Sunday, September 13, 2020

About 8,800 unaccompanied children are expelled at US border

About 8,800 unaccompanied children have been quickly expelled from the United States along the Mexico border under a pandemic-related measure that effectively ended asylum

SAN FRANCISCO -- About 8,800 unaccompanied children have been quickly expelled from the United States along the Mexico border under a pandemic-related measure that effectively ended asylum, authorities said Friday.

The Trump administration has expelled more than 159,000 people since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emergency order took effect in March, a figure that also includes more than 7,600 adults and children who crossed the border in families.

The figures on children were reported for the first time in a declaration by Raul Ortiz, the Border Patrol's deputy chief, as part of the administration's appeal of an order to stop housing children in hotels.

The administration “immediately” expelled most children and families to Mexico but more than 2,200 unaccompanied children and 600 people who came in families were held until flights could be arranged to return home, Ortiz said.

The administration asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a ruling last week that found use of hotels skirted “fundamental humanitarian protections.”

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles ruled that using hotels for long-term detention violated a two-decade-old settlement governing treatment of children in custody. She ordered border agencies to stop placing children in hotels by Tuesday.

Justice Department attorneys argued that settlement doesn't apply during the public health emergency and that hotels were appropriate.

“While in these hotels, the government provides minors with supervision by specialists, recreation, amenities, and protective measures against COVID-19,” the attorneys wrote.

Before the pandemic, unaccompanied children were sent to state-licensed shelters operated by the Department of Health and Human Services and often released to family members while seeking asylum.

FROM THE RIGHT
Woodward Revelations Hurting Trump
A new poll shows meaningful shifts in public attitudes.

JAMES JOYNER · SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2020 · 21 COMMENTS














Yahoo News has a new poll out with a feel-good story: Trump is falling further behind. Let’s hold our horses a bit before celebrating.

“New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Trump falls 10 points behind Biden amid reports he misled Americans about COVID-19 and disparaged U.S. soldiers.”

Donald Trump has fallen further behind Joe Biden following bombshell reports that the president knowingly misled Americans about the dangers of COVID-19 and privately disparaged dead U.S. soldiers as “suckers” and “losers,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

The survey, which was conducted from Sept. 9 to 11, shows Biden leading Trump by 10 percentage points among registered voters, 49 percent to 39 percent. The previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll found Biden ahead by just 6 points immediately after the Republican National Convention.

The results suggest that a week of unrelenting and unflattering revelations about Trump — from the Atlantic report on his alleged contempt for Americans wounded or killed in war (which appeared on Sept. 3) to Bob Woodward’s recordings of Trump admitting he downplayed the deadliness of COVID-19 (released on Sept. 9) — has damaged the president’s standing with voters.

My initial reaction was that the analyst was taking a change in a single poll within the range of sampling error and explaining it based on what had happened in the news since. But, no, they actually polled on those items.

Asked if their opinion of Trump’s coronavirus response has changed because of Woodward’s big scoop — a tape of Trump privately acknowledging the virus was “deadly stuff” even as he publicly sought, in his own words, “to play it down”— nearly a quarter of Americans (23 percent) say yes. Even 15 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 say the Woodward news has changed their mind about the president’s handling of the pandemic.

Those might seem like small numbers. But in an age of extreme polarization, they could augur a real shift. Overall, 15 percent of Americans say the Woodward quotes have made them less likely to vote to reelect the president in November — and a third of these were 2016 Trump supporters.

The military story seems to have had a similar impact. Asked which candidate shows more respect for the military, 50 percent of registered voters name Biden, compared to 39 percent for Trump. By the same margin, voters say Biden would do a better job leading the military than the current commander in chief.

Reactions to Trump’s reported remarks on the military were predictably partisan, but nearly a quarter of independents (23 percent) say the news increased their support for Biden, compared to just 9 percent who say the news increased their support for Trump. Six percent of 2016 Trump supporters say they have moved toward Biden as a result.

Again, I’m naturally skeptical of this simply because it didn’t change my opinion of Trump. But, of course, I’m almost certainly in the top 1 percent in interest in political news and my views are much more firmly rooted than normal citizens who pay rather scant attention.

This is a much more telling bit of information:

This reflects a larger problem for Trump. Only 1 percent of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 supporters say they will vote for the president in November. At the same time, 8 percent of Trump’s 2016 supporters say they will vote for Biden.

There were a lot of people who voted for Trump who had never voted for a Republican simply because they were tired of “politics as usual” and thought he would “reboot the system.” One presumes he’s lost most of those people.

