrats will become far more insistent; neutral or anti-impeachment Democrats will move toward a moderate pro-impeachment position; uneasy Republicans will be more likely to condemn the president’s actions; even strongly pro-Trump Republicans will tone down their dismissals of the story if they hear outrage from their districts.

 

Again, this won’t necessarily lead to Trump’s impeachment, let alone conviction and removal. But there’s already some evidence that Democrats are shifting as they hear from their constituents. And there are many ways that Congress can constrain the president short of removing him. In fact, that’s already happening. For one quick example: Heavy criticism, including from Republicans, managed to get Trump to stop encouraging crowds to chant “send them back” at his rallies.

 

On the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have mostly run for cover. Senator Mitt Romney, pretty much alone among congressional Republicans, made a fairly strong statement about the seriousness of the situation. Constituency pressure will help determine whether others join him. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility of Trump getting ousted. It may seem impossible now to imagine enough Senate Republicans voting against the president. But congressional Republicans in 1973 and 1974 stuck with President Richard Nixon for a long time … until suddenly they didn’t. And then it was over very quickly.

 

I’m not predicting that. What I do predict, with quite a bit of confidence, is that a massive wave of voter outrage would have real consequences. And so would silence. I wrote on Friday that determining the consequences of Trump’s actions was mainly up to Republicans in Congress. What I should’ve said is that it’s up to the citizens of the United States.

[Winstonm]

Very fine people....on both sides...

 

The FBI has arrested a member of the U.S. Army for allegedly discussing in online forums how to build bombs and plotting to attack a major U.S. news network, the agency said Monday.

 

Jarrett William Smith, 24, who was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, was charged with one count of distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction. The suspect also allegedly discussed plans to travel to Ukraine to join a far-right extremist group.

[y66]

From Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington aka CREW:

 

Mike Pence’s controversial visit to President Trump’s resort in Doonbeg is slated to cost taxpayers $599,454.36 in limousine service alone, according to State Department contracts reviewed by CREW.

 

The choice to stay at Trump’s Irish resort in Doonbeg was both highly inconvenient, and extremely expensive. Located 181 miles away on the opposite side of the country from Pence’s meetings in Dublin, Doonbeg was far from a convenient location.

A gombeen man's man if ever there was one.

[y66]

Noah Smith at Bloomberg makes the case that national health insurance is good for capitalism:

 

The employer-based insurance system tilts the playing field against entrepreneurs in two ways. First, someone starting a new business will have to search for and select a plan filled with arcane and technical language that can be almost impossible for an untrained person to grasp. But even more importantly, the employer-based system absorbs many of the costs and risks of coverage, which then tend to shift to the entrepreneur who strikes out on their own.

 

Starting a business is a risky proposition, and half fail within five years. There’s also a huge commitment of time, and usually a major commitment of personal wealth. If a business fails, an entrepreneur will suddenly be without an income, and most or all of the capital invested will vanish. No income and no employer means no health insurance.

 

Adding the risk of losing health insurance to the inherent risk of starting a business makes entrepreneurship all the more daunting. For someone who’s on the fence about staying in at a corporate job or leaving to start a business, the comfort of the employer-sponsored health plan can tip the scales in favor of the low-risk path.

 

There is a growing body of evidence to support the idea that national health insurance would boost entrepreneurship. Researchers at the Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship Public Policy found that people who get health coverage through their spouses are much more likely to strike out on their own, as are people who qualify for Medicare. Meanwhile, a reform in New Jersey that made it easier to purchase insurance independently has boosted self-employment. A nationwide program to provide insurance to low-income families with children also appears to have increased entrepreneurship.

 

National health insurance would act like these programs, but on a grand scale. Aspiring entrepreneurs would no longer have to worry about getting their health insurance from their spouse, or buying a costly plan on their own in the private market; it would just be there, in the background, providing a safety net that makes the prospect of starting a business less frightening.

