Itemoids

GOP

Trump’s Inevitability Problem

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 07 › trump-2024-election-lead-lincoln-dinner › 674877

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

There’s Donald Trump, and there’s everyone else. At the moment, the former president of the United States appears unbeatable in the 2024 Republican primary race. But perhaps inevitable is a trickier word than it seems.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Ukraine after the deluge The misunderstood reason millions of Americans stopped going to church One more COVID summer?

It’s Iowa Time

What happens when you say the unsayable? Former Congressman (and current GOP presidential contender) Will Hurd found out the hard way Friday night. “Donald Trump is not running for president to make America great again,” Hurd told the Republican masses inside the Iowa Events Center. “Donald Trump is running to stay out of prison.”

The boos rained down, and, rest assured, they were mighty.

Hurd was one of 13 candidates who had trekked to Des Moines for the Iowa GOP’s cattle-call event known as the Lincoln Dinner. Prospective voters and donors gathered roughly six months ahead of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus to remind themselves of their importance, which may or may not be waning. The night was ostensibly a chance for Iowans to listen to a range of electability pitches. Former Vice President Mike Pence told the room he would reinstate a ban on transgender personnel in the U.S. military and endorsed the idea of a national abortion restriction after 15 weeks. The businessman Vivek Ramaswamy rattled off a list of government agencies he would shut down: the FBI, CDC, DOE, ATF, and IRS. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boasted that he had refused to let his state “descend into a Faucian dystopia” during the pandemic and called for term limits in Congress. (One dinner attendee, the 89-year-old Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley—currently serving his eighth term—probably didn’t like that one.)

The whole spectacle—including the after-parties where you could snap selfies with candidates or, at the DeSantis event, knock down a pyramid of Bud Light cans—felt like a study in performative competition.

Each speaker was given a democratizing 10-minute time limit to deliver his or her remarks (poor Asa Hutchinson suffered the embarrassment of having his mic cut off), but all were merely warm-up acts for the headliner. When Trump finally took the stage, he seemed tired, bored, and annoyed with this obligation. A lack of teleprompters meant that Trump spent the bulk of his 10 minutes looking down at printed notes, only occasionally making eye contact with the audience or ad-libbing. He got a few chuckles out of his old pandemic go-to, the “China virus.” He notably referred to his White House predecessor as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The only newish development was that Ron “DeSanctimonious” had been shortened to the easier-to-say but far more confusing “DeSanctis.”

Trump is not running as an incumbent, but it sure seems that way. A New York Times/Siena College poll out today shows Trump with a 37-point lead over DeSantis, who was the only other candidate able to crack double digits among respondents. Did January 6 matter? Do the indictments matter? Does anything remotely negative about Trump matter? Not yet. Trump remains the Katie Ledecky of the 2024 contest—so far ahead of the pack that it feels wrong to even call it a race. Trump knows it too. He may not even bother to show up at the first Republican debate next month, in Milwaukee.

These factors would suggest that the Republican Party is delaying the inevitable, that the GOP base earnestly wants to “Make America great again” … again. And yet, the various campaign buses keep on rolling across Iowa and New Hampshire. The noble attempts at retail politics and down-home charm continue apace. Pence strategically name-dropped the Iowa chain Pizza Ranch. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina tweeted a video of himself fist-pumping after sinking a bag in cornhole. (“If God made you a man, you play sports against men,” Scott said onstage Friday night.) Expect much more of this at the Iowa State Fair, which kicks off in just over a week.

I was in the press pen at the Lincoln Dinner on Friday night, and I spent the weekend in Iowa speaking with various Republicans about all things 2024. I came away with the sense that a not-insignificant portion of conservatives is willing to accept Trump’s dominance, but that many are still quietly hoping for a deus ex machina to avoid a 2020 rematch. The still-rolling indictments don’t seem to have much effect—too many Republican voters argue that the legal cases against Trump are politically motivated. He shows no signs of giving up his nickname, “Teflon Don.”

The fact that Trump is running from a stance of inevitability is paradoxically both emboldening and hindering. Trump doesn’t seem to want to actually be president (as Hurd suggested). Maybe he just wants to prove he can win again. Will that motivational gap matter to voters? Will anything matter?

Related:

The revenge of the normal Republicans The secret presidential-campaign dress code

Today’s News

A state judge in Georgia rejected Trump’s bid to derail the investigation into his attempts to overturn election results in the state. A Russian missile strike on Kryvyi Rih, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s hometown, killed at least six people, including a 10-year-old girl and her mother, and wounded dozens more. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for Sunday’s suicide bombing of a political rally in Pakistan that killed at least 54 people.

Dispatches

The Wonder Reader: In 1980, the film critic Roger Ebert argued that movies were better in theaters. The recent success of Barbenheimer is evidence—and points to the ongoing magic of communal experiences, Isabel Fattal writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Getty / The Atlantic

The Myopia Generation

By Sarah Zhang

A decade into her optometry career, Marina Su began noticing something unusual about the kids in her New York City practice. More of them were requiring glasses, and at younger and younger ages. Many of these kids had parents who had perfect vision and who were baffled by the decline in their children’s eyesight. Frankly, Su couldn’t explain it either.

In optometry school, she had been taught—as American textbooks had been teaching for decades—that nearsightedness, or myopia, is a genetic condition. Having one parent with myopia doubles the odds that a kid will need glasses. Having two parents with myopia quintuples them. Over the years, she did indeed diagnose lots of nearsighted kids with nearsighted parents. These parents, she told me, would sigh in recognition: Oh no, not them too. But something was changing.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

What “fitboxing” is missing “Ukrainian is my native language, but I had to learn it.” The weird, fragmented world of social media after Twitter America is drowning in packages.

Culture Break

Joanne Imperio / The Atlantic

Read. I Wish I Could Remember,” a new poem by Michael White.

It’s just a dream, / I’d tell myself. But dreams are how / we travel through the dark”

Watch. Biopics tend to be “functional to a fault,” better at showcasing an actor than creating challenging art—but these 20 movies manage to break the mold, David Sims writes.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

Last week, the podcast host Jack Wagner went viral on Twitter (er, X) with a prompt: “serious question: if the grateful dead is not the greatest band of all time from the united states then who is?” Thousands of responses poured in: The Beach Boys, The Allman Brothers Band, and The Velvet Underground kept surfacing among the many retorts (as did Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty; I don’t think you can really count either, because even though they play with backing bands, they’re solo artists.) I’m a Deadhead, but the strongest contender I saw was Creedence Clearwater Revival. CCR’s Willy and the Poor Boys remains one of the greatest rock records ever. You likely know “Fortunate Son” and “Down on the Corner,” but the album also features an awesome cover of “The Midnight Special”—I love the moment when the whole band kicks in just after the one-minute mark.

— John

Nicole Blackwood contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

How Jason Aldean Explains Donald Trump (And Vice Versa)

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2023 › 07 › jason-aldean-donald-trump › 674842

The commercial success of the country star Jason Aldean’s ode to small-town vigilantism helps explain the persistence of Donald Trump’s grip on red America.  

Aldean’s combative new song, “Try That in a Small Town,” offers a musical riff on the same core message that Trump has articulated since his entry into politics: that America as conservatives understand it is under such extraordinary assault from the multicultural, urbanized modern left that any means necessary is justified to repel the threat.

In Aldean’s lyrics and the video he made of his song, those extraordinary means revolve around threats of vigilante force to hold the line against what he portrays as crime and chaos overrunning big cities. In Trump’s political message, those means are his systematic shattering of national norms and potentially laws in order to “make America great again.”

[Read: Trump’s rhetoric of white nostalgia]

Like Trump, Aldean draws on the pervasive anxiety among Republican base voters that their values are being marginalized in a changing America of multiplying cultural and racial diversity. Each man sends the message that extreme measures, even extending to violence, are required to prevent that displacement.

“Even for down-home mainstream conservative voters … this idea that we have to have a cultural counterrevolution has taken hold,” Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told me. “The fact that country music is a channel for that isn’t at all surprising.”

Aldean’s belligerent ballad, whose downloads increased more than tenfold after critics denounced it, follows a tradition of country songs pushing back against challenges to America’s status quo. That resistance was expressed in such earlier landmarks as Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.,” a staple at Republican rallies since its 1984 release. Aldean even more directly channels Merle Haggard’s 1970 country smash, which warned that those opposing the Vietnam War and “runnin’ down my country” would see, as the title proclaimed, “the fightin’ side of me.” (Earlier, Haggard expressed similar ideas in his 1969 hit, Okie From Muskogee, which celebrated small-town America, where “we don’t burn our draft cards down on Main Street.”)

Haggard’s songs (to his later ambivalence) became anthems for conservatives during Richard Nixon’s presidency, as did Greenwood’s during Ronald Reagan’s. That timing was no coincidence: In both periods, those leaders defined the GOP largely in opposition to social changes roiling the country. This is another such moment: Trump is centering his appeal on portraying himself as the last line of defense between his supporters and an array of shadowy forces—including “globalist elites,” the “deep state,” and violent urban minorities and undocumented immigrants—that allegedly threaten them.

