Dear Commons Community,

The United States economy is humming with solid economic growth in the first half of the year solid and expanding a robust 2.8% annualized rate in the second quarter, according to fresh Commerce Department figures released yesterday which are adjusted for inflation and seasonal swings.

Stocks surged in the morning after the economy’s powerful show of resilience, but later lost steam and closed the day mixed. The Dow rose 81 points, or 0.2%, after jumping more than 500 points earlier in the session. The S&P 500 fell 0.5% and the Nasdaq Composite lost 0.9%. That comes after the benchmark index and tech-heavy Nasdaq on Wednesday logged their worst day since 2022.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, was much stronger in the second quarter than economists had predicted. The GDP report showed that businesses are continuing to invest and that consumers are still opening their wallets. That’s key, because consumer spending is America’s economic engine, accounting for about two-thirds of US economic output.

As the economy continued to expand from April through June, inflation resumed a downward trend and seems to be on track to slowing further toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.  As reported by CNN.

America’s economy is about to stick what’s called a “soft landing,” which is when inflation returns to the Fed’s target without a recession — a feat that’s only happened once, during the 1990s, according to some economists.

The latest GDP report showed that a key gauge of consumer demand picked up in the second quarter to an annual rate of 2.9%, matching the rate in the fourth quarter of 2023 for the strongest pace in two years. A measure of business investment also strengthened in the April-through-June period.

The current health of the American economy shows that the Fed, with Jerome Powell at the helm as chair, has successfully handled inflation so far, with the finish line coming into clear view. The Fed beginning to cut interest rates indicates that central bank officials feel confident that inflation is under control just enough.

The economy’s enduring strength is also a boon for the Biden administration. Despite the Fed aggressively raising interest rates to tamp down inflation, which have been perched at a 23-year high since last July, the economy has so far avoided a recession. Last year, the resilience of the US consumer shocked economists who widely expected an economic downturn to ensue.

“Today’s GDP report makes clear we now have the strongest economy in the world,” President Joe Biden said in a statement Thursday. “The Vice President and I will keep fighting for America’s future — a future of promise and possibilities, of ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things.”

But even as the broader economy remains robust, Americans have still felt sour. Inflation is an economy-wide problem, so the pessimism has been felt broadly. Purchasing a home in many markets across the country remains out of sight, with home prices at a record high and mortgage rates still painfully elevated. The booming job market in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic has recently returned to normal, and it’s becoming a lot tougher to find a new job.

Waiting on the Fed

Fed officials meet next week to set monetary policy, and they’re widely expected to hold interest rates steady. The meeting will also offer a chance for the Fed to communicate whether or not it has gained any additional confidence that inflation is under control. Either way, it’s clear that officials are pleased with the economy’s performance so far.

“Current data are consistent with achieving a soft landing, and I will be looking for data over the next couple months to buttress this view,” Fed Governor Christopher Waller, a key central banker, said earlier this month at an event in Kansas City. “While I don’t believe we have reached our final destination, I do believe we are getting closer to the time when a cut in the policy rate is warranted.”

Wall Street traders are overwhelmingly betting that the Fed will decide to cut rates in its September 17-18 meeting.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell hasn’t given a definitive signal that rate cuts are coming, but he has provided some subtle hints. Powell earlier this month told lawmakers that “elevated inflation is not the only risk we face,” pointing to how much the labor market has cooled recently. The Fed chief has said that unexpectedly higher unemployment would prompt the central bank to cut rates sooner, since in addition to stabilizing prices, the Fed is also responsible for maximizing employment.

“Prices are easing and growth is strong. We had some worries about slowing GDP last June but those haven’t panned out,” David Russell, global head of market strategy at TradeStation, said in a note Thursday. “The second half could be in good shape for the bulls. Goldilocks is getting stronger and the risk of stagflation is fading. There’s not much stag and not much ‘flation.”

Good news!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) held its annual conference this week and has passed a resolution on artificial  intelligence.  There are twelve aspects to the resolution, all of which are important.  I especially like the wording on “the responsible and principled development and use of AI and social media technologies” as well as “the critical need for equitable access to AI and advanced technologies across all sectors, advocating for the democratization of technological benefits to ensure that no group is left behind.”

The entire resolution is below.

