Month: February 2022

I don’t know if there’s much talk about this but it doesn’t seem so. It’s just another day in America:

 One person was killed and five others were wounded in a shooting on Saturday night during a protest in Portland against killings by police officers.

The Portland Police Bureau said a woman was dead when officers arrived. Two men and three other women were taken to a nearby hospital, the police said. Information on their conditions was not immediately released.

The shooting took place near a park in Portland that has been the staging ground for a number of protests against police killings in recent years. Neighbors said several shots were fired.

“I was sitting in the room talking to my wife, and all of a sudden you hear repeated gunshots,” said Jeff Pry, who lives in the area.

Few other details about the shooting were immediately available.

Portland has been a center for the racial justice protests that were touched off by the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. In Portland, the demonstrations have sometimes spiraled into violence between protesters and counterprotesters.

Information on social media indicated the protest Saturday was in response to the death of Amir Locke, 22, who was fatally shot by the police in Minneapolis when they were carrying out a search warrant early on Feb. 2. The killing of Mr. Locke, who was Black, stirred anger in Portland.

Mr. Locke was not the target of the police raid, which was carried out with a so-called no-knock warrant that does not require notifying residents. Minneapolis has since suspended the use of such warrants.

Ahead of the demonstration, multiple social media accounts belonging to far-right groups shared information about a possible counterprotest. One account warned that if the march got out of hand, there could be a “counter-punch.” But it was unclear whether counterprotesters actually attended or were involved.

I suppose it’s possible that there was some personal motive that had nothing to do with the protest but it seems unlikely.

It also seems unlikely that if Portland authorities figure out who did this they will send in a goon squad (“deputized” US Marshalls) to execute the person as they did to Antifa murder suspect Michael Rheinhold on Donald Trump’s orders.

We sent in the US Marshals,” Trump said during a campaign rally in North Carolina, adding that it “took 15 minutes (and) it was over.”

The President immediately followed that statement by appearing to indicate that authorities had no intention of ever taking Reinoehl alive.

“They knew who he was; they didn’t want to arrest him, and in 15 minutes that ended,” Trump said.

“The US Marshals went in to get him, and in a short period of time — they ended in a gunfight. This guy was a violent criminal,” Trump said, adding, “And I will tell you something: That’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution when you have crime like this.”

There was no gunfight…

I still can’t over the fact that vast numbers of Americans think they’re living in a cheap Hollywood western and it includes the former President of the United states:

The Wall Street Journal’s Dion Rabouin recently challenged the corporate narrative that inflation is up because businesses have no choice. “Our inputs! Our inputs” they cry.

It is a lie. Companies love inflation. He knows from listening to company earnings calls. “We view a little bit of inflation as always good in our business,” says Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen. Companies are exploiting the growing economy to suck more cash from it, and from consumers with more money in their pockets because of government Covid relief spending and higher wages. Sure, some costs are rising. Their prices are rising faster. Companies are raising prices because they can.

Thanks to the neutering of antitrust enforcement since the Reagan administration, massive corporate concentration drives down competition and makes raising prices largely consequence free. (There’s that theme again.) Rabouin reports, “75% of all American industries have become more concentrated” over the last two decades. During the coronavirus pandemic, Federal Reserve backstopping of the markets and corporate debt allowed companies to borrow heavily and further consolidate, reducing competition even more.

With no place else to go, consumers keep paying higher prices big businesses claim they just have to raise. You know, because.

Democrats should stop being defensive about inflation that’s worldwide and start pointing fingers at its real source. If they don’t define the real problem for voters, Republicans will define them.

“Nearly 100 of the biggest, U.S. publicly traded companies booked 2021 profit margins that were at least 50 percent higher” than 2019 profits, says Rabouin. “Companies are raising prices and, as a result, inflation’s probably going to keep rising.” No matter why they say it is in public. Truth is not a corporate value.

“Respect for the truth and a concern for the truth are among the foundations for civilization. I was for a long time disturbed by the lack of respect for the truth that I observed… bullshit is one of the deformities of these values.” — Harry G. Frankfurt, Princeton University professor of philosophy emeritus. His original Reagan-era essay, “On Bullshit,” is here.

