Stirewaltisms: Democrats Have Issues About COVID Restrictions

One of the cardinal problems with modern politics is that issues often tend to be more attractive than solutions.

Take immigration, for instance. If you went by the nature of the political debate and media coverage, you would be surprised to see that year after year, Americans are fairly united on the question of what to do when it comes to immigration and the southern border. High percentages of Americans favor strict enforcement of immigration laws and also a pathway to citizenship for most people who entered the United States illegally in the past.

While the specifics would be challenging to work out, there is already enough of a broad consensus to shape a lasting policy. Except for two things: 1) Our dumb primary system makes support for the needed compromises potentially deadly to politicians’ personal ambitions on both sides. 2) If the parties solve it, they lose it as an issue with which to raise money and try to win general elections.

In the short-term calculations of electoral politics, an issue is often better than a solution. Solutions take a long time, involve risk, and require maintaining some trust and goodwill with the other side. Issues are easy. You just say that your side is right, the other side is not just wrong but corrupt or intentionally hurting the country. You can run one time on a solution that works. You can run forever on an issue.

Which brings us to Democrats and the coronavirus pandemic.

Now, let me stipulate up front, that just like immigration or many of the other areas where issues trump solutions, many of the feelings that contribute to Democrats’ current problems are sincere. The families of nearly a million Americans who died with COVID and millions more who have been seriously ill should not be expected to have detached views on the subject. For others who have serious health problems and spent years in fear of contracting the virus, vigilance has become a way of life.

But for the Democratic Party as a whole, coronavirus response has become a serious liability. After two years in which masks, sanitizer, distancing, and closures became powerful shibboleths for the American left, letting go is proving very challenging. Hardline coronavirus policies did not just seem serious and scientific, they were weapons in the culture war against those right-wingers who rejected even sensible precautions from the start.

Many Republicans fought imposing restrictions in 2020 in similarly irrational ways. That slowed and complicated the initial response and worsened the effects of the pandemic when infections moved outside of the big blue cities where the virus first took hold. Of all the things that cost Donald Trump a second term, his refusal to be serious and disciplined in his response to the pandemic is very high on the list. If he had just been able to stay out of the briefing room and like Mike Pence do the talking, it might have made the difference.

But if Republicans had the problem on the way in, Democrats are having the problem on the way out. Consider the WaPo’s story of Red Wine and Blue, a group for suburban moms that is organizing for, among other things, the fight to keep mask mandates in place in schools. I claim no special scientific knowledge, but the case against masking children in class has been made by many with serious credentials for many months. With vaccines now available to everyone 5 and older, the argument for keeping children in masks is even weaker. Do Democrats seriously want their brand heading into midterms to be the party that fights to keep children masked at school?

When Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams apologized this week for having taken off her mask during a campaign stop at an elementary school, she came across as a penitent not for hypocrisy but for failing to set a good example for the children “that we wear masks whenever possible.” Worse, she said that she had removed her mask in the first place because she said she “wanted all of them to hear me.” Just imagine how that sounds to students and teachers who have been struggling to understand and be understood for years under mask rules. But Abrams is obliged to support the restrictions because core Democratic constituencies still refuse to budge on what is increasingly security theater. If she were thinking of a general election audience, Abrams would have commiserated with students about how hard it is to wear masks in a classroom setting and how she hoped the restriction would soon end. But that is not an answer that, say, the Georgia Educators Association would like to hear. 

Democrats in many deep blue states are dropping indoor mask requirements or allowing them to expire in the coming weeks. But they are still struggling with the question of schools, which says a lot about the power of teachers’ unions inside the party. But it also speaks to the larger problem Democrats have in emerging from the pandemic, even as voters continue to send powerful signals about their frustrations. Some Democrats imagine that the movement against restrictions is driven by right-wing crazies. That is a delusion that could lead to a wipeout for the blue team this fall.

Here’s Yascha Mounk writing in The Atlantic: “Accepting restrictions that weaken our social ties when they seemed temporary was one thing. Putting up with them indefinitely is quite another. For many, the sense that we will live in pandemic purgatory for months or years to come now poses a heavy psychological burden. This makes defining a clear end point to the pandemic posture all the more important. How much longer will the restrictions on everyday life drag on? What purpose do they still serve?”

America needs a finish line, and Democrats will pay dearly if they seem to be the party of perpetual restriction.

