2020年9月25日 星期五

The Shook Ones

Why President Trump and his allies are so desperate to attack the election.
Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

If Donald Trump were ahead in the polls, he wouldn’t shut up about it. Every tweet, every quip or comment would be about his lead over Joe Biden. He would gloat and brag from here until Election Day.

Of course, Trump is not winning. He trails Biden by seven points in FiveThirtyEight’s national average and by an average of six points in the three states (Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) that will determine the election. He’s tied or slightly behind in must-win states like Florida and Ohio, and he may well lose competitive states like Arizona and North Carolina. More important, Biden is consistently above 50 percent support in national polling, and Trump struggles to outperform his historically low disapproval.

The president is in bad shape, which is why he spends all of his time attacking the election itself. It’s why he’s on a crusade against mail-in ballots. And it’s why his campaign is plotting ways to install Trump as president in defiance of the will of the voters. One of those plots, reported Barton Gellman in The Atlantic, involves Republican legislatures in contested states unilaterally assigning electoral votes to President Trump.

According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.

There’s no denying this is scary, as is President Trump’s clear desire to throw the election to a Supreme Court stacked with his appointees. But it is important to remember, as my colleague Michelle Goldberg notes, that Trump is working from a position of weakness. These are the last graspings of a desperate would-be autocrat. They’re still dangerous — perhaps even more dangerous than what you would see if Trump were stronger — but they’re also a sign that the president’s opponents have the upper hand. Trump and his allies, to borrow from the rap group Mobb Deep, are shook.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was a call to weaken the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution:

If Democrats are willing to treat a Republican-dominated Supreme Court as a partisan and ideological foe, if they’re willing to change or transform it rather than accede to its view of the Constitution — two very big ifs — then they’re one important step along the path to challenging judicial supremacy, the idea that the courts, and the courts alone, determine constitutional meaning.

My Friday column was a look at the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the current Supreme Court fight and the underlying dispute over the nature of the Constitution:

There is no one-to-one comparison from the past to current events; there never is. But drawing on the Missouri controversy, I do have an observation to make about our present situation. Once again, under the guise of ordinary political conflict, Americans are fighting a meta-legal battle over the meaning of both the Union and the Constitution.

Now Reading

James Oakes on slavery and capitalism at The Economic Historian.

Lili Loofbourow on the limits of the hypocrisy critique in Slate magazine.

Jefferson Cowie on the differing meanings of “freedom” in The Boston Review.

Mae Ngai on immigration reform in Dissent magazine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

Jamelle Bouie

This is from my personal archive, a shot from the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico. I think we took this vacation in 2017, although it may have been 2016. Time has lost all meaning these days.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Red Bean Stew

In the Bouie household, cold weather is soup and stew weather and specifically bean weather. This is a simple and tasty stew, best served with a drizzle of good olive oil, a dollop of sour cream and warm, crusty bread. A glass of red wine (maybe a Cabernet Franc) wouldn’t hurt either. Recipe from The New York Times’s Cooking section.

Ingredients

  • 1 pound (2¼ cups) red beans, washed, picked over and soaked for 6 hours or overnight in 2 quarts water
  • 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
  • 1 medium or large onion, chopped
  • 2 carrots, peeled and chopped
  • 1 large or 2 small green bell peppers, diced
  • 6 garlic cloves, minced
  • 2 tablespoons sweet Hungarian paprika
  • 2 tablespoons tomato paste
  • 1 bay leaf
  • salt to taste
  • 1 teaspoon oregano
  • Pinch of cayenne
  • 2 tablespoons red wine vinegar
  • ½ teaspoon sugar
  • Freshly ground pepper
  • ½ cup minced fresh parsley, or a combination of parsley and dill

Directions

Drain the beans through a strainer set over a bowl. Place the beans in a large soup pot or Dutch oven. Measure the soaking water in the bowl, and add enough water to it to measure 2½ quarts. Add this to the pot with the beans, turn the heat to medium-high and bring to a gentle boil. Skim off any foam and/or bean skins.

Meanwhile, heat 1 tablespoon of the oil over medium heat in a large, heavy skillet and add the onions, carrots and peppers. Cook, stirring often, until the vegetables are tender and fragrant, about 8 to 10 minutes. Add 2 of the garlic cloves and continue to cook for another minute or so, until the garlic is fragrant. Season to taste with salt, add another tablespoon of oil and add the paprika. Cook, stirring, for a couple of minutes, until the vegetables are well coated with paprika and the mixture is aromatic. Add a ladleful of simmering water from the beans to the pan, stir with a wooden spoon or heatproof spatula, scraping the bottom and sides of the pan to deglaze, then stir this mixture into the beans. Add the tomato paste and bay leaf, reduce the heat, cover and simmer 1 hour.

Add the oregano, the remaining garlic cloves, salt to taste, cayenne, vinegar and sugar, and continue to simmer for another hour. The beans should be thoroughly tender and the broth thick and fragrant. Taste and adjust salt, and add more cayenne if desired. For a thicker stew, strain out 1 heaped cup of beans with a little liquid and purée. Stir back into the stew.

Just before serving, stir in the parsley.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: Facebook’s power this election

How much should Facebook be held responsible for what happens on its site?

Facebook’s power this election

Zipeng Zhu

Charlie Warzel is furious about Facebook. Even when I don’t agree with him, I want to know what he thinks.