Tony

————————————————————-

Resolution Passed by the AFT

Artificial Intelligence

WHEREAS, the AFT represents the collective voice and aspirations of a diverse body of professionals, including teachers, school and college support staff, public employees, higher education faculty and healthcare workers, advocating for equitable access to high-quality healthcare, public services, education, and the advancement of social justice; and

WHEREAS, the emergence and integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, exemplified by innovations such as ChatGPT, machine learning algorithms and other AI-driven tools, have ushered in a new era of technology with the potential to foster transformative change across all sectors around the globe, particularly in education, healthcare and public services creating both remarkable opportunities and significant challenges that necessitate careful consideration and a strategic and immediate response; and

WHEREAS, the AFT advocates that any and all implementation of advanced technology must be guided by core commitments to ensure safety and privacy, promote human-centered implementation and individuality, advance equitable access, guarantee equity and fairness, advance democracy, and teach digital citizenship and balance; and

WHEREAS, the AFT has created the report “Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools,”[1] which shares the expertise and collective voices of our members in the field as they navigate the integration of advanced technology and AI in the classroom and beyond; and

WHEREAS, the AFT champions the principle of participatory innovation, advocating for the meaningful involvement of workers and other relevant stakeholders in the design, development, procurement, application and ownership of AI technologies to ensure that AI-based tools enhance rather than replace human expertise, judgment and interpersonal interactions, and that they are tailored to meet the specific needs and challenges of the sectors in which they are employed; and

WHEREAS, critical decision-making must remain with teachers, paraprofessionals, higher education faculty, healthcare professionals, and public service workers, regardless of the AI tool being used, and must never allow the institutions where we work to become dependent on AI or the corporations that develop it; and

WHEREAS, the opportunities of AI in education hold the promise of personalized learning experiences, adaptive instructional design, increased access, and enhanced teacher and staff support. AI-driven innovations in healthcare have the capacity to optimize diagnoses, streamline treatment plans and improve patient outcomes. In addition, AI technologies offer opportunities for more responsive government, data-driven decision-making, and enhanced service delivery, enabling governments to improve public infrastructure, and promote inclusivity and equity; and

WHEREAS, the challenges of technological development have, in some instances, been marked by a prioritization of technological advancement and profit over ethical considerations and societal welfare, leading to adverse outcomes, including the negative impacts of social media on young users; the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, including deepfakes; creation of unreliable responses such as hallucinations and other nonsensical results; undermining of intellectual property rights; erosion of public trust; the loss of students’ and workers’ personal information and privacy; the widening of socioeconomic gaps; and the narrowing of workers’ rights; and

WHEREAS, the indiscriminate or ill-considered implementation of AI-based technologies, particularly in sensitive sectors such as education, healthcare and public services risks compromising the quality and integrity if these essential services, exacerbating exiting disparities and diminishing the role and efficacy of the professionals in these fields; and

WHEREAS, the international community, including the International Labor Organization, UNESCO and the U.N. High Commission on Technology continues to examine a global response to an emerging technology; and

WHEREAS, the current regulatory and policy landscape in the United States has proven inadequate in addressing the complex and evolving challenges posed by many technologies, including AI, evidenced by the failure to hold technology companies accountable, ensuring robust protections for personal privacy, enforcing ethical standards in AI development and use, and preventing potential harms associated with these technologies, leaving individuals, public workers and communities vulnerable;

WHEREAS, the AFT recognizes the profound implications of AI and social media on the professional practices and personal lives of our members, underscoring the need for a nuanced, informed approach that maximizes the benefits of these technologies while proactively addressing their potential risks and ensuring they serve to support, rather than undermine, the critical work of educators and school staff at all levels, healthcare workers and public employees; and

WHEREAS, the AFT stands firmly against any application of AI and social media technologies that may lead to displacement; that infringes upon the fundamental rights of workers, including the right to collective bargaining; that perpetuates or amplifies systemic biases; that contributes to the widening of the digital divide, or that in any way detracts from the core mission and values of the AFT and our members, advocating instead for the development and implementation of these technologies in a manner that is ethical, equitable, transparent, inclusive and aligned with the public interest:

RESOLVED, that the AFT will endorse the responsible and principled development and use of AI and social media technologies, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, corporate responsibility, respect for intellectual property and other creative outputs, the protection of workers’ rights and privacy, and the maintenance of professional integrity, and calls for the establishment of ethical guidelines and standards that govern the use of these technologies across all sectors; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will emphasize the critical need for equitable access to AI and advanced technologies across all sectors, advocating for the democratization of technological benefits to ensure that no group is left behind in the digital age. Recognizing that AI has the potential to significantly enhance education outcomes, healthcare delivery and public services, the AFT will call for intentional efforts to bridge the digital divide and provide equal opportunities for all individuals to benefit from these advancements, regardless of socioeconomic status, geographic location or other barriers; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT strongly will advocate for a union seat at the table during the development, procurement and implementation of comprehensive, forward-looking regulations and policies that directly address the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by AI and social media, ensuring that these technologies are harnessed to serve the public good in a manner that upholds the principles of quality, equity and accessibility in education, healthcare and public services, and that safeguards are in place to prevent potential harms; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will assert that the impact of AI in the workplace is a mandatory subject of bargaining and will develop contract language, policies, procedures and practices to support our affiliates at the bargaining table and beyond, including specific measures to mitigate the displacement of workers due to the integration of AI or other advanced technologies; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will call for robust regulatory and policy measures to address the ethical, legal and social implications of AI. These measures should prioritize the protection of personal privacy, enforce ethical standards in AI development and deployment, and prevent potential harms such as bias, misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and the erosion of public trust. The AFT will urge policymakers to implement forward-thinking regulations that safeguard individual rights and promote the responsible use of AI in ways that align with societal values and the public interest; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will proactively engage with policymakers, technology developers, educational institutions, healthcare organizations, civil rights organizations and other key stakeholders in a concerted effort to establish clear, ethical guidelines and standards for the use of AI and social media within educational, governmental and healthcare settings, prioritizing the well-being, development and success of students, patients and the broader communities served by AFT members, and ensuring that these technologies are deployed in a manner that is respectful of the professional expertise and autonomy of educators, healthcare workers and public employees; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will commit to facilitating ongoing research both in the United States and abroad, dialogue, professional development and training initiatives designed to empower our members with the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to effectively navigate and leverage AI and social media in their professional practices, thereby enhancing the quality of education, healthcare and public service delivery, and ensuring that members are well-prepared to engage with these technologies in an informed, critical and constructive manner; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to advocating for a future in which technological advancements, including AI, serve to enrich and enhance the professional endeavors of educators and staff, healthcare workers and public employees, fostering environments that are inclusive, equitable and conducive to high-quality, personalized learning and public service, and ensuring that technology acts as a catalyst for positive change, empowerment and innovation within society, thereby contributing to the fulfillment of the federation’s mission to improve the lives of our members and the communities they serve; and

RESOLVED, that all AFT members will be provided with the tools, time and trust necessary to learn and use AI technologies in an ethical, responsible and effective manner, ensuring that they are equipped to integrate these new tools into their professional practices in ways that enhance their work and uphold the highest standards of integrity and efficacy; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will advocate for ongoing comprehensive training and professional development programs to equip our members with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively utilize AI and advanced technologies. Such initiatives should focus on enhancing digital literacy, fostering critical thinking and promoting ethical considerations in the use of AI. By empowering educators, healthcare workers and public employees with the tools to navigate and leverage these technologies, the AFT aims to improve service delivery and outcomes while maintaining the highest standards of professional integrity; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will continue to ensure that the expertise of our members is front and center in any development and/or integration of advanced technology and AI in their workplaces by expanding the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on AI and widely sharing its work such as the report “Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools,”[2] conducting a back-to-school conference on AI highlighting the leadership of AFT school-based members, creating similar ad hoc committees, as necessary, in all AFT constituencies, and continuing to grow and disseminate user-ready resources and additional examples of productive use of advanced technology on dedicated sections of AFT’s Share My Lesson and e-learning platforms; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT executive council will periodically review and update this resolution to reflect the rapid evolution of AI technologies in the workplace. This ongoing review will ensure AFT policies remain current and effectively address the dynamic nature of today’s workplaces, thereby safeguarding the interests and enhancing the capabilities of our members in an increasingly digital world.

Dear Commons Community,

H. Holden Thorpe, editor of Science, has an editorial this morning commenting on academic freedom and institutional neutrality. The issue is particularly important given the struggles of college presidents in responding to activism on their campuses regarding the Israel-Hamas War. For those of us in academia, Thorpe’s conclusion about universities “shirking their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship” is critical. 

Below is the entire editorial. It is well-worth a read.

