Mediaboss Marketing

S ROSS suggests that I should have spoken earlier with regard to Matt Hancocks handling of Covid-19, (HAS June 13).

I am not an expert in any of these matters, but I do read the newspapers and listen to the TV.

There has been much criticism of the slowness of the Governments decisions and particularly of the timing of their moves.

The WHO were warning in January that extreme measures were necessary and countries which responded quickly were rewarded with much lower rates of infection and death.

We do not know the details of the advice from SAGE and particularly when it was given, but many experts, independent of SAGE, who have been willing to speak out have acknowledged that the Government should have acted much sooner and that thousands of lives could have been saved.

It has been suggested that the libertarian beliefs of Boris Johnson, not to impose restrictions on people until they were absolutely necessary, was the reason for the delays, with their disastrous consequences and the staggering death rate.

Eric Gendle, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough.

See more here:
Letters: 'It is suggested that Boris's Libertarian beliefs were the reasons for delayed Lockdown' - The Northern Echo

Democrats seem surprised that Rep. Tom McClintock (RCalif.), a libertarian-leaning conservative, favors the abolition of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often shields police officers from liability for violating people's constitutional rights. The Democrat opposing McClintock in this year's election, Brynne Kennedy, claims his position on qualified immunity, which she calls "a welcome surprise," implies that he should support the rest of her agenda, including such completely unrelated issues as Medicare, Social Security, and price controls for prescription drugs. If McClintock really wants to prove his bipartisanship, she says, he should agree with her about those issues too.

Given McClintock's history and ideology, Democrats should not have been surprised by his position on qualified immunity, and Kennedy's argument implies that true bipartisanship requires Republicans to agree with Democrats about everything. Her reaction to his stance, whether sincere or not, reflects a broader obstacle to building a trans-ideological coalition for police reform in the wake of George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests. Many left-leaning supporters of that cause either do not understand or willfully ignore the perspective of people like McClintock, and that incomprehension or misrepresentation risks alienating potential allies who disagree with them about a lot of other things.

As the RaleighNews & Observer noted, McClintock is not a newcomer to police reform, which he supported as a state legislator. Back in 2007, McClintock was outraged by the California Supreme Court's decision in Copley Press v. Superior Court,which shielded police disciplinary records from public view. "The Copley decision basically said that disciplinary proceedings against police officers are none of the public's business, even if conducted by a civil service commission under all due process considerations and even if the charges are proven," he said. "In short, once a citizen complains about the misuse of police power, even though the complaint is found to be entirely true, the public has no right to know. That is nuts."

Nor is McClintock a milquetoast when it comes to police invasions of people's homes. Here is what he had to say about no-knock raids this week: "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announcedbefore it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

Regarding qualified immunity specifically, the News & Observer notes, "libertarians have long been clamoring for change on the issue." The paper mentions the Institute for Justice, which for years has been backing cases aimed at restricting or eliminating qualified immunity. Conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, also have criticized the doctrine.

McClintock's opposition to qualified immunity makes sense if you understand where he is coming from. During his 2008 House campaign, my formerReason colleague Dave Weigel observed, McClintock "saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between 'authoritarians and libertarians,' with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong." McClintock also told Weigel, "I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."

McClintock has been an outspoken critic of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and he supported amnesty for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. "I think it would be best if the American government granted him amnesty to get him back to America where he can answer questions without the threat of prosecution," McClintock told a Sacramento TV station in 2013. "We have some very good laws against sharing secrets, and he broke those laws. On the other hand, he broke them for a very good reason:because those laws were being used in direct contravention of our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans."

McClintock also has broken with most of his Republican colleagues in backing marijuana reform. He was an early supporter of legislation aimed at stopping federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and repealing the national ban on cannabis as it relates to conduct that is allowed by state law. McClintock opposed federal marijuana prohibition years before many prominent Democrats decided it was safe or politically expedient to do so. That position reflects not just a libertarian sensibility but a principled defense of federalism, a cause that many conservatives abandon when it proves inconvenient.

The fact that progressives can find common ground with McClintock on some issues, of course, hardly means he is about to embrace the rest of their agenda. Likewise with other conservatives, libertarians, and moderates, whether they have long supported police reform or are newly sympathetic because of the problems highlighted by George Floyd's death and other recent travesties.

It may seem obvious that you cannot build a coalition on an issue like police reform if you insist that your allies agree with you about everything or if you mistakenly treat them as Johnny-come-latelies. But progressives are making both of those mistakes.

