Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Jonathan Chait on the Government Shutdown — New York Magazine

Illustration by Oliver Munday

In a merciful twist of fate, Juan Linz did not really dwell to see his prophecy of the demise of American democracy borne out. Linz, the Spanish political scientist who died very last week, argued that the presidential system, with its independent elections for legislature and main government, was inherently unstable. In a popular 1990 essay, Linz noticed, “All these types of units are based on twin democratic legitimacy: No democratic theory exists to take care of disputes among the govt and the legislature about which of the two actually signifies the will of the individuals.” Presidential methods veered ultimately toward collapse in all places they ended up tried using, as legislators and executives vied for supremacy. There was only 1 notable exception: the United States of The united states.

Linz attributed our puzzling, anomalous security to “the uniquely diffuse character of American political events.” The Republicans had masses of moderates, and conservative whites in the South however clung to the Democratic Occasion. At the time he wrote that, the two get-togethers have been already sorting on their own into far more ideologically pure versions, leaving us wherever we stand nowadays: with a person racially and economically polyglot occasion of heart-still left technocracy and just one ethnically homogenous reactionary celebration. The latter is currently trying to impose its program by danger upon the former. The activities in Washington have presented us a peek into the Linzian nightmare.

Historically, when American politics encountered the dilemma of divided government—when, say, Nixon and Eisenhower encountered Democratic Congresses, or Bill Clinton a Republican one—one of two matters occurred. Both the two sides found ample incentives to function collectively in spite of their distinctions, or there was what we utilized to identify as the only choice: gridlock. Gridlock is what most of us envisioned soon after the last election generated a Democratic president and Republican Dwelling. Washington would drudge on it would be tough to get anything at all completed, but also really hard to undo just about anything. Days following the election, John Boehner, no question anticipating points would have on as constantly, reported, “Obamacare is the legislation of the land.”

In its place, to the slowly but surely unfolding horror of the Obama administration and even some segments of the Republican Occasion, the GOP determined that the choice to obtaining frequent floor with the president did not have to be mere gridlock. It could drive the president to enact its agenda. In January, Boehner explained to his colleagues he’d abandon all coverage negotiations with the White House. Later that spring, Dwelling Republicans extended the freeze-out to the Democratic-­majority Senate, which has given that issued (as of push time) eighteen futile pleas for spending budget negotiations. Their program has been to carry out their agenda by utilizing what they get in touch with “leverage” or “forcing events” to threaten economic and social hurt and therefore extract concessions from President Obama with no needing to make any policy concessions in return. Paul Ryan made available the most candid admission of his party’s decided use of non-electoral electricity: “The reason this credit card debt-limit fight is diverse is we do not have an election close to the corner in which we experience we are likely to acquire and deal with it ourselves,” he mentioned at the stop of September. “We are trapped with this governing administration another 3 a long time.”

Past Tuesday, Home Republicans shut down the federal governing administration, demanding that Obama abolish his health and fitness-care reform in a tactically reckless gamble that most of the get together feared but could not avoid. Extra surreal, most likely, were the conditions they issued in trade for lifting the debt ceiling later on this month. Lifting the financial debt ceiling, a vestigial ritual in which Congress votes to approve payment of the money owed it has previously incurred, is nearly a symbolic event, except that not doing it would wreak unpredictable and quite possibly monumental globally economic havoc. (Obama’s Treasury Section has in comparison the effect of a credit card debt breach to the failure of Lehman Brothers.) The hostage letter Residence Republicans introduced brimmed with megalomaniacal ambition. If he wanted to stay clear of financial spoil, Republicans mentioned, Obama would submit to a hold off of health-care reform, in addition tax-rate cuts, enactment of offshore drilling, acceptance of the Keystone pipeline, deregulation of Wall Avenue, and Medicare cuts, to identify but a couple of requires. Republicans barely pretended to imagine Obama would accede to the complete list (a established of calls for that amounted to the retroactive election of Mitt Romney), but the hubris was startling in and of alone.

The debt ceiling turns out to be unexploded ordnance lying around the American type of government. Only custom or ethical compunction stops the opposition party from working with it to nullify the president’s powers, or, for that issue, the president from making use of it to nullify Congress’s. (Obama could, theoretically, threaten to veto a financial debt ceiling hike except if Congress attaches it to the generation of solitary-payer overall health coverage.) To weaponize the credit card debt ceiling, you will have to be prepared to inflict hurt on millions of innocent people today. It is a shockingly highly effective self-destruct button created into our incredibly program of authorities, but only beneficial for the most ideologically hardened or borderline sociopathic. But it turns out to be the great resource for the modern day GOP: a celebration substantial enough to handle a chamber of Congress yet as well compact to win the presidency, and infused with a harmful, millenarian mixture of overheated Randian paranoia and completely justified concern of adverse demographic trends. The only detail that boundaries the credit card debt ceiling’s efficiency at the instant is the widespread suspicion that Boehner is as well aged faculty, also missing in the Leninist will to electric power that fires his more recent co-partisans, to actually have out his menace. (He has advised as a lot to some colleagues in private.) Boehner himself is thus the a person weak url in the Household Republicans’ skill to carry out a variety of rolling coup against the Obama administration. Unfortunately, Boehner’s regulate of his chamber is tenuous ample that, like the ailing monarch of a crumbling routine, it’s difficult to strike an agreement with him in complete protection it will be carried out.

The standoff embroiling Washington represents significantly additional than the specifics of the calls for on the table, or even the prospect of economic calamity. It is an incipient constitutional crisis. Obama foolishly set the precedent in 2011 that he would enable Congress jack him up for a financial debt-ceiling hike. He now has to crush the observe wholly, lest it turn out to be ritualized. Obama not only ought to refuse to trade concessions for a financial debt-ceiling hike he has to make it apparent that he will endure default before he submits to ransom. To pay out a ransom now, even a tiny a single, would make certain an countless succession of personal debt-ceiling ransoms right up until, sooner or later, the two sides fall short to agree on the right dimensions of the ransom and default follows.

This is a domestic Cuban Missile Crisis. A one blunder could have unalterable repercussions: If Obama buckles his no-ransom stance, the financial debt-ceiling-hostage genie will be out of the bottle. If Republicans believe that he is bluffing, or acknowledge his situation but obstinately refuse it, or try to raise the credit card debt ceiling and only botch the vote depend, a 2nd Excellent Economic downturn could ensue.

When Linz contemplated the kinds of crises endemic to presidential units, he imagined intractable claims of competing legitimacy—charismatic leaders riding excellent passionate mobs, insisting they on your own represented the will of the people today. The current disaster is a variation of that. Republicans insistently level to polls demonstrating disapproval of the Affordable Care Act—a sort of assertion of legitimacy through direct referendum, implicitly rebuking Obama’s counter-argument that the presidential election settled the problem of repealing the Inexpensive Care Act. But the Republican placement rests more greatly on the logic of extortion alternatively than popular mandate. “No a single desires to default, but we are not likely to continue to give the president a limitless credit score card,” warned Republican agent Jason Chaffetz previously this calendar year. Obama “will not permit an economic disaster even worse than 2008–09,” wrote previous Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen, and therefore “has no decision but to negotiate with GOP leaders.” Republicans argue that Obama bears all duty for avoiding a countrywide catastrophe Obama argues that both sides bear an equivalent amount of money each and every day—and that this specific mess is not his to cleanse up.

How to settle this dispute? Listed here is where by Linz’s investigation rings chillingly true: “There is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved, and the mechanisms the Structure may possibly supply are probably to demonstrate way too sophisticated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the voters.” This is a combat with no regulations. The ability wrestle will be resolved as a pure contest of willpower.

In our Founders’ defense, it’s really hard to layout any political method strong sufficient to face up to a bash as ideologically radical and epistemically closed as the modern day GOP. (Its proximate casus belli—forestalling the onset of common wellness insurance—is alien to each and every other significant conservative get together in the industrialized world.) The tea-occasion insurgents transform out to be appropriate that the Obama era has observed a elementary challenge to the constitutional purchase of American federal government. They ended up completely wrong about who was waging it.

Source connection

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Why Julian Assange Is a Crucial Historical Figure — New York Magazine

Image: Andrew Parson/I-Images/ZumaPress/Newscom

Right until pretty recently, there have been only a hand­ful of people today on the earth with a specific feeling of how considerably curiosity the world’s intelligence organizations have in them. Some schizophrenics have been con­vinced a person was often monitoring them, but they have been wrong. Most of the rest of us have assumed that we did not matter to spies at all, but immediately after the Edward Snowden dis­closures, that looks incorrect, way too: Every single of us, evidently, is of a extremely tiny little bit of desire to spy businesses.

In 2010, as he was publishing Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning’s revelations of the crimes of the American military services and the inner workings of the U.S. diplomatic corps, Julian Assange was the exceptional person with a fantastic strategy about who was viewing him, and how intently.

When Assange, previously infamous, fled London for the English manor household where he would put together the Cablegate disclosures, and costumed himself for the trip as a giant female with an implausible wig when his assistants, looking at American politicians on television contacting for their boss’s murder by drone, listened to planes passing overhead and flinched when he insisted on having to pay for everything in funds to stay away from leaving an digital trail—when he did all of this, Assange was being amateurish and overly theatrical. But he was likely not currently being ridiculous.

Which can make one element of Assange’s habits primarily shocking: how trusting he was with new volunteers, how speedily they breached his internal circle. “There was no vetting at all,” suggests James Ball, who was section of Assange’s interior circle at WikiLeaks for several months in 2010. It can help to describe Ball’s have story. He was 24 yrs outdated, working for a generation firm pitching documentaries about the Iraq War, when he heard that WikiLeaks had a large trove of key documents related to that war. Ball managed to prepare an introduction to Assange, and at the end of their very first evening alongside one another, Assange slipped him a thumb generate containing everything about Iraq that WikiLeaks was planning to release. If he was at all careful about the motives of newcomers like Ball (and the complete genre of literary British spy fiction is created all-around figures like Ball, a couple of several years out of Oxford, government internships in his earlier), Assange did not act like it. No encryption, no ailments, no formal nondisclosure agreements. Below it was.

Assange’s whole public lifestyle has been an experiment on the concept of belief, just one devoted to the conviction that the community believe in in federal government has been terribly misplaced. But for a time, in 2010, Assange felt a component of anything larger—if not affiliated with any institution other than his individual, then at least part of a broader political motion versus American electric power. The Fifth Estate, a considerate drama out this 7 days with the English actor Benedict Cumberbatch as Assange, focuses on the extraordinary 8-month period when WikiLeaks printed the military’s war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, the Condition Department’s inner cables, and the “Collateral Murder” video—everything that designed Assange renowned. There was a casual brutality to the way that highly effective states and com­panies appeared to behave in these files: A Shell govt bragged about obtaining packed the Nigerian authorities with sympathizers, American military officers substantially underreported the figures of Iraqi civilians their soldiers had been killing. In London, Wiki­Leaks grew to become an Institution liberal bring about, and the Australian uncovered himself joined by human-rights crusaders who had been knighted by the queen, journalists and filmmakers, worried citizens and TED Communicate stars.

These allegiances ended up always certain to collapse—Assange is basically way too unusual, in his person and his politics, to have come to be part of any mainstream coalition—but they have collapsed so completely that there is little left of Assange’s community impression suitable now further than the crude cartoon. Vain and self-mythologizing, he has been accused of sexual assault by two of his supporters a prophet of the mounting powers of the surveillance condition, he now reportedly lives in a fifteen-by-13-foot place in London’s Ecuadoran Embassy, sleeping in a women’s toilet, monitored by intelligence companies at all times nevertheless trusting of the volunteers around him, he gave 1 this sort of man access to secret American diplomatic cables about Belarus, only to obtain that info passed along to the Belarusian dictator. It is as if Assange has been eaten by his individual weaknesses and obsessions. Contacting all over, I’d listened to that the previous distinguished London intellectual who even now supported him was the writer Tariq Ali, but when I at last reached him, by using Skype, on an island in the Adriatic, it turned out that Ali, as well, had grown exasperated with Assange. “He has not formulated his worldview,” Ali claimed. “Certainly he is hostile to the American empire. But that’s not adequate.” Assange has come to be found, as a journalist at The Guardian set it, as very little more than “a practical fool.”

All of this is Assange’s personal doing. And however it is peculiar how absolutely these dramas have obscured the power of his insights and how absolutely we now seem to be residing in Julian Assange’s environment. His true matter never ever was war or human rights. It was often surveillance and the way that know-how unbalanced the partnership amongst the individual and the state. Details now moves via digital circuits, which means it can all be collected, stored, analyzed. The insight that Assange husbanded (and Snowden’s evidence verified) is that the sheer seduction of this trove—the likelihood of secretly knowing every little thing about other people—would lead governments and businesses to abandon their personal guidelines and ethics. This is the paranoid worldview of a hacker, assembled from a life time of chasing facts. But Assange proved that it was accurate, and the consequence of his discovery has been a strange political instant, when to see the globe as a result of the lens of conspiracies has not only designed you paranoid. It is also manufactured you knowledgeable.

Assange’s detractors generally call him a conspiracy theorist and necessarily mean it as a very simple slur. But in the most literal sense, Assange is just that: a theorist of conspiracies. He gave his key pre-WikiLeaks manifesto the title Conspiracy As Governance, and in it he argued that authoritarian establishments relied on the folks working inside of them conspiring to shield most likely harming facts. In substantial establishments like militaries or banking institutions, to keep these forms of strategies requires an massive selection of collaborators. If you could discover a way to assure anonymity, then even the most peripheral people within these establishments could leak its secrets and crack the conspiracy. WikiLeaks was crafted to obtain these leaks. Bradley Manning, in other terms, did not only locate WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks was designed for Bradley Manning.

The impression that Assange utilized to explain how these conspiracies labored was of an array of nails hammered into boards, with connecting twine looped all-around the nails. Every single nail was a particular person and the twine was the information snip it and the full procedure would unravel. WikiLeaks was the snipping system. And yet in the 3 many years considering that Assange’s important disclosures, the twine has not detectably unraveled. Governments have not fallen for the reason that of what WikiLeaks uncovered. Procedures have typically been remaining unchanged there are a lot more secrets and techniques than at any time. Some other force was at work.

None of this diminishes the power of the revelations. To take just 1 example from the army logs released by Manning: In 2007, in the Afghan district of Zarghun Shah, American rockets hit a school, killing six young adult men and seven young children. Armed service spokesmen then said that the rockets had been fired as section of a typical patrol, and the soldiers were responding to insurgents who had taken refuge in a close by mosque. The categorized report appeared unique. The rockets experienced really been fired by members of a magic formula squad of Special Functions soldiers identified as Process Drive 373, devoted to higher-value targets, who experienced gone after the mosque when intelligence reports claimed that a senior Al Qaeda leader was holed up in the elaborate. It wasn’t until eventually the WikiLeaks revelations three decades later that we uncovered that the stories had been incorrect and that the army had merely manufactured up other particulars to try to justification the murders and that the neighborhood Afghan politicians experienced been pressured to echo them. This was an extraordinary situation, but even so, the ease with which murders were turned into secrets and techniques is startling. “The principle is trust and validate,” states William Binney, a former NSA crypto-mathematician turned anti-secrecy advocate. “But in reality there is no verify, only have confidence in.”

WikiLeaks’ final major document release, at the stop of 2011, was named the “Spy Documents,” and it consisted in significant element of data gathered by an English lawyer named Eric King, who, performing for the British firm Privateness Global, invested a number of years traveling to trade fairs exactly where Western electronic-surveillance providers presented their new systems. Generally the customers were federal government officers from Third Earth nations around the world. In Kuala Lumpur, King told me, he viewed a delegation from South Sudan, a country then just a number of months aged, remaining taken from booth to booth by a group he took to be from the Chinese government, getting told what they needed to invest in to spy on their own citizens, as if they were pushing a cart around a supermarket.

King noticed a specific mentality at the conferences amid all those who held official tricks. “The perspective at the conferences was normally, ‘If you really do not have a stability clearance, then you just don’t have an understanding of how the planet definitely operates,’ ” King claims. In the course of the revolutions of the Arab Spring, when activists and journalists cracked open up deserted secret police places of work, their discoveries appeared to affirm how dependent the governments ended up on Western surveillance technologies. In 1 Tripoli intelligence center, Qaddafi’s spies had been employing a resource Libya experienced purchased from the French firm Amesys to observe all e-mail targeted traffic, and know-how from the South African company VASTech to check all worldwide phone calls.