Tony

——————————————————–

Science

H. Holden Thorp

July 26, 2024

The idea that universities in the United States—and especially their presidents—should be politically neutral was taking hold long before their recent struggles in responding to the Israel–Hamas war. A document called the Kalven Report that was produced at the University of Chicago in 1967 famously declared that “the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Thus, in matters of political controversy, the university best serves its faculty and students by remaining neutral so that those with disciplinary expertise can opine freely. Neutrality makes good sense when it comes to political issues that by their nature are matters of opinion. But what about matters of science, especially when a finding has powerful political implications such as studies on climate or vaccines? Where should universities draw the line?

The proponents of blanket neutrality assert that universities should not only stay out of geopolitical matters but should also not comment on findings of their faculty’s research if they are politically sensitive. But does that paint the issue with too broad a brush? There is a distinction between the science itself and opinions about whether and how to act on it. The results of a vaccine trial are neutral—however, the role of government in mandating vaccines is political.

Peter Hans, president of the 17-campus University of North Carolina system, told me he would not support or oppose a particular scientific finding but “will defend all day the faculty’s right to share that finding with the world.” Jenna Robinson, a staunch proponent of neutrality and president of the conservative James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, went even further, saying to me, “I think it’s better for presidents not to comment on the content of the research (italics hers).” And University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos, also a renown nanoscientist, told me that the proper approach is wholesale neutrality, with the university standing as a place where “both popular and dissenting viewpoints are thoughtfully subject to reason and evidenced debate. A president seeking to foreclose debates by issuing institutional proclamations will inadvertently erode the credibility of the university in the eyes of the public and policy-makers alike.”

“For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword.”

Many critics of neutrality are disheartened by this hands-off approach. The prolific biomedical scientist Eric Topol described the stance to me as “a consistent path of being spineless, hiding in plain sight, ducking controversy, appearing to be dissociated from faculty and the science that they publish.” It’s discouraging that institutions can validate the scientific research of faculty by hiring and promoting them but then opt for neutrality if the findings have political implications. I don’t fault the presidents for adopting this position—the polarizing politics of the moment gives them little choice. But it is a major shift from an era when university presidents were regarded as both academic and moral leaders who stood up for the truth in times of crisis.

For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword. It comes with a strong commitment by administrators to back the rights of faculty to carry out their research, wherever the results may lead, but the trade-off is that if the findings are politically sensitive, the institution is going to stay out of the fray.

If neutrality is to be the order of the day, then scientists need to take extra care not to be intimidated when their research ignites a political storm. Dartmouth College President Sian Beilock put it like this: “I think a scientist’s job is to do the best work they can and publish the findings that they believe will be most impactful to humanity,” she said, “regardless of whether their conclusions align with one particular idea.”

At the same time, scientists need to hold the institutions accountable for their commitments to stand behind their researchers in every other way. True neutrality means that institutions would not take actions to defund or deemphasize research because it is controversial, but there are worrying signs that this is already happening. Stanford University just shut down its disinformation research program after it was hit by lawsuits from conservative groups. Unless this reciprocity holds, there is a danger that universities will shirk their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship.

Dear Commons Community,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a piece this morning on how to advise students who major in history written by a history professor and a retired IBM executive.  Here is an excerpt.

A sense of urgency can be felt around the hallways of liberal-arts departments: We have less money, fewer students, and more pressure to justify what we do. The future of the humanities seems uncertain, and a future without the humanities seems frightening yet all too imaginable in the face of political attacks and program cuts.

History faculty members share the sense of impending doom: “It’s the end of history,” an essayist recently warned in The New York Times, “and the consequences will be significant.” We’ve responded by updating curricula, jazzing up our course titles (from “Medieval History” to “Knights and Monsters”), and teaching about the historical aspects of present-day concerns such as technology, the environment, or social equity. Likewise, for more than a decade, we’ve had energetic conversations about how to better prepare our doctoral students for nonacademic career options.

But have we done enough to help majors and graduate students grasp the full range of career options available to them with a history degree? Clearly not. As historians whose careers and focus have bridged the gap between higher education and the business world (one of us was an IBM executive and the other hosts a podcast on the practical uses of history, especially in business and tech), we suggest three steps that academics and administrators could take to build the case. More specifically, these steps would help students find fulfilling careers in the kind of well-paying domains — business and tech — that rarely feature prominently in our history-career conversations.

The article goes on to make three broad recommendations.  The article goes into detail on each recommendation.

Step 1: Identify and spotlight your discipline’s “superpowers.”

Step 2: Get more tactical in linking your students to good jobs.

Step 3: Be open to the value of “practical” history.