 

Similarly, national health insurance would also make it easier to switch jobs. Quitting your job to look for a better one can mean losing your health insurance -- a scary prospect, particularly for those with chronic medical conditions. Economists have found evidence that the employer-based health system locks people into their jobs. This not only gives employers more power to hold down wages, but it contributes to the nationwide trend of declining job mobility. Worker who are reluctant to move to the best jobs make the economy less productive.

 

Our current health insurance system is holding back capitalism. That system could be eliminated simply by ending policies that subsidize employer-based insurance, of course. But without a good replacement, the health insurance market will be plagued by the old problems of overpricing, market breakdown and inequality. Entrepreneurship and job-switching would still be out of reach for many without personal wealth or family support.

 

Instead, national health insurance -- of the kind that has been successful in many other developed countries -- would remove health risk from the decision to start a business or switch jobs. It would free Americans to pursue their capitalistic dreams. A dose of national health insurance might therefore be just what the free market needs.

This is probably obvious even to many Republicans.

[Winstonm]

Noah Smith at Bloomberg makes the case that national health insurance is good for capitalism:

 

 

This is probably obvious even to many Republicans.

 

Don't count on it - they didn't say anything about God, abortion, socialism, mama, trains, prison, or getting drunk.

[y66]

From The Growing Threat to Journalism Around the World by A. G. Sulzberger at NYT:

 

The hard work of journalism has long carried risks, especially in countries without democratic safeguards. But what’s different today is that these brutal crackdowns are being passively accepted and perhaps even tacitly encouraged by the president of the United States.

 

This country’s leaders have long understood that the free press is one of America’s greatest exports. Sure, they’d complain about our coverage and bristle at the secrets we brought to light. But even as domestic politics and foreign policy would change, a baseline commitment to protecting journalists and their rights would remain.

 

When four of our journalists were beaten and held hostage by the Libyan military, the State Department played a critical role in securing their release. Interventions like this were often accompanied by a stern reminder to the offending government that the United States defends its journalists.

 

The current administration, however, has retreated from our country’s historical role as a defender of the free press. Seeing that, other countries are targeting journalists with a growing sense of impunity.

 

This isn’t just a problem for reporters; it’s a problem for everyone, because this is how authoritarian leaders bury critical information, hide corruption, even justify genocide. As Senator John McCain once warned, “When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press.”

 

To give you a sense of what this retreat looks like on the ground, let me tell you a story I’ve never shared publicly before. Two years ago, we got a call from a United States government official warning us of the imminent arrest of a New York Times reporter based in Egypt named Declan Walsh. Though the news was alarming, the call was actually fairly standard. Over the years, we’ve received countless such warnings from American diplomats, military leaders and national security officials.

 

But this particular call took a surprising and distressing turn. We learned the official was passing along this warning without the knowledge or permission of the Trump administration. Rather than trying to stop the Egyptian government or assist the reporter, the official believed, the Trump administration intended to sit on the information and let the arrest be carried out. The official feared being punished for even alerting us to the danger.

 

Unable to count on our own government to prevent the arrest or help free Declan if he were imprisoned, we turned to his native country, Ireland, for help. Within an hour, Irish diplomats traveled to his house and safely escorted him to the airport before Egyptian forces could detain him.

 

We hate to imagine what would have happened had that brave official not risked their career to alert us to the threat.

 

Eighteen months later, another of our reporters, David Kirkpatrick, arrived in Egypt and was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for exposing information that was embarrassing to the Egyptian government. When we protested the move, a senior official at the United States Embassy in Cairo openly voiced the cynical worldview behind the Trump administration’s tolerance for such crackdowns. “What did you expect would happen to him?” he said. “His reporting made the government look bad.”

 

Since assuming office, President Trump has tweeted about “fake news” nearly 600 times. His most frequent targets are independent news organizations with a deep commitment to reporting fairly and accurately. To be absolutely clear, The Times and other news organizations are fair game for criticism. Journalism is a human enterprise, and we sometimes make mistakes. But we also try to own our mistakes, to correct them and to rededicate ourselves every day to the highest standards of journalism.