Some of these instruments seem to have been marketed irrespective of embargoes in many more situations, there are merely no regulations at all. Hacker-activists have detected web-filtering and blocking application manufactured by a Sunnyvale, California, firm known as Blue Coat Systems getting utilized by the Syrian authorities to restrict the World-wide-web the Sudanese and Iranian governments have also utilized Blue Coat’s goods. (The company has admitted this but says it did not immediately sell its items to the Syrian routine.) While it is not possible to verify, King suggests he often hears that Western intelligence organizations tolerate these revenue for the reason that they have back doors constructed in, so that they can keep track of, say, the Libyan governing administration as it displays its possess dissidents.

Spying turns out to be extremely low-priced. One particular notable tool marketed by the U.K.-based Gamma Team, FinFisher, allows a government agent choose remote command of any user’s mobile phone by infecting it with malware, allowing for the agent to pinpoint that user’s area, document his calls, and even turn on a microphone in the mobile phone to hear to the user’s off-line conversations. This engineering expenses close to $500,000—“a sixth of the expense of a secondhand tank,” King claims. “That’s dictator chump improve.” FinFisher has been offered to 36 governments, among the them the brutal dictatorship of Turkmenistan.

The usa, of system, is wherever Assange’s concepts have been most coolly received. The crimes of Activity Pressure 373 had been a big story in The Guardian and Der Spiegel, but they played a lot scaled-down in the American press, which includes in the Moments. In Congress, the job force has not been pointed out as soon as. The Fifth Estate is steeped in a type of expository triumphalism—figures all around Assange are for good explaining how substantially the world is about to adjust or how much it just has. And yet in genuine daily life, the revelations have demonstrated the great inertia of American politics, of the enduring capability of issues to continue to be pretty much accurately as they are.

The wonderful puzzle of the recent scandals in American community life—in the banks and refinance shops in the course of the mortgage loan crisis, in the armed service and the countrywide-safety apparatus in the course of the war on terror—is why our institutional loyalties have remained so solid, and why whistle-blowers have been so rare. Why, if 480,000 people today have Snowden’s security clearance and additional than 1 million have Manning’s, have there been no other leaks?

Peter Ludlow, a Northwestern philosophy professor who scientific tests hacker activism, thinks the solution might lie not in the nature of American politics but in a little something extra standard and human. He pointed me to the function of a sociologist named Robert Jackall, well known among hacker-activists, who identified that in large corporations and governmental establishments, middle managers routinely adopted the inner codes of company lifetime rather than their possess moral convictions, even when confronted by crystal clear proof of wrongdoing. “Conspiracy doesn’t have to indicate outdated white dudes at a mahogany desk,” Ludlow suggests. “It can be an emergent residence of a community of fantastic people today, exactly where all of a sudden you’ve bought a harm-resulting in macro entity.”

The consequence of the WikiLeaks revelations has been to persuade some men and women to see these styles, and so to see the globe a lot more like Assange himself does. But this perspective is not for everybody it is not actually for anyone, even Assange. He suffers from fears that the sushi he eats may possibly be poisoned he appreciates that every little thing he does is monitored by huge intelligence agencies he believes that ladies he experienced intercourse with may possibly have been in cahoots with spies. From the Ecuadoran Embassy appear, now and then, these lunging gestures for a connection: The warm letter to Benedict Cumberbatch, praising the actor’s overall performance while denouncing the movie the doomed attempt to establish a political social gathering in Australia even though imprisoned midway all around the entire world the intuition to consider the goodwill of new volunteers on religion, to press thumb drives full of secrets into the palms of strangers. Which leaves Assange as both equally a prophet and a warning: If his perform has proved the dangers of trusting way too substantially, then his lifestyle has shown the impossibility of dwelling without having any rely on at all.

Resource connection

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Frank Rich on the History of Government Shutdowns — New York Magazine

Photo-illustration by Gluekit. Clockwise from top left, Calhoun, Goldwater, Cruz, Gingrich.Photo: © Bettmann/Corbis (Goldwater), Terry Ashe/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images (Gingrich); Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images (Cruz)

The great ­government shutdown of 2013 was barely a day old, and already blue America was running out of comic put-downs to hurl at the House’s wrecking crew. Not content with “morons” and “dunderheads,” Jon Stewart coined new epithets for the occasion (e.g., “bald-eagle fellators”). Politicians you wouldn’t normally confuse with Don Rickles joined in too—not just the expected Democrats like Harry Reid, who had opted for “banana Republicans,” but blue-state Republicans like Devin Nunes of California, who dismissed his own congressional peers as “lemmings with suicide vests.”

Implicit in this bipartisan gallows humor was an assumption shared by most of those listening: The non-legislating legislators responsible for the crisis are a lunatic fringe—pariahs in the country at large and outliers even in their own party. They’re “a small faction of Republicans who represent an even smaller fraction of Americans,” as the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau put it in the Daily Beast. By this line of reasoning, all that kept them afloat was their possession of just enough votes in their divided chamber to hold the rest of America temporarily hostage to their incendiary demands.

Would that this were so, and that the extralegal rebellion against the Affordable Care Act, a Supreme Court–sanctified law of the land, would send the rebels, not the country, off a cliff. Off the cliff they may well have gone in this year’s failed coup, but like Wile E. Coyote, they will quickly climb back up to fight another day. That’s what happened after the double-header shutdowns of 1995–96, which presaged Newt Gingrich’s beheading but in the long run advanced the rebels’ cause. It’s what always happens. The present-day anti-government radicals in Congress, and the Americans who voted them into office, are in the minority, but they are a permanent minority that periodically disrupts or commandeers a branch or two of the federal government, not to mention the nation’s statehouses. Their brethren have been around for much of our history in one party or another, and with a constant anti-­democratic aim: to thwart the legitimacy of a duly elected leader they abhor, from Lincoln to FDR to Clinton to Obama, and to resist any laws with which they disagree. So deeply rooted are these furies in our national culture that their consistency and tenacity should be the envy of other native political movements.

Yet we keep assuming the anti-­government right has been vanquished after its recurrent setbacks, whether after the Clinton-impeachment implosion or the Barry Goldwater debacle of 1964 or the surrender at Appomattox. A Democratic victory in the 1982 midterms was all it took for David Broder, then the “dean” of Beltway pundits, to write off Reaganism as “a one-year phenomenon.” When polls showed a decline in support for the tea-party brand last year, it prompted another round of premature obituaries. But the ideological adherents of tea-party causes, who long predate that grassroots phenomenon of 2009, never went away, whatever they choose to label themselves. In recent months, both The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post had to scramble to assemble front-page stories spotting a tea-party comeback. Even so, it took only one week into the shutdown for a liberal ­pundit at the Post to declare that we were witnessing “the tea party’s last stand.”

That last stand has been going on for almost 200 years. At the heart of the current rebels’ ideology is the anti-Washington credo of nullification, codified by the South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun in the 1830s and rarely lacking for avid followers ever since. Our inability to accept the anti-government right’s persistence is in part an astonishing case of denial. The Gingrich revolution, the Ur-text for this fall’s events, took place less than twenty years ago and yet was at best foggily remembered as the current calamity unfolded. There’s also a certain liberal snobbery at play: We don’t know any of these radicals, do we?

In truth we do. The name of David Koch, among the bigger bankrollers of the revolution, is plastered over half of Manhattan, it sometimes seems. And beyond New York, the distance between the crazies and the country as a whole is not quite as vast as many blue-state Americans assume. The rebels’ core strongholds are the 80 Republican districts whose House members signed an August letter effectively calling on John Boehner to threaten a government shutdown if Obamacare was not aborted. Analysts have been poring over these districts’ metrics for weeks looking for evidence of how alien they are to the American mainstream. The evidence is there, up to a point. The 80 enclaves predictably have a higher percentage of non-Hispanic whites than the nation (75 percent vs. 63 percent) and a lower percentage of Hispanics (10.8 vs. 16.7 nationwide). But even those contrasts aren’t quite as stark as one might have imagined, especially given that most of these districts have been gerrymandered by state legislatures to be as safely Republican as possible. To complicate the picture further, fifteen of the offending districts have a larger percentage of Hispanics than the country does, and 24 have a proportionately larger black population. The 80 districts also come reasonably close to the national norm in median household income ($47,535 vs. $50,502) and percentage of college graduates (24.6 vs. 28.5). The percentage of high-school graduates in the rebel districts is actually a smidgen higher than that of the country (86.6 vs. 85.9).

Of course, the gang of 80 who fomented this revolt are predominantly white men, and their districts are mostly clustered in the South, the Sun Belt, and the Midwest. But the same could be said of most of the GOP caucus. For Republicans to claim that this cabal of 80 legislators represents a mutant strain—“a small segment who dictate to the rest of the party,” in the words of a prominent GOP fund-raiser, Bobbie Kilberg—is disingenuous or delusional. (Kilberg herself has raised money for Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor.) This “small segment” accounts for a third of the 232 members of the House Republican caucus. Lunatics they may be, but the size of their cohort can’t be minimized as a fringe in the context of the wider GOP. And they wield disproportionate clout because the party’s so-called moderates let them—whether out of fear of primary challenges from the right, opportunism, or shared convictions that are not actually moderate at all.

According to Robert Costa of National Review, the go-to reporter on internal GOP congressional machinations, there are more than a hundred moderates among the party’s House ranks. Where are they, exactly? Even Peter King, the Long Island Republican who sees himself as their standard-bearer, has essentially called them cowards. “They will talk, they will complain,” he says, “but they’ve never gone head-to-head” with the rebels. If the recent events couldn’t rouse them to action—assuming they exist—it’s hard to imagine what ever would. Costa’s estimate notwithstanding, the fact remains that until the middle of last week only 24 Republican members of the House publicly affirmed they would vote for a “clean” resolution to reopen the government—a head count even smaller than the 49 who bucked their party to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief. It’s the sad little band of vocal moderates, not the gang of 80, that is the true “small segment” of the GOP.

The radicals’ power within the party has been stable for nearly two decades. The current ratio of revolutionaries to the Republican House caucus is similar to that of the 104th Congress of 1995–96, where the revolt was fueled by 73 freshmen out of a GOP class of 236. For all the lip service being paid this fall to memories of ­Gingrich’s short-lived reign as the Capitol’s ­Robespierre, some seem to forget just how consistent that Washington train wreck was with this one in every way. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell went so far as to categorize the current House insurgents’ Senate godfather, Ted Cruz, as a rare new pox on the body politic—the adherent of “a completely different strategy than almost anyone we’ve ever seen come to Washington.” Really? The political tactics and ideological conflicts are the same today as they were the last time around. Back then, the GOP was holding out for a budget that would deeply slash government health-care spending (in that case on Medicare) and was refusing to advance a clean funding bill that would keep the government open. The House also took the debt ceiling hostage, attaching a wish list of pet conservative causes to the routine bill that would extend it. That maneuver prompted Moody’s, the credit-rating agency, to threaten to downgrade Treasury securities, and Wall Street heavies like Felix Rohatyn to warn of impending economic catastrophe. The secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, juggled funds in federal accounts to delay default much as his protégé Jacob Lew was driven to do in the same Cabinet position now. Leon Panetta, then Clinton’s chief of staff, accused the Republicans of holding “a gun to the head of the president and the head of the country” and likened their threats to “a form of terrorism.” (And this was before terrorism became an everyday word in America.) The internal political dynamics in both parties were similar as well. Gingrich has a far stormier temperament than Boehner, but like the current speaker, he could have trouble keeping control of his own caucus and waltzed into a shutdown scenario without having any idea of an endgame, let alone an escape route. President Clinton, like President Obama, held firm rather than capitulating to the House’s extortionists, betting that public opinion would force them to cave.

To fully appreciate the continuity between then and now, one need look no further than the Third District of Indiana. It is currently represented by the most conspicuous goat of the 2013 uprising, Marlin Stutzman, whose declaration in the shutdown’s early going was a ready-made Onion gag: “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” Those who think Stutzman represents a new breed minted in the Obama era would be advised to recall his immediate predecessor in the same seat, Mark Souder. “We didn’t come here to raise the debt limits,” Souder said during the 1995 shutdown, insisting that “some of the revolution has to occur,” for “otherwise, why are we here?” (This is the same northeastern-Indiana constituency, by the way, that gave America Dan Quayle.)

The midterm elections of 1994 were in retrospect the tipping point driving American politics today—not because of the shutdowns that ensued in the next two years, however, or the fact that Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Rather, it’s that 1994 marked the culmination of the migration of the old Confederacy from the Democratic Party to the GOP. That shift had started in 1964, when Barry Goldwater pried away states from the old solid Democratic South with his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and it accelerated with the advent of Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” of pandering to racists at the end of that decade. But for an interim quarter-century after that, the old Dixiecrats were dispersed in both major parties, rather than coalescing in one. The 1994 election was the first since Reconstruction in which the majority of the old South’s congressional representation went into the Republican column.

This shift wasn’t fully appreciated at the time. When the Gingrich gang staged its sequel to the shutdowns of ’95 and ’96—the self-immolating overreach of the Clinton impeachment in ’98—Dan Carter, a preeminent historian of the civil-rights era, told the Times that he was “surprised that there’s been so little discussion” of how “the southernization of the Republican Party” had shaped events. “Maybe it’s like the purloined letter,” he said. “It’s sitting there on the shelf right in front of you, so you don’t see it.”

What southernization brought with it was the credo of Calhoun, the “Great Nullifier,” whose championing of states’ rights and belief in a minority’s power to reject laws imposed by a congressional majority (whether over taxes or slavery) presaged the secessionism of the Civil War (which Calhoun didn’t live to see) and the old southern Democrats’ resistance to desegregation a century later. It’s Calhoun’s legacy that informs the current House rebels’ rejection of Obamacare and their notion that they can pick and choose which federal agencies they would reopen on a case-by-case basis.

When Calhoun’s precepts found a permanent home in the GOP in the nineties—under the aegis of a new generation of southern Republican leaders typified by Gingrich and Trent Lott (a typical Democratic convert)—the animus was directed at Bill Clinton, a president who happened to be both white and southern. It was inevitable that when a black president took office, the racial fevers of secessionist history would resurface and exacerbate some of the radicals’ rage. One of the House’s current nullifiers, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, called the Obamas “uppity” during the 2008 campaign, smeared Huma Abedin as a Muslim Brotherhood mole, and voted against a new Justice Department initiative to investigate unsolved crimes of the civil-rights era. Another, Jeff Duncan, a former Strom Thurmond intern who represents the patch of South Carolina that was Calhoun’s ancestral home, has likened what he sees as slack border control to “allowing any kind of vagrant, or animal, or just somebody that’s hungry, or somebody that wants to do your dishes for you, to come in.” This kind of thinking is all too representative of that small but effective racialist-nativist subset within the GOP rebel bloc that will doom immigration reform and is working furiously to erect new barriers to minority voting in a swath of states.

But to brand this entire cohort as racist is both incorrect and reductive. It under­estimates their broader ideological sway within their party. The unifying bogeyman for this camp is the federal government, not blacks or Hispanics, and that animus will remain undiminished after Obama’s departure from the White House. Though Andrew Jackson—under whom Calhoun served as vice-president—dismissed the ideology of nullification as “subversive” of the Constitution, it has always been wrapped in patriotic rationalizations, as it is now. In Ecstatic Nation, a new book about the decades bracketing the Civil War, Brenda Wineapple writes that even the South’s secessionists “saw themselves as protecting the Constitution, not tearing it apart.” Or as Jefferson Davis, speaking like a born tea-partyer, claimed: “We are upholding the true doctrines of the Federal Constitution.” Whatever the bottom line of Washington’s current battle, the nullification of federal laws is growing as a cause at the grass roots. Of the 26 states that are refusing the federal Medicaid expansion—at the price of denying their poorest citizens health care—23 of them have GOP governors. That’s a bigger slice of America than can be found in the map of the 80 districts of the defund-Obamacare brigade.

