We begin today’s roundup with reaction to Howard Schultz’s run for president. First up, Damon Linker at The Week:
No one is clamoring for billionaire Howard Schultz to run for president — at least outside of Davos, Switzerland. [...] Schultz seems to believe, and seems to have convinced some very powerful people in the world of media, that he represents "the center" of the political spectrum — and that this supremely reasonable ideological position is on track to go underrepresented in the 2020 race for president because both parties have moved, by contrast, to the extreme left and right.
This is untrue. There is no reason at all why Schultz's preferred mix of policies should be considered "the center" of anything, and it's important that people understand why.
More on Schultz and his quest for the mythical “center” from Michelle Goldberg at The New York Times:
[T]his frustrated executive’s politics aren’t widely shared by people who haven’t been to Davos. In a 2017 study, the political scientist Lee Drutman plotted the 2016 electorate along two axes, one dealing with social issues and identity, the other with economics and trade. Only 3.8 percent of voters fell into the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant.
Indeed, Trump’s campaign demonstrated that the truly underserved market in American politics was voters who are socially conservative but economically liberal — the photonegative of what Schultz is offering. Such voters — the type who might resent both immigrants and Wall Street — make up 28.9 percent of the electorate, according to Drutman’s study. [...]
Schultz makes much of the fact that around 40 percent of Americans identify as “independent.” But as anyone who has spent 15 minutes googling should know, independent is not the same thing as centrist. Most independents lean toward one party, and as the Pew Research Center has demonstrated, in the past two decades independents have grown more ideologically polarized, not more moderate.
Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, calls on the Senate to oppose the confirmation of William Barr as the next Attorney General:
At Barr’s hearing, he steadfastly refused to commit to fully releasing Mueller’s report or recusing himself from matters relating to the probe, should he become attorney general. His seeming desire to pander to President Donald Trump to get this job is troubling — and more than a little mystifying.
An independent Justice Department that upholds the rights of all Americans should be a cornerstone of our democracy, but recent years have jeopardized that ideal. Under Barr, we believe, the rights of millions of Americans would be at risk.
Meanwhile, Ryan Bort at Rolling Stone dives into Stephen Miller’s monumental policy miscalculations:
Excerpts published by The Atlantic on Monday describe an exchange between Sims and Miller when the former approached the latter out of concern that the administration wasn’t doing more to help refugees, particularly persecuted Christians. “I would be happy if not a single refugee foot ever again touched America’s soil,” Miller said, according to the book.
Shortly after the excerpts were published, Politico reported that Trump is “very pissed off” and “really hopping mad” about the book.
Miller’s gambit to hold out for a more racist bill to overhaul America’s immigration system hasn’t panned out very well.
The Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Goldstein writes about Trump’s false emergency justification for his border wall:
Trump no doubt thinks he looks more reasonable if he gives Congress plenty of time to act before declaring an emergency. He might also think that Congress’s repeated failure to provide funds shows the need for emergency action. The truth is the exact opposite. By giving Congress time to definitively establish its unwillingness to fund the border wall, Trump is both taking away any legitimate justification for emergency action and proving his intent to subvert the constitutional balance of powers.
And on a final note, don’t miss Kelly Weill’s deep dive into the violent Proud Boys and Roger Stone at The Daily Beast:
The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left. Designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group and its members have been involved in a series of bloody brawls across the country over the past three years, leading to the recent departure of founder Gavin McInnes.
Taking McInnes' place is Tarrio, who is especially close to Stone. They appeared together on Friday outside of court. On Sunday, Tarrio was photographed entering Stone’s house. Last month, Stone filmed a video with Tarrio where he told the group to “keep the faith.”
Tarrio’s Proud Boys count Stone as one of their own. The group posted a video last February showing Stone completing what has been described by the group as a low-level initiation. “Hi, I’m Roger Stone. I’m a Western chauvinist. I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.”