More detail from the poll:

Registered voters reject Trump — and prefer Biden — on nearly every major issue. For instance, a wide majority of them (57 percent) disapprove of the president’s handling of the pandemic; only 40 percent approve. By a 17-point margin (48 percent yes to 31 percent no) voters say the current coronavirus situation in the U.S. would be better right now if Biden had been president instead of Trump.

Likewise, only 37 percent of registered voters approve of the way the president has handled the Black Lives Matter protests; 54 percent disapprove. In the wake of the protests in Kenosha, Wis., an even larger majority of registered voters (57 percent) say Trump “makes things worse” when he talks about race. Just 27 percent say he “makes things better.” By a 15-point margin, voters believe that Biden (49 percent) would have handled the Black Lives Matter protests better than Trump (34 percent).

Looking forward, a 10-point plurality thinks that if Biden is elected, there will be less violence of the sort seen in Kenosha (42 percent) rather than more (32 percent). Half as many voters believe Biden wants to “abolish the suburbs” (23 percent) — a frequent Trump attack — than believe he wants to do no such thing (46 percent). And a full 61 percent predict there will be more violence if Trump is reelected, while just 20 percent say there will be less.

Those are really good numbers. The thing is, we don’t know how they’re distributed or how salient they are for voters.

As we’ve beaten to death here over the years—and regular readers, who are also off the charts in interest in these things or they wouldn’t be, well, regular readers instinctively understand—we don’t elect Presidents on a national popular vote but in 51 statewide contests. It’s quite possible these attitudes aren’t the same in the “swing” states.

Additionally, there are almost certainly a significant number of traditional Republican voters who think Trump is a lying scumbag who has totally mismanaged the pandemic but will nonetheless vote for him because they can smell the opportunity to take over the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade.

As always, aggregates of polls are better than individual ones and they, too, are good news for Biden. The slightly Republican-leaning RealClearPolitics average also shows Biden’s lead widening—although not as wide as it once was.

While 7.5 points isn’t 10, it’s still significant. Moreover, the fact that Trump hasn’t tied, much less led, the race for even a single day going back more than a year is telling.

The FiveThirtyEight gang uses a more rigorous methodology in choosing and weighting polls but paint a remarkably similar picture:

Even with that, though, they give Biden only a 75 percent chance of winning 270 Electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 24 (there’s a 1 percent chance of a 269-269 tie). Mostly, though, that’s because the state polls are fewer and thus less reliable. Plus, they’re overcorrecting for the perception they got it wrong in 2016 and being extra cautious.


About James JoynerJames Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

 

Roger Stone to Donald Trump: bring in martial law if you lose election



THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG FROM BANNON'S ADMIRATION OF LENIN'S BOLSHEVIK COUP TO STONE'S NIXONIAN FANTASY OF COPS IN THE STREETS


Trump meanwhile promises to ‘put down’ leftwing protests and says US Marshals killing Portland suspect was ‘retribution’  ASSASSINATION IS A BETTER WORD

Roger Stone in 2019. The long-time Trump ally has said the president should refuse to give up power should he lose November’s election. Photograph: Sam Corum/EPA

Roger Stone, whose 40-month prison sentence for lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation was commuted by Donald Trump, has said Trump should seize total power and jail prominent figures including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg if he loses to Joe Biden in November.

The long-time Republican strategist and dirty trickster, who has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, lied about contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election regarding emails hacked from Democratic party accounts.

In turn, special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate intelligence committee suspected Trump lied when he said he could not recall discussing the leaks with Stone.

Stone did not turn on Trump and had his sentence reduced on the recommendation of attorney general William Barr. But he still faced prison before Trump acted. His conviction stands.

Both men were in Nevada on Saturday, Trump holding campaign events while Stone sought to raise money for himself. He outlined his advice to Trump should he lose in a call to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s Infowars online show, on Thursday.

Citing widely debunked claims of fraud around early voting, absentee balloting and voting by mail, Stone said Trump should consider invoking the Insurrection Act and arresting the Clintons, former Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Tim Cook of Apple and “anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity”.

Stone also said: “The ballots in Nevada on election night should be seized by federal marshals and taken from the state. They are completely corrupted. No votes should be counted from the state of Nevada if that turns out to be the provable case. Send federal marshals to the Clark county board of elections, Mr President!”

Nevada has not gone to a Republican since 2004 but is shaping up to be a crucial contest this year. Biden leads there, but polls have tightened.

