Today's Edition (May 17, 2021)

Ignore the counternarrative.

          I was annoyed for much of the weekend by the spin in leading stories about Biden in particular and the Democratic Party in general.  After a surprisingly successful start to his administration, the media appears to have grown tired of that storyline and has launched into the “counternarrative” in all its manifestations. The good news is that the shift signals a return to normalcy. It is healthy for a free press to question the actions and policies of the president.  But when I hear the media picking at Biden over the slightest suggestion of bad news, I want to shout, “Compared to what?” The media seems to have forgotten that the prior president was so bad at his job that Americans were safest when he was on the golf course—away from the cameras, diplomatic meetings, and nuclear codes. Compared to a president who muses about injecting bleach to fight the coronavirus, debating whether it is too soon for vaccinated people to stop wearing masks or whether the economy is overheating should seem like tame stuff. But the press has decided that Biden needs to be taken down a notch, so we should expect the news cycle to be negative for a few weeks. My advice: Prepare yourself by recognizing what is happening and ignore the counternarrative.

          An example of the counternarrative ran in Politico, “Biden pressed to send clear message on economy as warning signs flash.” Politico seemed to criticize Biden for addressing the economy on three occasions last week, which it viewed as a bad sign (after the press beat up Biden for not talking to the press frequently enough). Per Politico,

          [T]the president has called for his multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure package to be paid for with tax hikes, which indicates that he's worried about too much spending even as the administration downplays both inflation and deficit fears.

          Hmm. . . sounds like a good plan to me: Pay for current expenditures by restoring tax cuts on the rich, thereby avoiding deficits. But to Politico (and its sources for the story), talking about funding infrastructure improvement by raising taxes is “inconsistent messaging.” Among the sources to which Politico turned was a former staffer for Mitch McConnell and Republican Senator Rick Scott. Unsurprisingly, Scott criticized Biden for a “lack of leadership” that is allegedly causing gas lines, confusion over mask policy, and inflation. See also, e.g., CNN, “Multiple crises at home and abroad provide a reality check for Biden's White House,” The Hill, “The imminent crises facing Joe Biden,” and Fox News, “'The Five' on 'major test' Biden is facing as multiple crises mount.”

          At least The Washington Post had the candor to identify the competing narratives as a manifestation of the partisan divide. See WaPo, “Biden’s America: Democrats see competence, Republicans chaos.” The Post has it right. The “chaos” includes events outside of Biden’s control—including the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and the violence in the Middle East. And Republicans are seeking to portray the CDC’s guidance relaxing mask use by vaccinated people as a source of confusion. But as the White House communications director noted at the end of the week,

          If the start of the week was supposed chaos, look where the week ended up. By the end of the week . . . the pipeline is online and gas is going to be back up to capacity soon, and we’ve gotten so many vaccines in arms that you don’t have to wear a mask in most instances anymore.

          I find it particularly annoying that the CDC (and Biden) are being criticized for updating guidance on masks. Before the new guidance, the CDC was in the untenable position of asserting that the vaccines were effective but vaccinated people should continue to wear masks. That policy undermined the message that people should get vaccinated and sent mixed messages about the role of masks. The CDC’s new guidance is simpler and consistent with the scientific evidence. As CDC Director Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky said on Fox News on Sunday,

If you are vaccinated, you are safe. . . . If you are not vaccinated, you are not safe.

See NYTimes, “The C.D.C. director offers a stark reassurance: Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking.” Even where commentators did not criticize the policy, they criticized how the announcement was made. See CNN, “New face mask guidelines: Dr. Sanjay Gupta says the CDC 'made a critical error'.”

          Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Biden should never be criticized or that everything he does is right. But when Fox News criticizes Biden for doing the very thing it has been demanding for months—easing the mask mandate—it is plain that the press has flipped the script on Biden, at least for now.

          I believe the same phenomenon is at work regarding Democratic prospects in the 2022 election. A reader commented on an article in the NYTimes that seemed intent on exaggerating the challenges faced by Democrats in 2022 because of retirements while underplaying the same challenge faced by Republicans. See NYTimes, “Why Democratic Departures From the House Have Republicans Salivating.” As the reader noted, the article states that five Democrats are retiring from the House—most of whom will seek statewide offices in battleground states. But you have to read 18 paragraphs into the article to learn that six Republicans have announced that they will not seek reelection in the House. The authors of the article hint that the five retirements could be the start of a wave of Democratic retirements. Or not. But they make no mention of potential additional Republican retirements.

