Eliana Willis

Joe Biden has defeated Donald Trump. Millions across the country are applauding the downfall of a president who has been mendacious in his public communications, loathsome in his personal conduct, and utterly inept in his handling of a pandemic that has killed 230,000 Americans.Amid the celebration, however, there should be nagging fear. Biden ran largely on the idea that he will be a return to the normalcy of the Obama years. But if he governs as a “normal” Democrat, it won’t be long before we have to deal with the next Donald Trump.The real Trump buried himself in blunders and couldn’t deliver on campaign promises to voters. Instead of saving manufacturing jobs and protecting, as he pledged, “the jobs, wages and wellbeing of American workers before any other consideration”, the Trump administration eliminated paid overtime rules, created tax cuts for the rich and lost 740,000 manufacturing positions this year alone.Yet a different Donald Trump might have handled the coronavirus pandemic competently and launched an ambitious infrastructure and jobs program capable of improving the lives of millions of people. Without actually challenging oligarchs and big business interests, this alternate-reality Trump might have been able to effectively marry economic populism with xenophobia, the same formula that has propelled rightwing authoritarians to power elsewhere in the world. A different Trump might have even managed to win over enough voters who typically vote for Democrats, including black and brown voters, to expand his base into one capable of winning the popular vote.As bad as the last four years have been, we’ve been lucky to get the actual – bumbling – Trump, as opposed to a more effective politician, an American Narendra Modi or Jair Bolsonaro.We’re not preordained to go the route of rightwing populism, of course. Countries like Denmark, Portugal and Spain have cemented left-of-center governments in recent years and held the right at bay. But to prevent the rise of another Trump, liberals are going to have to start thinking more seriously about what gave us Trump to begin with.Trump was not just a product of latent racism and sexism. The economic hypocrisy of recent Democratic administrations alienated part of the Democrats’ traditional blue-collar voting base, not to mention the millions of unaffiliated voters who simply opted not to vote for either Clinton or Trump in 2016. It’s these voters, not the wealthy suburbanites which many in the party’s establishment cater to, that still hold the keys to American politics.Biden won simply because of how unpopular Trump isBiden won simply because of how unpopular Trump is. Democrats will need to offer Americans something different – a type of politics that can activate irregular working-class voters and deliver on bread-and-butter economic issues – if they’re to create a stable and responsive government.Progressives have to challenge the centrist policies of past Democratic administrations. But they will also have to resist narrow identitarianism within their own ranks. There can be no mass progressive politics if we insist on only talking to those who already agree with us. By staying siloed in the progressive bubble we implicitly reject the possibility of organizing workers of all races, rural and urban alike, behind a program of Medicare for All, good union jobs and a Green New Deal.Biden campaigned differently than Clinton did. He embraced a slightly more populist message and campaigned in areas the former secretary of state neglected. But the thrust of his proposed method of governance is closer to the normal of the Clinton and Obama administrations than the one advocated by Biden’s erstwhile, more leftwing allies, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders.Under Bill Clinton, that “normalcy” saw much of the manufacturing base of the United States gutted, mass incarceration accelerated and essential welfare supports eliminated. Under Barack Obama, millions of people were deported, establishment figures like John Podesta were given White House posts, and even during a Great Recession there was no serious attempt to break with decades of failed economic policies.When Hillary Clinton told voters that she had been in politics for 30 years, there were plenty of reasons for voters to be skeptical, given what happened to their lives and communities during 30 years of stagnant wages and soaring inequality. By deciding to play the role of populist, Trump was able to win over just enough of them to sneak into the White House.He squandered whatever mandate he had. If Joe Biden does the same, the next rightwing president might not. More

