Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

For the good of the nation, let’s not normalize any Trump flunkies with primetime TV cameos

By now it’s well nigh reflexive for the progressives to squint their eyes and peek beyond victory’s spectacular balloon drop and confetti shower and attempt to make out the faintest shadows of defeat lurking beyond the celebration. Following four years of horror upon horror and loss upon loss, reacting to good news with a flinch is completely understandable.

However, while it is absolutely OK to look toward the future with a modest main course of hope alongside our usual helpings of dread, it also behooves all of us to never forget the long list of crimes for which Donald Trump and his enablers are responsible, moral and actual.

They have cavalierly mismanaged and continue to mishandle a pandemic that as of this writing has claimed nearly 240,000 lives and infected 10.1 million Americans and counting. They sought to transform the inhumanity of ripping migrant children from the arms of their parents and locking them in cages into good sense politics, evidence of a hardline immigration policy. Given the opportunity to decry Trump’s open racism and instigation of violence, they chose and continue to choose silence or support and rebrand it as “culture issues” or “law and order” concerns.

What I’m saying is, none of these figures deserve to turn up on celebrity editions of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” or drop in on “The Conners” for a hilarious cameo or to show their faces in any broadcast network entertainment title. Not Kayleigh McEnany, not Kimberly Guilfoyle, not Mark Meadows, none of them.

Not now, not ever.

To be clear, we fully expect several of these toadies to pop up as CNN contributors or to get their own show on Fox News. That’s the way cable news works. It’s an odious practice that results in us gawking at former senator and current homophobe Rick Santorum all week long while we’re waiting for the next vote dump to come in. But cable news is avoidable; “Dancing with the Stars,” less so.

A reasonable person might surmise that the entertainment industry’s ostensible leftward tilt would preclude this from happening in the immediate future, what with all the frayed nerves and raw emotions. They’re probably right. Centrists and shy Trump voters eager to “get back to normal” are pleading with Biden voters to reach across the aisle and being met with a border wall of middle fingers.

This is not a fertile environment to spring, say, Eric Trump on the masses for a fun-loving appearance on “Saturday Night Live.”

The larger point here is that neither Eric nor his offspring or anyone who peddled their lies to the public should ever turn up on one of these programs. And knowing what we know about how TV works, some producers are very likely to extend such an invitation to one of Trump’s surrogates, perhaps in the name of moving past our differences or speeding along that healing process Joe Biden keeps talking about.

But a president elect’s job is to preach unity after any election, whether the contest be normal or sanity breaking.  A TV network’s job, on the other hand, is to make money by selling things to the public, whether the thing in question is a product, a person or an idea. Television has the power to normalize, and while this has often been used in the service of good over the years, it has also resulted in grave harm.

Television normalized Trump in myriad ways during the years prior to his run for President and during the entirety of his campaign.

But Trump was never a normal president, not from Day One. Along the way the rotating staff of characters surrounding him in the White House and his Congressional allies championing his absurdist evil have endorsed his corrupt deeds and continue to play a part intentionally mucking up the machinery of governance, even on his way out.

Yet we got Sean Spicer on “Dancing with the Stars.”

Granted, before him that show welcomed former Texas governor Rick Perry,  former Republican Party House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Bristol Palin, daughter to former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and, never forget, Tucker Carlson.

For his part Spicer whiffed his performance in the White House after only six months in 2017 and was shamed into temporary obscurity by Melissa McCarthy portraying him on “SNL” as a feckless lump glistening with the meat sweats.

To think, back then people’s main problem with Spicer is that he lied about Trump’s Muslim ban and tried to persuade people that the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was larger than what was shown in photographs. He may have propped up the most corrupt presidential administration in modern history, but at least he got out while the getting was mediocre.

Maybe you see what I did there. Spicer might seem less harmless than what came after, but he laid the groundwork for slicker liars to improve upon and better amplify the kind of misinformation that is literally killing us.  

Two years later, he was stumbling around in ruffled shirts and making the tango look like, in the words of “DWTS” judge Bruno Tonioli, “an Argentine struggle.”  

McEnany, for example, rebranded Trump’s famous “very fine people on both sides” response after Charlottesville, N.C.’s deadly white supremacist rally in 2017 as a “message of love and inclusiveness.” This is when she was the national spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

As Trump’s secretary she’s lied about all kinds of things but most frequently and relevantly to all Americans, Trump’s failure to confront and battle the pandemic.

When in early October Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made a public statement about a thwarted kidnapping plot concocted by militia members and criticized Trump for emboldening such terrorism by “giving comfort to those who spread fear and division,” McEnany responded by accusing Whitmer of  sowing division.

“President Trump has continually condemned white supremacists and all forms of hate,” the press secretary said . . . as if only a few days earlier Trump did not tell the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” in a nationally televised debate.

Why are we even talking about this? Because someone has to go on record saying something before it happens. And let’s face it, there’s a high likelihood than some producer is in talks with a Trump flunky right now about participating in some project further down the road.

You know, after the appropriate amount of time – say, when enough Americans decide to forget how miserable these five years have been, how many people’s rights have been stripped away, how many lives were endangered or lost owing to Trump’s reckless emboldening of racist terrorism and general incompetence.   

The powers that be may explain that some of these shows enjoy higher popularity in red states and that their network traditionally strive to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum – both sides! This conveniently sidesteps the fact that there are celebrities who appeal to conservative voters and liberals who didn’t actively work for a man who enjoyed hurting and denigrating people.

None of these people are going to disappear, and none will lack for work. Trump may go away but the political industry that rose around him isn’t going anywhere. Just look at Spicer: he has an interview show on right wing cable channel Newsmax. Others in the Trump administration will no doubt win bigger platforms in right wing media.

But for the sake of decency we cannot allow them to dance their way onto the broader stage of business-as-usual normalcy. That wouldn’t merely be unjust. It would be dangerous.

Sacha Baron Cohen targets Mark Zuckerberg after Trump defeat: “One down, one to go”

While Sacha Baron Cohen is thrilled Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, the “Borat” comedian is quickly moving on to his next target: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Baron Cohen reacted to Trump’s defeat by posting a photograph to social media of Trump and Zuckerberg together with a caption that reads: “One down, one to go.” In a 2019 keynote speech, Baron Cohen called Facebook “the greatest propaganda machine in history.”

Baron Cohen wrote in an essay last month ahead of the “Borat 2” opening that Trump “had a dutiful ally” and “willing accomplice” in Zuckerberg and Facebook, a social media platform which has taken advantage of “Americans [who] are especially vulnerable to lies and conspiracies.” The comedian added that Facebook is “a megaphone that history’s worst autocrats could only dream of. Its algorithm deliberately amplifies content that generates more engagement…Not surprisingly, most days the top 10 Facebook posts are overwhelmingly from right-wing pundits and outlets.”

In recent years, Baron Cohen has called out on numerous occasions the role Facebook has played in spreading Holocaust conspiracy theories and elevating the voices of Holocaust deniers. “Once a fringe belief held by Neo-Nazis, this conspiracy theory has become widespread due to its prevalence on social media,” Baron Cohen noted in a “Borat 2” outtake. “Facebook for example only removed Holocaust deniers 10 days prior to the release of [the “Borat” sequel].”

In a more optimistic reaction to the election, Baron Cohen posted: “The candidates campaigned. The people spoke. The vote is clear. President Biden will be sworn in on January 20. Democracy works.” The comedian even took a jab at Trump by calling back to a joke he made October 24 thanking “racist buffoon” Trump for providing “Borat 2” with free publicity. Baron Cohen jokingly offered Trump a job at the time, an offer that has now been rescinded.

“Donald — you’re out of work and I know I offered you a job,” Baron Cohen wrote. “But your performance this past week was tragic and sad. Offer rescinded.”

“Borat 2” is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

John Oliver compares Trump’s one-term presidency to “House of Cards”: Four seasons too long

John Oliver devoted the entirety of the November 8 episode of “Last Week Tonight” to recapping the 2020 presidential election and celebrating the defeat of Donald Trump. “The fact is: Trump lost this election. He lost. All that bullshit that we’ve grown accustomed to seeing work did not work this time,” the late night host said. “And it’s not like Trump and his family are going to stop. They’re going to carry on grifting and lying like they’ve always done. But once he’s out of the White House, it’s just not going to have the same effect anymore. It’s not going to directly impact every American’s life. And that alone is fucking fantastic.”

Read more from IndieWire: “Jingle Jangle” review: Netflix gifts the world an overstuffed and delightful Christmas classic

Oliver described the celebratory mood in New York City on the day Joe Biden was named president elect as “a reverse 9/11” because “it combined complete euphoria, an abiding disgust for Rudy Giuliani, and this time, people actually were dancing on the rooftops in New Jersey. It was a really good day. Never forget…It is genuinely hard to overstate the level of relief that has been flying around parts of this country, especially at the end of a truly draining week.”

Oliver pointed out, of course, that he thinks Trump isn’t going to stop “grifting and lying” anytime soon. While recapping how Trump sent Rudy Giuliani to Pennsylvania on Election Day in order to stop the count of votes by rattling off voter fraud accusations without evidence, Oliver followed in Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s footsteps by comparing the entire ordeal and Trump’s presidency to “House of Cards.”

Read more from IndieWire: “Industry” review: HBO’s Gen Z banking drama doesn’t work (or play) hard enough

“[Fetterman’s] right,” Oliver said. “It’s like ‘House of Cards’ because it’s full of political intrigue, there’s a sexual predator pretending to be president at the very heart of it, and it’s gone on for four seasons too long.”

Read more from IndieWire: “The Crown” Season 4 review: It’s to Di for

While Oliver celebrated the record-breaking 74 million people who voted for Biden, he also reminded viewers that 70 million Americans voted to keep Donald Trump in the White House and “that is something we are going to have to reckon with for the foreseeable future.” Oliver added, “We cannot and should not ignore that millions voted for Trump. Even in the joy and the relief at the end of this week it does feel worth remembering just how scary it felt as it was unfolding…It’s important not to ignore that reality.”

“Last Week Tonight” airs Sunday nights at 11 p.m. ET on HBO.

Fine print on Trump legal challenge fundraising emails says money will be used to pay campaign debt

The Trump campaign has solicited donations from supporters to fund lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential election in a flurry of fundraising pitches, but at least half of the money will go toward paying down its debt, according to the fine print.

Trump refuses to concede his loss as he pushes a number of legally dubious challenges in several states which narrowly voted for President-elect Joe Biden. Judges in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania have already dismissed multiple legal challenges from the campaign, though Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani teased up to 10 additional election-related lawsuits after a press conference in the parking lot of a Philadelphia landscaping company adjoining a porn store and a crematorium.

The Trump campaign has relentlessly flooded supporters with appeals for donations to pay for the legal effort, reportedly firing off more than a dozen emails on Sunday alone.

The emails for the “official election defense fund” warned supporters that it was imperative to “PROTECT the Election.”

“This is your FINAL NOTICE,” one pitch said. “So far, you’ve ignored all our emails asking you to join us in DEFENDING THE ELECTION. You’ve ignored Team Trump, Eric, Lara, Don, the Vice President AND you’ve even ignored the President of the United States.”

The emails linked to a donation page with a disclaimer advising that 50% of the donations would be used to retire the campaign’s debt, The Wall Street Journal first reported.

Other emails asking for help to “protect the integrity of this election” led to a donation page for Trump’s “Make America Great Again” committee, which said 60% of donations would go toward retiring campaign debt and the other 40% would go to the Republican National Committee (RNC), according to The Journal.

Though President-elect Joe Biden is also raising money to fend off legal challenges, there is no disclaimer about retiring campaign debt in his pitches. His campaign did note that most of the donations would go to the Democratic National Committee, and both parties would likely play a “prominent role in financing election legal proceedings,” according to the report. 

Trump’s appeals were “particularly conspicuous,” since the president previously claimed that he might use his own money to fund his re-election effort, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wrote. “Even as he swears he has a legitimate legal case, he’s not just declining to use his own money, but he’s diverting half the money raised for it to another purpose tied to the winding down of the campaign.”

The campaign also has not put up the roughly $3 million needed to finance a recount in Wisconsin, where the president’s team immediately demanded a recount after the vote count swung toward Biden.

“It is an indication that they’re not super serious about pursuing one and that their announcements are mostly for show,” The Post’s James Hohmann said.

Trump’s campaign raised more than $1 billion earlier this year, but it quickly blew through that money early in the campaign, prompting the ouster of campaign manager Brad Parscale. Whereas Biden began October with more than $177 million in the bank, Trump’s campaign had only $63 million.

Trump has continued to push unfounded claims about “irregularities” and “fraud,” even though no significant evidence supports his claims.

Meagan Wolfe, the director of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told reporters last week that she had “not received any reports of any irregularities. “

Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, told CNN on Monday that “we’ve not seen any credible examples” of fraud or irregularities.

The Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania legislature also said in a Friday statement that they had not received any reports of “voter fraud” or “any other misdeeds.”

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat, on Friday said the campaign’s fraud allegations were “garbage,” and neither the “Republican secretary of state” nor “17 county registrars” had reported any widespread fraud.

While a legal challenge in a specific state could theoretically swing the election, as did the recount and litigation surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida, Trump is on track to lose in so many must-win states that his legal efforts are effectively futile. Biden, who already has 290 electoral votes, is on track to win Georgia, which would raise his tally to 306 votes.

“Trump’s biggest emerging problem is that he’d need to overturn the results in multiple states,” Blake wrote. “In fact, he’d need to do so in at least three states, as things currently stand.”

The fundraising efforts amid the seemingly doomed legal moves suggests that Trump may be pushing fabricated claims of fraud to milk his supporters for additional cash.

“Part of the reason Trump won’t concede is narcissism. But it’s also about money,” Popular Info’s Judd Legum wrote. “He can raise a lot of money convincing millions of people that he needs cash to expose the biggest fraud in American history. If he concedes, that grift is over.”

Ben Carson is sixth official to test positive for COVID-19 after going maskless at White House party

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson tested positive for COVID-19 after attending President Donald Trump’s election night party at the White House, his office said.

Carson is “in good spirits” after testing positive on Monday morning, his deputy chief of staff told ABC News. The secretary “feels fortunate to have access to effective therapeutics which aid and markedly speed his recovery,” reporter Katherine Faulders tweeted.

Andrew Hughes, Carson’s chief of staff, said in an email to staff that “anyone who was in contact with the Secretary last week is being notified & precautions are being taken,” according to Faulders.

Carson, a longtime medical doctor who is part of the White House coronavirus task force, has repeatedly flouted health guidelines recommending the use of a mask indoors. He did not wear a mask at last week’s election night party, which ended with President Donald Trump falsely declaring victory after 2 a.m. on Wednesday morning.

Carson’s diagnosis came only three days after White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who has also refused to wear a mask at events, tested positive for COVID-19. Meadows reportedly tried to hide his diagnosis from the public. Carson is the sixth White House official to test positive since the election.

Vice President Mike Pence’s office also had an outbreak last month, which Meadows tried to hide from the public.

President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, their son Barron and more than a dozen other attendees earlier tested positive after attending the superspreader event in the White House Rose Garden announcing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination.

Trump continued to hold largely maskless rallies leading up to the election, even after former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain died from complications of the coronavirus after attending a Trump rally without a mask in in Tulsa, Okla.

“It’s emblematic of the national failure to control Covid,” Tom Frieden, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told The New York Times after the latest outbreak.

The U.S. on Monday became the first nation to surpass 10 million confirmed coronavirus cases. The average number of new daily infections has topped 100,000 for days, and experts warned the country may be entering “the pandemic’s worst phase yet,” The Washington Post reported.

The White House has been “increasingly secretive” about its outbreaks, according to The Los Angeles Times. Many White House officials and party attendees were “kept in the dark about the diagnoses, unaware until they were disclosed by the media.”

“The administration was cavalier about the risks of the virus for themselves and for the country,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University, told the outlet. “And that’s one reason why we have so many cases.”

Those remarks echo what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said last month after the first outbreak.

“I haven’t actually been to the White House since August the 6th, because my impression was their approach to how to handle this is different from mine and what I insisted that we do in the Senate, which is to wear a mask and practice social distancing,” McConnell said.

