As Soon as Trump Leaves Office, He Faces Greater Risk of Prosecution

The New York Times

As Soon as Trump Leaves Office, He Faces Greater Risk of Prosecution

William K. Rashbaum and Benjamin Weiser      November 13, 2020
Trump faces loss of constitutional covering and may have to face law enforcement from N.Y. probe.

 

President Donald Trump lost more than an election last week. When he leaves the White House in January, he will also lose the constitutional protection from prosecution afforded to a sitting president.

After Jan. 20, Trump, who has refused to concede and is fighting to hold onto his office, will be more vulnerable than ever to a pending grand jury investigation by the Manhattan district attorney into the president’s family business and its practices, as well as his taxes.

The two-year inquiry, the only known active criminal investigation of Trump, has been stalled since last fall, when the president sued to block a subpoena for his tax returns and other records, a bitter dispute that for the second time is before the U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling is expected soon.

Trump has contended that the investigation by the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, is a politically motivated fishing expedition. But if the Supreme Court rules that Vance is entitled to the records, and he uncovers possible crimes, Trump could face a reckoning with law enforcement — further inflaming political tensions and raising the startling specter of a criminal conviction, or even prison, for a former president.

“He’ll never have more protection from Vance than he has right now,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas.

“Vance has been the wild card here,” Vladeck added. “And there is very little that even a new administration that wants to let bygones be bygones could do formally to stop him.”

A lawyer for the president, Jay Sekulow, declined to comment through a spokesman.

The district attorney’s investigation of a sitting president has taken on even greater significance because Trump’s past use of his presidential power — pardoning those close to him charged with federal crimes — suggests he will make liberal use of the pardon pen on behalf of associates, family members and possibly even himself, as he claimed he has the right to do.

But his pardon power does not extend to state crimes, like the possible violations under investigation by Vance’s office.

Vance’s inquiry could take on outsized importance if the incoming Biden administration, in seeking to unify the country and avoid the appearance of retaliation against Trump, shies away from new federal investigations.

Such a move would not bind the district attorney, an independent elected state official.

Vance’s lawyers acknowledged during the court fight over the subpoena that the Constitution bars them from prosecuting a president while in office, but the district attorney has said nothing about what might happen once Trump leaves the White House.

Danny Frost, a spokesman for Vance, declined to comment. It remains unclear whether the office will determine that crimes were committed and choose to prosecute Trump or anyone in his orbit.

Vance’s actions in the coming months are likely to put him under increasing political scrutiny. Trump will leave the White House amid calls for him to face criminal charges and a drumbeat of strident criticism from the left that he has evaded any legal consequences for his conduct over the years.

On the one hand, Vance could face pressure to forsake any charges to allow the country to move forward after a contentious presidential election. On the other, the district attorney was sharply criticized for his 2012 decision not to seek an indictment against Trump’s children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., after they were accused of misleading investors in a condo-hotel project. Vance has said that after a two-year investigation, his office could not prove a crime was committed.

Some legal experts said it would send the wrong message if Vance had evidence to justify charges but decided to walk away from a prosecution of Trump.

“That would put the president above the law,” said Anne Milgram, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan and Democratic attorney general in New Jersey and a frequent critic of Trump.

And because Trump has repeatedly complained that the investigation was part of a broad partisan witch hunt, any decision to end it once the president left office could be seen as a tacit acknowledgment that such criticism was justified.

Few facts have been publicly disclosed about the course of the district attorney’s investigation or the people or potential crimes being examined because the inquiry is shielded by grand jury secrecy.

But during the legal battle over Vance’s subpoena, which sought eight years of Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns and other records from his accounting firm, prosecutors suggested in court papers that they were investigating a range of potential financial crimes. They include insurance fraud and criminal tax evasion, as well as grand larceny and scheming to defraud — which together are New York state&aposs equivalent of federal bank fraud charges.

And prosecutors argued in court that the documents they had demanded from the accounting firm, Mazars USA, represented “central evidence” for their investigation.

But they have provided little in the way of specifics beyond citing multiple news reports that detailed a range of potential criminal conduct by the president and his associates, including a series of 2018 New York Times articles that outlined possible tax crimes committed by Trump based on a detailed analysis of some of his tax return data obtained by the newspaper.

Trump, before and during his presidency, declined to publicly release his tax returns, breaking with 40 years of White House tradition, and he vigorously fought attempts by Congress and state lawmakers to obtain them.

The district attorney’s inquiry, which began in the summer of 2018, was first thought to focus on hush money payments made on behalf of Trump just days before the 2016 presidential election to an adult film star who had claimed she had an affair with him.

But the subpoena for Trump’s tax returns underscores an apparent greater focus on potential tax crimes, which tax experts, former prosecutors and defense lawyers agree can be among the toughest cases for the government to win at trial.

“The burden of proof is substantial,” said William J. Comiskey, a former longtime state prosecutor of white-collar and organized crime cases who later oversaw enforcement at New York’s Department of Taxation and Finance.

That, in large measure, is because prosecutors must prove that the defendant actually intended to evade taxes, Comiskey said.

And tax cases can be boring for jurors.

“They involve a complicated set of rules and numbers, and it’s hard for jurors — or anyone — to keep their focus through days and days of testimony,” said Amy Walsh, who handled tax cases as a federal prosecutor and later as a defense lawyer at a firm that specialized in tax matters.

The challenge in presenting such cases to a jury is compounded without a cooperating witness who can serve as a guide through complex financial strategies and records, or emails or other statements containing admissions, experts said.

“They need a smoking gun or they need someone to flip,” said Daniel J. Horwitz, who brought tax and complex fraud cases during more than eight years in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and is now a white-collar defense lawyer.

It is unknown whether Vance’s prosecutors have obtained the cooperation of any insiders for their investigation, but another consequence of Trump’s departure from office and loss of the power of the presidency could be that it would be easier for them to do so.

In addition to Vance’s inquiry, Trump also faces continuing scrutiny by New York state’s attorney general — who he has also claimed has targeted him out of partisan rancor.

In his lawsuit seeking to block the grand jury subpoena, Trump’s lawyers quoted 2018 campaign statements by Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, saying they were part of a “campaign to harass the president.”

They cited one statement, for example, in which she said Trump should worry because “we’re all closing in on him.”

Last year, James’ office opened a civil fraud investigation into Trump’s businesses. As recently as last month, Trump’s son Eric, after months of delays, was questioned under oath by the office’s lawyers.

Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan who teaches legal ethics and criminal law at New York Law School, said James’ earlier statements made it appear there was some truth to the accusation that people who were investigating Trump were “at least capitalizing on that from a political perspective.”