Aldean, though a staunch Trump supporter, is a performer, not a politician; his song expresses an attitude, not a program. Yet both Aldean and Trump are tapping the widespread belief among conservative white Christians, especially those in the small towns Aldean mythologizes, that they are the real victims of bias in a society inexorably growing more diverse, secular, and urban.

In various national polls since Trump’s first election, in 2016, nine in 10 Republicans have said that Christianity in the U.S. is under assault; as many as three-fourths have agreed that bias against white people is now as big a problem as discrimination against minorities; and about seven in 10 have agreed that society punishes men just for acting like men and that white men are now the group most discriminated against in American society.

The belief that Trump shares those concerns, and is committed to addressing them, has always keyed his connection to the Republican electorate. It has led GOP voters to rally around him each time he has done or said something seemingly indefensible—a process that now appears to be repeating even with the January 6 insurrection.

In a national survey released yesterday by Bright Line Watch—a collaborative of political scientists studying threats to American democracy—60 percent of Republicans (compared with only one-third of independents and one-sixth of Democrats) described the January 6 riot as legitimate political protest. Only a little more than one in 10 Republicans said that Trump committed a crime in his actions on January 6 or during his broader campaign to overturn the 2020 presidential election result.

The revisionist whitewashing of January 6 among conservatives helps explain why Aldean, without any apparent sense of contradiction or irony, can center his song on violent fantasies of “good ol’ boys, raised up right” delivering punishment to people who “cuss out a cop” or “stomp on the flag.” Trump supporters, many of whom would likely fit Aldean’s description of “good ol’ boys,” did precisely those things when they stormed the Capitol in 2021. (A January 6 rioter from Arkansas, for instance, was sentenced this week to 52 months in prison for assaulting a cop with a flag.) Yet Aldean pairs those lyrics with images not of the insurrection but of shadowy protesters rampaging through city streets.

By ignoring the January 6 attack while stressing the left-wing violence that sometimes erupted alongside the massive racial-justice protests following the 2020 murder of George Floyd, Aldean, like Trump, is making a clear statement about whom he believes the law is meant to protect and whom it is designed to suppress. The video visually underscores that message because it was filmed outside a Tennessee courthouse where a young Black man was lynched in 1927. Aldean has said he was unaware of the connection, and he's denied any racist intent in the song. But as the Vanderbilt University historian Nicole Hemmer wrote for CNN.com last week, “Whether he admits it or not, both Aldean’s song and the courthouse where a teen boy was murdered serve as a reminder that historically, appeals to so-called law and order often rely just as much on White vigilantism as they do on formal legal procedures.”

Aldean’s song, above all, captures the sense of siege solidifying on the right. It reflects in popular culture the same militancy in the GOP base that has encouraged Republican leaders across the country to adopt more aggressive tactics against Democrats and liberal interests on virtually every front since Trump’s defeat in 2020.

A Republican legislative majority in Tennessee, for instance, expelled two young Black Democratic state representatives, and a GOP majority in Montana censured a transgender Democratic state representative and barred her from the floor. Republican-controlled states are advancing incendiary policies that might have been considered unimaginable even a few years ago, like the program by the Texas state government to deter migrants by installing razor wire along the border and floating buoys in the Rio Grande. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy raised the possibility of impeaching Joe Biden. The boycott of Bud Light for simply partnering on a promotional project with a transgender influencer represents another front in this broad counterrevolution on the right. In his campaign, Trump is promising a further escalation: He says if reelected, he will mobilize federal power in unprecedented ways to deliver what he has called “retribution” for conservatives against blue targets, for instance, by sending the National Guard into Democratic-run cities to fight crime, pursuing a massive deportation program of undocumented immigrants, and openly deploying the Justice Department against his political opponents.

Brown, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed out that even as Republicans at both the state and national levels push this bristling agenda, they view themselves not as launching a culture war but as responding to one waged against them by liberals in the media, academia, big corporations, and advocacy groups. The dominant view among Republicans, he said, is that “we’re trying to run a defensive action here. We are not aggressing; we are being aggressed upon.”

That fear of being displaced in an evolving America has become the most powerful force energizing the GOP electorate—what I’ve called “the coalition of restoration.” From the start of his political career, Trump has targeted that feeling with his promise to “make America great again. Aldean likewise looks back to find his vision of America’s future, defending his song at one concert as an expression of his desire to see America “restored to what it once was, before all this bullshit started happening to us.”

[Read: How working-class white voters became the GOP’s foundation]

As Brown noted, the 2024 GOP presidential race has become a competition over who is most committed to fighting the left to excavate that lost America. Aldean’s song and video help explain why. He has written a battle march for the deepening cold war between the nation’s diverging red and blue blocs. In his telling, like Trump’s, traditionally conservative white Americans are being menaced by social forces that would erase their way of life. For blue America, the process Aldean is describing represents a long-overdue renegotiation as previously marginalized groups such as racial minorities and the LGBTQ community demand more influence and inclusion. In red America, he’s describing an existential threat that demands unconditional resistance.

Most Republicans, polls show, are responding to that threat by uniting again behind Trump in the 2024 nomination race, despite the credible criminal charges accumulating against him. But the real message of “Try That in a Small Town” is that whatever happens to Trump personally, most voters in the Republican coalition are virtually certain to continue demanding leaders who are, like Aldean’s “good ol’ boys raised up right,” itching for a fight against all that they believe endangers their world.

How Contradictions Power Barbie

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 07 › barbie-movie-feminism-marketing › 674796

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

After a turbo-charged, months-long marketing campaign, Barbie was finally released in theaters this week. In between dance routines and jokes, the movie invites us to ask questions about feminism and the lines between commerce and art.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Biden declares war on the cult of efficiency. The real mystery of Bud Light People just want to lose weight.

All the Sides of Barbie

Over the years, Barbie has been many things: a symbol of unattainable beauty standards, a career woman, an embodiment of the male gaze, an inspiration for young girls. This summer, Barbie is the place to be. My afternoon screening of the movie in Brooklyn yesterday was sold out, packed with delighted people wearing pink. To understand what’s driving the movie’s ubiquity this summer, and to discuss how the film handles feminist themes, I called Shirley Li, a culture writer at The Atlantic.

The following contains light spoilers for Barbie.

Lora Kelley: I’ve seen Barbie everywhere this summer—on billboards, at a pop-up in Manhattan, blanketing my Google search-result pages in pink. Is this kind of marketing campaign normal for a summer blockbuster? Or is there something special about this project?

Shirley Li: The movie is a big swing for Mattel. I think they’ve poured everything they can into its marketing campaign. Mattel has been struggling with the Barbie brand for several years and was looking for a way to turn around Barbie’s cultural relevance. And Barbie happens to be very fun to market.

At the same time, this kind of marketing push, at least for big summer tentpoles, was par for the course before the pandemic. The Hollywood strikes are a factor here as well: The Barbie cast packed in as much promotion as they could on the press tour before the SAG-AFTRA strike began last week.

Lora: Is Barbie a piece of brand marketing for Mattel, or is it a work of art by Greta Gerwig?

Shirley: It’s kind of brand marketing for Mattel—and it’s also a work of art from the writer-director Greta Gerwig. That’s one of the reasons the film is interesting to me. It’s very self-aware of the fact that it’s a movie about a product. But it argues for Barbie as not just a product, but a protagonist—someone who deserves her own heroine’s journey, and whose function is to represent a brand but also represent the ideal of womanhood to young girls. All of that gets wrapped up into this film.

The film invites you to consider all the sides of Barbie. You can’t talk about yourself without talking about the things that influenced you, and often, those are things that you have consumed or bought. We often think the things that make us us are the things we play with, consume, watch, and listen to. We can become very possessive of those things. At the same time, we’re not completely composed of them.

Lora: I’m curious about your thoughts on whether and to what extent this is a feminist film.

Shirley: One of the Mattel executives said that Barbie is “not a feminist movie.” Margot Robbie later responded to the sentiment like, What do you mean? I think it’s a feminist film, and I think it certainly tries to be nuanced about what feminism means. Early on, the Barbies believe that they live in a feminist world. But their idea of feminism is flawed. They live in this world in which Kens are second-class citizens. There isn’t gender parity. The film wrestles with this glossy idea of feminism that a lot of young girls were sold. Being told that you can be anything is inspirational, but that’s not necessarily truthful. That debate is what the film invites you to think about, but at the same time, it’s squarely feminist.

Lora: You wrote a great article today about America Ferrera’s monologue, which was a striking moment in the film. How did a serious monologue about the challenges and contradictions of womanhood fit into a movie that also has a lot of dance routines and fun costumes and sparkles? Did Gerwig succeed in reconciling those energies?

Shirley: I think it was successful, because I don’t think a monologue that sobering would land the way it needed to land in a more sobering film. If the film wasn’t so high-energy and colorful and bombastic, then that monologue would have come off as didactic.

What Greta Gerwig has done is put this speech inside a Trojan horse of a film. In a meta way, that’s true to the experience that America Ferrera’s character is talking about. For women, in order to succeed, you have to constantly negotiate your power. Like, you have to play up this idea of not being too aggressive or threatening, so you have to giggle a little bit. You keep having to conform to these expectations of how women should act. Something that made me love that monologue—even if the things the character was saying were kind of obvious—is that there’s no grand takeaway.

