text:
Politics | The Atlantichttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2016-07-01T22:21:35-04:00Copyright 2016 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.AtlanticPoliticsChannelhttps://feedburner.google.com
Today in 5 Lines

The White House revealed that U.S. airstrikes have killed between 64 to 116 civilians outside war zones since 2009. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she will accept the recommendations of federal prosecutors in the investigation over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation regulating assault weapons and the sale of ammunition. The latest draft of the Democratic Party platform shows the addition of the many progressive provisions Bernie Sanders has been advocating for. And ISIS has claimed responsibility for an attack in the Bangladeshi capital, where at least two people have been killed and an estimated 20 people are being held hostage.

Today on The Atlantic

Clinton Offers a Eulogy for The Toast: In a small corner of the internet, a community of loyal, literary-humor-loving readers is going wild: The Democratic presidential nominee shared a personal message on the feminist blog in honor of its final day of publication. (Adrienne LaFrance)

Fighting to Cure an Ailing Party: Conservative columnist and commentator George Will denounced the GOP this past weekend. The move, David Frum writes, sparks "a haunting question for the many other Republicans and conservatives repelled by the looming nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for president of the United States: What will you do?"

One Less Problem: The passage of legislation this week that helped Puerto Rico stave off a historic default may have provided some relief to the territory, but it doesn't solve the underlying issues that created the mess to begin with. (Gillian B. White)

Follow stories throughout the day with our Politics & Policy portal.

Snapshot

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch talks during a conference at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado, on July 1. Jordan Curet / AP

What We're Reading

The Failings of Conservatism: Born into a family of Christian fundamentalists in central Pennsylvania, Matthew Sitman shed his conservative views after coming to the realization that virtue cannot always overcome circumstance. (Dissent)

Inter-Party Relationships: Two researchers surveyed 18 million American couples to see how often people with different party affiliations get married—and what happens when they do. (Ana Swanson, The Washington Post)

It's Not That Easy: Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson proposed on Wednesday that the world needs a new political order where all policies are based on evidence. Here's why that's a pipe dream. (Kevin D. Williamson, National Review)

On the Down-Low: Advocating for transgender people to be able to register their identities on their passports was one of the most progressive things Hillary Clinton has ever done. But she did it cautiously, and without fanfare. (Michael Kruse, Politico)

Fighting for Their Right: Almost 70,000 convicted felons in Louisiana have filed a class action lawsuit claiming they're being "wrongfully excluded" from voting—part of a nation-wide movement challenging voting disenfranchisement laws. (Mike Hayes, BuzzFeed)

Visualized

Candidate for an American America: A stock-footage company created a mock presidential ad, complete with all the traditional eagle-and-flag imagery, generic language, and gentle music. Watch the short video here. (The Atlantic)

Question of the Week

The winner of this week's question is Bob Kerr, who cleverly suggested that a nickname for the U.S. leaving the UN, as proposed by Sarah Palin, would be "Amerigo." Good work, Bob.

Honorable mentions:

1. Julian Ha with "Conscious UN-coupling"
 2. Art Kane with "Saranara"

 Visit The Atlantic Notes for more great submissions, and stay tuned for next week's question.

-Written by Elaine Godfrey (@elainejgodfrey)
Elaine Godfreyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/elaine-godfrey/?utm_source=feedAndrew Harnik / APThe Atlantic  Politics & Policy Daily: Clinton Kneads Your Vote2016-07-01T17:39:44-04:002016-07-01T17:39:44-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489869The presumptive Democratic nominee wrote a post on the daily blog The Toast—much to the excitement of its reader community.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/clinton-kneads-your-vote/489869/?utm_source=feed
Asked what subjects would be profitably debated, two speakers at The Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, focused on reason. Evan Thomas, the journalist and author of Being Nixon, wrote:

Is reason dead?

So much of the structure and animating ideals of Western democracy are based on the idea of reason and rationality––the enlightenment ideal that man is rational and thus capable of self-governance. We had "reasonable man" standards in economics and the law. But increasingly, scientists and psychologists question the premise that reason rules. Indeed, it sometimes seems that reason is a thin veneer over our baser instincts. Of course the ancient Greeks and Shakespeare knew this.

Amar Bakshi, the artist and creator of Shared Studios, has related thoughts:

Is emotion the enemy of reason? Can emotion be reason's handmaiden? Are some emotions more conducive to reason than others?

At a time of rising anti-immigrant sentiment and nationalist retrenchment, these questions are vital. With the Brexit vote, for example, we find communities with the fewest immigrants were the most intensely opposed to immigration, voting to leave the EU to curb the flow of migrants. And in American politics––in our debates over gun control, for example––we see emotions over-riding fact-based argument.

The elite are trained in the scientific method and rational inquiry. It is the bedrock of higher education. And expert knowledge in any field depends on it. But with widening income inequality and stagnant wages for the majority, a popular distrust of the elites is growing. That distrust of the elite is carrying with it a distrust of its tools of knowledge creation and execution.

"Harvard-educated" is a disparagement.

This makes a debate on the relationship between reason and emotion critical. Does rationality carry with it a particular emotional valence? Perhaps calm and detachment? Is it the case that disgust is opposed to rationality in a way that, say, melancholy is not? Must anger be opposed to reason?

There is social science and neuroscience evidence to marshall. There is a strong persuasive case to be made on all sides. Because this is a "debate," the deck is already tilted in favor of reason––but reason may still lose.

In the interest of debate, I wonder if any readers believe that we're too focused on reason––that society would be better off if more credence was given to emotion or intuition, or if, say, emotional intelligence is undervalued when evaluating prospective students, or employees, or Supreme Court justices, or political leaders.

Email email@example.com to join the conversation.
Conor Friedersdorfhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/conor-friedersdorf/?utm_source=feedMichaela Rehle / ReutersIs Reason Losing Out to Instinct and Emotion?2016-07-01T17:00:00-04:002016-07-01T22:18:32-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489854A journalist and an artist reflect on our relationship with Enlightenment ideals.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/is-reason-losing-out-to-instinct-and-emotion/489854/?utm_source=feed
Asked what ought to be subject to wider or more rigorous debate, Nancy Cantor, the Chancellor of Rutgers University, suggested a focus on the idea of meritocracy.

She wrote:

One of the pivotal questions of our time that merits debating is merit itself. In the context of higher education, this translates into questions such as: Who merits admission? Whose talents do we as a nation need to cultivate?

Crucial in this debate would be addressing the perfect storm of conditions that constrict the pathways to educational opportunity for large and growing swaths of our nation. According to recent reports from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, one of those conditions is that socioeconomic class is stickier in the U.S. across generations than in just about any other economically prosperous nation.

Another is that prosperity in America is highly correlated with race. Still another is that we are experiencing what Brookings Institution's demographer Bill Frey calls a "diversity explosion;" already, the referents for the term "minority" are in the process of being flipped, as white children are no longer in the majority in early childhood education nationally.

If leaving the growing majority of our nation's talent pool on the side-lines of education in a knowledge economy were not enough of a recipe for catastrophe, we also are finally coming to the realization—based on mountains of good social science—that the measures of merit that colleges and universities have been using for decades to determine who gets in were never that good in the first place. The College Board's own validity studies show that even when you combine SAT scores and high school GPA, you don't have a very good chance of predicting which students will do well in their first year of college—and those correlations are worse for the very groups that are becoming our new majority.

We are long overdue for a clear-eyed debate about what we need to do to improve our ability to find and to cultivate talent broadly and equitably in the increasingly diverse generations that already are growing up.

We in higher education need to be prepared to answer a whole set of questions that will cascade out of this discussion: What does all of this say about the culture of ranking colleges according to how few students we admit? Who merits being labelled as an excellent prospect for educational attainment, especially as it leads to personal advancement and collective prosperity? Whose knowledge and experience of American life do we need at the table for higher education to remain a legitimate public good? And how do we put our minds to the task of welcoming that talent into what has grown over generations into a rather selective club? Can we recapture the moniker of a "land of opportunity"?

Cantor is a speaker this year at the Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.
Conor Friedersdorfhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/conor-friedersdorf/?utm_source=feedSteve Dipaola / ReutersThe Chancellor of Rutgers on Admissions and the Meritocracy2016-07-01T16:20:00-04:002016-07-01T16:21:22-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489848The growing diversity of today's educational cohort prompts the question, "Whose talents do we as a nation need to cultivate?"http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/the-chancellor-of-rutgers-on-admissions-and-the-meritocracy/489848/?utm_source=feed
Our newly revamped newsletter Politics & Policy Daily (formerly The Edge) started a new little feature on Monday, "Question of the Week." In the inaugural entry, Elaine—who runs P&PD—asked:

Last week, Britain voted to break with the European Union—a decision known as "Brexit." If the United States were to leave the United Nations, as Sarah Palin suggested, what would that exit's nickname be?

Readers sent scores of submissions throughout the week, and today the Politics team picked a winner: Amerigo, submitted by Bob Kerr. The two runners-up are Conscious UN-coupling from Julian Ha and Saranara from Art Kane. Some honorable mentions:

Lee C. Fanshaw with my personal favorite: Yankxit

Barry Popik would text the United Nations: UNmeRnot2B

Chris Leggett goes social media: UN-friending

John Wetzel goes with the Italian word for "exit": Uscita

Connor Phillips might be a servicemember: USAWOL

Kenny from California: USAway

Howard P. Cohen: USAloha!

Aloha indeed, and happy Fourth! When 240 years ago, Americans exited Britain.

(To sign up for Politics & Policy Daily, and to see what it looks like overall, go here. For the rest of our newsletter offerings, head here.)
Chris Bodennerhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/chris-bodenner/?utm_source=feedQuestion of the Week: The American Version of Brexit?2016-07-01T16:00:00-04:002016-07-01T16:09:43-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:374-489842Our newly revamped newsletter Politics & Policy Daily (formerly The Edge) started a new little feature on Monday, "Question of…http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/question-of-the-week-american-version-of-brexit/489842/?utm_source=feed
Sasha Dichter is Chief Innovation Officer at Acumen, a nonprofit aimed at addressing poverty. Asked what subject Americans ought to be debating more, he wondered if existing institutions can produce leaders capable of solving this century's most complicated, intractable problems.

He writes:

The challenges will we need to overcome in the coming century – global warming, ethnic strife, corruption, terrorism, to name a few – are both familiar and daunting. These challenges are not necessarily bigger than those of the last century, but they have a different character. Tackling them requires leadership that is adept at bringing together seemingly opposable concepts and a diverse set of actors: public and private; profit and purpose; shareholders and stakeholders; markets and philanthropy; scalable technology and individual voices; values and…

Who are the role models for this type of leadership? And where is the training ground for people to lead in this new way? Will this leadership emerge naturally from our existing institutions – global multinationals, politics, the media, higher education, the social sector?

And, if not, what should we do to change this?

Dichter was a speaker this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. To take his question a step farther, can any readers imagine a new sort of institution, one that doesn't yet exist, that would produce the sorts of leaders that the world needs? How about changes to existing institutions.

Here's an example: Lots of elite institutions of higher education encourage study abroad. The theory is that living in a foreign country will broaden the perspective of students and better prepare them to be leaders in a globalist era. Very few of these institutions place comparable value on learning about poor and working class communities inside the United States by actually spending time and making social connections there.

I am not talking about charity work or secular missionary work. The object of the programs I am suggesting would be to better understand how different people live and think, not to convert them to the world view of America's college-educated elites.

On a related note, I would like to see an elite MBA program that required some sort of experience working at the bottom of an industry, as an employee at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, so that tomorrow's business leaders have a better understanding of the employees working for them and how their decisions filter down.

And I would like to see police academies that required aspiring cops to spend some number of hours talking to people who've been victims of police brutality in the past.

Email firstname.lastname@example.com with your suggestions.
Conor Friedersdorfhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/conor-friedersdorf/?utm_source=feedZoran Milich/ReutersCan Existing Institutions Produce the Leaders That the World Needs?2016-07-01T16:00:00-04:002016-07-01T22:21:35-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489857A inquiry into the skills required to address the coming century's problemshttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/can-existing-institutions-produce-the-leaders-that-world-needs/489857/?utm_source=feed

Trump this morning, via NY Post.

In July, 1948, the 33rd President of the United States, Harry Truman, took an overdue step toward equal opportunity, equal dignity, and "more perfect union" with Executive Order 9981, ordering desegregation of the military.

In July, 2016, the aspirant to be the 45th President, Donald Trump, said he would "look into" a step in the opposite direction, by potentially replacing TSA agents who were Muslim and wore "hibby-jobbies."

The term hibby-jobbies was from a questioner and presumably meant the veil or head cover known as hijab. But Trump did not resist or object to it, as he frequently has with other questions whose framing he dislikes. (He "let it slide," as CNN put it in a headline.) Instead he said he would "look into" this concept of religion-based scrutiny of public employees.

You don't have to go back to Harry Truman to see how extraordinary and odious this is — or to the Truman-era War Department film I mentioned yesterday. Eight years ago, John McCain earned boos from a partisan crowd, but increased respect in history's eyes, for rejecting a questioner's premise that his then-rival, then-Senator Barack Obama, was really an Arab.

In this cycle, McCain is still a Vichy Republican, officially backing Trump for the presidency.

***

Yesterday Trump also joked that a small plane overhead might be Mexican, because "they're getting ready to attack."

In retrospect it will seem remarkable, and it deserves more notice even now, how even-tempered the Mexican government and most Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Latino-background Americans in general have been about all of this. Think of the likely reaction if a presumptive major-party nominee had been turning against [blacks / Catholics / Jews / Baptists / Asian-Americans / etc ] the repeated off-hand slurs Donald Trump keeps issuing against Muslims and Mexicans.
James Fallowshttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/james-fallows/?utm_source=feedTrump Time Capsule #32: Hibby-Jobbies2016-07-01T15:39:00-04:002016-07-01T18:28:50-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:374-489836In July, 1948, the 33rd President of the United States, Harry Truman, took an overdue step toward equal opportunity, equal…http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/trump-time-capsule-32-hibby-jobbies/489836/?utm_source=feed
Two of Donald Trump's stoutest defenders since this spring have been Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich. The two men—different in style, but each brash, outspoken, and far more experienced in traditional politics than the presumptive nominee—have thus long been seen as strong contenders to become his running mate.