Instead of supporting the four-page, stand-alone qualified immunity bill that Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) introduced, House Democrats produced a 134-page billthat addresses qualified immunity but also includes several provisions Republicans are likely to oppose, including increased Justice Department scrutiny of local law enforcement polices and practices, government-backed racial profiling lawsuits, "training on racial bias" for federal law enforcement agents, and financial penalties for states that fail to ban chokeholds or are deficient in reporting data on traffic and pedestrian stops, body searches, and the use of force.

There is a huge gap between the Democrats' grab bag of proposalsmany of which are worthy ideasand the reforms that Republicans seem inclined to support. "The fact that it has no Republican sponsors, the fact that there was no effort to contact any of us to have us weigh in on the legislation, suggests it's designed to be a message piece, as opposed to a real piece of legislation," says Sen. Mitt Romney (RUtah), who plans to introduce a bipartisan police reform bill. "We should vote on each proposal separately," Amash argues. "Massive bills with dozens of topics aren't serious efforts to change law. They're messaging bills with no expectation of getting signed. They cram in so much that they're never written well or reviewed carefully."

The "defund police" slogan adopted by many activists (but wisely eschewed by most Democrats in Congress) poses similar problems. Some people who use it mean it literally, while others have in mind a restructuring of police departments and/or the transfer of money from them to social programs. Whatever the intent, the slogan is bound to alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to support reforms aimed at preventing police from abusing their powers and holding them accountable when they do. The fact that Donald Trump has latched onto the meme as a way of discrediting Democratic reformers is not a good sign. While "defund police" may appeal to some progressives and libertarians, it is not a message that will help attract broad public support for reforms.

It is also a strategic mistake for progressive reformers to act as if they own this issue when many people who don't agree with them on other subjects have been fighting this battle for a long time. As a libertarian who has been covering police abuse, the drug war, criminal justice reform, and civil liberties for more than three decades, I find that attitude irritating, and I'm sure other nonprogressives do as well. But this is not about personal pique; it's about how people with different ideological perspectives can come together on this issue now and avoid squandering an opportunity, perhaps the best we've had in many years, to do some good.

David Menschel, a criminal defense attorney, activist, and documentarian who runs the Vital Projects Fund, describes himself as a "left-winger," but he recognizes that progressives and libertarians are natural allies on this issue. He poses some provocative questions to libertarians about whether they are prepared to support social programs aimed at performing functions currently handled by the police. While that is a good conversation to have, it is not directly relevant to seizing this moment, which requires not only getting along with people who have different political views but also compromising with grudging supporters of reform who may be willing to back specific, concrete proposals to address police abuse that fall far short of the fundamental restructuring Menschel has in mind.

Much of the action on police reform is happening on the local and state levels, as you would expect given our federalist system of government. But to the extent that Congress can address the issue, we should be thinking about changes that might gain the support of not only Tom McClintock and Mitt Romney but also Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.), who has not heretofore distinguished himself as a criminal justice reformer but lately has been making noises about racial disparities in law enforcement. I'm not sure how much change someone like McConnell can stomach, but reform-minded legislators should find out before it's too late.

View post:
How Not To Build a Transpartisan Coalition for Police Reform - Reason

Its rare that candidates get to see a batch of television ads from their opponents campaign before they air, but thats what happened in the Kansas Senate race.

Plumbing company owner Bob Hamilton is one of nearly a dozen Republicans running for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The political newcomer has been airing television ads since the beginning of May, but an online survey with five, fully-produced unaired ads was sent out last week and one survey found its way to someone supporting another candidate in the race.

Getting feedback on ads is commonplace in big races, particularly for statewide and presidential campaigns. For decades, that was done with an in-person focus group where a moderator shows the potential ad on a screen and asks for feedback. While more ad testing was moving online even before the coronavirus changed social protocols, its rare that opposing campaigns and reporters get to see ads before they are on the air.

In this case, potential respondents were texted a link last week to a survey where they could watch five different ads. After each one, the person was given a multiple-choice question, Did the advertisement make you more likely or less likely to vote for Bob Hamilton? If the ad made no difference on your vote, please just say so.

At the end, respondents were asked to choose a favorite. Of the 5 ads shown, which advertisement stood out to you the most? The video about making puns about what hell do in Washington. The video about not being establishment and fixing Washington politics. The video about illegal immigration, sancturary [sic] cities and China. The video about not being a sumo wrestler and not giving away pizza and cable. The video about law & order, riots, and the media. Not sure.