President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to more aggressively respond to the virus after Meadows admitted last month that the Trump administration was not even trying to “control the pandemic.”

Biden’s transition team announced its COVID-19 task force on Monday would include Rick Bright, the Health and Human Services whistleblower who objected to the White House response, and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who was fired by the Trump administration in 2017 after he refused to resign.

The task force includes numerous scientists and experts, such as former Food and Drug Commissioners David Kessler and Luciana Borio, former Obama adviser Zeke Emanuel and Yale Prof. Marcella Nunez-Smith. Trump, meanwhile, has increasingly turned to discredited TV talking heads for his medical advice.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” Biden said in a statement. “The advisory board will help shape my approach to managing the surge in reported infections; ensuring vaccines are safe, effective and distributed efficiently, equitably and free; and protecting at-risk populations.”

Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine just hit a major milestone. Here’s what that means for the pandemic

The American pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced on Monday that its COVID-19 vaccine candidate is more than 90% effective at preventing infection. But don’t get your hopes up for an end to the pandemic just yet. Researchers say there’s a whole lot more that needs to be done to reach the production phase — and there are significant hurdles to distribution, too. 

Pfizer, which is developing a vaccine with a German biotechnology company called BioNTech SE, explained in a joint statement that they had seen a higher success rate in their preliminary findings than many had anticipated. Specifically, the companies reported that people given two doses as part of a clinical trial had 90% fewer symptomatic cases of the disease than individuals who had received a placebo. (A placebo is a drug that has no effect on a patient but is administered to provide a control in pharmaceutical tests.)

However, the data behind the companies’ study has not yet been released to the public. Until that happens, it will be impossible for independent researchers to verify and confirm their findings.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a successful vaccine would initially be given to smaller groups of people including essential workers, healthcare workers, people above the age of 65 and individuals with high risk medical conditions.

Despite these factors potentially mitigating the magnitude of the news, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla hailed the study as “a great day for science and humanity,” adding that “we are reaching this critical milestone in our vaccine development program at a time when the world needs it most with infection rates setting new records, hospitals nearing over-capacity and economies struggling to reopen.” 

America’s outgoing president, Donald Trump, responded to the news by tweeting, “STOCK MARKET UP BIG, VACCINE COMING SOON. REPORT 90% EFFECTIVE. SUCH GREAT NEWS!” President-elect Joe Biden took a cautiously optimistic tone, telling reporters that it is “important to understand that the end of the battle against Covid-19 is still months away,” that “it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country” and that until that happens “Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year.”

Indeed, distributing a successful vaccine is challenging due to the industrial logistics. Vaccines doses have to be kept at ultracold temperatures, due to the vaccines’ mRNA content. No plan has been established by the government of its role in overseeing distribution, it is uncertain where the vaccines would be administered and the Pfizer vaccine candidate requires patients to return three weeks later for a second dose.

As of last month, Pfizer was one of just four pharmaceutical companies that had vaccine candidates in Phase III of clinical trials. Phase III trials are initiated after a drug has initially proved safe and shown promise among smaller and increasingly diverse groups of participants. [Read about what each phase means.]

“In a typical Phase III study design, volunteers are randomized to receive either the vaccine or a placebo,” Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, told Salon last month. “Scientists then monitor all the volunteers over time (months) to see who becomes infected or develops potential side effects. Neither the volunteers nor the scientists conducting the study know which volunteer has received the vaccine or placebo. It is only at pre-specified times, such as at the end of the study, that ‘the blind is broken’ and the number of infections and potential side effects is compared between the vaccine and placebo groups.”

Pfizer initially announced that it was entering Phase II and Phase III of its clinical trials in July. The company was aided by the federal government through a federal public-private partnership program called Operation Warp Speed. In July Pfizer received an initial order from the US government of 100 million doses for $1.95 billion, with the option to later purchase an additional 500 million additional doses.

“We continuously monitor and evaluate the safety profile of the Pfizer vaccine candidate, including review by an external, independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) composed of vaccine safety experts,” a spokesperson for Pfizer told Salon by email in September. “To date, no safety signal has been identified, and the DMC has recently recommended continuing the trial as planned.”

The scientific community breathes a sigh of relief at the news of a Biden presidency

Though President-elect Joe Biden ran as a centrist, many in the scientific community view Biden’s victory as a potentially radical shift. That’s not because of the politics of said scientists, but because Biden himself has promised to value science and the scientific community when it comes to shaping policy and doling out funding — unlike his predecessor.

Indeed, there is no shortage of arenas in which Trump and his administration have disregarded basic scientific fact or expressed disdain for empirical research methods. Trump spent weeks downplaying the significance of the coronavirus pandemic, discouraging common sense safety precautions like wearing masks, weakening America’s efforts to fight global warming and making it more difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job.

As a result of Trump’s refusal to listen to scientists, a number of scientific publications that historically avoided commenting on politics made it clear they wanted Trump to lose. Scientific American, the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States, broke a 175 year tradition of refusing to endorse presidential candidates by urging its readers to vote for Biden, writing that “Trump’s rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S.,” including his failure to “develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines.” The New England Journal of Medicine, which has taken a nonpartisan position since 1812, wrote a scathing editorial last month; “while most of the world has opened up to some extent, the United States still suffers from disease rates that have prevented many businesses from reopening, with a resultant loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs. And more than 200,000 Americans have died,” it read in part.

“Truth is neither liberal nor conservative,” the journal’s editors continued, summarizing a sentiment expressed by many in the scientific and medical community. “When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.”

That same month, Nature Magazine’s editors made a similar point in an editorial, writing “we cannot stand by and let science be undermined. . . . Joe Biden’s trust in truth, evidence, science and democracy make him the only choice in the US election.”

Salon reached out to a number of scientists for their thoughts on the 2020 election results.

“The current administration’s approach has been unfocused at best,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email. “We have not had a unified national voice or plan. They have undermined their own scientific voices with such frequency that trust in science has been lost. They made health versus the economy a binary choice when we could have had both our health and a healthier economy.”

He added, “We have to rebuild trust by better planning, frequent informed communication with the American people and consistency on our approach. Most importantly we need to depoliticize this response.”

“There are two great crisis we face—one is acute and immediate (COVID-19), the other is pervasive and persistent (climate change),” Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, wrote to Salon. “In both cases, we have suffered 4 years of inaction due to a President driven more by ideologically-motivated science denial than his obligation to act to protect the people he’s supposed to protect.”

He added, “That all changes now with an incoming President and administration that will embrace the science, and act on it—immediately. It will save millions of lives but in the near-term, with respect to COVID-19, and in the long-term with respect to climate change. He will also re-engage with the global community by rejoining the Paris agreement and the World Health Organization immediately, signaling that the United States is once again willing to lead when it comes to the defining challenges of our time.”

The Biden transition team has established that its priorities will include fighting racial injustice, improving the economy, addressing climate change and fighting COVID-19. Biden’s proposals for the last issue — which he says he will implement in the early days of his administration — include enacting a national mask mandate, establishing a Public Health Jobs Corps to employ 100,000 Americans in order to fight the coronavirus, increasing production of COVID-19 tests and personal protective equipment and appointing someone to coordinate the government’s response.

Salon spoke last month with Tom Steyer — a former 2020 presidential candidate who now co-chairs the president-elect’s Climate Engagement Advisory Council — about the president’s plans regarding climate change.

“[Biden’s] Build Back Better plan [calls for] $2 trillion in the first four years of federal spending on clean infrastructure,” Steyer told Salon. “That is by far the most amount of money anyone’s ever talked, ever, about clean infrastructure, and it is a reaction to our climate crisis, a reaction to the need for job creation of good middle-class union jobs. It’s a reaction to our need to address environmental injustice in terms of the concentration of air, water, and toxic pollution in underserved black and brown communities.”

He added, “In addition, I mentioned that a hundred percent clean electricity generation by 2035, that is aggressive. A hundred percent net zero carbon emissions by 2050 economy-wide? That is aggressive. So I think that what we’re seeing here is a broad plan, a climate/jobs plan/environmental justice plan that deals with the series of crises that are affecting us as a country.”

Because Republicans are likely to control the Senate during the first two years of Biden’s term, and already have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, it is doubtful whether Biden will be able to achieve all or even some of these goals. Nevertheless, scientists like Dr. Ben Santer — who is part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences — wrote in an open letter to Biden earlier this month that in addition to moving the ball forward on the pandemic and climate change, the former vice president must also “restore public trust in science and scientists. You must rebuild public trust in the scientific impartiality of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control and many other federal agencies with scientific remits. You must convince the women and men working in these agencies that their new prime directive is not political loyalty to one person—the new directive is ‘get the science right.'”

Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology and director of the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland, expressed a similar sentiment to Salon, writing that “by discussing the central role that science and evidence will play in his policymaking and naming a COVID scientific advisory board today, the President-elect is putting science front and center.”

Dr. Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology, wrote to Salon that “Biden has indicated that he will listen to scientists on Covid-19, on climate science, and a range of other issues. Politicians have to balance competing demands, so that doesn’t necessarily mean that Biden will do what the epidemiologists or the climate scientists think needs to be done to protect us from harm. But, at least, Biden won’t try to gaslight us, trying to make us think that false is true and true is false.”

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, perhaps best summed up the prevailing sentiment.

“We need a calm, scientific-based, non-fear mongering strategy to move us forward that ignores polemics and demagoguery and focuses on all of the myriad ways that can get us out of the pandemic,” Gandhi wrote to Salon. “Moreover, the proof of concept of an effective vaccine today (from Pfizer) is another bright spot in the news of the weekend.”

The historic and progressive wins you may have missed from the 2020 election

While the unprecedented (and seemingly never-ending) presidential election took up much of the spotlight last week — as did the welcome news that Kamala Harris will be first woman and woman of color as Vice President — history was made in a lot of smaller state and local races, too. 

From politicians of color reaching new heights in the legislature, to big shifts in local government leadership, here are some of the wins that should be on your radar. 

A record number of Native American women were elected to Congress

Three Native American women have been elected to the House of Representatives: Democrat Deb Halaand, a Laguna Pueblo member representing New Mexico, Democrat Sharice Davids, a Ho-Chunk Nation member representing Kansas, and Republican Yvette Herrell, who is Cherokee and will represent New Mexico. 

Halaand and Davids, the Guardian reports, both retained their seats after becoming the first Native American women elected to Congress in 2018. Additionally, the Center for American Women and Politics reports that 18 indigenous women ran for congressional seats this year, which is also a record in a single year. 

Cori Bush becomes the first Black congresswoman in Missouri

Bush, a registered nurse and Black Lives Matter activist, will become the first Black congresswoman in the state’s first congressional district, which includes Ferguson, where, as the New Yorker reports, she led protests against the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. 

All four members of the “Squad” were comfortably re-elected

Shortly after the 2018 midterm election, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — all Democratic, first-term congresswomen of color— gained nationwide attention and promptly dubbed themselves “The Squad.” 

The four freshmen congresswomen have vocally supported progressive proposals like raising the minimum wage, advocating for the Green New Deal and calls to impeach Trump — who had previously attacked the women, who are all obviously American citizens, in a series of 2019 tweets, telling them they should “go back” to their countries of origin. 

According to the Associated Press, Pressley defeated Roy Owens in Massachusetts, Omar defeated Lacy Johnson in Minnesota, Ocasio-Cortez defeated John Cummings in New York, Tlaib defeated David Dudenhoefer in Michigan

LGBTQ+ politicians had several monumental victories 

Sarah McBride, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, will become the nation’s first person who publicly identifies as transgender to serve as a state senator after winning last week’s election in Delaware; this makes her the highest-tanking trans official in U.S. history. 

In Vermont, Taylor Small — the 26-year-old director of the health and wellness program at Pride Center of Vermont — was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives, where she will be the first openly transgender member of the state’s Legislature.

Ritchie Torres,  a New York City Council member, won his U.S. House race to represent the South Bronx, becoming the first Afro-Latino Congress member who identifies as gay, reports CNN. 

Meanwhile in Kansas, former schoolteacher Stephanie Byers — who is a member of the Chickasaw Nation — beat out her Republican challenger, Cyndi Howerton, for the District 86 Kansas House of Representatives seat. This makes her the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker. 

Kim Jackson became Georgia’s first openly LGBTQ state senator; Torrey Harris and Eddie Mannis became the first LGBTQ  legislators elected in Tennessee and Shevrin Jones and Michele Rayner-Goolsby became the first in Florida. 

In Oklahoma, the Washington Post reports, Mauree Turner — a queer, Black Muslim who wears a hijab and identifies as nonbinary — won a seat in state’s legislature’ becoming the first openly nonbinary state lawmaker in the country.

Francesca Hong becomes the first Asian American to serve in Wisconsin’s State Legislature

According to Madison 365, Francesca Hong, a restaurateur and activist, won Wisconsin’s 76th Assembly District, which will make her the first Asian American to serve in the state’s Legislature. 

“Hong, a second-generation Wisconsinite, mother, community organizer, and service industry worker, easily defeated Republican candidate and real estate intern Patrick Hull, 88 percent to 12 percent,” David Dahmer wrote for the publication. 

Local government leadership is changing, too

According to WUSA9, a local television station in Washington, D.C., a majority of the city’s Council will be women for the first time in more than 20 years, and a majority of members will be Black for the first time since 2013. 

The cities of Asheville, N.C. and El Monte, Calif., both elected their first all-women city councils. 

 

UPDATE: This story has been updated since publication to include news of Mauree Turner’s election to the Oklahoma state legislature. 

Trump appointee refuses to sign document allowing Biden transition to officially get to work: report

An obscure Trump appointee is refusing to sign a letter that would allow the transition team for President-elect Joe Biden to officially get to work this week, a new report reveals.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is tasked with effectively formalizing the winner of the election by signing paperwork that allows for the transition to commence. The agency provides nearly $10 million to fund the transition, supplies the team with government emails and office space at every agency and allows access to senior officials throughout the administration. 

The Associated Press and every major TV news network have declared Biden the winner of the election.  GSA Administrator Emily Murphy is refusing to sign the letter declaring him the “apparent winner,” according to The Washington Post.

With President Donald Trump pushing baseless conspiracy theories to defend his refusal to concede the election, the administration reportedly has “no immediate plans” to put pen to paper.

“An ascertainment has not yet been made and its administrator will continue to abide by, and fulfill, all requirements under the law,” GSA spokeswoman Pamela Pennington told The Washington Post. 

Murphy’s refusal to sign the paperwork angered Democrats since Trump has little recourse to fight the result of the election.

“Her action now has to be condemned,” Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., the chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the agency, told The Post. “It’s behavior that is consistent with her subservience to wishes of the president himself, and it is clearly harmful to the orderly transition of power.”

Biden’s team is optimistic that Murphy will come around.

“Now that the election has been independently called for Joe Biden, we look forward to the GSA administrator quickly ascertaining Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the president-elect and vice president-elect,” a spokesman for the transition team told The Post. “America’s national security and economic interests depend on the federal government signaling clearly and swiftly that the United States government will respect the will of the American people and engage in a smooth and peaceful transfer of power.”

The refusal could lead to the first transition delay in modern history, with the exception of the 2000 recount.

Trump is waging a futile legal battle which is not expected to affect the results of the election, but it may take some time to play out. The Electoral College will formally vote to make Biden the winner on Dec. 14. An administration official told The Post that the agencies had drafted detailed transition plans but would not release them until Biden was formally declared the winner.

“No agency head is going to get out in front of the president on transition issues right now,” an administration official told The Post, predicting that agency heads would be prohibited from speaking with Biden’s transition team.

The delay reignited fears that Trump might try to sabotage a peaceful transfer of power.

“The transition process is fundamental to safely making sure the next team is ready to go on Day One,” Max Stier, the head of the Partnership for Public Service, which advisers transition teams, told the outlet. “It’s critical that you have access to the agencies before you put your people in place.”

Some unnamed Trump administration officials suggested that the transition would be allowed to move forward as long as it doesn’t become public that the president has accepted defeat.

Trump, who is superstitious and believes participating in a transition is a “bad omen,” has allowed top aides to begin the process “as long as the efforts do not become public,” according to The Post.

