Voters have “given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, climate change, systemic racism,” Joe Biden asserted on Nov. 6, 2020, before he had even been declared the winner of the presidential race.  

It was a bold statement, meant to turn the page from the Trump presidency and convey momentum. Mr. Biden was using his bully pulpit to prepare the ground for aggressive action, including on progressive policies the former vice president and longtime senator from Delaware might himself once have viewed skeptically. 

One year later, President Biden and the Democrats, narrowly in control of both houses of Congress, appear undaunted. Even after Tuesday’s twin electoral shocks – the loss of the Virginia governorship and near-defeat of the incumbent Democratic governor in solid-blue New Jersey – Democratic leaders were vowing to plow ahead with the party’s agenda.

“People want us to get things done,” the president said Wednesday. 

Friday morning, House Democratic leaders had appeared ready to hold votes on both a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping $1.75 trillion social spending bill, which no GOP members support. But as the day wore on, hopes faded that they could pass both bills before lawmakers left town for next week’s recess. Their best hope appeared to be passing the infrastructure bill and holding a preliminary vote on the bigger bill that would pave the way for it to be passed when they got back from recess.

But even that hope appeared uncertain as of deadline, with progressives reiterating their demand that both bills be passed together and moderates refusing to support the spending bill without independent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, which will take an estimated two weeks.

Already, critics on the right – and even some within the Democratic Party – have begun charging that Mr. Biden and the Democrats misinterpreted their 2020 mandate. 

But there’s a deeper truth at play: Presidential “mandates” are something of a myth – especially when it comes to the specifics of policy. Most of the time, it’s impossible to pin down why people vote the way they do, and so it can’t be said with certainty that a candidate has been elected to take specific policy actions. 

The 2020 election result was clearly a rejection of President Donald Trump and his handling of COVID-19, says political scientist Julia Azari of Marquette University. “But COVID would have been hard for any president,” adds Professor Azari, author of a book on presidential mandates. “And it’s not clear how the Biden administration was supposed to produce normalcy.” 

Mr. Biden’s decision to require vaccination against COVID-19 for workers at companies with more than 100 employees – the guidelines of which were released Thursday – has majority support among Americans. But there’s a deep split along party lines, making the policy a likely flashpoint in next year’s midterm elections. That may well be the case even if the policy is ultimately credited with helping to subdue the pandemic. 

A longtime Democratic observer echoes Mr. Biden’s comment about the need to “get things done.” In the 1994 and 2010 midterms, two Republican “wave” elections, the Democratic failure wasn’t necessarily in the specifics of bills they didn’t pass. “It’s that it looked like the Democrats were in disarray and chaotic, and there was too much arguing among themselves,” says Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

And while it’s true that President Barack Obama did pass the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Mr. Kessler suggests there wasn’t enough time for Democrats to sell the new law and allow voters to digest it before the November midterms. 

“This is not to say that every single thing in the Build Back Better agenda needs to be passed,” Mr. Kessler says. “But the major pieces do. And you want the infrastructure bill. It’s been at the one-yard line for several months now.” 

The $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act includes sweeping provisions to support parents; expand access to affordable housing, education, and health care; and invest $500 billion in clean energy and climate initiatives – something both President Biden and Speaker Pelosi had hoped to tout at the two-week U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, that will wrap up Nov. 12.

Even after Tuesday’s elections, a former top Senate aide says he still thinks Mr. Biden should “swing for the fences” with the two bills. 

“I believe he correctly assessed that the country had pressing needs, especially after four years of the former president, and he is bound and determined to pass as robust a package as possible,” says Jim Manley, who served as communications director for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

But there’s no guarantee that enacting a major social spending bill will help Democrats next November, or that voters will even know what’s in it – despite what Mr. Biden and his team do, including a national publicity tour. 

The power of the presidential bully pulpit is itself a bit of a myth, especially today, with a plethora of TV channels, news sites, social media, and entertainment options competing for attention. 

Back in 2005, President George W. Bush learned the hard way that trying to enact what he had campaigned on the year before was easier said than done. His top domestic priority was to reform Social Security, allowing Americans to invest part of their contributions in private accounts. He made it a central feature of his State of the Union address, then toured the country. The initiative went nowhere.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have differing views as to whether Mr. Biden and the Democrats have a mandate from voters. Senate Republicans believe the Democrats have misinterpreted the 2020 election results and are engaging in massive overreach – for which they will pay a political price next fall.

“Democrats have decided to convince themselves that there was a mandate to dramatically change the social framework of the country,” says Missouri GOP Sen. Roy Blunt. “They should have gotten their first strong indication [Tuesday] that they have overread what voters were doing a year ago.”

Sen. Jon Tester, a centrist Democrat, offers a more nuanced take. “The sky isn’t falling, but we need to pay attention to it,” says Senator Tester. “From my perspective in Montana, it’s ‘let’s get some things done that will help lower costs for families and reduce taxes.’”