How and where will this rebellion end? After a week of shutdown, Gallup found that the GOP’s approval rating had dropped to the lowest level (28 percent) for either party since the question was first asked in 1992. But there is no political incentive for the incumbent rebels in safe districts to retreat. “They may think of us as extremists here,” said Mark Souder when serving as a foot soldier in the Gingrich rebellion of 1995, “but none of us are extremists at home.” Playing Russian roulette with the debt ceiling of the despised federal Leviathan is even more of a plus in such overwhelmingly Republican enclaves today. A current House freshman, Ted Yoho of Florida, thinks nothing of publicly cheering on the “tsunami” of a default as a follow-up to the mere “tremor” of the shutdown. Now, as over the past century and a half, these revolutionaries aren’t going to disappear no matter what short-term punish­ment may be visited on their national party in 2014 or 2016 or both. Nor is their money going to run out. A donor like Kilberg may not write them checks, but the Koch brothers will.

Some Democrats nonetheless cling to the hope that electoral Armageddon will purge the GOP of its radicals, a wish that is far less likely to be fulfilled now than it was after Goldwater’s landslide defeat, when liberalism was still enjoying the last sunny days of its postwar idyll. This was also the liberal hope after Gingrich’s political demise of 1998. But his revolution, whatever its embarrassments, hypocrisies, and failures, did nudge the country toward the right: It’s what pushed Clinton to announce in his 1996 State of the Union address that “the era of big government is over” and to adopt policy modulations that tamped down New Deal–Great Society liberalism. The right has only gained strength within the GOP ever since. Roughly half of the party’s current House population was first elected in 2010 or 2012, in the crucible of the tea-party revolt. While it’s Beltway conventional wisdom that these Republicans don’t know how to govern, the real issue is that they don’t want to govern. That’s their whole point, and they are sticking to it.

Dwindling coastal Republicans of the nearly extinct George H.W. Bush persuasion like Peter King nonetheless keep hoping that the extremists will by some unspecified alchemy lose out to the adults in their party. Tune in to Morning Joe, that echo chamber of Northeast-corridor greenroom centrism hosted by Joe Scarborough, a chastened former firebrand of the Gingrich revolution, and you’ll hear the ultimate version of this fantasy: Somehow Chris Christie will parlay his popularity in the blue state of New Jersey into leading the national party back to sanity and perhaps even into the White House.

To believe this you not only have to believe in miracles, but you also have to talk yourself into buying the prevailing bipartisan canard, endorsed by King and Obama alike, that the radicals are just a rump within the GOP (“one faction of one party in one house of Congress,” in the president’s reckoning). In reality, the one third of the Republican House caucus in rebel hands and the electorate it represents are no more likely to surrender at this point than the third of the states that seceded from the Union for much the same ideological reasons in 1860–61. Unless and until the other two thirds of the GOP summons the guts to actually fight and win the civil war that is raging in its own camp, the rest of us, and the health of our democracy, will continue to be held hostage.

Frank Rich on the History of Government Shutdowns -- New York Magazine
Frank Rich on the History of Government Shutdowns -- New York Magazine

Source link

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Why Bill de Blasio’s Promise May Also Be His Problem — New York Magazine

Photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine

He is joking, but he’s not kidding. “When I spoke last time, they needed a much smaller room,” Bill de Blasio says to laughter. “This is the glory of American democracy!” Exactly one year earlier, De Blasio had appeared before the same group, the Association for a Better New York, an alliance of city businesses and civic organizations; the turnout then, in October 2012, was 400, and the reaction was chilly—especially when De Blasio unveiled what would become a signature element of his run for mayor, a proposal to tax the wealthy to pay for new pre­kindergarten and after-school programs. This morning—fresh off an improbable, resounding victory in the Democratic primary—De Blasio is greeted by a sold-out crowd of 800 and a standing ovation.

Still, there’s a bit of tension served with the scrambled eggs: De Blasio unflinchingly repeats his vow to boost taxes, to which he adds emphatic praise for labor unions and higher minimum wages. To lighten the mood, De Blasio improvises a running joke. He decries the decline in city and state funding to the City University of New York, and the table directly in front of the podium—full of CUNY executives—breaks into loud applause. A few paragraphs later, De Blasio says he wants to restore $150 million in funding to CUNY, producing the same thrilled, noisy result. “I love these guys!” he cracks. “Whenever I need a little pick-me-up, I’ll just say the word ‘CUNY’ and this whole table will erupt!” When he opens the floor to questions, a woman from a tech firm asks how the likely future mayor feels about her industry. “I would like to have seen the same vigorous applause as from CUNY,” he says, “so you need to think about that.” But De Blasio quickly makes it clear he’s joshing, that he loves the tech sector, too. Then, a few minutes later, a representative of the hospital industry stands up and praises De Blasio. “You know, I just want to say, I’ve lost my interest in CUNY,” De Blasio says, smiling. “I think the health-care sector is where I want to put my attention after all! They placated me better than CUNY did! CUNY, it was great while it lasted.”

More laughter, but this time there’s an uneasy undercurrent. And, at a table of real-estate executives, raised eyebrows and shaking heads. They’ve got nothing against hospitals or city colleges, mind you. They’re just wondering what, exactly, the city’s next mayor really stands for.

Bill de Blasio ran probably the most surgically focused mayoral campaign in modern New York political history, relentlessly repeating a few key phrases—“a tale of two cities” … “income inequality” … “end the stop-and-frisk era”—that played brilliantly to the hopes, angers, and guilts of the city’s liberal, Bloomberg-fatigued Democratic-primary electorate. De Blasio genuinely believes in the ideals underlying the progressive rhetoric he’s been retailing; in 1988, he traveled to Nicaragua to support the leftist revolution, and he still converses knowledgeably about liberation theology. But in his own career in elected office—first as a Brooklyn city councilman and then as public advocate—De Blasio has shown a gift for the crafty compromise.

Which is why, as De Blasio nears what is likely to be a general-election landslide victory, the central questions are about just what he believes and just who he’d be as mayor. The business leaders at the ABNY breakfast weren’t all that upset about the prospect of a tax increase on New Yorkers making more than $500,000. And most weren’t buying the notion, lately promoted in a hyperventilating TV ad by Joe Lhota, the Republican candidate, that blood will run in the streets and crime will soar if De Blasio wins. The nervousness flows from something more subtle: the prospect that De Blasio will be a mayor who responds to whoever “placates” him the most, bouncing from one interest group to the next—an unsettling contrast to Bloomberg, who, whether you agreed with him or not, was a predictable and stabilizing force in city life.

And this isn’t simply a concern of the city’s wealthy elites: What’s more surprising is that De Blasio’s friends on the left aren’t quite sure of his core political identity either. “We want him to be Elizabeth Warren and not Barack Obama or Andrew Cuomo,” a labor leader close to De Blasio says. “I think that’s who he really wants to be. But I really don’t know.” De Blasio campaigned as a crusading lefty: against corporate subsidies, in favor of expanding access to food stamps and paid sick leave and taxing the rich to help the poor. Yet his formative political training came from wily realists like Cuomo and Hillary Clinton. The risk of a Bill de Blasio mayoralty is that it sputters with politically correct incompetence. But the great promise is that he might turn out to be a complicated, highly unusual mix of ideologue and operative. The stakes are high—not just for the continued vitality of New York, but as a test of whether progressive values can deliver a more equitable city.

Why Bill de Blasio’s Promise May Also Be His Problem -- New York Magazine
Dante, Chiara, Chirlane, and Bill.Photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine. Makeup by Elizabeth Yoon for M.A.C Pro. Hair by Takeo Suzuki.

Enter the candidate, sweating and laughing. “Hey!” De Blasio says, bounding through the front door of his Brooklyn house and spotting me sitting at the kitchen table with his wife and son and noticing that I’m wearing a dress shirt and tie. “Chris Smith thinks he’s on East 79th Street, in a townhouse!”

Which is funny and self-deprecating, because this sure isn’t the $30 million Bloomberg manse. The De Blasio homestead in Park Slope is a humble three-story rectangle covered in faded green-painted wood paneling. Inside, the first floor is a combined living room and kitchen, all of it well worn. On one wall is a small, framed drawing of the “Sodium Avenger,” a superhero created by daughter Chiara to lovingly tease Mom for banning salt from the dinner table. On the opposite wall is a vivid yellow-and-red floor-to-­ceiling poster commemorating the mid-eighties Artists Against Apartheid movement; his wife, Chirlane McCray, did poetry readings and is listed among the performers. If I needed any further indication that the city is on the verge of a radical change in mayoral style from Bloomberg, who seems as if he were born in a pin-striped suit, there’s the 52-year-old De Blasio himself: He’s just back from his daily workout at the 9th Street Y and wearing a frayed, sweat-soaked blue T-shirt and baggy gray sweatpants.

Chirlane, 58, hasn’t given up completely on getting her kids to eat healthy, but there’s only so much a mom can do with a strong-minded teenager. Dante is gobbling a second greasy slice of takeout pizza before tackling a mountain of Brooklyn Tech math homework. He has inherited his father’s heavy-lidded eyes, his mother’s bright smile. All his own, though, is the famous Afro, which Dante tugs at nervously with his left hand. “This one guy at school keeps saying ‘Go with the ’fro!’ when he sees me,” Dante says. “It’s pretty funny. It’s funny to him. I don’t mind it much, though, as long as it’s my friends who are doing it.”

Otherwise, the celebrity inflicted by starring in a charming, campaign-changing commercial doesn’t seem to have made much difference in his sixteen-year-old life. He’s more anxious about an upcoming debate-team tournament at Bronx Science than any added pressure from being the next mayor’s son. “I get my grades for myself,” he says, “and generally do not engage in behaviors that are going to incriminate my father in any way.”

Chirlane laughs, hard, but she knows he’s being honest. “Dante’s tough on himself,” she says. “He’s got standards for himself that are probably higher than the ones we have for him.”

Topping both, though, are Chirlane and Bill’s standards for themselves as parents, an outgrowth of their own difficult childhoods. Chirlane grew up in a small, predominantly white western-Massachusetts town, where her family was the target of ugly racism. Bill’s father, Warren Wilhelm, was a Yale-educated war hero who was gravely wounded in Okinawa, losing most of one leg to a Japanese grenade. Wilhelm returned and got a graduate degree from Harvard, then went to work in the Commerce Department. Bill’s mother, Maria, the daughter of Italian immigrants, graduated from Smith College and was hired by the Office of War Information. Both became ensnared in a McCarthy-era Red Scare investigation and eventually left Washington for jobs in New York and a house in Connecticut. Warren Wilhelm Jr. was born in Manhattan in 1961—he was always known as Bill, though no one in the family seems to remember why—and has brothers who are thirteen and sixteen years older. In the mid-sixties, the family moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts. Warren Wilhelm was increasingly trying to drown his physical and emotional pain in whiskey; when Bill was 7, Warren left the family. “Bill’s experience in those years was pretty bleak,” says Steve Wilhelm, one of his brothers. “Dad just kind of vanished, basically.”

Steve was living on a commune when he got a phone call that his father had been found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. “He’d had lung cancer, and it was coming back, metastasizing. He wrote a beautiful letter: ‘I don’t want to die in a hospital with tubes stuck in me,’ ” Steve says. “Bill and I emerged out of all that with some clear ideas of what we would do and not want to do if we were ever parents.”

De Blasio understands all the recent fascination with his father’s story but says the attention is misplaced, at least when it comes to understanding what shaped him. “My mother was the greatest influence on my life by far,” he says. “She was often very, very sad about things that had happened to her, but she had a fierce resilience—a very sharp, purposeful resilience. She was very practical. She always talked to me about a kind of Italian understanding of the world—she would juxtapose somewhat my father’s upbringing and what she saw as sort of an American affectation for a certain romanticism, a certain idealism, with her own Southern Italian sense of practicality. She was nobody’s fool, and when the whole McCarthy thing happened, it bothered her intellectually and it troubled her personally, but she was not surprised one bit. She came out of that experience further armored. My father came out of that experience further troubled.” When Bill changed his last name from Wilhelm to De Blasio, his brothers weren’t surprised. “The Wilhelm side didn’t mean that much to him,” Steve Wilhelm says, “and like everyone, he was looking for a family.”

Why Bill de Blasio’s Promise May Also Be His Problem -- New York Magazine
Photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine

He extended one through politics. In high school, De Blasio was a student-­government geek; in college, at NYU, he became a leading activist, helping form the Coalition for Student Rights, which rallied to protest tuition hikes and organized an overnight sit-in of Bobst Library to demand that it stay open later. He also argued for the superiority of Talking Heads over Blondie with an NYU roommate, Tom Kirdahy. “Bill was very smart but very funny,” says Kirdahy, who remains a friend. “And he had a crush a week.” De Blasio’s interest in politics, and the underclass, deepened as a grad student in Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, where he shared one class, in Latin American politics, with Dan Cantor, who years later would team with De Blasio and others to launch the Working Families Party. He soon made two other pivotal friends and mentors: Bill Lynch, the wily Harlem political consultant who masterminded the winning 1989 mayoral campaign of David Dinkins, and Harold Ickes, the combative second-generation Democratic insider. De Blasio volunteered for the Dinkins campaign, then was hired as a coordinator of volunteers; in City Hall, Lynch hired him as a junior aide in community affairs. De Blasio says he learned how not to run an administration during the four tumultuous Dinkins years—“The organizational structure was divided, and there was a real lack of unity, a real lack of singleness of purpose a lot of the time”—but the most significant personal event during that period was meeting Chirlane, a press-office staffer in the Commission on Humans Rights.

De Blasio was persistent; McCray was reluctant. After a few months, she handed him a story she’d written for Essence about being lesbian. De Blasio wasn’t dissuaded. They were married in 1994, in Prospect Park, by a pair of gay ministers; McCray was three months pregnant with Chiara. “The fact that my parents’ marriage turned out so badly was not a great recommender of how easy it was to get it right,” De Blasio says. He tried psychotherapy in his mid-twenties, attempting to sort out his feelings about family. “I took a long time to believe,” he says. “And it’s absolutely connected to meeting Chirlane. That’s what finally made me comfortable, was finding a soul mate, finding someone I could believe that I could actually work it out with. And I was right.”

As his own life has become more public, De Blasio has propelled his family into the spotlight with him. Having cheery, mixed-race kids has paid political dividends, but De Blasio claims his motivation is educational as much as anything else. “You have to understand our family is different in the way we think about things. Chirlane and I met in City Hall; we had both had a history of activism,” he says. “We talked about it in broad ways; it was unspoken that we were going to pursue not only our love, our relationship, but our commitment to the world, and that was going to be a given in our lives … These are kids who, by the time Chiara was 5 and Dante was 2, they had slept overnight in the Clinton White House. [The kids] both got so much out of this experience this year, they got some real-life lessons about how the world works, but they also gained a lot of strength, a lot of confidence, a lot of understanding.”

De Blasio believes that his family would have become media fodder whether they were a prominent part of his campaign or not. And it’s true that everything about this family, as normal as it is in many ways, is inescapably political. Even the house. In 2000, when De Blasio decided he wanted to run for City Council, they moved one block so he’d be a resident of a district with an open seat. Chirlane still loves the neighborhood, but she disdains what she thinks the Bloomberg era has done to it. “The nursery school Chiara and Dante went to, both of them had fairly diverse classes—economically, racially. That was the cool thing. The two mommies, and Asian, and black, and Latino kids,” she says. “That’s not the case now. It’s gone the way of the mom-and-pop stores. It’s wealthier and whiter.”

Now the family may be relocating to the Upper East Side. McCray’s memory of one visit to Gracie Mansion is still vivid. She remembers going to a reception there in 2006 for council members and spouses. Chiara de Blasio—now 18 and a sophomore at a college in Northern California—had just begun middle school, and Bloomberg’s Department of Education had instituted a ban on student cell phones. McCray approached the mayor. “I said, ‘Mayor Bloomberg, you are my hero! Because you instituted the smoking ban, which is so important and has done so much for people who have respiratory problems in this city and for our children. I want to thank you for that. But the cell phones in the schools’—and as soon as I said the words cell phones, he turned his back and walked away from me,” she tells me. “I was so shocked. I had never had that experience before—someone just turning and walking away like that! Bill shook his head and said, ‘That’s just how he is.’ ”

De Blasio’s family and professional political career were launched in the Dinkins administration, but his training in hardball politics came later, from some of its craftiest Democratic practitioners. Harold Ickes helped De Blasio land a job as New York State director of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. For Clinton’s second term, De Blasio worked under HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo as regional director for New York and New Jersey. Then, in 2000, he was hired to be campaign manager when Hillary Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate. The job titles and responsibilities differed, but De Blasio’s skills were deployed in similar ways. “Bill was the person you would send to deal with people,” says a fellow operative from the Hillary Clinton campaign. “He finds common ground, and he sees the chess moves six moves ahead,” says another veteran of that campaign. “For instance, he was very good at working the Orthodox Jewish community, even though he’s neither Orthodox nor Jewish.” De Blasio became the chief emissary to Dov Hikind, a conservative, cantankerous state assemblyman from Borough Park who had the potential to deliver a large bloc of votes—or to create gigantic headaches. Hikind kept pressing for the candidate—and her husband, the president—to support the pardon of Jonathan Pollard, an American intelligence analyst jailed for spying for Israel. “Bill is very real, he’s very much willing to listen, he’s very much willing to learn,” says Matthew Hiltzik, who worked with De Blasio on the Hillary campaign and now runs a top New York public-relations firm. “And while he’s a little more liberal than I am, he is someone who’s very principled in his beliefs and also at the same time pretty practical.”