Lora: I have to ask, where did “Barbenheimer” come from? Why is everyone talking about seeing Barbie and Oppenheimer back to back?

Shirley: The simplest way I can put it is that Barbenheimer is a phenomenon born out of the fact that two movies that seem diametrically opposed to each other in terms of style and function and perceived target audience are coming out at the same time. One is a grim, somber biopic about the father of the atomic bomb that is three hours long and comes from the quintessentially-boy-movie director Christopher Nolan. It has all these weighty considerations of morality, human nature, and hubris. And the other film, at least the way it’s marketed, is this glittery, poppy celebration of fun directed by Greta Gerwig, whose films have very much been about girlhood and womanhood.

Oppenheimer seems to be for those who want a film about reality, and Barbie seems to be for people who just want fantasy. I think that’s why people have had so much fun mashing them up and making memes about them. For all the dichotomies that these two films represent, though, I think they also share a lot of themes. They ask existential questions: How do we exchange ideas? What prevents us from becoming the best versions of ourselves? What makes us human?

Related:

The surprising key to understanding the Barbie film What’s the matter with Barbie?

Today’s News

Former President Donald Trump’s classified-documents trial will begin in May 2024, despite his request to delay proceedings until after the presidential election. James Barber, who was on Alabama’s death row, was executed after the Supreme Court refused to block his execution following a series of botched lethal injections in the state.   Police began making arrests related to a video that went viral this week depicting two women in Manipur, India, being sexually assaulted and forced to parade naked through the streets amid ethnic clashes in May.

Evening Read

Photograph by Ian Allen for The Atlantic

The Real Lesson From The Making of the Atomic Bomb

By Charlie Warzel

Doom lurks in every nook and cranny of Richard Rhodes’s home office. A framed photograph of three men in military fatigues hangs above his desk. They’re tightening straps on what first appear to be two water heaters but are, in fact, thermonuclear weapons. Resting against a nearby wall is a black-and-white print depicting the first billionth of a second after the detonation of an atomic bomb: a thousand-foot-tall ghostly amoeba. And above us, dangling from the ceiling like the sword of Damocles, is a plastic model of the Hindenburg.

Depending on how you choose to look at it, Rhodes’s office is either a shrine to awe-inspiring technological progress or a harsh reminder of its power to incinerate us all in the blink of an eye. Today, it feels like the nexus of our cultural and technological universes. Rhodes is the 86-year-old author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, a Pulitzer Prize–winning book that has become a kind of holy text for a certain type of AI researcher—namely, the type who believes their creations might have the power to kill us all.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The gesture that encapsulates remote-work life The GOP’s lurch toward extremism comes for the border.

Culture Break

Universal Pictures

Read. Crook Manifesto, Colson Whitehead’s newly released sequel to Harlem Shuffle, is both powered and limited by its most absorbing characteristic.

Watch. For the non-Barbie fans here, there’s always Oppenheimer, which is more than just a creation myth about the atomic bomb.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

I remember being a kid and watching a movie about the deep sea on 3-D in an IMAX theater in Chicago. We strapped on those nerd glasses and felt ourselves surrounded by fish and reefs. I took that experience for granted. So I was surprised to learn that there are only 19 movie theaters in the United States where you can see Oppenheimer in IMAX 70-millimeter. The Washington Post estimated that people in large swathes of the country are more than a three-hour drive from the nearest theater screening the movie in this format. Of course, the movie can be watched in other formats in various movie theaters. But Christopher Nolan told the Associated Press that when he shoots films such as Oppenheimer on IMAX 70MM film, “the sharpness and the clarity and the depth of the image is unparalleled.”

— Lora

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

The Wild-Card Candidates

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 07 › presidential-candidates-2024-election-rfk-jr › 674783

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

A Trump-Biden rematch is inevitable in 2024, even though polling has shown that most Americans wish it weren’t (and even though the former president is possibly facing a third indictment). But the 2024 field is still quite crowded—and the contenders can tell us a few things about America’s politics and anxieties.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Gary Shteyngart: “I watched Russian television for five days straight.” Being anxious or sad does not make you mentally ill. Climate collapse could happen fast.

A Race for Silver

Today, the long-shot Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified in a hearing organized by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. If the GOP using a Democratic presidential contender as an empathetic witness in a hearing sounds strange to you, you’re not alone. But the choice makes more sense when you understand how RFK Jr.’s conspiracy-theory-laden platform speaks to many voters, and how scores of right-wingers are promoting his candidacy.

RFK Jr.’s role in today’s hearing underscores his unique place in contemporary American politics, my colleague John Hendrickson, who recently profiled him, told me today. RFK Jr. is not the only 2024 contender who, despite low odds for winning the presidential race itself, has managed to hold on to something of a spotlight—or at least to elicit some fear from the competition. Below is a short guide to some of these candidates.

The first MAGA Democrat has real support.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign was initially written off by some as a stunt. But Kennedy’s support is not a joke, John noted last month: “So far, Kennedy is polling in the double digits against Biden, sometimes as high as 20 percent.”

Kennedy is “tapping into something burrowed deep in the national psyche,” John writes: “Large numbers of Americans don’t merely scoff at experts and institutions; they loathe them … Scroll through social media and count how many times you see the phrase Burn it down.” And Kennedy is promising to do just that. On the campaign trail, he speaks about collusion among state, corporate, media, and pharmaceutical powers. He has said that if elected, he would “gut” agencies like the FDA and order the Justice Department to investigate medical journals for “lying to the public.”

Across the GOP, it’s a race for second place.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis continues to lag far behind Trump in polling because “his basic theory of the campaign is turning out to be wrong,” my colleague Helen Lewis wrote yesterday. “He promised to run as Trump plus an attention span, and instead he is running as Trump minus jokes. The result is ugly enough for the Republican base to recoil.”

DeSantis has long believed that “mainstream journalists are the enemy and should be treated with undisguised contempt,” Helen writes. But his decision earlier this week to sit down for an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper suggests that he finally understands he needs the mainstream media’s support if he hopes to bolster his candidacy.

I called my colleague David A. Graham, who keeps up our 2024 election “cheat sheet,” to see how he’s thinking about the non-Trump GOP contenders right now. “Tim Scott and Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy are all in this interesting place where you could imagine them busting out of the pack to either match or supplant DeSantis as the leading non-Trump contender, but it’s hard right now to imagine any of them mounting a serious challenge to Trump,” David told me. In the end, he said, “it seems like this is all just a vigorous race for silver.”

And the third-party problem is coming into view.

The centrist group No Labels, whose founding chairman is the former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, is preparing to back a third-party presidential ticket in 2024—“to the growing alarm of Democrats,” my colleague Russell Berman wrote earlier this week. (So far, the group has refused to discuss who its nominees might be.)

No Label leaders say they’re hoping to protect voters from a rematch between Trump and Biden. “But Democrats and more than a few Republicans fear that such a plan might ensure exactly what Lieberman insists he would hate to see: Trump’s return to the White House,” Russell notes. No Labels says it will decide whether to nominate a ticket in the spring of 2024. The group might be holding out for two unlikely scenarios, Russell explains: that Biden will change his mind about running for reelection, or that “Trump’s legal woes will finally persuade Republican voters to look elsewhere.”

Meanwhile, a long-shot candidate is inspiring outsize fear in the White House. The academic, civil-rights activist, and Green Party candidate Cornel West will probably not win, my colleague Mark Leibovich writes today, but West has Democrats worried all the same. “West inhabits a particular category of Democratic angst, the likes of which only the words Green Party presidential candidate can elicit,” Mark explains; Jill Stein, as you may recall, swept up votes in key battleground states in 2016 that exceeded the margins by which Hillary Clinton lost in those states.

Democrats’ fear of a third-party candidate is not unfounded: As Mark notes, recent polling suggests that in a head-to-head race between Trump and Biden, Trump is more likely to benefit from the addition of a third-party candidate.

We may see the first real test of the GOP contenders next month, at the first Republican debate on August 23; Trump is reportedly considering skipping the event entirely. The Democratic National Committee, for its part, will not be holding primary debates, which is the norm for the party of an incumbent president seeking reelection. As we head into this next phase of the election, the race for silver will intensify. And other surprises could still await.

Related:

The humiliation of Ron DeSantis The long-shot candidate who has the White House worried

Today’s News

Wheat prices rose for a third day after Russia pulled out of a wartime deal that protected the export of Ukrainian grain, a move that could stoke a global food crisis. A planned burning of the Quran in Stockholm led to counterprotests in Iraq and the expulsion of the Swedish ambassador from the country. New York City will pay about $13.7 million to settle a class-action lawsuit arguing that unlawful police tactics violated the rights of protesters demonstrating after George Floyd’s murder.

Evening Read

Richard Kalvar / Magnum

Seriously, What Are You Supposed to Do With Old Clothes?

By Amanda Mull

In February, I ran out of hangers. The occasion was not exactly unforeseen—for at least a year, I had been rearranging the deck chairs on my personal-storage Titanic in an attempt to forestall the inevitable. I loaded two or three tank tops or summer dresses onto a single hanger. I carefully refolded everything in my dresser drawers to max out their capacity. I left the things I wore most frequently on a bedroom chair instead of wedging them into my closet. I didn’t buy anything new unless I absolutely needed it. Eventually, though, I did need some things, and I didn’t have anywhere to put them.