History as a professional discipline developed in response to the Enlightenment’s call to arms for a systematic exploration of the universe. But it flourished under the aegis of 19th-century nation states that relied on historians to consolidate ideas about nations and peoples in order to justify their power. We need not sympathize with all premises of 19th-century historiography to appreciate the fact that state building helped our discipline to evolve, to make an impact on such areas as international diplomacy, and to become central to the liberal-arts curriculum.

Today, businesses are increasingly expected to be socially responsible, and many of them are improving people’s lives. They might be our natural partners in the effort to revive interest in history and the humanities.

As a political science major and a history minor,  I was fortunate enough to develop an administrative and technology-based career.  Our colleagues in the liberal arts need to become creative in advising their majors.  The information in this article is most helpful

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I have just finished reading The Radetzky March by Joseph Roth that was published in 1932.   It was recommended to me by a colleague who knows my interest in 20th Century history.  It is a remarkable chronicle of the decaying Austro-Hungarian Empire that follows the rise and demise of three generations of the Trotta family prior to World War I.  In a 1933 review in The New York Times, it was described as follows:

“The Radetzky March is an example of the way a good sociological novel should be written. Great events are present only as they are reflected in the lives of the characters- in this case the lives of the three Trottas, all of whom served the Emperor in one way or another. Joseph Trotta, a Slovene, son of a long line of south European peasants, happened to save the young Francis Joseph’s life at Solferino by stopping a bullet aimed at his Majesty’s head. For his services Joseph Trotta was made a baron, promoted to the rank of Captain, and rewarded more concretely by a dispensation from the imperial purse. His son, Franz, became a minister of the civil service, but Carl Joseph, the grandson of the “hero of Solferino,” found himself committed by the growing family legend to the cavalry.”

It has received accolades from a host of literary figures. 

“Roth’s masterpeice is one of he greatest novels written in the last century…magnificanet…life-enhancing to read.”  Allan Massie.

“Roth is Austria’s Chekhov.” William Boyd.

“One of the most readable, poignant, and superb novels in twentieth-century German: it stands with the best of Thomas Mann, Alfred Döblin, and Robert Musil. Roth was a cultural monument of Galician Jewry: ironic, compassionate, perfectly pitched to his catastrophic era”  Harold Bloom.

In sum, I found the praise for this novel justified both for its story and its writing.

Below is a review that appeared in The New York Times.

Tony

Books of The Times

The Radetzky March

By JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

October 17, 1933

oseph Radetzky, a veteran of Marengo, Wagram and other smoky battles of the Napoleonic wars, was one of the military glories of the now defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire. He lived to be over 90 and died in harness. For years he fought the red-tape artists who taught that military science, like the Rock of Ages, never changed. The measure of his success, as chief of staff and Field Marshal, may be found in the fact that during his lifetime Austria occasionally won a fight. After his death came the evil days; Austria was beaten by Louis Napoleon, by Bismarck, and, finally, in the World War. Francis Joseph, fated to rule the Austro-Hungarian Empire for some three-quarters of a century, was not born under a military star; he went forth to battle and he always- well, almost always- fell.

But the Radetzky March played on. It is one of the devices by which Joseph Roth manages to bind together his study of the disintegration of an empire, “Radetzky March.” Through the novel the two-four military time keeps its beat, but at the close the feet of the marchers are lagging, and many are out of step. Francis Joseph himself is dead; and the wind sown by Gavril Princip, who murdered the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to Francis Joseph’s throne, is about to blow down the flimsy structure of the monarchy. And soon the Radetzky March will be relegated to the lumber room of non-vital history.

All for the Emperor.

“Radetzky March” is an example of the way a good sociological novel should be written. Great events are present only as they are reflected in the lives of the characters- in this case the lives of the three Trottas, all of whom served the Emperor in one way or another. Joseph Trotta, a Slovene, son of a long line of south European peasants, happened to save the young Francis Joseph’s life at Solferino by stopping a bullet aimed at his Majesty’s head. For his services Joseph Trotta was made a baron, promoted to the rank of Captain, and rewarded more concretely by a dispensation from the imperial purse. His son, Franz, became a minister of the civil service, but Carl Joseph, the grandson of the “hero of Solferino,” found himself committed by the growing family legend to the cavalry.