So it stands to reason that as the moment approaches when Trump will choose his running mate, Gingrich and Christie appear to be leading the pack. On Thursday, CNN reported that the New Jersey governor has received the vetting paperwork. (A Christie spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the report.) Later that evening, The Washington Post reported that Gingrich was the leading contender, trailed closely by Christie.

Less than a week ago, Gingrich told Fox News Sunday that he has not been contacted about being vetted or asked if he'd be interested, though he joked that he's well-vetted from media reports. Perhaps the Trump campaign has taken his relentless defenses of Trump as a declaration of interest. "He's probably going to start thinking about it two days before Cleveland," the former House speaker said of Trump's choice.

Trump has said he wants to choose a more traditional politician than himself, someone who has some experience navigating Washington—and, the implication goes, someone who might smooth Trump's troubled relations with many fellow Republicans. Would either Gingrich or Christie do that? Gingrich has been around the GOP long enough to alienate quite a few members. Christie, meanwhile, has annoyed his fellow Republicans in several ways: First by embracing Barack Obama on the eve of the 2012 election, then by demolishing Marco Rubio in a February debate, and finally by becoming a staunch Trump backer.

The Post also mentions several other names that have been in the mix, including Senators Jeff Sessions and Bob Corker, though Corker has been critical of Trump recently. NBC News's Katy O'Donnell also reports that Trump is meeting with Governor Mike Pence of Indiana this weekend. Pence is a social conservative with heartland roots, and while he didn't back Trump in the Hoosier State primary, his endorsement of Ted Cruz was notably conciliatory, and he quickly backed Trump after the ballots were counted. However, Pence is up for reelection, and could not run for both governor and vice president. While Trump had long pledged to announce his running mate at the RNC in Cleveland, several reports now say he's considering doing so ahead of time.

For decades, a few antiquated bon mots about the vice presidency have held sway in discussions about running mates. For example, there's Teddy Roosevelt's declaration, "I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history, than vice president." Even better was John Nance Garner's verdict that the office he held under FDR was "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Those quips really hardly apply anymore; they're as archaic as their authors. These days the Naval Observatory is a nice place to land. You could end up amassing unprecedented power and a man-sized safe, like Dick Cheney. You could end up with impressive power and become an aviator-clad folk hero, like Joe Biden.

Or maybe not. Will anyone want to be the running mate to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump? There are the character risks in cozying up to a man who's liable to make a racist comment or accuse a rival's father of being involved in the Kennedy assassination. There are the career risks of becoming associated with a man who much of the Republican Party still doesn't like. And there are the organizational risks to signing on as No. 2 to a man who's famously a go-it-alone maverick.

Related Story

Where Republicans Stand on Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

Will serious policymakers really risk all that? Ha! Of course they will. Plenty of major figures have said no, but plenty remain open to it. As another politician of yore, Sam Rayburn, pointed out, "Well, there is always the thought in a fellow's mind that he might get to be president." At this stage in the campaign, it's still customary for possible picks to insist they're not interested. Don't believe it quite yet.

Who's on the list? Here's a cheat sheet of some of the names being floated—either by Trump and his aides; or by the candidates or their supporters themselves; or perhaps just being murmured by what Russell Baker memorably called "the Great Mentioner." Forecasting who a presidential nominee will pick as a running mate is a famously foolish errand, but we'll keep this list updated as the situation develops, right up to Trump's announcement, which he says will come at the Republican National Convention in July.

Gage Skidmore

Newt Gingrich

Who is he? The speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, Gingrich ran unsuccessfully for president in 2012.

The scuttlebutt: Gingrich is perhaps the leading contender in Beltway buzz. Though he didn't endorse Trump during the primary, he repeatedly defended him from his critics. More recently, he wrote a fawning essay titled "What they never understood about Donald Trump" in The Washington Times. Ed Rollins, who runs a pro-Trump super PAC and previously worked for Gingrich, told National Review, "I think Newt is lobbying to be the vice president, and I think their people are paying a lot of attention to him," adding, somewhat dubiously, "It'd be a ticket with six former wives, kind of like a Henry VIII thing. They certainly understand women." (It's sometimes hard to tell what side Rollins is on.) The Washington Post tabs him as the front-runner, though Gingrich said on June 26 that he is not being vetted at this point.

Pros: With his long career on the Hill and in Republican circles, Gingrich would check the politics box for Trump. As an intellectual—self-styled, at least—he might offer some counterweight to impressions of Trump as a lightweight. Gingrich, unlike Roosevelt, would apparently rather be vice president than a professor of history.

Cons: While less prone than Trump to racist outbursts, Gingrich has been known to say wacky things. He has plenty of his own critics in GOP circles, and he's got his own personal baggage—two divorces and three marriages to match Trump's. As an aging white man, it's unclear whether he could expand the Trump coalition. He brings little foreign-policy cred.

Gage Skidmore

Ben Carson

Who is he? The famed retired neurosurgeon was one of the many GOP candidates Trump vanquished this year.

The scuttlebutt: Wait, isn't he leading the VP search? That's hardly an impediment—just ask Dick Cheney, who led George W. Bush's running mate search and selected himself. Carson has generally said he's not interested, but that hasn't dampened speculation.

Pros: Carson is personally likable and well-liked, and he could appeal to social conservatives.

Cons: Didn't you see the GOP primary? Where Trump is untutored and sometimes scary on policy, Carson is even less tutored, and often shaky. Given his lack if politics and policy experience, he'd do little to shore up Trump's credentials with people who view Trump as dangerously naive about policy.

Chris Christie

David Shankbone

Who is he? The governor of New Jersey, Christie was the first major establishment Republican to endorse Trump.

The scuttlebutt: Surely there must be some reason why Christie has been willing to endure endless mockery for standing, staring vacantly, behind Trump at campaign events. Could it be the promise of a VP slot? CNN reports that Christie is being vetted for the job as of June 30. The Washington Post suggests he's a top contender, maybe behind Newt Gingrich.

Pros: Christie would bring comparative gravitas to the ticket. He's a two-term governor and former U.S. attorney, a dynamic campaigner, and he seems to get along well with Trump. He's already been appointed to run Trump's transition team.

Cons: Just what the ticket needs: Another angry dude from the Northeast with high unfavorables. Christie infuriated many fellow Republicans by backing Trump, but now that many of them are coming around, perhaps that's not a big deal.

Wikimedia

Bob Corker

Who is he? A Tennessee Republican, he was first elected to the Senate in 2007.

The scuttlebutt: The odds of a Corker pick have been thought to drop in the last few weeks, as Corker has become increasingly critical of Trump. Mike Allen once argued that Corker most perfectly fits Trump's stated qualifications for a vice-presidential ticketmate.

Pros: Corker is a businessman like Trump, and he's a known as a dealmaker. He'd bring some Southern balance to the ticket, and he is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a member of the banking committee—and both foreign policy and economic policy are areas where Trump has shown he needs some help. Corker signaled his openness to Trump ahead of many of his colleagues.

Cons: The flip side of being a dealmaker is that it can irk hardliners within one's own party. He's also a bit low-key for Trump—though maybe that would be a good thing.

Wikimedia

Mike Pence

Who is he? A former U.S. representative, the current Indiana governor is a strong social conservative.

The scuttlebutt: A source tells NBC that Pence is "in play," and Pence refused to say whether or not he was being vetted. Pence endorsed Trump a couple days after Trump won the Indiana primary. He will reportedly meet with Trump over the July 4 weekend.

Pros: Pence is a strong social conservative and a longtime Republican officeholder—two areas where Trump is weak. He's also close to the Koch brothers.

Cons: Once mentioned as a presidential contender in his own right, Pence has looked a little like damaged good since Indiana's snafu over a religious-freedom law. (A law was passed but largely emptied out by amendments after backlash.) Pence is also barred by state law from running for reelection and vice president at the same time, so he'd have to choose.

Gage Skidmore

Sarah Palin

Who is she? The former governor of Alaska endorsed Trump in January. She was John McCain's running mate in 2008.

The scuttlebutt: Palin is a high-profile endorser and has been an ambitious politician in the past. When Trump was asked about the prospect of running with her in January, he said: "I don't think she'd want to do it … she's been through that."

Pros: Trump is weak with women and still stands to convince very conservative voters that he is a true conservative. Palin might help him on both counts.

Cons: Are you younger than eight? (If so, go outside and play!) If not, did you sleep through the 2008 election? We've seen how this goes.

Wikimedia

John Kasich

Who is he? The governor of Ohio, Kasich was the last remaining Republican to leave the race.

The scuttlebutt: Kasich's critics in the party accused him of staying in the race to hurt Cruz, and thus improve his chances at the VP slot. Trump has sent mixed messages, saying that he'd be "interested in vetting John" but also suggesting he was an unlikely choice.

Pros: Kasich has deep political experience, as both a congressman and a two-term governor. And he cuts a more sober figure than Trump.

Cons: Kasich says he does not support Trump: "I'm not making any final decision yet, but at this point, I just can't do it."

Wikimedia

Marco Rubio

Who is he? The outgoing senator from Florida also ran against Trump.

The scuttlebutt: Some of Rubio's delegates to the convention are pushing him as a running mate. Trump says it "could happen," though other reports claim he's out of the running. Also Rubio has said, "I'm not going to be anybody's vice president."

Pros: All the things that Rubio was supposed to bring to the presidential race, he could still bring: youth. Charisma. Hispanic roots and foreign-policy experience, both of which Trump badly needs.

Cons: Rubio hit Trump hard during the race, and he seems to be pretty burnt out on campaigning and politics in general. On May 9, he posted on Facebook, "He will be best served by a running mate and by surrogates who fully embrace his campaign. As such, I have never sought, will not seek and do not want to be considered for Vice President."

Gage Skidmore

Rick Perry

Who is he? The former governor of Texas ran for president unsuccessfully in 2012 and 2016.

The scuttlebutt: On May 5, Perry told CNN, "I believe in the process, and the process has said Donald Trump will be our nominee and I'm going to support him and help him and do what I can …. He is one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen." On the veep question, he said, "I am going to be open to any way I can help. I am not going to say no."

Pros: Perry doesn't exactly have a reputation as a policy whiz, though he tried to reverse that in his second go at the presidency. He's a steady, experienced Republican, and his Texas bravado might pair well with Trump's New York braggadocio.

Cons: "He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued. Let no one be mistaken—Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded." —Perry on July 22, 2015

Wikimedia

Ted Cruz

Who is he? Trump's final serious rival for the nomination, he's a senator from Texas.

The scuttlebutt: Trump said on May 4 that he'd consider Cruz.

Pros: Trump says he wants to unify the party, and since the final split was ultimately between Cruz and Trump, what better way to bring together two factions than in a classic fusion ticket? Cruz would bring his very conservative bonafides to the ticket.

Cons: Many leading Republicans hate Cruz as much or more than they do Trump. Also, while the two men got along well early in the campaign, Cruz unloaded on Trump—understandably—after Trump suggested Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination, calling him a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," a "narcissist," and "serial philanderer."

Wikimedia

Rick Scott

Who is he? Florida's governor, Scott is a former health-care executive.

The scuttlebutt: Scott endorsed Trump on March 15. He's suggested he's not interested in the gig. "I like my job. I worked hard to get this job. I'm going to stay in this job," he told CNN. He repeated the same thing on June 3.

Pros: He's a two-term governor, and Florida is an important swing state

Cons: Scott is deeply unpopular in his own state, and he carries lots of baggage—particularly a $1.7 billion fine for Medicare fraud levied on the company he ran.

Wikimedia

Rob Portman

Who is he? Portman is a senator from Ohio.

The scuttlebutt: Trump's campaign has leaked his name as an early favorite. A spokesman said Portman is not interested: "Rob is not interested in anything but continuing to serve Ohio in the U.S. Senate."

Pros: Portman is well-liked and has a reputation for seriousness. He might help Trump in the crucial swing state of Ohio and across the Midwest. Barry Bennett, a longtime Portman aide, is now a top aide to Trump.

Cons: Portman is in the middle of a heated Senate campaign. He'd probably be unable to run for president and run for Senate effectively without risking handing the seat to Democrat Ted Strickland.

Wikimedia

Nikki Haley

Who is she? Haley is the governor of South Carolina.

The scuttlebutt: Trump's campaign has named her as a top early pick, but Trump himself said, "No, not Nikki Haley, no Nikki Haley no, she wasn't under consideration." She herself said, "My plate is full and I am not interested in serving as vice president."

Pros: Not only is Haley a veteran governor, but as a woman, a Southerner, and a daughter of immigrants, Haley would plug lots of holes for Trump. She won positive national press by backing the push to take down the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds in Columbia.

Cons: Haley and Trump tangled ahead of the South Carolina primary, which Haley ultimately deploying the ultimate, vicious Southern insult on Trump: "Bless your heart."

Wikimedia

Susana Martinez

Who is she? The governor of New Mexico, Martinez is a perennial long-list candidate for the vice presidency.

The scuttlebutt: She's another one of the early favorites leaked by the Trump campaign. "The governor has said repeatedly over the years that she isn't interested in serving as Vice President," her spokesman replied. "She appreciates that such attention puts New Mexico in the spotlight, but she is fully committed to serving the people of our state." But after Martinez skipped a Trump rally in New Mexico on May 24, the two appear to be beefing.

Pros: In addition to her experience as governor, Martinez is a woman and a Hispanic, both constituencies with which Trump is very weak.

Cons: Martinez has been harshly critical of Trump. She also brings some personal baggage.

Wikimedia

Brian Sandoval

Who is he? Sandoval is the governor of Nevada, a moderate Republican and another perennial VP possibility.

The scuttlebutt: Remember when this guy was floated as an Obama Supreme Court nominee? Good times. Sandoval's name seems to mostly be in the mix because it always is. He endorsed Trump on May 5.

Pros: Sandoval is an experienced politician and a popular Hispanic elected official. He could potentially help Trump with Hispanics and in the West.

Cons: Sandoval has sometimes been seen as too moderate for a national GOP ticket. He also says he doesn't plan to attend the convention.