Still, when asked if the president and the party have a mandate from voters for their big social spending bill, Mr. Tester says, “I don’t believe anybody ever has a mandate,” as he steps into a basement elevator at the Capitol complex.

The view from a veteran House member – and a different wing of the party – demonstrates the level of frustration with the Senate.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, blames the Democratic loss in the Virginia governor’s race on tired messaging. But he also casts blame at moderates in the upper chamber, who have pushed back on key policies in the bill as well as the original price tag of $3.5 trillion. “The process that we’re going through right now with reconciliation [Build Back Better] and infrastructure, we should have settled that sooner,” he says. “I hope that people bear some responsibility for that, particularly on the Senate side.”

Politicians don’t typically acknowledge publicly that their party may lose control of Congress in upcoming elections. But speaking to reporters last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hinted as much. 

“No one ever said that passing transformational legislation like this would be easy. But we are on track to get it done because it’s so important. And it’s what the American people need and what they want,” said Senator Schumer, signaling a sense of urgency to make a deal while his party still controlled both chambers of Congress. “This is a moment – it may be a moment that doesn’t come back again.”

Staff writers Christa Case Bryant and Dwight A. Weingarten contributed to this report. 

Matthew Brown/AP

A flare to burn methane from oil production is seen on a well pad near Watford City, North Dakota, Aug. 26, 2021.

At last, methane is getting global attention as a greenhouse gas, say environmentalists. They are cheering the pledge to reduce methane emissions signed by more than 100 countries at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. 

Methane (CH4) is the No. 2 Earth-warming gas behind carbon dioxide, but it is far more potent than CO2. Methane belongs to a group of short-lived, heat-trapping gases known as super pollutants that have a supersized impact on global warming in the near term.

Control these, say climate scientists, and you will get quick results – and buy time while the world continues to grapple with reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

What are super pollutants? 

As a group, they account for about 40% of global warming, according to a recent report by The Climate Center, which is based in California – a leading state in tackling super pollutants. Big players in the group include methane (from oil and gas leaks, agriculture, and organic waste in landfills); black carbon, commonly called soot (from diesel engines, burning wood, and other sources); and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are coolants for refrigeration and air conditioning.

Super pollutants also are ultra heat trapping compared to carbon dioxide. Black carbon and HFCs are about 2,000 times more potent, and methane is more than 80 times more potent over a 20-year period. This group can stay in the atmosphere from days to decades, compared to carbon dioxide and other long-lived climate pollutants, which can stick around for centuries. 

“Just focusing on CO2 is not enough,” says Daniel Kammen, one of the co-authors of the report and a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley.

Why are super pollutants so important? 

It’s that combination of potency, their relatively short life, and their big percentage in the greenhouse gas mix that makes them such a high-value target. That, plus the fact that technology readily exists to curtail these pollutants. It’s all about speed. Fast cuts to this group would cut in half the rate of global warming by 2050, says climate scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.

Global warming is “going to get progressively worse over the next 10 years. But [the rate] would stabilize and come down if we deal with the super pollutants,” Dr. Ramanathan told the Monitor in an interview earlier this year.

What is being done to cut super pollutants?

Scientists have been raising the alarm about super pollutants for years. This year, international leaders finally responded to experts’ cry about methane. After President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did a “soft rollout” of a pledge to cut methane in September, they took it to Glasgow this week. More than 100 countries – though not China or Russia – pledged to cut methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. The pledge covers nearly half of global methane emissions.

At the same time, the Biden administration proposed new regulations to cut methane emissions in the oil and gas sector – first introduced by President Barack Obama, then rolled back by President Donald Trump, and now fortified under Mr. Biden. For the first time, the proposed rule would target existing oil and gas wells nationwide (not just new ones), requiring regular monitoring and control of methane leaks. Technology exists to readily detect and fix such leaks. The White House maintains the proposal would reduce U.S. methane from this key sector by 75% by 2030 compared with 2005.

The pledge “means a U-turn in methane emissions,” says Katie Ross, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute in its global climate program. “They’ve been rising. Last year was the highest concentration of methane in the atmosphere ever.”

Ms. Ross lists other efforts to curb super pollutants: A legally binding international agreement gradually phases out HFCs, and members of the Arctic Council are on track to meet their aspirational goal and reduce black carbon emissions by 25%-33% by 2025 compared with 2013. Soot is particularly important to Arctic and mountainous regions because it falls on snow and ice, reducing their ability to reflect light.

In the U.S., individual states have committed to attacking super pollutants through the U.S. Climate Alliance, including California, which in 2016 passed a law establishing reduction targets. This January, for instance, all California residents and businesses will be required to recycle food waste – a big source of methane.