Trump’s own rhetoric was not far removed from that of the man he spared prison. The president continued on Saturday to make unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. He and his campaign have also consistently claimed without evidence that “antifa”, or anti-fascist, activists represent a deadly threat to suburban voters that will be unleashed should Biden win.

Commenting on a Daily Beast report about leftwing activist groups planning what to do “if the election ends without a clear outcome or with a Biden win that Trump refuses to recognize”, Stone told Jones the website should be shut down.

“If the Daily Beast is involved in provably seditious and illegal activities,” he said, “their entire staff can be taken into custody and their office can be shut down. They wanna play war, this is war.”

Stone also advocated “forming an election day operation using the FBI, federal marshals and Republican state officials across the country to be prepared to file legal objections [to results] and if necessary to physically stand in the way of criminal activity”.

In an interview broadcast on Saturday night, Trump told Fox News he would happily “put down” any leftwing protests.

“We’ll put them down very quickly if they do that,” he told Jeannine Pirro.

“We have the right to do that. We have the power to do that if we want. Look, it’s called insurrection. We just send in and we, we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that, because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal law. Last used in 1992, it was much discussed this summer, amid protests over racism and police brutality arising from the killing of George Floyd by officers in Minneapolis.

Ultimately Trump chose simply to send federal agents to confront protesters, most prominently in Portland, Oregon, a move which proved hugely controversial.

In his interview with Fox News, Trump discussed an incident in the city in which US Marshals shot dead a suspect in the killing of a member of a rightwing group.

“There has to be retribution when you have crime like this,” Trump said.

He also said protests such as those in Portland would lead to “a backlash” from the political right, “the likes of which you haven’t seen in many, many years”.






Is the 'Mozart Effect' real? New analysis indicates that music can help epilepsy

by European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

A new comprehensive analysis on the effect of Mozart's music on epilepsy has confirmed that listening to his piano music can reduce the frequency of epilepsy attacks. The results of this comprehensive meta-analysis (a study of studies), which may overturn current skepticism about the effect, are presented at the ECNP congress after recent publication in a peer-reviewed journal.


The idea that listening to Mozart may have beneficial effects on mental health arose from early findings in the 1990s. There have been several studies since, but many involved small numbers of people, or have been of variable quality, leading to mixed evidence overall. This has meant that the 'Mozart Effect' has been treated with some skepticism by many clinicians. Now two Italian Researchers, Dr. Gianluca Sesso and Dr. Federico Sicca from the University of Pisa have conducted a systematic review of works related to the effect of Mozart's music on epilepsy.

Working according to accepted standard methods for analyzing clinical treatment, they looked at 147 published research articles, which they then evaluated according to such things are relevance and quality of the research. This allowed them to select 12 pieces of research which they gathered into 9 separate groups, representing the best available science on the effect of Mozart's music on epilepsy.

They found that listening to Mozart, especially on a daily basis, led to a significant reduction in epileptic seizures, and also to a reduced frequency of abnormal brain activities in epileptic patients (called interictal epileptiform discharges, which are commonly seen in epileptic patients). These effects occurred after a single listening session and were maintained after a prolonged period of treatment.

Gianluca Sesso said "This isn't the first such review of the effect of Mozart's music on epilepsy, but there has been a flow of new research in the last few years, so it was time to stand back and look at the overall picture. The design of the studies varies, for example some people look at a single listening session, others at daily listening sessions, so it's not easy to form a conclusion.

Epilepsy is surprisingly common, affecting just under 1 person in a hundred worldwide. This means that it has significant social and personal costs. Mostly it's treated by drugs, but these drugs don't work in around 30% of patients, so we need to be open to other therapies: the important thing is that these therapies can be tested and shown to work, and this is what we have shown here".

The meta-analysis indicates that a period of listening to Mozart can give an average reduction in epileptic seizures ranging from between 31% to 66%, but this varies from person to person and according to the music stimulus used. The original studies on the Mozart Effect used the sonata for 2 pianos, K448, and this has remained the music most used in studies. The K545 piano sonata has also been shown to have an effect.

Dr. Sesso said, "All cultures have music, so it obviously fulfills some psychological need. The mechanisms of the Mozart Effect are poorly understood. Obviously other music may have similar effects, but it may be that Mozart's sonatas have distinctive rhythmic structures which are particularly suited to working on epilepsy. This may involve several brain systems, but this would need to be proven.