 

But when the president decries “fake news,” he’s not interested in actual mistakes. He’s trying to delegitimize real news, dismissing factual and fair reporting as politically motivated fabrications.

 

So when The Times reveals his family’s fraudulent financial practices, when The Wall Street Journal reveals hush money paid to a porn star, when The Washington Post reveals his personal foundation’s self-dealing, he can sidestep accountability by simply dismissing the reports as “fake news.”

 

Even though all those stories — and countless more that he’s labeled fake — have been confirmed as accurate, there is evidence that his attacks are achieving their intended effect: One recent poll found that 82 percent of Republicans now trust President Trump more than they trust the media. One of the president’s supporters was recently convicted of sending explosives to CNN, one of the most frequent targets of the “fake news” charge.

 

But in attacking American media, President Trump has done more than undermine his own citizens’ faith in the news organizations attempting to hold him accountable. He has effectively given foreign leaders permission to do the same with their countries’ journalists, and even given them the vocabulary with which to do it.

 

They’ve eagerly embraced the approach. My colleagues and I recently researched the spread of the phrase “fake news,” and what we found is deeply alarming: In the past few years, more than 50 prime ministers, presidents and other government leaders across five continents have used the term “fake news” to justify varying levels of anti-press activity.

 

The phrase has been used by Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, who have levied massive fines to force independent news organizations to sell to government loyalists. It’s been used by President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who have attacked the press as they’ve led bloody crackdowns.

 

In Myanmar, the phrase is used to deny the existence of an entire people who are systematically targeted with violence to force them out of their country. “There is no such thing as Rohingya,” a leader in Myanmar told The Times. “It is fake news.”

 

The phrase has been used to jail journalists in Cameroon, to suppress stories about corruption in Malawi, to justify a social media blackout in Chad, to prevent overseas news organizations from operating in Burundi. It has been used by the leaders of our longtime allies, like Mexico and Israel. It has been used by longtime rivals, like Iran, Russia and China.

 

It has been used by liberal leaders, like Ireland’s prime minister, Leo Varadkar. It’s been used by right-wing leaders, like Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro. Standing next to President Bolsanaro in the Rose Garden, President Trump said, “I’m very proud to hear the president use the term ‘fake news.’”

 

Our foreign correspondents have experienced the weaponization of the “fake news” charge firsthand. Last year, Hannah Beech, who covers Southeast Asia, was at a speech by Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia. In the middle of his remarks, Mr. Hun Sen uttered a single phrase in English: “The New York Times.” He said that The Times was so biased that it had been given a ‘fake news’ award by President Trump, and he threatened that if our story didn’t support his version of the truth, there would be consequences.

 

Hannah felt a growing hostility in the crowd of thousands as the prime minister searched her out and warned, “The Cambodian people will remember your faces.”

 

I have raised these concerns with President Trump. I’ve told him that these efforts to attack and suppress independent journalism is what the United States is now inspiring abroad. Though he listened politely and expressed concern, he has continued to escalate his anti-press rhetoric, which has reached new heights as he campaigns for re-election.

 

President Trump is no longer content to delegitimize accurate reporting as “fake news.” Now, he has taken to demonizing reporters themselves, calling them “the true enemy of the people” and even accusing them of treason. With these phrases, he has not just inspired autocratic rulers around the world, he has also borrowed from them.

 

The phrase “enemy of the people” has a particularly brutal history. It was used to justify mass executions during the French Revolution and the Third Reich. And it was used by Lenin and Stalin to justify the systematic murder of Soviet dissidents.

 

The treason charge is perhaps the most serious a commander in chief can make. By threatening to prosecute journalists for invented crimes against their country, President Trump gives repressive leaders implicit license to do the same.

 

In the United States, the Constitution, the rule of law and a still-robust news media act as a constraint. But abroad, foreign leaders can silence journalists with alarming effectiveness.