The delay is a stark break from tradition. Chris Lu, who led former President Barack Obama’s 2008 transition, recalled that he had planned to wake up early the morning after the election to set up the transition office and thus missed a call from GSA Administrator Jim Williams informing him he had signed the requisite paperwork.

“Jim made the call at 1 a.m.,” Lu told the Post. “There was simply no controversy involved.”

Murphy has drawn unusual scrutiny for her obscure position. The GSA signed a lease with the Trump Organization for the president’s Washington hotel, and under her leadership, refused to provide Congressional Democrats with financial information about the company in its probe of whether Trump’s ownership of the hotel stood in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. The agency’s inspector general later found that the GSA had “improperly” ignored concerns about the Emoluments Clause in allowing the Trump Organization to keep its lease.

The GSA also abruptly canceled plans to build a new FBI headquarters, which Democrats alleged was torpedoed in order to prevent a competing hotel from being built at the current location down the street from Trump’s hotel.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., called Murphy’s refusal to authorize the transition work a “national disgrace.”

Dan Baer, a former Obama administration security official, warned that the delay could sabotage “the federal government’s future response to the pandemic and preparation to keep us safe from terrorism and foreign threats.”

“Every day you delay is an impairment of our ability to provide protections to the vulnerable and a successful vaccination program to all,” Yale health policy professor Howard Forman wrote. “One might almost say that blood would be on your hands.”

Trump lost the election. He can still make the pandemic worse by undermining the vaccine

These past few days are full of so much good news that the majority of Americans who aren’t on board the Trump train, traumatized by a hellish year, are struggling to believe it’s real. First, Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was cemented over the weekend, both because the networks called the election and because the series of frivolous lawsuits Trump filed to steal it are failing in court. On Monday morning, as most Americans were barely recovering from their emotional and sometimes literal hangovers, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced that early results show that its coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 in trial patients. (This information comes from a press release, not an independent study. It’s promising but not conclusive.)

By no means does this mean that the coronavirus pandemic is over, much less that, as Trump angrily promised on the campaign trail, after the election, “you won’t hear about it anymore.”

On the contrary, the pandemic was second only to the drawn-out election results in the headlines over the weekend, as case rates soared to more than 100,000 positive diagnoses a day and Biden announced the formation of a coronavirus task force that begins work Monday morning. Pfizer’s announcement of a possible vaccine only makes clear that the pandemic will be the main national concern for the next few months, defined by the rising caseload and the ongoing need for efforts to contain and control it.

Those efforts, unfortunately, are likely to be undermined by Donald Trump and his hardcore fans, like every other effort to control the pandemic. Within moments of the Pfizer announcement, conspiracy theories started to spread on social media, accusing the German pharmaceutical corporation of delaying the announcement in order to damage Trump’s chances for re-election chances. Donald Trump Jr., a major conduit for misinformation, was on this right out of the gate: 

“The timing of this is pretty amazing. Nothing nefarious about the timing of this at all right?” Don Jr. tweeted, adding an eyeroll emoji. 

Sure enough, Fox News immediately picked up the baton, calling the timing of the announcement “curious.”

There is, needless to say, no evidence for these conspiracy theories. This announcement fits right in the timeline that scientific experts have been giving us for months, which is that trials would be ending in early to mid-November. 

The “timing” conspiracy theory makes even less sense when you consider that while the election results were not entirely clear until Saturday, the last votes were cast on Tuesday, six days before this announcement. In addition, most voters cast their ballots well before that deadline. There’s also no real reason to believe a vaccine announcement was a magic bullet that would have saved Trump’s campaign. Yes, he would have taken credit for it, and might well have implied he had a direct hand in developing it (which of course he didn’t.). But there’s no reason to think anyone would have believed him. 

This entire conspiracy theory makes even less sense when considering what would have happened if Trump had won the election instead of Biden: Pfizer would have announced its vaccine results anyway.

At that point, the Trumpian narrative would likely have been jubilant instead of paranoid, treating this announcement as some proof of the greatness of Making America Great Again, rather than as proof of some imaginary conspiracy against him. Since the same set of actions — announcing a vaccine in the second week of November — would have had wildly divergent meanings to Trump supporters depending on the election results, we can safely say this is less about Pfizer’s choices than about the Trump machine trying to turn every news story, large or small, into a reflection of the alleged glory of the orange-tinted half-literate grifter they all bafflingly worship. 

But here we are, in the space where Trump and his followers are bitter and paranoid and the vaccine announcement is being processed through those feelings, instead of feelings of triumph. Unfortunately, that means it’s entirely possible that, with two months left in Trump’s one and only term of office, he will do real damage to the effectiveness of this potential vaccine. 

After all, this is the same man who saw widespread virus testing as a plot against him and used his power to interfere with this necessary public health measure — while bragging about it. He may be trying to take credit now — even though Pfizer’s vaccine was not part of the administration’s program — but it’s almost inevitable that Trump will start to view this vaccine, as he views everything else, as some kind of attack on him. 

That could definitely be a problem. Pfizer claims it will have enough data to apply for an emergency authorization to distribute the vaccine later this month, and will have enough doses to immunize 15 to 20 million people by the end of the year. Those numbers may be overly rosy — again, this is all coming from a press release, not a scientific paper — but if it pans out, that means the company will need to work with the Trump administration, at least for the initial rollout. In case you hadn’t noticed, Trump is only worried about his ego and the plots against him he sees everywhere, and not at all about the health of the American people. If anything, he’s probably furious with the whole country for refusing to re-elect him. 

There is a good chance, of course, that Trump will be too busy to interfere with the vaccine, distracted by pointless lawsuits against local election officials and his efforts to rake in as much cash as possible before leaving office. Or that Biden will take over management of the pandemic quickly enough that there won’t be much Trump can do to cause real or lasting damage. 

Still, the mere fact that these conspiracy theories are starting and being amplified by the president’s No. 1 troll-son — and it’s only a matter of time before Trump himself gets involved — is alarming. After all, this is the guy who was able to politicize mask-wearing and social distancing, encouraging conservatives to reject both, which almost certainly contributed to the rampant spread of the coronavirus across the country.

In light of this, there’s a real danger that conservatives will view the vaccine with similar suspicion. Republican voters were already more likely than Democrats to be wary of a potential vaccine, and that was back when Trump was promising them one by Election Day. If they are persuaded by Trump and Fox News to see this as a “Biden vaccine,” it’s entirely possible many of them will refuse to be vaccinated.

As tempting as it is to say that these folks deserve COVID-19 if they’re going to be so foolish about it, the reality is that if we want to stop the pandemic, vaccination needs to be widespread. The more people refuse, the slower the return to normal will be. Trump spent most of the past year whining about lockdowns and demanding an early “reopening” of the country. Perhaps the final irony is that he’ll end up being the biggest obstacle to that actually happening. 

America’s relationship with the world: Now with less terror and incoherence

The electoral math is inexorable now and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have won the election. They won a large popular vote victory, with substantially more total votes in the swing states Trump won in 2016. As election expert Larry Sabato put it on Twitter, “this was NOT an especially close election … You want close? Look at 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000 among others.”

Naturally, Trump is still refusing to concede. After all, he told his followers that the only way he could lose was if the result was rigged, so he has left himself no room to concede gracefully even if he wanted to. He does not want to.

So we see Trump and his team flailing about ineffectually with thin legal threats that would require corrupt, partisan judges to overturn thousands of votes in multiple states to award him a victory. Anything’s possible, but as much as they might like to do that, even Trump’s handpicked judges will have a hard time coming up with a rationale that would bring that result.

Former President George W. Bush, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and a few other establishment Republicans have acknowledged the election results, but there’s radio silence from most GOP officials. It appears they are still in collaborationist mode, hoping that Trump still has some magic dust up his sleeve and remaining fearful of their constituents, who are deep in denial. And then there are those who are out there openly supporting Trump’s tantrum:

This is really about trying to find a way for Trump to “win,” even as he’s clearly lost. I believe he will find his way out of this by calling the election stolen, pretending to leave under duress and afterward fashioning himself as the “president in exile” who was deposed in a “coup.” He might even boycott the inauguration. I think he’ll do this with an explicit or implicit promise that he’s running again in 2024, even if he doesn’t end up doing it.

This has the positive effect for Democrats of keeping the Republican Party in turmoil for some time to come as Trump works feverishly to organize his following into a profit center and wreak revenge on his enemies one way or the other. (Remember, his credo is “always get even.”) For Republicans, there is a different calculation. Trump confidant Roger Stone, who gets the dark side of conservatism better than anyone, spoke the truth when he said the lack of a clear concession means that Biden will have “a cloud over his presidency with half the people in the country believing that he was illegitimately elected.”

That would be Trump’s idea of sweet revenge, for sure. After all, at least one of his reasons for fighting the Russia investigation was because it cast doubt on the legitimacy of his own election. You can bet that Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, who are among the GOP jackals urging Trump not to concede, will be happy to take full advantage of that “cloud” as well.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the election has been decided and all eyes are turning to Georgia, where two runoff elections will determine control of the U.S. Senate. Mitch McConnell’s willingness to obstruct anything that might actually help the people in this moment of crisis has already been well demonstrated, even under Donald Trump. It will be much, much worse with a Democratic administration.

I’m sure the Biden staff is already looking at ways to reverse the Trump administration’s destruction of the administrative state, and with a new attorney general we may see some positive action at the Department of Justice as well. But let’s not kid ourselves: Much of the Democratic domestic agenda depends on Georgia. If McConnell is in charge of the Senate and guys like Graham and Cruz are running major committees, it’s going to be a legislative standoff. And America really doesn’t need that right now.

Having said that, there is one big plus already, regardless of what Trump, McConnell or Graham have up their sleeves: The U.S. foreign policy agenda will soon be in the hands of the Biden administration. Their team has already released a statement of Biden’s intention to immediately reverse Trump’s worst executive orders, most notably the withdrawals from both the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization.

The reaction from around the world to news of Trump’s defeat was pretty clearly one of immense relief. The rogue superpower has pulled back from the brink.

Trump may have refused to concede, but from across the globe leaders have issued congratulations to President-elect Biden, which says something. The New York Times reported on Saturday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson immediately issued hearty congratulations as soon as the race was called. Former French ambassador Gérard Araud probably spoke for all of them when he told the Times, “You will be able to have a coherent conversation with a normal guy.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waited a bit longer, but he finally realized that Trump wasn’t going to pull off a miracle and issued a polite statement. The Trump-loving strongmen have not been as pragmatic. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán are reportedly not pleased. No word has come in from Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, China’s Xi Jinping or Trump’s most treasured BFF, Kim Jong-un of North Korea. And let’s not forget Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, who has maintained radio silence. It’s a sad day for authoritarians everywhere. Trump was so very easy to manipulate.

The U.S. managed to avoid a national security disaster during Trump’s tenure (so far), but that has been sheer luck. Giving him any credit for not getting us into a war means you haven’t been paying attention to how close we came and how much forbearance it took from the rest of the world to avoid it. One very scary example was when Trump made the impulsive and dangerous decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, just so he could bag one more “bad guy” than Obama. Iranian leaders showed surprising restraint and we got lucky. Who knows what four more years would have brought?

Trump’s main foreign policy was to undo anything Obama did, as he even admitted just the other day. Everything else was either something he picked up from watching CNN back in 1985 or a desire to impress an authoritarian strongman.

I’m sure many of us will find ourselves opposed to some of Biden’s policies, in some cases fairly soon. But they will not be totally incoherent, and world peace won’t be contingent on whether the president woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. As Joe Biden would say, that alone is “a big f**king deal.” 

7 environmental takeaways from the 2020 election season

Well, that was interesting…and hair-raising. At press time the harrowing presidential race of 2020 remains too close to call, as do a few key congressional and Senate seats. The Senate may not even settle out until January, when Georgia will hold runoff elections and we’ll find out which party controls that house of government.

But while we wait — patiently or otherwise — for those votes to be tallied, let’s take a moment to step back and look at several big-picture environmental takeaways from the election season.

1. Climate change came calling

Despite the lack of real policy debate — let’s face it, this was less an election of ideas and more a contest of ideologies — climate change played an unexpected and thankful role. That started most noticeably in the unannounced climate question during the first presidential debate. After that several political ads made climate an issue, and some Democrats stumped on it. We didn’t see any speeches solely about climate, but Biden and Harris brought it up strongly several times during the last days of the campaign.

And yes, the very real risks of climate change played a role in driving people to the polls. A survey conducted last month found that 58% of Americans were either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the threats of climate change. That included 90% of voters who favored Biden at the time. Biden and Harris spoke to that, and voters listened. Life lesson: When you talk about and take seriously issues that affect peoples’ lives, they lend you their ears.

This growing support for climate action means that if Trump ultimately wins reelection, and then continues to ignore climate (as he obviously would), there will be prices to pay on the international stage starting in January and again at the polls in 2022.

2. The forgotten crisis

But the extinction crisis did not get any real play in this election, even from progressive Democrats. Considering the oversized role of wildlife trafficking in the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, preserving biodiversity will need to become a major policy initiative moving forward.

Luckily many environmental organizations made this a key call during the campaign, so we can expect to see some progress on this if Biden is confirmed as the next president. (If not, expect more Trump attacks on the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife policies.)

3. Equality

Racial inequality was one of the main themes of the election, but the candidates did little to address income inequality, the greatest driver of political and social unrest in this country. If we don’t take dramatic action about that soon, it will give further strength to the Proud Boys, QAnon conspiracy junkies and their extremist ilk — and that will spill out into environmental issues like livestock ranching, public lands protection and environmental justice.

Fortunately the presidential and vice-presidential debates, and Democratic candidates themselves, made a big deal out of other issues related to inequality, such as racism, LGBTQA+ rights and women’s rights.  Unfortunately, the fact that nearly half the country voted to reelect a racist misogynist — and many other candidates who rode on his coattails — does not bode well for the future. These are all issues that have deep environmental implications, so we as a people and as a country need to do a lot better.

4. Suppression

People like to vote. And record numbers turned out this year, even amidst the pandemic. But who knows how many more votes would have been counted — and how many races would have had different outcomes — if not for the 29 Republican techniques for voter suppression used during this election?

So come on, Republicans, stop trying to prevent our citizens from doing their democratic duty. If you can’t play fair, get out of the game. (And while you’re at it, stop suppressing science related to pandemics and climate change, ‘K?)

Everyone else: Watch your back. The same Republican-appointed, Federalist Society loyalist judges who have ruled (and may yet rule) on so many of this year’s voting lawsuits will soon find cases about climate change and other environmental threats on their dockets.

5. Fossils

The Democratic Party needs to refine its messaging on oil and gas. It’s got some decent policies — such as ending subsidies and stopping development on federal land — but that doesn’t ease the fears of people terrified by a forced transition in their lives and careers. The evidence is clear that these industries not only harm the planet and peoples’ health, they’re also failing financially. The faster we transition those jobs, the less pain we’ll all feel when oil, gas and coal collapse like a house of cards.

6. Faux news

Speaking more broadly, the media landscape remains hopelessly bifurcated, and that seeds division within the country, reaching from politics to basic information such as COVID-19 safety measures and crises like climate change. That needs to change. To address this issue, education standards should include teaching media literacy — and all adults should be encouraged to learn how to spot disinformation and bias. (It’s telling that Media Literacy Week 2020 was held the week before the election.)

It’s all a bit bigger than this, obviously. Most people self-identify as belonging to — or diverging from — one political party first, then pick the media outlet that supports that worldview. But the right-wing media notoriously spreads more disinformation about environmental issues, so finding a way to break that chokehold will go a long way toward bridging that divide.

7. Money, money, money

An obscene amount of money was collected and spent on this election — a record $14 billion, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks political spending.

On the one hand, we saw an amazing increase in small, individual donations. That’s great.

But corporation and PACs poured cash into candidates’ coffers (either directly or in support of their campaigns), and it felt like most of that went to fund blatantly dishonest campaign ads.

And what’s the ultimate cost of those donations? Will special interests return with their hands out? We’ll never know for sure, since most of those dollars (on both sides of the political aisle) are hidden from the public record, although it’s certainly happened before. That needs to change if we ever hope to transform this economy and save the planet.

