The Biggest Political Party in America You’ve Never Heard Of

If I asked you to name the biggest political party in the United States, what would be your answer? You probably have two guesses that come to mind: the Democratic party or the Republican party.Well, it’s neither.

It’s the party of Non-Voters.

Let’s look at the last presidential election: 100 million Americans who were eligible to vote in 2016 DID NOT vote. That’s a bigger number than the number who voted either for Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton. In Michigan, for example, where the contest came down to roughly 10,000 votes, it’s plausible to say that non-voters were the ones who decided the election.

Non-voters — those Americans eligible to vote but don’t — are in effect America’s biggest political party. Unless we work to reverse this trend, they could decide the next election.

So who are these missing voters? They are Americans who are most affected by decades of a broken political system, economic inequality, and laws designed to make it harder to vote. They are people of color, young people, and people with lower incomes.

At the same time, these missing voters tend to be more progressive than most voters. For example, non-voters are more likely to support higher taxes to pay for government services, a higher minimum wage, a federal jobs guarantee, and other progressive priorities.

There are also seven million young people of color who weren’t old enough to vote in 2016 but will be 18 by the 2020 election. These voters will also be critical to mobilize.

All of which means that voter turnout will determine our future. These non-voters are potential voters, and recent elections with record turnout show that we’re headed in the right direction.

The key question is how to get even more of them to the polls. Four steps:

1. Make it easier to vote, not harder. Some states have enacted laws to suppress the votes of people of color and young people, such as requiring an ID, reducing the number of polling places in Democratic districts, and purging voter rolls. These tactics must be ended. The Voting Rights Act, which for decades kept some of the worst practices in check until major provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court, must be restored.

And we need to make it easier to vote by making Election Day a federal holiday; enacting Automatic Voter Registration, for example when people turn 18; and voting by mail.

2. Mobilize young voters. They’re a huge potential voting block. In the 2018 midterm elections, 36 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 cast ballots, shattering turnout records from the past quarter-century and contributing to major Democratic victories across the country

3. Inspire enthusiasm and grassroots energy around big ideas and bold policies, not milquetoast, consultant-driven half-measures. Look at Stacey Abrams’s campaign in 2018. Even though she didn’t win, Abrams ran a bold campaign and worked to turn out Democratic voters that had largely been ignored in the red state of Georgia. As a result, Abrams garnered more votes — 1.9 million — than any other Democrat running for any office in the history of the state, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter.

4. Personally encourage others to vote. Make sure they know how to register, and when and where to vote. Tell them to be a voter.

Rebuilding America starts with the simple act of voting. If we can activate even a fraction of those 100 million non-voters, we can restore American democracy and make our economy and our democracy work for the many rather than the few.

This is why it’s so important for you to vote – and urge everyone you know to vote, too.

Robert Reich
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2020

Why I’m Still Hopeful About America

If climate change, nuclear standoffs, assault weapons, hate crimes, mass killings, Russian trolls, near-record inequality, kids locked in cages at our border, and Donald Trump in the White House don’t occasionally cause you feelings of impending doom, you’re not human.

But I want you to remember this: As bad as it looks – as despairing as you can sometimes feel – the great strength of this country is our resilience. We bounce back. We will again. We already are.

Not convinced?

First, come back in time with me to when I graduated college in 1968. That year, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Our cities were burning. Tens of thousands of young Americans were being ordered to Vietnam to fight an unwinnable and unjust war, which ultimately claimed over 58,000 American lives and the lives of over 3 million Vietnamese. The nation was deeply divided. And then in November of that year, Richard Nixon was elected president. 

I recall thinking this nation would never recover. But somehow we bounced back.

In subsequent years we enacted the Environmental Protection Act. We achieved marriage equality for gays and lesbians. We elected a black man to be president of the United States. We passed the Affordable Care Act.

Even now, it’s not as bleak as it sometimes seems. ​In 2018 we elected a record number of women, people of color, and LGBTQ representatives to Congress, including the first Muslim women.​ ​Eighteen states raised their minimum wages.

