Jennifer Rubin/WaPo speaking with Laurence A. Tribe and Joshua Matz:
Is there a danger in normalizing impeachment talk?
This is a major theme of our book….
The question of impeachment is more difficult. Some commentators think it would be unseemly for Congress to remove a president for illegal conduct that it could have done more to prevent (or that it could have authorized). That’s a fair point, as far as it goes. But congressional inaction isn’t a tacit warrant for the president to break the law, nor is it a “get-out-of-jail free” card in an impeachment hearing. Moreover, Trump’s receipt of foreign (and domestic) emoluments is part of a broader pattern of corrupt, nepotistic and financially self-interested dealings. This conduct has undermined the integrity of U.S. public policy and inflicted grave damage on our democratic system. To the extent there is any doubt about the propriety of impeaching Trump solely for receipt of foreign emoluments, we believe that a stronger article of impeachment would accuse him of implementing kleptocracy. Although any such article would require extensive factual investigation and legal debate — and we are not yet certain whether removal on that basis would be justified — it is a better framing of Trump’s wrongdoing.
Vox did a nice piece on yesterday’s primaries, what was at stake, and who the players were:
Every May 15 primary election you should know about, briefly explained
Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Idaho, and Oregon are all going to the polls.
Winners and losers can be compared to the piece.
James Hohmann/WaPo:
Trump supporters suffer unintended consequences of his policies
“Eddie Devine voted for [Trump] because he thought he would be good for American business. Now, he says, the Trump administration’s restrictions on seasonal foreign labor may put him out of business. ‘I feel like I’ve been tricked by the devil,’ said Devine, owner of Devine Creations Landscaping. ‘I feel so stupid.’ …
Dave Walton, who voted for Trump and tends soybeans, corn and livestock in eastern Iowa, is not sure his farm could take the added stress. “If this turns into a longer-term thing, we’re going to see friends and neighbors go out of business,” he told Caitlin Dewey last month. “If this stretches into years, we ourselves won’t be able to sustain it.”
Walton’s 800-acre farm, in his family for 118 years, has already been struggling to stay above water with falling crop prices, and tariffs could make profitability difficult. “Right now, soybean growers in Iowa and across the nation are encouraging the administration to engage positively with China,” he said. And if that doesn’t happen, he added: “Iowa leads the nation in many things. The presidential election is one of them.”
I have never believed all Trump voters are impervious to reality. Might be only 10% of them who see the big picture, but that’s enough to win elections with. Some of our regular readers wanted to read about Trump voters changing their minds, not the ones who haven’t. So, give it a read.
Paul Waldman/WaPo:
So what are Democrats to do? The answer is simple: This is a game they cannot win, so they have to stop playing. Know at the outset that no matter what you say or do, Republicans will cry that you’re disrespecting good heartland voters. There is no bit of PR razzle-dazzle that will stop them. Remember that white Republicans are not going to vote for you anyway, and their votes are no more valuable or virtuous than the votes of any other American. Don’t try to come up with photo ops showing you genuflecting before the totems of the white working class, because that won’t work. Advocate for what you believe in, and explain why it actually helps people.
Finally — and this is critical — never stop telling voters how Republicans are screwing them over. The two successful Democratic presidents of recent years were both called liberal elitists, and they countered by relentlessly hammering the GOP over its advocacy for the wealthy. And it worked.
Be respectful (don’t poke them deliberately) but do it with eyes open. There’s an entire industry devoted to disrespecting your respect.
Vox:
Why ruthlessness is a net negative in politics
Our research finds that collaborative, compassionate leadership actually yields its own rewards.
Recent research we’ve conducted of the behavior of US senators reveals something surprising: Being a virtuous leader actually carries its own rewards.
We conducted a study of the leadership attributes of US senators across several decades of floor speeches. We were looking for visual cues about their leadership styles. Do they demonstration compassion and empathy? Or do they demonstrate manipulation and ruthlessness? Given the current polarized political climate, one might think that to get anything done, politicians need to be ruthless and forceful.
That is the question we sought an answer to in a paper recently published in Psychological Science. Our approach to the question was based on decades-long research that suggests that personality traits manifest in verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the face, the body, in tones of voice, and the use of specific words.