Realizing you’ve exceeded the bounds of your closet is a low-grade domestic humiliation that’s become familiar to many Americans.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Porn set women up from the start. The Zoom wave isn’t going anywhere.

Culture Break

Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: FPG / Hulton Archive / Getty.

Read. Paula Marantz Cohen’s new book, Talking Cure, uncovers the secret to a good conversation.

Listen. Marriages aren’t what they used to be. So why can’t we quit weddings? In the latest episode of Radio Atlantic, Hanna Rosin talks with our staff writer Xochitl Gonzalez about her years as a luxury wedding planner.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

If you, like me, are waiting for various loved ones to return to town before joining the Barbie-Oppenheimer fray (or if tickets are sold out), I’d suggest seeing Past Lives, a beautiful film released by A24 still playing in select theaters. My colleague Shirley Li put it perfectly: The movie is an ode to the kind of love that can be both platonic and romantic at the same time; somehow, that gives the film double the resonance and the depth of a classic romantic tale. It’s not overly sentimental, either; the movie is suffused with subtle wit throughout.

— Isabel

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

Is Tennessee a Democracy?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 07 › tennessee-republican-partisanship-one-party-state › 674732

This story seems to be about:

Drive along the outer rim of the exurbs north of Nashville, past structures that might be barns or might be wedding venues, around developments called Vineyard Grove or New Hope Village, and eventually you will arrive at what is meant to be the new headquarters of the election commission of Sumner County, Tennessee. A featureless one-story brick warehouse with some makeshift offices attached, it has just enough space for the tiny handful of election-commission employees, the 275 voting machines that they recently purchased, and maybe some of the maintenance workers who used to share rooms with them, back when the agency was still in the basement of the county-administration building.

Dusty picnic tables crowd against the wall. An elementary school stands a few hundred yards away. Nothing about this building or its location screams “controversy.” But when Sumner County’s local elections brought a faction that calls itself the Constitutional Republicans to power last year, that is what it nevertheless became.

To fully grasp this story, you need to understand that the standard forms of American political polarization don’t exist in Sumner, a rural but rapidly suburbanizing county where Democrats are not part of the equation at all. None has won any county office for more than two decades. Instead, the main opponents of the Constitutional Republicans, who won 14 out of 17 seats on the county commission (following a general election in which only 15 percent of eligible voters cast ballots), are the ordinary Republicans—or, as their opponents would call them, RINOs (“Republicans in name only”). The Constitutional Republicans’ website explains that RINOs are different from themselves: “They raise taxes, they vote to silence the citizens, they won’t protect private property rights. They often partner with Democrats to defeat true Constitutional Republicans like us.”

Upon taking over the county commission, the Constitutional Republicans issued a document formally declaring that their activities will be “reflective of Judeo-Christian values inherent in the nation’s founding.” They also shut down the HR department, tried to privatize a public historic building, and refused to pay for the election commission’s move to the brick building, although it had been agreed by the previous administration. The old offices—three basement rooms that recently flooded—were too small to store the new voting machines, and also insecure. The entrance to the basement stood right beside a cashier’s window where dozens of people were lined up to pay taxes on the day I visited. The county commissioners are unmoved by those arguments. “If we don’t fund it, you don’t get to do it,” Jeremy Mansfield, one of the Constitutional Republicans on the county commission, told the election commission at one public meeting about the move last fall. At a meeting in June, another county commissioner, angered because the new voting machines had been delivered to the new building, said that although he would “hate to pull the ace card,” the commission could always “declare this property surplus, and sell it.” That would leave the election commission, and its machines, with nowhere to go.

[Peter Wehner: An acute attack of Trumpism in Tennessee]

The building seems a small thing to get worked up about. But Facebook posts and videos of public meetings, all available online—the Constitutional Republicans are very transparent—make clear that this is not a trivial jurisdictional dispute and these are not petty people. They have ambitions and interests that extend well beyond their county. Their Facebook page reacted to the news of Donald Trump’s latest indictment by declaring, “The Biden family is an organized crime family,” and “Our justice system is rigged against Trump.” Another post asked whether Tennessee “should secede from the Union.” More to the point, Mansfield, who didn’t respond to my request for an interview (his view of the press is clear on his Facebook page, on which someone refers to the Associated Press as “American Pravda” and he responds “except that Pravda does more honest reporting”), wrote a long post back in February attacking early voting and voting machines: “The gold standard for election integrity would be paper ballots filled out by people and counted by people in local precincts on election day.”

The Constitutional Republicans are confident in these views for a reason. “Our beliefs are derived from the bible,” their website declares: “We pray at every meeting and we seek God in all we do! His wisdom guides our decisions.” The same source gives them confidence that their enemies are wrong. “Evil never sleeps,” Mansfield wrote on Facebook, after reflecting on the critics who he said were attacking him for fighting against new development in the county, “so we must heed Churchill’s words, never give in, and never give up fighting for what is good and right.”

Few of these ambitious goals are within their reach. The Sumner County commissioners can’t arrest President Joe Biden. They can’t secede. But the county’s election commission, whose members are appointed by the bipartisan state election commission, is right there. It’s a local embodiment of the broader culture they dislike and of the government they distrust. If they can stick the agency back in the flood-prone basement, they will.

Tom Lee, the lawyer for the Sumner election commission—it is now suing the county—has an additional explanation as well. Lee points out that the Constitutional Republicans arrived in office wanting to enact deep, revolutionary change. That means that, whatever the previous regime decided, they are against it: “They are coming to power and saying, ‘Everything that came before us doesn’t count. We represent something new and different, and we don’t have to have any allegiance to the past.’” I told him that this sounded like the language used by the Bolsheviks, among other revolutionaries. He didn’t laugh.

Most of the time, Tennessee politics doesn’t make national news. That changed in April, when the leaders of the Republican supermajority in the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two Democratic legislators, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson. The two men were accused of disrupting proceedings, because they repeated the demands of gun-control activists on the floor of the chamber, during a recess, using a megaphone.

The incident created a wave of outrage. The punishment seemed both extreme—since Reconstruction, only two people have been expelled from the Tennessee legislature, one for bribery and the other for alleged sexual misconduct—and racist, because it deliberately targeted two young Black men. A third protester, Representative Gloria Johnson, who is white, was allowed to keep her house seat. Belatedly, the Republicans who made this decision realized that it looked bad. At an acrimonious meeting held afterward (a tape of which leaked to The Tennessee Holler, a local online publication), they expressed no regret at the expulsions, but they did berate one of the members for not voting to expel Johnson, on the grounds that leaving her out made them all seem like racists. The decision also made heroes of the protesters, now dubbed the Tennessee Three, a title previously bestowed on Johnny Cash’s backup band. Jones and Pearson were reinstated by local officials, pending special elections in August, and became instant national stars.

But in truth, their story did not start on that day. Not so long ago, Tennessee was not merely a more bipartisan state but a model of bipartisanship, an example to others. Keel Hunt, a columnist for the Tennessean newspaper (and a Democrat who once worked for a Republican governor, Lamar Alexander), wrote a book about the 1980s and ’90s, an era when moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans ruled the state; when Tennessee sent Alexander, Howard Baker, Al Gore, and Jim Sasser to the U.S. Senate; and when many of the decisions that paved the way for Tennessee’s current investment boom were made. The book is called Crossing the Aisle: How Bipartisanship Brought Tennessee to the Twenty-First Century and Could Save America. So much has changed since then, Hunt told me, that the book “might now qualify as an obituary.”

Today, Tennessee is a model of one-party rule. It has a Republican governor and legislature. Republican appointees run the state supreme court. The state’s nine-member U.S. House delegation contains eight Republicans; Tennessee has sent two Republicans to the Senate. The governor is the only other official elected statewide. Unlike in other states, the attorney general and secretary of state in Tennessee are appointed, and they are both Republicans too.

[Brian Klaas: The red states experimenting with authoritarianism]

Nor will the situation be easy to change, because gerrymandering is something of a blood sport in the state. The still-blue city of Nashville had a single Democrat representing it in Congress, but when the map was redrawn before the 2022 elections, GOP lawmakers split Nashville into three districts that stretch out into the countryside. Each elected a Republican. Instead of Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog moderate Democrat who held the seat for two decades, Nashville is now represented by, among others, Andy Ogles, who is best known for sending out a holiday card featuring himself, his children, and his wife all holding guns in front of a Christmas tree. State-level gerrymandering is just as vicious—Johnson reckons that one redistricting included a special effort to eliminate her from politics: “They split my precinct and drew a line basically a few blocks around my house to draw me out of the district,” she told me. (She moved, ran again, and won.)

Photo-Illustration by Ricardo Tomás for The Atlantic. Sources: Getty.