Evan Agostini / Invision / AP

Joe Scarborough

Who is he? The co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Scarborough previously served as a congressman from Florida.

The scuttlebutt: Scarborough has been one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders in the mainstream media. When Hugh Hewitt asked him if in January he'd serve as Trump's VP, Scarborough couldn't bring himself to say no. He's clearly thirsty to get back into politics—he even flirted with running for president in 2016.

Pros: Scarborough has media savvy and has had a great rapport with Trump. He's not a professional politician these days, but he's got the resume.

Cons: Precisely which GOP voters would line up to back a Beltway-dwelling, moderate Republican MSNBC host? Meanwhile, Scarborough has complained that Trump was genuine rather than simply pandering in his fearmongering on Muslims, and Trump fired back at him.

Michael Vadon / Flickr

Mary Fallin

Who is she? Fallin is the second-term governor of Oklahoma.

The scuttlebutt: Trump backer of Andre Bauer of South Carolina floated her name in April; Trump responded that it was "great" advice. She says she is "100 percent behind him" and said in a statement, "I have not had any direct contact with Mr. Trump, but I would be very honored if I were to receive a call saying I need you to help make America great again."

Pros: Fallin is an experienced governor and a woman. Former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has reportedly recommended her.

Cons: She's not much of a proven quantity or familiar face at a national level.

Gage Skidmore

Jan Brewer

Who is she? Brewer was governor of Arizona from 2009 to 2015.

The scuttlebutt: Brewer has reportedly recommended Mary Fallin of Oklahoma for the veep job. Asked about that, Trump told Greta Van Susteren, "Well, also Jan. Jan Brewer has been fantastic. She has been so fantastic. You know I won so big, her territory, and we won so big. And she is a fabulous woman."

Pros: Brewer is a woman and a conservative, and her hardline views on immigration dovetail well with Trump's. Arizona is one of the typically Republican states that Democrats believe could be up for grabs with Trump running, and she'd help shore that up.

Cons: Brewer is unproven at a national level, and some of her performance in Arizona is unpromising. She famously made an unsupported claim about "headless bodies" being found in the desert, and her disastrous opening statement in a 2010 gubernatorial debate recalled nothing so much as another vice-presidential candidate—Admiral James Stockdale.

Wikimedia

Jon Huntsman Jr.

Who is he? A moderate Republican, Huntsman was governor of Utah and then ambassador to China under Barack Obama before resigning to run, unsuccessfully, for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

The scuttlebutt: The head of a conservative Utah think tank (so, beware homecooking) argues that Huntsman would make a great pick for Trump. He was certainly an early adopter among establishment Republicans, having signaled his openness to Trump in late February.

Pros: Huntsman would give Trump some diplomatic gravitas, moderate appeal, and government experience. Trump is also deeply unpopular in Utah, normally a deep-red state.

Cons: Have you heard the way Trump talks about China? It's a world away from Huntsman's friendlier approach. The extent of Huntsman's real popular appeal and political skill remains unproven, too.

Wikimedia

Richard Burr

Who is he? A two-term senator from North Carolina, he chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The scuttlebutt: Talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt says Burr is under consideration: "I was tipped yesterday by sources close to Team Trump that Richard Burr was on their short list." Burr denied any knowledge that he was being considered. "Every name that's been floated up to this point is speculation," he said. "I don't think any of it—to my knowledge—has any credible nexus with the campaign." He did not rule out serving, however, saying, "It's not something that I'm even remotely concerned about."

Pros: Burr is a veteran lawmaker and his intelligence experience might soothe Republicans wary of Trump's lack of experience.

Cons: Burr doesn't have a very high profile. He's also locked in a tight reelection race, and according to state law would have to withdraw from the Senate race in order to run for vice president, which could in turn threaten to help Democrats pick up a seat.
David A. Grahamhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-a-graham/?utm_source=feedSteve Marcus / ReutersDonald Trump, who will soon crown a vice president, poses with Miss Connecticut Erin Brady in 2013The Donald Trump Veepstakes: A Cheat Sheet2016-07-01T15:00:00-04:002016-07-01T15:00:20-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-481662Chris Christie and New Gingrich are reportedly being vetted—and Trump will meet with Indiana's Governor Mike Pence.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/trump-vp-cheat-sheet/481662/?utm_source=feed

Adelman's book on Reagan.

1) On aldermen. Kenneth Adelman and his family have been long-time good friends of our family. He is an even longer-term Republican. Ken worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations and had two senior positions under Ronald Reagan: as director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and as deputy to Jeanne Kirkpatrick as ambassador to the U.N.

Ken Adelman broke with the George W. Bush administration, and with his friends of many decades Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, over the Iraq war. But still he is no one's idea of a Democratic party loyalist.

Thus I found it significant that he was quoted as you see below in a Daily Beast story yesterday about Republican national-security veterans who had drawn the line at Trump:

"Not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but also I am not voting for any Republican who endorsed or supported Trump—be it for Senate, House, alderman, or county clerk. And yes, I will vote for Clinton, simply because to not vote, or to vote Libertarian, would be a half-vote for Trump," said Ken Adelman, U.S. arms control director during the Reagan administration.

***

2) Pilate Republicans. A reader from Texas suggests an addition to my taxonomy of Republican members of The Resistance — those who like Ken Adelman are publicly standing up against Trump — versus the Vichy team, those like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell (and Marco Rubio and Reince Priebus and Jon Huntsman etc) who still officially support him. The reader writes:

Read On »
James Fallowshttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/james-fallows/?utm_source=feedPilate Republicans, Republican Aldermen2016-07-01T14:52:00-04:002016-07-01T15:49:38-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:374-4897911) On aldermen. Kenneth Adelman and his family have been long-time good friends of our family. He is an even…http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/pilate-republicans-republican-alderman/489791/?utm_source=feed
NEWS BRIEF President Obama and Congress are playing a game of hot potato.

On Friday, the president urged Congress to pass legislation to combat the Zika virus, ahead of the July 4 recess. "We have not seen the House and Senate come together in a sensible way to put forward the dollars that we have requested that have been budgeted to get the job done," Obama said, after meeting with senior officials on the matter. "I expect Congress to get this funding done before they leave for vacation, before they adjourn. That's part of their basic responsibility."

The president's remarks came after a disappointing week on the Hill, where Senate Democrats and Republicans struggled to reach a consensus on the Zika funding bill. Democrats in the Senate blocked funding, in part, because of provisions restricting funding to Planned Parenthood. As my colleague Russell Berman reported, "While the final bill does not mention Planned Parenthood specifically, it routes the money in a way that walls off the funds from family-planning clinics."

On Thursday, Senate Democrats urged their colleagues to reach an agreement during a press conference. "We are willing to compromise. We know it's an emergency," said Senator Chuck Schumer. "Where are they?" Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also vented his frustrations: "We're going on a seven-week vacation, it appears, in about eight or nine days and unless Senate Republicans come to their senses, the Zika virus will have no work done at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control."

Zika funding has been stalled in Congress for months. In February, the Obama administration requested $1.9 billion to respond to the virus, which has prompted concerns from public-health officials for the threat it poses in the Americas. A few months later, the White House repurposed $600 million in Ebola funds, although the administration and officials have insisted it's not enough. The administration's original figures of $1.9 billion has since been scaled back by the House, which passed a $1.1 billion deal last week. Still, it seems like no consensus is in sight for the Senate.

Congress is running low on time. After the July 4 recess, they will only have a few working days until the next session in September. In the meantime, a team of scientists is set to test a birdbath near Congress where a number of mosquitoes roam. They have not been tested for Zika.
Priscilla Alvarezhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/priscilla-alvarez/?utm_source=feedCarlos Barria / ReutersObama Calls for Zika Funding—Again 2016-07-01T14:35:19-04:002016-07-01T14:39:38-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489806The president urged lawmakers to pass vital legislation to combat the virus on Friday before Congress recesses for the summer.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/obama-congress-zika-funding/489806/?utm_source=feed
This past weekend, George Will revealed that he had formally disaffiliated himself from the Republican Party, switching his Maryland voter registration to independent. On Fox News Sunday, the conservative pundit explained his decision: "After Trump went after the 'Mexican' judge from northern Indiana then [House Speaker] Paul Ryan endorsed him, I decided that in fact this was not my party anymore." For 40 years, George Will defined and personified what it meant to be a thoughtful conservative. His intellect and authority inspired a generation of readers and viewers, myself very much among them.

His departure represents a powerful image of divorce between intellectual conservatism and the new Trump-led GOP. Above all, it raises a haunting question for the many other Republicans and conservatives repelled by the looming nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for president of the United States: What will you do?

Some have tried to levitate an independent conservative candidacy off the ground.

Others have speculated about writing-in Mitt Romney or spoiling their ballots.

Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is only the latest and most public former officeholder to declare a willingness to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Will's dramatic gesture, however, escalates the decision. Will is repudiating not just a single man, but the institution that accepted him—and repudiating it in a way that implies a separation lasting beyond Donald Trump's likely electoral defeat. Will's repudiation encompasses Speaker Ryan, leader of the GOP's monied wing, as much or even more than Trump himself. Has Will set an example for others to follow?

For this one registered Republican, the answer is, "No." I write my answer as a Republican even more distant from the mainstream of the party, as it has evolved since 2009, than George Will. I write, fully agreeing with Will that the looming Trump nomination represents an institutional failure: A healthy patient would not have succumbed to the opportunistic infection that is the Trump candidacy. The Republican Party is ill, and it has been ill for a long time. But quitting won't help: An American political party can only be reformed from within.

Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus were presented with an impossible problem by the rise of Donald Trump. If they enabled him, he'd lead the party to disgrace and defeat. If they battled him after he'd won the most delegates, they'd split the party—and accelerate defeat into disaster. Blame them for choosing wrong—but don't forget that the circumstances of their choice were not created by themselves, but by millions of voters, most especially the right-leaning independents allowed to vote in GOP primaries. (Trump tended to lose primaries where only registered Republicans could vote, and to win primaries open to anyone who cared to cast a ballot, except Texas and Ohio, the home states of rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich.) That old saying, "The people have spoken, the bastards," was the background fact against which all leadership decisions had to be made. Once Trump had secured the nomination, leaders had to execute a complicated strategy of hoping to lose at the top of the ticket—without in any way being seen to sabotage a nominee they disliked and distrusted—while doing their utmost to protect the rest of the ticket. And they had to execute all this in full realization that complicated strategies usually don't work.

There's a lot for which to blame Paul Ryan. His ideological radicalism from 2009 to 2015 pushed the party in directions that made it unelectable at the presidential level. The Republican rank-and-file wanted more health care and less immigration; the GOP congressional leadership consistently offered exactly the opposite. It opened the market opportunity that Donald Trump exploited. Arguably too, some of its members also allowed their personal animosity to Ted Cruz to sway them against supporting the last available alternative to Trump. (Not that Cruz helped. If Cruz had asked them to put aside their personal feelings, and do what's best for the party and the country, they might plausibly have replied: "When did you ever do that?")

Yet in the end, Trump is a creature not of the congressional leadership, or the Republican elite, but of the voters upon whom any future center-right presidential candidacy must be based. One can disavow Trump. But if one disavows Trump's voters, one has effectively surrendered any hope of a center-right alternative in national politics.

I'll concede: If you define your right-of-center politics as anti-statist politics, maybe you don't care. The big reveal of 2016 (it was visible to see for much longer than that of course, as I've been arguing since 1994) is that Republican voters aren't anti-statists. People who aspire to lead those voters must recognize that fact and respond to it. If your principles won't allow you to do that, then you belong not in a political party organized to compete for power, but in an intellectual movement aimed at influencing elites. That's not a criticism, by the way! Such intellectual movements can change the world, as the environmentalists have done, and the gay rights movement, and gun advocates. Libertarians have won arguments in the past (deregulation of transportation), and they may win arguments in the future (marijuana legalization). But while such movements can shape and bend politics, they cannot form it, because they are inspired by a unitary ideological doctrine and most human beings are not. True parties must be run by politicians, and politicians must make concessions to the refractory and contradictory demands of non-ideological voters.

You support one party or another, if you do, because you share enough beliefs with enough other people that you can accept all the ways that those people also differ with you. If I had $100 for every time a fellow-Republican has ordered me to just go ahead and call myself a Democrat, I'd have more cash on hand than the Donald J. Trump for President campaign at the end of the last reporting period. I've disagreed with most of my party's domestic program since 2009. I favored making a deal on universal health coverage. (Universal health coverage is not a human right, but in an advanced wealthy democracy, the lack of it is a great human wrong.) I thought it was futile to keep trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act once passed. I favored monetary and fiscal stimulus to mitigate the Great Recession. In a slow-growing and increasingly inegalitarian society, it becomes more necessary to preserve the existing American social insurance system: shutting down the government—or even more horrifyingly, threatening to default on America's obligations—seemed to me a reckless and dangerous means by which to pursue unachievable and undesirable ends.

But I look to the Republican party as the party more sympathetic to creative business enterprise, more respectful of work and achievement, more cautious about social experiments such as mass migration, and more committed to preserving American world leadership. So I stay. And when people who claim to be the membership committee tell me that I've flunked some ideological purity test, I reply that I don't accept their jurisdiction.

Not everybody needs to belong to a political party, of course. There's a credible case that writers and intellectuals, in particular, should not belong to one: American public discussion is too often deformed by rote repetition of party talking points from people who should be thinking for themselves.

But politics in a democracy is inherently a team sport, and parties are the most important of the teams in the game. Team sports never offer the option of playing alongside only people you like. To effect sustained political change, you have to build broad coalitions. Tea Party Republicans invested great energy in the first Obama term trying to drive out of the party all who dissented from their extremist minority program. They largely succeeded. They built just what they wanted: an extremist minority party. Their hope—and Paul Ryan was very much a proponent of this fantasy—was that they could mobilize a majority coalition for a minority program. To their surprise (but nobody else's), they have failed. The mission ahead for conservative Americans is to open up their closed ideology enough to attract a majority that agrees on some things, but not on everything. Governing parties can never be doctrinaire parties—and a better memory of the actual record of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher confirms the observation.