Trump lost — but did democracy really win? That depends on us

What unfolded across the United States on Saturday afternoon was breathtaking: an extraordinary explosion of relief and exuberance, not quite like anything else most of us now living have ever seen. While the comparison to V-E Day — which marked the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany in May 1945 — may be over the top, the emotional resonance was similar.

I wasn’t expecting that at all, to be frank. Joe Biden was the ultimate compromise candidate, the ne plus ultra of “good enough for now,” a potential safe harbor in a time of crisis. But the effect of Biden’s ultimate victory — or, more to the point, of Donald Trump’s defeat — was undeniable, and the national mood was impossible to resist. It almost felt like a physical sensation, literally as if a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders, and from the evidence, millions of other people felt the same way.

I only witnessed all those celebrations on social media and cable news, mind you. I’ve spent the last several months in a tiny village in central New York State — a liberal-leaning oasis in a deep-red region — and around here you wouldn’t have had any idea that a major historical event had just occurred. Political signs for both candidates have already disappeared from most people’s front lawns. Since about Thursday afternoon, I’ve seen no sign of the huge pickup trucks festooned with gigantic Trump flags that have become a fixture of rural life in America. The supermarket in our town was as busy as you’d expect on a beautiful Saturday evening in the fall, but I didn’t hear one word about the election.

What has America gained, after this agonizing election and an agonizing week of vote counting? (OK, it was five days, which felt like years or geological epochs.) And what have we lost? I don’t think we will know that for quite a while.

There is no question that this election, in which a clear majority of American voters repudiated the Trump presidency, was a triumph for democracy, on various levels. That’s what we’re all feeling right now, I think, and it’s undeniable. But it’s a triumph that comes with a warning, and wrapped in a paradox.

Joe Biden received more votes than any candidate for president in American history. By a lot. He’s gotten 75.2 million votes so far, and with significant numbers still to count in major blue states like California, Illinois and New York, could easily hit 77 million or so. (The previous record was Barack Obama’s 69.5 million in the landslide victory of 2008.) 

But in a must-read piece for Salon on Saturday, Chauncey DeVega observed the observable, to borrow a phrase from Joan Didion that should be better known than it is. If Biden will be No. 1 on the all-time vote list, the No. 2 spot belongs to none other than President Boaty McBoatParade himself, who is currently biding his time rage-cheating at golf and sending hopeful “U up?” texts to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

In other words, while Biden’s victory is not in doubt — whatever fanciful theories to the contrary Trump and his acolytes have to offer — the notion that Trump and his so-called movement have been conclusively rejected certainly is. Trump has almost 71 million votes to this point, roughly 8 million more than he received while squeezing out an electoral victory in 2016. He increased his margin of victory in numerous red states, and also in supposed battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida. (Obama won those states twice, but both now appear out of reach to national Democrats.)

As you already know if you’re attuned to the endless cycle of Democratic Party infighting and recrimination — which I do not recommend, if you value your mental well-being — Democrats lost several Senate seats they expected to win, and now must hope for a double miracle in Georgia to regain the majority. They’ve also lost at least a few seats from the House majority they won in 2018, and will face a midterm election in 2022 that looks favorable for Republicans, both in demographic and historical terms. Biden’s entire first term will almost certainly feature Mitch McConnell in control of the Senate. (McConnell’s hashtag-Resistance opponent in Kentucky, Amy McGrath, soaked up countless millions of small-donor dollars — and couldn’t even break 40 percent.)

That sense of contradiction — and of partial victory, even in defeat — accounts for at least some of the extraordinary truculence coming from Republicans, who are by no means ready to cut the Trumpian cord, even by recognizing political reality. Only a handful of GOP normies, like Sen. Mitt Romney, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland and former President George W. Bush, have even bothered to extend ritual congratulations to Biden. 

All other prominent Republicans are either bunkered down in total silence, like McConnell, or all-in on dead-ender Trump conspiracy theory. Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a potential 2024 candidate who really ought to be occupied with her state’s worsening COVID outbreak, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday and refused to acknowledge that Biden had won the election. She cited alleged “illegal activities” and “clerical errors,” without explaining how any such claims might be sufficient to overturn the results in multiple states. 

In an attempt to summon the ominous specter of the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision, Noem asked: “We gave Al Gore 37 days to run the process before we decided who was going to be president. Why would we not afford the 70.6 million Americans that voted for President Trump the same consideration?” That moronic rhetorical question would be profoundly disturbing if it weren’t pathetic, and I guess it can be both.

There’s been rather too much whimpering about “democratic norms” over the last four years (short version: Donald Trump farts in their general direction), but I don’t think Trump and his inner circle realized until this weekend that certain of those norms lay outside their control. When Rudy Giuliani’s “news conference” in the parking lot of a Philadelphia landscaping business — perhaps the most exquisitely bizarre moment of the entire week — was interrupted by the news that all the major networks had called the election for Biden, Giuliani made a manful effort at mockery: Oh, the networks! Who cares about them! It didn’t work, and perhaps Rudy’s great moment was swept away.

What followed was a well-worn narrative of the liberal-democratic tradition: Everyone cares what the networks say, it turns out. Everyone in the media (including the hosts on Fox News) began to describe Biden as the president-elect, and every major broadcast network and cable-news channel aired his victory address on Saturday night. Then came the flow of congratulatory messages from foreign leaders. It must have been hurtful, and perhaps incomprehensible, for Trump to see such purported allies as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and even — unkindest cut of all! — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, all extending the ritual greetings and good wishes called for by the moment. How many desperate calls did Jared Kushner place to Jerusalem this week, to be politely returned by no-comment tertiary underlings?

Since Trump understands nothing about politics or power, he couldn’t possibly have grasped that those leaders are invested in their relationship with the world’s greatest military and economic power, battered as it may be, and do not give a solitary crap about him personally or about his idiotic schemes to stay in power by way of 8chan conspiracy theories. Furthermore, those people are all more or less invested in the liberal-democratic order — having won elections that way and everything — and aren’t especially psyched to hear a condo salesman who fluked his way into the White House telling the world that the whole thing is a fraud.

That democratic narrative still possesses an inexorable power, and it may slowly be sinking in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that there’s no road that leads backward from here. At least not this time. But how long that collective narrative can be sustained, when an ever-larger proportion of the public no longer buys into it, is an open question. There are early indications from exit polling that Trump may actually have improved his vote share, relative to 2016, among several demographic groups, including Latinos, white women and Black men. As individual data points those seem nonsensical, given the abundant and unconcealed racism and misogyny driving the Trumpian movement. As part of a larger picture — a picture that isn’t just American but global in scale — they make slightly more sense. 

One presidential election, won by assembling an emergency coalition and largely throwing ideology to the wayside, cannot resolve the crisis of democracy. For hundreds of millions of people across the “Western” zone of so-called capitalism and so-called liberal democracy, the economic and political system appears to be a dysfunctional scam that locks in inequality, squelches opportunity and condemns many or most people to precarious lives of wage-slave drudgery, bottomless debt and pointless consumerism. Many of those people are prepared to consider alternatives to the current situation, even when those alternatives appear — at least to the privileged and educated classes — to be warmed-over authoritarian drivel, delivered by a patently insincere second-rate celebrity.

If it sounds like I’m winding up to tell you that the Democratic Party must embrace a bold progressive agenda, or that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could have led the party to glorious victory from coast to coast, I’m not. That’s one possible conclusion, but there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to the democratic (or Democratic) dilemma. 

Centrist Democrats like Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia (a former CIA agent) are eager to blame Black Lives Matter rhetoric or “socialism” for whatever went wrong this year. Leftists of course blame the party’s perennially muddled, middle-path messaging. Both sides have a point, honestly: Eventually the Democratic Party has to figure out what it stands for, in the context of 21st-century reality, and exactly where and how it’s willing to fight. “We’re not the fascists” worked medium-well this time around, but it’s not much of a long-term program.

An impressive number of Americans — a clear majority of the electorate — voted last week to give our damaged democracy another chance, on the presumption that it offers the best chance of addressing our deep-rooted social and economic problems. A somewhat smaller number, yet still enormous by any standard and unprecedented in historical terms, voted for something quite different: Let’s call it a quasi-imperial state, presided over by a professional con man with orange skin and cake-frosting hair who has failed at everything he’s ever done — except television stardom! — and who thrives on ignorance, bigotry, cruelty and greed.

It’s impossible to say where all this is heading, but it does no good to avoid the essential nature of the conflict. On one side are those who want to reassert or restore the long-established rules of political engagement, after what they hope was a momentary interruption. Those on the other side have long since concluded that the rules no longer exist or do not apply to them, or at best are only tools to be cynically deployed in the naked quest for power. 

No democracy can long survive such a predicament, where the competing parties do not accept the same basic premises, and do not even perceive the same political reality. That second camp — the no-rules, fuck-your-democracy party — has suffered a defeat in this election, and will gradually and begrudgingly stage a strategic retreat. Its nominal leader will be forced into exile, and his supporters will grieve, after their own gruesome fashion. But nothing has happened in 2020 to break their will, or to convince them they are wrong. 

The nightmare that Joe Biden could inherit

Donald Trump isn’t just inside the heads of his Trumpster base; he’s long been a consuming obsession among those yearning for his defeat in November. With barely more than a week to go before the election of our lifetime, those given to nail biting as a response to anxiety have by now gnawed ourselves down to the quick. And many have found other ways to manage (or mismanage) their apprehensions through compulsive rituals, which only ratchet up the angst of the moment, among them nonstop poll tracking, endless “what if” doomsday-scenario conversations with friends, and repeated refrigerator raids.

As one of those doomsday types, let me briefly suggest a few of the commonplace dystopian possibilities for November. Trump gets the majority of the votes cast in person on November 3rd. A Pew Research Center surveyfound that 60% of those supporting the president intend to vote that way on Election Day compared to 23% of Biden supporters; and a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll likewise revealed a sizable difference between Republicans and Democrats, though not as large. He does, however, lose handily after all mail-in and absentee ballots are counted. Once every ballot is finally tabulated, Biden prevails in the popular vote and ekes out a win in the Electoral College. The president, however, having convinced his faithful that voting by mail will result in industrial-scale fraud (unless he wins, of course), proclaims that he — and “the American people” — have been robbed by the establishment. On cue, outraged Trumpsters, some of them armed, take to the streets. Chaos, even violence, ensues. The president’s army of lawyers frenetically file court briefs contesting the election results and feverishly await a future Supreme Court decision, Mitch McConnell having helpfully rammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to produce a 6-3 conservative majority (including three Trump-appointed Supremes) that will likely favor him in any disputed election case.

Or the vote tally shows that Trump didn’t prevail in pivotal states, but in state legislatures with Republican majorities, local GOP leaders appoint electors from their party anyway, defying the popular will without violating Article II, Section I, of the Constitution, which doesn’t flat-out prohibit such a stratagem. That was one possibility Barton Gellman explored in his bombshell Atlantic piece on the gambits Trump could use to snatch victory (of a sort) from the jaws of a Biden victory. Then there are the sundry wag-the-dog plots, including a desperate Trump trying to generate a pre-election rally-around-the-flag effect by starting a war with Iran — precisely what, in 2011, he predicted Barack Obama would do to boost his chances for reelection.

And that, of course, is just part of a long list of nightmarish possibilities. Whatever your most dreaded outcome, dwelling on it doesn’t make for happiness or even ephemeral relief. Ultimately, it’s not under your control. Besides, no one knows what will happen, and some prominent pundits have dismissed such apocalyptic soothsaying with assurances that the system will work the way it’s supposed to and foil Trumpian malfeasance. Here’s hoping.

In the meantime, let’s summon what passes for optimism these days. Imagine that none of the alarmist denouements materializes. Biden wins the popular vote tally and the Electoral College. The GOP’s leaders discover that they do, in fact, have backbones (or at least the instinct for political survival), refusing to echo Trump’s rants about rigging. The president rages but then does go, unquietly, into the night.

Most of my friends on the left assume that a new dawn would then emerge. In some respects, it indeed will. Biden won’t be a serial liar. That’s no small matter. By the middle of this year, Trump had made false or misleading pronouncements of one sort or another more than 20,000 times since becoming president. Nor will we have a president who winks and nods at far-right groups or racist “militias,” nor one who blasts a governor — instead of expressing shock and solidarity — soon after the FBI foils a plot by right-wing extremists to kidnap her for taking steps to suppress the coronavirus. We won’t have a president who repeatedly intimates that he will remain in office even if he loses the election. We won’t have a president who can’t bring himself to appeal to Americans to display their patriotism through the simple act of donning masks to protect others (and themselves) from Covid-19. And we won’t have a president who lacks the compassion to express sorrow over the 225,000 Americans (and rising) who have been killed by that disease, or enough respect for science and professional expertise, to say nothing of humility, to refrain from declaring, as his own experts squirm, that warm weather will cause the virus to vanish miraculously or that injections of disinfectant will destroy it.

And these, of course, won’t be minor victories. Still, Joe Biden’s arrival in the Oval Office won’t alter one mega-fact: Donald Trump will hand him a monstrous economic mess. Worse, in the almost three months between November 3rd and January 20th, rest assured that he will dedicate himself to making it even bigger.

The motivation? Sheer spite for having been put in the position — we know that he will never accept any responsibility for his defeat — of facing what, for him, may be more unbearable than death itself: losing. The gargantuan challenge of putting the economy back on the rails while also battling the pandemic would be hard enough for any new president without the lame-duck commander-in-chief and Senate Republicans sabotaging his efforts before he even begins. The long stretch between Election Day and Inauguration Day will provide Donald Trump ample time to take his revenge on a people who will have forsaken, in his opinion, the best president ever.

More on Trump’s vengeance, but first, let’s take stock of what awaits Biden should he win in November.

Our Covid-ravaged economy

To say that we are, in some respects, experiencing the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s is anything but hyperbole. The statistics make that clear. The economy had contracted at a staggering annual rate of 31.4% during the second quarter of this pandemic year. During the 2007-2009 Great Recession, unemployment, at its height, was 10%. This year’s high point, in April, was 14.7%. Over the spring, 40 million jobsdisappeared, eviscerating all gains made during the two pre-pandemic years.

There were, however, some relatively recent signs of a rebound. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank’s survey of economic forecasters, released in mid-August, yielded an estimate of a 19.1% expansion for the third quarter of 2020. But that optimism came in the wake of Congress passing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, on March 27th, which pumped about $2.2 trillion into the economy. The slowdown in job growth between July and September suggests that its salutary effects may be petering out. Even with that uptick, the economy remains in far worse shape than before the virus started romping through the landscape.

However, while useful, aggregate figures obscure stark variations in how the pain produced by a Covid-19 economy has been felt across different parts of American society. No, we aren’t all in this together, if by “together” you mean anything remotely resembling equalized distress. A Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release, for instance, reveals that September’s 7.9% nationwide unemployment rate hit some groups far harder than others.

The jobless rate for whites dropped to 7%, but for Hispanics it was 10.3%, for African Americans 12.1%. Furthermore, high-skill, high-wage workers have gotten off far more lightly than those whose jobs can’t be done from home, including restaurant servers and cooks, construction workers, meatpackers, housecleaners, agricultural laborers, subway, bus, and taxi drivers, first responders, and retail and hotel staff, among others. For workers like them, essential public health precautions, whether “social distancing” or stay-at-home decrees, haven’t just been an inconvenience. They have proven economically devastating. These are the Americans who are struggling hardest to buy food and pay the rent.

More than 25 million of them fall in the lowest 20% of the earnings scale and — no surprise here — have, at best, the most meager savings. According to the Fed’s calculations, of the bottom 25% of Americans, only 11% have what they require for at least six months of basic expenses and less than 17% for at least three. Yes, unemployment insurance helps, but depending on the state, it covers just 30% to 50% of lost wages. Moreover, there’s no telling when, or whether, such workers will be rehired or find new jobs that pay at least as much. The data on long-term unemployment isn’t encouraging. The BLS reports that, in September, 2.4 million workers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, another 4.9 million for 15 to 27 weeks.