Part of the reason that the Biden administration has been slow to express appropriate gladness about the end of the pandemic and the improving economy is the memory of last summer and the Delta variant’s squelching of their optimism. But another part is obviously a fact that parts of the Democratic base are attached to coronavirus as an issue more than a problem to be solved. It felt so good to be on the side of science against those knuckle-draggers on the other side. It also felt good when Americans solidly preferred Democrats on the handling of the issue when Trump was president. But the facts have changed with vaccines and more knowledge about the virus, and the politics certainly changed too.

It’s time for Democrats to accept the solution and give up the issue.

Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM. If you’d like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don’t want your comments to be made public, please specify.

STATSHOT

Biden job performance

Average approval: 43.2 percent

Average disapproval: 53.2 percent

Net Score: -10 points

Change from one week ago: ↓ 1.4 points

[Average includes: Ipsos/Reuters: 43% approve-51% disapprove; Ipsos: 41% approve-56% disapprove;  Monmouth University: 39% approve-54% disapprove; Marquette University Law School: 46% approve-53% disapprove; Fox News: 47% approve-52% disapprove.]

Generic congressional ballot 

Democrats: 43 percent

Republicans: 44.4 percent

Net advantage: Republicans +1.4 points
Change from one week ago: No change

[Average includes: Monmouth University: 43% Democrat,  51% Republican; Fox News: 43% Democrat,  44% Republican; NBC News: 47% Democrat,  46% Republican; Quinnipiac University: 43% Democrat,  44% Republican; USA Today: 39% Democrat,  37% Republican.]

TIME OUT: BUT WHAT DOES A COMPUTER DO WITH 700 GRAND?
History: “On February 10, 1996, after three hours, world chess champion Garry Kasparov [lost] the first game of a six-game match against Deep Blue, an IBM computer capable of evaluating 200 million moves per second. Man was ultimately victorious over machine, however, as Kasparov bested Deep Blue in the match with three wins and two ties and took home the $400,000 prize. An estimated 6 million people worldwide followed the action online. Kasparov … and other chess grandmasters had, on occasion, lost to computers in games that lasted an hour or less. The February 1996 contest was significant in that it represented the first time a human and a computer had duked it out in a regulation, six-game match… In 1997, a rematch took place between Kasparov and an enhanced Deep Blue. … Deep Blue came out on top with a surprising sixth game win—and the $700,000 match prize.”

IF ALL YOU’VE GOT IS A MAGA, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A TRUMP
The Ohio Republican Senate primary is already the most overanalyzed race in the nation. Not that it isn’t a good one to keep an eye on. You’d still have to give the edge to the GOP to hold on to the seat being vacated by Sen. Rob Portman, but Republican infighting could easily hand the contest to Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan. The excess attention in the race is substantially due to celebrity candidate J.D. Vance, who reinvented himself as an angry populist and distanced himself from his former agreeable demeanor and his opposition to Donald Trump. Vance is battling with, among others, former state treasurer and perennial candidate, Josh Mandel, who has reinvented himself as an even angrier populist.

One of the big stories in Washington this week was the leaked strategy memo from one of the super PACs backing Vance. The memo included a poll, which Politico included in its writeup:  “The survey shows Mandel, a former state treasurer who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2012, out ahead with 15 percent. He is followed closely in the results by self-funding investment banker Mike Gibbons, with 14 percent, former state GOP Chair Jane Timken with 13 percent, business owner Bernie Moreno with 11 percent, and Vance at 9 percent. (Moreno dropped out of the primary last week, several weeks after the poll was taken.)”

When I tell you that this is a useless poll, I mean as useless as a Browns’ Super Bowl LVI T-shirt. As useless as a buckeye seed. As useless as the passing lane on an Ohio interstate. The primary is three months away and the poll, if we accept it as sound, tells us that … the race is close and voters don’t really seem to care yet.

But what really got the pundit-industrial complex jazzed was that the author of the memo said that Vance “needs a course correction ASAP.” The problem? Not enough Trump love. Vance is “now underwater with strong Trump” voters and that his “association as a Never Trumper has only grown since November” and that “being anti-Trump is the #1 reason voters do not like Vance.” That assessment may or may not be true, but of all people not to listen to such a matter would be … Donald Trump’s pollster. Yep. The big memo that journos were in high excitement over was from Tony Fabrizio, who, in addition to polling for the pro-Vance PAC, is Trump’s longtime pollster.