This is a review of research, and not original research. One thing it shows is that we need more consistent studies into the effect of music on the mind"

Commenting, Dr. Vesta Steibliene, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, and member of the ECNP Abstract and Poster Committee commented, "There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders. This review revealed that Mozart music could be an effective non-invasive method of neurostimulation, reducing the frequency of epileptic seizures, even in hard to treat patients. However, in order to use this method in clinical settings, the exact mechanism of the Mozart music effect on the brain regions should be better understood".

Dr. Steibliene was not involved in this work.


Explore further  
More information: Here are links to excerpts from the Mozart piano sonatas mentioned in the article:

K448 for 2 pianos, (pianists Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu) open.spotify.com/embed/album/0 … fMutJIKcohWLEZ3UhAux

K545 sonata (pianist, Lang Lang) open.spotify.com/embed/album/2 … 6Cg49cL6PtyDODubUzGY


Conference Abstract: Safe and sound: meta-analysing the Mozart effect on epilepsy


 

Volcanic ash may have a bigger impact on the climate than we thought


A plume of ash and dust rises from Pavlof Volcano on the Alaskan Peninsula in 2013. Credit: NASA

When volcanos erupt, these geologic monsters produce tremendous clouds of ash and dust—plumes that can blacken the sky, shut down air traffic and reach heights of roughly 25 miles above Earth's surface.

A new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder suggests that such  may also have a larger influence on the planet's climate than scientists previously suspected.

The new research, published in the journal Nature Communications, examines the  of Mount Kelut (or Kelud) on the Indonesian island of Java in 2014. Drawing on real-world observations of this event and advanced computer simulations, the team discovered that volcanic ash seems to be prone to loitering—remaining in the air for months or even longer after a .

"What we found for this eruption is that the volcanic ash can persist for a long time," said Yunqian Zhu, lead author of the new study and a research scientist at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at CU Boulder.

Lingering ash

The discovery began with a chance observation: Members of the research team had been flying an  near the site of the Mount Kelut eruption—an event that covered large portions of Java in ash and drove people from their homes. In the process, the aircraft spotted something that shouldn't have been there.

"They saw some large particles floating around in the atmosphere a month after the eruption," Zhu said. "It looked like ash."


Ash covers rooftops in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in the wake of the 2014 eruption of Mount Kelut Credit: CC photo via Wikimedia Commons

She explained that scientists have long known that volcanic eruptions can take a toll on the planet's climate. These events blast huge amounts of sulfur-rich particles high into Earth's atmosphere where they can block sunlight from reaching the ground.

Researchers haven't thought, however, that ash could play much of a role in that cooling effect. These chunks of rocky debris, scientists reasoned, are so heavy that most of them likely fall out of volcanic clouds not long after an eruption.

Zhu's team wanted to find out why that wasn't the case with Kelut. Drawing on aircraft and satellite observations of the unfolding disaster, the group discovered that the volcano's plume seemed to be rife with small and lightweight particles of ash—tiny particles that were likely capable of floating in the air for long periods of time, much like dandelion fluff.

"Researchers have assumed that ash is similar to volcanic glass," Zhu said. "But what we've found is that these floating ones have a density that's more like pumice."

Disappearing molecules

Study coauthor Brian Toon added that these pumice-like particles also seem to shift the chemistry of the entire volcanic plume.

Toon, a professor in LASP and the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at CU Boulder, explained that erupting volcanos spew out a large amount of sulfur dioxide. Many researchers previously assumed that those molecules interact with others in the air and convert into sulfuric acid—a series of chemical reactions that, theoretically, could take weeks to complete. Observations of real-life eruptions, however, suggest that it happens a lot faster than that.


NASA's unmanned Global Hawk aircraft, which observed ash lingering in the air after the eruption. Credit: NASA/Dryden/Carla Thomas

"There has been a puzzle of why these reactions occur so fast," Toon said.

He and his colleagues think they've discovered the answer: Those molecules of sulfur dioxide seem to stick to the particles of ash floating in the air. In the process, they may undergo chemical reactions on the surface of the ash itself—potentially pulling around 43% more sulfur dioxide out of the air.

Ash, in other words, may hasten the transformation of volcanic gasses in the atmosphere.

Just what the impact of those clouds of ash are on the climate isn't clear. Long-lasting particles in the atmosphere could, theoretically, darken and even help to cool the planet after an eruption. Floating ash might also blow all the way from sites like Kelut to the planet's poles. There, it could kickstart chemical reactions that would damage Earth's all-important ozone layer.

