Going Dark

The Washington Post has announced it will not be issuing an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race, overruling a decision by the editorial board planning to endorse Vice President Harris. This follows a similar decision by the LA Times, both justified under the auspices of maintaining "neutrality", both actually made at the behest of billionaire owners who have significant financial stakes in staying in the good graces of the once- and potential-future president.

For the Post, it is a stunning abdication of duty and role by an outlet that operated under the mantra "democracy dies in darkness."

(The LA Times case has a slight wrinkle, in that the billionaire owner's daughter suggested in her own tweets that the non-endorsement was actually a commentary on the "genocide" in Gaza. While I suspect the owner's more pecuniary motives were driving the show, I'll just say that it should surprise no one that these "different" politics lead to the exact same place, and are profound exercises in cowardice in the exact same ways).

I remember the week Trump was elected, I was in a pedagogy class where new collegiate instructors were discussing how we should respond to the shocking news in our classroom. On this point, our professor was quite decisive: we had a job to do, and we should respond by doing our jobs. Since we were in a political scientist department, this didn't mean we necessarily ignored the events in the outside world -- politics were part of our ambit, after all. But we were not to pout, or cancel class, or anything of the sort. We had jobs to do, and we should do them.

The Post's choice today is the climax of a broader failure in our mainline news media to simply do its job in the face of shocking news. When Trump initially rose to power, the media's job was to report on him accurately. It instead viewed him as a fun little joke that could spike some ratings and inject some entertainment into the staid and boring world of politics. They saw their job as goosing readership, not informing the public. As the 2016 election approached, they chose to develop a truly unhealthy obsession with the absolute non-scandal of EMAILZ, to the exclusion of virtually every other issue. They saw their job as getting out in front of the candidate who "of course" was going to win, or of carrying out their own personal vendettas against Hillary Clinton.

This time around, we're going through the same thing. It is the media's job to accurately report on the frightening descent of Trump into a mix of babbling incoherence and unapologetic fascism. Instead, we get sanewashing -- express efforts to misreport what Trump actually says and does because rendering the copy accurately would make him look, well, look exactly as he is.

And that brings us to the non-endorsement developments. The media -- or the business "leaders" who own the relevant papers -- no longer sees Trump as a joke. They are scared of him. They know full well that his next term in office will be replete with recrimination against all he deems his enemies, and they do not want to fall on the wrong side of the naughty/nice list. I agree with those who say that the Post's decision is anticipatory compliance, but more than that I agree that it is a terrifying sign of the Putinization of American politics -- a billionaire class that knows the security of its position is entirely at the whim of dictator, and makes sure to cozy up to him lest their portfolios (or other things) start plummeting from great height.

All of this is no more complicated than a simple refusal by the media to do its job, in the most basic form imaginable. Some institutions are, as a matter of role, forbidden from wading into political controversies, but newspaper editorial pages are not one of them. The contention that a newspaper violates some precept of neutrality by having its editorial board issue an endorsement is beneath contempt; editorials are opinions by definition, they necessarily take a point of a view. When the media, in its professional judgment as observers of the political scene, decide that candidate A is a better pick for the position than candidate B, communicating that choice is doing one's job. Where the evidence shows that candidate B would be a disaster for democracy, rule of law, and the very continuation of the American project, all the more so.

Not every newspaper is failing in its job. But some are. The Washington Post was my hometown paper, it is the one I grew up with. It is bitterly disappointing to see it stoop to such a pathetic low.

Pictured: The entirety of the presidential endorsement by the Willamette Week

Do Republicans Care That Trump Admires Hitler?

The Atlantic's bombshell story this week was that Donald Trump expressed an admiration for Hitler, saying "I need the kind of generals Hitler had." This had been reported before, but the confirmation by former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly gave an extra boost of confirmation from Trump's inner-most circle.

