No effort is wasted.

November 3, 2022

          I make it a point to monitor the print media throughout the day and watch at least two cable-news programs to prepare each edition of this newsletter. But I can no longer take the breathless coverage of the midterms on cable. During a mid-day report on the state of the election on Wednesday, both the anchor and field reporter were speaking so quickly and with such urgency, it appeared that they had forgotten to breathe. I considered calling their producer to suggest a medical intervention but thought better of it and punched the “off” button on my car radio. In other words, I feel your pain.

          As the media raises its coverage of the midterms to a fever pitch, I want to reflect on the value of our efforts before we know the results of the midterms. Today I will focus on an essential truth about the extraordinary efforts that Democrats have undertaken in the last ten months: No effort has been wasted. Tomorrow, I want to explore the question of when we should quit and give up on democracy. (Spoiler alert: Never!)

          The media frequently talks in terms of which party will “win” the midterms. I admit to lapsing into that false dichotomy in this newsletter. In truth, the “midterms” comprise thousands of national, state, and local election contests, each of which will tip the balance on the scales of democracy and the rule of law. We will not know the results of our efforts on November 8th—and may not know for weeks thereafter. Control of each chamber of Congress is independently consequential, but so is control of each chamber of fifty state legislatures, governorships, secretaries of state, and attorney generals, as are thousands of contests for district attorneys, elected judges, city and county councils, school boards, and local elections officials.

          In assessing the “success” or “failure” of our efforts, the most elusive and counterintuitive truth is that our efforts cannot be measured only by whether our candidates win or lose. In evaluating our efforts, we must ask two additional questions: First, what would have happened if we had not put in the effort to affect the outcome? Second, how many new voters did our efforts bring into the lifeblood of democracy?

          As to the first question, imagine a scenario in which Democrats lose five seats in the House. That outcome will be portrayed as an apocalyptic defeat by the media. But it might have been much worse if not for the millions of postcards, texts, door knocks, Zoom calls, and house-party fundraisers by hundreds of thousands of dedicated volunteers. The measure of success is not only what did happen, but what might have happened but for our efforts.

          As to the second question, if our efforts bring new voters into the democratic process, that is a long-term win without regard to short-term outcomes. Building democracy is a slow, accretive process. Our goal is to bring as many new voters into the process as possible. If we can do that, we will win—it is only a matter of time. Republicans understand that truth—which is why their business model involves excluding new voters and suppressing existing voters. As between those two approaches, the one that favors more inclusion and involvement aligns with the long arc of our nation’s progress. We should take hope and confidence from the alignment of our efforts with the unstoppable momentum of America toward greater liberty, tolerance, and inclusion.

          In other words, no effort is wasted. Remember that fundamental truth on election night—and every day thereafter!

President Joe Biden’s speech on defending democracy.

          President Joe Biden gave a terrific speech on Wednesday that was both a rousing defense of democracy and a stark warning about the threats posed by Trump’s efforts to erode trust in elections. The speech is linked below, and I urge everyone to spend twenty minutes watching the entire speech: President Biden's Remarks On Protecting Democracy, Voter Intimidation. Or read the transcript, here: Full Transcript of President Biden’s Speech on Democracy - The New York Times.

          For once, the major media gave Biden’s speech the prominence and accurate coverage it deserved. See NYTimes, Biden Calls Election Denial ‘the Path to Chaos’ and Washington Post, Biden warns GOP could set nation on ‘path to chaos’ as democratic system faces strain. Per the Post,

          The virtually unprecedented presidential message — a plea to Americans to accept the basic tenets of their democracy — came as millions of voters have already cast their ballots or are planning to go to the polls on Election Day.

          The Post’s commentary captures the essence of Biden’s speech and its problematic timing. What was a great speech would have been even greater if delivered weeks ago. Let’s hope that its message is not too late to affect the outcome of the 2022 midterms.

          Coincidentally, Laurence Tribe, Jeffrey Abramson, and Dennis Aftergut published an op-ed in The Boston Globe two days ago that presaged several of the themes in Biden’s speech. See Tribe et al., Boston Globe, Americans can stop political violence—if we choose. I find the essay by Tribe reassuring, in part because it uses a historical perspective to assess our present challenge:  

The point of remembering our agitated past is to gain hope, not despair. Political violence has always been stoppable.

[¶]

History has a message: We have competing traditions to choose from. In one, violence settles conflicts and fiction overcomes facts. In the other, the rule of law and truth hold sway and power transfers peaceably. There is no time like the present to choose our better history.