Broadening the coalition does not imply unwavering loyalism to every bad party decision. George Meany's AFL-CIO declined to endorse George McGovern for president in 1972. What it does mean is remembering that a party is more than its presidential nominee, more even than its organization and its organizational leadership. It's a vast national network of men and women inspired by a shared ideal and impelled by common interests. Those networks are not easily built, and they are even less easily replaced.

And if they are replaced, any new network would soon become as messy and inconsistent as the previous, because that's the nature of political networks in a vast, complex, continent-spanning society. To say, "We'll blow up the Republican Party, and build in its place a new party under a new name that would never do anything like nominate Donald Trump" is to mistake the problem. If the new party is open to the same members as the old, it will replicate the behaviors of the old. And if the promise is that the new party will not replicate old bad behaviors because it is purer and more principled, that implies that it will also be smaller and even less competitive than the old.

Much easier than reconstruction of a new network is migration from one network to another. Much of the recent history of American politics is the history of these kinds of political plate tectonics: urban ethnics drifting from the Democrats to the Republicans and suburban professionals drifting from the Republicans to the Democrats; southern conservatives moving one way, northern liberals the other. Barry Goldwater's 1964 electoral map looks like Al Smith's of 1928, only turned upside down. Alf Landon's best state in 1936, Vermont, was Barack Obama's best state in 2008, after his native Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The term "neoconservative" was applied to a band of Democratic-oriented thinkers and writers who crossed the aisle to support Richard Nixon against George McGovern. With few exceptions (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ben Wattenberg), they never returned to their original political home. The process endlessly repeats itself. I know more than a few Republicans who cast a Democratic ballot in 2004 to protest the Iraq war, then did it again in 2008 in reaction against the Sarah Palin vice presidential nomination, and only after that realized they had discovered or created a new identity for themselves.

None of this is to rationalize a vote for Donald Trump in November 2016. I won't cast such a vote.

But once safely excluded from the presidency, Donald Trump will no longer matter. His voters, however, will. There is no conservative future without them. There is no quitting the questions: How to win them back? How to deliver them solutions that will actually improve their lives? How to speak to other Americans too, enough to form a presidential majority again? How to remain true to core convictions while emancipating a great national party from the radical dogmas and crass self-seeking of a narrow-minded few? Hard questions all. The right answers win the right to govern—a right more precious and more precarious than all the grim consolations of "I told you so."
David Frumhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-frum/?utm_source=feedJim Young / ReutersI'm Still a Republican—and I'll Fight to Reclaim My Party2016-07-01T13:19:10-04:002016-07-01T13:19:10-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489779George Will is denouncing a GOP that has been ailing for years, but quitting won't help—an American political party can only be reformed from within.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/david-frum-gop/489779/?utm_source=feed
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch isn't explicitly calling her private meeting with Bill Clinton earlier this week a mistake. She won't say that she should have kicked the former president off her plane when he boarded it for a brief chat at the Phoenix airport, even though her department is leading an investigation into whether Clinton's wife or her aides committed a crime by mishandling classified material.

Nevertheless, Lynch has pledged to heed the guidance of federal prosecutors and investigators regarding whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a personal email server as secretary of state. The announcement—a display of deference from someone who retains the final say on whether to pursue an indictment against Clinton—is meant to dispel the perception of political meddling in a decision that could very well influence the outcome of the presidential election.

"I fully expect to accept" the recommendations of FBI and Justice Department investigators and prosecutors, Lynch said at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. She added that she would not be recusing herself from the case for a possible conflict of interest, as some Republicans have demanded, meaning she would still be briefed on the findings of the investigation and the suggested next steps.

Moderator Jonathan Capehart sought to clarify what precisely Lynch meant by "accept."

"Accepting to me means, 'Here Madame Attorney General: Here are our findings.' And you completely accept them wholeheartedly and then issue them to the public," he said. "Or you accept them, look them over, and then make your own determination as to what the final determination will be."

"No, the final determination as to how to proceed will be contained within the recommendations and the report in whatever format the team puts it together," Lynch said. "That has not been resolved."

Lynch outlined how the investigation will proceed, though she didn't specify a timeline or what might happen if the FBI and Justice Department come up with different recommendations: "The matter is being handled by career agents and investigators with the Department of Justice. … They are acting independently. They follow the law, they follow the facts. That team will make findings—that is to say, they will come up with a chronology of what happened, the factual scenario, they will make recommendations as to how to resolve what those facts lead to. The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, and by the FBI director. And then, as is the common process, they present it to me."

She emphasized that the process would be led by "career" officials who aren't politically appointed. (Lynch was appointed as attorney general by President Obama, and previously appointed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York by President Bill Clinton.) These officials, she noted, "live from administration to administration."

Lynch said the process disclosed on Friday has been planned for some time, though she also suggested that the meeting with Clinton precipitated her announcement.

"We … don't typically talk about the process by which we make decisions … but in this situation, because I did have that meeting, it has raised concerns, I feel," she said. "And while I can certainly say this matter's going to be handled like any other, as it has always been, it's going to be resolved like any other, as it was always going to be, I think people need the information about exactly how that resolution will come about in order to know what that means and really accept that and have faith in the ultimate decision of the Department of Justice."

Lynch characterized her tete-a-tete with Clinton as a "social meeting" in which Lynch, her husband, and Clinton discussed Clinton's grandchildren, his travels, and former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. (Lynch has previously said the meeting wasn't planned.)

"No matter how I viewed it, I understand how people view it," Lynch said. "And I think that because of that, and because of the fact that it has now cast a shadow over how this case may be perceived, no matter how it's resolved, it's important to talk about how it will be resolved. It's important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter's going to be reviewed, resolved, and accepted by me. Because that is the question that it raises."

"You'd be well within your right to say, 'Um, get off my plane. What are you doing here?'" Capehart responded. "Do you regret not telling the former president of the United States to leave the premises?" The audience, and Lynch, laughed.

"I may have viewed it in a certain light, but the issue is how does it impact the work that I do and the work that the Department of Justice does?" Lynch answered. "And I certainly wouldn't do it again. … The most important thing for me, as the attorney general, is the integrity of this Department of Justice."
Uri Friedmanhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/uri-friedman/?utm_source=feedNancy Wiechec / ReutersLoretta Lynch: 'I Certainly Wouldn't Do It Again'2016-07-01T13:15:50-04:002016-07-01T13:40:29-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489770The nation's top law-enforcement official speaks out on her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, and how she'll handle the investigation of Hillary Clinton.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/loretta-lynch-clinton-email/489770/?utm_source=feed
Either you'll immediately get why this is crazy, or you won't: Hillary Clinton wrote a thing for The Toast today.

Are you weeping? Did your heart skip a beat? Maybe your reaction was, "What. Whaaaat. WHAT," or "Aaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!" or "OH MY GOD," or simply "this is too much goodbye I'm dead now."

Perhaps your feelings can only be captured in GIF form, as was the case for someone commenting on Clinton's post under the name Old_Girl:

Reader comments like the ones above are arguably the best part of Clinton's post, because they highlight just how meaningful hearing directly from Clinton is to The Toast's community of readers. The Toast is a small but beloved feminist website known for its quirky literary humor. It announced last month it couldn't afford to continue operating. Friday is its last day of publication.

"I know that today is the final day of The Toast, and I wanted to take a moment to reflect on what this space—and spaces like it—mean for women …" Clinton wrote. "As we look back at what this site has meant to so many of you, I hope you'll also look forward and consider how you might make your voice heard in whatever arenas matter most to you."

For the people who haven't reacted with some variation of "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "what's a toast?" there have been observations about how deeply weird it is to see Clinton pop up on a relatively small site with a seemingly personal message. It'd be a little like having her show up at the bar, scooch into the booth with your group of friends, and ask to try a sip of your IPA.

Or, you know, like having her do a cameo on Broad City, a show made by (and starring) women who occupy a similarly Toast-esque space. (Clinton appeared on the show in March.) Many Toast readers are likely already Clinton supporters, but they're also more likely to be in the younger demographic of women who aren't as enthusiastic about her as their mothers and grandmothers are. In fact, one poll found most Americans don't view Clinton's nomination for the presidency as historic—despite her being the first woman to clinch a major party's nomination in U.S. history—a position that's particularly pronounced among young people. A whopping 71 percent of people under age 30 said Clinton securing the Democratic nomination was not a "historic moment." These are the voters Clinton needs, and she knows it.

Just the way the internet has made the micro-targeting of niche audiences possible in every other way—tracking ads that follow you with images of the products you've googled, for example—political campaigning in the 21st century has followed suit. Clinton's byline on The Toast is an extension of "delete your account." It takes personalized campaign emails to the next level. (Incidentally, the greatest thing I ever read about those emails appeared on The Hairpin, the site where The Toast's founders met. "Subject Lines of Obama Campaign Emails That Sound Like a Stalker Wrote Them," by my now-colleague Julie Beck.)

It's essentially this: Hillary Clinton doesn't just (hire people who) know the inside jokes to use on Twitter, she knows the inside jokes on Weird Twitter. And this is an attitude that reflects her campaign's larger strategy; a bet that the so-called "national conversation" isn't the thing that will carry Clinton to victory in the general election, as Emily Schultheis put it last year. Instead, her campaign is betting on making more intimate connections with small groups of voters, "the persona she builds in key areas, and the buzz she generates with local activists." For anyone who has seen Clinton engage with a small crowd—and how warm and funny she can be, contrary to popular opinion—this approach will make sense. Clinton's campaign has emphasized the importance of "meeting people where they are," and it turns out that some of those people are online reading The Toast.

Writing for a small dying website may seem strange, but that's the brilliance of the niche campaign play in the 2016 election: You trade little effort for slightly more reward. Hitting up high-profile donors at a fancy-shmancy dinner takes quite a bit of time and energy on the part of a candidate. Writing (or, not to be too cynical here, but maybe even just green-lighting) a heartfelt statement for a beloved website takes far less time. Readers of The Toast may not produce a windfall in campaign donations, but if Clinton can convert some of the site's readers into contributors, it will have been worth the time.

"I HAVE NEVER BEEN PANDERED TO SO EFFECTIVELY BEFORE," one commenter wrote.

And in a tweet from Nicole Cliffe, one of The Toast's founders: "turns out that pandering to ME by NAME doesn't feel like pandering and now I am Team Hillary, let's get our lady president." In a comment on the site, she added: "Asking if Hillary wanted to receive her fifty dollar freelancing payment via check or PayPal was one of the best moments of my life."
Adrienne LaFrancehttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/adrienne-lafrance/?utm_source=feedKevin Lamarque / ReutersWhy (a Little Corner of) the Internet Is Losing Its Mind Right Now2016-07-01T11:46:12-04:002016-07-01T13:00:05-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489755Hillary Clinton wrote something for The Toast today. Are you sobbing yet?http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/07/clinton-the-toast/489755/?utm_source=feed
Indiana's new abortion law is both on trend with the rest of the country and totally distinctive. In March, the state legislature passed a law that primarily does two things: First, it prohibits abortions at any stage that are sought on the basis of the fetus's sex, race, or other identity factors, or because of potential genetic abnormalities. Second, it requires that fetal remains are buried or cremated, rather than disposed as medical waste.

Planned Parenthood, the major abortion provider in the state, challenged the law, along with the American Civil Liberties Union. On Thursday, a district-court judge, Tanya Walton Pratt, blocked the law from going into effect, which was set to happen on July 1. Her decision suggests that Planned Parenthood will eventually succeed in its challenge to the law, part of a recent trend of federal courts striking down laws that seek to regulate abortion procedures and target abortion providers. If her predictions are correct, the courts will get to sidestep significant bioethical questions in considering this case, essentially because Indiana's law is written too vaguely. But that doesn't mean the questions are going away.

The main problem with HEA 1337, as the law is known, is that it seeks to limit the reasons why a woman could get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, including before the fetus is viable. As Carol Sanger, a professor at Columbia Law School, pointed out during an interview in April, the United States is different from some other countries that permit abortions, including the U.K.: Women are not required to give their reasons for seeking an abortion. That means this law would be difficult to enforce—doctors might only discover that a woman wants to abort her girl or her Down Syndrome baby if it comes up in conversation, for example.

But according to Pratt, the law is not only untenable—it's probably also illegal. Those provisions "directly contravene the principle established in Roe v. Wade," she writes. "A state may not prohibit a woman from making the ultimate decision to have an abortion prior to fetal viability."

The measure about burial and cremation is a bit more complicated. As Pratt points out, Planned Parenthood's "challenges to the fetal tissue disposition provisions present a much closer call and present difficult legal questions about which there are few clear answers." This is partly because burial laws vary widely state by state and the body of law on this topic is fuzzy. As Tanya Marsh, a law professor at Wake Forest, put it in April, "The question of what we own of ourselves—what is the legal status of biological material that's been removed from us—there's very little law about that, except to say that it's not ours."

What might eventually doom this part of the law is not the regulation itself, which, as Pratt points out, was democratically enacted. Rather, the language legislators used, essentially asserting that fetuses are human, led Pratt to doubt that Indiana has a legitimate interest in creating these requirements. "The state's asserted interest in treating fetal remains with the dignity of human remains is not legitimate given that the law does not recognize a fetus as a person," she said.

This injunction comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the justices roundly condemned a Texas law that placed heavy restrictions on abortion clinics. That law was significantly different from Indiana's—it required facilities to have the capabilities of an ambulatory surgical center, and doctors who perform the procedure had to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a certain distance. But the rationale behind the majority's opinion seemed directed at legislation like Indiana's, and those in many other states: Incremental regulations on abortion providers and procedures cannot fundamentally restrict women's ability to get an abortion.

And yet, Pratt acknowledged that some of the questions raised by Indiana's law are morally complicated. "To be clear, whether or not an individual views fetal tissue as essentially the same as human remains is each person's own personal and moral decision," she wrote. "The Court cannot resolve this moral question." As a matter of law, she added, courts have no basis to recognize fetal tissue as human.

