Skip to content

Month: September 2021

Whining Justice

So much for the dignity, majesty and mystery of the Supreme Court. Here’s Justice Alito having a good old fashioned cry over criticism:

This is nothing new for him:

During Obama’s first official State of the Union address, he criticized a Supreme Court ruling, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., sitting in the chamber, visibly challenged the president, shaking his head in disagreement and mouthing “not true” in response. It was considered a major “controversy” at the time (in a much gentler era).

Many remember the moment, but few remember what Obama said that caused such a ruckus. Obama’s comments were about the then-recent decision in Citizens United, in which the court de-fanged an already rickety campaign finance regulation system. Obama said:“Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

Check out the videotape: Alito’s “not true” was spoken specifically in response to Obama’s claim about the risk of foreign influence in U.S. elections.

How’d that work out for us?

Alito is a petulant whiner, always has been. And he’s a true believing wingnut. His defensiveness gives it away.

Oh Kyrsten

The brave maverick from Arizona seems to be feeling the heat:

Amid ongoing frustration among progressives over Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (D-AZ) reluctance to specify a topline or explain her issues with the reconciliation bill, the senator’s communications director issued a statement refuting the notion that she has not detailed her views to the White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“Senator Sinema said publicly more than two months ago, before Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that she would not support a bill costing $3.5 trillion,” John LaBombard, Sinema’s communications director, said. “In August, she shared detailed concerns and priorities, including dollar figures, directly with Senate Majority Leader Schumer and the White House. Claims that the Senator has not detailed her views to President Biden and Senator Schumer are false.”

LaBombard went on to claim that both the White House and Schumer’s office are “fully aware” of Sinema’s “priorities, concerns, and ideas.”

“While we do not negotiate through the press – because Senator Sinema respects the integrity of those direct negotiations – she continues to engage directly in good-faith discussions with both President Biden and Senator Schumer to find common ground,” LaBombard said.

Lol. Apparently, she doesn’t like the fact that everyone in the country who’s paying attention are scratching their heads wondering what in the hell she’s thinking. Makes her look just a tad feckless.

We still don’t know what she’s thinking about this bill, of course, but we now know that she responds to the kind of pressure she’s been under this week. Brave Mavericks say “bring it on.” I have to wonder if someone finally pointed out to her that being a pariah in her own party may not be the best path to greater power since the GOP will kick her to the curb the minute they find it useful, which is the minute her re-election campaign begins. Even switching parties won’t change that.

Will it come down to Hyde? Again?

Manchin’s 1.5 trillion dollar offer is full of all kinds of ridiculous items. And, of course, this:

National Review: Senator, you’ve been very firm on keeping the Hyde amendment on the appropriations bills. Are you concerned about that issue at all in reconciliation—

Manchin: Certainly—

NR: —with this new Medicaid program?

Manchin: Yeah, we’re not taking the Hyde amendment off. Hyde’s going to be on.

National Review: In the new Medicaid program?

Manchin: It has to be. It has to be. That’s dead on arrival if that’s gone.

The traditional Medicaid program is funded by appropriations bills that are subject to a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, so efforts by House Democrats to kill off the Hyde amendment entirely this year are doomed.

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.

But in their reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, House Democrats propose creating a new Medicaid-like program administered entirely by the federal government for low-income residents in the twelve states that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The new Medicaid-like program lacks the Hyde amendment and would therefore fund abortions for beneficiaries. If Manchin wants to close the so-called Medicaid gap without funding elective abortion, there appears to be an obvious path to accomplish that:

Politico reports that another option under consideration is “allowing low-income adults to get free private coverage through Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces.”

When Obamacare passed in 2010, it subsidized insurance plans that cover elective abortions (and still does), but it also gave states the ability to pass laws applying the Hyde amendment to all of the health-insurance plans offered on respective Obamacare exchanges. None of the twelve states that declined to expand Medicaid offers elective-abortion coverage in their taxpayer-subsidized Obamacare exchanges. So expanding Obamacare coverage in only those states would not result in taxpayer funding of elective abortion.