These disparities and the steps the Fed has taken, including keeping interest rates low and buying treasury bills, mortgage-backed securities, and corporate bonds, help explain why high stock prices and massive economic suffering have coexisted, however incongruously, during the pandemic. The problem with bull markets, however, is that they don’t bring direct gains to the chunk of American society that’s been hurt the most.

Nearly half of American households own no stock at all, according to the Federal Reserve Bank, even if you count pension and 401k plans or Individual Retirement Accounts — and for black and Hispanic families the numbers are 69% and 72%, respectively. Furthermore, the wealthiest 10% of households own 84% of all stock.

Trump preens when the stock market soars, as he did on April 10th, when 16 million Americans had just filed for unemployment. Tweets trumpeting “the biggest Stock Market increase since 1974” were cold comfort for Americans who could no longer count on paychecks.

The signs of suffering

Even such numbers don’t fully reveal the ways in which prolonged joblessness has upended lives. To get a glimpse of that, consider how low-income workers, contending with extended unemployment, have struggled to pay for two basic necessities: housing and food.

Reuters reported in late July that Americans already owed $21.5 billion in back rent. Worse yet, 17.3 million of the country’s 44 million renter households couldn’t afford to pay the landlord and faced possible eviction. A fifth of all renters had made only partial payments that month or hadn’t paid anything. Again, not surprisingly, some were in more trouble than others. In September, 12% of whites owed back rent compared to 25% of African Americans, 24% of Asians, and 22% of Latinos. A May Census Bureau survey revealed that nearly 45% of African Americans and Hispanics but “only” 20% of whites had little or no confidence in their ability to make their June rent payments. (Households with kids were in an even bigger bind.)

The rent crunch also varied depending on a worker’s education, a reliable predictor of earnings. Workers with high school diplomas earned only 60% as much as workers who had graduated from college and only 50% of those with a master’s degree. And the more education workers had, the less likely they were to be laid off. Between February and August, 2.5% of employees with college degrees lost their jobs compared to nearly 11% of those who hadn’t attended college.

Those, then, are the Americans most likely to be at risk of eviction. Yes, the federal government, states, and cities have issued rent moratoriums, but the protections in them varied considerably and, by August, they had ended in 24 of the 43 states that enacted them; nor did they release renters from future obligations to pay what they owe, sometimes with penalties. In addition, eviction stays haven’t stopped landlords nationwide from taking thousands of delinquent renters to court and even, depending on state laws, seeking to evictthem. The courts are clogged with such cases. Eventually, millions of renters could face what a BBC report called a potential “avalanche” of evictions.

Nor have homeowners been safe. The CARES Act did include provisions to protect some of them, offering those with federal-backed mortgages the possibility of six-month payment deferrals, potential six-month extensions of that, and the possibility of negotiating affordable payment plans thereafter. In many cases, however, that “forbearance” initiative hasn’t worked as intended. Often, homeowners didn’t know about it or weren’t aware that they had to file a formal request with their lenders to qualify or got the run around when they tried to do so. Still, mortgage forbearance helped millions, but it expires in March 2021 when many homeowners could still be jobless or have new jobs that don’t pay as well. Just how desperate such people will be depends, of course, on how strongly Covid-19 resurges, what future shutdowns it produces, and when it will truly subside.

Meanwhile, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the residential mortgage delinquency rate hit 8.22% as the second quarter of 2020 ended, the highest since 2014. Meanwhile, between June and July, mortgage payments overdue 90 or more days increased by 20% to a total unseen since 2010. True, we’re not yet headed for defaults and foreclosures on the scale of the Great Recession of 2007-2008, but that’s a very high bar.

As for hunger, a September Census Bureau survey reports that 10.5% of adults, or 23 million people, stated that household members weren’t getting enough to eat. That’s a sharp increase from the 3.7% in a Department of Agriculture survey for 2019. In July, the Wall Street Journal reported, 12% of adults said their families didn’t have enough food (compared to 10% in May). A fifth of them lacked the money to feed their kids adequately, a three-percent increase from May. Recent food-insecurity estimates for households with children range from 27.5% to 29.5%.

Meanwhile, enrollments in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (known until 2008 as the Food Stamp Program) grew by 17% between February and May, forcing the government to increase its funding. Food banks, overwhelmed by demand, are pleading for money and volunteers. In August, a mile-long line of cars formed outside a food bank in Dallas, one of many such poignant scenes in cities across the country since the pandemic struck.

What Happens After the Election?

For those who have lost their jobs, the CARES Act provided $600 a week to supplement unemployment benefits, as well as a one-time payment of $1,250 per adult and $2,400 for married couples. That stipend, though, ended on July 31st when the Republican Senate balked at renewing it. In August, by executive order, the president directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to step in with three weeks of $300 payments, which were extended for another three. That, however, was half what they would have received had the CARES supplement been extended and, by October, most states had used up the Trump allotments.

In the ongoing congressional negotiations over prolonging supplemental benefits and other assistance, President Trump engaged, only to disengage. With a September ABC News/IPSOS voter survey showing that just 35% of the public approved of his handling of the pandemic, and Joe Biden having opened a double-digit lead in many polls, the president suddenly offered a $1.8 trillion version of the CARES Act, only to encounter massive blowbackfrom his own party.

And that’s where we are as the election looms. If Trump loses (and accepts the loss), he will hand Joe Biden an economic disaster of the first order that he’s made infinitely worse by belittling mask-wearing and social distancing, disregarding and undercutting his administration’s own medical experts, peddling absurd nostrums, and offering rosy but baseless prognostications. And between November 3rd, Election Day, and January 20th, Inauguration Day, expect — hard as it might be to imagine — an angrier, more vengeful Trump.

For now, as his prospects for victory seem to dim, he has good reason to push for, or at least be seen as favoring, additional aid, but here’s a guarantee: if he loses in November, he won’t just moan about election rigging, he’ll also lose all interest in providing more help to millions of Americans at the edge of penury and despair. Vindictiveness, not sympathy, will be his response, even to his base, for whom he clearly has a barely secret disdain. So accept this guarantee, as well: between those two dates, whatever he does will be meant to undermine the incoming Biden administration. That includes working to make the climb as steep as possible for the rival he’s depicted as a semi-senile incompetent. He will want only one thing: to see his successor fail.

Once Trump formally hands over the presidency — assuming his every maneuver to retain power flops — he’ll work to portray any measure the new administration adopts to corral the virus he helped let loose and to aid those in need as profligacy, and as “socialism” and governmental overreach imperiling freedom. Last guarantee: he won’t waste a minute getting his wrecking operation underway, while “his” party will posture as the paragon of financial rectitude. It won’t matter that Republican administrations have racked up the biggest budget deficits in our history. They, too, will ferociously resist Biden’s efforts to help millions of struggling Americans.

And think of all of this, assuming Biden wins, as the “good news.”

Copyright 2020 Rajan Menon

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

Psychiatrist Bandy Lee: Trump’s election meltdown is “most dangerous period of this presidency”

Psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, who has sounded the alarm over President Donald Trump’s mental health since he announced his candidacy, warned that his post-election meltdown shows he may become more dangerous after his electoral defeat.

Lee, who has taught at Yale and served as a research fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health, warned that the public should not underestimate Trump’s ability to exert his will on his political opponents, even if his days in the White House are numbered.  

Well before his conclusive defeat, Trump responded to falling behind in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Nevada by baselessly alleging fraud and falsely declaring victory in states where he was trailing. His campaign has also filed multiple lawsuits challenging the vote-counting in various states, although many have already been outright rejected by judges while others have little chance of affecting the race.

Lee is a violence expert who has worked on multidisciplinary, public health approaches to violence prevention for more than 20 years. She is the author of the textbook “Violence” and editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” She is also president of the World Mental Health Coalition, which on Saturday will hold a town hall on “How to Heal the Nation.”

“We are entering perhaps the most dangerous period of this presidency, and a safe landing will depend on how we understand what is happening and how well we prevent potential catastrophe,” Lee told Salon. “For these reasons, in late September, more than 100 senior mental health experts went on video record to announce that Donald Trump was too psychologically dangerous and mentally unfit to qualify for the presidency or candidacy for re-election. More than a week ago, we held an emergency interdisciplinary conference that followed up on our earlier National Press Club conference, broadcast in full on C-SPAN, which brought together 13 of the nation’s top experts in fields as diverse as psychiatry, law, history, political science, economics, social psychology, journalism, climate science and nuclear science to emphasize the need for fit leadership. A month ago, I urgently published a “Profile of a Nation” to help the public understand what it was facing through this perilous time and to assist with coping and recovery.”

Lee spoke to Salon about what she expects from Trump after his defeat and how the public can move forward after his presidency.

Trump has lied nonstop about winning states he lost and voter fraud that hasn’t happened. Is this him just trying to save face or do you think he actually believes he won?

First, we should understand that it is still premature to believe that the problem will now be confined to Donald Trump. We must continue to state the facts but also be aware that winning the vote is only the beginning. Mental health professionals’ warnings — that we are facing greater dangers than people assumed — continued to go unheeded, and while people are scratching their heads as to how pundits and pollsters could have gotten the margin of victory so wrong, for us it was predictable because of the psychological factors involved. To continue to preclude psychological considerations on a psychological issue is like going into battle without weapons or armor. We are doing the same with the pandemic.

As to whether Donald Trump actually believes he has won, while this is difficult to tell without an examination, we can have a good estimation from his followers’ responses. Delusions are cherished beliefs that allow one to create mostly for oneself a desired reality, where one is a “winner,” for example, while dispelling intolerable truths, such as that one could be a “loser.” While strategic lies can only get one so far, actual delusions are far more emotionally powerful and more easily passed on because the primary person communicating them is truly convinced of them.

Because those with delusions usually know their beliefs are untrue, but simply have pushed this knowledge into their unconscious, you can also see from their resistance to facts and evidence, doubling down, and even becoming violent when challenged. We see this in his followers, who are often impermeable to information that contradicts their fixed beliefs and can grow belligerent if challenged.

How do you think he will react once all the election results are certified and his court challenges are inevitably rejected or fall short?

We should not underestimate his psychological ability to gauge what he needs to say or do to manipulate his followers and intimidate, exhaust or defeat his opponents. He is ingenious at this, since he has done this all his life for sheer psychic survival: It is a matter of life or death for him. In mental pathology, where higher functions are impaired, one is often more driven more by one’s “primitive brain,” or what Donald Trump refers to as his “gut.” This part of the brain is irrational but very powerful, as the emotional drive is strong. To a person with pathological narcissism, illegitimate power is a psychological lifeline, for which one would do anything—including destroy oneself and the world. This may not make sense from a rational point of view, but it is entirely expected of a mind overtaken with emotional need.

Joe Biden has suggested that Trump will be escorted from the White House if he doesn’t leave. Do you think he might simply refuse to leave the White House on Jan. 20?

This is almost certain. He himself has announced he will not leave. His patterns so far reveal that he has few internal constraints, and from his inability to tolerate criticism or to admit that he is ever wrong, we can expect him to go to any extents to avoid being a “loser” and a “sucker.” Breaking laws and norms therefore will be nothing for him, especially when his emotional lifeline depends on it, since the loss of the presidency will mean the loss of a steady stream of adoration, in addition to the likelihood of prosecution and going broke.

What does someone like Trump do after a massive defeat? Do you think he will run again?

We see how he easily enters into rage attacks, especially when he feels that the world has not supplied him with the adulation and approval he feels entitled to, which it inevitably never does. But when there is an all-encompassing loss such as this, which takes away everything he has been depending on for the last four years, it can trigger a vengeful rampage of destruction against a whole nation that has failed him. Whether he runs again will depend on what we do in the interim, including the media not enabling his pathology.

Trump’s supporters have been stoking conspiracy theories about the votes for days. How do you think that plays out during Biden’s presidency? Are we going to have to hear for years about how the election was stolen when there is no evidence at all?

Separation from their “leader” will bring a great deal of trauma to his supporters because of the emotional dependence he cultivated, and the degree to which he separated them from their ordinary interests, their loved ones and their own realities. They, too, will be fighting with their lives to keep his presidency, as we can see from the extreme conspiracy theories they are willing to espouse just to keep him in the “right.”

How this plays out in the Biden presidency will depend on how conditions are changed to facilitate their recovery. First, reduction of exposure alone will be healing. I often emphasize the “shared psychosis” or “folie à millions” (madness by the millions) among his followers, a phenomenon that has been well documented by renowned mental health experts such as Carl Jung and Erich Fromm. Symptoms are shared when a severely mentally-impaired person is placed in a position of influence and there is sustained exposure. The treatment is separation, after which most secondary persons will return to their baseline state, and takes care of the emotional part.

The cognitive part has been maintained through propaganda and cultic programming, and something needs to be done to reduce programs masquerading as “news,” while using psychological tactics to insulate from other information sources, and creating social media “bubbles.” Then we need to fix the socioeconomic and cultural conditions that gave rise to their vulnerability in the first place.

There is a great deal of collective psychological healing to do, and this is one of the reasons why I urgently wrote and published my “Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul,” as a public service and sequel to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” It tries to give people tools for understanding and getting through this difficult period, as well as to know that there will be ways for the nation to heal and to recover our soul.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Progressives made Trump’s defeat possible — now it’s time to challenge Joe Biden

The defeat of Donald Trump would not have been possible without the grassroots activism and hard work of countless progressives. Now, on vital issues — climate, health care, income inequality, militarism, the prison-industrial complex, corporate power and so much more — it’s time to engage with the battle that must happen inside the Democratic Party.

The realpolitik rationales for the left to make nice with the incoming Democratic president are bogus. All too many progressives gave the benefit of doubts to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, making it easier for them to service corporate America while leaving working-class Americans in the lurch. Two years later, in 1994 and 2010, Republicans came roaring back and took control of Congress.

From the outset, progressive organizations and individuals (whether they consider themselves to be “activists” or not) should confront Biden and other elected Democrats about profound matters. Officeholders are supposed to work for the public interest. And if they’re serving Wall Street instead of Main Street, we should show that we’re ready, willing and able to “primary” them.

Progressives would be wise to quickly follow up on Biden’s victory with a combative approach toward corporate Democrats. Powerful party leaders have already signaled their intentions to aggressively marginalize progressives.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants,” Politico reports, “had a stark warning for Democrats on Thursday: Swing too far left and they’re all but certain to blow their chances in the Georgia runoff that will determine which party controls the Senate.”

Also on the conference call with congressional Democrats was House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who reportedly declared that if “we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win.”

Such admonitions were predictable and odd, coming from House Democratic leaders who just saw their party caucus shrink due to losses by “moderate” incumbents, as well as the defeats of avowedly “moderate” and widely heralded Democratic senatorial candidates in Maine, Kentucky, Iowa and elsewhere.

At the core of such conflicts, whether simmering or exploding, is class war. When Pelosi & Co. try to stamp out the genuinely progressive upsurge in congressional ranks that is fueled from the grassroots, they’re “dancing with those who brung them” — corporate elites. It’s an extremely lucrative approach for those who feed out of the troughs of the Democratic National Committee, the Senate and House party campaign committees, the House Majority PAC and many other fat-cat political campaign entities. Consultant contracts and lobbying deals keep flowing, even after Democrats lose quite winnable elections.

Biden almost lost this election. And while the Biden campaign poured in vast financial resources and vague flowery messaging that pandered to white suburban voters, relatively little was focused on those who most made it possible to overcome Trump’s election-night lead — people of color and the young. Constrained by his decades-long political mentality and record, Biden did not energize working-class voters as he lip-synched populist tunes in unconvincing performances.

That’s the kind of neoliberal approach that Bernie Sanders and so many of his supporters warned about in 2016 and again this year. Both times there was a huge failure of the Democratic nominee to make a convincing case as an advocate for working people against the forces of wealthy avarice and corporate greed.

In fact, Clinton and Biden reeked of coziness with economic elites throughout their political careers. To many people, Clinton came off as a fake when she tried to sound populist, claiming to represent the little people against corporate giants. And to those who actually knew much about Biden’s political record, his similar claims also were apt to seem phony.

It’s clear from polling that Biden gained a large proportion of his votes due to animosity toward his opponent rather than enthusiasm for Biden himself. He hasn’t inspired the Democratic base, and his appeal had much more to do with opposing the evils of Trumpism than embracing his own political approach.