The only way for Vance to avoid that perception, Roiphe said, was “to have a rock-solid case with overwhelming evidence, which will help convince the public that they’re holding the former president accountable for criminal acts.”

James, in response to criticism from Trump last year, tweeted that her office “will follow the facts of any case, wherever they lead.” She added: “Make no mistake: No one is above the law, not even the President.”

One thing seems likely: Defending against a white-collar investigation, even as a former president, will be challenging, stressful and disruptive for Trump, said Daniel R. Alonso, who was Vance’s top deputy from 2010 to 2014 and is now in private practice.

“There are subpoenas and seizures and documents all over the place, as well as constant meetings with lawyers,” Alonso said, adding, “It would certainly not be pleasant for him.”

A third of our food contains a cocktail of pesticides, report finds due to fruit and veg imports

The Telegraph

A third of our food contains a cocktail of pesticides, report finds due to fruit and veg imports

Helena Horton, The Telegraph         November 12, 2020

Imported fruit and vegetables were found to contain pesticides which are banned for use in the UK - Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg
Imported fruit and vegetables were found to contain pesticides which are banned for use in the UK – Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

 

A third of our food products contain multiple harmful pesticides, a new report has found, with imported fruit and vegetables frequently containing chemicals banned for use in the UK.

More fresh produce than ever now features a  ‘cocktail’ of more than one types of pesticide, the Pesticide Action Network revealed.

Using government testing data, the campaign group ranks the fruit and vegetables that are most likely to contain multiple pesticide residues.

Strawberries top the list, with 89.92 per cent containing multiple pesticide residues, and they are closely followed by lemons, of which 83.72 per cent feature a ‘cocktail’ of pesticides.

A spokesperson for PAN said that the rise could be because of a rise in pesticide use in the UK.

He explained: “This could be due to the rise in UK pesticide use. For example, the area of UK land treated with pesticides rose by 63 per cent from 1990 to 2016 (the latest figures from the Government).

“Many crops are sprayed with pesticides far more times in a growing season than they used to be. As an example, in 1990 only 30 per cent of cereals were treated more than 4 times in a growing season. By 2016, that figure had almost doubled to 55 per cent.”

Almost a third (32 per cent) of all food tested by the government in 2019 (including meat, fish, grains and dairy) contained multiple pesticides, up from 23.5 per cent the previous year.

Fruit and vegetables contain even more; 48 per cent of those tested contained a mixture of pesticides, up from 36 per cent. Fruit is one of the worst offenders, with 67 per cent containing multiple pesticides, and with 94 per cent of oats and 27 per cent of bread contained the cocktail of chemicals.

 

Campaigning groups including the Soil Association and the Wildlife Trusts have asked the government to force farmers to curb their use of pesticides and herbicides, as they are harmful for biodiversity

The government is due to publish its National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticide, which will introduce a pesticide reduction target and increase financial and other support to British farmers to adopt non-chemical alternatives.

The PAN has said that consumers find it difficult to avoid these chemicals, as they are not mentioned on food labels.

Nick Mole, policy officer at the group, said: “Pesticide residues aren’t listed anywhere on food labels so the Dirty Dozen is the only way for British consumers to get a sense of which pesticides appear in their food.

“Most of us can’t access a fully organic diet so we hope this information will help people work out which produce to prioritise”.

Pesticides found on the produce include the insecticide Chlorpyrifos, which is banned for use in the EU but was found on produce imported into the UK. In multiple epidemiological studies, chlorpyrifos exposure during pregnancy or childhood has been linked with lower birth weight and neurological changes such as slower motor development and attention problems.

Possible human carcinogen Difenconazole is a fungicide used to control a variety of problems including blight and seed rot. It appears as a residue on the majority of the Dirty Dozen, and herbicide Glyphosate is one of the most widely used chemicals. It has been banned in countries around the world, but not yet in the UK.

A government spokesperson said part of the reason the pesticide data was going up is better testing.

They explained that it “uses the latest technology for analysis, which is constantly improving, and means that each year we can look for more pesticides at lower levels. For these reasons we expect to see a rise in the number of samples with residues detected”.

What we can learn from the Amish about coronavirus

What we can learn from the Amish about coronavirus

Alexander Nazaryan, National Correspondent                

WASHINGTON — As Americans prepare to gather for Thanksgiving, and as the approach of winter drives those gatherings indoors, a coronavirus outbreak in a rural Amish community offers a warning of what could lie ahead for other parts of the nation.

The outbreak was relatively confined — only 30 people were initially infected, of whom three were hospitalized and one died. They all lived in a rural part of Wayne County, in north central Ohio.

Although the pandemic began in large cities including New York and Seattle, the coronavirus ravaged rural communities throughout the summer. It now appears to be returning to cities, though hardly any part of the nation will be immune to the pandemic’s latest devastating wave.

Rural communities pose a concerning set of challenges, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which on Thursday published a study of the Amish outbreak. “Rural residents might be at higher risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness because, on average, they are older, have higher prevalences of underlying medical conditions, and have more limited access to health care services,” the researchers wrote. (COVID-19 is the disease caused by the coronavirus.)

Amish in Ohio. (Tony Dejak/AP)
An Amish girl in Ohio. (Tony Dejak/AP)

 

The outbreak in Wayne County affected members of the Amish community there, who shun the trappings of modern life and live apart from others. Religious services and other social gatherings are an important aspect of Amish culture, which is rooted in traditional Anabaptist values.

The outbreak took place in May. It could have been more severe in the winter months, since some viruses, like the flu, tend to live longer in colder, drier environments. That same colder weather tends to bring people indoors, where an airborne pathogen like the coronavirus is much more likely to spread than it is in outdoor spaces.

The outbreak began with religious services on May 2 and 3, and appears to have been caused by a husband and wife who reported their symptoms a little more than a week later. The husband, who had a preexisting respiratory illness, was hospitalized. Another member of the same family, who had cancer, died from COVID-19.

After the first seven infections, the Wayne County Health Department intervened, setting up a testing clinic on May 20. Thirty people received a coronavirus test at the clinic, and 23 of them tested positive for the coronavirus, for an exceptionally high positivity rate of 77 percent.

By that time, several more social functions had been held in addition to the May 2-3 religious services: church services on two consecutive Sundays (May 10 and May 17), a wedding (May 12) and a funeral (May 16).

The Wayne County Health Department office in Wooster, Ohio. (wayne-health.org)
The Wayne County Health Department office in Wooster, Ohio. (Wayne County Health Department)

 

“Amish communities emphasize strong social connections and communal activities,” the CDC researchers wrote. “The importance of religious and social gatherings and communal fellowship among the Amish has challenged efforts to prevent infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The outbreak is mostly indicative of what happens when people gather in small social situations — something millions of lockdown-weary Americans are eager to do, regardless of whether they are Amish or not. Public health officials have advised that such gatherings should be small, be held outside if possible and follow well-known precautions about masks and social distancing.