Continued here:
Kansas Senate candidate's ad survey hits the wrong inbox - Roll Call

In my last post, I briefly analyzed proposed regulations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan to roll out today as part of a Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (JNPR). The first of those proposals is to place aliens subject to expedited removal who have established a credible fear of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, into asylum- or withholding-only proceedings (respectively), instead of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) where their cases are currently referred. This move is truer to Congress' intent and the expedited-removal statute than current policy, and will streamline cases in immigration court.

Pursuant to the current regulations, certain aliens seeking asylum, statutory withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are not entitled to be placed into section 240 removal proceedings, but may only have their claims heard in asylum- or withholding-only proceedings.

Specifically, identified alien crewmembers, stowaways, applicants for admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), aliens admitted under the VWP who overstayed, applicants who are seeking admission or who have been admitted as witnesses or informants on S nonimmigrant visas, and applicants for admission and aliens who have been admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) pursuant to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and overstayed their visas can only have their protection claims heard in asylum-only proceedings.

Aliens who are subject to reinstated orders of removal under section 241(a)(5) of the INA and aliens who have been administratively ordered removed under section 238 of the INA (as a result of convictions for aggravated felonies), on the other hand, are eligible to apply only for statutory withholding of removal and CAT in withholding-only proceedings.

In those proceedings, the removability of the alien is not at issue they have either waived the right to removal proceedings or are deemed removable by law. Rather, the only issue is whether they are eligible for asylum, statutory withholding, or CAT (as the case may be) they may not seek other forms of relief or privileges under the INA.

This contrasts with section 240 removal proceedings, in which the immigration judge (IJ) must first determine whether the alien is removable before assessing whether the alien is eligible for any form of protection or relief. Not only does that initial determination of removability (which can involve complex issues of fact and law) take up the court's time, but in section 240 removal proceedings, an alien respondent is not limited in the forms of relief that he or she can seek (although few if any aliens in expedited removal proceedings apply for relief other than asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or CAT).

In addition, in section 240 removal proceedings, DHS must establish that the alien is removable as charged if he or she fails to appear in order to obtain an in absentia order of removal. In FY 2019, there were 17,786 such in absentia orders issued in cases originating with a credible fear claim. Assuming 10 minutes of court time for each, that is 2,964 hours or 370.5 eight-hour days wasted on the IJs' dockets.

In asylum-only or withholding-only proceedings, on the other hand, if the alien does not appear, the application is simply found to be abandoned: The alien has already been found removable.

The language of the expedited removal provisions in section 235(b)(1) of the INA demonstrates that Congress did not intend for aliens found to have a credible fear to be placed into those section 240 removal proceedings, however.

Specifically, section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA states: "If the [asylum] officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution ... , the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." [Emphasis added.]

Contrast the language in this provision with section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, which pertains to aliens seeking admission who are not subject to expedited removal (expressly excluded from the coverage of that provision under clause 235(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA), crewmen, stowaways, and aliens who are inadmissible on security and related grounds. It states that:

[I]n the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 240 [of the INA]. [Emphasis added.]

Note that there is no reference to removal proceedings or section 240 of the INA in the expedited removal provision (section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA) only in section 235(b)(2)(A), although Congress added both of these provisions to the INA, in section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

That makes sense, because in expedited removal proceedings, a DHS immigration officer has already made the determination that the alien subject to expedited removal is removable. The only remaining question is whether the alien is eligible for asylum which is properly resolved in asylum-only proceedings.

And, as the conference report for that legislation explains:

The purpose of these provisions is to expedite the removal from the United States of aliens who indisputably have no authorization to be admitted to the United States, while providing an opportunity for such an alien who claims asylum to have the merits of his or her claim promptly assessed by officers with full professional training in adjudicating asylum claims. [Emphasis added.]

Also note that there is no reference to statutory withholding or CAT in the expedited-removal provision. Those were additional, extra-statutory protections that were added to the credible-fear regulation during the Clinton administration. The JNPR does not remove references to those forms of protection from the credible-fear regulation, although I have previously explained why authority to grant CAT should more properly be vested with DHS instead of the IJs not just in expedited removal cases, but more generally.

That notwithstanding, however, it is only appropriate that aliens in expedited removal proceedings found to have a credible fear of persecution or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture should only have their claims heard in asylum- and withholding-only proceedings. Not only does the current regulation unduly burden IJs' dockets, but it is contrary to Congress's at least implied, if not express direction in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA.