Even in traditionally conservative states, surprising things are happening. In Tennessee, a Republican legislature has ​enacted free community college​ and ​raised taxes for infrastructure.​ Nevada has expanded ​voting rights​ and ​gun controls​. New Mexico has increased​ spending by 11 percent and ​raised​ its minimum wage by 60 percent. Teachers have gone on strike in Virginia, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina — and won. The public sided with the teachers.

In several states, after decades of tough-on-crime policies, conservative groups have joined with liberals to reform criminal justice systems. ​Early childhood education​ and alternative energy promotion​ have also expanded nationwide, largely on a bipartisan basis.

Now, come forward in time with me.

Look at the startling diversity of younger Americans. ​Most Americans now under 18 years old are ethnically Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, African-American, or of more than one race.​ ​In ten years, it’s estimated that most Americans under ​35​ will also be people of color or of mixed races.​ ​Thirty years from now, most of us will be.​ 

That diversity will be a huge strength. We will be more tolerant, less racist, less xenophobic.

Our young people are also determined to make America better. I’ve been teaching for almost 40 years, and I’ve never taught a generation of students as dedicated to public service, as committed to improving the nation and the world as is the generation I’m now teaching. That’s another sign of our future strength.

Meanwhile, ​most college students today are women​, which means that in future years even more women will be in leadership positions – in science, politics, education, nonprofits, and in corporate suites. That will also be a great boon to America.

I don’t want to minimize the problems we now have. I just want to remind you of how resilient America has been, and how well situated we are for the future. 

Never give up fighting for a more just society. 

The forces of greed and hate would prefer you give up, because that way they win it all. But we have never given up. And we never will.

Robert Reich

January 12, 2020

Who’s Winning the Vampire Squid Primary?

From Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, top Democrats have long been beholden to the predatory and socially useless private equity industry. This time, the finance bros are donating in droves to Biden, Buttigieg . . . and Deval Patrick (?). They just really want to stop Bernie Sanders.

Private equity, as an industry, has been responsible for massive wealth theft in recent years: that is, large-scale redistribution of wealth upward, from the working class to the ownership class. Whether through bankruptcies and job loss (famously at Toys “R” Us, for example), the looting of pensions, or increasing the ranks of the billionaire class, private equity is an enemy of the 99 percent and especially the working class.

The sector’s profiteers have money to spend to buy political influence, and they’d love to make a return on that investment. The good news is, some of their favorite candidates are tanking.

Bernie Sanders is running a solid second in most polls, with a message strongly opposed to the exploitation and inequality that private equity (PE) epitomizes. Not surprisingly, the industry flatly does not want either Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to be president, and its employees haven’t donated significant sums to either candidate. In fact, judging from their contributions, the industry — apart from the segment supporting Trump out of pure short-term id — is desperate to find candidates who can defeat the Left within the Democratic Party. PE doesn’t like the sound of wealth taxes, nor of redistributive programs like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, or free college.

Nor does it appear to like the women in this cycle, not even the centrists they’ve supported in the past, like Kamala Harris (may her campaign rest in peace) or Amy Klobuchar. Sexism could be a factor: private equity is a male-dominated industry; a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis recently found that globally, women fill only 8 percent of senior investment jobs at the ten largest PE firms. In trying to boost their numbers of women, according to a recent study, PE firms have struggled even more than venture capital and hedge funds. In addition to their rapacious role in class warfare, PE firms are seriously patriarchal organizations.

Joe Biden is a huge favorite of PE donors, getting large sums from Blackstone and drawing more contributions from the Carlyle Group and Apollo Global Management than any other candidate. Blackstone employees have given slightly more to McKinsey alum and acknowledged smarty-pants Mayor Pete Buttigieg. KKR employees have also favored the South Bend mayor. Bain Capital employees have overwhelmingly favored Biden, though they enjoyed a flirtation with Beto O’Rourke and have also been generous with Mayor Pete.

But the industry has also been crushed out on some truly unpopular candidates.

Hedge fund billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, polling at less than 2 percent, has attracted support from Bain, Hellman & Friedman, and General Atlantic (as well as from his own hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management).

A bigger industry fave is Cory Booker, who, while losing much interest from big donors after he denounced super PACs, has reaped huge contributions from PE titans at firms like Harvest Partners, Paloma Equity Partners, and Apollo, as well as Blackstone. He’s polling at less than 2 percent, according to RealClearPolitics, which takes an average of five different polls.