Getting people to vote is not so easy, either, because Tennessee has some of the nation’s most restrictive voting laws. You can’t register to vote any later than 30 days before the election. If you vote by absentee ballot, it has to arrive by mail on or before Election Day. There are no drop boxes. First-time voters have to vote in person, which is a special problem for college students studying out of state. In 2019, the legislature passed a law subjecting voter-registration campaigners to financial or criminal penalties if they submit too many erroneous forms—a provision that seemed designed to discourage get-out-the-vote campaigns, was blocked as unconstitutional, and later repealed. Perhaps none of these rules alone would seem outrageous. But the “cumulative effect,” argues Tricia Herzfeld, a Democrat who serves on Nashville’s election commission, “is to make it hard to vote.” There is evidence for that theory: Tennessee has either one of the lowest or else the very lowest voter-turnout rates in the country, depending on how you count. And that, of course, is even before Sumner County moved to deprive its election commission of office space, conceivably making it difficult for anyone there to vote at all.

I came to Tennessee partly because I wondered how similar it might feel to Poland and Hungary, where for the past decade I’ve been warily observing the decline of democracy and the rise of the one-party state. The very large differences are immediately clear in Nashville, where music is the backdrop to everything, where everyone seems to be coming from a party or heading to one, where people on both sides of the political spectrum went out of their way to introduce me to other people. “This is a son-in-law kind of town,” someone told me. I wasn’t quite sure what that meant (something to do with everyone looking after friends and relatives?), but it was amusing. For that and many other reasons, Nashville is not Budapest-on-the-Cumberland. The Bill of Rights still applies. Federal judges rule on Tennessee laws. The U.S. Constitution is widely and even ostentatiously revered. There is no Central European gloom.

Nevertheless, the cascade of tiny legal and procedural changes designed to create an unlevel playing field, the ruling party’s inexplicable sense of grievance, the displaced moderates with nowhere to go—this did seem familiar from other places. So was the sense that institutional politics has become performative, somehow separated from real life. The Tennessee Three staged their protest on the floor of the legislature, after all, because the conversation unfolding there had taken no notice of the much larger protests happening outside the chamber. A few days earlier, a horrific mass shooting at Covenant, a private Christian school in Nashville, had galvanized the public. Opinion polls showed that more than 70 percent of Tennesseans want red-flag laws that would allow officials to remove guns from people who might misuse them, while more than 80 percent support background checks and other gun-safety laws.

Those enormous majorities were not reflected in the legislative debate. In the days following the school shooting, it was just “business as usual,” Justin Kanew, the founder and editor of The Tennessee Holler, told me. Kanew, a transplant from California like a number of people in Nashville, is himself a former Democratic candidate for Congress in Tennessee. During his campaign, he saw a gap in the public conversation, and that experience led him to found the Holler. Or rather the Hollers: There are now several Twitter offshoots—the Chattanooga Holler, the Clarksville Holler, and so on—all focused on the hyperlocal issues that the statewide media were missing. Kanew’s own talent is for a form of campaigning journalism: He produces short video clips, often of state legislators, and then circulates them on social media. Sometimes they go viral. That’s what he was doing on the day the Tennessee Three made their protest. “There were thousands of people showing up at the capitol,” he told me, “asking for something to happen. And if nothing had happened, that would have been pretty deflating.”

[Read: The Tennessee expulsions are just the beginning]

This was not the first time that the Republican leadership sought to shut down debate. The house’s “two Justins,” as they are now known, brought their megaphone precisely because the Republican leadership commonly turns off Democrats’ microphones when they are speaking. Representative Bo Mitchell was once cut off when he told the house, “Please don’t say you are pro-life and put more weapons on the street”—a statement ruled to be insulting. Jones told me that he was ruled out of order during a committee meeting because he’d said the leadership was “putting a Band-Aid on the issue” of school shootings; a few days later he was also told he had to remove a ban assault weapons pin from his jacket. Republicans insist, as Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth told a local television station, that speakers are meant to stick to the topic: “It’s not open-mic night.”

Under relatively recent rules, individual members’ question time has been cut from 15 minutes to five. Occasionally, people who want to raise objections are not called on at all. During a debate on a bill regulating abortion, Gloria Johnson told me, “I stood on the house floor for 45 minutes, the entire argument of the bill, and they refused to call on me.” These tactics are new. Johnson, who has served in the legislature on and off for more than a decade, told me that although the house also had a Republican supermajority when she joined in 2012, the speaker at that time didn’t exclude Democrats from debate. “I don’t recall her refusing to call on me,” she said. Jones, who was a community organizer in Nashville for a decade before being elected, agreed that previous speakers were more open to conversation. “This was the most extreme session I have ever seen,” he said. “Republicans now treat the legislature as a private palace, a fraternity house or a country club.”  

Nor is radicalization visible only in the legislature. Just as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán fights with opposition-controlled Budapest (and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan fights with Istanbul, and Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński fights with Warsaw), so do Tennessee Republicans fight with opposition-controlled Nashville. Over breakfast at the Elliston Place Soda Shop—he likes showing off the city sites—Nashville Mayor John Cooper, a Democrat (and brother of Jim Cooper, the former member of Congress), ticked off the various disputes between the city and the state with a certain level of weariness: about control over the airport, about the beer board, about the sports authority, about the size of the city council (Republicans tried to cut it from 40 members to 20), and about the 2024 Republican National Convention—which, partly thanks to all of the other quarrels, will not take place in Nashville.

Some of the disputes are just about who controls the money, but he thinks real cultural friction underlies those too. Whereas Nashville used to be what the mayor calls a “big county-seat kind of town,” famous for its music clubs, now it’s also a focus of international investment, health-care investment, and tech investment. Oracle is building a $1 billion–plus campus in the city; Amazon has a major presence here too. On the morning we met, Mayor Cooper was jet-lagged, having just returned from Kurdistan. He went there because Nashville, aside from being the city that launched Taylor Swift, is also home to one of the largest Kurdish communities in America. After breakfast, he drove me to the East Bank, the site of the city’s next major development project, one that will include a new stadium, new housing, and some infrastructure renovations; along the way, we passed a remarkable collection of building sites, replete with giant cranes. Still, in the conservative mediaverse, Nashville’s city leaders are just another set of enemies. Fox News once devoted a whole segment to Cooper—in which Tucker Carlson accused him, falsely, of concealing information about COVID.

Kanew (and he isn’t alone) thinks the state serves as a kind of “guinea pig,” a test market in this same mediaverse, a place where new culture-war themes can be experimentally stoked. A war on judges as well as on remote voting began in 2021, when the chair of a key house subcommittee sought to remove a judge who had ruled in favor of expanding the right to vote by mail during the pandemic. Last September, the governor and other Republicans lashed out at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, allegedly for suppressing employees who criticized the university’s gender clinic, charges the university denied. More recently, the state attorney general has investigated the clinic, demanding private medical records.

Sometimes these efforts are clawed back. A determined group of local lawyers and lobbyists helped get some exceptions for the life of the mother enshrined into the state’s abortion ban. A Trump-appointed federal judge recently overturned another culture-war gesture, a Tennessee law banning public drag performances, on the grounds that it chilled free speech. But whether individual pieces of hard-line legislation stick might not matter, because part of the point of passing them is just to allow local politicians to align themselves with the general views of that same conservative mediaverse. One example: a recent resolution passed by the legislature to “recognize and commend” Orbán’s think tank, the Danube Institute, which promotes illiberal and antidemocratic ideas. Jones, objecting to that resolution, asked Tim Hicks, the Republican who proposed it, if he knew who Orbán was. He did not. One disgruntled Republican described this whole process to me as “governing by anecdote.” You could also describe it as “governing by Fox News.”

[From the January/February 2022 issue: The great (fake) child-sex-trafficking epidemic]

But every so often, a glimpse of something uglier appears, a hint that some people want more than culture wars designed for TikTok, Twitter, and the evening news. Walking to her home in Nashville, an acquaintance saw a car with a shoot your local pedophile bumper sticker, showing an outline of a man holding a gun to another man’s head. T-shirts with this image, phrasing, and implied approval of violence are for sale online. “This isn’t new to you, but it’s new to us,” she told me, which isn’t quite true. Poland, where I live part of the time, has had one political murder in recent years, but it was a knife murder. In Tennessee, people have guns. Jim Cooper, the former member of Congress, told me that getting anyone to run for office as a Democrat in some rural parts of the state is difficult partly because Democrat and pedophile are so often conflated by Republican activists, and potential candidates are spooked. About half of the state-legislature seats were uncontested in 2022.

Photo-Illustration by Ricardo Tomás for The Atlantic. Sources: Getty.

Not that the problem of finding Democrats to run for office is new. Cooper also told me that one of his staff used to comb through local newspapers and look for people who had written angry letters to the editor. Then she would call them up and ask them to stand for election. Some said yes. Though most of them lost, he considered that a kind of victory. Jones thinks that after the expulsion crisis, “young people are fired up, bringing urgency to our politics,” and that more candidates will come forward. But there will be a steep road to climb if people fear that what is at stake in their local election is not tax rates and building permits but the safety and even the lives of their children—and if they fight back with real weapons.   

If that possibility sounds ludicrous, or incredible, it shouldn’t. Kanew, the Tennessee Holler editor, woke up one night last April to the sound of gunfire. Someone had shot up the front of his house. No one has yet been arrested.