Put more simply, the only purpose for referring such a case to the IJ is for "further consideration of the" alien's application for protection not for a de novo review of the respondent's removability.

This is not a new idea, by the way just one that took a while to come to fruition. In fact, in May 2019, I wrote a post captioned "President Wants 'Asylum Only' Hearings for Credible Fear Claimants: Why wasn't this done earlier?". I explained therein:

On April 29, 2019, the president issued a "Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System", which (among other things) calls on the secretary of Homeland Security, to: "propose regulations to ensure that aliens who receive positive fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" are placed in asylum-only proceedings or withholding-only proceedings, as the case may be.

As I noted at the time: "This is such a commonsense proposal, the only question is why no one thought of it before." Now I can add: or issued a proposed regulation doing so before June 15, 2020. Better late than never.

More here:
DHS/DOJ: Send Credible-Fear Claimants to Asylum- and Withholding-Only Proceedings - Immigration Blog

As the ranks of the protesters against the murder of George Floyd grew to hundreds of thousands in the ensuing two weeks, the country saw the face of a young, racially diverse America determined to call out the racism shaping police misconduct. But those protesters were saying so much more. They were also calling out the racism at the heart of the deadly carnage from the pandemic and racism at the heart of the economic carnage. They were calling out a profoundly unequal America.

President Donald Trump was in a vengeful and dangerous mood. He was trapped in the White House, where the Secret Service sent him to a secure bunker; in return, he demanded a high fence be built around the White House compound. He demanded governors get tougher and claimed the right to use the U.S. armed forces to control domestic political protests. He told the country he was a law and order president and could use the unlimited power of the military. And on cue, his officers teargassed the peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. An intimidating phalanx of police officers on horseback cleared the way for him to reach St. Johns Episcopal Church.

But most revealing was his tweet, Tonight, I understand, is MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE??? That was his call to his millions of followers to rally and defend his presidency.

The rallying to defend Trump was pathetic.

More than 2,000 miles from the White House, scores of residents armed with assault weapons did turn out to guard the streets of Coeur dAlene, Idaho, protecting against a rumored attack by ANTIFA agitators that, of course, never came. White nationalists outside Philadelphia conducted a mock police execution of George Floyd.

More from Stanley B. Greenberg

Months ago, President Trump tweeted, liberate Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia and save your great 2nd Amendment. The national conservative funding network and Fox News jumped in to promote the protests, but the hundreds who joined the capitol protests fell far short of the Tea Party protests against President Barack Obama that shaped our country and polarized politics for the past decade.

Watching this weak, but nonetheless intimidating, defense of the president led me to a new conclusion about the 2020 election: The main issue is not whether President Donald Trump will get re-elected, but how a Tea Partydominated Republican Party reacts to its humiliating defeat.

Most observers understand that Trumps 2016 win was improbable, requiring an inside straight of Electoral College state wins. His rallies that year displayed a white working-class revolt that made Trump and his bravado possible.

But what almost everybody missed was how divided the Republican Party had become and how trapped Trump was within his own bloc of evangelical and Tea Party loyalists. Everyone missed how insecure was Donald Trumps hold on his own party, and how much of his politics is just bravado.

The right wings current pathetic defense of President Trump contrasts sharply with the Tea Party revolt against the election and re-election of President Barack Obamaa revolt against the first African American president and his multicultural coalition of women, millennials, blacks, and Hispanics.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Then, the Tea Party groups had genuine grass roots. More than 500,000 people joined over 500 rallies; 250,000 would join Tea Party groups. Most already belonged to pro-life, gun rights, anti-immigrant, or white nationalist groups. They gained momentum with funding from the Koch brothers and their allies, and from Fox Newss most prominent personalities broadcasting from their protests. The Tea Party leaders were replete with birthers who wanted to take our country back. The members were infused with a deep anti-Obama venom, deep racial resentment. Stopping Obama meant repealing Obamacarethe new federal entitlement to health insurance.

The marches and protests translated into organization that elected a whole class of Tea Party members to the Congress and governors offices. Two-thirds of the House members first elected in 2010 supported the Tea Party; they took office with a mandate to go nuclear, to stop government spending and repeal Obamacare.

The Tea Party wave elections allowed Republicans to gridlock government, to shut down the federal government time and again, to force the acceptance of spending caps and fiscal austerity that slowed President Obamas efforts at economic recovery. They demanded votes to repeal Obamacare, and in the states, their leaders blocked all efforts to set up health care exchanges and expand Medicaid. Nationally, they blocked Obamas efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and in the states, blocked undocumented immigrants getting any public benefits.