Then there’s Deval Patrick, who outpaces everyone in PE support and underperforms almost everyone in the polls. Patrick, whose awfulness we’ve recently discussed, and who stepped down from Bain Capital the very week he announced he was entering the primary, will, of course, be the favored son of the industry since he is literally one of them. Before he even officially entered the race, he got $350,000 from a daddy-and-me pair of billionaire golf enthusiasts, Paul and Dan Fireman, who run a Boston private equity firm. Patrick is polling at less than half a percentage point.

Even back in 2012, when hatred of the rich and the finance industry wasn’t nearly as robust as it is now, GOP candidate Mitt Romney couldn’t live down the PE stigma. His record at Bain Capital dogged him even in the Republican primary, and in the general election, Obama ran against it hard. Now, in a far more populist moment, private equity is seen as even more toxic. That doesn’t mean the industry couldn’t have a significant influence: Biden is unfortunately still a front-runner, and Mayor Pete doesn’t seem to be going away. Some PE donors — nihilistic asset-strippers that they are — will turn to Trump in the general election. But it’s good news that many of their pet Democrats are faring so poorly.

Liza Featherstone

12/04/2019

The Myth of Voter Fraud

THE MYTH OF VOTER FRAUD – And the Truth About What’s Threatening Our Elections

Donald Trump and his enablers have been making claims of widespread voter fraud, alleging millions of people are voting illegally in order to rig our elections.

Baloney. Let’s look at the facts and debunk their myths once and for all.

They claim millions of Americans are voting twice, using multiple registrations in different districts.

So how often does double voting really occur? An analysis of the 2012 presidential election found that out of 129 million votes cast, 0.02% – that’s two one hundredths of one percent – were double votes – which were likely the result of measurement error. This is a far cry from Donald Trump’s claims that millions of people were registered in two different states in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump and his enablers claim non-citizens are voting in droves. Trump himself said that thousands of undocumented immigrants voted in 2016.

Another lie. According to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, of 23.5 million votes cast in districts with high populations of non-citizens only 30 – I repeat, thirty – possible incidents of improper non-citizen voting were referred for further investigation.

They claim voter impersonation is rampant at the polls.

False. A 12-year study of election data found only 10 cases of voter impersonation out of 146 million registered voters. Ten.

So if voter fraud really isn’t a problem, why do Trump, Republicans in Congress, and their allies at Fox News keep perpetuating this myth? For one simple reason: To enact restrictive voting laws intended to keep voters from the polls.

Policies established in the name of election security – including voter ID laws, needless registration deadlines, limited access to polling places, and purges of the voter rolls – make it harder for Americans to vote. It is the same tactic that has been used throughout our history to disenfranchise low-income Americans and people of color.

Luckily, many of these laws have been struck down in the courts. In 2016, a district judge in Wisconsin found “utterly no evidence” of widespread voter fraud justifying its voter ID law. In Texas, another judge found their voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, making it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to vote.

But many of these laws are still on the books because in 2013 the Supreme Court gutted crucial aspects of the Voting Rights Act.

Congress needs to update the Act to prevent states from suppressing votes.

Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans in Congress are turning a blind eye to the real threats facing our democracy: election fraud, and foreign interference.

In 2018, a Republican operative stole votes from Democrats in a North Carolina congressional race with a quote, “coordinated, unlawful, and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.” After the ballots were counted, the Republican candidate appeared to have won by about 900 votes. But the fraud was so glaring that the state board of elections refused to certify the results and called for a special election.

The other real threat is foreign interference in our elections, as Russia did in 2016.

We now know for a fact that Trump is encouraging foreign leaders to interfere in our elections — asking the President of Ukraine to investigate his political opponents in exchange for military aid and publicly calling on Russia and China to also interfere.

In the Senate, Mitch McConnell continues to block common-sense legislation to protect our elections against future foreign interference, such as requiring all voting machines to have backup paper ballots and imposing automatic sanctions for nations that interfere in elections. To have safe and secure elections in 2020 and beyond, we need to pass this legislation.

The next time you hear Trump and his enablers claim widespread voter fraud, know the truth. Their lies are intended to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote, while they ignore the real threats to our democracy.

