Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The Supreme Court has never been liberal

In the hours after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, shocked Americans speculated about whether or not Republican Senator Mitt Romney would oppose a Senate confirmation vote just weeks before the election. After all, Romney had emerged as the highest-profile Republican lawmaker critical of the president and was the lone senator from his party who voted to convict Trump earlier this year in the Senate impeachment trial. Back then he had accused Trump of “attempting to corrupt an election to maintain power” and of being “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.” Yet, after Ginsburg’s death, Romney did an about-face, lured by the prospect of a decades-long rightward tilt in the nation’s highest court. He remarked to reporters that “my liberal friends have, over many decades, gotten very used to the idea of a liberal court,” and that it was now “appropriate for a nation which is center right to have a court which reflects center-right points of view.”

Of course, this is not true. The nation veers center left on issue after issue, whether it is abortionhealth caregun controlimmigration, or labor rights and unions. Cases centering on all the aforementioned issues are likely in the next several years to come before the U.S. Supreme Court, whose conservative justices will foist their views onto a nation that veers in the opposite direction.

Listening to Republicans, it is easy to imagine that the right and left ends of the political spectrum are equally weighted on moral grounds. But conservatives do not represent a balance to the fervent overreach of the “radical leftists” they repeatedly invoke. They literally want to “conserve” the status quo. They represent the horrors of past injustices and the extreme racial and gender inequality that marked earlier eras.

In contrast, the left hopes to make “progress” toward a better future, hence the moniker “progressive.” Throughout history, progress has happened because left-leaning radicals relentlessly fought for justice against the forces of conservatism. Today’s conservatives pay lip service to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. They denounce the horrors of slavery. But they are the ideological time-traveling cousins of segregationists and enslavers. Even President Trump loves to cite King, saying in his September 22 Executive Order on “race and sex stereotyping” that a “belief in the inherent equality of every individual” is what “inspired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to dream that his children would one day ‘not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'” Trump in his executive order used Dr. King’s legacy to denounce anti-racist and anti-sexist training programs with no hint of irony.

When Dr. King was alive, he was scorned by most white Americans. Are we to believe that were Trump a political leader at that time that he would have been among King’s champions? It is far likelier that he would have been leading calls to lynch the now-revered leader.

History will judge today’s conservatives and especially those backing Trump (yes, Senator Romney, you too) with the same derision with which we now treat yesterday’s forces of regression. Conservatives are social dinosaurs who signal that losing power to those who are less white, less wealthy, and not male is their nightmare scenario. Romney may have marched in a racial justice protest in June and tweeted that “Black Lives Matter.” But in backing a Senate vote for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court, he ensures that a right-wing majority will result in Black Lives continuing to not Matter. Just the evisceration of the Affordable Care Act—which is likely to be struck down in a conservative majority court—will disproportionately impact African Americans. Other critical issues at stake include voting rights, affirmative action, workplace discrimination and more.

It is important to point out that while Republican lawmakers are to blame for the precarious situation we are in today, the Democratic Party is hardly innocent. Conservatives have been aided in their claims of morality by neoliberal Democrats—those centrists in the liberal party whose dissonance between liberalism and the inequalities wrought by capitalism have left them open to justifiable criticism and rightfully cast aspersions on liberal ideology.

The centrists have muddied the waters by pledging verbal allegiance to social justice issues while deftly working to preserve the status quo like their conservative counterparts. How else to explain that in city after city run by Democrats—Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis—racist police violence continues to plague communities of color? Or that the party refuses to adopt a basic promise to provide government-backed health care for all, while it is all too happy to pour tax dollars into the military?

Even when Justice Ginsberg was alive, the Supreme Court was hardly the protector of liberal ideas that Romney implied. In examining the rulings over this past year, one constitutional lawyer concluded that the “Roberts court remains a bastion of conservatism,” because the rulings that helped preserve immigrant rights, abortion rights, and worker rights were limited and technical in scope, leaving them vulnerable to future courts. Meanwhile, conservative decisions on issues like “religious freedoms” were sweeping and likely to endure challenges. Lawyer and journalist Adam Cohen argued in his recent book Supreme Inequality that over the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of powerful interests over the rights of the vulnerable.