“You know the old saying: All politics is national.” That’s what the mayor of Nashville told me over his ham and eggs. “All politics is national,” several other people said to me too. It’s a joke—“All politics is local” is the old political chestnut—but also not a joke. In the past couple of years, prominent and less-prominent conservatives have been flocking from all over the country to Tennessee and, more precisely, to Williamson County, adjacent to Nashville and, partly thanks to that proximity, now one of the wealthiest counties in the country. The town of Franklin, Williamson’s county seat, has a large and well-lit (I visited at night) monument to the soldiers of the Confederacy. It is also home to equally monumental culture-war clashes and school-board battles that can rival those anywhere else in the country. The New York Times columnist David French, who lives there, reckons that “only 15 percent of my neighbors are Democrats.” The Daily Wire, a conservative media company that specializes in culture-war clashes and school-board battles, is now based in Nashville, as are a handful of its stars.

“All politics is national” is also the explanation that a lot of people gave me when I asked how Tennessee went from having a culture of bipartisanship to de facto one-party rule in a mere two decades. Almost everybody wanted to explain that Tennessee politics used to reflect the state’s particular geography (mountains in the east, Mississippi River Delta in the west, rivers and forest in the middle) and complicated history. Some Tennesseans had declared for the Confederacy; others fought against it. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee; Nashville was the site of a series of sit-ins that were important to the civil-rights movement. The disgruntled Republicans in particular mourn the death of what used to be called “Tennessee enlightened mountain Republicanism,” the liberal, business-oriented party that once challenged the pre-civil-rights “Old South” Democratic one-party state, which relied on Jim Crow and voter suppression. For a long time, both parties celebrated the demise of that system, and no one wanted it back. Or so it seemed.  

By some accounts, the shift began in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, when talk radio and a confrontational new style of national media began to weaken the local newspapers that people used to read, and the local culture too. Others think the turning point came in the 2000s, when Barack Obama’s presidency produced a racist backlash. In 2012, one poll showed that nearly half of Tennessee Republicans believed in the birtherism conspiracy theory.  

Still others think the harder shift inside the Republican Party began more recently, after it gained full control. John Geer, a Vanderbilt political scientist, told me that whenever a supermajority controls a legislature for a long period of time, “those in the minority have no political ability to effect change, and so they stop acting like politicians and instead become activists,” a thesis that explains the actions of the Tennessee Three, as well as the feeling that politics has become a form of performance art, only distantly related to real life.

But the supermajority is also affected, and its members become activists of a different kind. To stay in office in a state where few people vote and districts are gerrymandered, Tennessee legislators need to appeal to only a tiny number of very dedicated, very partisan people. The competition for those votes can quite quickly turn into a competition for who can sound most radical. Even the minority leader of the Tennessee State Senate, Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat, told me that it’s harder to do deals with people from heavily gerrymandered districts: “You don’t have anybody to check you and your district is extremely partisan.” Her own district skews heavily Democratic and heavily Black. “If I wasn’t someone who was willing to compromise, I wouldn’t have to,” Akbari said.

There is another element: Call it the lesson of Sumner County, the place where Republicans won everything, control everything, and yet still feel aggrieved and victimized. As in Hungary or Poland or as in Venezuela, the experience of radicalism can make people more radical. Total control of a political system can make the victors not more magnanimous, but more frustrated, not least because they learn that total control still doesn’t deliver what they think it should. No county commission or state legislature can possibly meet the demands of a quasi-religious movement that believes it has God on its side and that its opponents herald the apocalypse. But that doesn’t mean they give up. It just means they keep trying, using any tool available. Eventually they arrive at the point described by Tom Lee, the lawyer for the Sumner County Election Commission: “It’s not enough to get your majority and get your way—they have to make the minority lose their voice.”

On the tape leaked to The Tennessee Holler after the expulsion of Pearson and Jones, this dynamic is powerfully revealed. Grim Republican legislators talked about what they think is really at stake, and it isn’t megaphones. “If you don’t believe we are at war for our republic,” one of them says to the group, “with all love and respect to you, you need a different job.” They don’t believe that this is a normal political competition, either, or that their opponents are a normal, legitimate, small-d democratic opposition. Democrats, says another, “are not our friends.” They “destroy our republic and the foundation of who we are.” At one point, an apocalyptic tone creeps into the conversation: “The left wants Tennessee so bad because if they get us, the Southeast falls and it’s ‘game over’ for the republic.” So urgent and so dramatic is this challenge that some of them have come to believe that rules might have to be broken: “You gotta do what’s right, even if you think it might be wrong,” one of them says.

You gotta do what’s right, even if you think it might be wrong. Fight for the republic, because otherwise it will be “game over”: The language itself wouldn’t be unusual, if this were a radical minority fighting for its very existence. But this is the Republican Party, the party that controls pretty much everything in Tennessee. They are going to win the next election, and probably the one after that. Yet they sound as if winning isn’t enough: They also want their opponents to fall silent, and they are doing what they can to make that happen.

We’re Entering a New Era of Shady Campaign Finance

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 07 › doug-burgum-fundraising-stunt-campaign › 674697

You don’t become a billionaire without being clever with money, but Doug Burgum’s latest scheme is a head-scratcher: The North Dakota governor is offering $20 gift cards to people who donate one greenback dollar to his presidential campaign. His fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is offering a 10 percent commission to anyone who brings in donations. A super PAC supporting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez is offering one donor a year of free college tuition.

Critics have long pointed out how big money distorts politics, but these fundraising stunts demonstrate how now even small money has come to warp campaigns. These GOP candidates are trying to reach a Republican National Committee threshold of 40,000 individual donors, including 200 each in 20 states or territories, to qualify for primary debates. The RNC has set a high bar to make sure that candidates have real support—and perhaps to downplay the influence of major donors. But the effect may be the opposite: enticing candidates to try novel tactics to create the illusion of real support, because they know that getting on the debate stage is essential for remaining viable and attracting those big donors. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money.

[Read: Small donors still aren’t as important as wealthy ones]

These tactics are the product of a new focus in politics on small-dollar donors, which means that they have not been legally tested. “The whole time I was at the FEC I never saw anything like this,” Ann Ravel, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission, told me. Although she called the moves “quite unseemly,” she said she doubted that they clearly broke existing statutes or regulations. But other experts believe that Burgum’s scheme may fall afoul of the law, even if the others are allowed.

An early forerunner of these plans came in 2020, when the Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang announced a plan to give away $120,000—$10,000 a month for one year to 10 families, drawn randomly from people who signed up on his website. The idea was to advertise Yang’s proposal for universal basic income for all Americans. (Ravel, for her part, wrote an op-ed at the time arguing that plan was likely illegal.) This year’s schemes eschew such a connection to policy and, unlike Yang’s, require that citizens contribute money, not just enter their email.

Under Ramaswamy’s plan, anyone can gather donations and take a small cut. In a video, he called it a way to “democratize” the old system and break up the “oligopoly” of traditional fundraising. A better way to describe it would be as Uber, but for campaign finance. Candidates have long paid professional fundraisers to bring in cash. They have also relied on “bundlers,” who persuade friends and acquaintances to give, even though each donor is limited to $3,300 in individual federal donations this cycle. Ramaswamy is basically combining those and applying them to small donations.

Rather than let anyone take a small cut, SOS America PAC is effectively holding a raffle for one big winner. They’re asking people to give to Suarez’s campaign, and they’ll give away a tuition gift to one contributor. You’ll have to shop around if you win, though: With a $15,000 limit, a Floridian could cover a full year at the University of Florida, Florida State, or Florida International (Suarez’s alma mater), but an out-of-state student would be able to cover only part of the cost. (That sum would barely reach a quarter of the cost at the University of Miami.)

Burgum’s approach is the most novel. Campaigns commonly offer swag for donations—write a check, get a bumper sticker—but handing out gift cards goes a step further. It sounds like it ought to somehow be illegal. But is it? Candidates aren’t permitted to buy votes, but giving a dollar doesn’t obligate anyone to actually vote for Burgum. They could just be involved in a neat arbitrage and vote for someone else. Federal law also bans “straw donations”: You can’t give money to your friend or spouse or employee and ask them to donate it. The ban serves two purposes. First, it prevents individuals from circumventing the individual contribution limit; second, it ensures compliance with donor-disclosure laws.

But Burgum isn’t subject to contribution limits, because candidates are allowed to give unlimited amounts to their own campaigns, and the scheme obviously doesn’t violate disclosure requirements. “The statutes and regulations are not clear enough to indicate that there’s any real legal problem with this activity,” Ravel told me.

[Richard L. Hasen: Unlimited contributions to candidates, coming soon?]

Other experts are not so sure. “I do not fault anyone for thinking creatively about lawful ways to raise money,” Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign-finance lawyer, told me. Yet he believes that giving the gift cards and accepting the donations violate the plain language of the straw-donor law: “No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.” He worries that if Burgum is allowed to use the scheme, it will set a “horrible precedent,” where a candidate might use the same method to solicit larger donations, or enlist a wealthy friend.

The RNC is arguably also a victim of the arrangement. “Burgum is trying to defraud the RNC,” Ryan said. “These aren’t unique individual donors; these are fake straw donors. If I were at the RNC I would not accept these donors, because they’re illegitimate.”