Researchers in Wayne County found that some members of the Amish community harbored “misconceptions that mask wearing might cause harm.” Such misconceptions have also found traction in communities that are not Amish.

Later, throughout the rest of May and June, 39 more people in the Amish community were tested, with 25 found to have contracted the coronavirus. That means that, several weeks after the initial cases were discovered, the rate of transmission remained high.

Researchers emphasized that public health officials need to build “trusting relationships” with Amish communities, in part because they shun modern media and may not be aware of public health campaigns disseminated in newspapers, web-based news outlets and social media networks.

Americans who are not Amish may face the exact opposite problem: an excess of information about the virus, some of it confusing and a good deal of it incorrect. Some of that information has come directly from President Trump, who has maligned masks and social distancing while touting ineffective cures and, on occasion, outright dangerous ones, including the consumption of bleach.

Why Trump Fears Leaving the White House

Why Trump Fears Leaving the White House

Timothy L. O’Brien                      

 

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Donald Trump is the luckiest man alive. Unlike almost, well, everyone, he’s been protected from the consequences of his own mistakes his entire life.

Born into a wealthy family, he was insulated from lukewarm academic prospects and serial business crack-ups by his father’s money. (“I often say that I’m a member of the lucky sperm club,” is how he put it in one of his books.) Emerging as a reality-TV star in the early 2000s, Trump discovered that fame allowed him to be as predatory as he pleased without repercussions. (“When you’re a star, they let you do it.”) And his 2016 ascent to the White House opened his eyes to the presidency’s legal armor — which he interpreted broadly and often inaccurately. (“I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”)

Although Trump has over the years juggled, among other difficulties, ho-hum grades, the threat of personal bankruptcy, sexual assault accusations, an intensive federal investigation and an impeachment, he has plowed ahead relatively unwounded and unencumbered by regret. Wealth, celebrity and the presidency have kept him buoyant. All that insulation has also meant that he hasn’t learned from his mistakes. Every personal and public reckoning has been postponed or shunted aside.

Now, however, Trump is staring at two threats that loom after he leaves the White House in January. One is financial, the other legal. Neither is entirely under his control. And both may help explain, along with his perennial inability to accept losing, why Trump won’t acknowledge that President-elect Joe Biden is going to succeed him and why he has enlisted the Republican Party to help him gaslight Americans about the outcome of the presidential election.

Trump and the patchwork of businesses he houses inside the Trump Organization are saddled with more than $1 billion in debt, which Dan Alexander of Forbes has helpfully tallied. A portion of that total has been divulged over the past few years in the president’s personal financial disclosures, on file with the Office of Government Ethics. The New York Times recently revealed that Trump has personally guaranteed at least $421 million of the debt, with more than $300 million coming due within four years.

In other words, Trump is on the hook for a lot of money that he may have to scramble to repay in a Covid-19-battered economy in which his industries — hotels, leisure, urban real estate — have been particularly pummeled. Forbes estimates his assets are worth $3.7 billion; Bloomberg News pegs them at about $3.2 billion. He’s not going broke. But if the economy continues to struggle in coming months, those valuations will be tested. And much of what Trump holds isn’t liquid, meaning he may be hard-pressed to sell assets quickly if he needs to raise funds. Among Trump’s most valuable holdings, for example, are minority stakes in two properties controlled by Vornado Realty Trust. Rumors of fire sales might further depress the value of his portfolio.

Another thing that would weaken Trump’s ability to negotiate sweetheart financial deals or forgiveness: leaving the presidency.

On the legal side of the ledger, Trump, his children and their company face aggressive investigations into their finances, accounting practices and tax payments.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is investigating Trump for possible tax fraud and falsification of business records, according to appellate court filings. In this probe, which is also examining the president’s payment of hush money to two women who allegedly had sexual encounters with him, the DA’s office is seeking eight years of Trump’s tax returns. It is also taking a look at whether Trump inflated the value of his properties and other assets in order to secure funds from lenders and investors.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has launched another investigation, also focused on whether the Trump Organization and the Trump family manipulated valuations to secure funding or engineer tax benefits. James’s probe is a civil case, which could bring hefty financial penalties against Trump but no prison time (unless she finds reasons to recast it as criminal case). Vance’s investigation is a criminal matter, however, and if the Trump crew is found guilty of felonies, prison time is on the table.

Trump’s team has fought back hard against the Vance investigation, including arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that a sitting president is immune from state criminal prosecutions. While the court rejected that notion in a landmark ruling over the summer, it would become a moot argument in any venue once Trump is no longer president.

A Trump pushed outside the legal moat that surrounds the White House becomes, for the most part, a Trump who can be sued and penalized just as any other American can. That could also give fresh traction to the sexual assault cases against him.

It’s unclear how aggressive law enforcement officials in the Biden administration will be toward Trump. They could resurrect some of the obstruction charges that have gone fallow since former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended his probe. On the other hand, the political firestorm that could ignite might persuade Biden to hold back.

What’s clear is that Trump’s money and freedom are in play. As he comes to grips with losing the 2020 election, he will continue responding ferociously and unpredictably, like a man who for 74 years has been accustomed to getting away with almost anything.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Timothy L. O’Brien is a senior columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.

Bye Bye Donnie , From Australia !

BrooklynDad_Defiant! on Twitter
“HOLY SHIT!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 The end of this video destroyed me. Thank you, Australia! 
BrooklynDad_Defiant! on Twitter
From     Christiaan Van Vuuren

Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them to do it

Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them to do it

Matthew R Sanderson, Professor of Sociology and Professor of Geography and Geospatial Sciences, Kansas State University, Jacob A. Miller, PhD Student in Sociology, Kansas State University, and Burke Griggs, Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University

<span class="caption">A center-pivot sprinkler with precision application drop nozzles irrigates cotton in Texas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Center_pivot_sprinkler_with_low_energy_precision_application_drop_nozzles_irrigates_cotton_growing_in_wheat_residue_used_as_a_cover_crop._(24486394864).jpg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:USDA NRCS/Wikipedia">USDA NRCS/Wikipedia</a></span>
A center-pivot sprinkler with precision application drop nozzles irrigates cotton in Texas. USDA NRCS/Wipedia

 

A slow-moving crisis threatens the U.S. Central Plains, which grow a quarter of the nation’s crops. Underground, the region’s lifeblood – water – is disappearing, placing one of the world’s major food-producing regions at risk.