Ask Dr. Kammen about impediments to reducing super pollutants and he asks, “how many days do I have” to answer? Pledges need to be turned into timely actions, and then there are legal battles, and the possibility of a future administration reversing course. But he’s heartened by the methane pledge.

It’s a “really impressive shot” he says, benefitting not only the atmosphere but also disadvantaged communities that live near oil and gas wells. As scientists have repeatedly said, it comes in a crucial decade and targets a specific, high-impact gas – making this strategy the most effective one for reducing global warming in the near term.

At the start of every season, hockey parents in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia wrangle with a lengthy array of forms, shopping lists, and meetings. This year, a letter from President Linda Jondo of the Potomac Valley Amateur Hockey Association, the governing body for amateur hockey in the DMV, has folks talking.

“As you may be aware,” the letter begins, “a large number of officials have either not returned this season or left since the season started.”

According to Benjamin Ahlstrom of the Southeastern Hockey Officials Association, which supplies many of the Potomac Valley Amateur Hockey Association’s officials, the number of people available to referee hockey games has fallen from about 450 in 2018-19 to just 276 today. These refs are expected to call about 15,000 games this year.

The immediate cause for this shortage has been the pandemic, Mr. Ahlstrom says, which “accelerated the generational attrition of our highly trained officials. Older ones sat out the pandemic season, and just decided not to go back.”

But there’s another issue at play that goes much deeper – loss of civility. Sports experts agree: Parents, coaches, and fans are increasingly aggressive toward officials. 

“[W]e’ve racked up more than a dozen reports of players, parents and coaches thrown out of rinks for their unprofessional conduct towards officials in the first two weeks of this season,” states Ms. Jondo in her letter. 

From peewee club sports to high school face-offs, a shortage of officials leaves organizers with uncomfortable choices: compromise on safety, move games, or cancel them altogether. But new efforts to address the problem are underway. 

Shameless

Most every state is reporting a shortage of officials in just about every sport. 

A 2017 survey, conducted by the National Association of Sports Officials, of more than 17,000 officials across the country in all sports found that 57% believed sportsmanship was declining. And the worst offenders, according to these officials, are parents and coaches. In fact, more than 46% of respondents said that they had “feared for [their] safety due to administrator, player, coach, or spectator behavior.”

New officials seem to be particularly affected. Though numbers vary, it’s estimated that about 50% quit after just one year on the job. The National Federation of State High School Associations says 80% quit after three years. 

Frank Maisano, a high school and college official who has been refereeing multiple sports for nearly 40 years, puts it succinctly: “People have always challenged [officials],” he says, “but it’s worse [now] because people feel less shame over it.”

Peter Stearns at George Mason University, who has spent his career studying the role that shame plays in American society, agrees with Mr. Maisano. Fan behavior is “worse, almost certainly,” says Dr. Stearns, noting that as a society we don’t approve of shaming people as much as we once did. “We’ve got a hyperindividualism … in the U.S. that argues, ‘If I’m offended, then rules don’t apply.’ Manners, mild forms of shame, simply don’t count against this personal sense of indignation.”

Further, says Dr. Stearns, social media allow us to be “as nasty as you feel.” Combine that with “individual entitlement,” he continues, “and you’ve got a poisonous mixture.”

Kevin Swift, head football coach at Gold Beach High School in Oregon, is sure that the treatment of officials has taken a turn for the worse, and that part of the reason is the lack of shame people feel for acting out. He’s seen the decline over more than 35 years as a teacher and athletic director, as well as coach. He also believes the sense of community service – which motivates many referees – is “a dying concept.” 

“It’s tougher to make a living in the world today,” he explains, so people have trouble balancing being a referee with working a job that keeps them away from home 11 or 12 hours a day.

Roberta Butler is familiar with all of this as an assignor – the person responsible for scheduling referees – for field hockey games in and around Philadelphia. She, too, notices a breakdown in referee treatment and availability. “Officials are on the field because … they like being out there,” she notes. “They’re not doing it to penalize a coach. ... Just the coach coming up, shaking your hand, and greeting you takes a lot of the tension out of it. That civility has left our games.”

Rhett Butler/Courtesy of Stacy Warner

Stacy Warner of East Carolina University has been studying officials and their roles in society for more than a decade. She notes that the shortfall of referees has been going on for a decade, in the both the U.S. and abroad, and believes the shortage is complex.

Beyond fan behavior

Stacy Warner of East Carolina University has been studying officials most of her career and isn’t at all surprised by the shortage. “There’s been a global referee shortage for a decade now,” she says.

Ms. Warner doesn’t discount the role that fan and coach abuse plays but notes that it’s far from the only factor driving people from the game. Her research shows that “people don’t understand there’s a shortage.” When they do become aware, she continues, “they don’t feel they have the knowledge or support they need” to help change it. “It’s … really difficult,” she says, “for people to break in and start that process. ... [Inadequate] training, mentoring, clearer policies on how games are assigned, and being able to talk to the right group of people” are all well-known issues in the officiating world.

