Today’s Edition (June 7, 2021)

Manchin’s smokescreen

          The big news over the weekend was an op-ed penned by Senator Joe Manchin in the Charleston-Gazette Mail, “Joe Manchin: Why I'm voting against the For the People Act | Op-Ed Commentaries.” In his commentary, Senator Manchin said he would (a) vote against H.R.1, the “For the People Act,” (b) oppose ending the filibuster, and (c) support reauthorization of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. The media treated his comments as new developments even though Senator Manchin has been signaling those positions for months. The new development over the weekend was his explicit confirmation of those positions in a newspaper of record. In explaining his opposition to H.R.1, Manchin notes the lack of Republican support for the bill and poses a rhetorical question:

          Congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials. Democrats in Congress have proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act, [which] has garnered zero Republican support. Why?

          In the remainder of his op-ed, Senator Manchin presumes that the fault lies with Democrats for failing to propose a bill that is worthy of Republican support. Per The New York Times, H.R.1 would do the following:

          end partisan gerrymandering, tighten controls on campaign spending and ease voter registration. It would also force major-party candidates for president and vice president to release 10 years’ worth of personal and business tax returns and end the president’s and vice president’s exemption from conflict-of-interest rules.

          Manchin, of course, never bothers to identify provisions of the bill that are “too partisan” to garner Republican support—because the answer is, “All of them.” (The legislative summary of H.R.1 is here: Congress.gov, “H.R.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021.”) The truth that Senator Manchin ignores in his paean to bipartisanship is that Republicans want none of it. To turn Manchin’s question around on him, “Why do Republicans oppose protection of voting rights?” The answer is that Republicans are a small and shrinking party that can maintain its grip on power only by disenfranchising Democratic voters.

          In his effort to appear reasonable, Senator Manchin urges that the parties come together to reauthorize the original Voting Rights Act, which was decimated by Justice Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder.  Senator Manchin writes in his op-ed,

          The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would update the formula states and localities must use to ensure proposed voting laws do not restrict the rights of any particular group or population. My Republican colleague, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, has joined me in urging Senate leadership to update and pass this bill through regular order.

          Manchin’s reference to “regular order” in the above passage is key. What he means is that Democrats in the Senate must garner support from ten Republicans to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act (to overcome the filibuster). The invocation of “regular order” is a smokescreen to deflect the scorn that is rightly being heaped upon Senator Manchin for his hypocrisy. Rep. Mondaire Jones tweeted, “Manchin’s op-ed might as well be titled, “Why I’ll vote to preserve Jim Crow.” Manchin is abandoning tens of millions of Americans who must now overcome more obstacles to vote than to purchase a military assault rifle and armor-piercing ammunition.

          The best way to deal with Senator Manchin is to make him irrelevant by expanding the Democratic majority in the Senate. In the meantime, we must protect our slim majority in the House if we expect the next Congress to pass H.R.1. That will be a tough battle that demands urgent action on our part. The New York Times reported over the weekend on a Democratic after-action report on the underperformance in 2020 House races. See NYTimes, “Democratic Report Raises 2022 Alarms on Messaging and Voter Outreach - The New York Times.” Per the Times, the report

          concluded that the party is at risk of losing ground with Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters unless it does a better job presenting an economic agenda and countering Republican efforts to spread misinformation and tie all Democratic candidates to the far left.

          I have not seen the report, but it has the ring of truth. That said, the report does not take into account the never-before-in-our-history dynamic of a defeated president who is driving his party to ever more lunatic positions. Yes, Democrats must do a better job countering Republican disinformation and presenting a positive economic agenda. But let’s recognize that the Republicans are stuck re-litigating the 2020 election and treating 2022 as nothing more than an opportunity for Trump to engage in political payback. Don’t believe me? Read on!

Trump’s first major speech since losing the 2020 election.

Trump spoke at the North Carolina GOP state convention over the weekend. Considering that it was his first big speech since he lost in 2020, it was freighted with expectation. Instead of a barn-burner speech, Trump was (at the very least) low energy, repetitive, and meandering. At worst, some saw signs of slurred speech and mental deterioration. I watched as much of the speech as I could stand, and I didn’t notice any slurred speech. But Trump seemed like a man going through the motions of giving a speech rather than actually giving a speech. It was not an inspiring performance.

          [Note: The internet is filled with claims that Trump had his pants on backward based on a poor quality video that appeared to show no zipper in the front of his trousers; photographs of the event prove otherwise. See Snopes.com, “No, Trump Did Not Wear His Pants Backwards at Rally.]

          From a Republican perspective, the speech was a disaster. Rather than attacking Democrats, Trump spent most of his time whining about the 2020 election. See CNN, “Donald Trump dwells on 2020 during North Carolina event aimed at helping Republicans in 2022.” Per CNN, “Trump dashed the hopes of Republicans on Saturday who spent the weeks leading up to his public reemergence encouraging him to keep his focus on policy and Democratic shortcomings, rather than re-litigating his 2020 election loss once again.” During the speech, Trump claimed he lost because of mail-in ballots and described his 2020 election loss as a “hoax.”