The Ogallala-High Plains Aquifer is one of the world’s largest groundwater sources, extending from South Dakota down through the Texas Panhandle across portions of eight states. Its water supports US$35 billion in crop production each year.

But farmers are pulling water out of the Ogallala faster than rain and snow can recharge it. Between 1900 and 2008 they drained some 89 trillion gallons from the aquifer – equivalent to two-thirds of Lake Erie. Depletion is threatening drinking water supplies and undermining local communities already struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic, the opioid crisis, hospital closures, soaring farm loses and rising suicide rates.

Map showing changing Ogallala Aquifer water levels over the past century
Map showing changing Ogallala Aquifer water levels over the past century

In Kansas, “Day Zero” – the day wells run dry – has arrived for about 30% of the aquifer. Within 50 years, the entire aquifer is expected be 70% depleted.

Some observers blame this situation on periodic drought. Others point to farmers, since irrigation accounts for 90% of Ogallala groundwater withdrawals. But our research, which focuses on social and legal aspects of water use in agricultural communities, shows that farmers are draining the Ogallala because state and federal policies encourage them to do it.

A production treadmill

At first glance, farmers on the Plains appear to be doing well in 2020. Crop production increased this year. Corn, the largest crop in the U.S., had a near-record year, and farm incomes increased by 5.7% over 2019.

But those figures hide massive government payments to farmers. Federal subsidies increased by a remarkable 65% this year, totaling $37.2 billion. This sum includes money for lost exports from escalating trade wars, as well as COVID-19-related relief payments. Corn prices were too low to cover the cost of growing it this year, with federal subsidies making up the difference.

Our research finds that subsidies put farmers on a treadmill, working harder to produce more while draining the resource that supports their livelihood. Government payments create a vicious cycle of overproduction that intensifies water use. Subsidies encourage farmers to expand and buy expensive equipment to irrigate larger areas.

Irrigation pump in field
Irrigation pump in field

 

With low market prices for many crops, production does not cover expenses on most farms. To stay afloat, many farmers buy or lease more acres. Growing larger amounts floods the market, further reducing crop prices and farm incomes. Subsidies support this cycle.

Few benefit, especially small and midsized operations. In a 2019 study of the region’s 234 counties from 1980 to 2010, we found that larger irrigated acreage failed to increase incomes or improve education or health outcomes for residents.

Focus on policy, not farmers

Four decades of federal, state and local conservation efforts have mainly targeted individual farmers, providing ways for them to voluntarily reduce water use or adopt more water-efficient technologies.

While these initiatives are important, they haven’t stemmed the aquifer’s decline. In our view, what the Ogallala Aquifer region really needs is policy change.

A lot can be done at the federal level, but the first principle should be “do no harm.” Whenever federal agencies have tried to regulate groundwater, the backlash has been swift and intense, with farm states’ congressional representatives repudiating federal jurisdiction over groundwater.

Nor should Congress propose to eliminate agricultural subsidies, as some environmental organizations and free-market advocates have proposed. Given the thin margins of farming and longstanding political realities, federal support is simply part of modern production agriculture.

With these cautions in mind, three initiatives could help ease pressure on farmers to keep expanding production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers to allow environmentally sensitive farmland to lie fallow for at least 10 years. With new provisions, the program could reduce water use by prohibiting expansion of irrigated acreage, permanently retiring marginal lands and linking subsidies to production of less water-intensive crops.

These initiatives could be implemented through the federal farm bill, which also sets funding levels for nonfarm subsidies such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. SNAP payments, which increase needy families’ food budgets, are an important tool for addressing poverty. Increasing these payments and adding financial assistance to local communities could offset lower tax revenues that result from from farming less acreage.

Amending federal farm credit rates could also slow the treadmill. Generous terms promote borrowing for irrigation equipment; to pay that debt, borrowers farm more land. Offering lower rates for equipment that reduces water use and withholding loans for standard, wasteful equipment could nudge farmers toward conservation.

The most powerful tool is the tax code. Currently, farmers receive deductions for declining groundwater levels and can write off depreciation on irrigation equipment. Replacing these perks with a tax credit for stabilizing groundwater and substituting a depreciation schedule favoring more efficient irrigation equipment could provide strong incentives to conserve water.

Rewriting state water laws

Water rights are mostly determined by state law, so reforming state water policies is crucial. Case law demonstrates that simply owning water rights does not grant the legal right to waste water. For more than a century courts have upheld state restrictions on waste, with rulings that allow for adaptation by modifying the definitions of “beneficial use” and “waste” over time.

Using these precedents, state water agencies could designate thirsty crops, such as rice, cotton or corn, as wasteful in certain regions. Regulations preventing unreasonable water use are not unconstitutional.

Allowing farmers some flexibility will maximize profits, as long as they stabilize overall water use. If they irrigate less – or not at all – in years with low market prices, rules could allow more irrigation in better years. Ultimately, many farmers – and their bankers – are willing to exchange lower annual yields for a longer water supply.

As our research has shown, the vast majority of farmers in the region want to save groundwater. They will need help from policymakers to do it. Forty years is long enough to learn that the Ogallala Aquifer’s decline is not driven by weather or by individual farmers’ preferences. Depletion is a structural problem embedded in agricultural policies. Groundwater depletion is a policy choice made by federal, state and local officials.

Stephen Lauer and Vivian Aranda-Hughes, former doctoral students at Kansas State University, contributed to several of the studies cited in this article.

Team Trump’s Four Seasons Fiasco will be tough to forget

Team Trump’s Four Seasons Fiasco will be tough to forget

The important parts of a press conference are usually its participants and their comments. Once in a while, though, the location is what matters.
Rudy Giuliani

Lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks at a press conference after appearing in court to call for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against video game giant Activision by former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega outside Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2014. Noriega sued the gaming giant in July 2014 claiming his likeness was used without permission in the company’s 2012 “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” game and that he was portrayed as a murderer and enemy of the state. In court, Giuliani noted that he could not sue for the numerous portrayals of himself in books and film and argued that Noriega should not able to sue Activision Blizzard Inc. for his portrayal. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)Damian Dovarganes / AP

Ordinarily, the important parts of a press conference are its participants and their comments. But every once in a while, the location of a press conference is what stands out.

On Saturday, for example, Donald Trump’s political/legal operation announced that Rudy Giuliani would deliver remarks at the Four Seasons in Philadelphia to discuss his latest schemes. Indeed, the president tweeted to his followers, “Lawyers News Conference Four Seasons, Philadelphia. 11:00 a.m.”

To be sure, the Republican’s lawyer did, in fact, appear before the cameras and peddle some strange conspiracy theories. They were, however, easily overlooked — not just because Giuliani’s claims were foolish, but also because of the unusual venue for his nonsense.