All three Trottas are very limited people. Joseph was unimaginative enough to resign from the service when he discovered that the story of his exploit at Solferino had been dressed up for patriotic consumption in the Austrian school books. Franz lives his official’s life by rote, receiving the mail at precisely the same hour of a morning, never questioning his duty to God and to King, always thrilling to order at the overture to the Radetzky March. Carl Joseph himself, although faith is wearing thin on the eve of the World War, is still bound to his Majesty, who, indeed, saves him for Auld Lang Syne from the consequences of a debt incurred through dissipation. Nothing much happens throughout the 400 pages of the novel; life just dozes on. The officers do the usual things; they drill, drink a little or much, visit Fran Resi’s establishment (or others like it), play roulette, and generally mark time waiting for the war which must come. Carl Joseph doesn’t like the army, but has no will power to achieve a career in mufti.

But “Radetzky March” is not a slumbering novel. Just as the Russians can make great literature about the act of getting out of bed in the morning, so can Joseph Roth vitalize these pages about a vast calm before the storm of 1914. He makes spiritual paralysis exciting. Carl Joseph is held in thrall by two symbols. The Radetzky March binds him to the military life. And the portrait of the aging Emperor, his cold blue eyes staring out at his thousands of mixed subjects- Slovenes, Croats, Magyars, Germans, Bohemians, Italians, Poles and Ukrainians- seems to demand the loyalty expended by the first important Trotta, the hero of Solferino.

Where the Picture Hangs.

This portrait, as the book proceeds, seems to be all that holds the empire together. We meet with it in blowsy spirit shops, in fleshy gambling establishments, in cafes in Vienna or in the far marches on the Russian frontier, and in still more shady places. One of the most indicative passages in the book concerns Carl Joseph’s rescue of the Emperor’s picture from Frau Resi’s establishment; to such petty heroism is the Trotta line degraded. But the Emperor’s aged visage will not prevail. There is an uneasy feeling abroad in the army; as Dr. Skowronnek tells Franz von Trotta, “No young officer… can feel really satisfied with his job; that is to say, not if he thinks about it. He feels that war is his only chance, and yet he knows quite well that war means the end of the monarchy.”

The life of an officer in the empire of Francis Joseph must have been boring. Yet such is the richly tinted virtue of Joseph Roth’s style, admirably translated by Geoffrey Dunlop, that boredom becomes interesting as a spiritual state. It has its own wretchedness, its own dramatic values, when it is presented as a state of tension. Herr Roth’s pages are tense. They have a brilliant nostalgic charm. A St. Martin’s Summer coloring is in this book. “Radetzky March” explains much about the European past.

Grudges That Lie Deep.

Incidentally, it shed light on why Adolph Hitler- who was born in Austria- is what he is. Radetzky himself had a hankering for Anschluss. And the Germanic people in “Radetzky March” fear the Slavs and dislike the Jews. Hitler has merely inherited an old “earth hunger” which bids now to upset the peace of Europe, as it did in 1914. The old grudges lie centuries deep.

Joseph Roth is one of the authors who has had to flee Hitler. Along with the Zweigs, Stefan and Arnold, Lion Feuchtwanger, and others, he is now an exile from Germany. And he is one of the galaxy of great novelists of Mitteleuropa whose fate is perplexing the Viking Press, whose list, presided over by the shrewd and intelligent Ben Heubsch, includes the two Zweigs and Feuchtwanger. Marshall Best of the Viking staff is afraid the consequences of exile will show in future work by these writers. The test of being cut off from their subject material, their roots, must be met. Can it be met without resort to an overt propaganda which is nowhere apparent in the poetic and skilled pages of “Radetzky March”?

Courtesy of Chris duMond/Getty Images

Dear Commons Community,

Kamala Harris is smashing fundraising records as the Democratic Party’s donors — big and small — open their wallets for the vice president in the immediate aftermath of President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside.

In total, Harris’ team raised more than $81 million in the 24-hour period since Biden’s announcement, campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said Monday.

The massive haul, which includes money raised across the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and joint fundraising committees, represents the largest 24-hour sum reported by either side in the 2024 campaign. Harris’ campaign said it was the largest single-day total in U.S. history.  As reported by The Associated Press.

“The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections,” Munoz said.

Hours earlier, Future Forward, the largest super PAC in Democratic politics, announced it had secured $150 million in commitments over the same period from donors who were “previously stalled, uncertain or uncommitted,” a senior adviser said.

Taken together, the fundraising explosion puts Harris in a dominant position to secure the Democratic Party’s formal presidential nomination at next month’s national convention — if not sooner. The donor class’s embrace comes as she locks up endorsements from the vast majority of Democratic governors and members of Congress.