I’m not saying that Vance’s former life as a conservative anti-Trumper isn’t killing his effort to be seen as a rabid populist. Maybe so. I’m just saying that the last place I’d go for advice on the subject is Trump’s team, especially if that team’s memoranda sometimes leak and cause the candidate public embarrassment while simultaneously casting its author as a champion of Trumpiness. It’s just as likely that Vance’s efforts to suck up to Trump are the problem themselves. The hardcore nationalists might not believe Vance’s MAGA conversion, but mainstream Republicans that might have otherwise been open to backing Vance were put off by what appeared to be either rank opportunism or a radical change in his character. Maybe he’s just a bad candidate. Maybe he’ll go roaring ahead when voters dial in to the race. Who knows?

This primary is a dog show that is doing serious damage to Republicans’ chances to win Ohio and winning the Senate. But I don’t think anybody can plot a clear path forward in a five-way race in which the candidates are all within six points. Least of all Trump’s pollster.

There’s no ‘me’ in Noem: The Daily Beast: “Gov. Kristi Noem, who has been riding high in polls in her state, has never lost an election. She served four terms in Congress before being elected governor in 2018. The South Dakota legislature has supermajorities in both chambers, with Republicans holding 94 of 105 seats. No Democrat holds statewide office. But Noem has suddenly found plenty of opponents with whom to wage bitter political battles: fellow Republicans. … State political insiders suggest Noem is basically alone in Pierre, and that even if she remains beloved by large swaths of the Republican base, her image has taken a serious dent among the very people she needs to get things done. … Policy fights aside, Noem is also under pressure thanks to a pair of investigations into her past conduct—some of which have been set off by members of her own party.”

Pence basks in strange new respect, feeling ‘24: CNN: “Mike Pence did not initially intend to admonish former President Donald Trump during a long-planned speech last week. But a pair of statements from Trump criticizing Pence’s actions on January 6, 2021, were the final straw… Those familiar with Pence’s thinking say the outpouring of support that he’s seen since taking on Trump by name — both in gushing op-eds by conservative media outlets and in private conversations with GOP donors and fellow Republicans — has emboldened him as he looks to chart a future in politics that could include a White House bid against his former boss in 2024. At the same time, it also underscores the degree to which many Republicans are still unwilling to bat down Trump’s lies about the 2020 election in public — instead choosing to privately praise those who do so — even when there could be an upside to telling the truth. Although the GOP remains Trump’s party, those around Pence see his distinctions from Trump as an asset.”

These pandemic babies: Wall Street Journal: “Starting in June 2021, monthly births began to show consistent gains over their year-earlier levels, which reflect pre-pandemic conceptions, and that mostly offset declines in the first two months of 2021, the data show. … The new births data, released Monday along with final data for 2020, show the pandemic has had a more muted impact on childbearing than expected. … “The Covid baby bust doesn’t seem to be nearly as large as I thought it would be,” said Prof. [Melissa Kearney], an economics professor at the University of Maryland. She and Prof. [Phillip Levine] say one reason births rebounded is the large amounts of government assistance—including $1,200 stimulus checks and increased unemployment benefits—that households began receiving in 2020. That aid allowed most households to maintain consumption levels and likely blunted the negative impact that recessions tend to have on childbearing.”

BRIEFLY

Democrats exceed redistricting expectations—Cook Political Report 

Trump faces pressure to reverse Abbott endorsement—CNBC

Republican Governors Association finances Kemp ads—Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

McConnell raises a glass to Trump’s “old crow” jab—Washington Examiner

Arizona Republicans advance bill to nix early voting—Associated Press 

Report: Trump allies considered spycraft to target political foes—New York Times

Giuliani tried to get Michigan prosecutor to nab voting machines—Washington Post

WITHIN EARSHOT: LIVE, LAUGH, LOVE 

“I am not comfortable with the transgenders. The kids that they brought in my classroom, when they said that this kid is transgendering into a different sex, that I couldn’t have kids laugh at them … like other kids got in trouble for having transgender kids in my class. That’s why I vote for school choice.”Shelley Luther, a primary challenger to a Republican incumbent for a suburban-Dallas seat in the Texas House of Representatives, speaking at a candidate forum about her experience as a teacher.  