(h/t John Neffinger)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

American exceptionalism means no one is above the law except the rich and powerful. It is an open secret. Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon for Watergate enabled Ronald Reagan’s, George W. Bush’s, and Donald “The world is laughing at us” Trump’s criminality.* How many times will our justice system shy from defending the precept that no one is above the law before hanging up its scales for good? Trump has exploited America’s system of unequal justice his entire life. As evidence of his criminality mounts, lawmen, lawmakers, and jurists must decide whether to codify de facto inequality or silence the laughter.

The Nixon pardon was the executive branch’s Dred Scott decision, and its repercussions have lasted decades. Matthew Dallek, a professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management challenges Americans to look in the mirror and see what moral cowardice has made us. What we do now could unmake us. But here we are:

Nearly five decades later, Joe Biden is president, and a pardon for Donald Trump isn’t happening. But whether Trump will eventually be prosecuted for his conduct in the White House is more of a conundrum: If the country crosses this inviolate threshold, all hell will break loose. If we don’t cross it, all hell will break loose. There will be no “shifting our attentions” by advocates of either course. And whichever path the nation follows will have lasting repercussions. One thing is increasingly clear — fear will play a greater role than facts in determining it.

If Trump were indicted, he would become the first former president to stand criminal trial. Prosecutorial threats are multiplying: Bank and tax fraud charges are under consideration in Manhattan. In Fulton County, Ga., a special grand jury is investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election. In a Washington courtroom, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta told a convicted Jan. 6 Capitol rioter that he was a pawn in a scheme by more powerful people, and the legal community is debating whether Trump’s seeming incitement of the insurrection has opened him up to criminal charges. The National Archives requested that the Justice Department open an investigation into Trump’s mishandling of top-secret documents that the government recently retrieved from his Florida estate. Trump still faces legal jeopardy for obstructing justice during Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election (remember that one?). During the 2016 campaign, Trump allegedly orchestrated hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels (the charges that landed his handler Michael Cohen in prison referred to Trump as Individual #1). This list is hardly exhaustive and omits the dozen-plus civil lawsuits and civil investigations Trump faces.

Proving intent in some pending cases could prove a high bar but not insurmountable bar, Dallek writes. Trump’s belief that admitting publicly what he’s doing is some kind of legal shield has worked for him. That and tying up civil adversaries in court until they are bled dry of funds and go away. Abusing the legal system to delay and evade accountability is his go-to move. But as president, his trail of admissions and public actions could be his undoing. If evidence warrants. If, like Nike’s admonition, some prosecutor with the guts will just do it and file charges.

The stakes are enormous. The rule of law, the notion that we are all equal under our criminal justice system, is among the noblest of principles but also the ugliest of myths. The question of putting Trump on trial before a jury of his peers is a test for a principle of democracy that has often proved out of reach for most Americans.

Racial animus and status anxiety are not the only sources of right-wing populism and revolt. There is a deep distrust of government and justice systems clearly designed for the wealthy and powerful. One for the rich and another for the rest.

“Nonviolent drug offenses for the poor have resulted in decades-long prison sentences,” Dallek laments, “while hardly any bankers stood trial for reckless and probably illegal activities that helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis.” Millions lost the roofs over their heads, their jobs, and any sense of security while bankers got richer. Their seething anger at the system, exploited by ethnic entrepreneurs — Trump, News Corp, Alex Jones, Proud Boys, etc. — and directed at nonwhites and immigrants, led to the sacking of the U.S. Capitol. Those tensions have not abated. Our allegedly self-correcting democracy has yet to do any correcting.

Dallek warns:

Now this unequal system of justice faces a crossroads. Any decision about prosecuting the former president centers on two conflicting fears: Inaction mocks the nation’s professed ideal that no one sits above the law — and Americans might wonder whether our democracy can survive what amounts to the explicit approval of lawlessness. But prosecuting deposed leaders is the stuff of banana republics.