This, along with the moral questions raised by abortions based on sex or genetic abnormalities, could possibly get raised in future cases, particularly if a state were to pass a law that doesn't interfere with pre-viability abortions. It's even possible that the judge who hears the full case against Indiana will disagree with Pratt and let the law stand, although that seems unlikely. For now, Indiana's law may meet the same fate as Texas's, along with restrictions pending in other states. But it has set the stage for a new kind of abortion legislation: Bills that are primarily concerned with conferring human rights on fetuses, including protection from discrimination and the dignity of a ritualized death.
Emma Greenhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/emma-green/?utm_source=feedMichael Conroy / APProtesters at a rally to celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade at the Indiana statehouse in 2003 Indiana Tried To Raise Ethical Challenges to Abortion, but Will Probably Fail2016-07-01T10:58:59-04:002016-07-01T10:58:59-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489746An injunction against the state's distinctive fetal-abnormality law suggests this won't be the legislation that forces courts to grapple with bioethics.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/indiana-tried-to-raise-ethical-challenges-to-abortion-but-will-probably-fail/489746/?utm_source=feed

A reader gets to the heart of the internal tension on the left when it comes to transgenderism:

I am confused by some of the ideological positions of gender progressives, and would appreciate if some of your readers can clarify an apparent contradiction.

On one hand, we are told that gender is simply a social construct; that there is no such thing as a "male brain" or "female brain," as we all exist on a spectrum; and that we should break out of the rigid "binary" modes of thinking about male and female, allowing for a broader range of personal expression. This makes some intuitive sense: Men should be able to enjoy ballet and poetry and child-rearing without being cast as effeminate and unmanly, just as women who eschew oppressive standards of feminine beauty and sexuality are still women. A man or a woman is simply one who possesses male or female chromosomes and (except in rare cases) the corresponding sex organs.

But the transgender movement seems to disagree. It argues that a person who conforms outwardly to socially conditioned, feminine gender roles is actually and truly a woman, irrespective of sex, while a person who adopts stereotypical male behaviours and dress is actually and truly a man. How regressive!

Read On »
Chris Bodennerhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/chris-bodenner/?utm_source=feedWhat Makes a Man or a Woman?2016-07-01T09:55:00-04:002016-07-01T11:30:40-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:374-489503A reader gets to the heart of the internal tension on the left when it comes to transgenderism…http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2016/04/a-good-faith-debate-about-transgender-rights/489326/?utm_source=feed#note-489503
Why doesn't anyone care about Mississippi?

This spring, the state's legislature passed H.B. 1523, an extensive law written to protect people who believe any of the following: that marriage is between a man and a woman; that sex should only happen in the context of marriage; and that the words "male" and "female" refer to "an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth." The law claim these protections are a form of religious freedom.

It provides that religious organizations can refuse to rent out their social halls for a same-sex wedding, for example, and that clergy can refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. These groups can also fire a single mother who gets pregnant, or, in the case of religious adoption agencies, decline to place a child with a same-sex couple. Doctors and psychologists can refuse to get involved with gender-reassignment procedures or take cases that would violate their religious beliefs. Schools and other public agencies can create "sex-specific standards" for dress code, bathrooms, and more. State employees can also refuse to sign same-sex-marriage licenses, and they can't be fired for saying they believe homosexuality is wrong, for example.

It is, without a doubt, the most extensive legislation of its kind to be passed into law since the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex-marriage decision one year ago. And for the most part, the country has been silent.

Now, a federal judge has blocked the law from going into effect, which was set to happen on July 1. Carlton W. Reeves, a Texas native who grew up in Yazoo City, Mississippi, and was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama in 2010, had some choice words for his fellow Southerners. "In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In politics, every action has its predictable overreaction," he wrote. The Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, "has led to HB 1523. The next chapter of this back-and-forth has begun."

Mississippi is not alone in passing protections for religious individuals, clergy, and state employees; during the past year, state legislatures around the country have considered and occasionally passed their own, less extensive versions of this kind of legislation. North Carolina is now fighting the federal government over H.B. 2, a law that prohibits special public accommodations from being made for transgender people, including in public bathrooms. This spring, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would have potentially allowed religious organizations to refuse service to LGBT people. Kentucky recently revised the layout of its marriage license, following the controversy over Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who refused to sign her name or attach the seal of her office to same-sex-marriage licenses. These are just a few of the many states where putative religious-freedom legislation has been drafted in the wake of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The difference, though is that those states have all gotten significant national attention, including widespread protests and boycotts, in the wake of their legislation. As The New York Times noted on Friday, "given its lack of Fortune 500 headquarters and its uncontested conservative political landscape, Mississippi did not face the same broad backlash as North Carolina did after passing a law restricting bathroom access for transgender people," for example.

The law is significant for the state and the country, though, not least because of its parallels to Mississippi's history. Reeves, who is black, drew a direct line between Mississippi's new putative religious-freedom law and the state's racist past. He compared Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant's statement in opposition to Obergefell to those of the 1950s-era Governor J.P. Colman, who wrote that Brown v. Board of Education "represents an unwarranted invasion of the rights and powers of the states." That kind of rationale is a distraction; on its face, this new law is discriminatory, he wrote. "A layperson reading about the bill might conclude that it gives a green light to discrimination and prevents accountability for discriminatory acts."

Reeves pointed out that the law privileges the particular teachings of a few specific religious groups, which violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. But the decision reads as though he almost couldn't help himself from going one step further: He seems to relish the contradictions in a law that sets certain biblical precepts as a matter of law, while ignoring others. Footnote after footnote cites Bible verses—all from the King James Version, he specifically notes—with which this law seems to conflict. For example: "The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 ('Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination') versus Leviticus 21:14 ('A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take')." He points out that state legislators have failed to encode biblical principles into state law on other issues:

No state law explicitly allows persons to decline to serve a payday lender based on a religious belief that payday lending violates Deuteronomy 23:19. No state law explicitly allows recusals because of a belief that wearing "a garment mingled of linen and wool" is forbidden. Leviticus 19:19. If a marriage license was withheld for "foolish talking" or "jesting," see Ephesians 5:4, we would undoubtedly have many fewer marriages.

Most importantly, he pushed back on the idea that this law represents or protects all Christians or all religious people. Several of the plaintiffs who are challenging H.B. 1523 are themselves pastors or other clergy who say the law does not represent, and even violates, their beliefs. As Reeves wrote, this has an interesting parallel to the history of the Establishment Clause.

Given the pervasiveness of Christianity here, some Mississippians might consider it fitting to have explicitly Christian laws and policies. They also might think that the Establishment Clause is a technicality that lets atheists and members of minority religions thwart their majority (Christian) rule. The public may be surprised to know the true origins of the Establishment Clause. As chronicled by the Supreme Court, history reveals that the Clause was not originally intended to protect atheists and members of minority faiths. It was written to protect Christians from other Christians.

Reeves's injunction hinted at the way jurisprudence on this kind of law might develop in the coming months and years. Reeves justified blocking the enactment of H.B. 1523 for a number of reasons, but he specifically cited its alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Citing Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, two landmark cases from the late 1990s and early 2000s that helped establish precedent for protecting gay rights under the 14th Amendment, he said the new Mississippi law "must be treated as 'suspect' and subject to strict scrutiny." He pointed out that CEOs, arts groups, and the state's tourism agencies have expressed concerns about the law's impact and even instituted boycott. "The public interest is served by bringing this boycott to an end," he said.

Moreover, he noted, this law would trample on the ability of cities and localities to write their own public-accommodations protections—including Jackson, where the city council unanimously passed a comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinance that includes gender orientation and sexual identity in June, seemingly in defiance of the state legislature that's housed in there.

Because it is so extensive, the Mississippi law asserts a number of rights for its religious citizens that other states have only tentatively considered. In particular, its protections for doctors and psychologists who don't want to treat LGBT patients is complicated. As I wrote back in April,

Doctors and therapists interact with people at their most vulnerable, and their training and expertise gives them incredible power over patients. The advice they provide—or refuse to provide—to an LGBT patient could influence the treatment that person seeks. It could make that person less likely to seek primary care or identify themselves as LGBT to other doctors.

Many aspects of this law are redundant or unnecessary. Clergy, for example, could never be forced by the state to perform wedding ceremonies against their religious beliefs. This law matters not just for its potential negative effects on LGBT Americans, but also for its symbolism. As Reeves wrote, "the title, text, and history of HB 1523 indicate that the bill was the State's attempt to put LGBT citizens back in their place after Obergefell." The judge wrote not as an outsider, swooping in to condemn the bigotry of those in the South. He wrote as Mississippian addressing his fellow state citizens—a black man born in 1964, now a federal judge who can stand up for other Americans who, by state law, have been given "second-class status."
Emma Greenhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/emma-green/?utm_source=feedRogelio V. Solis / AP Mississippi Governor Phil BryantWhy Mississippi's Law on Religious Rights and LGBT Discrimination Got Blocked 2016-07-01T09:41:59-04:002016-07-01T10:56:10-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489731In a 60-page ruling, a U.S. district-court judge stopped enforcement of a law providing religious exemptions for LGBT discrimination.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/why-mississippis-law-on-religious-rights-and-lgbt-got-blocked/489731/?utm_source=feed
On Wednesday on CNN, Marco Rubio said the Islamic State, which Turkish officials believe carried out this week's attack at Istanbul's Ataturk airport, had two motivations. First, "they ultimately want them to be a part of the caliphate." Sure, but "ultimately," ISIS wants every place on earth to be part of its caliphate. That doesn't explain why the organization struck Turkey now. Rubio's second explanation was more convincing: "They're looking to punish Turkey for allowing U.S. airstrikes to be conducted from an airbase within Turkey. … They've made that abundantly clear."

Yes, they have. ISIS may eventually wish to conquer the entire world. But in the here and now, it generally attacks countries that are attacking it. The Georgetown University terrorism expert Daniel Byman has noted that until the U.S. and its allies began bombing the Islamic State in the summer of 2014, the group "focused first and foremost on its immediate theater of operations" in Iraq and Syria. A study by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment detected only four ISIS-related plots in the West from January 2011 to May 2014. Then, between July 2014 and June 2015, the number spiked to 26.

Which raises a question: Why do Rubio and his fellow conservatives keep claiming that ISIS attacks the West because it "hates our freedom?" If this week's attack in Istanbul constituted clear retaliation against Turkish participation in the anti-ISIS war, the motivation for the Islamic State's attack in Paris last November was equally straightforward. Two months before the attacks, France had expanded its anti-ISIS airstrikes into Syria. One week before, France had announced it was sending an aircraft carrier to launch raids against the organization from the Persian Gulf. After the Paris attacks, ISIS declared, "Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake part in the crusader campaign … and boast about their war against Islam in France, and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets."

Yet when ISIS attacked Paris, Rubio said nothing about retaliation against French bombing in Iraq and Syria. To the contrary, he insisted that, "[T]hey do not hate us because we have military assets in the Middle East. They hate us because of our values. They hate us because young girls here go to school. They hate us because women drive. They hate us because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs. They hate us because we're a tolerant society."

After the Orlando shooting, Rubio responded similarly. He blamed the shooter's "warped view of his religion" and "the views that exist in the radical Islamic community with regard to the gay community." For his part, Ted Cruz said ISIS attacked Orlando because "their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American." Donald Trump explained the attack by observing that, "radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American." None of these GOP poobahs even mentioned the motivation Rubio offered for the Istanbul attack: that ISIS was retaliating against America for its military intervention in Syria and Iraq. They didn't mention it even though Omar Mateen had told a 911 operator during the shooting that America's bombing in Iraq and Syria was the reason he was "out here right now."

Don't get me wrong. Mateen was clearly a pathological homophobe and ISIS clearly loathes gay rights and many other freedoms that people in America and France enjoy. But if ISIS attacked countries out of antipathy towards "tolerant society," why last October did it down an airliner from Vladimir Putin's distinctly intolerant Russia? Why this week did it strike Turkey, a country whose government is so intolerant than it responded to the attack by blocking access to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? And why hasn't it struck Sweden, New Zealand, Costa Rica, or any number of liberal democracies that aren't at war in Syria and Iraq?

When it comes to Turkey, Rubio sees ISIS terrorism as a geopolitical act, a way of striking back at a country with which the organization is at war. But when it comes to the United States and its Western European allies, he shuns that logic in favor of a purely ideological explanation: ISIS terrorists are motivated by "radical Islam." Thus, he and other conservatives pretend that America is innocent. Turkey gets attacked because America is bombing Syria and Iraq from its territory. But America itself gets attacked because it's the land of the free.

The mid-20th century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote that, "America was menaced as much by its own pretensions to virtue as it was by world disorder." Niebuhr was no pacifist, nor did he draw a moral equivalence between the U.S. and Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR. But he urged American leaders to acknowledge that even in just wars, "tyranny [is] defeated with instruments tainted by evil."

The United States has intervened militarily to prevent ISIS from conquering Iraq and Syria. In that effort, it has carried out more than 10,000 air strikes—strikes that kill many people but go largely unnoticed in the American press. America's current war may be justified. But America is not innocent. By pretending it is, Rubio and other politicians mislead Americans about the reasons for ISIS terrorism. And they prevent an honest debate about the costs and benefits of America's war.
Peter Beinarthttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/peter-beinart/?utm_source=feedMurad Sezer / ReutersISIS Attacks Aren't About 'Hating Freedom'2016-07-01T09:37:32-04:002016-07-01T09:40:31-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489728If they were, Turkey wouldn't be a target.http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/isis-turkey-freedom/489728/?utm_source=feed
NEWS BRIEF If the FBI and federal prosecutors in the Justice Department decide to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Attorney General Loretta Lynch won't stop them.

Lynch plans to announce later Friday at the Aspen Ideas Festival that she will accept the recommendations of career prosecutors leading the Clinton investigation, according to several reports. The news comes after the disclosure that Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard her government plane at the Phoenix airport—a chat that drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike for giving off the appearance of impropriety at a time when the Justice Department is investigating his wife. Lynch has said her meeting with Bill Clinton was unplanned and purely social.

Related Story

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Yet while a Justice Department official told The New York Times that Lynch was moving toward this decision, the controversy over the meeting essentially forced her hand, and the timing of her comments is clearly aimed at reassuring the public that politics won't interfere with the department's handling of the Clinton inquiry.