In the Hillary Clinton campaign, the questions that arose were not about his political instincts but about his performance as an executive. His title, campaign manager, was misleading—the major decisions were always in the hands of Hillary’s Washington inner circle. But lower-level matters could produce prolonged discussions. One of De Blasio’s talents as an operative—the ability to see and argue an issue and a strategy from every angle—could be a liability as a boss. Friends also wonder whether De Blasio’s desire for inclusiveness in decision-making will be a refreshingly democratic improvement on Bloomberg’s top-down management or a prescription for stagnation. “The advantage of his background as an operative, though,” says a Democratic strategist, “is that it brings Bill a lifetime of relationships.”

De Blasio is in many ways a characteristic product of the city’s political system—and a master of it, as illustrated by a story that is a minor legend in city political circles. In 2003, De Blasio wanted to become leader of the Brooklyn delegation of the City Council. First he made an alliance with Al Vann, promising to share the post. Then the pair quietly went about assembling votes for the coup to depose the incumbent, Lew Fidler. To nudge the final few into line, Fidler claims, De Blasio told three different council members that they wouldn’t be the decisive swing vote—that each would merely be a little insurance margin. The three agreed, only to be surprised when they arrived in a meeting room and counted the minimum number of plotters. But they’d given their word and didn’t defect.

In the winter of 2008, though, De Blasio was coming off what, on the surface, appeared to be a significant defeat: He’d loudly and tenaciously opposed the extension of term limits for Bloomberg (though three years earlier, running for City Council speaker, he’d been in favor of an extension for council members). The loss turned out, in the bigger picture, to have significant political benefits: It raised De Blasio’s profile and gave him a jump on harnessing the Bloomberg fatigue he anticipated would peak in 2013. But in the meantime, De Blasio needed a new job. The public advocate’s office was open; the problem there was that John Liu, a fellow councilman, was shaping up as a formidable competitor.

Liu remembers an “impassioned” phone call from De Blasio urging him to shift to a run for city comptroller. Around the same time, Liu went to a breakfast meeting at Junior’s in Brooklyn with several labor leaders. They were inclined to back De Blasio for public advocate—but said Liu, too, might enjoy their support, if he switched to the comptroller’s race. “At that point, it wasn’t a difficult decision, and it was clearly an intelligent one,” says one of the participants.

Both Liu and De Blasio won citywide jobs in November 2009, with crucial backing from the Working Families Party and its union allies, setting themselves up for a run for mayor four years later. De Blasio, though, was holding a powerful ace. During the Dinkins years, he and another young, ambitious operative, named Patrick Gaspard, became fast, inseparable friends. ­“BillandPatrick—it was like one word,” an associate says. De Blasio’s daughter was the flower girl at Gaspard’s wedding; Gaspard’s son played Little League baseball for a team coached by De Blasio. Gaspard eventually became the political director of SEIU 1199, the city’s health-care-workers union and one of New York’s most effective Election Day machines. After serving as political director for Obama’s victorious 2008 presidential run, Gaspard moved to Washington to work in the White House and then head the Democratic National Committee, and then earlier this year to South Africa, as U.S. ambassador—but he has kept working the phones for his friend Bill. This spring, when De Blasio was struggling in the single digits in the polls, 1199 delivered a crucial endorsement, and this fall it spent at least $2 million on De Blasio’s behalf. Mayor Bloomberg has weekended in Bermuda; Chirlane McCray says she can envision a De Blasio mayoral visit to Pretoria.

It’s a diner, not a metaphor. De Blasio has chosen this place because it’s two blocks from his Park Slope house, he’s hungry, and the waitress knows him so well she assumes De Blasio wants his regular oatmeal. The name of the diner does indeed seem apt, however, for a conversation about politics and principles: Little Purity.

De Blasio squeezes his six-foot-five-inch frame into a booth in the back, turning sideways to angle his legs across the seat; behind his head is a mirror decorated for Halloween with stickers of goblins and pumpkins and BOO! in black and orange letters. It’s the morning of De Blasio’s first debate with Joe Lhota, the Republican nominee, and he’s fortifying himself with an egg-white Greek omelette and some nimble sparring. In 1990, he called himself a “democratic socialist.” At ABNY, he tried on “fiscal conservative.” Does he think, in an ideal world, socialism would be a better economic system than capitalism? “I have described my philosophy,” he says, a bit testily. “My worldview is one part Franklin Roosevelt—the New Deal—one part European social democracy, and one part liberation theology. That’s how I see the world.”

He is not now, nor has he ever been, a Marxist. But De Blasio is a sincere and loyal product of the late-twentieth-century American left wing who is only half-­jokingly called “comrade” by friends. “If you look at the whole body of my work, it’s not hard at all to figure out who I am and what I believe in,” he tells me. “My grounding in progressive movements is pretty solid, and it continues to be a way I think about the world, and so I don’t think there’s any question about where I come from ideologically and how consistent my views are today.”

The question is how those ideals will translate into actual governing. De Blasio says that if elected mayor, he will push to expand the “targeting” of city contracts and jobs to minority- and women-owned businesses—not quotas—and to use zoning to increase the supply of subsidized housing. “I think we have some real methods for doing that that have been underutilized by the current administration,” he says. “Local ­hiring—recognizing that there are legal challenges but also recognizing that a number of developers have agreed voluntarily, as part of a broader negotiation process, to some kind of requirement. That is a model I think we can do a lot more with—using the power of the city government to maximize the amount of affordable housing and to maximize the amount of job creation, but also to make sure that the jobs created reach people from the five boroughs and in particular people who have been less economically advantaged.”

As a council member, De Blasio did follow through on his principles even when there was minimal political gain: In the wake of the murders of Nixzmary Brown and Marchella Pierce, he staged hearings but also spent months collaborating on ground-level improvements to the city’s child-welfare system. Bertha Lewis, the fiery housing advocate and a close friend of De Blasio’s, lauds him for holding bad landlords accountable. But De Blasio can also be elastic and opportunistic. He’s talked about the outer boroughs’ deserving the same quality of services as Manhattan, but this summer he landed large donations from the entrenched taxi-medallion owners—and sided with them against an outer-borough taxi-expansion plan. He’s been exceedingly patient on the delayed construction of subsidized housing at Atlantic Yards, a project that got key backing from his friend Lewis and whose developer, Bruce Ratner, co-hosted a birthday-party fund-raiser for De Blasio.

“On things that are not moral issues, you see what a tactician Bill is,” a former City Council colleague says. “Like horse carriages.” De Blasio declared he’d banish the Central Park ponies as one of his first mayoral acts; coincidentally, an animal-rights group bashed Christine Quinn for months, with some of its money coming from a major De Blasio donor. After winning the primary and being endorsed by the union that represents hansom-cab drivers, De Blasio has been a bit wobbly, first saying he’d “start the process” to institute a ban, then insisting the move is still a high priority. He trumpets transparency but last week shut the press out of a $1 million fund-raiser starring Hillary. None of those moves were corrupt, or even hypocritical, necessarily. But they were the footwork of a political pro. “I think he’ll be able to manage the conflicting pressures and stay true to his values,” says Bob Master, political director of the communications-workers union and a co-chair of the Working Families Party. “But look, do I think this is a guy who will never compromise? No. And we don’t want somebody like that. We want somebody who understands how to push things as far as you can go and make the best possible deal when it’s available.”

De Blasio’s signature campaign promise will test his political skills immediately once he’s elected—actually, the machinations are well under way. De Blasio needs state legislative approval to raise taxes on wealthy city residents and fund the pre-K and after-school programs that he says will slowly close the economic divide. Governor Cuomo, who says he’s determined to lower New York’s taxes, has questioned whether the proposal is merely campaign rhetoric. “Never forget that Bill worked for Andrew” at HUD, a Democratic strategist says. “And Andrew will always see the relationship that way.” The dynamic won’t be nearly that simple, though. De Blasio’s camp believes a landslide in November will become momentum in Albany. “Andrew is going to want De Blasio to help him next year, big time, on the left,” a pol who knows them both says. “Now, here’s the dilemma for De Blasio: What does he do if Andrew gives him the money for pre-K but eviscerates poor people outside the city?”

De Blasio often begins his answer to tough questions with a version of “Let me frame this,” and then proceeds to rearrange the subject to his advantage. It’s a skill he shares with Cuomo—and one reason he thinks he understands the governor’s psyche so well. “Bill is New York’s leading Cuomo-ologist,” a liberal strategist says. “Whenever we had questions about Andrew, it was, ‘Call De Blasio!’ ” He is being careful not to antagonize the governor even before he’s officially mayor. The pending state referendum on the expansion of casino gambling provides an intriguing example. You might expect De Blasio, the “true progressive,” to oppose such a regressive industry. But in addition to seeing policy benefits from casinos, De Blasio the pol knows that the referendum is highly important to Cuomo. “I don’t accept the characterization [that legalized gambling is incompatible with progressive values], first of all,” he says. “That may get back to my mother’s pragmatism. The industry exists. It’s state sanctioned when you call it Lotto. The money and the jobs are going elsewhere; we’re not in a position to let that kind of economic impact go elsewhere. And you know, since that is the reality, certainly the financial impact on a city, if we get $50 million, $100 million, whatever the final figure is each year for our schools, you know, that’s gonna do some good. I think it’s a very practical equation. I think we have to, at the same time, try to address the underlying dynamics—help people get the best jobs, the best education possible, then they will make their own choices.”

The financial industry won’t be going away, either, despite its fears of De Blasio. One fringe benefit to his enormous general-­election lead over Joe Lhota is that De Blasio has had time to sit down with Wall Street giants and real-estate-industry players, cashing their checks and parrying their skepticism. “I don’t think we have to have a philosophical ‘Kumbaya’ moment,” De Blasio tells me. “I think it’s clear I’m a progressive and that if the people choose me, I’m going to take this city in a progressive direction to address these inequality issues, and I think that certainly some of the business leaders I have met are not particularly interested in doing that. Some are, to be fair—there are some very progressive people within the business community who have told me with energy that they agree the inequality crisis is getting out of hand. All I care about there is where we have to work together practically to create jobs.” A top Democratic strategist who has worked with De Blasio puts it much plainer: “He’s more pragmatic than progressive. He’s a deal guy—which is why Wall Street should love him. They’re deal people, too!”

De Blasio is far from selecting a City Hall lineup, at least publicly. His campaign aides quickly bat down the names of potential commissioners that have been floated in the media, leery of looking overconfident, even with a 44-point lead. “I’ve been talking to people for advice for the last year or two while simultaneously assessing them,” De Blasio tells me. “You can do a lot of deep thinking, a lot of playing things out in your mind. If I’m the one [elected], I’m certainly not going to be caught flat-footed.”

The exception to this wariness, however, has been instructive. De Blasio himself has talked up two people he’d consider selecting for police commissioner. The first, Bill Bratton, is associated with dramatic turnarounds in both Los Angeles and New York—and, usefully for De Blasio, Bratton is also remembered positively by many in the city for clashing with Rudy Giuliani. The second, Philip Banks III, is currently chief of department in the NYPD—and, usefully for De Blasio, Banks is ­African-American. Both are law-enforcement lifers and very much in the mainstream of policing theory and practice, which allows De Blasio to tamp down worries that he’d make radical changes in a department that’s reduced crime to record lows. But, again, the floating of these names is more political than executive. De Blasio is savvy enough to understand the downsides: Bratton is a media magnet, and some police insiders consider Banks too nice a guy to run the department forcefully.

De Blasio’s ultimate choice for NYPD commissioner will be judged against the clarity of his campaign rhetoric. Given his belief that stop-and-frisk tactics have antagonized innocent residents of minority neighborhoods, wouldn’t hiring a nonwhite police chief to succeed Ray Kelly be a step toward healing what De Blasio claims is a dangerous rift? “I think the philosophy is the most important thing and the capacity to implement that philosophy,” he says. “So, I want a community-policing worldview, I obviously want to bring policing and the community back together, I want to fundamentally reform our current approach, and whoever can do that most effectively, that’s my priority. It’s less about demographics.” The other high-profile pick a Mayor De Blasio will need to make is for schools chancellor. As a candidate, he’s talked about greatly increasing parental participation in the school system and about reducing the Bloomberg-era breaks given to charter schools. Beyond that, however, De Blasio has been vague about what he considers the best ways to improve the city’s public schools.

In shaping his administration, De Blasio says he intends to borrow a goal from one of his former bosses, Bill Clinton, and strive to assemble a Cabinet that looks like New York. And New York, increasingly, looks like De Blasio’s family, which is one reason he’s stirred such optimism. His household touches more than a hopeful multiracial chord—it also represents the economically beleaguered middle class, a segment of the city that hasn’t been at the center of the Bloombergian universe. De Blasio is a true believer in the importance of unions in bolstering the middle class; he has been close to the movement much of his life—a cousin, John Wilhelm, rose to become president of the hospitality-and-textile-workers union. So De Blasio would enter office with an enormous reservoir of goodwill. He’ll need every ounce of it: The next mayor will be trying to find the money to pay thousands of civil-service workers whose contracts expired as many as six years ago—and who could ask for as much as $7 billion in retroactive raises. Real leaders, though, tell allies things they don’t want to hear; isn’t De Blasio going to need to disappoint some of his union boosters? “You misunderstand the theory I’m putting forward,” he says stiffly. “I’m not here to tell them how much they’re gonna hate me. I’m here to tell them that we are going to get to a deal and balance our budget. The whole campaign and all that preceded it was telling people things they didn’t want to hear. Telling the wealthy they were going to pay more taxes, telling developers they were gonna be required to create affordable housing. Go down the list, and the last time I checked, those are some powerful positions you could have.”

True, but too easy: The wealthy and the real-estate interests aren’t the people who have put you in a position to win the mayoralty. “But, hold on,” he says. “It’s native to me that when you have a sense of mission, you keep pursuing the mission, and you give people an opportunity. Put people around the table and say, ‘Here is our task, here is the budget we have to balance, here’s the money we have, here are the options of how to do it. I need to find cost savings.’ That is usually a phrase that a lot of labor doesn’t like to hear at the jump. But I’m not here to say, ‘Look how big and bad I am,’ because that approach with Bloomberg and many others simply failed. I am here to say, ‘Let’s work together for a common good.’ ” And here’s where De Blasio’s gift for seeing multiple angles helps: Achieving the tax increase on the wealthy could make it easier for him to get labor unions to swallow reductions in benefits.

De Blasio will be a significant shift in tone and style from Bloomberg. The hard part will be how much, and how quickly, he can deliver on the substance of rebalancing city life. Hasn’t his campaign raised expectations unrealistically? “I’ve obviously thought about this issue,” he says. “The combined impact of all the pieces we’re talking about—the early-childhood and after-school plan, the affordable-housing plan, paid sick days, living wage, reprogramming dollars to small business and to CUNY—a lot of pieces packing a lot of firepower. And they’re going to add up to a lot.” Here he nimbly injects a note of caution. “So, is it going to end the problem of income inequality? Of course not. But do I think it will make a noticeable contribution toward progress? Do I think people will feel movement on a lot of different fronts and a real commitment from City Hall to addressing these issues? Yeah.”

