5137 Votes and 0.4 percent
Gov. Andy Beshear probably should have done more outreach to Republicans in the Kentucky statehouse over the last few months---even if they ultimately were going to oppose most of Beshear’s proposals to stop the spread of COVID-19 no matter what. Beshear deployed the Kentucky National Guard to Louisville to help restore calm and order amid the racial injustice protests--but the Guard officers inflamed the situation, shooting and killing a black man named David McAtee at the restaurant he owned and ran. The state’s unemployment office hasn’t done a good job managing the huge surge of people seeking jobless benefits. It doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea for Beshear to allow 23,000 people to gather in one place with the virus still spreading. But it’s likely that the state legislature would try to take away virtually all of Beshear’s powers in next year’s session if he canceled the Kentucky Derby, the state’s preeminent event. And a normal Derby has upwards of 150,000 in attendance, so Beshear has at least greatly shrunken it down. (The Derby is on Sept. 5.)
But when you’re thinking about Beshear’s mistakes, it’s always worth keeping in mind the alternative scenario---his Trump-like 2019 opponent, Matt Bevin, getting 5137 more votes and winning a second term as governor. (He lost by 0.4 percent.) Having a Trump-style leader amid the pandemic can result in that person say:
Holding regular press conferences that include frequent dismissals of medical experts’ advice on containing the virus (Trump)
Hosting a 7500-person rally in support of the president’s reelection campaign and suggesting that mask-wearing and social distancing is not necessary at said rally (Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota)
Flying on Air Force One with the president to show him a replica of a national monument with his face on it (Noem, Mount Rushmore)
Actively undermining and filing a lawsuit to stop initiatives enacted in your state’s largest city to contain the virus (Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia)
Trying to bar large cities from taking measures to contain the virus without the governor’s approval (Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Kemp, Tate Reeves of Mississippi)
Mandating at least 50 percent of student learning be in-person statewide, no matter the views of public health experts or local officials in each school district (Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa)
Opposing expanded vote-by-mail (Abbott, Reeves)
Threatening not to give federal money to cities that mandate mask-wearing (Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska)
Comparing schools that are meeting in-person amid COVID-19 to the group of Navy Seals that captured and killed Osama Bin Laden, emphasizing both groups “surmounted obstacles” (Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida)
Mocking mandates for mask use (Gov. Mike Parsons of Missouri).
Some of these governors have backtracked from the moves I described above. But these governors have been among the most reluctant to embrace measures to combat the spread of COVID. What you’re seeing from these governors amid COVID-19 is a combination of:
A strong desire to align with Trump’s positions--or at least not contradict the president too much or too obviously (many of these governors are likely to run for the GOP presidential nomination in the future);
The continuation of the pre-COVID “preemption” approach of many GOP governors--barring cities from enacting certain kinds of policies and/or reversing city-enacted policies at the state level (in many states, Republicans control the two houses of the legislature and the governor’s office but the largest cities are run by Democrats); and
An ideological aversion to major government action, particularly the government imposing any limits on churches or businesses.
You put all of those things together and you have a group of governors who are particularly inclined to ignore the guidance of medical experts in terms of dealing with the virus. All the governors I listed above are Republicans. But the handling/mishandling of COVID isn’t totally a partisan issue--New York’s Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, is micromanaging New York City and feuding with its mayor in a similar way to the GOP governors at war with the largest cities in their states. And some GOP governors, like Massachusetts’ Charlie Baker and Ohio’s Mike DeWine, are generally following the counsel of health experts and not really trying to align their COVID-19 policies with Trump’s.
COVID-19 has further illustrated that there are essentially five types of governors in America right now:
Trumpy Republicans--DeSantis, Kemp, Noem and many of those I listed above, who are trying to align with Trump whenever possible and often echo his style of attacking the media, minorities and urbanites in particular.
Traditional Republicans--Utah’s Gary Herbert, DeWine and others who aren’t likely to blast Trump but aren’t echoing his rhetoric either.
Anti-Trump Republicans-Massachusetts’ Baker, Maryland’s Larry Hogan and a few others who keep their distance from Trump. Hogan in particular has repeatedly bashed the president’s handling of COVID.