The attorney general typically would have the final say over whether prosecutors seek an indictment in such a high-profile case involving a former senior Cabinet official. The Times noted that Lynch's predecessor, Eric Holder, chose to overrule prosecutors who wanted to bring felony charges against former CIA Director David Petraeus, reducing the charge to a misdemeanor in a case involving the mishandling of classified material.

Lynch is not formally recusing herself and won't agree to demands from some Republicans, including Senator John Cornyn of Texas, that she appoint a special counsel in the Clinton case. The FBI has yet to interview Clinton, who has said she hopes the investigation is completed soon.
Russell Bermanhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/russell-berman/?utm_source=feedCliff Owen / APLoretta Lynch Says She Won't Intervene to Save Hillary Clinton2016-07-01T09:06:12-04:002016-07-01T09:06:12-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489725The attorney general reportedly plans to announce that she will accept the recommendations of federal prosecutors investigating the former secretary of state and her use of a private email server.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/loretta-lynch-says-she-wouldnt-save-hillary-clinton/489725/?utm_source=feed
Marcus Bullock is an incarceration-reform advocate who launched a painting company after his 2004 release from prison. As well, he is the founder and CEO of an app, Flikshop, that enables the imprisoned to receive email. Asked what proposition ought to be subject to more debate, he focused on the fate of criminals.

He wrote:

In 1996, when I was arrested for a carjacking that was committed the night before, I never knew the difference between violent and non-violent crimes.

I mean, using obvious context clues, even my then 15-year-old brain could figure out the probable definitions. But on a surface level, most of the guys that I hung around in the neighborhoods where I grew up could probably testify to the same thing: if you commit a crime and get caught, you're going to jail. Period. No classification. No levels. There was murder, and then there was everything else. It never dawned on any of us during the nights that drug deals, riding in stolen cars, or being in a car with someone during a robbery were separate in the eyes of sentencing guidelines.

Yup, there was a difference.

Non-violent Offenders versus Violent Offenders. The judges knew it when they sentenced me. The jail knew it when they assessed me and placed me in a separate wing of the facility. The prisons knew it when they transferred me to maximum security facilities. My probation officer even knew it when she was instructed to supervise me intensively for 10 years after my release. Even as I read about Obama's pardons this year, the headlines were sure to overstate that the pardons were only for non-violent offenders. As someone who was committed as a violent offender, I have to ask myself the question: Would my judge, prison psychologists, or probation officer have treated me differently had the police arrested me for the marijuana that we were consuming a few hours before the carjacking?

Same Marcus. Same night.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe the ramped up rehabilitation discussion should only be limited to non-violent guys. Maybe the longer sentences and throw-away-the-key rule still applies.But then I read the stats surrounding recidivism rates.

And I learn that 95% of these guys are coming home one day.

Are we forgetting about a large population of returning citizens when we only address the needs of non-violent offenders? Does the classification of non-violent vs. violent offenders effect reentry? The verdict is still out; but if I were to describe a fear of mine within CJ Reform conversations, it would be that of forgetting about inclusion of those like me whom were sentenced to punishment and not rehabilitation.

My colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates touched on related themes in his October article on mass incarceration.

Bullock is a speaker this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. Email firstname.lastname@example.com to comment on his perspective.
Conor Friedersdorfhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/conor-friedersdorf/?utm_source=feedJim Young / ReutersWhat About Convicts of Violent Crimes?2016-07-01T07:00:00-04:002016-07-01T07:00:13-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489719An incarceration-reform advocate and former inmate makes the case for broader rehabilitation efforts.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/what-about-convicts-of-violent-crimes/489719/?utm_source=feed
Health care, like just about everything in Alaska, is expensive. The official poverty threshold for a family of four in Alaska is $6,000 higher than that of the contiguous states, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that families require an additional $70,000 per year to live in the same above-poverty standard as those who make four times the poverty threshold or more in the contiguous states. Per-person health-care spending in 2009 was the third-highest in the country—over $2,000 more than the national average—and comparable to spending in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., which are known for having broad and expensive health-care programs. In prior years, Alaskans have had among the highest premiums for employer and individual market insurance.

It might not be a surprise to learn that Alaskans are much more likely to be uninsured than most other Americans. They are also more likely to live in remote areas and more likely to be people of color than those in the continental United States. They're precisely the sort of population that the Affordable Care Act was designed to serve by expanding coverage, expanding access to health care, and making health care cheaper. But instead of proving the usefulness of health reform, the new health infrastructure in the state is quietly failing.

While residents and policymakers in other states are anxious about Obamacare exchange premium hikes, competition, and sign-ups for healthy people, Alaska's exchange has perhaps already fallen into the dreaded "death spiral." Only a handful of insurers remained in the market in 2015, and their premiums increased by up to 40 percent from 2015 to 2016. Most people who select plans on the health-insurance exchanges are protected from feeling premium increases because of tax-credit subsidies, but thousands more in Alaska don't qualify for those subsidies and have to pay the full costs. Rising premiums also reflect rising costs for insurers and the federal government. Premiums that rise this sharply are symptoms of dysfunction of the overall state system.

This year has been and will be even worse than the last. All of the insurers save one will exit Alaska's exchange market in 2017, leaving Premera Blue Cross—which suffered heavy losses in 2015—as the only remaining insurance option for people seeking coverage through the exchanges. State Republican lawmakers scrambled this June to divert a $55 million fund from taxes on insurance premiums to shore up the market, essentially bailing out Premera Blue Cross to make way for one more year of coverage. For its part, the insurer has said it is committed to the market. But the underlying financial issues of the exchange haven't been fixed, and someone—whether it be insurers, the Alaska government, the federal government, individual beneficaries themselves, or a combination of all parties—will be footing increasing bills to cover those financial losses.

What happens if Premera Blue Cross leaves, or if it uses its practical monopoly to make premiums too high to afford? Alaska, a red state that has been resistant to the optional liberal reform of expanded Medicaid for poor childless adults, would be the first state to implement a state-administered private plan—a public option. A couple of other states have created quasi-public options in Basic Health Plans, which provide subsidized care for a small sliver of low-income people, but if Alaska were forced to administer its own exchange plan it would immediately be the largest and most liberal such experiment nationwide. Given the cost difficulties that have already existed for private insurers that have been around in private markets for years, that option would be questionably feasible and unquestionably expensive for Alaska.

The underlying problems that have gutted Alaska's exchanges are also threats elsewhere. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that rural regions, counties, and states are more likely to have single-insurer markets than their metropolitan counterparts and have faster-growing premiums. The main reason for these differences is that rural citizens tend to be sicker than city-dwellers. Health-insurance markets may also be too sparse in rural areas to provide the critical mass of enrollees needed to balance risks. Local rural provider monopolies may not be keen on working with insurers and weaker health-provider infrastructure in rural areas may discourage sign-ups. Each of these problems could become endemic to any state with a significant rural population; indeed Alabama also only has one exchange insurer. With premiums expected to rise nationally and the loss of "risk corridors" as a federally-funded backstop against runaway premium increases, Alaska's fate might be a possibility for some other rural states.

But Alaska is a unique state, and its combination of naturally high costs, rurality, and remoteness is not replicated anywhere in the continental United States. Although it could presage difficulties for other state exchanges, it is just as likely that it is an unreachable extreme. Regardless, it will be an example to watch in figuring out how well the Affordable Care Act works—and how to fix it.
Vann R. Newkirk IIhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/vann-newkirk/?utm_source=feedJon Elswick / APHealth Care Falters on the Last Frontier2016-07-01T06:00:00-04:002016-07-01T06:00:10-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489599Officials are struggling to make health-care reform work in Alaska. Does it hold lessons for the rest of the country?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/alaska-health-insurance-exchange-obamacare/489599/?utm_source=feed
In a Thursday debate titled "Academic Freedom, Safe Spaces, Dissent, and Dignity," faculty or administrators from Yale, Wesleyan, Mizzou, and the University of Chicago discussed last semester's student protests and their intersection with free speech. They shared the stage at the Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, with Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League; Kirsten Powers, author of The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech; and Greg Lukianoff, who leads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg was the moderator.

The most interesting exchange involved Stephen Carter, a law professor at Yale, and Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University.

Michael Middleton, Interim President at Mizzou, participated too.

Here is what they said, with some intervening comments by other panel members cut for the sake of focus. Just prior to their conversation the whole panel watched a short video about black student protesters at Yale University as they pushed to change the name of Calhoun College.

Stephen Carter:  I have a lot of sympathy for these students, but it's not as though what you saw in the video happening at Yale is the only hate speech / free speech issue we confront. I had a student in my office talking to me earlier this year because she was upset that another professor at Yale had written a critique arguing that the data on campus rape were flawed. And she was furious. There was a petition at Yale law school objecting to this research, objecting to actually doing research. We've had this with climate change. Now, I know climate change is a big problem. Some people on campus disagree. Well, let them disagree. Why do we have to suddenly say we need all their emails and we need to know who's funding them? Those are all ways of trying to pressure and shut down speech. It's all the same thing.

I'm with my friend Jonathan Holloway (a dean at Yale) on this. I understand why the students are upset. You hear their stories and you can't help but be sympathetic.

However, I have a slightly different take on what happened. It is true that there's convulsion in the country and part of the racial aspect that we saw is a result of those convulsions.

But there are other factors at play as well.

One is the growth of administrators. There is an enormous amount of administrators on college campuses now, many of whom, most of whom, they're not trained historians, they don't come from a background of academic freedom, they come from a background of being trained in administration, their job is to damp down problems.

They have no sense of the mission of a university.

There's a huge problem, there are many schools where administration has grown faster than faculty.

The second problem is technology. It is much easier for students to contact one another when they are upset in a way that wouldn't have been true a few years ago. You have a preference cascade, where each student says, I feel that way too, I feel that way too. In some sense, that's a good thing because it gives students a sense that they are not alone. But on the other hand, it can ramp up emotions to the point where any concern about academic freedom becomes, as one student said in the video, it seems like an abstraction, like something that's not very important.

Academic freedom is enormously important, not just for Geoff Stone's reasons, because you're talking about the battle of ideas. You're talking about why The Aspen Institute is here. The notion that we're going to start taking ideas off the table because we don't like them is enormously dangerous and threatens the enterprise.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Since you leveled a fairly serious critique of administrators let me ask an administrator, the president of Wesleyan, who also happens to be an academic, is that right? Is this a problem that's driven by administrators who simply don't understand academic freedom, but understand the needs of their alleged constituency?

Michael S. Roth: I think we agree on part of this. I think we have seen an extraordinary growth of administrators, many of whom have to do the work that faculty members no longer want to do, like advising students. And because of a tremendous amount of regulations from the federal and state governments. Mostly federal. But there is a corporatization of the university. So someone may say, you don't like my decision? You're fired. Which can happen in many places. And if you express disloyalty or insubordination it's a firing offense in many companies.

It shouldn't be, clearly, at a college or university. However, that is not academic freedom. Academic freedom is not the ability to do whatever the hell you want on campus because it's an academic place. Academic freedom is a professional freedom. It's about research and intellectual work. It's not about saying whatever you want.

And we never have had in this country all ideas on the table.

Even at the benighted Aspen Institute there are some things you don't put on the table. You will always have some things that you refuse to legitimate by calling a subject of debate. "Deep Dive: Are Jews Controlling the Media?" Really? Is the Aspen Institute going to do that deep dive?

Jeffrey Goldberg: I could moderate that one.

Michael S. Roth: You're always taking things off the table. And when you have a group of fairly homogenous people it's really easy to tell yourself nothing is off the table. Almost everything our students are concerned with are not things that are going to be on your tables, because your tables are well set, you're well fed and well cared for.

What we are experiencing today on college campuses, I think, and maybe I have a slight disagreement with my colleague at Yale, is that we have an extraordinary pressure from points of view that have been excluded at the university. It has happened with women. It has happened with low-income students. It has happened on the basis of race and ethnicity. And now, they're raising issues that we are less comfortable talking about. And some of us retreat to questions of free speech to limit the speech of students in some strange way.

So I do feel that there are serious problems on college campuses. Just before coming here I read the New York Times article this morning about a young man who was accused of two rapes and made a plea deal so that he would have a misdemeanor offense and not spend any time in jail. And I think on that campus, where women are raped everyday, or every other day if you don't like that first statistic, that is an extraordinary limitation on the freedom of women to get an education.

That to me is much more important than whether a Halloween costume poster somehow violates our liberal sensibilities.

Kirsten Powers: ...I think people should be able to wear any kind of Halloween costume they want and if you're offended you need to deal with it, but I'm not unsympathetic to the students and I do tend to place more emphasis on the administrators and frankly on some of the professors. If you look at some of the free speech infringements sometimes it's even the professors against the students...

At the University of Alaska Fairbanks you had a gender-studies professor who launched a complaint about a student newspaper against a female, African American editor there accusing her of sexual harassment for a satirical piece making fun of the women's studies department. At Marquette, a student brought up something about same sex marriage and was shut down in the classroom. So it's not just the students who are coming up with this on their own. I think they are learning it from other people. You had a professor at the University of Santa Barbara who ended up being arrested when she physically assaulted a pro-life student because she said she'd been triggered by a pro-life sign. Well, all her students watched her do this. And she wasn't apologetic, she felt her safety had been threatened, she was setting a moral example for her students, they stole a sign and destroyed it.

So the students are learning this.

They're learning that they have a right to protect themselves from speech. And it's up to professors to teach them that the way you respond when offended is to argue and make your case.

Jeffrey Goldberg: [At Wesleyan, one student told me] one of the things that's a joke about all of the protests about sensitivity––there was a reference to the Halloween costume incident at Yale––was that we axiomatically, by being members of the Wesleyan community, one of the best colleges in America, are in the top 1 percent of lucky people in the history of the universe. And this particular person was getting a little tired of complaining about things while the Syrian genocide is going on, while there's mass flows of refugees across the world, where there's Ferguson, while there's a whole bunch of other stuff––talking about sensitivity issues on campus seems almost inappropriate. Is that legitimate discourse?

Michael Middleton: That's been said. By many donors and legislators and parents and other students. But the student response is that I don't hate Mizzou. I'm trying to make Mizzou better. I love Mizzou. But this is how I'm feeling. This is how I'm being treated here. And we can be better. So it's not like love it or leave it, like they used to tell me when I was protesting. It's I love it and I want it to be better.