Those who saw Trump’s tweet and assumed the former mayor would appear at an upscale hotel in Philly were mistaken. Giuliani instead spoke at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

What began five years ago with the made-for-TV announcement of Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions from the escalator of his ritzy Manhattan high-rise ended Saturday with his aging lawyer shouting conspiracy theories and vowing lawsuits in a Northeast Philadelphia parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium.

 

If it appeared in fiction, it’d be dismissed as implausible. Alas, it was all too real: Giuliani addressed reporters from a landscaping company’s parking lot, alongside Fantasy Island Adult Books and Novelties and across the street from the Delaware Valley Cremation Center.

I can only assume the writers of “Veep” were jealous they hadn’t come up with this first.

Those who assumed that the press conference would be at a hotel were reminded otherwise. “To clarify, President Trump’s news conference will NOT be held at Four Seasons Hotel Philadelphia,” the hotel’s management announced on Twitter. “It will be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping — no relation with the hotel.”

Multiple Trump staffers “could not account for” the decision, and to no one’s surprise, there’s been no public admission of responsibility.

Which is a shame, really, because this has quickly become the stuff of legend.

“Literally anywhere else would have conveyed more legitimacy on the enterprise,” a Washington Post report noted, “but legitimacy did not seem a high priority for one of the last battles of a lost war.”

Even If Joe Biden Wins, He Will Govern in Donald Trump’s America

The President's supporters in Grand Rapids, Mich., ignored the chill at the final rally of his 2020 campaign.The President’s supporters in Grand Rapids, Mich., ignored the chill at the final rally of his 2020 campaign. Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIME

The car horns blared as Joe Biden took the stage just before 1 a.m.—not to proclaim victory, but to urge his supporters not to lose hope, no matter what President Donald Trump might say. “We believe we are on track to win this election,” the former Vice President told the crowd in Wilmington, Del., on Nov. 4. “It ain’t over until every vote is counted. Keep the faith, guys.”

As the new day dawned and dragged on, it increasingly looked as though Biden was right. Having flipped Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin, Biden appeared to be inching toward victory. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina remained too close to call as of the evening of Nov. 4. Independent forecasters believed Biden was likely to eke out the requisite 270 electoral votes when all the votes were counted, over the President’s noisy objections.

Even with the White House nearing their grasp, Biden’s supporters could be forgiven if they found it hard to keep the faith. The 2020 election did not go according to plan for the Democrats. It was a far cry from the sweeping repudiation of Trump that the polls had forecast and liberals craved. After all the outrage and activism, a projected $14 billion spent and millions more votes this time than last, Trump’s term is ending the way it began: with an election once again teetering on a knife’s edge, and a nation entrenched in stalemate, torn between two realities, two orientations, two sets of facts.

TIME illustration

Even if he has lost, a President who trampled the rule of law for four years was on pace to collect millions more votes this time than last. And though they braced for a bloodbath, the congressional Republicans who enabled him instead notched unexpected gains. The GOP appeared likely to retain the majority in the Senate and cut into the Democratic House majority, defying the polls and fundraising deficits. Republicans held onto states such as Florida, South Carolina, Ohio and Iowa that Democrats had hoped to flip. They cut into Democrats’ margins with nonwhite voters, made gains with Latinos in South Florida and the Rio Grande Valley, and racked up huge turnout among non-college-educated white people, while halting what many conservatives feared was an inexorable slide in the suburbs.

Amid record turnout, Biden seemed sure to win the popular vote, possibly with an outright majority—a resounding statement by any standard. But many Democrats expected more. They believed that voters had soured on Trump and his party, that his mishandling of the pandemic and divisive style had alienated a wide swath of the electorate, that a new political era was about to be born and Trumpism banished to history’s dustbin. They awoke to a different reality. “Democrats always argued, ‘If more people voted, we would win,’” says GOP strategist Brad Todd, co-author of The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics. “Well, guess what? Everybody voted, and it didn’t help the Democrats. There is a multi-racial, working-class ethos that is animating the new Republican coalition.”

As the votes were tallied into the following day, the candidates’ positions fell along predictable lines. The challenger encouraged the core exercise of democracy to continue, while the President tried to stop it. Biden’s camp urged patience; Trump voiced unfounded suspicions about fraud and cast unwarranted doubt on still incoming returns. Despite widespread fears of chaos, the vote was mostly peaceful and devoid of major irregularities. The President’s baseless declaration of victory was a sign that the test he has posed to American institutions isn’t over yet.

If Biden emerges as the winner, his achievement—toppling an incumbent who manipulated the levers of government to try to gain an advantage, and made voter suppression a core campaign strategy—shouldn’t be discounted. As the vote count continued, his campaign projected confidence and noted it had always said the race would be close. But even if he becomes the next President, it seems clear that he will be governing Trump’s America: a nation unpersuaded by “Kumbaya” calls for unity and compassion, determined instead to burrow ever deeper into mutual antagonism. Win or lose, Trump has engineered a lasting tectonic shift in the American political landscape, fomenting a level of anger, resentment and suspicion that will not be easy for his successor to surmount.

Whoever takes the oath of office on Jan. 20 will be tested by a historic set of challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic has just entered its worst phase yet, rampaging across the country virtually unchecked. The economic fallout from the virus continues to worsen without new federal aid. Trump has given few hints of what his next months in office may hold, but few expect them to be smooth. An urgent set of policy problems, from climate change to health care to the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, may run into the wall of divided government. “If in fact Biden wins, it’s still the case that an openly bigoted aspiring authoritarian not only won the presidency but captured the complete loyalty of one of two major political parties, and—but for a once-in-a-century pandemic—he might have been re-elected,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a non-partisan legal group. “If that doesn’t tell you that something is completely rotten in the foundations of our democracy, I don’t know what would.”

The story of American politics in the 21st century has been one of escalating polarization and gridlock, a nihilistic feedback loop that has made the country all but impossible to lead. For years, a chaos-ridden nation has waited to deliver its verdict on Trump’s unorthodox presidency. But this is 2020—the year when up was down and real was fake, the year of the plague, the year of the unexpected: of course it would not be that easy. Both sides hoped for a knockout blow, a landslide that would forever settle the question of which version of America prevails. Instead, our identity crisis continues.

