The Economist - USA (2019-11-09)

The EconomistNovember 9th 2019 United States 23

2

1

tests. They also have ramifications for poli-

cy. In Kentucky, Mr Beshear has pledged to

bolster education funding, though the Re-

publican supermajority in the state legisla-

ture may handicap these aspirations. But

his election would stop Mr Bevin’s efforts

to scale back the expansion of Medicaid,

the government health-insurance pro-

gramme for the poorest. Hopes for an ex-

pansion of Medicaid in Mississippi, one of

least healthy states in the country, how-

ever, are probably dashed.

In Virginia, Mr Northam will be able to

advance gun-control and voter-registra-

tion legislation that had previously been

stymied. He also has plans for a clean-ener-

gy bill, adding some substance to his

pledge to ensure carbon-free electricity by

2050. All these elections will also affect the
      redrawing of congressional district bound-
      aries after the 2020 census.
      If there is any lesson, it is that the bifur-
      cation in political views between rural and
      urban America continues apace. Mr Besh-
      ear was able to win by squeezing 110,000
      more votes out of Louisville and Lexington
      than the previous Democratic candidate.
      Population growth in Northern Virginia, in
      the suburbs of Washington, dc, has made
      the state tough terrain for Republicans. 7

S

tevescalise, theHouseMinority

Whip, brought a visual aid to the

House floor in the run-up to a vote for-

malising the impeachment inquiry. It

depicted the Red Square’s onion domes,

and blasted the Democrats’ “37 Days of

Soviet-Style Impeachment Proceedings”.

Though the Soviet Union lacked a consti-

tutional mechanism whereby freely

elected legislators could censure and

remove the country’s executive, follow-

ing months of open hearings and a pub-

lic trial, Mr Scalise’s point was that the

impeachment process—which has so-far

operated behind closed doors—is some

kind of show trial.

That is one of two main defences of

President Donald Trump offered by

congressional Republicans. The other is

that there was no quid pro quo in with-

holding military aid to Ukraine, as Mr

Trump himself has repeatedly asserted.

This implies that asking for foreign help

in an American election is perfectly fine;

the impeachable conduct would be

offering something in return. Both these

lines are starting to fray.

The first was always rather weak. Just

as a criminal trial involves a grand jury

gathering information to determine

whether to indict, an impeachment

inquiry involves the House doing the

same. Closed-door hearings have long

been a feature of congressional over-

sight. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker,

has given Republicans the full House

vote that they long demanded. And next

week public hearings begin.

The second defence has grown diffi-

cult to sustain as witness after witness

has testified, under oath, that there was

in fact a quid pro quo. Gordon Sondland,

America’s ambassador to the eu, is the

newest member of this chorus line. Mr

Sondlandhadpreviouslytestifiedthat he

never talked to Ukrainian officials about

opening an investigation, that he never

thought there was any precondition

attached to the military aid, and that he

“didn’t know why” it was delayed.

In a revision released on November

5th, Mr Sondland wrote that testimony

from William Taylor, America’s top

diplomat in Ukraine, and Tim Morrison,

until recently the National Security

Council’s top adviser on Russia and

Europe, had “refreshed my recollection”.

Mr Sondland said he now recalls a con-

versation with Andriy Yermak, an advis-

er to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr

Zelensky, “where I said that resumption

of usaid [to Ukraine] would likely not

occur until” Mr Zelensky made the “pub-

lic anti-corruption statement” demand-

ed by Mr Trump. He said he had “no

reason to question the substance” of Mr

Morrison’s recollection that aid “might

be conditioned on a public statement

reopening” an investigation into the firm

that employed Joe Biden’s son.

Mr Trump’s defenders have conse-

quently shifted, arguing that foreign

policy routinely involves quid pro quos,

and that even if Mr Trump engaged in

one, it is not impeachable conduct. “Get

over it,” as Mr Trump’s chief of staff, Mick

Mulvaney, told reporters in October. That

appears to be the argument that Repub-

licans are carrying into the next, public

phase of the impeachment process.

Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate

judiciary committee and therefore could

play an important role in the trial of the

president in the Senate, offered another

approach—less a defence than a shrug.

“I’ve written the whole process off,” he

told cbs, a news network. “I think this is

a bunch of bs.”

Impeachcobbler

The Ukraine scandal

WASHINGTON, DC

The evolution of the defence, from “no quid pro quo” to “quid pro so?”

A

ccording to oneof the great myths of

American politics, George Washington

could not tell a lie. No politician since has

felt such compunction. Slandering oppo-

nents has been part of the political play-

book since at least the 1800 election, when

John Adams’ campaign accused Thomas

Jefferson of being “the son of a half-breed

Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto

father.” Given this, last month’s controver-

sy over Facebook’s refusal to take down a

Donald Trump ad slandering Joe Biden

might seem strange. In response, Elizabeth

Warren published an (untrue) ad on Face-

book suggesting that Mr Zuckerberg, Face-

book’s ceo, had endorsed Mr Trump. Alex-

andria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic

representative from New York, joined in

the trolling, asking Mr Zuckerberg whether

she would be permitted to run ads saying

that Republican candidates had voted for

the Green New Deal. Mr Zuckerberg went

on the defensive, presenting Facebook as a

champion of freedom of expression.

Both sides have engaged in overblown

rhetoric and muddled thinking. This is a

problem, given the importance of digital

advertising in modern politics. Advertis-

ing Analytics, a political advertising re-

search firm, says that digital ads account

for 57.5% of tracked ads by presidential

candidates so far this cycle, with over half

of that going to Facebook.

No advertising platform is required to

assess the truthfulness of political ads.

Some, including local tv, are even required

to run campaign ads uncensored by the

SALT LAKE CITY

Neither Facebook nor its critics are

thinking clearly

Political advertising

Lie-posting