There's also the assertion that students are too coddled nowadays, that they need to toughen up. And there's something to that. I grew up in Mississippi in the 1940s and 1950s. I developed a pretty thick skin pretty early in life, and the things that these students are experiencing today would roll off my back because I learned that I had to let it roll off my back or I might be hung somewhere. These students haven't had to learn that. They haven't had to have that harsh an upbringing.

And so very simply, they are experiencing what I experienced, what Jonathan Holloway experienced, what every African American, what many Jewish people in recent years, have been experiencing on these campuses. We are experiencing this and it needs to be fixed. And administration needs to pay attention. Because administration has told us that we've created this wonderful family. We had this huge campaign, called One Mizzou, with a song and a video, it was "We Are the World. "The marginalized students laughed at that. They said this is not One Mizzou, and we are here to tell you that it is not, and that it should be. So yes, that position has some validity, but it isn't everything.

And can I say something about the speech issue? I get the sense that we're making light of Halloween costumes and that kind of thing. But what happens, I mean, I have an obligation as a university administrator to protect my students against harassment, a hostile environment. What happens when the Klan wants to march on the quadrangle everyday and shout the n-word at my African American students? Am I infringing on their free speech rights when I try to limit that? They're not actually threatened. It's not a true threat. Do I then have to listen to that?

Greg Lukianoff: As far as the law is concerned, that comes up in a real example––because I've never heard the Klan example––with street preachers. This happens all over the country. Street preachers have an area on campus, a free speech zone. The rules that apply to people who aren't students or faculty members can be different for people who aren't already there legally. So you can actually say that this is the designated area.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Can I just come back to this point of coddling? Because this is what comes up in the mainstream discourse about this. Do students need to be tougher? Is that something that needs to happen? Or are they trying to make the world a safer space?

Stephen Carter: Those aren't inconsistent. I mean, it could be that they have to be tougher, which I do believe, but I also believe for the most part that they act with sincerity of motive.

Let me tell you a story to make an earlier point. I don't hate outrageous speech. I think it's very important. I was an undergraduate at Stanford when William Shockley, the Nobel laureate in physics, was expounding his theories about the racial inferiority of black people. I, of course, was a black person at Stanford. This is a time when he would travel around the country and get shut down on various campuses. People would protest. There were people who were boycotting him at Stanford and trying to get him fired. And I was among a minority of students who thought that was an absurd reaction--that the right reaction is, listen to the guy's arguments.

I was the editor of the campus newspaper and we had him come in for a lunch with the editorial board where he freely answered all the questions that we had. And then a campus debate was arranged. And there was Shockley debating a world-renowned geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and this was a very important moment, because Shockley by-and-large when he had been debated, he had debated activists, who were student activists or professors who were activists.

And he always talked circles around them. They made him look good by the lack of seriousness––and I mean professional, academic seriousness––with which they treated the conversations.

The geneticist just sliced up his argument bit by bit by bit.

And after that Shockley was basically finished. He was finished not because he had been boycotted, not because he had been kept from speaking, but precisely because he had not just been allowed to speak, but had a serious debate with a serious person. And by the way, Cavalli-Sforza was not rude to him, he wasn't making snide remarks, he simply talked about the biology and the statistics. That was all.

So when people sit where I sit on campus say that we're First Amendment absolutists, which I pretty much am, when we say the cure for speech is more speech, it's not a slogan, it's not a way of escaping hard issues, it's a way of embracing hard issues, it's a way of saying, if this is really so terrible, that's exactly the reason to talk about it.

Michael S. Roth: Some of us up here apparently have a very, very deep faith that the way social change happens is that you have a civil discussion, a reasoned debate, and that people through more speech get closer to the truth. And I think as a historian that's crazy.

That's not how social change happens.

Stephen Carter: That's not at all what I said. And that's not what I think. I think on a university campus, the way that you teach, the way that you learn, the way that you progress, is through conversation. People have to take to the streets sometimes.

I agree with you entirely.

But we're talking about what happens on campus, not the rest of the world.

Michael S. Roth: Protests have been an important part of how campuses have changed, as you well know.

Stephen Carter: And I've been a protester.

Michael S. Roth: As have I. So I think almost all the time it's good to error on the side of speech. But there are some times when students rightly say, you've been erring on the side of speech for 60 years. And we are noticing that the same thing happened to you, the same thing is happening again, and what you want to do is talk about it. And we think, okay, off campus change happens because we do something. We don't just talk about it. So I think they're quite reasonable to sometimes take the action which will change the nature of the conversation.

Email email@example.com with thoughts on this exchange.
Conor Friedersdorfhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/conor-friedersdorf/?utm_source=feedAdrees Latif / ReutersShould Any Ideas Be 'Off the Table' in Campus Debates?2016-06-30T20:34:24-04:002016-06-30T20:52:13-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489710University leaders and observers discuss the intersection of student protests, free speech and academic freedom.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/should-any-ideas-be-off-the-table-in-campus-debates/489710/?utm_source=feed
NEWS BRIEF Valerie Jarrett announced the White House's next step in its ongoing effort to bring data science to the realm of criminal justice on Thursday. The newly minted Data-Driven Justice Initiative is a coalition of 67 city, county, and state governments that have pledged to incorporate data-driven approaches into their law-enforcement programs. Participants include states such as Pennsylvania and Maryland and cities such as Albany, Denver, and Oakland.

The initiative focuses on lessening burdens on local jails. Data can help divert those suffering from mental illness away from jail and emergency rooms by helping local law enforcement and health-care providers share information. It can also reduce prison times and recidivism for non-violent offenders by predicting an individual's risk of reoffending, and offer insights on bail by calculating a person's risk of flight.

Jail is costly. According to the White House, 11 million people churn through local jail systems each year, costing municipalities a staggering $22 billion. There are personal costs as well. Time spent in jail waiting for a court appearance can translate into paychecks lost, rent payments missed, or time with family gone. Many of the people in America's jails would be better served elsewhere, such as addiction-treatment programs or mental-health facilities.

The White House points to Florida by way of example:

Miami-Dade, Florida, found that 97 people with serious mental illness accounted for $13.7 million in services over 4 years, spending more than 39,000 days in either jail, emergency rooms, state hospitals, or psychiatric facilities in their county. In response, the county provided key mental-health de-escalation training to their police officers and 911 dispatchers. Over the past 5 years, Miami-Dade police have responded to nearly 50,000 calls for service for people in mental-health crises, but have made only 109 arrests, diverting more than 10,000 people to services or safely stabilizing situations without arrest. The jail population fell from over 7,000 to just over 4,700, and the county was able to close an entire jail facility, saving nearly $12 million a year.

This program will likely need time to become effective. In 2015, the White House launched the Police Data Initiative. Police departments across the country signed up to release and share their data to promote transparency and better analysis of crime patterns. The initiative got off to a halting start. One year in, 53 departments have agreed to share data. While those departments police large cities like Dallas and New York, they represent only a fraction of the nation's 12,000 police departments.

With 67 partners already on board, the Data-Driven Justice Initiative appears to have eclipsed its predecessor program on day one.

Chris Haughhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/chris-haugh/?utm_source=feedEvan Vucci / APPresident Obama tours the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution in Oklahoma.The White House Has a New Data-Driven Criminal-Justice Project2016-06-30T19:26:04-04:002016-07-01T07:47:21-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489614This is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at reform.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/white-house-data-criminal-justice/489614/?utm_source=feed
Today in 5 Lines

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military for the first time in history. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is reportedly being vetted as a potential running mate for Donald Trump. The Obama Foundation announced the architects of the future presidential library in Chicago. Vice President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton will make their first joint appearance on the campaign trail in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on July 8. And Boris Johnson, a leader in the Brexit campaign, said he won't run to replace David Cameron as prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Today on The Atlantic

The Winds Are Changing: Current divides in the United States and Great Britian are highlighting a new political order: Voters allegiances now revolve around culture, rather than economic class. (Ronald Brownstein)

To the Left, to the Left: Thanks to progressive influence from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what were once strictly populist, fringe-views to regulate Wall Street are now enmeshed in the party platform. Whether that platform will translate to action is another story. (Clare Foran)

Why American Christians Feel Persecuted: A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute and Brookings shows that nearly half of Americans say discrimination against Christians is a big problem. (Emma Green)

Follow stories throughout the day with our Politics & Policy portal.

Snapshot

Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Thursday. Alex Brandon / AP

What We're Reading

Hello?: Donald Trump reportedly listened in on phone calls involving staff at Mar-a-Lago in the mid-2000s. How? Several ex-employees said he had a telephone switchboard in his bedroom connected to every phone on the estate. (Aram Roston, BuzzFeed)

The Rise of Chris Christie: The boisterous governor of a mostly-blue state has become the right-hand man to the most polarizing figure in modern American politics—but his support comes at a price. (Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times)

Bernie Misses His Window: The Democratic presidential candidate says he's sticking around to influence the party platform, but he should have endorsed Hillary Clinton weeks ago. And the longer he waits, the more irrelevant he will become. (Stuart Rothenberg, The Washington Post)

A Collective Groan: If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans in Washington are agreeing on this week, it's that they're frustrated by former president Bill Clinton's unscheduled meeting on Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Lynch has insisted that the talk was strictly personal, but the meeting comes as Hillary Clinton is currently under investigation by the Justice Department. (Carrie Johnson, NPR)

M.I.A. in PA: Most pollsters argue that Donald Trump needs to win the Rust Belt if he has any hope of winning the White House. But in key counties in Pennsylvania, the Trump operation is nowhere to be seen. (Katie Glueck, Politico)

Visualized

Republicans' Electoral Problem: These three graphics show why the odds are stacked against Donald Trump in the fall—and against any Republican running under the current electoral system. (Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post)

Question of the Week

Last week, Britain voted to break with the European Union—a decision known as "Brexit." If the United States were to leave the United Nations, as Sarah Palin suggested, what would that exit's nickname be?

Send your answers to firstname.lastname@example.com or tweet us @TheAtlPolitics, and our favorites will be featured in Friday's Politics & Policy Daily.

-Written by Elaine Godfrey (@elainejgodfrey)
Elaine Godfreyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/elaine-godfrey/?utm_source=feedMel Evans / APThe Atlantic  Politics & Policy Daily: Born to Running Mate2016-06-30T17:55:30-04:002016-06-30T17:55:47-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489686New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is reportedly being vetted as Donald Trump's potential vice president.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-atlantic-politics-policy-daily-born-to-running-mate/489686/?utm_source=feed
This should have been a great week for Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, the special House committee appointed to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, released its long-awaited report. (Well, the majority report. Democrats on the committee released their own polemic the day before.)

The report turned out about as well for Clinton as she could have hoped. While the panel found fault with the way the Obama administration, and Clinton's State Department, ran security for embassies and other U.S. stations around the world, it did not find any new bombshells about the night of the attacks, no details that would suggest Clinton could have acted differently that evening and saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. That outcome largely vindicates Clinton's claims all along, and it mostly puts the question of the attacks to rest after a long and extremely detailed investigation (though not, as Democrats like to claim, the longest). Clinton's political opponents are unlikely to quit talking about it, but the threat of a new, damaging disclosure now seems remote.

Yet there are rainclouds over the Clinton campaign. The biggest damage from the Benghazi report was peripheral: the revelation that Clinton had used a private email server while secretary of state, and that she had not turned over all of her emails from that period. That scandal continues to roll along. On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported on how lawsuits from the conservative group Judicial Watch had turned up at least 160 emails that Clinton did not turn over to the State Department. (She has said she handed over all business-related material but deleted private messages.) Ironically enough, one of them captures her puzzling over the public-records status of her emails. "I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?" she asked top aide Huma Abedin and another staffer. How did these emails get left out? And are there more? The disclosure raises more questions than it answers. Meanwhile, a recently released deposition shows that Abedin had her misgivings about the elaborate email setup, which she called "not a good system." It turns out she was not alone. State Department officials also expressed grave doubts about the approach, including Clinton's use of a BlackBerry, in part due to security concerns.

Even with the Benghazi report out, there's still one major investigation hanging over Clinton's head, and that's the one that could produce the worst outcome for Clinton—an indictment. The balance of leaks so far suggest that an indictment is unlikely, but of course that only conveys so much. Who's doing the leaking? What are their motives? The fact is that the investigation is live. FBI Director James Comey, whose organization is running the inquiry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who would make the final decision on charges, have both worked to assure the public that they are acting independently, free of political interference.

That's why Lynch's recent visit with former President Bill Clinton has raised so many eyebrows. The two chatted Monday night at Phoenix airport. Both were at the airport, and Clinton apparently walked to Lynch's plane unbidden to say hello. Lynch says that they did not discuss the email investigation, and that the visit was purely social. But the cloak-and-dagger nature of the meeting—visits across the tarmac at night—is enough to arouse suspicions, and The New York Times reports that the White House declined to say whether it was appropriate. What did they talk about? And if it really was purely social, what was Bill Clinton thinking? It should have been clear that the encounter would be controversial. Politico reports that the visit made "Democrats groan," but Republicans, independents, and transparency advocates are in the groaning gallery too.

The emails have become a classic Clinton scandal. Even though investigations have found no wrongdoing on her part with respect to the Benghazi attacks themselves, Clinton's private-email use and concerns about whether she sent classified information have become huge stories unto themselves. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton's first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. Although no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton's impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here's a primer. We'll update it as new information emerges.

<big>Clinton's State Department Emails</big>

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone on board a plane from Malta to Tripoli, Libya. (Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)

What? Setting aside the question of the Clintons' private email server, what's actually in the emails that Clinton did turn over to State? While some of the emails related to Benghazi have been released, there are plenty of others covered by public-records laws that haven't.