 

Nick Casey, a Times reporter who was repeatedly threatened and ultimately barred from Venezuela for aggressive reporting on the brutal Maduro regime, stressed how much more serious consequences can be for local journalists. “If this is what countries are capable of doing to me, as a Times reporter, what are they capable of doing to their own citizens?” he asked. “Far worse. And I’ve seen it.”

 

Even as we worry about the dangers our own reporters face, those dangers usually pale in comparison to what courageous local journalists confront around the world. They search for truth and report what they find, knowing that they and their loved ones are vulnerable to fines, arrests, beatings, torture, rape and murder. These reporters are the front-line soldiers in the battle for press freedom, and they’re the ones who pay the greatest price for President Trump’s anti-press rhetoric.

 

The cases of intimidation and violence I’ve discussed today are just a few of the ones we know about. On any given day, similar stories are unfolding around the world, many of which will never surface or be recorded. In many places, fear of reprisal is great enough that it has a chilling effect — stories go unpublished, secrets remain buried, wrongdoing remains covered up.

 

This is a perilous moment for journalism, for free expression and for an informed public. But the moments and places where it is most difficult and dangerous to be a journalist are the moments and places where journalism is needed most.

 

A tour of our nation’s history reminds that the role of the free press has been one of the few areas of enduring consensus, transcending party and ideology for generations. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the only security of all is in a free press.” John F. Kennedy called the free press “invaluable” because “without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive.” Ronald Reagan went even further, saying, “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success in what the founding fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.”

 

Despite this tradition of American presidents defending the free press, I do not believe President Trump has any intention of changing course or muting his attacks on journalists. If recent history is any guide, he may point to my comments today and claim that The Times has a political vendetta against him. To be clear, I’m not challenging the president’s recklessness because of his party, his ideology or his criticism of The Times.

 

I’m sounding the alarm because his words are dangerous and having real-world consequences around the globe. But even if the president ignores this alarm and continues on this path, there are important steps the rest of us can take to protect the free press and support those who dedicate their lives to seeking truth around the world.

 

It starts with understanding the stakes. The First Amendment has served as the world’s gold standard for free speech and the free press for two centuries. It has been one of the keys to an unprecedented flourishing of freedom and prosperity in this country and, through its example, around the world. We cannot allow a new global framework, like the repressive model embraced by China, Russia and others, to take hold.

 

This means, in the face of mounting pressure, news organizations must hold fast to the values of great journalism — fairness, accuracy, independence — while opening ourselves so the public can better understand our work and its role in society. We need to keep chasing the stories that matter, regardless of whether they’re trending on Twitter. We cannot allow ourselves to be baited or applauded into becoming anyone’s opposition or cheerleader. Our loyalty must be to facts, not to any party or any leader, and we must continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, without fear or favor.

 

But the responsibility to stand up for the free press extends beyond news organizations. Business, nonprofit and academic communities, all of which rely on the free and reliable flow of news and information, have a responsibility to push back on this campaign, too. That is particularly true of tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple. Their track record of standing up to governments abroad is spotty at best; they’ve too often turned a blind eye to disinformation and, at times, permitted the suppression of real journalism.

 

But as they move even deeper into making, commissioning and distributing journalism, they also have a responsibility to start defending journalism.

 

Our political leaders need to step up, too. Those elected to uphold our Constitution betray its ideals when they undermine the free press for short-term political gain. Leaders from both parties should support independent journalism and fight anti-press efforts at home and abroad.

 

Here in the United States, that means rejecting efforts like frivolous lawsuits and investigations targeting government leaks that aim to chill aggressive reporting. And around the world, it means opposing the countless efforts underway to attack, intimidate and delegitimize journalists.

 

Finally, none of these efforts will make a difference unless you raise your voice. Care about where your news comes from and how it’s made. Find news organizations you trust and enable the expensive, arduous work of original reporting by buying a subscription. Support organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders that defend journalists at risk around the world. Most of all, carve out a place for journalism in your everyday life and use what you learn to make a difference.