Robert Reich

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2019

Why Billionaires Don’t Really Like Capitalism

Why Billionaires Don’t Really Like Capitalism

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2019

By Robert Reich

Billionaires are wailing that Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s wealth tax proposals are attacks on free market capitalism.

Warren “vilifies successful people,” says Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

Rubbish. There are basically only five ways to accumulate a billion dollars, and none of them has to do with being successful in free market capitalism.    

The first way is to exploit a monopoly.

Jamie Dimon is worth $1.6 billion. That’s not because he succeeded in the free market. In 2008 the government bailed out JPMorgan and four other giant Wall Street banks because it considered them “too big to fail.”

That bailout is a hidden insurance policy, still in effect, with an estimated value to the big banks of $83 billion a year. If JPMorgan weren’t so big and was therefore allowed to fail, Dimon would be worth far less than $1.6 billion.

What about America’s much-vaulted entrepreneurs, such as Jeff Bezos, now worth $110 billion? You might say Bezos deserves this because he founded and built Amazon.

But Amazon is a monopolist with nearly 50 percent of all e-commerce retail sales in America, and e-commerce is one of the biggest sectors of retail sales. In addition, Amazon’s business is protected by a slew of patents granted by the U.S. government.

If the government enforced anti-monopoly laws, and didn’t give Amazon such broad patents,Bezos would be worth far less than $110 billion.

A second way to make a billion is to get insider information unavailable to other investors.

Hedge-fund maven Steven A. Cohen, worth $12.8 billion, headed up a hedge fund firm in which, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department, insider trading was “substantial, pervasive, and on a scale without known precedent in the hedge fund industry.” Nine of Cohen’s present or former employees pleaded guilty or were convicted. Cohen got off with a fine, changed the name of his firm, and apparently is back at the game.  

Insider trading is endemic in C-suites, too. SEC researchers have found that corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their stock on the days following their own stock buyback announcements as they are in the days leading up to the  announcements.

If government cracked down on insider-trading, hedge-fund mavens and top corporate executives wouldn’t be raking in so much money.

A third way to make a billion is to buy off politicians.

The Trump tax cut is estimated to save Charles and the late David Koch and their Koch Industries an estimated $1 to $1.4 billion a year, not even counting their tax savings on profits stored offshore and a shrunken estate tax. The Kochs and their affiliated groups spent some $20 million lobbying for the Trump tax cut, including political donations. Not a bad return on investment.

If we had tough anti-corruption laws preventing political payoffs, the Kochs and other high-rollers wouldn’t get the special tax breaks and other subsidies that have enlarged their fortunes.  

The fourth way to make a billion is to extort big investors.

Adam Neumann conned JP Morgan, SoftBank, and other investors to sink hundreds of millions into WeWork, an office-sharing startup. Neumann used some of the money to buy buildings he leased back to WeWork and to enjoy a lifestyle that included a $60 million private jet. WeWork never made a nickel of profit.

A few months ago, after Neumann was forced to disclose his personal conflicts of interest, WeWork’s initial public offering fell apart and the company’s estimated value plummeted. To salvage what they could, investors paid him over $1 billion to exit the board and give up his voting rights. Most other WeWork employees were left holdingnear-worthless stock options. Thousands were set to be laid off.

If we had tougher anti-fraud laws, Neumann and others like him wouldn’t be billionaires.

The fifth way to be a billionaire is to get the money from rich parents or relatives.

About 60 percent of all the wealth in America today is inherited, according to estimates by economist Thomas Piketty and his colleagues. That’s because, under U.S. tax law – which is itself largely a product of lobbying by the wealthy – the capital gains of one generation are wiped out when those assets are transferred to the next, and the estate tax is so tiny that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates were subject to it last year.  

If unearned income were treated the same as earned income under the tax code, America’s non-working rich wouldn’t be billionaires. And if capital gains weren’t eliminated at death, many heirs wouldn’t be, either.

Capitalism doesn’t work well with monopolies, insider-trading, political payoffs, fraud, and large amounts of inherited wealth. Billionaires who don’t like Sanders’s and Warren’s wealth tax should at least support reforms that end these anti-capitalist advantages.