More than ever, merely being anti-Trump or anti-Republican isn’t going to move Democrats and the country in the vital directions we need. Without a strong progressive program as a rudder, the Biden presidency will be awash in much the same old rhetorical froth and status-quo positions that have so often caused Democratic incumbents to founder, bringing on GOP electoral triumphs.

In recent months, Biden showed that he knew how to hum the refrains of economic populism when that seemed tactically useful, but he scarcely knew the words and could hardly belt out the melody. His media image as “Lunch Bucket Joe” was a helpful mirage in corporate media-land, but that kind of puffery only went so far. Meanwhile, the Biden strategists decided to coast on the issue of the pandemic, spotlighting Trump’s lethally narcissistic insanity.

But when it came to health care — obviously a central concern in people’s lives, especially amid the coronavirus pandemic — Biden largely fell back on Obamacare rather than advocating for a genuine guarantee of health care as a human right. Likewise, Biden talked a bit about easing the economic burdens on small businesses and families, but it was pretty pallid stuff compared to what’s desperately needed. To a large extent, he surrendered the economic playing field to Trump’s pseudo-populist blather.

Looking ahead, we need vigorous successors to the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the mid-1960s, which that were asphyxiated, both in political and budgetary terms, by the Vietnam War. Set aside the phrase if you want to, but we need some type of “democratic socialism” (as Martin Luther King Jr. asserted in the last years of his life).

The ravages of market-based “solutions” are all around us; the public sector has been decimated, and it needs to be revitalized with massive federal spending that goes way beyond occasional “stimulus” packages. The potential exists to create millions of good jobs while seriously addressing the climate catastrophe. If we’re going to get real about ending systemic and massive income inequality, we’re going to have to fight for — and achieve — massive long-term public investment, financed by genuinely progressive taxation and major cuts in the military budget.

With enormous grassroots outreach that only they could credibly accomplish, progressive activists were a crucial part of the united front to defeat Trump. Now it’s time to get on with grassroots organizing to challenge corporate Democrats.

Do Biden and Trump voters even speak the same language?

The results of the 2020 election left people puzzling over the minds of their fellow Americans. What were they thinking? No matter where you look, it seems like Trump and Biden voters really don’t understand each other.

Listening to what the other side has to say, whether you’re talking about immigration or the environment, can seem like peering into an alternate universe. It’s not just the divergent political positions; there’s something foreign about the language. Republicans talk about liberty, riots, and the “socialist agenda.” Democrats speak of empathy, protests, and the “climate crisis.”

And where their vocabulary does overlap, definitions have parted ways. Depending on who you’re talking to, the Green New Deal is either the only path to avert catastrophe, or a plot to steal your hamburgers.

“We’re more polarized than we’ve ever been,” said Dietram Scheufele, a communications professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In our lifetimes, the “United” States of America has never felt like such an oxymoron. The presidential election has torn families apart. The media has declared that America is in the middle of a long-running culture war. How did our fellow Americans become so unrecognizable? One part of the answer: Words have simply failed us.

Poles apart

The polarization of our language seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Last year, a study led by researchers from Stanford and Brown analyzed congressional speeches from 1873, not long after 2 percent of the population died in the Civil War, until 2016, when Trump was elected president. What they found was that polarized language had increased sharply in the 1990s, following a century of remaining relatively steady. “Democrats and Republicans now speak different languages to a far greater degree than ever before,” the authors wrote.

So what happened? Some of this divergence stems from a shift in strategy by Republican leadership, one that takes advantage of the way people make subconscious judgments.

Tweaks to words and phrases can alter how our brains process them. Scheufele calls this “mental shelving” — cognitive shortcuts that help us categorize and simplify the world. A pile of bananas, apples, and pears? That goes on the “fruit” shelf. A big rectangle in the wall with a handle? Your brain has seen that before, and it’s clearly a door.

“Without a shelf system, we would not be able to function,” Scheufele said.

Abstract ideas get put on shelves, too — often political shelves. Republicans have historically been much more savvy than Democrats at using this to their advantage, Scheufele said, tailoring political phrases so they end up on shelves that promote conservative ideals. Beginning in the 1990s, the messaging maestro Frank Luntz began advising the GOP on words to use and words to lose. Based on polling, he suggested substituting illegal aliens for undocumented workers, and death tax for estate tax. If you put “illegal” or “death” in there, of course people are going to file it away on the “bad stuff” shelf.

Another of Luntz’s notable suggestions: replacing the scary-sounding global warming with climate change, which lends itself to arguments that “the climate is always changing.” Luntz also recommended replacing drilling for oil with the enticing exploring for energy. (He’s since had a change of heart. Last year, Luntz called for action on climate change in Congress, recommending a suite of planet-friendly phrases popular with focus groups.)

Then came An Inconvenient Truth. Former Vice President Al Gore essentially became the de facto spokesperson for the climate movement with the release of his blockbuster documentary. The overwhelming message was, “Hey, this is a Democrat issue,” Scheufele said. “And that’s of course the last shelf that I want to get that onto, because it’s not a Democrat issue, it’s an issue about sustainability, about economic well being, about societal progress — all of which are values that cut across tribal fault lines.”

The missing middle

English is full of divisions. People often talk about “fighting” climate change as if it were a war. This battle-ready language primes our minds to treat the other side as an enemy, ignoring any common ground. Those who follow news about the environment hear all about deniers and alarmists but are usually at a loss of words to describe those with any other range of opinions. “Many people approach this whole challenge of climate change very simplistically when they think of the public — believers vs. deniers,” Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told me last year. “But that’s actually horribly inaccurate.”

There are words that can bridge the partisan gap. Republicans could argue that clean energy sources will help make the U.S. economy globally competitive and energy independent, for example.

The problem is that the country doesn’t have a lot of political and economic incentives to find these words. In states like Iowa and Nevada that hold caucuses, presidential candidates build momentum by appealing to “a narrow slice of the electorate,” the most hardline partisans, Scheufele said. On top of that, online “microtargeting” — crafting personalized, divisive messages based on people’s digital footprints — winds up building ideologically pure “opinion bubbles.” Social media and news sites want your clicks, and wouldn’t want to scare you away by showing you anything you might disagree with. As a result, you get fed a diet of the familiar.

All of this has conspired to turn our rivals into cartoons. “We are increasingly seeing a tiny, distorted slice of reality, dominated by extremists,” as the journalist Amanda Ripley wrote this week in the Washington Post. “Our vast, complicated country gets lost.”

It’s still possible to have a productive conversation about climate change or other contentious issues with people on the other side. But it’s a whole lot harder than it used to be now that Americans speak different languages. One tip from Scheufele: Never emphasize how stupid your political opponents are. Condescension isn’t a winning strategy.

“No persuasive conversation has ever started with, “‘You’re an idiot, now listen to me,'” he said. “There’s not a single piece of social science research that suggests that will be effective.”

A disputed election once delivered 3 governors to Georgia — at the same time

As election results continue to come in around the country, it’s worth recalling that once, the state of Georgia found itself with a dead governor-elect — and three politicians who each insisted he was the real governor.

It’s a story I had heard about when I moved to Georgia 20 years ago, and got all the details from Tracy Lightcap, now a professor emeritus of political science at LaGrange College, where I teach. And when you hear about the wild events, you’ll know why I needed an expert to decipher just what went down in Georgia late in 1946 and early 1947.

A disastrous election conclusion

In 1946, Eugene Talmadge — who had been the state’s governor twice before, from 1933 to 1937 and from 1941 to 1943 — made another bid to lead the state.

The primary race was between two different types of Democrats, the more conservative Talmadge and the more progressive James Carmichael. Talmadge got 43% of the popular vote, and Carmichael got 45%. The remaining 12% of the votes were write-ins.

But the popular vote didn’t determine who the winner was.

Georgia’s system at that time for choosing a governor depended on what was called the “County Unit System,” breaking the state down into a series of districts, similar to the national Electoral College. That system tended to favor populists from rural counties, like Talmadge, over pro-business moderates like Carmichael. Nearly two decades later, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that system unconstitutional.

But in 1946, the County Unit System gave the victory to Talmadge, 59% to 36%. He went on to breeze through the general election against tiny write-in opposition.

Unfortunately, Talmadge died on Dec. 21, 1946, just before being inaugurated. This triggered a political crisis that bedeviled Georgia for nearly three months until the issue was finally resolved in March.

The Georgia Constitution of 1945 had created a lieutenant governor’s office and specified that person would replace the governor in case of the chief executive’s death. It did not specify what would happen if the governor-elect died before being inaugurated, which would have taken place on Jan. 14, 1947.

The new state Constitution did say that it was up to the Georgia General Assembly, the legislature, to certify the winner.

Hedging their bets

Georgia’s legislators, who overwhelmingly supported Eugene Talmadge, knew these obscure procedural facts. They also knew Talmadge’s health was failing. So they planned to wait until just before the inauguration to certify the election results. If Talmadge died before then — as he did — according to the rules, they would still be in control of picking his successor.

When Talmadge died 24 days before his inauguration, legislators decided to hold a state house runoff between the second- and third-place finishers in the fall election. One of those people was Carmichael, who got some write-in votes — but now lawmakers had to figure out who the other leading write-in candidate was, because that person had come in third and was now back in the running.

The legislative session stretched into the night, and partisans on both sides engaged in all manner of dirty tricks to gain the upper hand — including trying to get fellow lawmakers drunk, or allegedly drugging them.

Herman Talmadge had helped run his father’s campaign in 1946, but had also asked some friends to write him in, as a safeguard in case Eugene died. A late-night decision by a legislative committee declared that Herman had gotten enough write-in votes to beat the other write-ins. It was later revealed that some of those write-in votes were cast by dead people.

Nevertheless, in the legislative runoff, Carmichael was pitted against Herman Talmadge. At 2 a.m. on January 15, 1947, lawmakers declared Herman Talmadge the next governor.

Then things started to get really strange.

A second claim to the governorship

Ellis Arnall, the sitting governor, was a progressive like Carmichael, and an enemy of Eugene Talmadge. As Herman Talmadge was being sworn in, Arnall announced he would remain in his post as governor until the mess was sorted out.

And then it got exciting.

Nearly 50 years after the dispute, reporter Gary Pomerantz from the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper described what happened next in the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 15, 1947, based on the original Atlanta Journal reporting by George Goodwin:

“Herman Talmadge and his entourage marched to the second floor of the Capitol to take over the governor’s office. … Talmadge supporters either broke through the locked doors or found a spare key.

“In the doorway, Gov. Arnall, refusing to recognize the legislative vote just conducted, met Gov. Talmadge. Arnall called him ‘a pretender.’ Arnall refused to surrender his office. ‘Tell ’em Herman!’ came the hallway whoops.

“A fistfight broke out between members of the Arnall and Talmadge factions. Furniture was smashed and two of Arnall’s aides ‘were roughed up by a mob’ …

“Talmadge recalled, ‘We had 8,000 to 10,000 people that were friends of ours, all at the Capitol. Some of them were mad as the devil and some of them had been imbibing’ …

“[Talmadge] then asked his just-appointed adjutant general, future governor Marvin Griffin, to gather up Arnall.”

While Talmadge changed the locks on the governor’s office, Griffin and members of the state militia escorted Arnall to his home about 40 miles away.

But the next day, Arnall came back and set up a desk in the Capitol rotunda. Perhaps fearing conflict, Talmadge reportedly brought a .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with him to work that day.

A third claimant

Melvin Thompson, the lieutenant governor-elect, was a progressive reformer opposed to Eugene Talmadge’s populism. He hadn’t run on the same ticket as Talmadge — a practice still observed by lieutenant governor candidates today.

After Thompson was sworn in on Jan. 18, Arnall resigned. Thompson promptly declared himself the rightful governor, as the lieutenant governor in a situation with the governorship vacant.

From his desk in the rotunda, Arnall announced he would back Thompson’s claim against Herman Talmadge.

The state supreme court agreed — but not until March 19, 1947, 64 days after Inauguration Day. The court ruled that Thompson was the new governor — for now. It called for a new election to be held in 1948 to fill the remainder of the term.

Herman Talmadge responded to his legal defeat by starting to campaign for the job. In 1948 he defeated Thompson 51% to 45% in the Democratic primary and won the fall contest with more than 97% of the vote.

It took time, and some amount of chaos and uncertainty — and plenty of dispute among coequal branches of government — but ultimately the dispute found its way to a peaceful resolution.

This particular controversy may have eventually been settled, but the rise of Herman Talmadge began, launching a string of race-based controversies. Carrying on the family tradition, the younger Talmadge opted to close schools rather than integrate them. He won a seat in the U.S. Senate, where he joined the fight against proposed civil rights laws.

Scholars have found that his legacy still hampers the state’s education system — which demonstrates how populists can manipulate constitutional crises to resist social reform, including by claiming that opponents were attempting to usurp the system.

John A. Tures, Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Armed suspected QAnon supporters arrested over alleged plot to attack Philadelphia Convention Center

Philadelphia police are investigating an alleged plot to attack a convention center in the city where 2020 election ballots are being counted after two armed men—apparently out-of-state supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory—were arrested nearby late Thursday night. 

Acting on a timely tip about an armed group—possibly a family—driving from Virginia in a Hummer sport utility vehicle to attack the Philadelphia Convention Center, officers arrested the unnamed men, who were on foot and carrying guns, after locating the unoccupied SUV with another gun inside at about 10:20 pm, WPVI reports.

Officers on bicycles then spotted the men minutes later and apprehended them. The suspects, who according to police did not have valid permits for the weapons, were charged with unspecified firearms charges. The gunmen were allegedly on their way to the convention center, although it is not yet known what, if anything, they planned to do there.

Inside, election workers were busy tallying votes, including those in the tightly contested race between President Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden, who early on Friday had a slight lead over the president with tens of thousands of uncounted votes outstanding. 

The Washington Post reports the Hummer has a window sticker reading #WWG1WGA, an acronym for the slogan “Where We Go One, We Go All” used by supporters of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory. Officers recovered a military-style hat emblazoned with “QAnon.” 

The arrests were made in the wake of the president making false and potentially incendiary claims about voter fraud and official corruption in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in general. The Post on Thursday reported that text messages were circulating among local right-wing groups calling on Trump supporters to protest at the convention center and baselessly claiming that “Radical Liberals & Dems are trying to steal this election from Trump!”

The office of Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner declined to comment on the Thursday arrests beyond saying that a “highly active investigation” is underway, while Philadelphia police said they were working with the FBI on the case. 

Despite the FBI labeling QAnon a domestic terrorist threat, the president has praisedits pro-Trump supporters as “people that love our country.” Trump has also sharedmany tweets from backers of the baseless theory, which posits—among other preposterous claims—that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles including Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Tom Hanks are involved in an international child sex-trafficking ring.  

The oceans contain vast mineral resources. Can the deep sea be mined without catastrophic results?

There is an adage among miners: if it can’t be grown, it must be mined. 

Almost everything we use relies on miningPhones and computers contain elements like aluminum, nickel, and lithium. Plastic is made from petroleum products extracted from fossil fuels in the ground. Even your toothpaste is chock full of mined materials

The growing human population places an increasing demand on the non-renewable resources that come from Earth’s crust. Technological advances and the search for renewable energy sources could exacerbate the situation. As our terrestrial mineral resources diminish, governments, researchers, and corporations have proposed searching for resources in a new location: thousands of meters beneath the surface of the ocean. 

In the 1970s, researchers began exploring the potential of extracting minerals from the seafloor after discovering fields of potato-sized polymetallic nodulesand massive mineral-spewing underwater volcanoes, called hydrothermal vents. A seemingly endless supply of metal ores resided in the deep ocean and promised a wealth of resources. We just had to find a way to extract and transport them to the surface. 

The United States, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union funded nearly 200 research cruises to investigate mineral resources around the world. Lockheed and Ocean Minerals Co. inspired hope in ocean mining’s feasibility when they announced their automated mining system was capable of operating at depths of 6,000 meters. However, the development and testing of their mining system between 1976 and 1978 was later revealed to be a cover for a United States Central Intelligence Agency mission to recover sunken Soviet submarines. Despite investments equating to over $650 million USD, exploration and technological developments ultimately proved impractical and unprofitable. By 1982, enthusiasm dwindled and the United States, France, and Germany all ended deep-sea mineral exploration programs. 