How are Republicans responding to the news? In a variety of ways. Door #1, from the Trump campaign itself, is just to declare it all a lie:

Trump’s campaign categorically denied The Atlantic’s reporting and blamed Harris for encouraging Trump’s assassination. Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesman, said Harris “continues to peddle outright lies and falsehoods that are easily disproven. The fact is that Kamala’s dangerous rhetoric is directly to blame for the multiple assassination attempts against President Trump and she continues to stoke the flames of violence all in the name of politics.”

I actually respect this response the most, since it at least concedes the premise that Trump being pro-Hitler is a bad development that should be shunned. 

Not every Republican agrees. Behind Door #2 is New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who said that Trump supporting Hitler is "baked-in to the vote at this point." In other words, Republicans already had figured Trump was a Hitler supporter and were fine with it. No surprises here.

And then finally, there's Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, who's response was to say "actually, Trump was making a good point!"

On Fox News, anchor Brian Kilmeade said Trump was justifiably frustrated by aides who refused to carry out orders they deemed illegal.

Kilmeade said, “I can absolutely see him go, ‘It’d be great to have German generals that actually do what we ask them to do,’ maybe not fully being cognizant of the third rail of German generals who were Nazis or whatever.”

"...or whatever," indeed. What sort of president wouldn't want generals who blindly follow executive orders to commit the most horrific atrocities humanity has ever witnessed? (Answer: the sort of president who isn't interested in replicating the most horrific atrocities humanity has ever witnessed).

Meanwhile, yesterday on Bluesky I snarked that I couldn't wait for the inevitable "Jonathan Greenblatt response that contains three paragraphs of effusive praise for Trump’s allyship towards the Jewish community sandwiching a vague gesture that 'this sort of rhetoric isn’t helpful.'" That drew off of this post which observed how Greenblatt's recent treatment of Trump has been defined by a fundamental trust in Trump as a true "ally of the Jews," the commitment to which he regrettably occasionally falls short of realizing.

So was my prediction on Greenblatt's response correct? Answer: We don't know, because as far as I can tell the ADL hasn't issued a statement on this news at all! What a sterling performance by America's preeminent antisemitism watchdog.

Tell Me Who To Vote For (Portland Edition 2024)

Election day is coming up, and while my choices are very easy on a national level (every Democrat gets my enthusiastic, excited, and unqualified endorsement), there are a bunch of local races where I'm feeling considerably less informed. So I'm going to lay out my tentative preferences for Portland Mayor, City Council (District 4), and Multnomah County Commissioner (District 1), as well as some ballot initiatives -- but I very much invite you to chime in with your own thoughts if you have information I do not.

Mayor

We have ranked choice voting now, so it's not just a matter of choosing a favorite -- you have to have an order of preference (at least amongst viable candidates). As far as I can tell, there are four candidates who seem to have a plausible shot: Rene Gonzalez, Carmen Rubio, Keith Wilson, and Mingus Mapps.

1. Keith Wilson. Wilson is the "outsider" candidate -- he's never held political office before -- and for me that's actually a significant strike against him. I think politics is a job, and one people get better at with experience. That said, the entire field of candidates seems profoundly unimpressive this year, and Wilson -- who at the very least seems to be thoughtful and dedicated to public service -- seems best of an uninspiring lot. Most people agree that homelessness is the critical issue in Portland, and Wilson has made that his signature issue -- not just as a matter of rhetoric, but actually putting in the work to really study best practices around the country to try and figure out what will work for Portland. I admit that I still don't fully have a bead on the nitty-gritty here, but it seems like Wilson is landing in a place in between the twin poles of "snuggle the problem until it goes away" and "send in the shock troopers", and that appeals to my progressive pragmatist sensibilities.

2. Mingus Mapps. Great name, first of all. The bead on Mapps seems to be that he's a good and thoughtful guy, but has not been especially effective in his tenure on the Portland City Commission. That's turned off several would-be supporters who were big boosters of his when he first ran for elective office. For me, good instincts and blandly inoffensive isn't a rousing endorsement, but it still pushes him into second place given his contenders.