The House Energy & Commerce bill actually takes this approach to closing the Medicaid gap in 2022 and 2023 but then appears to add abortion funding in the Obamacare exchanges in those twelve states in 2024. As National Review reported earlier this month: 

Because the new Medicaid program in these twelve states wouldn’t be up and running until 2025, the bill would, starting in 2022, make these low-income individuals eligible for Obamacare plans that the government would subsidize to the tune of 99 percent of the actuarial value of medical expenses (up from 94 percent under current law).

Obamacare plans in these twelve states do not currently cover taxpayer funding of abortion — the Affordable Care Act allowed states to prohibit elective abortion coverage in their exchanges — but the House Democrats’ bill appears to do an end run around that prohibition, too, starting in 2024.

The language in the House Energy and Commerce bill is convoluted, but it is hard to see how it isn’t designed to fund abortions in the Obamacare exchanges in the twelve states that didn’t expand Medicaid. The House reconciliation bill would require funding for family-planning services “which are not otherwise provided under such plan[s]” in Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act already requires plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay or cost-sharing, but as HealthCare.gov notes: “Plans aren’t required to cover drugs to induce abortions.” So family-planning services “not otherwise provided” means abortion.

These aren’t the only ways the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill would fund abortion. It also includes funding starting in 2024 for “non-emergency medical transportation services,” which could mean that enrollees could be transported at taxpayer expense for an abortion at any point in pregnancy. And it includes “public health” funding that could be used to train doulas and others to assist or perform elective abortions.

In June, Manchin said that he’s going to support the Hyde amendment “in every way possible.”

I guess the Democrats must have seen this one coming. He’s been pretty clear. And if, for some reason, they come to agreement on everything but this, I’m pretty confident that this will not be the reason it doesn’t pass. And that’s just sad…

I never thought I’d see the day

… when a Democratic White House was actually working with progressives instead of triangulating against them. But according to this, that’s exactly what’s happening.

As I write this, the infrastructure bill hasn’t been brought up as planned and pelosi was non committal about whether she would bring it up today at all. I honestly can’t see why she would.

Anyway:

Progressives in the House are revolting. Inside the White House, they’re welcoming it.

One by one, liberal lawmakers have announced that they will vote to defeat a bipartisan infrastructure bill if moderate Democrats and the White House do not offer a firm outline for an accompanying social and climate spending package as well. And just as tensions within the party were at a seeming boiling point this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) turned it up even further, urging House Democrats to vote against that bipartisan infrastructure bill when it is scheduled to hit the floor on Thursday.

Though some of those same progressives have loudly complained that President Joe Biden isn’t doing enough to reach out to them individually on his legislative agenda, the White House seems utterly unbothered by it.

Instead, they’re hoping that the prospect of a progressive revolt will only add to the pressure they’re attempting to exert on Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the two moderate Senators most noncommittal about supporting a party-line reconciliation bill. Two sources familiar with the White House’s messaging to progressives said that officials have made it clear to them that they are not displeased with all the talk about voting down the infrastructure package.

“I think it’s good to have drama around this because it does isolate those people who are obstructing it for no good reason other than some sort of austerity politics mentality that, when you’re in a time of crisis, just isn’t a logical position,” saidHeather Gautney, a former senior adviser to Sanders.

“We made a deal and I think they just need to keep hammering that because the tradition is to paint the progressive as hard headed and wanting to spend too much money and that’s just absurd at this point — especially with Biden where he is on all of it,” Gautney added.Ultimately, the White House wants to see the infrastructure bill passed when it is brought up. But the idea that it would be comfortable with an effort by a portion of its own party to delay and put into question one of the president’s most important initiatives would have been unheard of in previous administrations. These, however, are not normal times. And this is hardly a normal legislative calendar.

Biden and his top aides are desperately trying to reach an agreement on the reconciliation package with the two moderate Democrats. But both Manchin and Sinema have not just resisted overtures, the two have been evasive about what framework and price tag they would accept for the $3.5 trillion climate and social spending plan.