A Burgum spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did an RNC spokesperson. The FEC doesn’t comment on specific cases, and in any event the body’s structure and partisan makeup mean that it has deadlocked on most important issues over the past few years. Ravel was skeptical that the body would enforce any violations even if they exist in these cases.

The argument for grassroots donors is not as simple as it might appear on the surface. As David Byler of The Washington Post has written, small-dollar contributions have driven polarization. But if the goal of donor requirements is to increase the power of small donors, a $20-for-$1 exchange actually does the opposite, increasing the power of one massively wealthy candidate to game the system.

America Is Doing Just Fine

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 07 › uncle-sam-american-military-patriotism › 674644

As Americans celebrated the Fourth of July by watching baseball, fireworks, and Joey Chestnut hammering home his 16th win in the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest, poor Uncle Sam labored through the mid-summer celebration beleaguered and under siege from all sides. News items over the course of the holiday weekend reported that Americans were feeling more skeptical of their country’s future and less patriotic. Seventy-four percent believe America is headed in the wrong direction, and a great majority dread the presidential rematch America seems doomed to face.

Uncle Sam deserves a modern-day Atticus Finch to argue his case before the American people, but he doesn’t have one.

The usual suspects, who once regularly delivered garrulous Eric Stratton–style defenses of all things American, are now scattered to the winds by the tumult of Trumpism. Neither the Capitol riot nor a barrage of indictments have stopped these hucksters from slavishly siding with Donald Trump in his attacks against the same American institutions that conservatives once defended against enemies real or imagined—whether the dirty hippies who tried to levitate the Pentagon or the Commies on the Church Committee.

Trump conservatives really are having their own “hippie” moment, turning against American institutions.

The opposing counsel’s bench will likewise be unhelpful, because it is packed with a motley crew of progressive politicians, left-wing think tankers, and journalists who are far more comfortable prosecuting claims against American greed, U.S. imperialism, and ruling-class dominance than mounting muscular defenses of America.

Rallying around the flag still comes off as a bit gauche at Berkeley barbecues and East Hampton clambakes. So Uncle Sam lumbers on through another sweltering July, poked and prodded by political hacks of all stripes.

[Read: The happy patriot, the unhappy nationalist]

Liberals once gained favor among their base by attacking the Pentagon’s top brass, but now it is Republican members of Congress who longingly swoon over Russia’s manly military while trashing U.S. generals and our men and women in uniform. Those GOP attacks come despite the fact that America’s military is more powerful today relative to the rest of the world than at any time since the Second World War.

Unlike in years past, American allies no longer grouse about the U.S. “leading from behind” or burrowing itself into a self-defeating “America First” hole. Instead, the U.S. is first among equals in a dynamic and expanding NATO alliance that just added a new member with more than 800 miles of Russian border, and that has provided a devastating response to Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Looking east, the United States has finally begun its pivot to Asia, strengthening military cooperation with Japan, the Philippines, Guam, South Korea, and Australia. The current disruption in U.S.-Sino relations may have less to do with spy balloons and diplomatic missteps than with Xi Jinping’s rational fear of being hemmed in by an increasingly muscular U.S. military presence surrounding the South China Sea. President Joe Biden’s recent diplomatic overtures toward India were likewise calculated to contain China’s regional ambitions.  

The most significant U.S. geopolitical failure of late was the country’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, a move promised by the past three presidents and supported by 70 percent of Americans before the evacuation. Even after the chaos unfolded in Kabul, most Americans told pollsters they supported Biden’s decision to get U.S. troops out after 20 years. Be assured that nobody in Moscow or Beijing is still looking at the Afghanistan withdrawal in light of recent events and parroting Republican’s un-American talking point that our armed forces are “woke” and “weak.”

While we’re on the topic of the right’s meltdown over all things woke, the Republican Party’s hypocritical attacks against American colleges and universities display the same anti-institutional impulses.

Once again, the ideological tables have been turned. In the past, it was leftist radicals who rioted on college campuses and laid siege to university presidents’ offices. Now Trump-supporting rightists bravely pull themselves off their fainting couches to declare war against the same elite institutions from which they proudly graduated not so long ago.  

But give those frail hypocrites their due; their pride on graduation day was not misplaced.

Every year, American colleges and universities dominate rankings of the best schools in the world. Maybe that’s why some of the most powerful political and business leaders across the globe keep sending their children to American colleges. They do so for the same reason many Republican politicians with Ivy League degrees worked hard to get admitted into Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania years ago: because nobody in the world does higher education better than the United States of America.

All of this anti-American drivel coming from Trumpists can be tedious. But stay with me, because there’s much more to be said in America’s defense.

[David Brooks: Despite everything you think you know, America is on the right track]

Childhood poverty has dropped to the lowest level on record; teenage pregnancy has done the same; the U.S. dollar has experienced generational highs over the past year; unemployment recently hit a 54-year low; the number of job openings this past year also hit record highs.

Overall, the U.S. economy continues to surge forward despite economists’ dire predictions. America’s GDP grew to $25 trillion last year; Texas has a bigger economy than Russia, and although California is routinely rebuked by right-wing critics, it has the fourth-strongest economy in the world—stronger than Britain’s, France’s, Canada’s, or India’s. The United States and its European allies collectively run an economic machine that doubles China’s stagnating output. Despite record debt levels, a stubborn case of inflation, and other structural challenges, American capitalism continues to drive and dominate the world economy.

All of this is not to say that the United States is free of challenges. Like any great power, we have our fair share of political and moral failings.

Our Declaration of Independence was written by a slaveholder, the government has yet to address what it owes to Native Americans, and the right of women to control their own bodies has been shattered by Supreme Court rulings and radical state legislation.  

But it was American democracy that provided a swift political rebuke to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and led to right-wing defeats in red states such as Kansas, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. The political backlash to Roe’s demise has been so dramatic that even Ann Coulter and The Wall Street Journal editorial page now take exception to the GOP’s extreme abortion stance.

And when Abraham Lincoln emancipated millions of enslaved Americans in 1863, he was relying on the logic of that same Declaration of Independence, which Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed “a promissory note” to all Americans.

James Madison, another slaveholder, wrote a Constitution that provided the checks and balances that led the same high court that overturned Roe to rebuff Donald Trump’s most autocratic plans. As politically disorienting as it may seem after the overturning of Roe and affirmative action, the Roberts Court also finally stopped Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election, and is now allowing criminal cases against him to move forward.  

So yes, it’s true that a fulsome defense of Uncle Sam often requires dialectical thinking. But remember this: Even with all of its failings, America has fed and freed more human beings than any other country in history. And despite the blather that cable-news hosts spit at you daily, your country is doing pretty damn well.

Ron DeSantis’s Only Hope Is to Beat Trump From the Hard Right

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 07 › ron-desantis-2024-election-anti-trans-rhetoric › 674653

Even by the standards of today’s political ads, the video that recently roiled the Republican presidential race is not particularly subtle. In it, a talking head accuses Florida Governor Ron DeSantis of producing “some of the harshest, most draconian laws that literally threaten trans existence.” Headlines like “DeSantis Signs ‘Most Extreme Slate of Anti-Trans Laws in Modern History’” flit across the screen. The twist: This was not an attack ad against DeSantis. The clip was shared by his own team on Twitter, and presented as an attack on Donald Trump for being too soft on LGBTQ issues.

With its slapdash presentation and internet-meme imagery, the video could easily be dismissed as the half-baked output of a floundering campaign. But in fact, DeSantis’s anti-trans rhetoric is part of a pattern—and an essential component of his plan to win the Republican primary.

[From the May 2023 issue: How did America's weirdest, most freedom-obsessed state fall for an authoritarian governor?]

This might seem like a strange claim at first glance. After all, most Americans oppose discrimination against transgender people, even as many express reservations about medical transition for minors or trans competitors in women’s athletics. But the DeSantis clip, like his other incendiary interjections on this topic, was not targeted at most Americans. It was directed at one of the most socially conservative and politically important constituencies in Republican politics: evangelical voters in Iowa.

On paper, DeSantis’s campaign is in dire straits: He’s trailing the front-runner, Trump, by a two-to-one margin in national polls. But there is no national primary, only individual state contests—and the first of these will take place in Iowa in early 2024. The outcome of that showdown has the potential to shape the entire primary to follow, and by pivoting hard to the right on social issues including abortion and gender, DeSantis has been methodically positioning himself to win it.

In February 2020, the New York Times reporter Astead Herndon went to South Carolina and interviewed Black voters in churches across the pivotal Democratic-primary state. He discovered a groundswell of support for former Vice President Joe Biden, who had been written off by many observers after falling short in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Biden went on to sweep South Carolina and capture the nomination.

This year, Herndon visited churches in Iowa, and discovered a different surge for a seemingly struggling contender, who was gaining ground on a surprisingly shaky Trump. “We believe the former president’s hurdles are so significant, that most likely, he gives the Democrats the best opportunity to win in 2024,” Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the Family Leader, the state’s politically influential evangelical umbrella group, told him. “So we believe we’re doing our base a great service by trying to say who would be a good alternative to the former president.” Who might that be? At Eternity Church, one of the largest in the area, Herndon found that “a surprising number of people are turning to DeSantis,” who had visited the congregation in May. The pastor himself revealed that he’d donated to the Florida governor—and repeatedly referenced “gender” as one of his top issues.