But the researchers say that one thing is clear: When a volcano blows, it may be time to pay a lot more attention to all that ash and its true impact on Earth's climate.

"I think we've discovered something important here," Toon said. "It's subtle, but it could make a big difference."

Volcanic emissions can cause changes in the atmosphere over a long time

More information: Yunqian Zhu et al. Persisting volcanic ash particles impact stratospheric SO2 lifetime and aerosol optical properties, Nature Communications (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18352-5
Journal information: Nature Communications 

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Infection higher in hospital cleaners than ICU staff: report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Intensive care medics were significantly less likely to have been infected with COVID-19 than cleaners and other healthcare workers in departments deemed lower risk, according to a study of several British hospitals at the peak of the pandemic.


The research also found that people of black, Asian and minority ethnicity were nearly twice as likely to have been infected as white colleagues.

It follows several studies suggesting race, income and allocation of personal protective equipment (PPE) create biases in the burden of infections.

Researchers said the results could be because those working in intensive therapy units (ITU) were prioritised for the highest level of masks and other equipment.

"We presumed intensive care workers would be at highest risk... But workers in ITU are relatively well protected compared with other areas," said lead author Alex Richter, a professor of immunology at the University of Birmingham.

In the study, published in the journal Thorax, researchers tested more than 500 staff at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, which runs several hospitals and employs more than 20,000 staff.

All the staff were at work in late April, when cases were peaking around a month after the UK went into lockdown.

At this time the trust was admitting five patients with serious COVID-19 infection every hour, but capacity to perform tests for infection was severely constrained even for healthcare workers.

Researchers offered to give staff who had no symptoms two different tests—one to see if they were currently infected and the other to test for antibodies indicating that they had previously had the virus.

Nearly 2.5 percent—13 out of 545—staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 infection.

Researchers also took blood samples from 516 staff and found that 24 percent of them had antibodies for the virus. This compares to six percent generally in the Midlands region of England at the time.

Ten out of 29 cleaners involved in the study—or 34.5 percent—had antibodies suggesting a previous infection.


The rates were similar for clinicians working in acute medicine and general internal medicine—33 percent and 30 percent respectively—while staff working in intensive care had the lowest rates (15 percent, or nine out of 61 participants).

The authors said it was not clear from their observational study whether the higher rates of infection among some staff "arises from a greater risk of exposure to the virus, or a greater risk of infection if exposed".

"Regardless of the cause, this finding demands urgent further investigation, particularly in view of the ethnic disparities in the outcome from COVID-19," they said.

Protecting staff

A slew of studies in the general population have highlighted how people from minority backgrounds in Britain and the United States are disproportionately more likely to die from COVID-19 than their white counterparts.

Last month a study published in The Lancet Public Health journal found that frontline health workers were more than three times more likely to test positive for the virus than the general population early in the pandemic, with the rate rising to five times for ethnic minority medical staff.

Commenting on the study in Thorax, Tim Cook, an anaesthesia professor at the University of Bristol, said it adds to research suggesting those working in intensive care were at lower risk than staff in other parts of a hospital.

He said the availability and type of PPE could be a factor as well as familiarity with more rigorous precautions for sterility and infection prevention in emergency rooms.

He added that recent studies suggested patients were more infectious at the beginning of their illness, so may be less likely to spread the virus by the time that they are treated in intensive care.

"Those caring for the patients earlier in their illness may be more at risk and this has implications for managing all patient-facing staff on the wards," he added.


Explore furtherHospital COVID-19 risk lowest among intensive care staff
More information: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study, Thorax (2020). DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215414
Journal information: Thorax , The Lancet Public Health
US democratic indicators plummet amid racial justice protests and pandemic

by University of Rochester
Placed in a longer-term context, the experts' ratings of US democratic performance have fallen the furthest since Bright Line Watch's inception in 2017 for the following five items: the judiciary can limit the executive, protests are tolerated, agencies do not punish, the constitution limits the executive, and the legislature can limit the executive. Credit: Bright Line Watch

The health of democracy in the United States has reached its lowest point since an academic watchdog group of political scientists began tracking its performance in 2017.


Results of the August 2020 survey from Bright Line Watch—a political science research project of faculty at the University of Rochester, the University of Chicago, and Dartmouth College—show a small but perceptible drop in the experts' rating of the overall quality of US democracy.