What animated them most of all was the legal and illegal immigration of the past three decadesa surge that had been welcomed and legalized on a bipartisan basis by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, working quite publicly with Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

The right wings current pathetic defense of President Trump contrasts sharply with the Tea Party revolt against the election and re-election of President Barack Obama.

Reagan legalized millions of the undocumented, the first President Bush joined with Kennedy to massively grow legal immigration, and George W. Bush tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Even after the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee and establishment Republican leaders in the Congress still called for immigration reform.

Imagine the building anger in Tea Party ranks when they watched the metropolitan elites and national leaders of both parties take irreversible actions that grew the percentage of foreign-born Americans every year, and saw that a growing majority of Americans since Obamas re-election welcomed a multicultural America replete with and open to immigrants.

These trends divided the Republican Party, one half of whose supporters backed the Tea Party movement in public polls in 2010. At an earlier point, these Republicans would have backed Pat Buchanan; later, they embraced Donald Trump.

Americas two political parties are now defined by the choices they made as America moved away from the traditional strictures on blacks, women, and immigrants. The modern Republican Party built its base in the white South, later expanding it to the deeply observant Appalachian regions and rural parts of the country. Largely ignoring the divisions in Republican ranks, the partys presidential nominees took pains to show they were champions of white people in the battles over civil rights and affirmative action. They scorned the sexual revolution, opposed abortion, and opposed women breaking free of the patriarchal family to achieve equality. The Republican Party would become the home of many observant Catholics, particularly in the Midwest.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

But on immigration, its national leaders pulled away from the Republican base that was increasingly anti-immigration and -immigrants. Reagan in California and the Bushes in Texas were open to Mexican immigrants and showed that Republicans could compete for their votes.

For a time, the GOP establishment fought the Tea Party in the Congress, and as late as 2013, the official Republican National Committee postmortem on Obamas re-election asserted that passing comprehensive immigration reform was required if the Republicans hoped to compete nationally in future elections.

In my first polls of Republicans base voters in 2013, the Tea Partysupporting coalition formed 44 percent of the Republican Party base. Those scorning the GOP establishment were the most pro-life, antigay marriage, pro-gun, anti-Obamacare and big government, and anti-immigration.

The largest bloc fighting the GOP establishment and Obama was the evangelicals, who made up 29 percent of Republican identifiers. They felt most threatened by a country where two-thirds would soon accept gay marriage as legal. They cheered the Tea Party protests and takeover of health care town halls. Finally, somebody had said, enough, and stood up to the GOP establishment.

The Tea Party supporters were 25 percent of the base. They were pro-life and against gay marriage, but they were most animated by their hatred of immigration, big-government bailout of the banks, Obamacare, and by threats to the Second Amendment.

In its entirety, however, the Republican Party could not have been more divided, as at least as many voters opposed this Tea Party bloc as supported it. Moderates made up a quarter of the GOP base in my first surveys after Obamas re-election. They were socially liberal, mostly women and college graduates. Nine in ten moderates thought it was OK for people to have sex without forming a long-term relationship, while seven in ten evangelicals said no.

John McCains openness to immigration and bipartisan civility made him the Tea Partys principal enemy within the party. The McCain secular conservatives formed nearly 20 percent of the baseand they were defined by their contempt for the incivility of the Tea Party.

The remaining Republicans were the observant Catholics who formed 16 percent of the base. They could break either way before Trump won them over.

Donald Trump determined that he would lead this deeply divided party into the 2016 electionand the fragility of his hold on this party defined his ugly battle for the nomination and has continued to define how hes governed as president.

Trump looked defiant and confident going down the escalator at Trump Tower in July 2015. He intended to woo the partys Tea Party base that was the most hostile to Obama and immigrants. He talked about trade, immigration, Obamacare, and the useless politicians who sold out the country to foreigners and let Mexico send us its murderers and rapists. He made no mention of abortion. His was a nationalistic cry against the elites and GOP politicians who had betrayed America and its working people.

Trumps surge into first place in the primary was produced entirely by his newfound Tea Party base.

But Trump couldnt get anywhere near a majority of the primary vote and delegates without winning over the evangelicals. Trump was secular to his bones, had been pro-choice and had said positive things about Planned Parenthood. But reversing field was no barrier to Trump. He embraced Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate and announced his pro-life Supreme Court short list. Evangelicals had loved Trumps visceral attacks on Obama and immigrants, but that wasnt enough. They always expected to be betrayed by a GOP establishment that was always letting social liberalism advance.