Trump dreams of leading one. Gold braid and epaulets, tanks in the streets, political adversaries in prison, etc. In office, he sucked up to autocrats and strong men like a lap dog, begging to be let into their ignominious club. There is danger to prosecuting Trump as there is to not prosecuting him. Trumpism has reduced one of our major political parties to a cult of emotionally damaged personality. The greater danger may be allowing him anywhere near the levers of real power again.

Signs abound that Trump, left untouchable, will further inflame and destabilize the nation. He will reinforce the conviction that democracy has failed and the only he can fix it. As an autocrat supported by a large fraction of the country that has similarly abandoned the principles they mouth for show. There will be blood.

Not prosecuting Trump has already signaled to his supporters that accountability is for suckers. “The warning signs of instability that we have identified in other places are the same signs that, over the past decade, I’ve begun to see on our own soil,” political scientist Barbara Walter wrote in “How Civil Wars Start.” The signs include a hollowing out of institutions, “manipulated to serve the interests of some over others.” Trump’s continued ability to manipulate institutions to serve his interests and his supporters’ interests has eroded yet another democratic norm. “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump told the conservative organization Turning Point USA when he held the office. Until the criminal justice system stops him, he will continue to believe that.

The injustice of Jim Crow and decades of extrajudicial killings long preceded Ford’s pardon of Nixon. But Jim Crow proved Americans have a high tolerance for injustice so long as it does not touch them. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II all evaded accountability and Americans stood for it. The Great Recession and our collective failure to hold the elite accountable rubbed their faces in it, made it personal.

“These days,” writes Dallek, “it’s fashionable to say the system worked after Watergate. But that’s not quite right. The system forced the president to resign his office, but it also protected the disgraced ex-president from criminal punishment. In 1974, Americans viewed the pardon as a blow to the rule of law. It’s not too late to learn from Ford’s mistake.”

But it may be our last chance. The home of the brave teeters on the brink of becoming the home of the knave and of moral cowards.

*Iran-Contra; war crimes; where do you even start?

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Following up on tristero’s post below, I thought I would offer what appears to be a reasonable and well-documented corrective to some of the left’s arguments concerning the Ukraine situation. As I have written many times, I’m against imperialistic incursions into sovereign countries no matter who’s doing it and I oppose authoritarian regimes at home and abroad.

The current Russian government is as bad as it gets in both cases. I’m not naive about the United States and have opposed its imperialistic and authoritarian behavior as well. But in this situation as bad as we are, and as bad as we have been and may be becoming, we are not in the same league. Pretending otherwise is delusional.

Anyway, here is the well documented piece offered by Dan Nexon, Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University writing at Lawyers, Guns and Money:

This is a guest post by friend of the blog, Jamie Mayerfeld. I’ve been sitting on an unfinished draft piece on the same subject: the remarkably bad DSA IC statement on Ukraine. So when I saw that Jamie had posted a good discussion of it on Facebook, I asked if I could put it up at LGM. This is an expanded, hyperlinked version of his original post. I’ve added some of my own comments.

JM: For months, Russia has been ramping up its threat to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately, some commentators on the left and right distort the facts in order to blame the crisis on the United States and NATO. One example is a dishonest January 31 statement by the International Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America.  When I say the statement is dishonest, I mean that it uses omissions, distortions, misleading assertions, and deceptive language to misrepresent reality. We don’t need to enter the minds of the authors to characterize the statement as dishonest. When you fail to take minimal steps to align your utterances with reality, you are being dishonest, no matter what internal discourse is unfolding in your head.

The statement lays blame for the crisis on “US brinksmanship,” on “US militarization and interventionism in Ukraine and Eastern Europe,” and on “NATO expansionism.”  It cites 70,000 U.S. troops long ago stationed throughout Europe as a provocation, yet never mentions that Russia has recently moved over 100,000 troops to the Ukrainian border. It does not mention the new demands issued by Moscow in conjunction with its troop movements – that NATO make a promise to “never, never, ever” let Ukraine join the alliance and that NATO withdraw military infrastructure from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and several other member states.  The statement does not mention that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 in violation of international law and specific treaties; that Russian troops or Russian-armed surrogates continue to occupy Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk; and that the war started by Russia in 2014 has caused massive devastation and suffering, including 14,000 deaths.