In his New York Times Opinion columns, Charlie has over months railed against the company for what he said were decisions and design flaws that created fertile ground for the QAnon conspiracy, toxic and extremist speech and manipulative information about elections, including claims from President Trump. He has argued that Facebook should more aggressively demote or delete divisive and potentially dangerous posts.

On the doorstep of the U.S. presidential election, Charlie and I talked about how much blame Facebook and other internet companies deserve for divisions in the United States, and how much Facebook should intervene to make sure voters aren’t swayed by misleading narratives about the world.

Shira: Your most recent column is an argument with yourself. You want tech companies to push people toward factual election information and make voting easier, but worry that corporations like Facebook have too much power.

Charlie: Yes, we talked in the spring about a similar feeling I had about technology companies and coronavirus exposure alerts. When crises happen and important institutions like the government fail us, we look for adults in the room. These companies are potential adults, and there’s something soothing about that.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it’s also crazy to ask maybe a dozen unelected people in charge of big internet companies to protect a pillar of American democracy.

Do we place too much blame on internet companies for what individuals do on their sites? Facebook didn’t start the QAnon conspiracy theory or put inflammatory words in President Trump’s mouth.

There’s a lot of misdirected anger now, yes, but we shouldn’t let the internet companies off the hook.

I can’t get out of my head the false information that spread on social media wrongly blaming anti-fascist activists for the wildfires in Oregon. People flooded law enforcement tip lines with bogus leads, and the misinformation made some people defy evacuation orders.

ADVERTISEMENT

I don’t blame Facebook for the ills of the country. But it is an accelerant, and what galls me is that the company seems unwilling to grapple with that in a serious way — while feigning that it is.

If President Trump makes false claims that undermine trust in the election, why not blame him — not Facebook for disseminating what he says? He says the same things in front of TV cameras, too.

That’s right but, again, it shouldn’t let Facebook or other internet companies off the hook.

And the fact that Trump can say in the briefing room that he might not accept the results of the election should actually remove some pressure from these internet companies to let him post whatever he wants. They are not lawmakers’ only voice.

ADVERTISEMENT

In these excerpts from Facebook’s internal meetings, Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, said the majority of negative customer feedback Facebook receives is from people concerned the company removes too many posts, and that they often interpret those actions as the company’s bias against conservative views.

If you, as well as some of Facebook’s employees, want Facebook to more aggressively demote or delete manipulative or potentially dangerous posts but its customers are concerned about censorship, isn’t the company right to be cautious?

This is Facebook trying to be two incompatible things. There is Facebook that is a customer-oriented product, like McDonald’s, serving two billion people.

And there is Facebook that acknowledges it has a social responsibility as essential communications infrastructure for elections, the pandemic and more. McDonald’s wants customers to be happy, but it doesn’t try to secure elections.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

A government acted on corporate behavior. Nothing happened.

It has been a week since I wrote about Zephyr Teachout’s prescription for how people should help fix what they believe is irresponsible behavior by companies like Facebook: Don’t demand that the company change its behavior. Demand that governments force the company to change. (Some of you disagreed with this.)

But I’ve been wondering, What happens if governments force companies to change and nothing happens?

California passed a law last year that was intended to force Uber and some other companies to classify their workers as employees rather than contractors. Lawmakers acted because of concerns that Uber and similar companies misapplied contract work rules in ways that left people without minimum wages, sick leave and other benefits and job protections.

This is what Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University, was talking about. Pressure mounted, and the government tried to force companies to change their behavior. But Uber and some other companies said no.

They said the law — which was essentially written with them as the focus — did not apply to them. They sued and did not comply. Uber and Lyft told Californians they might be forced to shut down or significantly alter service in the state. Uber, Lyft and other companies have also spent $180 million and counting to ask California voters to redo the law in a November ballot measure. A recent poll showed that the vote might be close.

Look, this is how democracy and the legal system work in the United States. Corporations are free to challenge laws that they believe are wrong, and they can ask voters to tell their elected officials a law is misguided.

But I can’t help thinking that California did what Teachout talked about — the state saw a problem and acted. And a handful of companies just said no.

Before we go …

  • Public safety technology doesn’t work if local governments don’t use it effectively: My colleague Jim Tankersley wrote that when a wildfire struck part of western Oregon, officials didn’t turn on the emergency alert system intended to inform people about evacuation orders by text, radio and TV. Problems with notifications have plagued wildfire evacuations across the West in recent years, often with deadly consequences.
  • Google promises changes to how it treats workplace misconduct: Google’s parent company has agreed to make changes — including loosening requirements for employees to keep secret about sexual harassment settlements — to end lawsuits over its handling of workplace misconduct claims, my colleague Dai Wakabayashi writes. The lawsuits came after The Times reported two years ago that the company had approved a large payment to a star Google executive accused of workplace sexual misconduct.
  • A wild crime story about our software-driven lives: Prosecutors have charged former Amazon employees and e-commerce consultants with bribing Amazon workers for years to erase bad reviews, get competitors booted off the site for bogus reasons and other manipulations, Bloomberg News reported. The tactics show that what people buy on Amazon is influenced by computerized assessments of things like reviews and the reputation of the seller — and that those factors can be gamed.

Hugs to this

Jellyfish cam! (This was recommended by the television writer Cord Jefferson during a lovely interview by my colleague Tara Parker-Pope)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018