          My point is not only about my annoyance with the doomsaying of the media over the weekend. It is a reminder to me (and you) that we have better things to do than fret over the negative press. It comes with the territory when your party is in control. I spend a lot of time reviewing political reporting, so my view is probably overly sensitive to the slant. Most Americans don’t spend their time reading the political press and wouldn’t care what it said if they did. What they care about is whether Joe Biden has made a positive difference in their lives. He has—which is a rarity for a president who has been in office for four months. If you could pick one sign of hope going into the 2022 midterms, it would be a president who has made the lives of the American people better. Next time I read an article about “Joe Biden’s Imminent Crises,” I will remember the hundreds of millions of Americans who are grateful that Biden has improved their lives and made them safer.

EPA Re-launches “Climate Indicators” Website

This story deserves more attention: Before the Trump administration, the EPA published climate data on its website called “Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA.” The Trump administration ceased publishing data on that site in 2017 because . . . well, you know, “science.” Undermining climate science was a warm-up for Trump’s attack on the science underlying the CDC’s warnings about the coronavirus. As Biden promised, he is following the science in all things. So, the EPA has relaunched the Climate Change Indicators website (linked above). See EPA.gov, “EPA Relaunches Climate Indicators Website Showing How Climate Change is Impacting Peoples’ Health and Environment.”

          So, what did the Trump administration not want people to see? The newly released data shows that the U.S. “was experiencing more heat waves, that its ocean and lake temperatures were rising and that US coasts are seeing sea levels continue to rise.” What Trump failed to understand is that omitting the information from the EPA website would not erase it from the knowledge banks of global research scientists and foreign agencies. The only thing Trump accomplished was to diminish the reputation of the EPA in the eyes of the world scientific community. The re-launch of the site should motivate all of us to pay more attention to climate change. Stay tuned for future stories. (I should note that readers consistently ask me to focus more attention on climate change. I will do my best, but feel free to remind me!)

A preview of 2024?

For the moment, Republicans seem resigned to the eventuality that Trump will seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2024. Over the weekend, Trump gave an ugly reminder to Republicans what that will look like. See ABC News, “Trump Blames Election Loss on 'Suppression Polling,' Attacks Pence and 'Pathetic' McConnell.” Trump posted the following statement on his personal website:

          Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress.

          Note that Mitch McConnell has already said that he will support Trump for president in 2024 if he wins the GOP nomination. I guess that proves Trump’s point: McConnell is “weak and pathetic.” If Republicans believe that a Trump candidacy will be about anything other than avenging his loss in 2020, they are mistaken. Although Trump dismisses Biden’s bills as “Socialistic,” they have helped hundreds of millions of Americans endure the economic hardship of the pandemic. If that is socialism, I suspect that Americans will want more of it.

          One pesky detail that Trump and the GOP are attempting to ignore is the possibility that Trump will be indicted before 2024. The New York investigation into the Trump Organization tax returns will likely be wrapped up this summer (before Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance retires at year-end). Moreover, former White House Counsel Don McGahn has apparently reached an agreement to testify in response to a House subpoena. See MSNBC, “Why Trump could soon be ‘looking down the barrel of a federal indictment’.” If his testimony confirms his statements to Robert Mueller’s investigators, the House could make a criminal referral to the DOJ against Trump for obstruction of justice.  While we should be realistic about the chance of an indictment against Trump (low), the uncertainty of such an indictment may roil GOP planning for 2024. We can only hope!

Concluding Thoughts.

          Observant readers will note that I am testing different delivery formats for the newsletter after the switch to Substack. I have received a lot of feedback from readers about items such as font size, font type, titles, length, etc. Much of the feedback has been contradictory, so if you have had a strong reaction (positive or negative) to the new format, please don’t hesitate to let me know. One item I am currently seeking input on is whether I should use identify specific editions of the newsletter by a date (Today’s Edition, May 17, 2021) or a subject (Today’s Edition, “Ignore the Counternarrative”), or both. When I dropped the daily subject headline, only one reader commented. Thoughts? This newsletter is a community effort, and I want to hear from the community. Thanks!

          Talk to you tomorrow!