Without any material commitments from their moderate counterparts, progressives in the House have vowed to tank the bipartisan infrastructure package, believing that if it were to pass they would be removing whatever leverage they still had to ensure the reconciliation bill’s passage. They argue that both plans are part of Biden’s economic agenda — a point that the White House has increasingly echoed in public statements as well.

The White House is convinced progressives’ end goal is still aligned with theirs and see the pressure they’re exerting as ultimately helpful rather than damaging.

These bills are the mainstream position. The outliers are a handful of moderates and two Senators all of whom are operating as functional Republicans.

Egos everywhere

We’ve talked a lot about narcissism in the last few years under Trump for obvious reasons. But while Trump is certainly the most extreme example, he isn’t alone in politics. Mike the MadBiologist has this on a couple of others you may be aware of:

Admittedly, describing a senator as a narcissist is a relative term: none of them are possessed of low self-regard to say the least. But Ed Burmilla raises a good point about what two narcissists, West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Manic Pixie Dream Senator (aka Arizona Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema):

The recent in-depth interview with Sinema in which she reveals (tellingly) that her office in Tucson is unoccupied sheds a lot of light on one of the most confounding aspects of the obstructionist legacy she and Manchin are building. Any read, even a favorable one, of this interview makes it perfectly clear that this person could not give a shit about anyone or anything but her own career. Being a Senator is meaningless except inasmuch as it might give her a the right springboard into whatever lobbying job she’s dying to get. This is a line on a resume. There’s no signature policy she wants to enact, no legacy she wants to leave behind – this is the Millennial politics of the near future. Sincerity doesn’t even need to be faked and the question “What’s in this for me?” does not refer to one’s odds of reelection.

This is the fundamental issue with Manchin, and apparently with Sinema as well: it is impossible to figure out what it is they want. If they wanted something then some kind of political deal would be possible. Recall some of their predecessors: Robert Byrd using his Senate seat as a cudgel for beating West Virginia pork out of his colleagues, or Carl Hayden openly boasting about trading his vote on Civil Rights legislation for Federally-funded Arizona water projects. With this current pair, it’s unclear that handing them a blank check would accomplish anything. What do they want? What’s their strategy? What are they hoping to gain from being the reluctant members of a bare-majority coalition?

The answer is nothing, and that is a big reason that they are so nearly impossible to deal with. They don’t want anything except to play this character that they believe will pay off for them, personally, down the road. When Manchin is Governor or a mouthpiece of the coal industry and Sinema has taken her exhausting narcissism to the Chamber of Commerce or whatever, they’ll look back on what they did as a success. The politics of Congress is predicated on the assumption that each individual member wants something that either benefits their constituents directly or increases the member’s odds of reelection. In Manchin’s case the latter is argued, although not entirely convincingly (would West Virginians really be furious if the minimum wage went up? Seems unlikely!) whereas Sinema doesn’t even seem to care about getting re-elected. If they don’t want anything, how can you negotiate with them?

I think Burmilla is right about Manic Pixie Dream Senator–you don’t go from a $15/hour minimum wage to her disgusting thumbs-down Senate floor display if you have any core beliefs. But Manchin is worse: he’s a narcissist and an ideologue. Manchin actually believes that things have to be done his way or the Republic will collapse–especially ironic in light of his opposition to voting rights legislation, which the Republic desperately needs to keep its democracy. He thinks he knows better than the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Senate caucus, the Democratic House caucus, not to mention most Democrats, a large majority of independents, and even a fair number of Republicans. His arrogance is astonishing in its scope.

It is astonishing. Two people, voted into office by a tiny minority of the American people believe they are entitled to hold the entire nation hostage to their personal ambition and whims. Talk about gall.

Stand (for something) and deliver

“Where the hell is the Democratic party?” Gov. Howard Dean, former DNC chair, asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” after the party’s shellacking in November 2014. “You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win.” Good advice still.