For example, research suggests that narcissistic personality traits are associated with an increased use of first-person pronouns — it will come as no surprise to most that narcissists like to talk about themselves — and excessive pride, which can be revealed in expansive posture (an inflated, “pushed out” chest).
Anne Applebaum/WaPo:
Let us hope John McCain’s vision of America long outlasts him
McCain would be the first to say that he didn’t always live up to all of his ideals, but his lifelong attempt to live them helps explain why, as he is dying, there is a sudden flurry of interest in McCain, a glut of commentary about McCain, a plethora of short anecdotes about McCain circulating on social media. This is also why people close to the White House cannot stop themselves from making vulgar comments or vile jokes about McCain: They know that McCain embodies not just a form of patriotism but a kind of courage and honor that Trump will simply never have.
RAND:
The Strategic Fallout of U.S. Withdrawal from the Iran Deal
With the president's position cemented, it is time to think ahead to the strategic consequences of a decision whose aftermath is likely to outlive this presidency.
...
It's likely that the North Koreans and their neighbors have motives of their own in coming to the negotiating table that have little to nothing to do with the Iran deal. It is unlikely that the success or failure of North Korea negotiations will hinge on the fate of Iran's nuclear program.
…
This suggests that unless the Trump administration backs down from its intention to reimpose secondary sanctions, the Europeans will need to reinstate blocking sanctions that protect European companies from U.S. penalties, which essentially means the risk of a trade war between the United States and Europe.
Moreover, by leaving the agreement, the United States loses its leverage to enforce so-called “snapback sanctions” if it believes Iran is violating the agreement, and it's unlikely Russia, China, and Europe will be as strict as the United States in their interpretation of Iranian compliance.
A worse outcome would be if Iran no longer sees reason to adhere to the agreement without the United States. This could be either because Europe does not have the will or ability to stand up to U.S. secondary sanctions or because of domestic pressures in Iran that call into question the value of the agreement.
While the JCPOA agreement will make it difficult for Iran to resume a plutonium route to a nuclear weapon, the collapse of the agreement will allow Iran to quickly resume its enrichment capabilities to levels that were in place before the agreement.
This would put Iran dangerously close to the ability to weaponize its nuclear materials—months rather than at least a year under the agreement.
Great move. Just what the world needed.
Doctors, clergy and educators are all weighing in on gun violence:
Robert Doherty/ACP:
It's time for doctors to say ‘never again’ to gun violence
Because the public trusts physicians on matters affecting their health, doctors can contribute so much to the fight for commonsense gun policy reforms. Learn how.
Yet there comes a point in history when the politics change and the seemingly impossible becomes possible, often following movements spearheaded by the young. (Think of 25-year-old John Lewis, now a senior U.S. congressman, marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., some 51 years ago, and the progress he has seen since then.) This may be the case with gun policy, or it may not. It will be up to those who believe in reasonable restrictions on firearms to do the hard work of creating coalitions, educating the public, converting others to their cause, raising money, showing up in town hall meetings, demanding accountability from lawmakers, and electing candidates pledged to enacting gun safety measures.
Because the public trusts physicians on matters affecting their health, doctors can contribute so much to the fight for commonsense gun policy reforms. Here's how:
Albuquerque Journal:
Let our prayers move us to speak up about gun violence
For too long, however, our response to today’s increasing number of gun violence incidents has been limited to bringing comfort to the brokenhearted. We have answered with prayers and healing, but raised our voices only softly thus far calling for change. Although this may be a comfort to some, it is plainly evident that America faces an epidemic of gun violence that presents a moral imperative for faith leaders to rise up and address.
Curry School of Education:
CALL FOR ACTION TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
School shootings and widespread community gun violence are far greater in the United States than other nations. America cannot be great and realize its promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if our children are not safe from gun violence.
Although security measures are important, a focus on simply preparing for shootings is insufficient. We need a change in mindset and policy from reaction to prevention. Prevention entails more than security measures and begins long before a gunman comes to school. We need a comprehensive public health approach to gun violence that is informed by scientific evidence and free from partisan politics.
The soft voices are getting louder.