One week before I visited him at home, De Blasio had been in the plush corporate boardroom at Viacom, lunching with the likes of Philippe Dauman, the media conglomerate’s chairman, and Rupert Murdoch, whose Post had been running a red-and-black caricature of “Che de Blasio.” Before the talk turned to sticky subjects like taxes and charter schools, De Blasio turned to Lloyd Blankfein, of Goldman Sachs—but also, De Blasio pointed out, a man who’d grown up in a Brooklyn public-­housing project and knew what it was like to be among the striving have-nots. It was a smart attempt at connecting; Blankfein, afterward, said De Blasio had made a favorable first impression.

Now De Blasio stomps down the stairs into his endearingly cramped living room, freshly showered and gray-suited and ­yellow-necktied, ready to head to midtown for another fund-raiser, this one crowded with real-estate executives. Does Chirlane worry that all this wooing of the one percent will change her prole-loving husband? “Bill? No,” she says firmly. “Not in a bad way. People change, because they have to grow in order to live.” Bill de Blasio leans down, kisses his wife, and heads out his rickety front gate and into a mammoth black SUV, slipping into the front seat, next to his NYPD driver, and getting comfortable with his ride to power.

Source link

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

An Excerpt From Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s ‘Double Down: Game Change 2012’ — New York Magazine

The debate was only a few minutes old, and Barack Obama was already tanking. His opponent on this warm autumn night, a Massachusetts patrician with an impressive résumé, a chiseled jaw, and a staunch helmet of burnished hair, was an inferior political specimen by any conceivable measure. But with surprising fluency, verve, and even humor, Obama’s rival was putting points on the board. The president was not. Passive and passionless, he seemed barely present.

It was Sunday, October 14, 2012, and Obama was bunkered two levels below the lobby of the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Virginia. In a blue blazer, khaki pants, and an open-necked shirt, he was squaring off in a mock debate against Massachusetts senator John Kerry, who was standing in for the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. The two men were in Williamsburg, along with the president’s team, to prepare Obama for his second televised confrontation with Romney, 48 hours away, at Hofstra University in New York. It was an event to which few had given much thought. Until the debacle in Denver, that is.

The debate in the Mile High City eleven days earlier had jolted a race that for many months had been hard fought but remarkably stable. From the moment in May that Romney emerged victorious from the most volatile and unpredictable Republican-nomination contest in many moons, Obama had held a narrow yet consistent lead. But after Romney mauled the president in Denver, the wind and weather of the campaign shifted in something like a heartbeat. The challenger was surging. The polls were tightening. Republicans were pulsating with renewed hope. Democrats were rending their garments and collapsing on their fainting couches.

Obama was nowhere in the vicinity of panic. “You ever known me to lose two in a row?” he said to friends to calm their nerves.

The president’s advisers were barely more rattled. Yes, Denver had been atrocious. Yes, it had been unnerving. But Obama was still ahead of Romney, the sky hadn’t fallen, and they would fix what went wrong in time for the town-hall debate at Hofstra. Their message to the nervous Nellies in their party was: Keep calm and carry on.

Williamsburg was where the repair job was supposed to take place. The Obamans had arrived at the resort, ready to work, on Saturday the 13th. The first day had gone well. The president seemed to be finding his form. He and Kerry had been doing mock debates since August, and the session on Saturday night was Obama’s best yet. Everyone exhaled.

But now, in Sunday night’s run-through, the president seemed to be relapsing: The disengaged and pedantic Obama of Denver was back. In the staff room, his two closest advisers, David Axelrod and David Plouffe, watched on video monitors with a mounting sense of unease—when, all of a sudden, a practice round that had started out looking merely desultory turned into the Mock From Hell.

The moment it happened could be pinpointed with precision: at the 39:35 mark on the clock. A question about home foreclosures had been put to potus; under the rules, he had two minutes to respond. Before the mock, Kerry had been instructed by one of the debate coaches to interrupt Obama at some juncture to see how he reacted. Striding across the bright-red carpet of the set that the president’s team had constructed as a precise replica of the Hofstra town-hall stage, Kerry invaded the president’s space and barged in during Obama’s answer.

The president’s eyes flashed with annoyance.

“Don’t interrupt me,” he snapped.

When Kerry persisted, Obama shot a death stare at the moderator—his adviser Anita Dunn, standing in for CNN’s Candy Crowley—and pleaded for an intercession.

The president’s coaches had long worried about the appearance of Nasty Obama on the debate stage: the variant who infamously, imperiously dismissed his main Democratic rival in 2008 with the withering phrase “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” His advisers saw glimpses of that side of him in their preparations for the first showdown—a manifestation of a personal antipathy for Romney that had grown visceral and intense. Now they were seeing it again, and worse. The admixture of Nasty Obama and Denver Obama was not a pretty picture.

Challenged by Kerry with multipronged attacks, the president rebutted them point by point, exhaustively and exhaustingly. Instead of driving a sharp message, he was explanatory and meandering. Instead of casting an eye to the future, he litigated the past. Instead of warmly establishing connections with the town-hall questioners, he pontificated airily, as if he were conducting a particularly tedious press conference. While Kerry was answering a query about immigration, Obama retaliated for the earlier interruption by abruptly cutting him off.

Excerpted from Double Down: Game Change 2012, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to be published on November 5, 2013, by the Penguin Press.

An Excerpt From Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s ‘Double Down: Game Change 2012’ -- New York Magazine
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In the staff room, Axelrod and Plouffe were aghast. Sitting with them, Obama’s lead pollster, Joel Benenson, muttered, “This is unbelievable.”

Watching from the set, the renowned Democratic style coach Michael Sheehan scribbled furiously on a legal pad, each notation more alarmed than the last. Reflecting on Obama’s interplay with the questioners, Sheehan summed up his demeanor with a single word: “Creepy.”

After 90 excruciating minutes, the Mock From Hell was over. As Obama made his way to the door, he was intercepted by Axelrod, Plouffe, Benenson, and the lead debate coach, Ron Klain. Little was said. Little needed to be said. The ashen looks on the faces of the president’s men told the tale.

Obama left the building and returned to his sprawling quarters on the banks of the James River with his best friend from Chicago, Marty Nesbitt, to watch football and play cards. His advisers retreated to the president’s debate-prep holding room to have a collective coronary.

That the presidential debates were proving problematic for Obama came as no real surprise to the members of his team. Many of them—Axelrod, the mustachioed message maven and guardian of the Obama brand; Plouffe, the spindly senior White House adviser and enforcer of strategic rigor; Dunn, the media-savvy mother superior and former White House communications director; Benenson, the bearded and noodgy former Mario Cuomo hand; Jon Favreau, the dashing young speechwriter—had been with Obama from the start of his meteoric ascent. They knew that he detested televised debates. That he disdained political theater in every guise. That, on some level, he distrusted political performance itself, with its attendant emotional manipulations.

The paradox, of course, was that Obama had risen to prominence and power to a large extent on the basis of his preternatural performance skills—and his ability to summon them whenever the game was on the line. In late 2007, when he was trailing Hillary Clinton in the Democratic-­nomination fight by 30 points. In the fall of 2008, when the global financial crisis hit during the crucial last weeks of the general election. In early 2010, when his signature health-care-reform proposal seemed destined for defeat. In every instance, under ungodly pressure, Obama had pulled up, set his feet, and drained a three-pointer at the buzzer.

The faith of the president’s people that he would do the same at Hofstra was what sustained them in the wake of Denver. For a year, the Obamans had fretted over everything under the sun: gas prices, unemployment, the European financial crisis, Iran, the Koch brothers, the lack of enthusiasm from the Democratic base, Hispanic turnout in the Orlando metroplex. The one thing they had never worried about was Barack Obama.

But given the spectacle they had just witnessed at Kingsmill, the Obamans were more than worried. After spending ten days pooh-poohing the widespread hysteria in their party about Denver, Obama’s debate team was now the most wigged-out collection of Democrats in the country, huddling in a hotel cubby that had become their secret panic room. Three hours had passed since the mock ended; it was almost 2 a.m. Obama’s team was still clustered in the work space, reading transcripts and waxing apocalyptic.

“Guys, what are we going to do?” Plouffe asked quietly, over and over. “That was a disaster.”

Among the Obamans, there was nobody more unflappable than Plouffe—and nobody less shaken by Denver. But while Plouffe believed the public would brush off a single bad debate showing, he was equally convinced that two in a row would not be so readily ignored. If Obama turned in a performance at Hofstra like the one they had seen that night, the consequences could be dire.

“If we don’t fix this,” Plouffe said emphatically, “we could lose the whole fucking election.”

Almost from the moment that Obama stepped off the debate stage in Denver, he had been bombarded with advice about how to remedy what had gone wrong. But the truth was that virtually no one on the planet could understand what he was going through or up against.

A rare exception was Bill Clinton. Before Denver, Clinton had watched in wonder as Obama caught break after break. Although the economy wasn’t roaring back, neither the European banking crisis nor the unrest in the Mideast had caused it to nosedive. Meanwhile, Romney’s ineptness staggered Clinton. After the release of the 47 percent video, he remarked to a friend that, while Mitt was a decent man, he was in the wrong line of work. (“He really shouldn’t be speaking to people in public.”) As for Obama, Clinton trotted out for his pals the same line again and again: “He’s luckier than a dog with two dicks.”

An Excerpt From Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s ‘Double Down: Game Change 2012’ -- New York Magazine
Obama confers with Ron Klain during debate prep with John Kerry, Henderson, Nevada, October 2, 2012.Photo: Pete Souza/The White House

Though the first debate brought the incumbent’s streak of good fortune to a crashing halt, Clinton was insistent that the Obamans not overreact. On the phone to Axelrod, 42 counseled restraint at Hofstra, warning that if 44 was too hot or negative in a town-hall debate, it would backfire. Four days after Denver, at a fund-raiser at the Beverly Hills home of Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, Clinton huddled with Obama and repeated the instructions.

Don’t try to make up the ground you lost, the Big Dog said. Just be yourself.

Obama faced a more immediate challenge, which was to arrest the metastasizing panic among his supporters. In 2008, Plouffe had airily dismissed Democrats who lost their minds in the midst of Palinmania as “bedwetters.” But now there was a similar drizzle as the public polls sharply narrowed—and worse. “Did Barack Obama just throw the entire election away?” blared the title of an Andrew Sullivan blog post.

Chicago’s internal polling strongly suggested that the answer was no—the race was back to where it had been following the party conventions, with Obama holding a three- or four-point lead.

Even so, as the full desultoriness of his Denver performance sank in, the president was consumed by a sense of responsibility—and shadowed by fears that his reelection was at risk. Outwardly, he took pains to project the opposite. When his staffers asked how he was doing, he replied, “I’m great.” To Plouffe, who had volunteered to soothe Sullivan, Obama joked, Someone’s gotta talk him off the ledge!

Obama returned from the West Coast and met with his debate team in the Roosevelt Room on the afternoon of October 10. He opened by saying he had read a memo drafted by Klain about what went awry in Denver and how to fix it before Hofstra, now six days away. He agreed with most of it but wanted everyone to know that they hadn’t failed him; he had failed them. “This is on me,” Obama said.

“I’m a naturally polite person,” he went on. Part of my problem is “erring on the side of being muted. We have to get me to a place where internally I’m not biting my tongue … It’s important for me to be fighting.”

The debate team received a boost 24 hours later from Obama’s second-in-­command, when Joe Biden took on Paul Ryan in the vice-presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky. “You did a great job,” the president told the V.P. by phone. “And you picked me up.”

In 36 hours, Obama would set off for debate camp in Williamsburg. But watching his understudy had already provided him with one helpful insight.

“These are not debates,” Obama observed to Plouffe. “These are gladiatorial enterprises.”

The first lady worried about her Maximus and his return to the Colosseum. In truth, she had fretted over the debates even before Denver. In July, around the time her husband’s prep started, she met with Plouffe and expressed firm opinions. That Barack had to speak from the gut, in language that regular folks could understand. Had to avoid treating the debates like policy seminars. Had to keep his head out of the clouds. (Michelle’s advisers paraphrased her advice as “It’s not about David Brooks; it’s about my mother.”) FLOTUS loved POTUS like nobody’s business, but she knew his faults well.

In the wake of Denver, Michelle was unfailingly encouraging with her husband: Don’t worry, you’re going to win the next one, just remember who you’re talking to, she told him. Before a small group of female bundlers, she pronounced that Barack had lost only because “Romney is a really good liar.”

Privately, however, Michelle was unhappy about how her spouse’s prep had been handled. There had been a late arrival in Denver, a rushed dinner at a crappy hotel. Inexplicably, he had been unable to reach Sasha and Malia by phone. He seemed overscheduled, overcoached, and under-rested. At first, Michelle conveyed her displeasure via senior White House adviser and First Friend Valerie Jarrett, who flooded the in-boxes of the debate team with pointed e-mails, employing the royal “we.” But the day before debate camp in Williamsburg, Michelle delivered marching orders directly to Plouffe: If the president wants our chef there, he should be there; if he wants Marty Nesbitt there, he should be there. Barack’s food, downtime, exercise, sleep, lodging—all of it affects his frame of mind. All of it has to be right.

Plouffe saluted sharply and thought, I guess the First Lady understands the stakes here.

That same Friday, October 12, Obama’s debate team gathered again in the Roo­sevelt Room for a final pre-camp session. The president was presented with a piece of overarching advice and a memo, both of which would have been inconceivable before Denver. The advice was: Be more like Biden, whose combativeness, scripted moments, and bluff calls on Ryan (“Not true!”) the night before had all proved effective tactics. The memo was an alliterative flash card to remind Obama of what it called “the Six A’s”:

Advocate (don’t explain)
Answers with principles and values
Allow yourself to take advantage of openings

An Excerpt From Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s ‘Double Down: Game Change 2012’ -- New York Magazine
The first debate.Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Ron Klain had no shame about such contrivances—whatever worked. A Washington super-staffer, Klain had served on every Democratic presidential debate-prep team for twenty years and co-led Obama’s effort in 2008. But his relationship with the president was not straightforward or particularly close. Right after the Denver disaster, he offered to resign from the debate team, but Obama refused to let him. Klain’s ego, pride, and future ambitions were all wrapped up in correcting the miscues from the Mile High City and constructing a comeback at Hofstra.

Klain turned Obama’s prep regime upside down: new strategy, new tactics, new structure. In Williamsburg, there would be an intense concentration on performance, including speeding up Obama’s ponderous delivery. There would be less policy Q&A and more rehearsal of set pieces and lines that popped. Less emphasis on programmatic peas and spinach, more on anecdote and empathy. Contrary to Clinton’s advice, there would be plenty of punching to go along with the counterpunching.

Camp commenced on Saturday in Williamsburg. Two levels down from the lobby of the Kingsmill Resort Center, on the precisely built replica of the Hofstra town-hall set, the president spent most of the day sharpening his answers with Klain and Axelrod. That night, his mock went better than any of the six sessions prior to Denver. The members of the debate team weren’t ready to declare victory yet, but they were relieved. Obama’s friend Nesbitt was exultant.

“That’s some good shit!” he told the president, patting him on the back. “That’s my man! He’s back!”

In the Sunday daytime sessions, Obama showed still more improvement, honing a solid attack on the 47 percent and another on his rival’s economic agenda. (“Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan, and that’s to make sure folks at the top play by a different set of rules.”) As the team took time off for dinner before Obama and Kerry went at it again, Klain thought, Okay, we’re getting to a better place. Plouffe thought, He’s locked in.

A little before 9 p.m., they returned to the Resort Center. Obama and Kerry grabbed their handheld microphones and took their places—and the president proceeded to deliver the Mock From Hell.

Even before Nasty Obama snarled at Kerry-as-Mitt and Anita Dunn as CNN’s Candy Crowley at the 39:35 mark, Klain was mortified. The president’s emotional flatness from Denver was back. He was making no connection with the voter stand-ins asking questions. He was wandering aimlessly, digressing compulsively, not merely chasing rabbits but stalking them to the ends of the Earth. His cadences were hesitant and maple-syrupy slow: phrase, pause, phrase, pause, phrase. His answers were verbose and utterly devoid of message.

In Klain’s career as a debate maestro, he had been involved in successes (Kerry over Bush three times in a row) and failures (Gore’s symphony of sighs in 2000). But he had never seen anything like this. After all the happy talk from Obama and his consistent, if small, steps forward, the president was regressing—with 48 hours and only one full day of prep between them and Hofstra.

At the Pettus House, a colonnaded red- brick mansion on the riverbank where Obama and Nesbitt were bunking, the two men stayed up late hashing out what hadn’t worked, how the president was still struggling to find the zone. “You can’t get mad” at Romney’s distortions, Nesbitt said. “You come off better when you just say, ‘Now, that’s fucking ridiculous.’ When you laugh, that shit works, man.”