          Or, as Joe Biden said in his closing remarks today, “choosing our better history” is on the ballot:

In our bones, we know democracy is at risk. But we also know this. It’s within our power, each and every one of us, to preserve our democracy.

And I believe we will. . . .You have the power, it’s your choice, it’s your decision, the fate of the nation, the fate of the soul of America lies where it always does, with the people, in your hands, in your heart, in your ballot.

More disturbing revelations about John Eastman and Justice Clarence Thomas.

          John Eastman served as a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas. Eastman went on to draft a “coup memo” that laid out Trump’s path to overturning the outcome of the 2020 election. On Wednesday, we learned that Eastman’s plan contemplated filing an emergency appeal to his former boss—Justice Clarence Thomas. Eastman and his co-conspirators believed that Justice Thomas was their best hope for delaying the electoral count on January 6th—a date set by statute.

          A batch of new emails involving John Eastman show that Trump’s attorneys believed that an emergency appeal to Justice Clarence Thomas was their best chance to stop the electoral count on January 6th. See WaPo, Trump lawyers saw Clarence Thomas as key to stop Biden electoral count, emails show. The plan to involve Justice Thomas in the challenge to the election is particularly disturbing given that Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, attempted to advance the plot to overturn the 2020 election. See PBS Newshour, Ginni Thomas emails show she urged Wisconsin lawmakers to oveturn 2020 election.  

          In a second disturbing disclosure in the same emails, John Eastman appeared to know that election data filed by Trump’s legal team was false—but that he schemed to find a way to include that fraudulent data in subsequent filings without having Trump personally verify the information. See NYTimes, Trump Lawyer Expressed Worry Over False Claims of Election Fraud.

          Eastman is currently being investigated by the State Bar of California and has had his cell phone seized in a federal grand jury investigation. Justice Thomas continues to pretend that his wife is not a material witness (at least) in the effort to overturn the 2020 election and refuses to recuse himself from cases involving that plot.

Staying on Twitter.

          Until three days ago, my least popular opinion among readers has been my strong advocacy for expanding the Supreme Court. That unpopular opinion has now been replaced by my advice that responsible commentators remain on Twitter to provide fair, accurate, and important commentary. I understand the strong opinions of readers who say (a) they have never been on Twitter and never will be; (b) they are leaving Twitter; and (c) staying on Twitter benefits Elon Musk. Those are all reasonable positions, and I won’t try to change anyone’s mind on those points.

          But a recent incident on Twitter highlights the argument for not abandoning Twitter to white nationalists and hate mongers. As described by TCinLA in his blog post on Substack, They’re All Bullsh*****s Now, after Paul Pelosi was nearly killed in a gruesome attack, Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) posted a homophobic meme that suggested that Pelosi was nearly killed during an encounter with a male prostitute. The backlash on her Twitter feed was so ferocious that she deleted the tweet, turned off replies, and blocked dozens of users who condemned her cruelty and homophobia. But her critics have simply moved their criticism to her other posts on Twitter, effectively rendering her Twitter posts useless for campaign purposes.

          If we abandon Twitter to white nationalists and hate mongers, future posts by Tenney of similar sentiment will be applauded and shared. Tenney has learned a lesson. Although she will not admit it, she will never again mock the attempted assassination of Speaker Pelosi or the attack on Paul Pelosi. To be clear, I am not saying she has had a change of heart; she has simply come to understand what it means to be “ratioed” on Twitter and now regrets that she has been slammed by other Twitter users.

          Here are some other facts to consider: Twitter has 400 million users. How many would have to quit to have an effect on Twitter’s business prospects? The largest cohort of Twitter users in the US is in the 25-34 age range. Do we want Larry Tribe to stop talking to them via Twitter? Or Barack Obama? Or Jessica Craven? Or PoliticsGirl? And if we stop talking to them on Twitter, where do we reach them? Instagram (which is in many ways more toxic than Twitter)? Chinese-controlled TikTok? Or Facebook, where algorithms push users to fringe theories and divisive stories?

          As I wrote when I first proposed that users stay on Twitter, the time may come when association with Twitter and Elon Musk is untenable. But for the moment, it is one of the most important information sources for Americans in the 25 to 34 age range. If you advocate abandoning Twitter, it is incumbent on you (and us) to come up with another way to effectively reach a demographic that is critical to our nation’s future.

Concluding Thoughts.

          No effort is wasted . . . . except worrying about the polls. Keep working, until the last vote is cast.

          Talk to you tomorrow!