Steven Lewandowski views returns outside Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., on Nov. 3.Steven Lewandowski views returns outside Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., on Nov. 3.  Tony Luong for TIME

Violetta Smith holds portrait balloons of Harris and Biden at an outdoor election-night event in Wilmington, Del.Violetta Smith holds portrait balloons of Harris and Biden at an outdoor election-night event in Wilmington, Del. Tony Luong for TIME

The campaign unfolded over a year so convulsive that the third presidential impeachment in history now seems a distant memory. COVID-19 upended Americans’ lives and drained their bank accounts. Millions of people, from all walks of life, took to the streets to protest police violence. The West Coast’s sky was blotted by fire for weeks, while the East was battered by a record hurricane season. And yet, against this backdrop of chaos there was an odd political stasis: Trump’s standing in polls remained about where it had been when Biden first entered the race—a sign, Democrats believed, that Trump had little chance of persuading an electorate that had long since rejected him.

Not that he particularly tried. Strategists of both parties believe the campaign was winnable for the incumbent if he had embraced a more traditional strategy and style—something his entire presidency has shown him to be uninterested in doing. Discarding the advice of the political professionals, Trump insisted on rerunning the 2016 election, down to the leaked emails and antiestablishment rhetoric. He made little alteration to his bull-in-a-china-shop attitude, even though the hell-scape he raged against was now one that unfolded on his watch. “COVID certainly didn’t help, but this election was about the President’s performance over the last four years, not just the last nine months,” says Brendan Buck, a former top adviser to the GOP ex–House Speaker Paul Ryan. “It was four years of bumbling his way through every issue, alienating everyone who didn’t agree with him, and never being able to use the tools he had for any particular good.”

As Trump careened from one outrage to another, Biden limited his campaign to theatrically cautious appearances: masked speeches to small, distanced groups; “drive-in” rallies where attendees sat in their cars. The longtime pol known for his garrulousness and gaffes stuck unerringly to the script. Many lines in his final television ads were identical to what he said when he launched his campaign a year and a half before. Unusually for a general-election candidate, Biden actually saw the public’s estimation of him improve over the course of the campaign. Only about 10% of the ads aired by Biden’s campaign and allies were attacks on Trump, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. “The message has been incredibly consistent: an implicit contrast with Trump’s character flaws and their consequences for real people,” says Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson, a veteran of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “Trump is self-absorbed and chaotic; Biden is the opposite: in it for others, stable, the antidote to everything Trump represents.” But Democrats now wonder if Biden, like Clinton before him, put too much emphasis on character and not enough on kitchen-table issues, and whether his decision not to campaign more in person was a missed opportunity.

Biden was buoyed by a vast grassroots movement: the Trump era has seen a frenzy of political action, with thousands of newly motivated activists leading local political groups. Middle-class women gathered their Facebook friends to drink wine and make canvassing phone calls; disaffected Republicans waged a multimillion-dollar campaign to mobilize their peers. A weak fundraiser who ended the primary essentially broke, Biden shattered campaign-finance records—his campaign hauled in $952 million, dwarfing the incumbent by more than $300 million—as liberals showered donations on him and the party’s congressional candidates.

It's not my place or Donald Trump's place to declare who's won this election. That's the decision of the American people. — Joe Biden, at the Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., just after midnight on Nov. 4.“It’s not my place or Donald Trump’s place to declare who’s won this election. That’s the decision of the American people.” — Joe Biden, at the Chase Center in Wilmington, Del., just after midnight on Nov. 4. Angela Weiss—AFP/Getty Images

We'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. — Donald Trump, in the East Room of the White House early on the morning of Nov. 4.“We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.” — Donald Trump, in the East Room of the White House early on the morning of Nov. 4. Peter van Agtmael—Magnum Photos for TIME

Trump had his own army of enthusiastic supporters. His massive rallies—held at cavernous airport hangars and sports arenas with no social distancing and limited mask wearing—were not just aimed at flattering Trump’s ego or creating images of enthusiastic throngs for local and national media. Republican National Committee (RNC) teams perched outside each event, registering new voters and creating a database of supporters. “People sometimes pooh-pooh the rallies and say there’s really no campaign structural benefit to them,” says Brian Ballard, a Republican lobbyist with close ties to Trump. But they allowed the campaign to “utilize the crowds that not only go, but the crowds that registered to go, and sometimes that number is five times the amount of folks that actually show up.”

Trump also kept up his field-organizing program through the summer, while Biden’s team hung back out of safety concerns. The joint field program between the RNC and the Trump campaign boasted 2.6 million volunteers, according to figures provided by the RNC. They made more than 182 million voter contacts—more than five times what they did in 2016—and added nearly 174,000 new GOP voters to the rolls. Early voter-registration figures in Florida, North Carolina and other states showed that Republicans had “essentially neutralized what had been a Democrat advantage” by mobilizing new voters, says John Podesta, who chaired Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential bid.

Democrats underestimated the Trump tribe’s breadth to their detriment. “I think you miss some of the Trump quotient [in polls] because these folks come out of the woodwork, and they’re out of the woods and waters of South Carolina,” says former GOP Representative Mark Sanford, a Trump critic whose Charleston-area district Republicans took back on Nov. 3. Despite putting more than $100 million behind Senate candidate Jaime Harrison, Democrats fell short of defeating incumbent Lindsey Graham by double digits. “These Trump rallies and Trump parades and all those kinds of things, they don’t strike me as the type that would be answering a polling call,” Sanford says.

Having made the decision to forgo traditional field organizing, Biden’s campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, instead turned the campaign into what may be the largest digital-organizing machine in American political history. She “took a risk in investing as much in digital acquisition as she did,” says Patrick Stevenson, chief mobilization officer at the Democratic National Committee. “You’re putting down $1 million in April that you’re expecting to show back up as $5 million in August.” By September, the digital operation was printing money. Digital organizers recruited more than 200,000 volunteers and deployed them on hundreds of millions of text messages and phone calls. But the result raises questions about whether this virtual juggernaut could really substitute for old-fashioned face-to-face campaigning.

The different style of the campaigns—and of their supporters—was echoed in their Pennsylvania offices.The different style of the campaigns—and of their supporters—was echoed in their Pennsylvania offices. Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIME

David Lawrence, a Republican supporter, in Erie on Nov. 3.David Lawrence, a Republican supporter, in Erie on Nov. 3. Lorenzo Meloni—Magnum Photos for TIME

What comes next is anybody’s guess. There are 2½ months until the next Inauguration. A lame-duck President with the world’s biggest platform, an even larger ego, and millions of supporters who internalized his rhetoric about election “rigging” could stir a lot of trouble on his way out of town. So much, including the odds of violence erupting, depends on Trump’s rhetoric in the days and weeks to come. Then there is the question whether he might tap the federal treasury on the way out—his companies and family have pocketed millions in government funds during his time in office—or seek to pardon himself and his allies. “His impulse might be to abuse executive authority, and my hope and prayer is that those around him would restrain him, though they haven’t been very successful so far,” says Tom Ridge, the GOP former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security Secretary who endorsed Biden. “I have never felt that this President has ever truly respected the Constitution, the rule of law and the freedoms embodied in our democratic process.”