In Obama’s hold room at the Resort Center, his staff was moving past puzzlement and panic toward practical considerations. The lesson that Plouffe had taken from Denver was that you could no longer count on fourth-quarter Obama; what you saw in practice was what you got on the debate stage. If he doesn’t have a good mock tomorrow, there’s no reason to believe that it’ll get fixed when he gets to New York, Plouffe said.

Two schools of thought quickly emerged within the team. The first, pushed by Washington super-lawyer Bob ­Barnett—who was also a longtime debate prepper and was there serving on Kerry’s staff—was that Obama needed to be shown video in the morning. “This is what we did with Clinton,” Barnett sagely noted. The other, advanced by Favreau, was that Obama should be given transcripts. He’s a writer, Favreau argued. Words on the page will make a deeper impression.

The full transcript was in hand within 45 minutes—and became a source of gallows humor. As the clock ticked well past midnight, Favreau stagily read aloud some of Obama’s most dreadful answers. Soon his colleagues joined in, with Axelrod, Benenson, and Plouffe offering recitations and laughing deliriously over the absurdity and horror of the circumstances.

Barnett and others believed that Obama’s playbook had to be stripped down more dramatically, to a series of simple and crisp bullet points on the most likely topics to come up in the debate. Klain agreed and wanted to go a step further. In 1996, Democratic strategist Mark Penn had devised something called “debate-on-a-page” for Gore in his V.P. face-off with Jack Kemp. Klain suggested they do the same for Obama: a sheet of paper with a handful of key principles, attacks, and counterattacks.

Axelrod and Plouffe thought something more radical was in order. For the past six years, they had watched Obama struggle with his disdain for the theatricality of politics—not just debates, but even the soaring speeches for which he was renowned. Obama’s distrust of emotional string-pulling and resistance to the practical necessities of the sound-bite culture: These were elements of his personality that they accepted, respected, and admired. But they had long harbored foreboding that those proclivities might also be a train wreck in the making. Time and again, Obama had averted the oncoming locomotive. Had embraced showmanship when it was necessary. Had picked his people up and carried them on his back to the promised land. But now, with a crucial debate less than two days away—one that could either put the election in the bag or turn it into a toss-up—Obama was faltering in a way his closest advisers had never witnessed. They needed to figure out what had gone haywire from the inside out. They needed, as someone in the staff room put it, to stage an “intervention.”

The next morning, October 15, Klain stumbled from his room to the Resort Center, eyes puffy and nerves jangled. He’d been up all night hammering together and e-mailing around his debate-on-a-page draft. In Obama’s hold room, the team members gathered and laid out their plan for the day. They would screen video for the boss. They would show him transcripts. They would present him with his cheat sheets. They would devote the day to topic-by-topic drills until he had his answers memorized.

Normally, the whole group would now meet with the president to critique the previous night’s mock. Instead, everyone except Axelrod, Klain, and Plouffe cleared the room just before 10 a.m. Obama was on his way. The intervention was at hand.

Where’s everybody else?” Obama asked as he ambled in across the speckled green carpet with his chief of staff, Jack Lew, at his side. “Where’s the rest of the team?”

We met this morning and decided we should have this smaller meeting first, one of the interventionists said.

Obama, in khakis and rolled-up shirtsleeves, looked nonplussed. Between his conversation with Nesbitt the night before and a morning national-security briefing with Lew, he was aware that his people were unhappy with the mock—but not fully clued in to the depth of their concern.

The president settled into a cushy black sofa at one end of the room. On settees to his left were Axelrod, Plouffe, and Lew; to his right, in a blue blazer, was Klain, now caffeinated and coherent.

“We’re here, Mr. President,” Klain began, “because we need to have a serious conversation about why this isn’t working and the fundamental transformation we need to achieve today to avoid a very bad result tomorrow night.” We’re not going to get there by continuing to grind away and marginally improve, Klain went on. This is not about changing the words in your debate book, because the difference between the answers that work and the answers that don’t work is just 15 or 20 percent. This is about style, engagement, speed, presentation, attitude. Candidly, we need to figure out why you’re not rising to and meeting the challenge—why you’re not really doing this, why you’re doing … something else.

Obama didn’t flinch. “Guys, I’m struggling,” he said somberly. “Last night wasn’t good, and I know that. Here’s why I think I’m having trouble. I’m having a hard time squaring up what I know I need to do, what you guys are telling me I need to do, with where my mind takes me, which is: I’m a lawyer, and I want to argue things out. I want to peel back layers.”

The ensuing presidential soliloquy went on for ten minutes—an eternity in Obama time. His tone was even and unemotional, but searching, introspective, diagnostic, vulnerable. Psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually, he was placing his cards face up on the table.

“When I get a question,” he said, “I go right to the logical.” You ask me a question about health care. There’s a problem, and there’s a response. Here’s what my opponent might say about it, so I’m going to counteract that. Okay, we’re gonna talk about immigration. Here’s what I’d like to say—but I can’t say that. Think about what that means. I know what I want to say, I know where my mind takes me, but I have to tell myself, No, no, don’t do that—do this other thing. It’s against my instincts just to perform. It’s easy for me to slip back into what I know, which is basically to dissect arguments. I think when I talk. It can be halting. I start slow. It’s hard for me to just go into my answer. I’m having to teach my brain to function differently. I’m left-handed; this is like you’re asking me to start writing right-handed.

Throughout the campaign, Obama had been criticized for the thin gruel of his second-term agenda. Now he acknowledged that it bothered him, too, and posed a challenge for the debates.

You keep telling me I can’t spend too much time defending my record, and that I should talk about my plans, he said. But my plans aren’t anything like the plans I ran on in 2008. I had a universal-health-care plan then. Now I’ve got … what? A manufacturing plan? What am I gonna do on education? What am I gonna do on energy? There’s not much there.

“I can’t tell you that ‘Okay, I woke up today, I knew I needed to do better, and I’ll do better,’ ” Obama said. “I am wired in a different way than this event requires.”

Obama paused.

“I just don’t know if I can do this,” he said.

Obama’s advisers sat silently at first, absorbing the extraordinary moment playing out in front of them. In October of an election year, on the eve of a pivotal debate, the president wasn’t talking about tactics or strategy, about this line or that zinger. He was talking about personal contradictions and ambivalences, about his discomfort with the campaign he was running, about his unease with the requirements of politics writ large, about matters that were fundamental, even existential. We are in uncharted territory here, thought Klain.

More striking was Obama’s candor and self-awareness. The most self-contained president in modern history (and, possibly, the most self-possessed human on the planet) was laying himself bare, deconstructing himself before their eyes—and admitting he was at a loss.

All through his career, Obama had played by his own rules. He had won the presidency as an outsider, without the succor of the Democratic Establishment. He owed it little, offered less. He had ignored the traditional social niceties of the office, and largely resisted the media freak show, swatting away its asininities. He had refused to stomp his feet or shed crocodile tears over the BP spill, because neither would plug the pipe spewing oil from the ocean floor. He had eschewed sloganeering to sell his health-care plan, although it meant the world to him.

Now he was faced with an event that demanded an astronomical degree of fakery, histrionics, and stagecraft—and while he was ready to capitulate, trying to capitulate, he found himself incapable of performing not just to his own exalted standards but to the bare minimum of competence. Acres of evidence and the illusions of his fans to the contrary, Barack Obama, it turned out, was all too human.

Axelrod was more intimate with Obama than anyone in the room. The president’s humanity and frailties were no secret to Axe—nor was 44’s capacity for self-doubt. Since Denver, Obama had been subjected to a hailstorm of criticism, a flood of panic, and a blizzard of psychoanalysis. Like every president, he claimed he was impervious to it. But Axelrod knew it was a lie. All this shit is in his head, the strategist thought.

Look, said Axelrod softly, we know that you find these debates frustrating, that they’re more performance than substance. It’s why you are a good president. It’s why all of us feel so strongly about your winning. But you have to find a way to get over the hump and stop fighting this game—to play this game, wrap your arms around this game.

For the next hour, the three Obamans tried to carry the president across the psychic chasm. Plouffe reminded him of the stakes. “We can’t have a repeat of Denver tomorrow night,” he warned. “Right now, we’re not losing any of our vote, but we’re on probation. If we have another performance that causes people to scratch their heads, we’re gonna start losing votes. We gotta stop this now.”

Over Obama’s despair about his lack of an agenda, Plouffe and Axelrod took him on. “You do have an agenda, goddammit!” Plouffe said. “This isn’t a bunch of b.s. you’re selling. This is an agenda the American people support and believe in. But they’re not gonna believe in it if you don’t treat it that way, by selling it with great fervor. If you sell your agenda and Romney sells his agenda with equal enthusiasm, we will win.

“Think about this,” Plouffe went on. “You have two debates left. So take out Romney, take out moderator questions: You’ve got basically 75 to 80 minutes left of doing this in your entire life. That’s less than the length of a movie! You can do this! I know it’s uncomfortable. I know it’s unnatural. But that’s all. That’s the finish line, you know?”

Klain employed a sports analogy. The Tennessee Titans lost the Super Bowl a couple of years ago because their guy got tackled on the one-yard line, he said—the one-yard line! That’s where we are. The hardest thing for any candidate in a debate is to know the substance. You have that down cold. All we need is a little more effort on performance. You need to go in there and talk as fast as you can. You need to add a little schmaltz, talk about stuff the way that people want to hear it. This isn’t about starting over, starting from scratch. We’ve got most of it right. The part we have left to get right is small. But as the Titans proved, small can mean the difference between winning and losing.

Obama’s aides couldn’t tell if their words were sinking in. “I understand where we are,” the president said finally. I’m either going to center myself and get this or I’m not. The debate’s tomorrow. There’s not much we can do. I just gotta fight my way through it.

As the meeting wound to a close, the Obamans felt relief mixed with trepidation. Oddly, for Klain, the president’s lack of confidence about his ability to turn himself around was comforting. After all the blithe I-got-its of his pre-Denver prep, Obama for the first time was acknowledging that a genuine and serious modification of his mind-set was necessary.

Plouffe felt less reassured. “It’s good news–bad news,” he told Favreau afterward. “The good news is, he recognizes the issue. The bad news is, I don’t know if we can fix it in time.”

The full team reconvened in Obama’s hold room. Klain ran through his memo of the previous night and explained to the president the new new format for his prep: For the rest of the day until his final mock, they were going to drill him incessantly on the ten or so topics they expected to come up in the debate, compelling him to repeat his bullet points over and over again. Klain also presented Obama with his debate-on-a-page:

1. (Your) Speed Kills (Romney)
2. Upbeat and Positive in Tone
3. Passion for People and Plans
4. OTR [Off the Record] Mind-set—Have Fun
5. Strong Sentences to Start and End
6. Engage the Audience
7. Don’t Chase Rabbits

1. 47%
2. Romney + China Outsourcing
3. Heaven & Earth
4. 9/11 Girl
5. Sketchy Deal
6. Mass Taxes—Cradle to Grave
7. Preexisting and ER
8. Women’s Health
9. Borrow From Your Parents

1. Jobs—The 1-point plan
2. Deficits—$7 trillion and The Sketchy Deal
3. Energy—Coal plant is a killer
4. Health—Preexisting fact check and the ER
5. Medicare—He wants to save Medicare … by ending it!
6. Bus Taxes—60 Mins in rebuttal (i.e., pivot to personal taxes)
7. Pers Taxes—Tax cuts for outsourcing (i.e., pivot to job creation)
8. Gridlock—Romney brings the lobbyist back
9. Benghazi—Taking offense
10. Education—Borrow from your parents and/or Size Doesn’t Matter

That the intervention had had some effect on Obama was immediately apparent, though how much was unclear. He brought a new energy and focus to his afternoon drills. When he delivered an imperfect answer, he stopped himself short: “Let’s do that again.” At his debate camp before Denver, outside Las Vegas, Obama had been so intent on escaping that he took off one day for a visit to the Hoover Dam. Now he refused even brief breaks for a walk by the river. As the afternoon went on, the debate team concocted cutesy catchphrases to cue him at the slightest hint of backsliding.

“Fast and hammy! Fast and hammy!” Klain would say when his delivery was lugubrious.

“Punch him in the face!” Karen Dunn, another team member, chipped in when he missed a chance to cream Kerry-as-Mitt.

For Klain, the turning point came that afternoon, during a session in which Obama was fielding questions from junior members of the team who were standing in as voters. Tony Carrk, a researcher, introduced himself as Vito, a barbershop proprietor from Long Island, and asked which tax plan—Obama’s or Romney’s—would be better for small-business owners like him. Without missing a beat, the president savaged Mitt’s plan with verve, precision, and bite, closing with some good-natured joshing about Vito’s shop.

The perfect town-hall answer, Klain thought.

That night, for the final mock, Kerry was instructed to bring his A-game. With the team on pins and needles, Obama earned a solid B-plus. The contrast with the previous night was so dramatic it called to Axelrod’s mind the triumphant scenes in Hoosiers. When it was over, the team rose in unison and gave Obama a standing ovation.

“All right, all right, all right,” the president said, waving them off, smiling abashedly.

The next morning, before setting off for Hofstra, the team gathered once again in Obama’s hold room to review the mock. No one was remotely certain they were out of the woods. The past three days had carried them too close to the abyss for firm convictions of any kind. But the president’s mood could not have been more buoyant. Running through the team’s critique, he reveled in their praise of a particularly strong answer.

“Oh, you guys liked that?” Obama said, grinning broadly. “That was fast and hammy, right?”

For all the progress Obama had made in his final practice session, his team was far from serene as the witching hour approached at Hofstra. Backstage, Klain was a nervous wreck. One pretty good mock, one disaster in the past 48 hours, Plouffe thought. So which Obama shows up?

Just then, the president emerged from his holding room a few minutes before heading onstage. He found Klain, Plouffe, Axelrod, and Jim Messina in the hallway.

“Guys, I’m going to be good tonight,” Obama said. “I finally figured this out.”

When the lights went up, it took all of one answer for the Obamans to realize that the president wasn’t kidding. Replying to the first questioner, a 20-year-old college student worried about finding work after graduation, Obama locked eyes with the young man and spoke crisply and pointedly. In the space of six sentences, the president plugged higher education and touted his job-creation record, his manufacturing agenda, and his rescue of the auto industry—plunging an ice pick into Romney by invoking “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” When Mitt cited his five-point economic plan in answer to a follow-up from Crowley, Obama let loose with his one-point-plan zinger. He was fast. He was hammy. He was gliding around the stage.

In the staff room, Obama’s increasingly giddy team kept track of his progress, using his debate-on-a-page as a scorecard, ticking off the hits one by one as he delivered them. On outsourcing to China, immigration (self-deportation), women’s issues (Planned Parenthood), and more, the president was not only proving himself an able student but making Romney pay for every rightward lunge he had taken during the nomination contest.

Romney responded aggressively but with visible annoyance as he found himself forced to keep doubling back to answer attacks from minutes earlier, which made him appear petty and threw him off rhythm. In Denver, Mitt’s propensity for gaffes had vanished as if by magic; at Hofstra, presto-change-o, it returned. Boasting of his commitment to gender equity in the Massachusetts statehouse, he referred to the résumés he reviewed for Cabinet posts as “binders full of women.”

About two thirds of the way through the 90 minutes, Romney tried to roll out a hit on Obama’s financial portfolio. “Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney asked.

“You know, I don’t look at my pension,” Obama said without missing a beat and with a mile-wide smile. “It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”

The debate was now a little more than an hour old. The next question from the audience had to do with Benghazi. Obama explained the steps he had taken in the wake of the September 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission there—and then turned his attention to his opponent. “While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points,” the president said sternly.

Romney got in a jab about the inappropriateness of Obama having taken a political trip on September 12. But Romney went further. “There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack,” he said. “And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.”

Obama summoned his highest dudgeon and responded: “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of State, our U.N. ambassador—anybody on my team—would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander-in-chief.”

Obama returned to his stool and took a sip of water. Romney, incredulous, began to splutter.

“You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you’re saying?”

With an icy stare, Obama set a trap: “Please proceed, Governor.”

“I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president fourteen days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Romney insisted.

“Get the transcript,” Obama said—at which point Candy Crowley interceded.