MAILBAG

“I found your Stirewaltisms when reading The Dispatch and I am so very,  very happy that I did!  I was a big fan of your Halftime Report. You have that rare mix of intellect and humor that allows me to tolerate reading anything about politics nowadays.  Your mention of “the intrepid Samantha Goldstein” was a reminder of how generous you have always been in praise of your colleagues. Can you tell me what happened to Brianna McClelland? I hope her journey has also successfully endured the slings and errors of others, and that she is doing well.”—Victoria Doyle, Salem, Oregon

Hello again, Ms. Doyle! I am very pleased and proud to say that not only is Brianna thriving professionally, she is getting married this very weekend! I am so pleased for the life she and her soon-to-be husband, Alexander, have ahead of them. They are lovely people. One of the great delights of my work is getting to work with exceptional young people like her and Samantha and many others over the years. Not only do they make my work easier and more interesting, they make me more optimistic about the future. As we get older, we tend to get crabbier, particularly about the generations coming to replace us. But my real experiences with the actual members of iGen strongly contradict many of the lazy stereotypes commonly applied to the group. I know that I am dealing with the cream of the crop, but nothing reaffirms my hope for America’s future than working with young Americans like Brianna and Samantha.

“Sometimes, buried underneath all the punditry, we encounter a tale that distills the essence of so many intertwined strands of the American character. The story of the brawl at a Pennsylvania [Golden Corral] (… my high school coach’s preferred team-dinner spot) combines our scrupulous observance of line etiquette, our love for affordable steak, and our willingness to throw hands over seemingly trivial matters of personal honor and privilege.  You, Chris, have the good fortune of an upbringing that gave you an intuitive understanding of this world, but elites with that type of experience are increasingly thin on the ground. How, then, can we identify and elevate responsible leaders to help channel the populist impulses of our political moment if the best we have now is either J.D. Vance (real street cred, leaning hard into schtick) or Josh Hawley/Ted Cruz (zero actual street cred, leaning hard into pandering)? I’m inherently skeptical of the “tribune of the people” model of leadership, but is it too much to ask that someone might arise from within the Flyover Country Normies who might be intelligible and persuasive to all parties? Or am I just joining the boutique Draft Ben Sasse Movement? Thanks.”—Phil Rexroth, Lorton, Virginia 

I don’t know if former wrestlers from Nebraska would appreciate being associated with boutique anything, but Sasse certainly seems to be the kind of candidate you’re talking about. I call it the Tribe of Jimmy Stewart. The characters Stewart played tended to be ordinary Americans from modest backgrounds, but ones who aspired to noble aims even at a cost to themselves. In movies like Destry Rides Again and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Stewart didn’t play a hard-nosed gunslinger who shoots it out with the bad guys. He played the man willing to risk his own life to stand up for his beliefs. What makes Mr. Smith Goes to Washington great is that Jefferson Smith does the one thing they tell you never to do in politics: He is sincere, even at the cost of his own career. This is the most important kind of courage in public life. Pretending to be brave for being mean and nasty is empty and useless. The real question is whether you have the fortitude to stand up for what’s right even when it’s hard, but to still reject cheap theatrics in favor of steady, decent resolve. And there are many of them, too. Mitch Daniels comes to mind, but I know lawmakers and politicians from coast to coast who are part of that tribe. Decency and thoughtfulness, though, don’t get you slots on prime time cable news or viral tweets in the way that anger and outrage do. If you have to be a jerk to be famous enough to win the Republican nomination, then Republicans will only nominate jerks. I am spending a great deal of time these days writing and researching about that conundrum for my book, and I wish I had an easy answer for you. But I would tell you to keep on looking for members of the Tribe of Jimmy Stewart, you can tell them by the fact that they will pay the price to stand for their principles. As for the Golden Corral, I will acknowledge that it is not fine dining, but a fellow could do worse in the world of chain restaurant eating. When your highway exit has limited options and you have many mouths to feed, folks should keep an open mind. Just don’t reach for the last steak if you’re not next in line…