Center-Left Democrats--Kentucky’s Beshear, Virginia’s Ralph Northam and other Democratic governors in states that are either red or purple.
More Liberal Democrats--California’s Gavin Newsom, Washington’s Jay Inslee and others in states that are fairly Democratic-leaning.
Bevin, Beshear’s predecessor, was the ultimate Trump-style governor. He seemed to be intentionally mimicking the president’s style more than any other politician in America--constantly attacking the press, dismissing the advice of experts, making bold declarations that he must have known were false, mocking anyone who expressed views different than his. Having him in charge of the state amid the pandemic would have been chaotic and more importantly, there is a good chance that he would have ignored the seriousness of the virus in ways that ended up resulting in more people dying from it.
Major David James?
The seven Republicans on Louisville’s city council announced on Monday that they are pushing for a no-confidence vote against Mayor Greg Fischer and want him to step down. I don’t think this effort is likely to succeed, for three reasons.
It’s not clear the council’s Democrats hate Fischer enough to push him out. Fischer could only be removed by a two thirds vote of the city council, so that would require 11 of the council’s 19 Democrats to join the seven Republicans. (At least this appears to be how this process works--no one is really sure since there has not previously been that much discussion about essentially impeaching Louisville’s mayor.) Some of the Democratic members of the council are frustrated with Fischer’s handling of the aftermath of Breonna Taylor’s killing, so I don’t think his standing with them is super-solid. That said, it’s hard to imagine 11 Democrats breaking with him.
The Democrats may dislike Fischer for different reasons than the Republicans. The Republicans’ resolution blasts Fischer for a number of his decisions and policies, including the notion that, “It took Mayor Greg Fischer 77 days to acknowledge that his administration has refused to enforce local and state laws to the detriment of the public safety for both protesters as well as the many citizens who live, work and once played in our downtown.” That line seems to be a reference to Louisville’s policy of allowing protests in the streets the last few months, even if protesters are blocking traffic. (The police department has now abandoned this policy, recently announcing that it would start issuing citations or arresting people who block streets while protesting.) So the Republicans are essentially criticizing Fischer for being too lenient to the protest movement. But many liberals think that the police have already been too aggressive against the protesters (by using tear gas against them, for example). So I’m skeptical many of the council’s Democrats will join a movement to push out Fischer in part because he has been too aligned with the protesters.
Fischer has no reason to leave and one big reason to stay. You could imagine a scenario where a few Democrats on the council are asked about this resolution and are non-committal. So it becomes clear that a majority of the council wants Fischer out. Still, it’s very unlikely that he is quitting voluntarily. Fisher is 62, can’t run again for mayor because of term limits and probably can’t get a job in Joe Biden’s cabinet (if Biden wins) after the Taylor controversy. His remaining years as mayor (through 2022) are probably his last major political role.
Also, in June, Fischer officially took the helm as the president of the United States Conference of Mayors. (He had been designated to take that role much earlier.) That’s a plum post that is likely to ensure that Fischer is on television a lot, speaks at major conferences and is probably consulted on major decisions by Biden’s staff, if not Biden himself. But Fischer couldn’t be the head of the mayors group if he is not an active mayor.
But Fischer in my view has one problem: the presence of David James. By state law, if Fischer resigned, a majority of the city council could choose a new mayor. James is the president of the city council, a post he won by a vote of the council--so it seems likely his colleagues would back him becoming mayor. James is black and Louisville has never before had a black mayor, so I would assume Louisville Democrats would be excited about making history, like Democrats nationally were when Kamala Harris became the first Asian-American and black woman candidate for vice-president. (Louisville hasn’t had a female mayor either.)
Also, James is a former police officer--and a black former police officer arguably would be an ideal figure to lead the city in the aftermath of Taylor’s killing. And James wants to be mayor--he has long been telling people that he will run in 2022.
So if you start seeing Democrats calling for Fischer to resign, you should assume that they are comfortable with James as mayor and perhaps are trying to make that happen.
Thanks for reading.
You can reach me at perrylbacon@gmail.com if you have tips/suggestions for future stories or if you see a typo/error I should fix for the online version of this newsletter.