          Per CNN, the crowd’s response to Trump was “muted” except when he demanded that China pay the U.S. $10 trillion in Covid response reparations. So, there is something Trump is still good at: stirring racial animus.

          Here is where the Trump train went off the rails over the weekend. Late Friday, Trump responded positively to a suggestion that he run for a House seat in 2022 so he could be elected Speaker (assuming a Republican majority) and lead an impeachment of Joe Biden. See Business Insider, “Trump Says Congress Run to Become Speaker and Impeach Biden Is 'Very Interesting'.” Though theoretically possible, it isn’t going to happen, and Trump is a fool for entertaining the idea.

          In declaring the idea to be “very interesting,” the specter of Trump as a Speaker in 2022 was inserted into every congressional race across the country. Trump’s popularity continues to wane as his demagoguery increases. Entertaining ridiculous scenarios like becoming Speaker is a major distraction for Republicans. If Trump knew what was good for the Republican Party, he would shut up. But he can’t, and he won’t. Democrats have a very tough path ahead of them in 2022, but Trump’s continued missteps are hurting the GOP and helping Democrats. Good.

Quick recap on “lab-leak” theory.

          Most readers liked my detailed discussion of the “lab-leak” theory about the coronavirus, though some said they stopped reading after a few paragraphs. Fair enough. There is more to be said from a political perspective about the issue. In short, the alleged “lab-leak” will become the equivalent of “Hillary’s emails” for Dr. Anthony Fauci. GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is promoting a bill in Congress to fire Fauci. See HuffPo, “Marjorie Taylor Greene's Bill Targets Dr. Fauci In 'Fire Fauci Act'.” Demands for criminal investigations and chants of “lock him up” are not far behind. See Vanity Fair, “Republicans Are One Week Away From Starting a “Lock Her Up” Chant for Anthony Fauci.”

          In response to my summary last Friday, about a dozen readers sent links to an article by Nicolas Wade in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?” Wade is a highly respected journalist (for the most part) and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is a reputable scientific forum. (Wade wrote a 2014 book on genetics and evolution that was widely denounced by scientists for allegedly “misrepresenting research into human population genetics.”) Many readers said they found Wade’s article convincing on the proposition that SARS-CoV-2 was created in—and leaked from—a lab in Wuhan, China. I won’t repeat Wade’s arguments here. You can read the article, which has become influential in the media and is oft-cited in support of the lab-leak theory. Indeed, the article was cited in a report by Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. See Republicans / House Intelligence Committee Report, “COVID-19 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”         

          I note Wade’s article because it is often cited in popular media as establishing a strong argument for a lab leak of the coronavirus—and may serve as the gallows on which Dr. Fauci’s fate hangs. Though Wade and the Bulletin are both reputable (caveat above as to Wade), Wade is not a scientist, and the Bulletin is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The scientific reception to Wade’s argument about the lab-leak theory has been harsh, even withering. Some commentators now refer to Wade’s genetic discussions as being “debunked”—yet his article is cited approvingly in the popular press without noting those criticisms. For a summary of the criticisms of Wade’s article, see Science-Based Medicine, “The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited.”

          I confess that the scientific debates about the validity of the science in the WHO Report and Wade’s article are beyond me. All I can do is report the following: The WHO investigation and report were run by dozens of world-leading scientists with backgrounds in virology and epidemiology. They concluded that a natural zoonotic jump from animal to human was the most likely cause, and a lab leak was the least likely cause of the pandemic—though they did not rule out any possibility. The right-wing media has nonetheless adopted the arguments of Wade (and others) to assert that the lab-leak theory has been established as the cause of theSARS-CoV-2 pandemic—and that Dr. Anthony Fauci should therefore be fired. (Those two propositions are not logically related, but it hasn’t stopped the right-wing press.)

          Here’s my point: as you follow this controversy in the future, be cautious of sources that assert that the lab-leak theory has been proven. It has not—just as some pieces of evidence in the animal-to-human zoonotic jump have yet to be proven. Whatever the truth is, it is complicated and beyond the grasp of Donald Trump. It is true that China has not acted with full transparency, which is suspicious standing alone. But China may be covering up shoddy lab practices that did not cause a lab leak but that shine an unflattering light on the Chinese scientific community. Biden has ordered the US intelligence community to investigate the lab-leak theory. We should keep an open mind pending further investigations and reports. And that is the last you will hear from me on this subject for a few weeks—I promise!

Concluding Thoughts.

My wife (a.k.a. Managing Editor) turns 65 this week. We are celebrating on Monday by visiting Disneyland—which holds a special place in her heart because of the fond memories of childhood visits to Disneyland with parents who weren’t always sure what to do with a daughter (and only child) who came to them late in life. Accordingly, I am taking the day off on Monday, June 7th and will not publish a newsletter Monday evening. My wife deserves my undivided attention on this milestone birthday! Thanks for your understanding!

          To my grammarian and proofreader friends: The Cambridge English Dictionary lists “smokescreen,” while Merriam-Webster lists “smoke screen.” The New York Times has adopted “smokescreen,” so I have followed the Times’ usage.

          Talk to you on Wednesday!