During the first two years of Bright Line Watch expert surveys, from February 2017 to March 2019, average scores were generally in the high 60s on a 0-100 scale, with a decline in the period before the 2018 midterm elections and then an uptick afterward in March 2019. Since then, however, three consecutive expert surveys have shown successive declines, driving ratings of US democracy to a new low of 61 on the Bright Line Watch scale in their latest survey.

While there are a few bright spots in the latest report, the overall picture is cause for consternation, notes Gretchen Helmke, professor of political science at the University of Rochester.

Since February 2017, the nonpartisan group of political scientists, which includes Helmke and Mitchell Sanders '97 (Ph.D.) of Meliora Research, has been surveying the American public, as well as colleagues in academia, in an effort to gauge the relative well-being of the nation's democracy.

"It is concerning that there has been so much erosion across the board on so many principles," says Helmke. "We have been seeing growing gaps for a while between how important a principle is and how it is performing, particularly in areas related to institutional limits on the government and accountability. But the latest survey showed us just how much ground has been lost since March."

In one way or another, COVID-19 has touched billions of lives around the globe and cast a pall over US politics. To date, more than 185,000 people have died in the US alone. Campaigns for the presidency, Congress, and other public offices are taking place in a largely virtual medium. At the same time, since Memorial Day, when George Floyd died while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers, protests over Floyd's death and the government's response to the protests have highlighted challenges to democratic governance. The survey was completed before the police shooting of Jacob Blake on August 23 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.


In its 11th survey of experts, the academic watchdog group asked political scientists across the country how US democracy fared during the pandemic.

The 776 responding experts, polled between July 27 and August 17, see the overall quality of US democracy continuing on its downward trend, reaching the lowest point since Bright Line Watch began its surveys in early 2017.

Key findings of Bright Line Watch's August 2020 survey
Performance declines since March 2020 are greatest for protections of free speech, toleration of peaceful protest, and protection from political violence.
Experts see considerable declines since 2017 in the performance of democratic principles concerning limits on government power and accountability for its misuse.
Experts are concerned about the state of American elections. Although relatively few express significant concerns about fraud, the majority does not believe that elections are free from foreign influence. Two-thirds of the experts do not think that citizens have an equal opportunity to vote, or that all votes have equal impact.
The gap between expert assessments of the importance of numerous principles and performance on those principles has widened. In the past, importance and performance ratings were highly correlated; experts perceived stronger performance for more important principles. That relationship has weakened.

Performance on democratic principles

Bright Line Watch asked experts to gauge how well the US "fully meets," "mostly meets," "partly meets," or "does not meet" standards for 28 democratic principles.

Overall, experts rate the US as performing well on questions related to rights and freedoms—such as political parties, opinions, and speech. They rate the US as performing poorly on dimensions associated with civility and behavior—such as patriotism, compromise, and facts, and electoral dysfunction—such as biased districts, campaign contributions, and inequality of votes. Experts express more mixed judgments on items involving accountability of officeholders and institutions.

"The most alarming findings, though not particularly surprising, are the steep declines in government protection for peaceful protest and the prevention of political violence," says Helmke. "This is really a new and quite worrisome trend, and, of course, our polling for this survey took place even before the events in Kenosha."

Specifically, since March, experts perceive substantial declines in government protection for peaceful protests (-31 percentage points), prevention of political violence (-16.7 percentage points), and protections for free speech (-12.4 percentage points). According to Bright Line Watch, those decreases can be attributed to the administration's responses to protests and demonstrations, including the use of nonlethal weapons against protestors and the deployment of federal agents in Portland and Washington, DC.

Expert ratings also declined for the principles that government statistics and data not be influenced by political considerations(-14.3 percentage points), that investigations of public officials remain free of political interference (-10.9 percentage points), and that voter participation in elections is generally high (-9 percentage points).

The only significant improvement in performance is on the principle that the judiciary can effectively limit the executive, which rose from 44 percent to 58 percent of experts saying that the US "mostly" or "fully" meets this standard. This increase might reflect recent Supreme Court decisions that prevented President Trump from blocking the release of his financial records and overturned his decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to the Bright Line Watch team.

The long view

When placed in a longer-term context, the experts' ratings of US democratic performance have fallen the furthest since Bright Line Watch's inception in 2017 for the following five items:
Government protects individuals' right to engage in peaceful protest
Executive authority cannot be expanded beyond constitutional limits
The legislature is able to effectively limit executive power
The judiciary is able to effectively limit executive power
Government agencies are not used to monitor, attack, or punish political opponents


Explore furtherPerception of US democracy tanks after Trump impeachment
Provided by University of Rochester