If Biden does take office, he will confront a set of challenges like few Presidents before him. He has laid out a comprehensive—and expensive—federal plan to combat the COVID-19 pandemic that includes promoting mask wearing, ramping up testing and the production of protective equipment, improving information transparency and scientific reopening guidance, and creating and distributing a vaccine. Democrats have previously proposed trillions in new spending to help individuals, businesses and local governments and shore up the health care system—needs that will only grow in the coming months.

The coronavirus is far from the only problem Biden and the Democrats have promised to solve. A former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden would likely devote great attention to restoring America’s traditional trade and security alliances. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said the congressional agenda for 2021 would include a major infrastructure bill and an expansion of health care. Liberals will be pushing for fast action on police reform, climate and immigration. Democrats have been remarkably unified since Biden effectively sewed up the nomination in March, but the party’s left wing has signaled it will not be so deferential once victory is in hand. Progressive groups have been circulating lists of potential Biden nominees they would (and would not) accept for key Administration posts.

Reflecting the exhaustion on both sides of the aisle, a Trump fan rests on a table at an election-night party in Las Vegas.Reflecting the exhaustion on both sides of the aisle, a Trump fan rests on a table at an election-night party in Las Vegas. John Locher—AP

Four years of trump have left Democrats with few worries about overreading their mandate. “If we win the election, we have a mandate to make change, period,” says Guy Cecil, president of the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA. But if Republicans retain their hold on the Senate, prospects for major legislation will be dim. Republicans had won 48 seats as of the evening of Nov. 4, with at least one January runoff in Georgia that could decide the balance of power in the chamber.

Whatever the ultimate result, the election exposed the shaky edifice of U.S. democracy. From the antiquated governing institutions that increasingly reward minoritarian rule, to the badly wounded norms surrounding the independent administration of justice, to the flimsy protections of supposedly universal suffrage, to the nation’s balky and underfunded election infrastructure, Trump’s presidency has laid bare the weaknesses in our system. But initiatives to reform campaign finance, government ethics and voting rights seem fated to run aground in a divided Washington.

A round of harsh recriminations seems certain for the Democrats, who had assumed that their coalition of minorities, college-educated white people and young voters was destined only to grow as a share of the electorate, while the post-Trump GOP would be doomed to rely on a dwindling population of older, white, non-college-educated voters. Instead, Republicans appeared to have increased their share of the Black and Latino vote. Democrats failed to topple any GOP incumbents in Texas and lost a congressional seat in New Mexico. Their hopes for a surge of college-educated suburban voters also fell short, suggesting that the GOP’s attacks on liberal ideology proved effective in places like Oklahoma City and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Democrats need to ask themselves why someone like Joe Biden is an endangered species in the party,” says Justin Gest, a political scientist at George Mason University and author of The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality. “Why is the party of experts, urban intellectuals and woke social-movement activists not producing candidates who can mobilize people in Montana, Ohio, North Carolina? It just doesn’t look like a national party.”

Republicans, even if they lose the presidency, are likely to feel emboldened to continue pursuing Trump’s themes. “Donald Trump isn’t going away,” says Buck, the former Ryan adviser. “He’s still going to be the leader of the party and the biggest voice, and he’ll at least flirt with the idea of running again. It’s going to continue to be a populist, grievance-fueled party.”

Some elections mark a breakthrough—the emergence of a new American majority after years of conflict and gridlock. A landslide like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s in 1932 or Ronald Reagan’s in 1980 would have signaled a nation ready to move on from its cultural and ideological cleavages and seek some way forward together. Instead it looks more bitterly split than ever. “There was a substantial political divide in this country before Donald Trump was elected,” Ridge says. “His presidency has exacerbated that divide to an almost unimaginable degree. But that did not begin with Donald Trump, and it will not end with him, either.” —With reporting by Charlotte Alter, Brian Bennett, Tessa BerensonAbby Vesoulis and Lissandra Villa/Washington; Anna Purna Kambhampaty/Honolulu; and Mariah Espada, Alejandro de la Garza and Simmone Shah/New York

This appears in the November 16, 2020 issue of TIME.

Trump’s huge vote total breaks my heart. I recognize this America and I wish I did not.

Trump’s huge vote total breaks my heart. I recognize this America and I wish I did not.

Michael J. Stern, Opinion columnist        November 5, 2020

This is going to be a scorched-earth column, so buckle up.

Yes, former Vice President Joe Biden might squeak out a victory. But even if he does, we’ve been slapped with the heartbreaking reality that nearly half our country voted to reelect President Donald Trump after spending four years watching him spew unbridled bigotry, engage in blatant corruption, and tell so many lies you’d need a magnifying glass to read The Washington Post’s running list of false and misleading claims.

My best friend just called in disgust to say he did not recognize this country. Unfortunately, I do. It’s the same country that built itself largely on the backs of slaves who had their most basic human rights stolen and whose descendants, more than 150 years after emancipation, still carry the weight of the chains that held them down.

It’s the same country that closed its eyes to Matthew Shepard, beaten and broken and tied to a fence in rural Wyoming, where he was left to die … because he was gay.

And it’s the same country where you can see countless cellphone videos of people telling Latino Americans to speak English or “stay in Mexico” or “go back” to where they came from.

Our better and worse angels

True, slightly more than half the country voted to repudiate Trump. But that’s little consolation because many of those who chose Trump did not do so out of a simple difference of political opinion on which reasonable minds can differ. We can tease out each strand of the strangle knot, but in the end this election was a contest between our better and worse angels.

We were always imperfect but America was great, in part, because of what we aspired to be: “Land of the Free,” where hard work and equality meant everyone had a shot at earning a piece of the pie. We were born a mosaic of diversity and we celebrated it.

But that’s not what some in Trump’s America want to see when they look through the window of history. They want to see their own reflection. And despite Trump’s success in leading a 68 million-person chorus of “Make America Great Again,” it’s just a TV jingle.

Protest in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, 2020.
Protest in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, 2020.

 

None of the policies enacted under the Trump-branded theme song has done anything to actually make America great. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, fighting the promise of universal health care, lethal mismanagement of a pandemic, use of the Justice Department for political gain and a personal financial windfall — these are the cornerstones of a presidency best characterized by golf and failure. While half of us were repelled, the other half voted for more.

Face up to it, Democrats: We’re a center left democracy hijacked by Trump and Republicans

People need to stop acting perplexed about how the polls could be so wrong — how they could show Biden up by 7 points in Michigan and still end up with a race almost evenly split. I never again want to hear the phrase “margin of error.” Trump knows what happened and most of us do, too, if we’re willing to say it out loud.