The statement says that Western actions include “stationing US troops in Ukraine.” The statement provides no link to this assertion, but it could be a reference to the fact that, as reported in the Washington Post, in Ukraine “approximately 200 American troops are training and advising Ukrainian forces.”  If you write a statement arguing that blame for the crisis lies in “US brinkmanship,” and in support of this view you misleadingly assert that the United States has stationed troops in Ukraine and simultaneously fail to mention that Russia has recently moved over 100,000 troops to the border of Ukraine, you are being dishonest.

The statement repeatedly accuses the United States of interventionism in Ukraine. That’s not true on any ordinary sense of the word “interventionism.” By contrast, since Ukraine gained independence in 1991, Russia has steadily intervened to undermine democracy in Ukraine. It heavily infiltrated Ukraine’s security services. It stood squarely behind the 2004 Viktor Yanukovych presidential campaign, which used fraud in an attempt to steal the election. There is reason to believe that Russian officials were behind the poisoning of the 2004 presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko (which nearly killed him). Putin encouraged Ukraine’s president Leonid Kuchma to use force to suppress pro-democracy protestors in 2004 as he later encouraged Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych to use force to suppress pro-democracy protestors in 2014.

The DSA statement refers to “the 2014 US-backed Maidan coup, which destabilized the country and resulted in the ongoing internal conflict between Kiev and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine.” This misrepresents what happened.  After Yanukovych became president in 2010, his administration grew increasingly corrupt and authoritarian. When in late 2013 he made the surprise announcement to abandon a promised EU association agreement, protests broke out because of fears that this would place Ukraine under Putin’s control and put an end to democratization efforts. Yanukovych repressed the protests with great violence, fueling the revolution that drove him from power. The revolution had broad support. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in what came to be known as the “Revolution of Dignity.” Today Ukraine has meaningful democratic elections that would be unlikely if the Maidan Revolution had not occurred and Yanukovych remained in power. It’s true that prominent U.S. government officials were sympathetic to the revolution. That doesn’t mean it was a “U.S.-backed coup.” Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and Chile 1973 were U.S.-backed coups. Ukraine 2014 was not. The DSA’s formulation is misleading and dishonest.

It is misleading to say that the Maidan Revolution “resulted in the ongoing internal conflict between Kiev and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine.” There was local participation in the eastern rebellion, but it was also encouraged and largely orchestrated by the Russian government. In the following months, the Russian government sent weapons, money, supplies, and personnel to strengthen the rebellion. The unrest would never have turned into the bloody conflict it became without Russian support. Because the eastern rebellion is now fought by Russian proxies, who are trained, funded, and coordinated by the Russian government, it is deceptive to refer to this as an “internal conflict.” Russia is using its proxies to attack Ukraine.

The statement is dishonest when it claims that NATO’s expansion violated “internationally agreed upon commitments.”  This language leads the reader to imagine a treaty or a formal written document like the Helsinki Charter, but there was nothing of the kind.  The reference is to verbal promises reportedly made by U.S. secretary of state James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during German reunification talks in 1990.

This is a familiar Moscow talking point, but there are several problems with it. Gorbachev has changed his story about what happened, sometimes denying that these guarantees were offered. It appears that Baker offered these guarantees verbally early during negotiations but then stopped. No such promises made their way into the German Reunification Treaty of 1990 or any subsequent treaty or formal agreement. There is consequently no basis for referring to “international agreed upon commitments.” Let us also note that Soviet Union, the recipient of the reported promise, no longer exists, but has been replaced by 15 successor states, three of which are in NATO because they demanded admission.  Let us further note that Baker’s reported guarantee was extorted by an unjust Soviet demand to block German reunification and keep Soviet troops in Germany against the will of the German people.

The DSA statement is misleading when it says that “NATO is a mechanism for US-led Western imperialist domination, fueling expansionism, militarization, and devastating interventions.” The main reason for NATO expansion is that the new member states have clamored to be admitted. And for many of these states – Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic states – fear of Russia is the main reason they have demanded to join NATO.  It is fear of Russia that now leads a majority of Ukrainians to support joining NATO.