“[W]here is the line between a local issue and a national issue? This question comes from coverage of the upcoming gubernatorial primary here in Nebraska. My reading of the race in early days is primarily a contest between a super Trumpy candidate (Charles Herbster), Trump adjacent candidate (Jim Pillen) and a couple of other (preferable, in my opinion) younger, more traditional candidates. Early days so maybe that proves to be incorrect. The Pillen campaign seems to be making “critical race theory” a center point of the campaign, perhaps in the mold of the Youngkin campaign. However, I haven’t heard much of this – nor school closures or other things front and center – being an issue in Nebraska. Perhaps this shows my bias—I’m 29 without children so perhaps schools just aren’t front of mind for me. On the other hand, I live in Omaha so if something even remotely close to CRT or school closure issues were to occur, one might assume it would happen in this area. In essence, my question is how often do campaigns make local issues elsewhere main issues to their campaign? Can this be successful or is this a misreading of the room?”—John McCoy, Omaha, Nebraska

I would always be careful not to confuse the relevancy of an issue to voters to its utility as a campaign issue, Mr. McCoy. I remember when Newt Gingrich in 2012 got all the Republican presidential campaigns yammering about the threat of sharia law. The intervening decade has suggested that the rise of Islamic courts in America was perhaps not truly a pressing issue of the time. But what it allowed Gingrich to do was declare his rivals as being soft on sharia, a stand-in for the allegation of being pro-Muslim. It looks like something similar is happening in Nebraska where Herbster is attacking Pillen for being soft on critical race theory because of Pillen’s service on the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. That’s a way to say not just that Pillen might harbor secret hatreds of white people, but that he is pro-college and higher education. Pillen has responded by saying that he has been a leader in the fight, declaring him “the first elected regent in America to take a stand against critical race theory.” Oh. Only four states have elected regents, so that’s painting with a pretty narrow brush. But Pillen must feel like he has to say something to Herbster who is very obviously willing to say almost anything at all. This is not about schools in Omaha or anywhere else in the state. This is about Herbster trying to push Pillen into dangerous territory. Pillen, like a lot of qualified, experienced Republican candidates, seems like a sane person who thinks he has to act crazy to win a primary. Between now and May 10, Herbster will be doing everything he can to keep it that way. If the strategy succeeds, both candidates will have shown themselves to be extremists, but Herbester will appear to be the authentic one. This is what we’re watching in the Ohio GOP primary. Pillen has to decide when he should stand his ground or he will end up losing a kook-off. But whatever you do, don’t imagine that this has any connection to what is happening in real life or what general election voters might want. This is a bug eating contest.

You should email us! Write to STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes and always good jokes. Please include your real name—at least first and last—and hometown. Make sure to let me know in the email if you want to keep your submission anonymous. My colleague, the intrepid Samantha Goldstein, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! 

CUTLINE CONTEST: ALL JOEL EDITION 

Okay, you people are actually pretty darned funny… Our photo last week was of celebrity groundhog Punxatawny Phil being displayed by one of his handlers. And your winner is:

“Unvaccinated groundhog is forcibly removed from ZZ Top concert.”—Joel Stewart, Edmond, Oklahoma

Honorable mention:

“The moment Phil became a member of the #MeToo movement.”—Joel Simansky, Alton, Illinois 

Submit your own! Readers should send in their proposed cutline for the picture that appears at the top of this newsletter to STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM. We will pick the top entrants and an appropriate reward for the best of each month—even beyond the glory and adulation that will surely follow. Be hilarious, don’t be too dirty, and never be cruel. Include your full name and hometown. Have fun! 

FROTHY
Philly Voice: “A Sellersville [Pennsylvania] pizzeria is apologizing after a magazine advertisement unintentionally included an image of a naked man in the latte art of a cup of cappuccino. Chiaro’s Pizza & Restaurant, a Bucks County business for 35 years, recently paid for the ad to be designed and published in the February issue of a local magazine mailed out monthly to residents in Upper Perkiomen Valley. The restaurant, a longtime advertiser in the magazine, bought a full-page ad and sent the publication photos it wanted to appear in its promotion. [‘Stop in for a sweet treat for your sweetie!’] Chiaro’s management and the staff at Community Connection Monthly, the publication that printed advertisement, failed to recognize that the design in the cappuccino foam in one image depicted a man without any clothing. Without being tipped off about which photo contains the explicit image, it takes a discerning eye to find it, but once you see it, you can’t unsee it.”

Chris Stirewalt is a contributing editor at The Dispatch, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of a forthcoming book on media and politics. Samantha Goldstein contributed to this report.