The difficulty in recruiting is reflected in data from the National Association of Sports Officials survey: In 1975, the median starting age for new officials was 24 years old, topping out at 36. In 2017, the median starting age was 38.

Seeking solutions

Creative efforts are underway to address the lack of civility partially responsible for the shortage of officials.

As someone who has worked with Division I (college-level) basketball for 21 years, including supporting officials off the court, Brenda Hilton is deeply aware of the challenges referees face from fans. In 2019 she began connecting with people at the National Association of Sports Officials and learned more about what’s happening at the high school level.

Her response was to launch Officially Human, an organization committed to teaching fans, coaches, and parents about officials in an effort to lower the temperature among them. Its keystone program is Elevate Respect.

LM Otero/AP/File

Spenser Simmons, a referee with the North Texas Basketball Officials Association, speaks to players during a high school freshman girls basketball game in Allen, Texas, on Nov. 12, 2015. A lack of civility has been blamed for the escalating attrition among referees.

Pairing simple scenarios with data about the shortage and treatment of officials, Elevate Respect shines a gentle light on people’s behavior in an effort to get them to change. Aimed at parents, coaches, and other stakeholders, the emergency program teaches empathy.

“[It] takes you through the youth sport ecosystem: why people become officials, how they do it, what happens if they’re gone,” says Ms. Hilton.

The 20-minute course was introduced in May. “Anecdotally,” she adds, “folks who have taken this course [are saying]: ‘I’m appalled at the way I’ve behaved.’”

Kevin Collins, a former NHL official and member of the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, is focused on supporting officials at all levels by encouraging more mentorship. He created the Summer Officiating Development Camp in 1983 as well as training manuals for USA Hockey refs.

Shocked by the growing level of threats facing officials in all sports, Mr. Collins is encouraging older referees to pair with mentees off the ice as well as on. “Parents confronting officials in the parking lot is a problem,” he says. “Something as simple as walking with young officials to their cars” can help. 

Back in the DMV, Ms. Jondo is insisting that her officials fill out incident reports; parents can be removed for up to five games for verbal abuse. In the five years that the Potomac Valley Amateur Hockey Association has done this, there have been no repeat offenders.

Looking ahead

People like Ms. Warner and Ms. Butler are looking for new ways to recruit: attracting athletes who are aging out of competitive high school sports; encouraging officials to referee more than one sport; and reaching out to more women, who make up less than 10% of officials, according to a survey led by Ms. Hilton.

Mr. Swift, the Gold Beach football coach, turned to the two Coast Guard stations in his community to attract potential referees, with some success. He also believes first responders such as EMTs, police officers, and firefighters are potential resources.

For the foreseeable future, however, the official shortage is here to stay. And more players are going to feel the effects.

Ms. Jondo says, “We’re to the point that we’re looking to cancel up to 50 games a week.” 

Still, those in the game remain optimistic. “People are giving,” says Ms. Butler. 

Reuters

A man walks on the outskirts of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nov. 5.

The war in Ethiopia, which for a year has largely been contained in one region, Tigray, has escalated into a “nationwide social convulsion” with “open warfare that now engulfs the nation,” warned Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta this week. “The fighting must stop!”

Another neighbor of Ethiopia, Uganda, has called for East African leaders to attend a summit Nov. 16 to address the spreading warfare that might soon reach the capital, Addis Ababa, with the rapid advance of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front forces.

Meanwhile, the 55-nation African Union has called on the warring parties to allow former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to mediate a political solution. The AU also reminded Ethiopian fighters to abide by humanitarian law.

These calls for peace in Ethiopia reflect an Africa that has learned a lesson from the genocide in Rwanda 27 years ago: The continent must intervene early in places when ethnic strife could result in mass violence. Today’s African leaders are better poised to raise alarms when a country like Ethiopia, with more than 100 million people and 80 ethnic groups, has the potential for large-scale atrocities.

Already in Tigray, thousands of civilians have been killed and more than 2.5 million have been forced to flee their homes. At the heart of the dispute lies different visions for Ethiopia. The minority Tigrayans want power distributed to Ethiopia’s different ethnic regions while Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who came to power three years ago, has sought to centralize power and to create a national identity, centered on his new Prosperity Party.

Outsiders like Mr. Kenyatta know that only Ethiopians can resolve the competing visions for a unified country. Africa wants to see peace in Ethiopia, says the Kenyan president. “We all stand ready to assist the process that the Ethiopians themselves see fit.”

The tragedy of the Rwanda genocide, which tarnished Africa’s image for years, has pushed its current leaders to show moral backbone in preventing similar tragedies. Ethiopia’s war could be their biggest test yet. Their sense of urgency shows a key lesson of history is not being forgotten.