The statement is misleading when it says that the U.S. has been “training far-right extremist groups with neo-Nazi sympathies such as the Azov Battalion.” The U.S. Congress has forbidden aid to the Azov Battalion, and the State Department has labeled it a “nationalist hate group.” The Branko Marcetic article in Jacobin linked by the DSA statement argues that US funding and training has ended up reaching parts of the Azov Battalion. This could be true, but the DSA statement misleadingly implies that it is U.S. policy to train the Azov Battalion.

The statement is inaccurate when it refers to “NATO’s militarization in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.” There is no NATO militarization in Ukraine. Ukraine is not part of NATO. Ukraine asked for a NATO membership action plan in 2008 and was refused.

DHN: After Germany and France rebuffed then-President Bush’s efforts to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia, the U.S. managed to secure language in the Bucharest Summit Declaration that committed NATO to future membership for the two countries:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

Western analysts did not take this commitment seriously. It seemed very unlikely that the U.S. would ever gain unanimous support for making Ukraine and Georgia member-states. Yanukovych’s victory in 2010 made the matter of Ukrainian membership effectively moot. The Ukrainian parliament passed a law in 2010 taking NATO membership off the table.

It’s not totally unreasonable, then, for Moscow to see the fall of the Yanukovych as reviving the possibility of NATO membership. But, as Jamie notes below, Moscow has only itself to blame for Ukraine’s decisive tact toward the U.S. and NATO. The current threat of invasion reflects, at least in part, the failure of Moscow’s original post-2014 Ukraine strategy.

JM: The statement is misleading when it says that “public sentiment in Ukraine remains contested” regarding NATO. It fails to mention that public sentiment in Ukraine has swung sharply in favor of joining NATO and today 64% of Ukrainians support joining NATO while 19% are opposed.

The article’s first link is to an article that falsely asserts that “Washington used Nazis to overthrow the government.” The linked article continues: “The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector.” That is misleading. Yes, Right Sector was active in the street fighting, but it didn’t fuel the 2014 revolution. The revolution was overwhelmingly fought and supported by Ukrainians who wanted to preserve democracy and had nothing to do with the far right. When the extreme right parties ran in the next election, they received less than 2% of the vote, a plunge from earlier elections. Their electoral support has remained low.

The statement is also misleading because of its failure to mention the revanchist nationalist discourse flowing from the top of the Russian government.  In 2008, Putin told George W. Bush that Ukraine is “not even a state.” Last summer Putin published a 5000-word historical essay arguing that Russia and Ukraine are “one people” and sent it to every soldier in the Russian army.

DHN: The so-called “anti-imperialist left” has a troubling pattern of failing to apply its own standards to countries that oppose U.S. foreign policy. Repeating the phrase “CIA propaganda” doesn’t change the fact that Russia is more reactionary, more kleptocratic, and more imperialist than the United States – and that Putin’s preferred outcome for Ukraine will leave it more corrupt and less democratic than if it continues its pivot toward the EU and NATO.

JM: There should be a serious conversation about what all the relevant parties should do to resolve the crisis.  I believe the way out of the crisis is dialogue rooted in values of human rights, international law, ethno-linguistic fairness, and democracy. There are positive steps Ukraine could take to reassure residents in the breakaway region who are alienated from the Kyiv government.  Meanwhile, Russia needs to drop its threats and work to restore peace in eastern Ukraine.

Statements that distort the facts are not constructive.

There is plenty to criticize about US promises (by GW Bush particularly) and NATO’s rapid expansion. But the ultimate choice as to whether to join lies with the individual countries and they had reason to do so. The US certainly didn’t require it any more than it required Finland to do it. This is a complicated situation but there is one simple fact that is very straightforward: Russia is attempting to intimidate at best and invade and occupy at worst, a sovereign democracy that wants to remain free to chart its own course. That’s wrong, I don’t care who is doing it. Any anti-imperialist should be able to see that.