50 years later, improved technology and heightened demand for precious natural resources — like the rare earth metals needed to construct longer-lasting, energy-efficient batteries — have led to a resurgent interest in exploiting deep-sea mineral deposits. Many scientists, however, are worried that mining will irreversibly damage fragile deep-sea habitats and have unforeseen consequences on other ocean environments. 

Mining 3000 leagues under the sea

Deep-sea mining will mimic mining operations on land, with one large caveat: everything must take place under crushing pressures and near-freezing waters. On top of that, the deposits in question (polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulfides, and cobalt-rich crusts) predominantly occur at depths between 400 and 6,000 meters below sea level, prohibiting the use of manned vehicles. Instead, mining operations will be entirely controlled from a support ship on the surface. Fiber optic cables running from the ship to the seafloor will power and control mining vehicles that look like a supervillain’s tool for world domination with instruments for crushing, scraping, and suctioning sediment and ore. After the ore has been extracted from the seafloor, a slurry of minerals, sediment, and seawater must be mechanically pumped back to the support ship where the desired metals will be separated from the rest of the slurry. Any unwanted water and materials — called “tailings” — will be discarded back into the ocean. 

From seafloor extraction to surface processing, scientists worry about the damages deep-sea mining operations will inflict on marine environments. Mining will remove surface sediments and chunks of the seafloor, uprooting organisms living there. Vehicles extracting minerals will also generate large sediment plumes that can travel well beyond the mining site, smothering animals in their wake. Pumps transporting minerals to the surface will create noise that will likely be able to travel hundreds of kilometers in every direction without dissipating, disrupting the behaviors and communication of animals, like whales, that are accustomed to a quiet oceanic environment at such depths. After ore processing, the release of tailings could further pollute waters hundreds to thousands of meters away from the actual seabed mining operations depending on where they are released back into the water. 

There’s more. Pollution from tailings in midwater habitats could throw off the balance of food webs by changing the way food sinks from the surface down to animals in the food-limited deep sea. Mining might also release toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the environment at dangerous levels. Because deep-sea animals serve as a primary food source for many endangered marine mammals and commercially important fishes, like tunas, those toxins could make their way up the food chain and cause unintended health issues in marine animals and humans. 

Scientists cannot yet predict the extent or severity of these environmental impacts, particularly when there is no working model of a commercial mining operation. Since most of the mineral deposits sit within international waters, their exploitation is regulated by an international governing body called the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, composed of 168 member states. (The United States is not a member — despite resounding support from military officials, oil and gas companies, and both Democrat and Republican legislatures — due to concerns from a small, but vocal, conservative base that worries that the ISA and the Law of the Sea would threaten U.S. security, sovereignty, and economic interests.) 

The ISA has drafted regulations for the exploration of deep-sea mineral deposits and has already issued 30 contracts allowing governments and independent companies to collect baseline data on mineral resources, test mining procedures, and conduct environmental impact assessments in locations withinthe Indian, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans.  Currently, ISA has prohibited mineral extraction while it drafts the Mining Code — a set of regulations that will ultimately determine the fate of future mining endeavors. Commercial mining operations could being as soon as the Mining Code is finalized, which ISA suggests could happen by the end of 2020.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, all mineral deposits within international waters are considered to be the “common heritage of mankind” and ISA is therefore responsible for ensuring the Mining Code includes regulations and guidance to ensure “the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed related activities.” But we’re still years away from understanding deep-sea ecosystems and organisms well enough to develop and implement regulations that meaningfully reduce mining’s environmental impacts. 

Mysteries of the deep

The waters of the deep ocean (below 200 m deep) make up over 90% of our planet, but deep-sea biology is a nascent field that has historically been hampered by our inability to conduct basic experiments and observations. Recent explorations have uncovered remarkable aspects about the creatures living in the deep oceans and how they rely on and fuel shallow-water ecosystems, but we still lack a critical understanding of the basic biology, ecology, and recovery potential of these creatures and ecosystems. 

What we do know is that the ecosystems targeted by mining operations — including hydrothermal vents, seamounts, and nodule fields in abyssal plains — all create unique oases of life within otherwise homogenous underwater deserts.

Many species within these ecosystems are incapable of surviving anywhere else on Earth, such as communities that rely on the boiling hot (up to 400° C, 750° F), toxic effluent emitted from active hydrothermal vents. Many of the deep-sea habitats harbor an incredible diversity of life, even comparable to that of the Great Barrier Reef. And scientists continually discover new species in these habitats, many of which can only be found at a single vent or seamount. But the creatures inhabiting the deep sea grow slowly (some only growing 1 millimeter each year) and can live for hundreds to thousands of years, making their capacity to recover from mining operations particularly worrisome.

Our best predictions of the long-term environmental impacts of mining activities come from a few small scale tests. Experiments simulating polymetallic nodule mining in both the Peru Basin and the Clarion-Clipperton Zone within the central Pacific suggest that mining operations will devastate mining sites for years. Even 26 years later, scientists saw little evidence of ecosystem recovery in these sites: not even microbes had made a resurgence

But these experiments pale in comparison to the eventual scale of commercial mining operations, which are expected to span 10 to 100 times the area surveyed in the Peru Basin and cause significantly more damage to the seafloor than simulated in any trial to date. Ecosystems will simply suffer irreversible alterations to their health and take hundreds or thousands of years to recover from the habitat destruction caused by mining. 

Other scientists worry that this level of destruction will inevitably cause a loss to biodiversity and could entirely wipe out species endemic to a single mining site. Scientists also predict that mining impacts will spill-over into surrounding seafloor and midwater habitats, but the extent and outcomes of environmental impacts remain a mystery since mining exploration has largely ignored other oceanic ecosystems. Due to the inherent connectivity between the deep-sea and shallow water systems, devastation from deep-sea mining could even ripple through the rest of the ocean, with unforeseen repercussions on the health of the animals living in, and relying on, our seas.

Minimizing harm

ISA seems to have accepted the inevitability of environmental damages from deep-sea mining and plans to focus on minimizing harm and restoring ecosystems after mining damage occurs. By doing so, ISA may fail to uphold its responsibility to protect the fragile deep-sea habitats from harmful mining activities. Scientists have expressed concerns over the recommendations within the latest strategic plan that provide only non-binding guidelines with little legal backing to ensure adherence from contractors. Some also find flaws in the plan’s apparent reliance on restoring damaged habitats after mining — efforts which prove costly and often unsuccessful even in the shallow water habitats (like coral reefs and salt marshes) that we understand far better than any deep-sea ecosystem. 

At this point, scientists have no blueprint for habitat restoration in any areas mining will impact, nor will they within the foreseeable future. Ultimately, the restoration of deep-sea habitats is an unconvincing solution. This approach received criticism from several member nations concerned that the plan “could be read as if the Authority’s aim is to develop Exploitation Regulations that encourage deep-sea mining” when ISA’s responsibility is to ensure the pursuit of deep-sea mining only if it is in the best interest of all humankind.  

With so many unanswered questions about the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining, a cautious approach seems warranted. Yet, plans for deep-sea mineral exploitation appear to be rolling forward at full steam. A Belgian company, Global Sea Mineral Resources, recently finished test driving a vehicle intended for mining polymetallic nodules, and companies like Blue Nodules and Deep Green are investing big in mining equipment they claim will reduce environmental impacts – the efficacy of these designs has yet to be tested in deep-sea environments. 

The classification of humankind, and the birth of population science

It was Thomas Malthus — the British cleric and political economist, often railed against, rarely actually read — who cast a long shadow over thinking about our future. Writing around the turn of the 1800s, Malthus suggested starkly that “the power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence to man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”

He was talking not about extinction, but the natural paring back of populations. Indeed, Malthus remained unconcerned about outright extermination because he was so convinced of the natural tendency of populations to expand explosively, leading to poverty and starvation. A population tends to overshoot its means of subsistence, he noted, precisely because it grows in a nonlinear or exponential fashion (while growth in the availability of sustenance, he thought, tends to grow in a linear or arithmetic fashion).

While others made similar claims before him — Machiavelli, for example, asserted that population will expand until “the world will purge itself” through means of plagues or famines — Malthus’s pessimistic provocation provided fertile and innovative ground for later engineers, futurists, and optimists alike.

Malthus had, ironically, only foreshadowed later strands of anti-Malthusian thinking when he hinted, in 1798, that the “germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years.” He intended this as an impossible supposition, but many futurists since have proposed interplanetary diaspora as a genuine solution to limits to growth.

Indeed, ‘Malthusian principles’ provided the background provision for Freeman Dyson’s 1960 suggestion for building energy-sapping spheres around the sun: Any maturing technological civilization, Dyson supposed, would eventually bump up against the carrying capacity — or material limits — of its home planet, thus spurring it to increase its resource reservoir by damming up the otherwise wasted irradiance of its host star.

Population expansion can be compared to a comet’s path, in that both are curves with changing rates of change. The ‘geometrical growth’ that was the basis of Malthus’s doomy prognosis was premised upon the mathematical principle that one could extrapolate such functions far into the future. This is what has allowed scientists, since the 1600s, to predict birthrates as well as the return of comets. Indeed, Malthus had been preceded by the great mathematician Leonhard Euler, in 1748, in using exponentials to map population dynamics. But in fact the very idea of population itself had emerged as a side effect of the advances of probability theory in the latter decades of the 1600s and opening of the 1700s.

Discovering the Human Species

Under the name of political arithmetic, the study of demography initially arose as an arena of scientific inquiry via applications of early probability theory to mortality rates in the late 1600s. This was pursued originally by polymaths attempting to calculate annuity payments, which brought to their notice statistical patterns and regularities in the census data for deaths and births. It was as a by-product of such endeavors that ‘population’ began to be regarded as an object in its own right, with its own regularities, dispositions, and lawlike features.

Before the appropriate mathematical tools of abstraction were in place, no one had consistently thought of humanity in this way, at the level of an aggregated population or as a global mass. Only after these first steps in new methods for assessing statistics did the previously invisible entity now called ‘population’ solidify as a target for objective investigation. And this meant, of course, that its dynamics were suddenly capable of being mathematically retrodicted and predicted.

With this consolidation of human population as a scientific object, there, of course, came new avenues for exerting power over popula­tions (see Michel Foucault’s “Security, Territory, Population”). But what was also brought into focus was a new unit of poten­tial perishing. Not just individuals could die, but entire populations. Ironically, the computations of risk that had first made population visible to us simultaneously forced us to acknowledge that it was itself subject to risk.

Tellingly, one of the very first texts to engage in demographic ide­as — written by the political thinker Baron de Montesquieu in 1721 — was also one of the first to mention human extinction as a plausible natural event. However, Montesquieu was most afraid of extinction by way of depopulation. In his “Lettres persanes,” he declares that global population has diminished since Antiquity, writing that, “[a]fter doing calculations as exact as possible,” he has ascertained that our “popula­tion continues to diminish daily, and if this trend persists within ten centuries the earth will be nothing but an uninhabited desert.”

Aside from the realization that ‘calculations’ can be applied to predict the long-term future of the human population, the rise of de­mography proved a crucial factor in the discovery of human extinction because it began cementing humanity’s awareness of itself as a biophysical species — something consecrated in Carl Linnaeus’s inclusion, from 1735 onward, of the genus Homo in his taxonomic system. Indeed, it was during this century that the phrase ‘the human species’ entered regular parlance. And with this tax­onomic self-awareness comes awareness of the possibility of humans dying out as a species.

Numerous other treatises on demography across the ensuing cen­tury echoed Montesquieu’s concerns. In 1754, David Hume responded directly to the latter in an essay on ‘populousness’ where he pronounces that Homo sapiens, just like all other species, will eventually undergo extinction. Decades later, William Godwin, whose bullish optimism about humanity’s future abundance had provoked Malthus’s original warnings, wrote that the burgeoning field of population science had provided a rich arena for prognostications upon “the extinction of our species.”

Malthus’s ideas have not fared well. Malthusian concerns resurged in the1950s and 1960s. But around that time, the rate of growth for global population began declining. Indeed, due to education, birth control, and rising prosperity, there has been what some experts describe as a ‘jaw-dropping’ decline in birth rates across the world. Some even argue falling fertility could lead to human extinction.

Whether the concern is overpopulation or infertility, population science was from the start intertwined with probabilistic thinking surrounding humanity’s fate. In 1750, one French mathematician remarked that a comet, hitting the Earth, would shatter it “from top to bottom.” Soon after, his compatriot, Jérôme Lalande, calculated that, even if a comet’s orbit intersects with Earth’s, there is still only a 1 in 76,000 chance of the two bodies actually colliding. By 1810, probability theory was properly brought to bear on the issue, when German astronomer Wilhelm Olbers calculated that a comet hits Earth roughly every 220 million years.

Though the odds were low, the possibility remained. The local universe was now a sea of roaming risks that must perpetually be navigated, probabilistically and predictively. And, as it became more obvious that every moment is potentially a dice roll for our species (where to ‘win’ is merely to earn another chance to roll the dice), it also became clear that ignorance itself is a risk, and one that can likewise be measured with numbers.

Subjective Probability

Aside from assessing the objective probability of planetary catastro­phes based on the known amount of comets in our vicinity, another interpretation of probability had long been quietly growing in the shadow of more obvious alternatives: As opposed to measuring the tangible frequencies of events observed, this alternative conception centered upon the strategic position of the observer herself. This was the idea that probability doesn’t measure the likelihood of things happening in the world, but our confidence in our beliefs about those things happening.

Dubbed subjective probability by later theorists, it involved interpreting probability not as an objective frequency but as a degree of credence in a subjective belief. So, the objective probability that I am a liar invariantly remains 0 or 1 based on whether or not I told a lie, but the subjective probability relating to your opinion on the matter will vary as you weigh up your opinion and are presented evidence for and against.

To further illustrate this, think of an urn containing 70 blue balls and 30 red balls. The objective probability of picking a red ball from the urn is 30 percent. However, prior to any trials, I can only have a subjective probability: If I am told that the urn contains some red and blue balls, it may be wise to guess that the probability of selecting either way is 50 percent, but, as I pick out more balls, I can update this figure and, after enough trials, I can figure out the objective probability from past experience.

Now think of a much bigger urn that contains an unspecified number of white balls and an unspecified number of black balls. Taking out a black ball causes not only my death, but the extinction of the whole human species and all records of it. Clearly, no one has ever picked out a black ball. It is not an occurrence that has ever entered the ‘experience of the ages’; but this does not mean it isn’t there in the urn. Therefore we can only use subjective probabilities to reason about it. This example illustrates why the development of ways of thinking about subjective probability has proven important for the study of existential risk.

For example, noticing that the universe is mostly silent and sterile implies that something stops inorganic matter from evolving into spacefaring civilizations. Something obstructs progress. But when does this take place? Is it behind us or waiting in our future? Perhaps it is behind, and the emergence of life is massively improbable. This, however, would mean that discovery of basic life elsewhere would be bad news. It would revise upwardour subjective belief that the major challenge lies ahead.

The first person to create a mathematical rule for this kind of reasoning was Reverend Thomas Bayes in the 1750s. Writing of our need for a rule of assigning probabilities where we “absolutely know nothing antecedent to any trials,” he created a theorem that instructs how to apportion subjective likelihoods and then update them when we gain new evidence. Bayes was at the time responding to a highly abstruse and academic problem among probability theorists. He was not thinking about existential peril. But with his method for assigning subjective probability, or degrees of belief, Bayes bequeathed to later ages a theorem that could be used to reason usefully upon those ‘unknown unknowns‘ or ‘wildcard risks.’

Modernity enabled us not only to translate nature into numbers but also to bring the rigor of mathematics to our own opinions. This bequeathed numerous pathbreaking abilities: to compute a comet’s path, to comprehend humanity as a global mass, and to track the uncertainty of our own beliefs. From the 1600s onward, this has allowed a long future prospect to slowly come into view, by giving us the tools by which to map out its perils and its promises.