 

The true power of a free press is an informed, engaged citizenry. I believe in independent journalism and want it to thrive. I believe in this country and its values, and I want us to live up to them and offer them as a model for a freer and more just world.

 

The United States has done more than any other country to popularize the idea of free expression and to champion the rights of the free press. The time has come for us to fight for those ideals again.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

 

Folks, I think the president of the United States is going to be impeached.

 

The signals are clear. First, seven new members of the House, all with national-security backgrounds, published an op-ed Monday demanding that the administration hand over a whistle-blower complaint that reportedly alleges misconduct by President Donald Trump – and saying that impeachment would be the proper response if the reports about the complaint are true. Then two allies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same.

 

Impeachment still isn’t certain. The immediate flash point is a Thursday deadline the House has set for the whistle-blower complaint to be delivered. If the administration complies, it’s possible that the added details in the complaint could defuse the situation somewhat (although what Trump has already admitted to should be sufficient for an impeachment). And so far, only the Republican-turned-independent Justin Amash seems likely to join the House Democrats, while conviction would require a lot more Republican defections than seem likely at the moment.

 

Time for a Watergate story. Very early on, when the original cover-up was still intact and President Richard Nixon was cruising to a landslide re-election, House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, as Fred Emery tells the story, “reckoned that so many bad things had been done by the Nixon men that they simply could not be kept secret indefinitely. Privately, he urged his surprised colleagues in the House leadership to ‘get ready for impeachment.’”

 

But O’Neill was patient. The House didn’t move after the cover-up collapsed in spring 1973, or after dramatic Senate hearings that summer revealed that Nixon was personally involved. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, when Nixon ordered Justice Department officials to fire the special prosecutor overseeing the probe, did they start moving toward impeachment. And then for months, the judiciary committee slowly gathered evidence to make its case. This strategy eventually worked, as the story gradually came out and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats began defecting from Nixon – followed by the rest of the Republican Party in August 1974.

 

Has Pelosi been emulating O’Neill? She’s been taking plenty of heat from pro-impeachment Democrats. She’s certainly been unwilling to get ahead of her caucus. Perhaps that’s because she thinks impeachment could be avoided. Or perhaps she’s been betting that Trump’s past and current lawlessness would keep supplying new evidence pushing ambivalent Democrats toward action – and that a measured, patient process would be far stronger than a rushed one.

 

After all, whatever the merits of a party-line impeachment, an effort that could barely get the necessary 218 votes out of the 239 Democrats (plus Amash) would be much weaker, and we still don’t know whether House Democrats would vote unanimously. In fact, there’s plenty we don’t know. The Washington Post reports that the House leadership is considering using a select committee to pursue impeachment. (Odd, isn’t it, that the famously anti-impeachment leadership seems to have advanced plans for how to do the deed?) Nor is it clear what the scope of such proceedings would be: Just the whistle-blower story? That plus the obstruction of justice identified by special counsel Robert Mueller? Plus emoluments and conflicts of interest? Plus other abuses of power? The one thing this situation isn’t lacking is legitimate material to investigate.

 

Even so, Democrats haven’t yet committed to go ahead with impeachment. Most of their public statements have only called for an impeachment inquiry, which of course has been taking place with or without formal authorization for months now. But it does seem likely that the more advanced their process gets, the harder it will be to apply the brakes. Especially given that Trump is extremely unlikely to (say) cooperate with normal oversight procedures, and thus will make the substantive case for impeachment stronger. There may also be a lot of shoes left to drop.

 

No one knows yet whether Republicans will take all this seriously, let alone vote to impeach or remove the president. And the Senate majority can set the rules for an impeachment trial any way they like, so long as they have the votes; a trial about the whistle-blower accusations could well wind up mired in unsubstantiated rumors and accusations about former Vice President Joe Biden. But yes, add all of it up, and it certainly seems likely we’re headed for impeachment.