“He did, in fact, sir,” Crowley said to Romney. “He did call it an act of terror.”

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama said, twisting the knife in Romney’s back. The crowd burst into laughter and applause.

Minutes later, the debate was over. The Obamans were ebullient. The president’s performance hadn’t been perfect, but judged against the standards of Denver (or the Mock From Hell) it was pure genius. As he came off the stage, Obama thought he had done well. But having initially misjudged his performance the last time out, he was slightly tentative.

“That was good, right?” Obama asked.

Source link

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Mayor-Elect Bill de Blasio’s Frenemies — New York Magazine

Illustration by André Carrilho

Monthly bill de Blasio gained the minimal little bit of beach front time he’s making the most of this weekend in Puerto Rico. His three-yr run to victory was a amazing feat of political smarts and fantastic luck. He offered his case with model and self-control, with a person excellent Television advertisement starring his son and a million repetitions of the phrase “a tale of two cities”—which his campaign strategists initially intended as a placeholder right up until they came up with a much more primary slogan. They under no circumstances did, and De Blasio created the Dickens work—one indicator of how deft he was at observing that voters wanted a progressive corrective to twelve a long time of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He rose from an obscure community workplace to handily defeat a better-regarded, far more experienced entrance-runner in the Democratic mayoral main and then won the basic election by the most significant open up-seat margin at any time. All extremely remarkable.

The reward is 4 many years of nonstop problems that will make remaining mocked as a socialist by Joe Lhota appear to be like joyful hour. There is no shortage of important complications on the horizon: a $2 billion city funds deficit, extra than 100 municipal labor unions clamoring for raises, the require to preserve general public security when easing up on stop and frisk. Individuals issues will unfold slowly, and the adult men and girls De Blasio hires for his administration will be very important to addressing them. But De Blasio will, in all circumstances, be the central choice-maker. And how he ­handles his relationships with two of New York’s prickliest political players deserves unique attention—not just since of the immediate policy implications, but for the reason that of what every single drama will expose about De Blasio’s possibilities to thrive as mayor.

The very first, and by significantly more significant, is with Governor Andrew Cuomo. A smaller trace of how interesting the dynamic will be arrived in September at a press convention on the techniques of City Corridor. The protocol at these rituals is fairly nicely established. The endorser introduces the endorsed—the applicant, the individual the event is created to boost—who closes the push conference on a large take note. Nevertheless listed here was De Blasio introducing Cuomo—the freshly minted Democratic nominee for mayor turning in excess of the microphone and the highlight to the incumbent governor, who proceeded to give a stem-winding speech that stole the display. It was a incredibly odd speaking order—and 1 that leading aides to the two politicians, um, discussed proper up until eventually the last moment.

Cuomo and De Blasio are genuinely helpful, just about the identical age, and have bonds heading back twenty decades. Their deepest day-to-working day shared working experience arrived when Cuomo, as HUD secretary, was De Blasio’s manager for two a long time, a pecking buy that is in the course of action of getting drastically altered. Cuomo will still outrank De Blasio, but the mayor of New York Metropolis has a more highly effective pulpit than the governor of the point out. To say that the political media is keen for fireworks is a laughable understatement. There will absolutely be strains and flare-ups. But I consider the governor and the new mayor are heading to shock and disappoint us by acquiring together famously—not minimum because Cuomo appears so keen to make the romance operate, each for a person a different and for New York. “A governor and a mayor, there is a organic rigidity amongst the two. But there is also a organic affinity,” the governor explained to me. “We’ve gone by hell and back again, Invoice and I—in our own lives, in our political life, and with each other. And neither of us are heading to enable nearly anything disrupt the essential relationship.”

De Blasio is equally effusive. “[Working for Cuomo at HUD] was a fantastic learning practical experience, in that he had this remarkable means to continue to be focused on his main agenda,” he informed me not too long ago. “Andrew also understood the difference between operating towards a aim and in fact accomplishing the goal. We’re not graded on hard work we’re graded on success. So that was a pretty, incredibly practical time for me in comprehension how to get a established of ambitions and get them to permeate an organization.” He sees the governor’s successful 1st yr in office as one thing of a product for what he’ll do as mayor, pointing in particular to Cuomo’s 2011 Medicaid-redesign commission as a “great template” for how De Blasio will check out to build at least the visual appearance of consensus on contentious problems.

Even now, the greatest power in holding the peace will be that each males have political incentives to perform as companions. De Blasio wishes to supply on his marketing campaign rhetoric about reshaping the metropolis into a progressive capital Cuomo would like to retain his remaining flank protected to roll up a massive reelection margin in 2014—and just in case the prospect to run for president in 2016 transpires to crop up. So what looks like an inescapable collision could change out to be an chance for the two to score details. De Blasio wants Albany’s acceptance for a signature marketing campaign guarantee, elevating taxes on the rich to pay for universal prekindergarten and expanded immediately after-university courses Cuomo suggests he’s all for beefing up training, but he’s determined to preserve decreasing New York’s taxes. If De Blasio slogs by way of the Legislature hoping to gain approval for the tax improve, only to run into a useless end with Senate Republicans, Cuomo might arrive up with an different route to fund the plan. Or Cuomo could persuade De Blasio to take care of the labor contracts prior to pursuing the educational institutions plan. “They can kind this out,” a Democratic colleague states. “Unless Bill presses for a tax raise for the sake of a tax raise. Which is not a combat the governor would shy away from.” De Blasio told me that he doesn’t see any substitute to boosting levies on the prosperous: “To me what’s really clear is that there is no other practical pathway.” But: “If new suggestions arise, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” he said. “I feel, in phrases of the more substantial discussion we’ve experienced in this metropolis, there is no query that a lot of men and women in this town want to see individuals who’ve carried out perfectly give back again to society. There is no question about that. But this is finally a sensible proposal.” And De Blasio and Cuomo are almost nothing if not useful politicians.

On another entrance, nonetheless, the new mayor seems prepared to go to war. De Blasio and Eva Moskowitz overlapped for 4 yrs in the Metropolis Council, and for the most part cordially, which is relatively strange, since the tough-charging Moskowitz has a expertise for finding less than people’s skin. Soon after leaving public workplace, she launched Good results Academy in Harlem considering the fact that 2006, it has developed to operate 22 constitution schools in four boroughs and racked up spectacular take a look at scores, as nicely as a collection of complaints that the educational facilities cull very low-doing and special-ed pupils. Which is made Moskowitz a lightning rod for constitution opponents, and during the Democratic main she was a handy focus on for contenders making an attempt to endear by themselves to the instructors union, De Blasio among them. He proposed that charters presently sharing house with conventional schools commence spending rent—but his assaults took on an unusually severe personalized edge. “There’s no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should really get cost-free hire [for her schools], all right?” De Blasio claimed at a discussion board in June. Even his allies found the vehemence a minor challenging to figure. “I comprehend Bill’s points about income inequality, economical housing, end and frisk,” a person Democrat says, “and how his critique of instruction reform suit into his anti-Bloomberg assault. But the charter-university things struck me as less authentic. Quite a few of those people educational facilities are serving the bad kids he cares about.”

In truth, De Blasio now suggests he’s inclined to master from the charters that perform greatest. “I imagine there are some charters that are executing a excellent job, that are agent, that present a good design, and we’ll function with them,” he explained to me. “But they will by no means switch the core capability of our classic community faculties.”

Possibly that is what’s seriously fueling his annoyance with Moskowitz. De Blasio’s major issue with charters is not philosophical—it’s that they suck up a disproportionate amount of political time and attention. He’d somewhat ignore the constitution-college movement than eliminate it, and as a substitute commit his educational energies to enhancing the 90 per cent of the city’s schools that aren’t charters. But 1 of the a lot of factors that is not distinct about ­De ­Blasio as a chief is whether he can different company from private. Bloomberg, as mayor, was usually in a position to scorn an adversary a person day and consider him an ally the next. Moskowitz will give an intriguing check case, since she would seem determined to goad De Blasio into ­backing up his marketing campaign rhetoric. In Oct, she led a help save-the-charters protest march across the Brooklyn Bridge, and she isn’t backing off now. Wasn’t the Million Moskowitz March prematurely confrontational? “Bill de Blasio took on Success Academy pretty straight in his marketing campaign and threatened our extremely existence,” she says. “To fulfill his campaign guarantee [about charging rent to charters] he would have to harm the quite young children he truly wishes to assist. And that I want to assistance. I’m delighted that the mayor-elect cares about equality, simply because that signifies equality of funding, that usually means equality of house. And constitution colleges have been discriminated against in so several means. And I’m not positive he’s informed of all individuals strategies.”

Bill de Blasio has a good deal of explanations to be mates with Andrew Cuomo and enemies with Eva Moskowitz. Acquiring a effective balance in people relationships, and in dozens of other conflicting passions, will be more durable. But accomplishing that equilibrium will identify no matter whether De Blasio can go from righteous candidate to agile mayor—and essentially carry New York’s two towns nearer together.

E-mail: chris_smith@nymag.com.

Resource link

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors — New York Magazine

Photograph: Colin McConnell/Getty Visuals

Irrespective of admitting final week that he did, following all, smoke crack, Toronto mayor Rob Ford has solved to run for reelection in 2014. His odds glance dicey, but voters have returned worse mayoral misbehavers to their posts. Below are 6 American scandals the embattled Canadian may possibly want to study right before producing his following go.

Rob Ford
Ford to Torontonians: “Folks, I have practically nothing still left to cover.”
Consequence: in place of work

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine

Tony Mack
Trenton, New Jersey
Prices: corruption
Outcome: however in workplace, awaiting demo
Mack’s 2010 marketing campaign finances despatched up purple flags—how, for instance, did he lend the marketing campaign $20,000 though his home faced foreclosures? In 2012, federal brokers raided his dwelling. He was arrested that September for his involvement in a $119,000 bribery scheme to create a Trenton parking garage.

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine
Photo: Tan Aggie/PG Archive/David Poller/ZumaPress/Newscom

Vincent “Buddy” Cianci
1975–84, 1991–2002
Providence, Rhode Island
Convictions: assault later, racketeering
Consequence: resigned, reelected, resigned again
Cianci’s initial felony was his 1983 assault of a pal employing a hearth log, lit cigarette, and ashtray. That cost barred him from Rhode Island politics for quite a few decades. He was reelected in 1990, but his public services was slice shorter by a further felony, this time for racketeering.

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine
Photograph: Steve Ruark/Getty Images

Sheila Dixon
Baltimore, Maryland
Conviction: embezzlement
Final result: resigned, place on probation (which she was accused of violating in 2012)
Nevertheless the point out prosecutor’s workplace started investigating Dixon for corruption in 2006, it was not until finally 2009 that rates stuck. She was found responsible of making use of Outdated Navy and Greatest Acquire gift cards donated to charity to buy items like a PlayStation and an Xbox 360.

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine
Photograph: Bill Pugliano/Getty Pictures

Kwame Kilpatrick
Detroit, Michigan
Conviction: 27 many counts
End result: resigned, presently serving a 28-yr sentence
Kilpatrick’s tenure was dogged by a lot of scandals (e.g., the mysterious loss of life of a stripper who allegedly had frequented the mayoral residence). The a person that did him in concerned perjury about an affair with his chief of staff members. He did 99 days’ time, only to return to the Significant Dwelling afterwards for corruption.

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine
Picture: Fred Greaves/Reuters

Bob Filner
San Diego, California
Convictions: fake imprisonment, two counts of battery
Result: resigned, banned from politics
Months right after he took place of work, a few women accused Filner of sexual harassment. Other experiences of groping, kissing, and lewd behavior followed. He asked the metropolis to pay back his attorneys, then caved to tension and stepped down—taking his $98,000 in legal fees with him.

What Rob Ford Could Learn From Six Other Misbehaving Mayors -- New York Magazine
Image: UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg/Newscom

Marion Barry
1979–91, 1995–99
Washington, D.C.
Conviction: cocaine possession
Final result: served a 6-thirty day period sentence, later reelected
In 1990, Barry, then a 3rd-time period mayor and rumored addict, was caught on video clip smoking crack with an ex-girlfriend in a lodge area less than FBI surveillance. After prison, Barry squandered no time: He ran for metropolis council, then mayor, profitable each.

Have excellent intel? Mail recommendations to intel@nymag.com.

Supply backlink

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Bill de Blasio’s Most Difficult Challenge: Saving Public Schools — New York Magazine

Illustration by Andy Friedman

There had been threats up in Binghamton, a in close proximity to riot out on Long Island. But right here in Crown Heights, when condition instruction commissioner John King arrives for the hottest prevent on his “listening tour” about the implementation of new community-university specifications, things are weirdly tranquil. Though the volume is distinctly decreased, the stakes are not—and the dynamics far more intriguing than mere exchanges of shouts.

King is traveling the state to examine the Widespread Core, a set of federally-supported math and English benchmarks.* New York universities commenced teaching the new substance final 12 months past spring’s scores on the first round of the considerably harder Typical Core tests have been so lower it appeared little ones had stopped going to school fully. Widespread Core has swiftly develop into the new flash level in the community-college wars—teachers unions and opponents of greater standardized testing are combating its rollout. For King’s pay a visit to to Brooklyn, even though, the protesters were outflanked: Reps of StudentsFirstNY, the regional branch of Michelle Rhee’s big-revenue faculty-reform outfit, arrived early, distributing identically hand-painted indications and filling nearly the total speakers list with pro-Core parents whose remarks strike the same speaking factors.

The emotions, though, are uncooked and movingly honest. Ayana Bowen, a single of the moms and dads supporting the new standards, starts off talking slowly, striving to hold it collectively, describing life in Brownsville. The city is phasing out the nearby failing elementary school the substitution, P.S. 401, has gotten off to a rocky start—one 2nd-quality class experienced 5 different instructors in six months. Ninety-5 per cent of the students qualify for no cost lunch zero % of the students are white. This, Bowen suggests, is where by her 5-yr-aged daughter, Jayana, is in kindergarten. “It sickens me that people are versus Widespread Main,” she states. Then her composure crumbles. Her eyes brim with tears. “Just because we reside in a reduce-income group does not signify my boy or girl should have decreased opportunity. People in superior-off communities like Park Slope or the Upper East Facet want to lessen criteria for my baby.” When she finishes, there is scattered applause, but typically humbled silence.

A couple of minutes later, out in a hallway, Bowen has stopped quivering, but her desperation is just as palpable. “I went to public faculty in East Flatbush—it was not good, but it was not as bad as they are now,” she suggests. “The new mayor, what’s his name? He states he’s for greater expectations for all people. But I am not likely to think it right up until I see it.”

Monthly bill de Blasio grabbed headlines and votes by emphasizing a handful of themes and policy tips. A person of his basic marketing campaign pledges was that he’d “end the end-and-frisk era” and mend relations amongst cops and minority communities. De Blasio’s initial major conclusion as mayor-elect was to acquire a phase in that direction—while at the identical time reassuring the city’s elites that blood wasn’t likely to begin managing in the streets—by reinstalling Bill Bratton as law enforcement commissioner. Maintaining the metropolis protected even though minding civil liberties undoubtedly won’t be uncomplicated. But reforming the NYPD is a box of candies when compared with what awaits De Blasio’s educational institutions chancellor, whomever he or she turns out to be.

The mayor-elect’s other signature proposal as a applicant was a tax on the rich to fork out for expansions of pre­kindergarten and right after-university programs. Still even if these alterations ended up to get impact on January 2, they would be fairly insignificant components of the byzantine educational institutions puzzle, primarily for the 1.1 million kids presently in the procedure. There have been significant gains in the course of the previous twelve tumultuous several years of Michael Bloomberg’s faculties revamp—a willingness to consider new pedagogical procedures and university constructions, an enhanced feeling of urgency among principals and teachers—but the issues remain thornier and the players a lot more contentious than wherever else in city govt. Nearly no just one agrees on the alternatives to the biggest challenges: Graduation prices have improved significantly, but 35 p.c of the city’s community-faculty learners even now really don’t get a diploma—and the majority of the college students who do are not able of handling university-level courses. Poverty and dysfunctional family members are forcing educational facilities to shoulder a larger share of parenting on top of instructing grammar and algebra. The broad greater part of lecturers are keen to use whatsoever tools function best—but retraining lecturers is not as uncomplicated as redirecting cops mainly because of all the things from the paramilitary society of the NYPD to the imprecise science of education.