Trump Betrays the Military

President Donald Trump on Friday cleared three military service members of war crimes, even after being reportedly advised against doing so by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Mr. Trump interceded on behalf of Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who had been charged with murdering an Afghan man; Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was convicted in connection with posing for a photo with the corpse of a fighter in Iraq; and Army First Lt. Clint Lorance, who, after nine fellow unit members testified against him, had been convicted of murdering two civilians in Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump may believe that intervening pays respect to those who have served in uniform, that it shows he’s “pro-military.” But if this is his view, he’s wrong. In reality, Mr. Trump’s meddling undermines the military’s institutional values, risks endangering American service members, and disrespects the honorable service of the overwhelming majority of veterans.

The military strives to ensure that its members adhere to the laws of war and respect human rights. Service members are trained, for example, to avoid civilian casualties by understanding rules of engagement and following the proper steps for escalation of force. They also learn the appropriate ways to treat detainees, and interrogators are trained to employ only the approved, legal methods.

During my two deployments to Afghanistan, my intelligence work helped lead to the capture of insurgent leaders. Sharing responsibility for their capture and as a recipient of the intelligence produced by their interrogations, I had a sense of moral reassurance in the understanding that my colleagues handled and interrogated the detainees humanely — just as they had been trained.

The lessons service members learn about the laws of war are not an afterthought. Rather, they are central, emphasized time and again — from training sessions and exercises, to military ethics discussions, to actual combat deployments. The Army’s official values, after all, demand that soldiers “do what’s right, legally and morally” and “treat others with dignity and respect,” making no exceptions for civilians or even enemies.

The military requires its members to operate in accordance with the laws of war for good reason. Disregarding the laws of war — which Mr. Trump has done by intervening in these cases — jeopardizes mission accomplishment and the safety of service members; excessive civilian casualties, for example, can stimulate further violence, turn local populations against American forces, and discourage allies from collaborating with the United States. Mr. Trump should realize that the laws of war actually serve to benefit our armed forces.

Against this backdrop, Mr. Trump’s intervention on behalf of those convicted or accused of conduct falling short of the military’s crucial legal requirements and moral expectations undermines the training in which the military rightly invests so much effort. It trivializes the values the military spends so much time fostering. He could be endangering United States service members deployed to combat zones by handing their enemies propaganda and recruitment material and by degrading support among local populations.

To be sure, war is complex, and service members accordingly face difficult moral choices under extraordinary pressure. But their preparation helps them make sound decisions in these tough situations, and the military justice system considers the factual circumstances of each case and the intent of the actor.

Benjamin Haas

New York Times

Nov. 15, 2019

Letter from an American

I have spent the day madly checking footnotes and making final corrections on the manuscript of my forthcoming book, and I emerged at about 8:00 to look at the news. It hit like a firehose: we have separated almost 70,000 children from their parents under the Trump administration; White House advisor Steve Miller wrote more than 900 emails to a Breitbart reporter advocating white nationalism; Turkey's president Erdogan, the dictator whose troops allegedly committed war crimes when they pushed into northern Syria last month, is visiting the White House tomorrow; Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's associate Rick Gates said at Trump advisor Roger Stone's trial for lying to Congress that Trump knew about the Wikileaks dumps of DNC emails that had been done by Russia; the Department of Justice is trying to finish a report on the attacks on the 2016 election before Attorney General William Barr presents the alternative one he's working on with John Durham...

and I thought: how on earth will I ever make sense of this tonight?

And then I hit upon a Washington Post article outlining the different approaches Democrats and Republicans are taking toward the public impeachment testimony that starts tomorrow: Democrats want "a serious and somber process of publicly exposing Trump’s misconduct, narrated by career diplomats who were alarmed by the president’s push to have Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as a debunked theory concerning the 2016 election, in exchange for military aid and a White House visit coveted by Ukraine’s new leader." Meanwhile "Republicans prepared to fervently defend Trump while painting the impeachment probe as a thinly veiled show trial designed to take down a president who did nothing wrong."