Anat Shenker-Osorio’s work puts her in close touch with what that something is. She spends her time crafting messages that will move the public’s needle and uncovering what voters think. This Wednesday tweet caught my attention:

What would turn that around?

Shenker-Osorio replied, “Outcomes. Delivering tangible results that would both be felt at home and would (if we can make it so) be media story about Dems coming through.”

All of that is on the line over the next few days and weeks. Democrats’ ability to deliver may determine if this country is to survive over the next few years, and if the world will survive over the next century. All Democrats in Congress need to have their priorities in order. Given the red flags for their continued control of Congress, why the hell is that such a problem?

On “The 11th Hour” Wednesday night, Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, both-sidesed the Democrats’ legislative stalemate, implying it is Biden’s fault. Baker said Joe Biden’s presidency was predicated on his ability as a mature legislator and experienced Washington hand to bring moderate and progressive Democrats together behind his agenda.

Um, Peter, progressives are behind Biden’s agenda. All of it. It’s the moderates who are not on board.

Out-of-time religion

Less than a year after the March on Washington, my family moved from Illinois to the South, land of funny accents, “Yes, sir” and “Yes, ma’am,” grits, cornbread and persistent segregation. (As a child, I was only vaguely aware of it in my hometown.)

There was some culture shock. Baptists seemed to run everything. There were Blue Laws. Shops and banks closed on Wednesday afternoons. The high school pep band’s fight song was “Dixie.” People called us Yankees.

Robert P. Jones, founder and CEO of PRRI, is the author of “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity.” Raised in a working-class neighborhood of Jackson, Miss., Jones was nurtured in the world I found strange. His community bequeathed him the view that dominated local, White culture. He writes in Time:

I internalized a cycle of sin, confession and repentance as a daily part of my life. Though I wasn’t aware of it at the time, this was a double inheritance. Beneath this seemingly icy surface of guilt and culpability flowed a deeper current of innocence and entitlement. Individually, I was a sinner, but collectively, I was part of a special tribe. Whatever our humble social stations might be, we white Christians were God’s chosen instruments of spreading salvation and civilization to the world.

As the Old South faded and the New South rose, textiles died as a major factor in the economy. “Yankees” and foreign companies moving in for cheap, non-union labor brought new sensibilities. You could buy cheese that wasn’t cheddar or Swiss, and beer not advertised during football games.

What also happened was the iron grip of evangelical Christianity on the culture and politics began to slip. The sense of entitlement evangelicals had that they ran the show, as God intended, slipped too. They did not much like it.

In the fullness of time, the erosion of the world view they held unleashed “a volatile cocktail of fealty to Donald Trump, wild-eyed rants about vaccines, faith in QAnon conspiracies and hysteria over critical race theory,” Jones writes.

Recent surveys by PRRI, an organization I lead, reveal disturbing realities among white evangelical Protestants today: 61% believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. And the idea of patriotism has taken a troubling turn: 68% believe Trump is a “true patriot,” and one in three believe that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” More than seven in ten deny that the history of slavery and discrimination in the U.S. has any bearing on economic inequalities between white and Black Americans today. White evangelicals are the religious group most likely to refuse COVID-19 vaccines and object to mask mandates. One in four are QAnon conspiracy believers.

Evangelicals’ intense focus on personal redemption left them with a sense that nothing “outside our intimate lives, not even (or particularly) major racial upheavals in our community, were perceptible objects of Christian concern.”

By the 1970s, integration delayed became integration realized. The religious right abandoned the Democratic Party that enabled it and hitched its wagon to Ronald Reagan’s as a way to bolster its slipping cultural dominance. This, even as Southerners welcomed the economic development and in-migration eroding it.

But now the bulwark of white Christian America is crumbling. We are no longer, demographically speaking, a white Christian nation. White evangelical Protestants—the once self-proclaimed “moral majority”—have fallen from nearly a quarter of Americans just over a decade ago to 14.5% of the public today. And Southern Baptists, who grew to be the largest Protestant denomination of all by the mid-20th century, have lost more than 2 million members across the same period.