These voters have outsize importance. Because of Vander Plaats’s well-organized political machine, conservative evangelicals and their preferences have determined the winner of the Iowa caucus for the past three Republican presidential primaries. In 2008, they chose the former pastor Mike Huckabee. In 2012, they gave the nod to the culture warrior Rick Santorum. And in 2016, they handed the first victory of the primary season not to the twice-divorced playboy Donald Trump, but to Ted Cruz.

None of this would seem to bode well for DeSantis. After all, Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz all lost the nomination. Most other states are not as dominated by the white-evangelical electorate that prevails in Iowa. So why would the Florida governor invest so much effort in courting a community that has previously failed to deliver a durable victory? Probably because taking Iowa is his only chance to take the nomination.

According to recent polls, about half of Republican voters don’t actually want to nominate Trump again. But as long as other small-time candidates such as Nikki Haley and Mike Pence are in the race, DeSantis has no hope of consolidating this constituency. To beat Trump, he needs to turn the 2024 primary into a head-to-head contest between himself and the former president. And to do that, he needs to win Iowa and demonstrate to Trump-skeptical voters that he is their only realistic option. Just as Biden’s dominant showing in South Carolina convinced establishment Democrats that he was their best chance to beat a surging Bernie Sanders, a DeSantis upset in Iowa could anoint him as the most viable alternative to Trump.

[Yair Rosenberg: DeSantis is making the same mistake Democrats did in 2020]

Iowa won’t determine the ultimate victor, in other words, but it could determine the contenders. “Iowa’s job isn’t to select the nominee,” Vander Plaats told Herndon. “Iowa’s job is to narrow the field.” In the past, winning Iowa failed to vault the likes of Cruz and Santorum into serious contention, because they were factional candidates without name recognition or major appeal outside the religious right. But DeSantis is a better-positioned candidate with comparable favorables to Trump, thanks to his national profile and prolific appearances on Fox News. If he can quickly narrow the primary field to a one-on-one contest, he has the underlying numbers to make it competitive. If he can’t, his campaign may be over before it really begins.

Of course, there’s a cost to running a campaign designed to appeal to your party’s most fervent partisans. By staking out unpopular positions to win the primary, a candidate puts himself at a disadvantage in the general election, where independent voters tend to punish perceived extremism. We’ve seen this quite recently. In the 2022 midterms, Trump handpicked many GOP congressional candidates who echoed his 2020 election-fraud claims. But although these individuals easily won their primaries, nearly all of them lost their races. What thrilled the Republican base alienated the broader electorate.

The same trap has also ensnared non-Trumpy politicians. Just ask another former Republican presidential hopeful. In 2012, Mitt Romney began his campaign with a reputation as a problem-solving moderate who had successfully governed the blue state of Massachusetts. But by the end of the primary, he had dubbed himself “severely conservative” on the debate stage and committed to an array of policy stances that dogged him throughout the election.

At the time, a senior Romney adviser infamously assured the media that his candidate would simply wipe the slate clean after winning the Republican nomination: “You hit a reset button for the fall campaign … It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch.” It didn’t quite work out that way. “After running for more than a year in which he called himself ‘severely conservative,’” Barack Obama cracked, “Mitt Romney’s trying to convince you that he was severely kidding.”

Such political sleight of hand might have worked when voters didn’t have immediate access to video recordings of everything a candidate said on the campaign trail. But as Romney discovered, in the age of the internet and viral social-media clips, it’s much harder to escape one’s past pronouncements. Put another way, today’s pro-DeSantis ads boasting of his anti-trans legislation are tomorrow’s anti-DeSantis ads warning voters about his radicalism.

The Democrats Are Now America’s Conservative Party

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 07 › conservative-democrats-supreme-court-status-quo › 674643

The Democratic Party, for decades the progressive bastion of the United States, is emerging today as the party of the status quo.

This strange turn of events was on display in late June, as Democrats lamented the Supreme Court rulings ending affirmative action in college admissions and marked the anniversary of the same Court overturning Roe v. Wade. They also celebrated the Court’s decision not to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. The message is not a push for any specific transformative policy, but rather that the MAGA GOP and right-wing judiciary are ready to undo much progress that has already been achieved. To borrow a phrase, today’s Democratic Party stands athwart recent history, shouting, “Stop!”

This small-c conservative Democratic Party is the product of at least three converging currents. One is that the party has achieved many of its biggest goals in recent years, and has now shifted toward defending and consolidating those victories. Second, the changing demographics of the parties mean that some of the Democratic Party’s most powerful backers are the winners of society as it exists now. Why would they want transformative change? Third, and relatedly, the Trump-era Republican Party has abandoned much of the party’s old orthodoxy in favor of radicalism on domestic and foreign affairs. The pendulum of two-party politics seems to require that one party represent a “conservative”—in the literal sense—viewpoint.

[David A. Graham: One big difference between Biden and every other recent Democratic nominee]

As Chris Hayes wrote in The Atlantic in 2021, liberals find themselves in the strange position of having won most of their major battles of this century. Some of these victories were smaller than they might have liked, but the scorecard is clear. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. Republicans didn’t even manage to repeal it when they controlled Congress and the White House in 2017 and 2018, and all but the deepest red states have expanded Medicaid. Gay marriage is legal and popular—even if, as attacks on transgender Americans and a Supreme Court decision on June 30 show, battles over LGBTQ issues remain. Biden passed huge infrastructure and climate-change legislation. And the haste by Kevin McCarthy and other congressional leaders to rule out Social Security or Medicaid cuts shows that Donald Trump has killed the GOP’s appetite for entitlement reform, at least for now.

But this record of policy wins is vulnerable. The Supreme Court has been steadily knocking down Democratic priorities, including not just abortion access and student-debt forgiveness but also gun controls and environmental regulation. In recent memory, it narrowed Obamacare and eliminated campaign-finance laws. This turns Democrats into a necessarily conservative faction, trying to defend policies that are already in place. The party also sees potential electoral benefits in railing against the Court, reasoning that voters will object to the end of rights and policies that they like. The abortion issue already helped Democrats in midterm elections last year.

Defending the way things are now is also probably safer for the party than pursuing new ideas. Progressives have long complained that the population supports more liberal policies but can’t get them, but that may no longer be so true. A Democratic wish list at this moment would start with immigration reform and higher taxes on the wealthy, but although both poll well, neither seems within reach. After that, many of the remaining ideas pushed by activists divide the party’s elected establishment and are unpopular with the public at large, such as Medicare for All, defunding the police, and open borders—all policies advocated by candidates whom Biden defeated in the 2020 Democratic primary. A policy can be both just and unpopular—such as affirmative action, which the party is mourning now—but it’s hard to build a successful political campaign around such policies, and Democrats seem disinclined to try.

The affection for the status quo among Democrats also reflects how the party has changed. For decades, its base included the white and black working classes, labor, and immigrants—all groups that had a vested interest in major structural reforms to American society. The Republican Party, meanwhile, included the business classes, white-collar professionals, and other elites, and, after the civil-rights era, white southerners interested in protecting the region’s racist hierarchy. Those coalitions have fractured somewhat. Democrats are still overwhelmingly the party of minority voters; they have lost white working-class support, but have gained a great deal of support among elite professionals. This trade is complex but driven by, among other things, the growing share of nonwhite people in the country, racial resentment, and Democratic support for free trade and globalism.

[Patrick Wyman: American gentry]

The result is that the Democratic Party is now to a large degree the party of minorities—who are growing as a share of the American population and who consistently show greater optimism about the future than white people—and of white professionals, who are doing very well under current conditions. Many wealthy people remain Republican, but they tend to be the business owners Patrick Wyman has called the “American gentry” or else the ultra-wealthy, who, not coincidentally, are most skeptical of the radical vision espoused by Trump and other MAGA politicians. The people who used to be called country-club Republicans, upper-middle-class white suburbanites, have shifted strongly toward the Democratic Party in the Trump years.

All of these structural factors are amplified by the natural inclinations of the party’s leader. It’s not just—as even Biden has started noting—that at 80, he has a lot of past behind him. I wrote several times during the 2020 campaign about how Biden, unlike most of his rivals, was running on a platform of nostalgia and restoration. He believed that he could return to a pre-Trump paradigm—in effect, he wanted to make America great again, but with a vision of greatness very different from Trump’s. Biden has clothed some of his most transformative initiatives, including the reintroduction of an industrial policy, in the rhetoric of restoration, invoking the New Deal and often citing Franklin D. Roosevelt. Leading progressive writers have also looked to past ages of American innovation as inspiration for a muscular liberal approach.

The age of Democratic conservatism probably does not portend a full-scale realignment of the parties, with Republicans taking up left-wing causes and Democrats adopting right-wing ones—though some intriguing examples of conservative dabbling in worker-focused populism exist. It may, however, help explain and prolong the current era of gridlock, with one party pursuing unpopular and often unconstitutional policies and the other promising stasis we can believe in.