If you want to go deeper into this subject, this lecture by Timothy Snyder is excellent:

A good overview from Foreign Affairs of the geopolitical issues at stake in Ukraine. The operating assumption of a lot of American coverage is that Putin has little to gain and will likely fail. This article makes the case that if Putin succeeds, which is quite possible, he stands to gain much, especially in terms of weakening European alliances, both internally and with the US.

But why is Putin invading now? Why not during Trump when he would have risked fewer consequences? My guess is that the world situation posed a much lower threat to Putin’s autocracy than it does now. Most crucially, the US was run by an incompetent president who also was, to say the least, pro-Putin. And Putin had good reason to believe that Trump, no friend to an independent Ukraine, stood a good chance to get re-elected. From Putin’s standpoint, there was no reason to waste resources on an expensive, complex invasion when a US headed by an easily manipulated idiot would eventually let him re-install a puppet.

Therefore, in addition to those advantages that the article details, an invasion benefits Putin because it will surely put enormous pressure on the little that’s left of American democracy and national cohesion. Biden will go into the midterms with (at least) two unequivocal and difficult-to-justify foreign policy disasters — the Afghanistan withdrawal and Ukraine. Yes, Biden’s defenders can argue that both had complex causes and they’re not really Biden’s doing. But I think what the average American sees — even without the ravings of America’s fascist propagandists — are debacles that point to America’s diminishing effectiveness and power. In the case of Ukraine, the debacle may hit home directly, specifically with rising prices and fears of massive war. Biden will be blamed.

Putin is risking a great deal and his people will suffer. But regardless of whether he fully succeeds, the potential consequences here in the US — a United States pushed even further to the brink of internal collapse — are greater than they will be for Russia. Putin knows that and believes it’s worth the risk.

In short, Putin had very few reasons not to threaten Ukraine right now — or to follow through with invasion. Ukraine will experience a terrible human tragedy. And both the US and Europe will be destabilized to Russia’s advantage.

<<shudder>>

Sure he did …

Junior is also doing nothing but political appearances as far as I can tell. Trump is down in Mar-a-lago obsessing over the 2020 election and auditioning people for his 2022 endorsements. Who’s minding the Trump Org. store?

Ivanka is spending her time walking on the beach down in Florida hoping that people will forget her role in Trump’s presidency and trying to figure out how to take the 5th without further destroying her reputation. His CFO Allen Weisselberg is under indictment. A bunch of the underlings are cooperating with the SDNY and are surely persona non grata at the company. Is the company just running itself? Has it always?

From Andy Slavitt:

COVID Update: We have been through many stages of the pandemic.

Now as the country & various states prepare to lay out the plan ahead, there are some things they must do.

Yesterday I participated in the rollout of California’s SMARTER plan— a plan to look ahead & prepare. But planning is especially hard when it’s hard to have any idea what form the virus may come back in. Still leaders have no choice.

It feels like a great time, with cases down, for our leaders to change the subject & move on to the one of many other challenges on the agenda. Beat the ones aren’t. They are taking the time to dig in & reset even if the public doesn’t want to hear it.

Everyone from the president to many major governors & mayors will announce new plans. Here’s what we should hope to hear.

There are several keys to a good plan. Here’s the litmus test
1-the straight story
2-commitments to action not promises about the virus
3-nimbleness
4-balance
5-including everyone

1- The public always deserves the straight story as we know it. No sugar coating required.

What is the straight story?

The challenge is the there is no way to predict further mutations, variants or how the current science will respond to changes. The virus that causes COVID-19 is very biologically fit and each version can be quite different.

When it comes to telling the public what to do next time or how virulent or mild it will be, the straight story is it’s not possible to know.

But the news isn’t all bad. In 2020 SARS-CoV-2 was a novel virus, our immune system was unfamiliar with it. Not any more. Whether by prior infection or vaccination, the lions’ share of us have some protection.

The data is extremely clear. Vaccinated people are at far far less risk & boosted people are even less risk. Even after a booster wanes for 4 months, it offers 78% more protection against being hospitalized. Even if those percentages change with new mutations, it is the most surefire form of protection.

Well-fitting masks are the most sure thing of all. When local infection rates are high, they offer us the best form against catching or spreading the virus.