As the shadow cast by white Christian churches and institutions is shortening, we’re witnessing in real time the anomie this contraction is producing among many of its adherents. Many are responding by abandoning the ranks. The increasingly desperate remainder are screaming defiantly from the ramparts, determined, to the last man, to defend the breached walls.

The evangelical movement is, Jones explains, “trapped in a kind of self-induced psychosis, stemming from the strain of sustaining a conception of themselves as repentant sinners while living lives of indifference and violence toward their fellow Black and brown citizens.”

In these twilight years of white Christian America, for those still within the veil, the strain of holding these contradictions can lead to a dissociative state, where self-reflection becomes treasonous and self-delusion a necessity. The fruits of this spirit are abundant. Empathy signals weakness, and disdain strength. Prophets are shunned, and authoritarians embraced. Truth is exchanged for a lie.

And the Lie was made flesh and dwelt among us … as an autocrat wannabe in the White House.

What to do now? Jones offers advise conservative Christians are unlikely to heed:

The first step toward recovery is to separate being white from being Christian. Practically, we must reject what have, for too long, been three articles of our faith: that the Bible is a blueprint for a white Christian America; that Jesus, the son of God, is a white savior; and that the church is a sanctuary of white innocence. Most fundamentally, we must confess that whatever the personal sins of white people, in the past and present, they pale in comparison to the systemic ways we have built and blessed a society that reflects a conviction that, to us and to God, our lives matter more.

That is, more than non-White Christian citizens, as behaviors on display during the pandemic illustrate in body count. They will not, as Jones advocates, surrender their conviction that they are God’s chosen people living in a God-ordained, White Christian homeland. That, says Jones, “is not an eternal truth grounded in the Bible but rather a self-serving lie rooted in white supremacy.”

And rooted in the peculiarities of American-style conservative Protestantism, itself a recent, homespun invention. With any luck, the rest of us and the United States will outlast it.

Now they’re eating their own

You are MAGA all the way or you are an enemy RINO:

The audit report landed with a thud on Friday, only proving, if anything, that Joe Biden won Arizona by more votes than previously realized. On this week’s episode of The Daily Beast’s Fever Dreams podcast, hosts Asawin Suebsaeng and Will Sommer are joined by Arizona Mirror reporter Jerod MacDonald-Evoy to discuss the audit’s fractious aftermath.

“Some people who were involved in the report say the deep state kept the real truth out,” Sommer said on this week’s episode.

“The deep state and the politically correct lawyers and RINOs of the GOP suppressed this,” said MacDonald-Evoy, summarizing right-wing critics’ complaints about the anti-climactic audit report.

Among the audit report’s new detractors: Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, the controversial inventor whose supposed technology analyzing folds in ballot paper had promised, according to audit supporters, to detect some kind of voter fraud. Instead, the final audit report contained no mention of Pulitzer’s imaging technology, a change Pulitzer attributed on Twitter to “deep state” malfeasance.

Asked over email who in the “deep state” supposedly sabotaged his contribution to the report, Pulitzer remained vague.

“That’s the big question — is it not?” Pulitzer wrote in an email to The Daily Beast.“I think it’s almost never-ending, especially with 2022 coming up.”— Jerod MacDonald-Evoy, on audit mania

Audit discontent has been growing elsewhere in the conservative fever swamps. Joe Oltmann, a conservative businessman who rose to prominence in the post-election right after claiming without evidence that he heard a voting systems employee plotting on a conference call with antifa, claimed the state Senate had put on a “dog and pony show.” Ron Watkins, the one-time 8chan administrator who’s been accused of running the QAnon conspiracy theory, shared a video suggesting Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), one of the audit’s most prominent supporters, was in fact blocking a real investigation of the 2020 ballots.

Right-wing media personalities disappointed by the audit have even promoted a fictitious rival report they claimed was the “real” report from audit operators Cyber Ninjas. In this telling, the fabricated “draft” report called for Biden’s win to be decertified. But while the fake report was embraced by prominent right-wing news blog The Gateway Pundit as proof that the real report released on Friday had been “watered down,” Cyber Ninjas blasted the report as a hoax.