The huge haul also ensures that Harris and her allies can compete with Donald Trump, who has generated stunning fundraising totals of his own in recent weeks as he fights to return to the White House following multiple felony convictions and an assassination attempt.

“This is the next generation people have been waiting for,” Michael Kempner, a member of Biden’s national finance team, said of Harris’ emergence. “The donors I’ve spoken to are enthusiastic about supporting her. And even those that may have preferred an open convention have quickly coalesced around her overnight.”

Harris’ initial 24-hour fundraising total easily bested the $50 million Trump raised immediately after felony convictions and the $38 million Biden secured over the four days that followed last month’s disastrous debate performance. The Trump campaign has not said how much it raised immediately after last weekend’s assassination attempt; a spokesman didn’t respond to a request Monday.

Overall, the Harris campaign said 888,000 grassroots donors made donations over the previous 24 hours; more than 500,000 were making their first contribution of the 2024 campaign cycle.

And while there are a few vocal holdouts among the party’s elite donor class, most appear to be lining up behind Harris as they mobilize to help capitalize on her newfound momentum.

At least two major donor calls were scheduled by Harris allies Monday, while the Democratic National Committee was set to host another major donor call in the middle of the week.

Most big-dollar donors wanted Biden to step aside, as did the majority of rank-and-file Democratic voters. And on Monday, there was a palpable sense of relief and excitement among those who feared Biden would not choose to step aside, despite overwhelming concerns about his physical and mental strength.

“It was a cliffhanger. Nobody really knew what was happening,” said Michael Smith, an Los Angeles donor who, along with his partner James Costos, held numerous fundraisers for Biden. “Now it’s a new game. And in a TikTok-influenced world, the campaign ahead is going to be short, dynamic and reenergizing.”

Not everyone was happy.

Democratic donor Vinod Khosla, a tech billionaire, said on social media that he isn’t ready to back Harris immediately.

“I want an open process at the convention and not a coronation,” he posted on X. “The key still is who can best beat (Trump) above all other priorities given how much a danger he is.”

John Morgan, another major Democratic donor, indicated he would not raise any more money for Harris if she becomes the nominee, having already given $1 million to Biden.

“You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others’ turn now,” Morgan posted on X.

Such critics appeared to be in the minority Monday.

Chad Griffin, a member of the campaign’s national finance committee and a top Democratic fundraiser in the Los Angeles area, said the party is lucky to have Harris “ready to finish the job she and President Biden started together.”

“She’s the trusted, tested leader we need to carry us to victory in November,” he said in a statement. “I am all in to elect Kamala Harris our next President of the United States.”

With Biden’s endorsement, Harris’ campaign appears to have inherited his sprawling national infrastructure and tens of millions of dollars that his team previously raised. At the end of June, the Biden-Harris campaign reported nearly $96 million cash in the bank, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

On Sunday, the Biden-Harris campaign filed new paperwork with the FEC establishing Harris as the principal candidate. There is some debate among campaign finance officials over whether Harris now has complete control of the funds, although few expect any serious legal challenges.

Meanwhile, Harris’ campaign sent out a new flurry of fundraising emails and text messages Monday.

“Now is our chance to make history,” Harris declared in one text message asking donors for $20.

Go Kamala Go!

Tony

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (John Lamparski/Getty Images)

Dear Commons Community,

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is mired in a scandal wherein he floated the idea of endorsing Donald Trump’s presidency in exchange for a future job at the White House, four sources told The Washington Post. According to the anonymous sources, Kennedy, the independent presidential candidate, hoped to manage a slate of health and medical issues. As reported by The Washington Post and Insider.

The conversations reportedly began just hours after a would-be assassin targeted Trump on July 13, but did not result in an agreement. One source who knows both men said that he contacted Kennedy on Saturday evening and the two men spoke that night before eventually meeting face-to-face in Milwaukee the next week.

While in Milwaukee, Trump and Kennedy discussed potential Cabinet jobs and other posts that don’t require Senate confirmation. Kennedy raised the possibility of dropping his election bid and endorsing Trump, despite having publicly bashed him in the past.

Members of the Trump team, however, were concerned that the arrangement could cause thorny legal and optics issues. Not to mention, Kennedy is a well-documented vaccine skeptic, and some are worried that his stance could cause problems for the campaign.

Despite reportedly lobbying for a position related to healthcare, Kennedy promised to slash funding for federal agencies that regulate vaccines early in his campaign. He seems eager, however, to tackle the topic from within.