2- As a result of the behavior of the virus, the second pillar of a good plan is it doesn’t try to promise what the virus will do in the case of a new variant, but rather to commit what we will do on the face of a new variant.

Commitment 1- speed: Wastewater is the quickest way a new wave will be detected and 100s of cities are rolling out wastewater detection. Genomic testing is now prevelant. We should commit to testing all vaccines, therapies & tests against any new variant in 6 weeks.

Commitment 2- a clear response to supplies, hospital capacity & the development of updated science.

Assessments of severity, contagiousness & vaccine evasion should be made for each age group, vaccination status & high risk groups should be made with clear recommendations.

3- Nimbleness will be key. If we don’t want to live as if a major dangerous variant is around the corner we need to count on public health & elected leaders to kick into gear at the first sign.

The state you are in will matter.

Florida has a 60% higher death rate than California.

Was that at a cost to the economy? No. In 2021, California’s economy grew at 11.7%, more than 50% above Florida’s rate.

Pretending the pandemic doesn’t exist isn’t a working strategy.

4- The hardest part is finding balance. As cases drop it’s tempting for political leaders to move on as quickly as possible as DeSantis has. At the same time, things must ease when hospitals aren’t full, cases are low & vaccines & other tools are available.

Each of us has strived for balance in our own lives during the pandemic. We are trying to find our equilibrium in the face of shifting facts & circumstances.

Protection vs connection.
The right balance of precautions
Being safe without being overcome with fear

Policies ahead must strive for balance. Protect those who can’t protect themselves. Strongly recommend even where you don’t require. Protect those with a harder time protecting themselves.

5- The most challenging bing about the virus is even as most people become safer, it prays on those most on the margins.

Aside from the unvaccinated, people most at risk are frail, elderly, hourly workers, patients with other illnesses, kids under 5 & immunocompromised.

Until there are answers for EVERYBODY, we are still going to see deaths & suffering, people excluded from society & more variant threats. Our scientific & policy priorities must protect those who can’t protect themselves first.

The enemy here is wily. But it’s not only a virus. It’s NewsMax anti-vax propaganda. It’s the prime time falsehood lineup at Fox News. It’s the Governor of Florida. It’s all the people trying to make this something other than a security issue that affects us all.

Now is the time for boldness. Not in prediction but in action.

We will soon get to evaluate all these plans as they appear between now & the annual state of the union.

The less our leaders relax, the more we will be able to.

Originally tweeted by Andy Slavitt 🇺🇸💉 (@ASlavitt) on February 19, 2022.

They seem to have found out who started QAnon. It’s as prosaic as you may have imagined:

“Open your eyes,” the online post began, claiming, “Many in our govt worship Satan.”

That warning, published on a freewheeling online message board in October 2017, was the beginning of the movement now known as QAnon. Paul Furber was its first apostle.

The outlandish claim made perfect sense to Mr. Furber, a South African software developer and tech journalist long fascinated with American politics and conspiracy theories, he said in an interview. He still clung to “Pizzagate,” the debunked online lie that liberal Satanists were trafficking children from a Washington restaurant. He was also among the few who understood an obscure reference in the message to “Operation Mockingbird,” an alleged C.I.A. scheme to manipulate the news media.

As the stream of messages, most signed only “Q,” grew into a sprawling conspiracy theory, the mystery surrounding their authorship became a central fascination for its followers — who was the anonymous Q?

Now two teams of forensic linguists say their analysis of the Q texts show that Mr. Furber, one of the first online commentators to call attention to the earliest messages, actually played the lead role in writing them.

Sleuths hunting for the writer behind Q have increasingly overlooked Mr. Furber and focused their speculation on another QAnon booster: Ron Watkins, who operated a website where the Q messages began appearing in 2018 and is now running for Congress in Arizona. And the scientists say they found evidence to back up those suspicions as well. Mr. Watkins appears to have taken over from Mr. Furber at the beginning of 2018. Both deny writing as Q.