It’s one thing for the MAGAs to go after Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney. But when they go after the Cyber Ninjas you know they have started to cannibalize their own movement. I find this strangely hopeful.

Biden was right

This piece by Fred Kaplan in Slate sounds right to me. The generals were not onboard with Trump’s ignorant shenanigans and did what they could to stand in his way so he didn’t blow up the world. But when it came to Afghanistan, they were setting a trap for re-engagement, regardless of who was the Commander in Chief. They don’t like to lose. Biden saw through them:

There was a moment in Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when it became clear why President Joe Biden decided to get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.

It came when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why he and the other chiefs—the top officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—all agreed that we needed to pull out by Aug. 31. The Doha agreement, which President Trump had signed with the Taliban in early 2020 (with no participation by the Afghan government), required a total withdrawal of foreign forces. If U.S. troops had stayed beyond August, Milley said, the Taliban would have resumed the fighting, and, in order to stave off the attacks, “we would have needed 30,000 troops” and would have suffered “many casualties.”

And yet, as Milley also testified on Tuesday, he, the chiefs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and other military officers advised Biden to keep 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the Aug. 31 deadline. The difference is that those troops wouldn’t be attached to any “military mission.” Instead, they would “transition” to a “diplomatic mission.”

However, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would have observed the semantic distinction. In their eyes, 2,500 U.S. troops would be seen as 2,500 U.S. troops, regardless of whether their mission was officially said to be “military” or “diplomatic.” Therefore, the Taliban would resume fighting, as Milley said they would, and Biden would then have been faced with a horrendous choice—to pull out while under attack or send in another 30,000 troops.

Some historical-psychological perspective is worth noting. In the first nine months of Barack Obama’s presidency, the generals were pushing for a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan—an increase of 40,000 troops—and a shift to a counterinsurgency (aka “nation-building”) strategy. Biden, who was then vice president, was alone in suggesting an increase of just 10,000 troops, to be used solely for training the Afghan army and for fighting terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistani border. As Obama recalls in his memoir, Biden urged the new and relatively inexperienced president not to be “boxed in” by the generals. Give them 40,000 troops now, and in 18 months, they’ll say they need another 40,000 to win the war. As Obama later acknowledged, Biden was right.

And so, as Milley was advising President Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, even while acknowledging that another 30,000 might be needed if the Taliban resumed fighting, it’s easy to imagine Biden thinking, “They’re trying to box me in, just like they did before, just like they’ve always done since the Vietnam War,” which was raging when Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and has shaped his views on war and peace ever since.

Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, both acknowledged at the hearing that the U.S. military was flying blind through much of its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. The officers of the day tried to mold the Afghan army in their own image, making them too dependent on U.S. technology and support, so that once we withdrew, collapse was inevitable. Milley also noted that he and the other officers paid too little attention to Afghan culture and to the corrosive effects of the Afghan government’s corruption and lack of popular legitimacy. So, Biden might well have been thinking, why should he pay attention to anything these guys had to say on the war in Afghanistan, which they’ve been wrong about from the very beginning?

Biden made several missteps, some of them disastrous, in the pace and sequence of the withdrawal. Most of all, he should have pulled out all the spies, contractors, U.S. citizens, and Afghan helpers before pulling out all the troops. But on the big picture, he was right, and the generals, as they now grudgingly admit, were wrong.

All it would have taken is an ISIS attack on Bagram to have ratcheted up the pressure to get back in the fighting. Biden wanted it over. And he was right.

By the way, this happened today:

No they don’t

I don’t know about the policies, but on electoral politics “Orange Man Bad” should be the primary message as long as Trump is the leader of the GOP and the rest of them are following him like a bunch of lemmings.

Policies are policies and Dems have to deliver on them and defend them. But nothing is as potent for Democratic base turnout as “Orange Man Bad” and for good reason. He and his henchmen are authoritarian monsters attempting to destroy democracy. That transcends all policy.