A lot of people are buying the bigotry and division Trump is selling — they just don’t want their family, friends and neighbors to know it, so they don’t tell the pollsters. They’re scarfing down a Big Mac in their car, in the dark corner of a McDonald’s parking lot, before heading home and pretending to enjoy a plate of baked chicken and broccoli.

Fictitious world marketed by Fox News

Perhaps the most dangerous implication of this election is the willingness of millions of Americans to reject unpleasant realities and accept a fictitious world created by an autocrat and marketed by co-conspirator Fox News. They don’t want to believe that almost a quarter-million people just like them could be alive one minute and body bagged the next. And so, they choose to believe Trump’s “rounding the corner” announcement claiming he has conquered the coronavirus pandemic even as the infection rate is hitting record highs — even as my partner called me two hours ago to say he’s got a fever, has been vomiting and is too sick to stay at the hospital where he works.

Hard 2020 lessons: Democrats counted on money and Hispanic voters to deliver a blue wave. They didn’t.

If things weren’t bad enough, Trump pronounced Tuesday night that he had won the election and demanded an end to vote counting in states where he is ahead, while simultaneously insisting that the count continue in states where he is trailing. Trump then threatened to take his plan to steal the election to the Supreme Court, where he appointed a third of the judges and expects a warm reception. He has already filed lawsuits in Michigan and Pennsylvania (to stop the vote count), demanded a recount in Wisconsin and “claimed” to have won several states before they were decided.

I can’t believe we’re here again. I can’t believe that nearly half my fellow Americans tried to reelect a man so singularly focused on satisfying himself, he’d bite his mother’s breast if sweeter milk caught his eye.

When all is said and done, Trump may be defeated in a close call. But I fear Trumpism, and the ugliness it reflects, is here to stay.

Michael J. Stern, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, was a federal prosecutor for 25 years in Detroit and Los Angeles.

Democrats Look at Trump Voters and Wonder, ‘What the Hell Is Your Problem?’

Democrats Look at Trump Voters and Wonder, ‘What the Hell Is Your Problem?’

By John F. Harris               

 

In an odd way, Donald Trump’s political performance in 2020 — an election he looks on track to narrowly lose — is far more impressive than his performance in 2016, the election he narrowly won.

Unquestionably, his 2020 results are more disturbing, for anyone who does not share his enthusiasm for the politics of personal and institutional contempt. It has never been more clear the large numbers of people who do share that enthusiasm, or at a minimum have no overriding objections. This, in turn, has never been more unsettling in the implications.

If the president manages through some combination of good luck and legal challenges to win a second term, ash-in-mouth Democrats and their sympathizers will ask Trump voters in a spirit of recrimination, “What the hell is your problem?”

If Joe Biden hangs on to his narrow lead, his backers can ask the same question of Trump voters in a spirit of reflection, and possibly even genuine curiosity. Democratic disdain for Trump is natural; disdain for his voters is more problematic. But there is no logical way to scorn Trump without being somewhat scornful of voters who cheered his ascent to power and were eager for him to keep it.

The Trump victory in 2016 was blurry, and therefore relatively easy for people to distance themselves from larger meaning. Hillary Clinton, the logic went, had singular vulnerabilities. There was Russian interference. Lots of Trump voters likely didn’t think he was going to win but were eager to use their votes to send a message of protest to the establishment of both parties. Plenty of people regarded his persona as a flamboyant put-on, and assumed he would embrace moderation and restraint in the event he was invested with real responsibility.

The 2020 results remain blurry but the central question on the table in this election was vividly clear. Is Trump’s norm-shattering governing style OK with you? Former president Barack Obama framed it sharply in at the summer convention: “That’s what’s at stake right now—our democracy.”

Here is an uncomfortable reality for Obama and anyone who agreed with his words. Trump is on track to grow his popular vote total by millions of people, not one of whom could have been under any illusions about what they were voting for. Unlike 2016, there is no way to dismiss this as a flukish accident of democracy, or an illegitimate manipulation of democracy. His support was a robust expression of democracy.

More discomfort: This was a bravura political achievement. Strip it—just for a moment only—from moral context, from the fact that crowded, maskless rallies during a pandemic are flagrantly irresponsible, that many of his words were remorselessly demagogic. In the midst of the coronavirus catastrophe, just weeks after that virus left him in the hospital needing supplemental oxygen, in the face of bad polls and mostly hostile news coverage, Trump raced across the country and came close to winning. He is a movement politician who, with his back to the wall, often demonstrates remarkable moves.

It is not possible, of course, to separate Trump’s political performance from moral context. The argument of the past four years hasn’t been about, say, marginal tax rates in which people may accuse their opponents of greed but in the end can easily split the difference. It’s not even like arguments about abortion rights, in which the differences aren’t easily split and the different sides often view each other with mutual incomprehension. But even in that case, adversaries are in violent opposition to each other’s views, not in violent opposition to the body of institutions, rules and prevailing ethical customs that cumulatively create a democratic culture.

Trump is in opposition to that. There are hundreds of examples but no need to dig through the archives. His overnight appearance at the White House early Wednesday was a fine example. He alleged “fraud” without evidence and asserted, with millions of votes in key states still not counted, “Frankly, we did win this election.”

The origins of Trump’s appeal stretch back decades, in the long-term decline of trust in most American institutions, from government, to Big Business, to the media. In recent years, in part through purposeful political marketing in which politicians and media figures on both ends of the ideological spectrum reap lavish rewards of publicity and money for extreme politics, mistrust has been refined into pure contempt. It was this environment that made Trump possible, and in which he prospered.

But a narrow victory for either side does not fundamentally alter the country’s political balance. This means that the environment that produced Trump-style politics will continue even if Trump is not president. It also means that the opposition party to any president will in many circumstances perceive implacable opposition as being in their interest. In such a dynamic it is better to keep policy disputes as weapons and shields in the ongoing ideological and partisan war than it is to resolve them.

For four years, Democrats have been caught in what might be thought of as the contempt conundrum. The only principled response to Trump’s shredding of norms and defiance of accountability is steadfast opposition. This, at times, can goad them into the same politics of insult and indignation in which Trump thrives. It was no accident that the opportunity to register a verdict on the Trump years inspired surges of new voting on both sides of the question.

The conditions that created Trump will end only when one party or the other achieves a decisive advantage with voters that carries them to unchallenged majority status across Washington and deep into the states. Democrats thought this might be the year that happened. Some 67 million Trump voters—several million less than Biden won but several million more than Trump got four years ago—said not so fast.

When Democrats ask Trump voters “What is your problem?” it is another way of asking themselves, “What is our problem?”