“All I will say to you is I am willing to talk to anybody from either political party who wants to talk about children’s health and how to end the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said in an interview on Monday. He praised Trump for reaching out to him and lamented the fact that he has never heard from Democratic leadership.

Trump and Kennedy have discussed vaccination prior to their rendezvous in Milwaukee. A leaked phone call between the two from the night of the attempted assassination shows the former president appearing to sympathize with his opponent’s stance.

Though there was no clear conclusion to the conversation in Milwaukee — a Trump spokesperson simply said that Trump speaks “regularly with important figures in business and politics” — the quid-quo-pro appears to violate the law.

Under section 599 of title 18 in the U.S. Legal Code, it’s illegal for a candidate to “directly or indirectly” promise a future job or position “for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.”

RFK, Jr. is an embarrassment to the Kennedy name!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Democratic donors are flocking to Kamala Harris after yesterday’s announcement by Joe Biden that he will not seek the presidency.

Hours after Biden made his extraordinary decision and back Vice President Kamala Harris instead, large and small donors began digging back into their pockets. As reported by NBC News.

ActBlue, the leading Democratic online donation processor, reported that donors gave $46.7 million in small-dollar donations through the platform for the day by 9 p.m. Eastern. It was already ActBlue’s biggest day of 2024 with hours left to go.

But that isn’t all. Much more is expected to flow in and is already being pledged by large-dollar donors, too.

“The floodgates will open,” Chris Korge, finance chair for the Biden Victory Fund, told NBC News. “There’s been a lot of people holding back contributions that will now contribute because the whole thing — that whole situation was paralyzing our fundraising.”

Korge said he was getting calls all day from major donors who were moved by Biden’s decision. Some even cried, he said.

“People are emotional because they knew how hard it was to make this decision after doing an incredible job,” Korge said. “Major donors are incredibly receptive of his endorsement and are genuinely excited. I think this is going to create a tidal wave of donations.”

On Sunday, ActBlue posted news of the money flow on its X account. Some of that money is going to other Democratic groups and campaigns, but Harris’ ascension was the catalyst — and her campaign was most likely the overwhelming beneficiary.

“Small-dollar donors raise over $27.5 million on ActBlue in the first 5 hours of Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign,” the post on X said. “Grassroots supporters are energized and excited to support her as the Democratic nominee.”

Hours later, ActBlue posted again to update that its daily total had ballooned to $46.7 million.

It’s among the biggest fundraising days ever for ActBlue. It announced this year that in the first quarter, donors gave over $460 million through the platform — a little over $5 million a day on average.

The development comes after weeks of catastrophic fundraising across Biden re-election efforts. Since the June 27 debate, big donors had cut off funding, saying they didn’t think Biden had a path. And it wasn’t just wealthy contributors: Grassroots funding had substantially diminished, too. Sources close to the campaign said that at the same time the campaign needed to scale up to take on former President Donald Trump, the spigot had shut off considerably, leaving them in an unenviable position.

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign, buoyed by enormous online fundraising hauls around his criminal conviction in New York in May, had suddenly taken the lead in terms of cash on hand. New filings through the end of June showed both Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee with more money in the bank than Biden and the Democratic National Committee.

Joe Cotchett, a San Francisco Bay Area Democratic bundler, said Sunday that donor sentiment immediately shifted after Biden’s announcement. Donors, he said, “are now ready to dig into their pockets.”

John Morgan, a Florida trial attorney and major Biden donor and fundraiser, said he believes there will be a near-term uptick in small-dollar donations. But he added that after Biden’s decision, he stepped down from the campaign’s national finance committee.

“You have to be enthusiastic to ask friends for money,” he told NBC News. “I was a Joe Biden Democrat before I was an independent.”

Democratic donor Gideon Stein, president of the Moriah Fund, had paused contributions to Biden because of concerns over his electability. But on Sunday, he said, “We will definitely resume our funding focus on the top of the ticket.”

Before his pause, Stein had planned donations of $3.5 million that were earmarked for nonprofit and political organizations tied to the race for the White House.

Justin Day, a prominent Florida Democratic fundraiser who is raising money this year for, among others, the Democratic Governors Association, said he thinks the change at the top of the ticket will get some Democratic donors off the sidelines.

“I have already heard from a number of donors who have not participated this cycle who have reached out to tell me they are all in, no matter who the nominee ultimately is,” said Day, who has been the Florida finance chair for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. “Focus has shifted back to beating Trump.”

Let the money flow!

Tony