When? 2009-2013

How serious is it? Serious. Initially, it seemed that the interest in the emails would stem from damaging things that Clinton or other aides had said: cover-ups, misrepresentations, who knows? But so far, other than some cringeworthy moments of sucking up and some eye-rolly emails from contacts like Sidney Blumenthal, the emails have been remarkably boring. The main focus now is on classification. Sixty-five emails contain information that is now classified. The question is whether any of it, and how much of it, was classified at the time it was sent. Clinton has said she didn't knowingly send or receive classified material on the account. The State Department and Intelligence Community have disagreed about that. In addition, the Intelligence Community's inspector general wrote in a January letter that Clinton's server contained information marked "special access program," a further restricted type of information. A May report from the State Department inspector general is harshly critical of Clinton's email approach. Some emails that Clinton didn't turn over have also since surfaced. In particular, roughly 160 emails that Clinton did not turn over have now surfaced through lawsuits by the conservative group Judicial Watch, raising questions about how and why they were withheld. In one, she even wondered about how her messages would be handled: "I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?"

<big>Benghazi </big>

A man celebrates as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi burns on September 11, 2012. (Esam Al-Fetori / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)

What? On September 11, 2012, attackers overran a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Since then, Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton failed to adequately protect U.S. installations or that she attempted to spin the attacks as spontaneous when she knew they were planned terrorist operations. She testifies for the first time on October 22.

When? September 11, 2012-present

How serious is it? With the June 28 release of the House committee investigating Benghazi, this issue seems to be receding. That report criticized security preparations at the American facility in Benghazi as well as stations elsewhere, but it produced no smoking guns or new accusations about things Clinton could have done the night of the attacks. Although some conservatives will likely continue to assail her, the biggest damage is likely to be iterative—the highly damaging private-email story was revealed during the course of the House inquiry.

<big>Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom</big>

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic

What? Before becoming Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills worked for Clinton on an unpaid basis for four month while also working for New York University, in which capacity she negotiated on the school's behalf with the government of Abu Dhabi, where it was building a campus. In June 2012, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin's status at State changed to "special government employee," allowing her to also work for Teneo, a consulting firm run by Bill Clinton's former right-hand man. She also earned money from the Clinton Foundation and was paid directly by Hillary Clinton. In a separate case, ABC News reports that a top Clinton Foundation donor named Rajiv Fernando was placed on State's International Security Advisory Board. Fernando appeared significantly less qualified than many of his colleagues, and was appointed at the behest of the secretary's office. Internal emails show that State staff first sought to cover for Clinton, and then Fernando resigned two days after ABC's inquiries.

Who? Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are among Clinton's longest-serving and closest aides. Abedin remains involved in her campaign (and she's also married to Anthony Weiner).

When? January 2009-February 2013

How serious is it? This is arcane stuff, to be sure. There are questions about conflict of interest—such as whether Teneo clients might have benefited from special treatment by the State Department while Abedin worked for both. To a great extent, this is just an extension of the tangle of conflicts presented by the Clinton Foundation and the many overlapping roles of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

<big>The Clintons' Private Email Server </big>

Jim Young / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic

What? During the course of the Benghazi investigation, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned Clinton had used a personal email account while secretary of state. It turned out she had also been using a private server, located at a house in New York. The result was that Clinton and her staff decided which emails to turn over to the State Department as public records and which to withhold; they say they then destroyed the ones they had designated as personal.

When? 2009-2013, during Clinton's term as secretary.

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; top aides including Huma Abedin

How serious is it? The biggest question right now appears to be whether the server was hacked, which could have exposed classified or otherwise sensitive information. Even if not, there's the question of whether using the serve was appropriate. The rules governing use of personal emails are murky, and Clinton aides insist she followed the rules. There's no dispositive evidence otherwise so far. Politically, there are questions about how she selected the emails she turned over and what was in the ones she deleted. The FBI has reportedly managed to recover some of the deleted correspondence. Meanwhile, a recently released deposition shows Abedin expressing her frustration with the unwieldy setup, which she called "not a good system."

<big>Sidney Blumenthal </big>

Blumenthal takes a lunch break while being deposed in private session of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. (Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)

What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation.

When? 2009-2013

How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton's top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal's analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

<big>The Speeches</big>

Keith Bedford / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic

What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches.

When? 2001-present

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton

How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?

<big>The Clinton Foundation</big>

A brooch for sale at the Clinton Museum Store in Little Rock, Arkansas (Lucy Nicholson / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)

What? Bill Clinton's foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton's departure as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

When? 1997-present

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc.

How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation's strength is President Clinton's endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it's too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn't seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons' charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton's work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it's now clear it didn't always do. And the looming questions about Clinton's State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.

<big>The Bad Old Days</big>

Supporter Dick Furinash holds up cardboard cut-outs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Jim Young / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)

What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate. Vince Foster's suicide. Juanita Broaddrick.

When? 1975-2001

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters

How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they're not terribly dangerous. Some are wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it's hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton's standing. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise—or just conventional. On May 23, Donald Trump released a video prominently highlighting Broaddrick's accusation.
David A. Grahamhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-a-graham/?utm_source=feedZak Bickel / The AtlanticEsam Al-Fetori / Brian Snyder / Gary Cameron / Jim Young / Reuters / Brennan Linsley / Susan Walsh / AP / razihusin / ShutterstockFrom Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer2016-06-30T17:46:00-04:002016-06-30T17:46:11-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-396182The release of the Benghazi report should have made this a great week for Hillary Clinton, but questions about her email—and a questionable social call by Bill Clinton—have cast clouds over it.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/?utm_source=feed

1947 War Department propaganda film, Don't Be a Sucker.

This one really is a time capsule. It's a nearly 70-year-old U.S. government film called Don't Be a Sucker, released in 1947 by what was then straightforwardly known as the Department of War. (Thanks to Daniel Buk for the lead.)

Most of the 17-minute film is a history of Germany's slide into Nazism, which is powerful but familiar. I think these three segments deserve another look in 2016:

The part from time 2:05 (where the video below is cued to start) to 4:25, in which our everyman-American hero confronts a rabble-rousing speaker who tells him that his jobs, opportunities, and future are being stolen by outsiders.

The two minutes of the video before that, which you can click back on the player to see, presenting one version of America's view of itself, just after its great victory in war. It's touching, up-to-date, out-of-date, achingly earnest, and unintentionally ridiculous (in retrospect), all at the same time.

The final two minutes, from 15:25 onward, when the immigrant-American narrator explains the importance of America being a nation-of-minorities.

***

Obviously this video really is a time capsule from a different era. For instance, it talks unselfconsciously about the triumph of an American fighting force "made of people of all religions and skin colors," at a time when the U.S. military was still formally segregated. But I was surprised by how many aspects of it still seemed relevant.

(The original Time Capsule thread is here, with items #1-#27. For entries starting with #28, go here.)
James Fallowshttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/james-fallows/?utm_source=feedTrump Time Capsule #31: 'Don't Be a Sucker'2016-06-30T17:09:00-04:002016-06-30T17:35:24-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:374-489662This one really is a time capsule. It's a nearly 70-year-old U.S. government film called Don't Be a Sucker…http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/trump-time-capsule-31-dont-be-a-sucker/489662/?utm_source=feed
In 1993, Monte Finkelstein filed what would become one of the longest-running requests for government records in history. Eager to complete his book on the relationship between the Allies and the Sicilian mafia during World War II, the community-college professor submitted a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Archives.

Five years later and still waiting for a response, Finkelstein published his book without the documents. "To be honest, I gave up," he said. "I just surrendered. From my point of view, it was a bureaucratic nightmare."

On Thursday—a few days before July 4, the Freedom of Information Act's 50th birthday—President Barack Obama signed one of the most hard-fought FOIA-reform bills in decades. In doing so, he'll make permanent the presumption that all government records are public unless proven otherwise, a central tenet of his administration's efforts, and one currently vulnerable to revocation by, say, President Trump. This alone is cause for high-fives among open-government groups, who convinced many states to enshrine that common-sense provision in their laws. Until now, the United States Congress never has.

At first glance, the bill doesn't necessarily do much for people like Finkelstein. There's nothing to speed up the turnaround for a request, which can stretch into weeks for routine records. It doesn't force the government to pay the legal fees of a requestor if a judge takes the requestor's side in court. And crucially, it does little to challenge security and intelligence agencies, which try to avoid disclosing documents almost by default, sometimes before they've even looked for the requested files. This bill took almost a decade to get to the president's desk, dying a dozen deaths along the way. A cynic could be forgiven for flipping through the text and wondering, is this it?

But while it's not revolutionary, the bill lays a foundation for how open government should operate in America, experts say. And it is the necessary predecessor, its authors argue, to something far greater.

"One could say, looking at the glass, that it is half empty," said U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, who sponsored the House version of the bill. "But government has to move in a direction and be judged based on that direction. Congress passing FOIA [reform] moved us in the correct direction."

Before Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in 1966, federal agencies were veiled in secrecy. Information was nearly impossible to get. Although frustration mounted in Congress, the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations successfully scuttled any attempt at reform for fear of what exposure would mean.

Lyndon B. Johnson, although similarly opposed to this kind of legislation, was less fortunate than his predecessors. On July 4, 1966, he signed the bill into law after both chambers of Congress passed it overwhelmingly. However, he diluted his endorsement, laying out a number of exceptions to the rule in his signing statement. Notably, there was no ceremony to speak of in 1966—only a tersely worded statement.

FOIA has gone through periodic updates since then. Congress passed reform legislation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, imposing sanctions for wrongly withholding documents, specifying timetables for responses, and approving fee waivers for journalists. Since then, requests have skyrocketed, but so have wait times. On his first day in office, President Obama sought to reverse this trend with a series of orders, but delays and backlogs continued.

That included Finkelstein's request, which was still in limbo in 2012, putting the professor in the unenviable position of possessing one of the longest outstanding filings in the history of the act. But he would not relent, even though he had published his book nearly two decades earlier.

"There was no way I was going to cancel the request," Finkelstein said. "I just wanted to see those documents. I was like a dog with a bone with this thing. There was always this little hope in my mind that I would get these documents and it would all fall into place."

Then this year's reform bill, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, got passed. Beyond its centerpiece provision, which opens documents to the public by default, the bill also requires the government to turn over documents shielded by several broad exemptions after 25 years, weakening a clause that keeps internal deliberations from public view. And if an agency receives multiple requests for the same record, it must post the record online.

"That's all a win," said Alexander Howard, a senior analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, an open-government group. "It's not the revolutionary reform that I think some people would like to see. But it's codifying a lot of the evolutionary improvements the administration has suggested so those existing wins are baked in and won't be flipped back on January 21, 2017" when the next president takes office.

Others are less optimistic. The bill's lofty language must be matched with a willingness to punish agencies if they don't comply, said Jeff Richelson, an author who has filed thousands of FOIA requests over the past 30 years. "They need to get representatives from the agencies there and grill them, and say, 'How much would you like your budget cut? You'll be sitting on orange crates instead of chairs,'" he said. "You're not going to get a response through vaguely worded regulations."

Why is reforming FOIA reform such a slog? For one, few Americans ever use it. While open-records requests often lead to substantive, investigative reports, few people have filled out one themselves and may have little familiarity with their importance.

And the Department of Justice, which is charged with enforcing FOIA law, has actively campaigned against changing it. Documents—obtained via FOIA, ironically—show that DOJ lawyers distributed talking points against a version of Issa's reform bill in 2014, arguing it needlessly added cost and complexity. Other documents given to the reporter Jason Leopold of Vice News showed evidence of similar efforts by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. From the DOJ's memo in 2014:

The Administration views [the bill] as an attempt to impose on the Executive Branch multiple administrative requirements concerning its internal management of FOIA administration, which are not appropriate for legislative intervention and would substantially increase costs and cause delays in FOIA processing. In this respect in particular, this bill is vastly different from past amendments to the FOIA, which addressed substantive issues connected with access to government records.

…

As a result, the Administration believes that the changes proposed in [the bill] are not necessary and, in many respects, will undermine the successes achieved to date by diverting scarce processing resources.

"There's nothing to back it up," Leopold said. "It just meant these agencies would have to be more transparent. And they don't want to be more transparent."

The DOJ, for its part, says it now fully supports the legislation. "We remain dedicated to improving transparency and open government," said spokeswoman Beverly Lumpkin. As for the memo, "it is not uncommon for subject matter experts to provide feedback on technical aspects of proposed legislation and its potential unintended consequences," she said.

With all this in mind, Leopold believes it'll be years—maybe decades—before Congress passes another FOIA bill after this year's act. Issa is a bit more optimistic, with plans to begin working immediately on the next iteration. But given the slow pace of change, America might have to make do with this version of reform for quite a while.

Under the new law, journalists and advocates will have a stronger ally in the FOIA ombudsman's office, a watchdog not housed in the Justice Department. The government will automatically have to post frequently requested documents, meaning new data feeds will be available online and investigative materials could be accessible to a much wider audience than just journalists. A new central website, designed to handle records requests, could make it easier for regular people to join in.

At the same time, the Department of Defense and other security agencies will continue to enjoy strong protections, meaning news organizations will continue relying on leaks to break news and uncover scandal. And the expense of pursuing a FOIA claim in court, with no hope of reimbursement, may continue to force many requestors to drop cases they could have won.

Finkelstein's story has a happy ending. In September 2012, he received a large package in the mail from the National Archives. Hundreds of pages of declassified documents were enclosed, although they didn't reveal much new. "When you are dealing with these subjects, you need to get the truth, and the only way to get the whole truth is to get all the documentation if it exists," Finkelstein said. "As a historian, as a scholar, you can't be dissuaded by this. Roadblocks will be put in front of you, and you can't let that stop you."

Despite the wait, Finkelstein plans to file another FOIA request for his next book in this new, much friendlier system. He can submit his request through a central website; he can complain to an ombudsman if he doesn't get what he wants. But reform requires more than a change in government procedure—it will also require agencies to have a change in heart. This bill doesn't free up money, and it doesn't authorize new hires. It can only set an example for how transparency should look in America. It's up to the rest of the government to follow along.
Andrew McGillhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/andrew-mcgill/?utm_source=feedChris Haughhttp://www.theatlantic.com/author/chris-haugh/?utm_source=feedImagewell / ShutterstockCan the Freedom of Information Act Be Fixed?2016-06-30T16:21:49-04:002016-06-30T16:21:50-04:00tag:theatlantic.com,2016:50-489137President Obama signs into law a much-needed update. But will it change anything?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/foia-gets-a-makeover/489137/?utm_source=feed