Trump has never wavered from his anti-Obama and anti-immigrant Tea Party, anti-government instincts, but he has always had to remind the evangelicals that he was fighting for their priorities and values, too. Trump cant waver on abortion, Obamacare, or immigrationlest they be sold out again.

But even the unified bloc of Tea Party and evangelical voters in the 2016 nominating battle formed less than half the party. By the time of his nomination, hed also won over pro-life Catholics who like his America First agenda. With that, Trump had his working majoritya small working majority.

But Trump has never won the full-throated support of his own party, despite the enthusiasm of his Tea Party ralliesthen and now, it is all bravado.

He won only 55 percent of Republican primary voters in 2016and none of his primary opponents endorsed him at his nominating convention. No former Republican presidents attended either. Like the rest of the world, they thought Trump would be vanquished by Hillary Clinton.

Trump has never won the full-throated support of his own party, despite the enthusiasm of his Tea Party ralliesthen and now, it is all bravado.

When candidate Trump won the Electoral College without a plurality of the popular vote, President Trump determined to govern as an uncompromising, Tea Party/evangelic/pro-life conservative who would never sell out his base on immigration, Obamacare, or abortion. His goal was building a clear and punishing majority within his own party, not the country. His strategy was rooted in his insecurity, not his firm hold on a loyal party.

Accordingly, Trump has executed his strategy with little nuance. He appointed the former leader of the House Freedom Caucus, Mick Mulvaney, to lead the Office of Management and Budget and, eventually, to be acting chief of staff. He chose Cabinet secretaries who promised to hollow out the departments they would lead.

He wiped out every sign of climate science in the government. He withdrew America from the Paris climate accord because the Tea Party viewed it as an elite hoax to expand government, and evangelicals, as an elite intrusion on Gods role in the planets future.

He gave evangelicals and William Barr Catholics an assured social-conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and up and down the federal bench.

He fought to repeal Obamacare but was blocked by two moderate Republican pro-choice women senators and John McCain. His efforts deepened Trumps support in the pro-life and observant bloc that formed 60 percent of the party by the end of his first year. That change in Republican composition allowed him to vanquish his opponents in any primary.

And Trump most defiantly and consistently moved to stop Muslim and Latino immigration. He began his Muslim ban and construction of that impenetrable wall along the Mexican border. He sent troops to the border to stop bus caravans traveling from Central America, separated refugee children from their parents, and created new camps on both sides of the border. The pandemic enabled Trump to effectively end immigration altogether.

But all this has come at a cost to Trumps political prospects: His relentless, venomous base strategy has created a bloc of Republican refugees who have nothing but contempt for his armed Tea Party, anti-stay-at-home protesters.

The proportion of Republicans who call themselves moderates has dropped from 23 percent in 2018 to only 16 percent now. When the McCain conservatives are added to those moderates, they now constitute 35 percent of the party, down from 41 percent two years ago. That leaves President Trump with a secure hold over his enthusiastic basebut as I wrote in March in The Atlantic, the Republican Party is a diminished party that is shedding voters.

When Trump took office, about 39 to 40 percent of Americans identified with the Republican Party. That fell to about 35 to 36 percent. Today, in the wake of the George Floyd protests, Republican identification has fallen to 33 percent.

The final push that has driven onetime Republicans from the partys ranks came after the pandemic struck with godly force. In a moment of nearly dark humor, Trump was required to lead a historic expansion of the federal government, and set the template for peoples every movement and every stage of the economic closures and reopenings. He appeared every day in a press conference, surrounded by unwanted experts from the deep state.

So, it was no surprise that he threw out the CDCs proposed detailed regulations to reopen the economy.

It was no surprise he promised to never return to stay-at-home orders, even as America faces a second wave of COVID-19.

It was no surprise he ordered all governors to reopen churches as essential services.

It was no surprise he used this moment to bar all immigration.

It was no surprise he tweeted in support of anti-stay-at-home protesters.

And it was no surprise he tweeted it was MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

But these are very different times. Only 15 percent of Americans and a third of Republicans like the state-at-home demonstrators. Over 60 percent want their governors to modulate how they open their states. A stunning 65 percent support the Black Lives Matter protesters.

President Trump is trapped by a pandemic and protests that only magnify his insecurity and weak hold on his own partyand by his need to provoke a Tea Party to make its last stand.

Read more from the original source:
The Tea Partys Last Stand - The American Prospect