Across history, acknowledging what’s at stake in the future has caused us to pay more attention to it. Unsurprisingly, it was predictions on population that inspired recent concern for existential risk. Since the 1980s, philosophers like Derek Parfit have pointed out that human extinction would be uniquely bad for reasons of wasted opportunity as well as loss of life. Because extinction would be the loss of all potential future generations in addition to the perishing of however many billions of individuals are presently alive.

But how many future generations could there be? Remember that Malthus himself acknowledged that it is within the power of population to “fill millions of worlds.” Experts today now think of this (and much more) as achievable. This means there could be unimaginable amounts of future people, leading highly valuable lives. And this gives us some sense of just what’s at stake in our survival.

* * *

Thomas Moynihan is a writer from the U.K., currently working with Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. His work explores the history of ideas about human extinction and existential risk. His most recent book is “X-Risk: How Humanity Discovered Its Own Extinction,” from which this article is adapted.

Misinformation image on WeChat attempted to frighten Americans out of voting for Democrats

At least two dozen groups on the Chinese-owned social media app WeChat have been circulating misinformation that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is “preparing to mobilize” the National Guard and “dispatch” the military to quell impending riots, apparently in an attempt to frighten Chinese Americans into staying home on Election Day.

The misinformation, which takes the form of a photo of a flyer and is in both English and Chinese, also warns that the government plans to impose a national two-week quarantine and close all businesses. “They will announce this as soon as they have troops in place to prevent looters and rioters,” it states. The flyer originally appeared on WeChat during the first surge of the pandemic, and it later spread to other social media. It recently resurfaced on WeChat.

“I’m sure thousands of people have seen that. I’m sure that it’s pretty widespread,” said Shaw San Liu, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco, which has been tracking the flyer and other misinformation on WeChat. “We’re really concerned about making sure we get some good counterinformation, facts out there so that people are not discouraged because this is the last stretch.”

Nahaku McFadden, a spokesperson for the National Guard, called the flyer “categorically false,” adding that DHS “does not have the authority to mobilize the National Guard,” which is under the control of state governors, and that “there is no discussion of a nationwide quarantine.”

ProPublica’s Electionland project first received a tip about the flyer from a San Francisco resident whose elderly mother received it. “My mother is not proficient in English, but she read the Chinese part and started freaking out,” the woman, who gave her first name as Dora, said. “It is clearly to keep people from the polls.”

Although the Trump administration has tried to ban WeChat, a spate of recent misinformation on the app appears aimed at boosting the president’s reelection campaign by deterring Chinese Americans from voting Democratic. “Shameful democrats, truly shameful,” runs one frequently shared message, which KQED translated from Chinese. “Without our consent, they made everyone permanent mail in ballot voters. Also, some people’s political registration has been changed to ‘independent’ or ‘democrat.'”

Another asserts that “90 percent of media is controlled by Democrats, 60 percent of college professors are left wing. That means America’s population, culture, wealth, media, and education are in the hands of Democrats. Trump and Republicans are in a very dangerous situation.”

Owned by Shenzhen-based Tencent Holdings Ltd, WeChat is among the world’s largest social media apps, boasting more than 1 billion active monthly users, mostly in China. Chinese Americans, who once used it primarily to communicate with family back home, have increasingly formed chat groups on the app for everything from sharing recipes to organizing rent strikes. During the pandemic and the presidential campaign, dozens of groups have promulgated misinformation without it being flagged or removed.

As of Saturday night, WeChat had received no recent complaints regarding the flyer about the National Guard, though there may have been some when the image first circulated in late March and early April, a person familiar with WeChat’s policies said. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, which have started to crack down on false information, WeChat is almost entirely reliant on individual users to report misinformation, the person said. Users agree on signing up not to post “fraudulent, false, misleading or deceptive” information on the platform.

The person also said that, unlike some U.S.-based social media companies, WeChat has no specific relationship with the federal government to track or report misinformation. WeChat’s user base in this country is far smaller — “in the low single-digit millions” — than that of Facebook or Twitter. Asian Americans, many of whom reportedly use WeChat, make up 36% of San Francisco’s population. DHS officials said they were unaware of any efforts by WeChat or the federal government to partner to address election misinformation.

The Trump administration wrote a series of rules that would have effectively banned downloads of WeChat and the video-sharing app TikTok in the U.S. this fall. On Sept. 20, the day they were to go into effect, a federal judge stayed the ruling, giving WeChat a reprieve. The app can be downloaded for free with no restrictions in the U.S.

DHS officials said that the FBI handles most investigations of domestic misinformation and election interference. The FBI declined to comment on whether it is investigating the flyer or on any other interactions with WeChat. “The FBI remains in close touch with all of our interagency partners and social media and technology companies to enable a quick exchange of threat information,” said Sutton Roach, a spokesperson for the bureau.

Misinformation on WeChat is not a new phenomenon. A 2018 study by the Columbia Journalism Review found that political discourse on WeChat is “asymmetrically polarized” and “especially vulnerable to political misinformation” such as unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories. Most of this misinformation is spread in large chat rooms, like the ones the Chinese Progressive Association has observed in San Francisco.

After similar reports of misinformation in Australia, WeChat blocked Australian users from seeing the content of problematic accounts flagged by the Australian government. WeChat worked with Austrian regulators to help ensure that information on official accounts – which require verification and payment by account owners – complied with local laws banning the dissemination of misinformation.

Stemming the tide

Without intervention from WeChat, responsibility for pushing back against misinformation has often fallen on younger members of Chinese American families, said Kitty Fong, a San Francisco resident and president of the Rose Pak Democratic Club. One evening in October, the 32-year-old Fong walked into her family kitchen to get some water. Her mother was cooking spare ribs and rice, and over the simmering meat she turned to Fong to ask if she’d heard the rumor on WeChat that riots were coming on the heels of the election, and that families should stock up on food and other goods. The flyer warning about mobilizing the National Guard also encourages people to “stock up on whatever you need to make sure you have a two week supply of everything.”

Carly Liu, a San Francisco resident who lives in the South of Market neighborhood, said she thinks that misinformation on WeChat has swayed her community. The messages echo claims on right-wing websites that presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter are corrupt and being investigated, and that there’s a media cover-up.

Biden “should be arrested and prosecuted for racketeering charges,” one WeChat message says. “This very serious case is ignored and censored by mainstream media.”

Such messages “actually convinced some people to vote for Trump because they weren’t sure they can trust Biden,” Liu said.

While she is not a U.S. citizen, Liu helped her parents, who are in their 80s, to vote. But Liu has seen misinformation popping up on WeChat that gave her pause about going outside to help them cast their ballot.

Just Tuesday she saw a photo spreading on WeChat of a local Social Security office with boarded up windows, accompanied by the flyer warning of riots.

“It makes us feel more scared,” Liu said in Cantonese. “I do think if there were (people) who were going to vote in-person on Nov. 3, they may definitely be deterred from going out in person.”

Shaw San Liu, from the Chinese Progressive Association, said that robberies publicized in Chinese media, racist insults on the rise amid the pandemic and physical attacks have led some in San Francisco’s Chinese American community to feel isolated and unsupported by the government and to be more receptive to right-wing extremism.

“So there is this very much deep-seated narrative that has been building in the community around the Chinese community being victimized. The Chinese community being attacked,” Liu said. That has fostered anti-homeless, anti-queer, anti-Black sentiment in the community, she added. “This conflation of racial justice and Black Lives Matters with riots as a white right-wing talking point, that is very much being brought into the Chinese right-wing analysis.”

After groups on WeChat first spread the flyer in late March, the National Guard stamped the flyer “FALSE” in a tweet. The hoax resurfaced again in the last few weeks, spurring fears of voter suppression. This past weekend, KQED showed the Guard’s tweet to the Chinese Progressive Association, which translated it into Chinese to warn the community.

But Liu said she’s worried that the association can’t reach everyone who is exposed to the misinformation on WeChat. “How do we make interventions in the WeChat space?” Liu said. “How do we reach out to our community when they’re sometimes literally bombarded with messages that are untrue, misleading and confusing, causing fear and division?”

This article is co-published with KQED.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. Having issues voting? You can tell us about it or read ProPublica’s voting guides in English and Spanish.

Democrats now face a challenge meeting health promises

Democrats are favored to win both chambers of Congress after years of campaign-trail promises about health care. But with a pandemic, a more conservative Supreme Court and lingering disagreements between progressives and moderates, it could be difficult for Democrats to turn those promises into law.

In the final days of the campaign, COVID-19 and the threat posed to the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade by the court’s bolstered conservative majority are consuming congressional Democrats — right down to keeping them in Washington well after they would usually go home to campaign.

Even if they capture the Senate in this election, Democrats are not expected to win a decisive enough majority to pass bills without some support from the GOP. The Senate’s filibuster rules could force Democrats to stick to legislation that can attract 60 votes — if they do not move to eliminate that requirement, as some are advocating.

Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA, a health consumer-focused organization that supported passage of the ACA more than a decade ago, said a slim margin could make it “exponentially more difficult” to pass major health care legislation.

Although progressives are pushing for more dramatic changes, Isasi said Democrats would have to consider, in particular, which measures their senators who won close races in more conservative states could support.

“There’s going to be a lot of focus on making sure that they can support this because the vote will be so tight,” he said.

Democrats argue that consumers’ concerns about health care, which led them to secure a House majority two years ago, will drive them to White House and Senate victories this fall. It has been 10 years since Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. One week before the election, the political modeling website FiveThirtyEight gave former Vice President Joe Biden and Democrats an 87-in-100 chance of winning the presidency; a 73-in-100 chance of winning the Senate; and a 96-in-100 chance of holding the House.

A recent poll from KFF shows voters preferred Biden’s approach to health care over President Donald Trump’s on every key issue, including handling the pandemic. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Democrats set high expectations early in the presidential campaign, with progressive candidates during the primaries arguing over sweeping proposals for government-funded insurance before Biden won the nomination. He championed a more incremental approach of giving consumers an option to purchase a public insurance plan, which would also be free for some based on need. That plan is now part of the party platform.

But the pandemic, and the Trump administration’s decision to largely leave states to manage the health and economic repercussions, has changed the subject. On many popular issues like insuring more Americans and ending the practice of surprise medical billing, Democrats look no closer to agreement than they were months ago — even as the pandemic has made problems worse, with nearly 27 million people losing their employer-sponsored insurance in its first two months.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, expected to take over the Senate’s health committee if Democrats win, called health care affordability “a top priority for Democrats.”

“The bottom line for me is that everyone in this country should be able to get the health care they need without worrying about the cost — and I think this pandemic and economic crisis have underscored how important that is,” Murray said in a statement.

But the disagreements that pitted Biden against progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during the primaries remain, with the party’s more liberal voices pushing for dramatic reforms to drive corporations out of the health care system. And in the halls of Congress, Democrats from traditionally “red” states may find fixing the ACA an easier sell than a government-funded public insurance option.

There is a lot of “ideological diversity” among Democrats, said Rodney Whitlock, a health care consultant who spent years working as a Republican Senate aide. Although Democrats like to refer to themselves as an inclusive, “big tent party,” he said in a recent podcast that such diversity can make it harder to agree and get much done, even if the party is in the majority.

Observers warn the party’s calculations could change if Democrats move to eliminate the Senate filibuster, removing one of the minority party’s most effective means of opposition.

If Democrats win control of Congress and the White House, there would be “incredible support among Democrats” to eliminate the filibuster to achieve their goals, especially on health care, said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and public opinion at Harvard University who has a new article on the election in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Democrats will effectively have a year to advance their agenda before the next election, he said, and liberal voters, who make up about 50% of Democratic voters, are angry about how Republicans have managed power and eager to embrace universal health coverage.

Their argument boils down to this: “This is our chance in history, and we’re not going to do it because we can’t get three votes” in the Senate, Blendon said.

“Policies that currently would have no chance in the Senate could come into play in 2021 if the legislative filibuster is removed,” Whitlock recently wrote. If that happens, he added, the health care industry would need to reevaluate proposals “that would have once seemed highly theoretical and unlikely.”

Without the power to set the agenda or the numbers to pass their proposals, congressional Democrats have spent the Trump presidency telling Americans — in heartbreaking public testimony, impassioned floor speeches and reams of stalled legislation — that they are the party to trust with health care.

These days, Democrats are quick to mention the need to shore up the Affordable Care Act, which Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration are seeking to overturn through a case the Supreme Court will hear Nov. 10.

Though even conservative scholars say Republican arguments in the case are weak, Democrats worry the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett could endanger the law.

If the ACA is overturned, other legislative priorities likely would fall by the wayside as lawmakers address the potential elimination of coverage and consumer protections affecting millions of Americans.

While in the minority, Democrats have proposed numerous ideas to strengthen the ACA, leaving some measures on the table for Democratic leaders to revisit when in power.

In June, the Democratic-controlled House passed legislation aimed at increasing coverage and affordability, including by capping insurance costs at no more than 8.5% of income. The bill would grant Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices — drawing from a proposal crafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders in 2019 and included in Biden’s platform.

That proposal initially ran afoul of progressives, though, who argued they had been cut out of writing the bill and that it was not aggressive enough.

Democrats also have failed to reach a consensus on banning surprise medical billing, which generally occurs when patients receive care unknowingly from a doctor or provider who is not in their insurance network. House Democrats disagreed earlier this year on proposals to solve the problem. A bipartisan proposal in the Senate also stalled, and efforts to ban surprise billing during COVID-19 proved ineffective.

In the meantime, as Democratic candidates talk up ideas like the public option to energize voters as voting draws to a close, Democratic leaders are making less specific promises.

“For the last four years, Donald Trump and Republicans have sabotaged the Affordable Care Act in the hopes of causing our health care system to collapse,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. “If we Democrats win back the White House and the majority in the Senate, we will strengthen and improve our health care system to make it cheaper and easier for everyday Americans to get the care and coverage they need.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka are “ready to be next in line if their father goes”: report

While President Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon sue over the vote counts in battleground states such as Nevada and Pennsylvania, the one-term president’s family members are making plans to extend their political stays in Washington, D.C.

Trump’s sons,  Eric and Donald Jr., have joined his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner in convincing the president his defeat was illegal. However, “Donny Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump are sitting there, ready to maybe be next in line if their father goes,” said Trump ally Ed Rollins, who also co-managed Ross Perot’s 1992 independent presidential bid.

“The Republican Party has seen George Wallace’s racist movement, Perot’s movement and a tea party movement, and they all faded when they lacked a leader or had a diminished leader,” Rollins said. “Is Trump going to be distracted and just throw rocks at the window? Will he be busy dealing with litigation he might face out of office? To keep something going, you need discipline.”

“The president is still loved by tens of millions of Americans, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. He can do literally do whatever he wants, including running again,” said Brad Parscale, his former campaign manager.

“He is without question the most powerful voice in our party. He will have an enormous impact on our party going forward,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I believe the great majority of people who voted for Donald Trump want to make sure that his principles and his policies are pursued. So, yes, he’s not disappearing by any means. He’s the 900-pound gorilla when it comes to the Republican Party.”

Former President George W. Bush acknowledged Sunday that Trump “earned the votes of more than 70 million Americans — an extraordinary political achievement… They have spoken, and their voices will continue to be heard through elected Republicans at every level of government.”

Former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said Republicans on Capitol Hill “fear Trump and his base and know that he can take just about any one of them out.”

“They know there’s no future with Trumpism and they aspire to do more when they got to the Senate than defend the President’s tweets and his conduct and behavior. And they want to legislate and they’re not doing that now,” Flake said. “There’s a lot of fear, but no love.”

Steve Schmidt, a veteran Republican strategist who co-founded the Lincoln Project, said, “Trump has been defeated, but Trumpism has not. What Trumpism is a statist, authoritarian ideology that’s inimical to the American precepts of democracy. It’s antithetical to America’s ideas and ideals, and it has fascistic markers. It is a cult of personality … and 70 million-plus people in the country were susceptible to it, to the racial antagonisms, to the assault on institutions and the rule of law, and it’s going to take a long time to deal with it.”

With Trumpism on the horizon for the foreseeable future, it’s not unlikely to expect the Trump offspring train to pull into the station at a fast clip and keep moving as long as Americans allow it to happen.