The studies provide the first empirical evidence of who invented the toxic QAnon myth, and the scientists who conducted the studies said they hoped that unmasking the creators might weaken its hold over QAnon followers. Some polls indicate that millions of people still believe that Q is a top military insider whose messages have revealed that former President Trump will save the world from a cabal of “deep state” Democratic pedophiles. QAnon has been linked to scores of violent incidents, many of the attackers who stormed the Capitol last year were adherents, and the F.B.I. has labeled the movement a potential terrorist threat.

The forensic analyses have not been previously reported. Two prominent experts in such linguistic detective work who reviewed the findings for The Times called the conclusions credible and persuasive.

There must be some deep psychological reason why millions of people would buy into something so ridiculous but I’m damned if I know what it is. And to me, the motive for creating something like this is even more obscure. What in the world are these people doing?

“Great, kid! Don’t get cocky,” space smuggler Han Solo tells young Luke Skywalker.

A tweet this morning (image above) reminds me just how cocky well-researched, “well-informed” voters have no right to be.

An endless array of liberal groups will be on the streets this year urging people to vote. State and federal legislative caucuses. The state party. The governor. Every candidate. MoveOn, VoteVets, NAACP, Voto Latino, Swing Left, Indivisible, the League of Women Voters, EMILY’s List, OFA, DFA, and a dozen other groups will be out working on getting people to the polls.

“Democrats win when the voter turnout is high,” Bernie Sanders told “Face the Nation” in 2016. That’s gospel, but it’s not true, as Dave Weigel observed after the 2020 election saw the highest voter turnout since 1908:

This election debunked a story Democrats had told themselves for decades: that when more voters turn out, they win. When they saw turnout spiking, even in Republican-friendly areas, they assumed that the low-propensity voters heading to the polls were theirs. Sanders repeated it in most of his campaign speeches: “Democrats win when the voter turnout is high,” and “Republicans win when the voter turnout is low.” Beto O’Rourke said it throughout his 2018 campaign for the Senate, premised his brief presidential campaign on it, and returned to it when urging Democrats to spend money to turn Texas blue.

It’s bullshit.

There was record turnout here in North Carolina in 2020. Yet, Republicans turned out at a higher rate than Democrats. Joe Biden lost here by 1.3 points. Nevertheless, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) won reelection by 4.5 points. Perhaps because there are more registered Democrats in the state and perhaps because his Republican challenger was, um, challenged. But many Democrats farther down the ballot lost.

Getting people to the polls is not enough. What cocky, “well-informed” voters do with their ballots when they get there is critical. Too often, their well-informedness is limited to the marquee races, as it is even more so for the less-engaged.

Former state supreme court chief justice Cheri Beasley lost her reelection race in 2020 by 401 votes out of 5.5 million cast. She did not lose because more Democrats did not go to the polls. She lost because over 130,000 North Carolina voters who did go to the polls, did cast ballots, voted for president and did not vote in Beasley’s down-ballot race. 130,000-plus.

Beasley is now running for U.S. Senate.

The raft of party and independent groups above focus their redundant efforts on getting left-leaning voters off their couches, out their doors, and to the polls. What gets missed when local party committees lack get-out-the-vote programs to electioneer at early voting stations is just what their voters do with their ballots once inside the voting booth. Voters need smiling faces reminding them before they walk in that Democrats farther down and on the back of their ballots need their support too. They need sample ballots or slate cards to remind them who is who:

Even many “informed” voters stop dead in their tracks when asked if they know about down-ballot, school board or other nonpartisan races. Yes, we want voters more engaged than that, but the fact is voters dashing in to vote between work, the grocery store, and home are simply looking for reassurance before voting for candidates they don’t know. Or they won’t.

This is especially important to Democrats running down-ballot in rural areas where county committees often lack the training and resources to mount these efforts all through early voting. Two-thirds of the vote took place early in 2020.* Two-thirds of that nationwide was by-mail driven by Covid, but that pattern may not repeat in 2022. In-person early voting will be back. Party training still treats elections as if they are precinct-focused, one-day, 14-hour marathons. That turnout model has not been operative for two decades.

Don’t get cocky.

*Early voting by all methods was over 80% in N.C. Two-thirds of early voting was in-person.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.