And then it hit me. The story for tonight, and indeed for this administration, and for the last several years of the once great Republican Party, is clear. The people in charge of this country right now have abandoned democracy. They are giving Trump a pass for things that they would never have tolerated in a Democrat because they cannot stand to chance another Democratic president; they think they are our country's only legitimate rulers. The world people like Steven Miller wants is a world in which a few leaders, "only the best people," people like Erdogan and Putin and Trump arrange matters in such a way that they control all the wealth and power, since lesser people-- people of color and women-- cannot be trusted to exercise it. We would demand fairer laws that prevent the concentration of wealth and power, and thus we would hurt the ability of our leaders to, well, solve the Middle East crisis singlehandedly, for example, or win an "easy" trade war, or get Kim Jong Un to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

With that stark division in mind, the day's news falls neatly into place: The bombshell news from Roger Stone's trial is that Trump appears to have misled Special Counsel Robert Mueller about his knowledge of the Wikileaks dumps before the 2016 election. Wikileaks had access to files from the Democratic National Committee that had been stolen by Russian intelligence, and it dumped them in such a way as to injure the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help Trump. Trump's associate Roger Stone was apparently the campaign's contact with Wikileaks, and today Rick Gates (I know, I know, we all need scorecards), said he heard Trump talking about the dumps as early as June 2016, suggesting that he was in on the fix. And, for that matter, Gates claims Stone was talking about the stolen emails as early as April, before the DNC had admitted it had been hacked. In his written answers to questions (because he refused to testify in person), Trump told Mueller that he had no recollection of such conversations. (Pundits are saying this means he lied, but it seems to me saying he couldn't remember is hard to challenge, even if it seems a pretty obvious dodge. Still, in 1998, congressional Republicans were nearly unanimous in thinking that lying under oath was an impeachable offense.)

If staying in power is more important than defending the rule of law, it only makes sense for Barr to be rushing to produce a damning report from an investigation into conspiracy theories about Ukraine's complicity in attacking the 2016 election that his man John Durham has undertaken outside of the normal channels of the Department of Justice, and, in turn, for the DOJ Inspector General to try to get out his report first.

It also makes sense to traumatize migrant children to try keep their families out of the country, because letting such refugees in will add voices to the popular dislike of the current regime. And if they are traumatized, what of it? They are really not children like white kids are, immature and needing nurture well into their adult lives, the same as a 17 year old Black Trayvon Martin buying Skittles was really not a child with a sweet tooth, but rather a dangerous thug in a hoodie. All of those people endanger the world's true leaders... just ask Stephen Miller. Or, rather, read his emails warning that immigration and dark skinned people will destroy the white race.

And as for impeachment, it matters not at all that the Democrats have deliberately invited the initial public testimony, starting tomorrow, to be from former Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor, a former military man appointed by George W. Bush, and the State Department official who oversees Ukraine, George Kent, career diplomats both, who have testified carefully and clearly behind closed doors about the rule of law and the undermining of our national interests in Ukraine. Republicans are already jockeying to make the somber hearings a circus.

Why does this all matter? Because this apparent worldview is antithetical to the principles on which America was founded, the principles which once made us great. At a time when the rest of the Western world was based on the idea that some people were better than others, and that noblemen should rule while the peasants labored, our Founders threw off that idea to insist that all men were created equal and could create an even-handed government in which all men were equal under the rule of law. For all that the Founders excluded women and people of color from their vision of the world, they embraced a principle of equality that stood against the idea of a natural hierarchy. It was a principle that could be, and has been, expanded. If we lose that principle to the idea that some men are better than others, and that it's okay for the current regime to cheat to stay in power, we will have lost what made us great. We will have lost democracy.

So what do you look for tomorrow? Taylor and Kent probably won't say much they didn't say already. Tomorrow is less about substance than about performance art, and whether or not the Republicans can muddy the waters enough to so confuse people they give up trying to understand what happened.

What happened is an attack on our nation. The president tried to extort a foreign leader to say he was investigating one of Trump's main opponents, a poisoning of the media conversation that would've hurt Biden much as the announced investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails hurt her candidacy in 2016. It would've helped to rig the election in Trump's favor. And Republican leaders are looking the other way at this fundamental attack on our democracy because they would rather have a dictator in the White House than a Democrat.

No matter what your political affiliation is, you have to see that stance as fundamentally unAmerican.

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov. 12, 2019