De Blasio’s friendlier tone, and presumably that of his chancellor, gives him a head start, as does his (and his spouse Chirlane McCray’s) encounter as a community-school guardian two times in excess of. He’s heading to will need each individual feasible edge to confront the critical troubles that now exist or loom just more than the horizon. Starting off with Widespread Main. Instructors are finding out the new English and math curricula at the exact time they are training them to children, and the changeover has been turbulent. Who warrants the blame is just just one of quite a few raging disputes in between DOE and the instructors union. “However they experience about Widespread Main, they are stuck with it,” claims David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College schooling professor. “The new administration has to figure out the specialist enhancement essential to put into action it improved. Which is a major problem.”

*This column has been corrected to exhibit that Prevalent Core is not federally mandated.

Then there is the matter of failing faculties. By the Bloomberg DOE’s count, 70 are in trouble, with a sizable portion probable at possibility of going out of organization if the mayor ended up sticking all over for a fourth time period. De Blasio has promised a moratorium on faculty closures but hasn’t claimed considerably about how he’d enhance the negative types over and above delivering them improved “support.” 30-five new educational institutions have been authorized to open up in the slide of 2014. Some could be hopeful destinations for students whose outdated schools are battling, even if they aren’t shut down underneath the new regime. De Blasio’s chancellor will will need to determine rather immediately if the plug is likely to be pulled on the new colleges that are ramping up.

Hovering above anything, nevertheless, is revenue. The teachers have been doing work devoid of a new deal due to the fact 2009 the old a single, in accordance to the DOE, has provided yearly raises of 3.6 per cent on common in the several years because, but United Federation of Lecturers president Michael Mulgrew is looking for far more and states he believes there’s $4 billion being paid to outside consultants that could instead go to his membership. Continue to, De Blasio has 151 other municipal unions he demands to negotiate with. And a person essential ingredient of the UFT bargaining, at the very least when it will come to delivering larger-­quality instruction to young children, may revolve not about dollars but operate policies. You are to be forgiven if you believed Governor Cuomo experienced fixed the deadlock more than instructor evaluations—the legislation developing evaluations did without a doubt get handed, but the union even now has the right to haggle more than the all-important information of how academics are assessed. Mulgrew and one of his previous adversaries from the DOE, previous deputy chancellor Eric Nadelstern, use the same a few words to describe the situation: “It’s a mess.” Most likely it is no ponder that one particular of De Blasio’s top rated choices to turn into chancellor, who is at the moment a professor at Stanford, is not packing up to depart Palo Alto.

The yelling started off really speedily. The mothers and fathers of P.S. 107 in Park Slope understood the college had challenges: Enrollment was down as much more affluent family members, notably white kinds, sent their little ones to the more prestigious P.S. 321. Now, on a spring evening in 2000, the district superintendent was threatening to ship in exclusive-ed systems to fill the vacant seats. Some parents loudly accused him of mounting a “witch hunt” against the principal for the reason that Viola Harper was black, the argument took on a tense racial subtext.

Then from the back again of the home arrived a tranquil voice: “Folks, fellas, parents—this is a time for you to come collectively. This is a definitely essential time. You will have a lot more power and additional impact if you stay alongside one another and figure out how you want to transfer ahead from right here, alternatively than arrive aside and get started fighting with every other.” The tall, goateed man was a faculty-board member who’d received his initially operate for office environment only months previously. It was a pretty early demonstration of De Blasio’s skill to browse the strategic realities—Harper was irreversibly on her way out—and of his gift for consensus-creating. Like almost all stories about the faculties, the ending isn’t tidily pleased: Tempers flared additional around the upcoming few months, even as De Blasio helped guidebook the parents toward the alternative of a proficient new principal. P.S. 107 improved tremendously, but gentrification has homogenized its pupil mix. The new mayor’s greatest mission is narrowing the hole amongst New York’s two towns, so that Brownsville does not just get the exact same benchmarks as Park Slope but the similar high quality of authorities providers. Buying a challenging and nimble chancellor will be important. Even much more essential will be no matter if Invoice de Blasio can acquire the skills for peacemaking and political maneuvering he exhibited in that a person faculty in his very own yard and scale them across five boroughs’ value.

E-mail: chris_smith@nymag.com.

Resource url

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

A Memo From the Beginning of the Roger Ailes Era — New York Magazine

Illustration by Tony Millionaire

In May possibly 1974, Roger Ailes obtained his initially television-news position as a PR advisor at a fledging network termed TVN, launched to battle the perceived liberal consensus of the Massive 3. Ailes, inspite of his inexperience, was promoted to information director 4 months later on. In a 1975 programming memo, excerpted under, Bruce Herschensohn, a former Nixon aide and movie director, described how TVN could adapt the tricks and tropes of television news to conservative ends.

Development of Information:
We can mail a newsman and a digicam crew above to the Capitol and chat to a congressman or senator about “the tale.” If the congressman or senator is prepared, we can create information in an instant. Most are prepared. It is an prospect to be viewed and heard. If it does not change out [the way we] preferred, we can throw it absent.

Case in point:
The most apparent examples had been the congressmen and senators picked for interviews throughout the period of time of time fees have been remaining produced from President Nixon and his administration. At the outset of the charges, when there was a equilibrium of sights in the congress, the viewer gained an unbalanced selectivity of individuals selected for interviews. At the time [Watergate special prosecutor] Archibald Cox was discharged the networks ran nineteen congressional attacks and two defenses, although this was not agent. Within just times Walter Cronkite had an eleven moment job interview with Archibald Cox on the CBS Evening News, devoid of any defender.

Pretense Balancing:
The motive is to present that the presentation is displaying “all sides” of a specific story when, in fact, the stability is tilted.

On Vietnam Veterans Day of 1974, there have been a few segments to CBS’s information protection of that celebration. The 1st was the ceremony at Arlington Countrywide Cemetery, the second was Vietnam Veterans who had been dissenting on Capitol Hill, and the 3rd was the tale of a veteran who experienced his confront blown to bits in the Vietnam conflict, and who had awful and unjust problems with the Veterans Administration. This still left the viewers with 3 tales “regarding Vietnam Veterans Working day,” 1 favorable and two unfavorable. The favorable tale and the first unfavorable tale (the dissenters on Capitol Hill) had been really information tales of routines carried out in recognition of Vietnam Veterans Working day. The 3rd tale, which tilted the equilibrium, was not a news story, but a tale that experienced been documented months earlier to this newscast.

Commentator Speculations Which Appear to Be Factual:
Although the words are couched and the intervals are in the appropriate destinations separating information from speculation, the conclusion outcome of this procedure achieves a particular goal.

Dan Schorr wrapped up his October 18, 1974 report on the CIA by stating: “The era of covert operations is not ending, just evolving. There is rationale to think that suitable now in there, they’re working on contingency options, if referred to as on, for some of the world’s unstable areas. Portugal, Spain, Italy, the Arab Oil States could be the subsequent target.” The very last sentence was absolutely speculative and couched with the words and phrases “could be” but since of the specificity of nations and locations named, the audience impact was that Daniel Schorr was reporting specifics.

Catch-phrasing is a printed word and an audio technique which has been streamlined by tv newscasts with the use of simply remembered catchphrases which seem to be factual while they are, in reality, editorializations.

“The Saturday Night time Massacre,” “The Mysterious Notify,” “Operation Candor,” and the word “Watergate” itself, which was utilized to dwelling any and all unrelated expenses from the administration by the use of a term the place a regarded prison action did, in reality, choose spot.

Intercourse Appeal:
A pretty girl in a crowd or as an interviewee can do miracles in influencing a distinct level-of-watch. It can be used at will.

CBS coverage of the anti-Cambodian incursion demonstration in May well 1970. It appeared as however all the very girls were being from the incursion, and all the unsightly ones were being for it.

Supply url

Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine

Chris Smith on Whether De Blasio’s Mayorship Can Play Nationally — New York Magazine

Illustration by André Carrilho

Invoice de Blasio was late. This time it was not his fault. State legislators lined up to shake arms and pose for photos with New York’s latest political star just before allowing for De Blasio to begin his testimony. Then they desired to share his televised spotlight, quizzing the mayor about his pre-K tax-the-wealthy plans right until his overall look prior to Albany’s finances committees stretched nearly two and a 50 percent several hours. Last but not least De Blasio was sent off, to a waiting pack of reporters, with a teasing farewell from Denny Farrell, the rascally octogenarian Democratic assemblyman.

“There’s a total bunch of persons ready for you,” Farrell stated with a sly chuckle.

“Are they welcoming individuals?” De Blasio replied with a goofy heh heh heh.

In mid-December, in Washington, a team of fellow mayors-elect had enable De Blasio consider the lead in talking to the press following a White Residence conference with President Barack Obama. Now, in Albany, the mayor’s next meeting was an additional—if much extra complicated—ratification of his soaring political stature. Governor ­Andrew Cuomo, as an alternative of allowing De Blasio occur and go from his dwelling turf without comment, had out of the blue scheduled a joint press convention, ostensibly to market their typical need to conserve Brooklyn hospitals. The mayor, when he spoke, was very careful to defer to the governor. But as the two sat elbow to elbow, grinning and backslapping with honest passion, it was uncomplicated to wonder just whose exhibit this really was.

In some approaches it is wildly out of proportion: By advantage of jogging and profitable as the remaining-most prospect in a Democratic principal in a overwhelmingly Democratic town, Monthly bill de Blasio has grow to be a nationwide figure. But politics is as substantially hype and art as it is science. And so De Blasio is now a beacon to liberals throughout the country. Which is why his area skirmish with Cuomo is about significantly much more than how to fund prekindergarten expansion. It’s about competing visions of the Democratic Celebration, and it’s a foreshadowing of a pressure that could form the 2016 presidential primaries.

Some of the De Blasio outcome is regular political flattery, the form of issue that transpires anytime a candidate wins an upset on a big phase. In New Orleans, two challengers to incumbent Mitch Landrieu peddled a “tale of two cities” (they misplaced anyway). Seattle’s new mayor, Ed Murray, is assembling an “income inequality committee” and pushing for a $15 bare minimum wage. The Newark Metropolis Council just passed a monthly bill mandating compensated unwell leave equivalent legislation is attaining floor in California, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, and Vermont. De Blasio fellow vacationers are even turning up in red states: Republican governors in Alabama, Indiana, and New Mexico, in their 2014 State of the Point out speeches, trumpeted initiatives to expend more cash on prekindergarten.

Were being they all impressed by De Blasio? No. And De Blasio himself is as a lot egg as he is hen, cannily capitalizing on a craze whose roots are in the 2008 fiscal meltdown, Occupy Wall Street, and the increase of Elizabeth Warren. Some thing was already happening out there. The question, particularly for countrywide Democrats, is how wide and deep the change is and will be. Certainly the left is investing excellent hope in its new hero. “Bill de Blasio is now found as the flagship for a likely city-policy enlightenment,” states Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the ­million-member team that was a key early fund-raiser for Warren. “If he is ­successful at earning New York profit daily, operating-course individuals, that could have enormous ripple consequences, pretty speedily, across the country.”

A major indicator will occur this fall, as Democrats consider to maintain on to their U.S. Senate majority. John Del Cecato, the De Blasio media strategist who crafted the famous “Dante” advertisement, is working on one of the more intriguing races, and his candidate is one more populist from Brooklyn—Brooklyn, Iowa. Bruce Braley, at this time a Democratic congressman, is operating for the U.S. Senate seat getting vacated by Tom Harkin, and the race will switch on Iowa-centric issues. But Braley will deliver an fascinating exam of how progressive themes perform in the heartland.

Best countrywide Democrats dismiss the idea that De Blasio’s priorities are now driving the political agenda. “We’re even now centered on financial fairness and option for the center class,” a person strategist claims. The govt director of the Democratic Senate Marketing campaign Committee, Guy Cecil, details out that every single contest has its possess dynamics, and that the particulars of De Blasio’s playbook are not conveniently ­transferable. “In most of our races, it is not always about building balance by increasing taxes in the way that De Blasio is executing it,” Cecil states. “The prescription for the trouble is not the exact.” In its place, he stresses conventional Democratic political talismans like preserving Medicare and Social Protection. But Cecil suggests that De ­Blasio’s information is extremely considerably in sync with what’s taking place nationally. “I do feel, all round, there is a typical concept about people today who are at or near the poverty line, and individuals who are squarely in the middle class, are finding the uncooked conclusion of the deal,” Cecil suggests. Wherever De Blasio harped on inexpensive housing, he says, Senate candidates are highlighting “pocket­book issues” like college loans that resonate with concentrate on constituencies, like Latino voters. “I really don’t know that an ­election in New York Metropolis is possessing any affect on this dialogue, as substantially as it may possibly be reflecting wherever the bigger nation is,” Cecil claims, “which is that we are seeing the inventory market place rise, and we’re observing enterprise setting up to improve, and GDP commencing to improve—and at the exact same time there are a ton of People who in their everyday life are not observing the advantage.”

Cecil’s reading through of the landscape is crucial not just for Democratic Senate candidates this calendar year, but for the reason that he’s probable to be on the small checklist to operate Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid, if she in fact operates. At this stage she’s the prohibitive favourite to grow to be the nominee—though that was legitimate at the exact stage in the operate-up to 2008, before most persons noticed Barack Obama coming. “I presume there will be a primary obstacle from the remaining, for confident,” Howard Dean says—though he also claims it will not be by him: “There are a lot of pragmatic progressives, and I’m just one of them, who are supporting her.” Dean campaigned for De Blasio previous yr, and he suggests that what transpires at Town Corridor will have ramifications much past the city. “Two progressive mayors—Bill and Eric Garcetti, in Los Angeles—don’t make a landslide toward progressivism. But I do imagine progressivism in typical is attaining the ascendancy in this country,” Dean suggests. “Bill has to be mayor very first, and he has to do a great job, and I assume he will. But what he does is pretty critical to the progressive movement. The rap on the progressive movement—mostly from the Wall Road types—is they can’t run anything, they can’t harmony the funds. That is not genuine. We have done a a great deal superior career than the Republicans of balancing the funds. Seem at Invoice Clinton.”

Andrew Cuomo acquired a excellent deal in the support of the Great Triangulator, and he is hardly the only Democrat who thinks that converse of a drastic shift to the remaining is overstated, particularly looking at that De Blasio’s “mandate” was shipped by a thin slice of the voters. Cuomo truly respects De Blasio and desires him to do well as mayor. But he has staked his governing solution and his political job on being a centrist, at minimum by New York criteria, and for 4 decades Cuomo has largely been a welcome pressure for budgetary sanity. Now, even though, he’s navigating a transform in the political wind. “Jeff Klein was by no means considered of as lefty, but he’s pretending to be 1 now,” a Cuomo adviser states of the Democrat who has set himself up as a electric power broker in the State Senate. “Klein, De Blasio, Eric Schneiderman, and Shelly Silver staying allied weirds out Cuomo. He wants to be Mr. Moderate, and these fellas are pulling him down the route of the ultraliberal things.” Cuomo’s response is also, as with most every­thing involving the governor, tied to the psychodrama of being the son of Mario Cuomo, a gentleman whose superior-minded rhetoric produced him a hero of the left Andrew is determined to make his mark with deeds, not phrases. Cuomo’s camp scoffs at De Blasio’s moralizing lefty tone, the mayor’s converse of becoming on a “sacred mission.” “He functions as if income inequality is a better reason,” a Cuomo ally claims. “ ‘We’re not speaking about filling potholes. We’re conversing about social justice.’ Bill’s been a pragmatist his complete job. You never ­really assume he’s transformed, proper?”

The compound and politics of the next handful of months are very important for the mayor. Resolving his pre-K struggle with Cuomo will enable determine regardless of whether battling for a tax enhance on the rich is a fantastic Democratic gambit. Yet it’s De Blasio’s substantial-stakes negotiations with labor unions that will be even much more telling. Shifting metropolis government’s values to the still left will not make a difference if De Blasio cannot get the dollars and cents appropriate and ends up turning into a spendthrift captive of the previous Democratic curiosity groups. But if De Blasio succeeds, his manufacturer of progressivism will achieve reliability, and the mayor will turn into a valued validator for liberals suspicious of HRC ’16. And if by some means Hillary does not operate, Cuomo could come across his friendship with De Blasio specially handy.

E-mail: chris_smith@nymag.com.

Supply connection