3. Carmen Rubio. If this election was held three months ago, Rubio probably would've been my pick. Policywise, she seems like a good progressive Democrat but not a blinkered fundamentalist, and I'm all for that cocktail. But Rubio has been buffeted by a pretty big scandal recently that has really soured me on her -- specifically, an incredibly long rap sheet of hundreds parking and traffic offenses, many of which she simply refused to pay, leading to having her license suspending six times.

Look, I know I'm not voting for city driving instructor. But everything about this scandal has made me think that Rubio is the sort of person who can't be entrusted with power. A few traffic violations here and there, whatever. Over a hundred, and we have someone who just clearly thinks of herself as above the petty rules that govern society. And it just kept getting worse. Four days after the Oregonian broke the story, Rubio dinged yet another car in a parking lot. Then she didn't leave a note. Then, when the car owner tracked her down, she accused him of trying to blackmail her. Then she claimed that sexism was to blame for why people viewed any of this as a problem at all. The mix of brazen disregard for the law and the quick cries of persecution is -- I hate to say it -- a bit Trumpist in character, and I cannot abide that. Maybe there are ways she can actually restore public trust and return to public service. But right now, she needs to actually face some accountability.

4. Rene Gonzalez. Everyone in Portland runs as a Democrat, but Gonzalez definitely is occupying the "law and order" lane, where "law and order" seems to mean "cracking homeless skulls until they find housing." As noted above, I don't think homelessness is a problem we can just snuggle our way to a solution of, but neither do I think it's something that can be resolved by hyperaggressive policing. Gonzalez seems less concerned with "solving homelessness" than he is interested in "solving people having to see the homeless," and this issue deserves better. And while Gonzalez doesn't have quite the length of Rubio's scandal sheet, he has some worrying signals of his own regarding abuse of power (including calling the cops on a constituent who brushed past him on the subway), and definitely has ranked poorly on the "plays well with others" metric during his time on the city commission.

City Council (District 4)

There are approximately six trillion people running for three seats here, but from what I can tell there is a bit of a coalescing among the establishment-types behind Olivia Clarke, Eric Zimmerman, and Eli Arnold, with progressives backing the trio of Mitch Green, Chad Lykins, and Sarah Silkie. But while the top three don't overlap, my first thought was to see whether there were any candidates who seemed reasonably well-liked by both factions. The progressive groups I looked at still had nice things to say about Clarke, the former legislative director for Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, so she seems like a good fit. And likewise, the establishment venues had praise for Silkie and Green. For Silkie, that's also probably good enough to put her towards the top of my list. As for Green, he's apparently my neighbor in West Portland Park, which is a point in his favor. But he's carrying a DSA endorsement, which admittedly makes me nervous these days. Are there strong reasons to pick Lykins, Zimmerman, or Arnold above him? I don't know! Still, unlike the mayor's race, it seems that in District 4 we have an abundance of solid choices, which is nice to see. Definitely can be swayed in various directions here.

Multnomah County Commission (District 1)

Meghan Moyer versus Vadim Mozyrsky. Both seem like strong candidates. I voted for Mozyrsky once before, but he lost to Rene Gonzalez -- still think I made the right call there. Moyer's seemingly got the better endorsements this time around. Honestly, I'll probably be happy with either.

Ballot Measures

The two significantly contested measures, both statewide, are 117, which provides for ranked choice voting in most state and federal elections, and 118, which is basically a huge tax increase on businesses to fund a $1,600 universal basic income. I lean towards yes on 117 -- I'm not an evangelist for ranked choice voting, but I don't object to it either.

118, by contrast, seems like a very classic "if the issue is important enough, it shouldn't matter how incompetently we execute it!" initiative. I find UBI an appealing prospect. And to be honest, I do not care that "Phil Knight will get $1,600 too!" There are three billionaires in Oregon; including them in the program will cost the state $4,800. Creating extra layers of bureaucratic red tape to distinguish between worthy and unworthy recipients will cost more and will make the program less streamlined for regular folks. But the way this program is structured, it stands a strong chance of starving the state budget of funds for essentially any other public service -- and that will be a catastrophe.

So -- am I wrong about anything? Is there something I'm overlooking? Pleaes, let me know in the comments!