[embedded content]
The US attorney general, William Barr, has authorized federal prosecutors to begin investigating “substantial allegations” of voter irregularities across the country in a stark break with longstanding practice and despite a lack of evidence of any major fraud having been committed.
The intervention of Barr, who has frequently been accused of politicizing the DoJ, comes as Donald Trump refuses to concede defeat and promotes a number of legally meritless lawsuits aimed at casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Joe Biden was confirmed as president-elect on Saturday after he won the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania.
Barr wrote on Monday to US attorneys, giving them the green light to pursue “substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities” before the results of the presidential election in their jurisdictions are certified. As Barr himself admits in his letter, such a move by federal prosecutors to intervene in the thick of an election has traditionally been frowned upon, with the view being that investigations into possible fraud should only be carried out after the race is completed.
But Barr, who was appointed by Trump in February 2019, pours scorn on such an approach, denouncing it as a “passive and delayed enforcement approach”.
The highly contentious action, which was first reported by Associated Press, was greeted with delight by Trump supporters but with skepticism from lawyers and election experts. Within hours of the news, the New York Times reported that the justice department official overseeing voter fraud investigations, Richard Pilger, had resigned from his position.
“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” Pilger reportedly told colleagues in an email, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.”
Doubts about Barr’s intentions were heightened after it was reported that a few hours before the letter to prosecutors was disclosed, he met with Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader.
McConnell has so far remained in lockstep with Trump. Earlier on Monday he expressed support for the defeated president on the floor of the chamber. He said: “President Trump is 100% within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options.”
As news of Barr’s memo circulated, social media lit up. “Here we go,” tweeted Stephanie Cutter, Barack Obama’s deputy campaign manager in the 2012 presidential race after the Barr memo was revealed.
Mimi Rocha, a former assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York, decried the memo, saying it “negates DoJ policy re not getting involved til after election certified. Not good.” She added though that there were no “clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities”, as cited by Barr, and urged federal lawyers to “remain true to your oaths”.
The Barr memo is the culmination of months of cumulative controversy in which the attorney general has proven himself willing to imperil the reputation for impartiality of the justice department by following Trump into his election-fraud rabbit hole.
In particular, he has doubled down on Trump’s baseless claims about rampant fraud in mail-in voting. That included lying on television about an indictment for an electoral crime in Texas that his department later had to concede never took place.
Barr’s intervention emerged shortly after the Trump campaign filed another longshot lawsuit in Pennsylvania, attempting to block the state from certifying its election results. It was the calling of the Pennsylvania contest on Saturday by media organisations in favor of Biden, who remains about 45,000 votes ahead of Trump in the state, that tipped the Democratic candidate over the 270 electoral college mark and awarded him the presidency.
The new Pennsylvania lawsuit rehashes many of the already disproven claims that have failed to succeed so far in federal and state courts. The case hangs on the claim – posited without any new hard evidence – that voters were treated differently depending on whether they voted by mail or in person.
The legal action also claims that almost 700,000 mail-in and absentee ballots were counted in Philadelphia and Allegheny county, both Democratic strongholds, without observers present. That complaint has already been repeatedly debunked.
Josh Shapiro, the Democratic attorney general of Pennsylvania, dismissed the lawsuit as meritless. “I am confident Pennsylvania law will be upheld and the will of the people of the Commonwealth will be respected in this election,” he said. More

Housing secretary Ben Carson and chief of staff Mark Meadows, who both attended event, have tested positive for virusIt was supposed to be a scene of celebration. Continue reading… More

As the president refuses to concede defeat, there has been no shortage of people keen to tell him: ‘You’re fired’“Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!” This is how Donald Trump advised the failed Democratic candidate for president in 2017, but it seems he has been unable to heed the same advice. Related: ‘Make America rake again’: Four Seasons Total Landscaping cashes in on Trump fiasco Continue reading… More

None of this is to say that Trumpism will disappear, but he was a master at selling illusions – and few have his skillsetLiberal and conservative commentators are fast converging on a prediction: Donald Trump might be gone, but Trumpism is here to stay. Of course, the former are anxious that a smooth, smart authoritarian will pick up where Trump left off and make the US join the rightwing populist international of autocrats like Modi, Erdogan and Orbán; the latter are hoping for a Republican party somehow dedicated to an “American worker” who we ought to imagine as a conservative nationalist. Both sides overestimate Trumpism and – still, after all these years – underestimate Trump himself.Conventional wisdom has it that figures like Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, Missouri senator Josh Hawley, or even a TV personality like Tucker Carlson are auditioning to claim the Trumpist movement. There is little doubt that the movement is potent: after five years, plenty of citizens deeply identify as Trumpists; and a whole folklore has been built around Maga. The Republican party has every reason to deploy this movement against the Biden administration and combine Mitch McConnell’s Machiavellianism from above with more or less manipulated grass-roots pressure from below, strung along by Fox and talk radio which will never forget that polarization is big business. After all, such a dual strategy – Republican establishment plus Tea party – already served to sabotage crucial parts of the Obama presidency. Continue reading… More

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the popular vote with a record number of votes. That is worth celebratingSo, it wasn’t a landslide, but it will be a decisive victory after all. With an estimated 306 electoral college votes, Biden will even be two votes above Trump’s “biggest electoral college victory since Reagan” in 2016.But seriously, it will be weird to have a president again who will live in our reality rather than his own. I wonder how long we will enjoy it. People forget fast, and media and pundits even faster. How long before we will all complain about how “boring” and “predictable” Biden is, two of the characteristics that helped him win the election. Continue reading… More

The president-elect can learn from Franklin D Roosevelt’s response to Herbert HooverPresidential transitions are never easy, especially when they involve an incumbent president defeated at the polls. But this time the transition occurs in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. The incumbent refuses to acknowledge the vote as a rejection of his policies and has a visceral dislike for the president-elect, who he accuses of dishonesty and dismisses as too frail to assume the duties of office. He tars his successor as a socialist, an advocate of policies that will put the country on the road to ruin.The year was 1932, and the transition from Herbert Hoover to Franklin D Roosevelt occurred in the midst of an unparalleled economic depression and banking crisis. The outgoing president, Hoover, had an intense aversion to his successor, whose incapacity of concern was not any lack of mental acuity, but rather Roosevelt’s partial paralysis. He called FDR a “chameleon on plaid” and accused him of dealing “from the bottom of the deck”. In his campaign and subsequently, Hoover insinuated that FDR’s socialistic tendencies would put the country on a “march to Moscow”. Continue reading… More