Now with Ginsburg’s death and the imminent replacement of her seat with a younger, ultra-conservative justice, the court will tilt not from center left to center right. Rather, it will tilt from center right to far right. This makes the November 3 race even more critical. If Trump has had the chance to choose three Supreme Court justices in just four years—far more than his immediate predecessors—imagine what another four years would mean. But with barely a month before the election, the only bulwark against Trumpism is former Vice President Joe Biden, a centrist Democrat. Biden is by no means the radical leftist that Trump’s Republican backers claim he is, and he is not nearly progressive enough. But in order to stave off a slide into fascism, backing Biden-ism as a path to ending Trumpism is the first step of a long journey toward beating back the forces of regression and returning the nation to its tenuous path of progress.

Economist Richard Wolff: Capitalism is the reason COVID-19 is ravaging America

As I’ve written before, the novel coronavirus pandemic has exposed many of the structural weaknesses in capitalism. In order to rationalize the free market ideology that undergirds capitalist systems, capitalists must ignore inconvenient scientific facts (whether about the pandemic or issues like global warming and pollution) and cut corners when trying to help those stricken with misfortune. Even worse, capitalism requires constant consumption in order to maintain prosperity; if a wrench is thrown into the gears of perpetual growth, the entire economy grinds to a halt, as we have seen since the economic shutdowns began in March.

These arguments, and many others like them, are central to Dr. Richard D. Wolff’s new book, “The Sickness is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us from Pandemics or Itself.” In a series of well-researched essays outlined with impeccable logic, the professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst analyzes the events of the last seven months — what one might deem the “COVID-19 era” — and explains how the horrors of 2020 are primarily caused by the social, political and economic status quo. His book tackles a number of issues, including how the economy crashed not because of a virus but because capitalism is incapable of coping with epidemics, how America’s healthcare system is corrupt, and how income inequality caused immense suffering long before the pandemic and is propped up by economic myths.

He deconstructs how both the Democratic and Republican parties refuse to accept that capitalism is causing the problems which afflict us today, how the bipartisan stimulus package was woefully inadequate and how surging unemployment could easily be fixed if our policymakers had the will to do so. He explores the connections between capitalism and racism, sexism, the police/prison industrial complex and the dominance of mega corporations like Amazon.

Indeed, his book is so thorough, so comprehensive in its insightful analysis, that it is a practically a one-stop center for anyone who wants to understand why the year 2020 has been such a dumpster fire.

“There is a unique incapacity of the capitalist system — by which I mean, a system of private enterprises owned and operated by shareholders, families, individuals producing for a profit and the ordering about of the majority of people involved in every enterprise or the employees — that system is uniquely incapable of securing public health,” Wolff told Salon. “And since public health is a basic demand, a need of human communities, this represents a profound disqualification of capitalism. And to spell it out just briefly: it is not profitable for a private, profit-driven competitive capitalist to produce masks by the millions, or gloves, or ventilators, or hospital beds, or all the rest of them.”

As Wolff pointed out, the government failed to step in and fill the void being left by the private sector. This did not happen because it cannot produce what society needs even when doing so is not profitable. The problem is that the government is perfectly capable of implementing such policies — but only does so when it happens to be in the best interest of a given industry which exerts control over the state.

“A government failure cannot be excused on grounds of the government not doing such things or conceiving of such things, because that’s not true,” Wolff told Salon. “The government does exactly what it failed to do in the maintenance of public health. It does that for the military. It is just as unprofitable for a private capitalist to produce a missile and then store it in some warehouse and monitor it and clean it and replace it and repair it, waiting for God knows however long a time until the next war makes this missile something the government buys.”

Wolff noted that companies that are part of the military-industrial complex would not manufacture vehicles, weapons and the like “unless the government comes in and says, ‘We will buy it from you right off the assembly line. And then at government expense, we will store it and ship it and monitor it and clean it and all the rest.’ The government does this as a matter of course for the military. And it did not do it for the public health.”

The reason it failed to do this to thwart the pandemic, Wolff explained, is because sometimes you get groups of industries who join together to create a group monopoly over a service that society needs.

“That’s where the health professionals came in,” Wolff explained. “There are four industry groups: doctors, number one, hospitals, number two, drug and device makers, number three, and medical insurance companies, number four. Those four together operate a conjoint monopoly. They are the only way to get the health care, one or another dimension of it, that is available. They operate as a monopoly. They help each other, coordinate their political and commercial lobbying advertisements, and they have succeeded dramatically in the United States, particularly since World War II, in boosting the price of medical care far beyond what it would have been had there been genuine competition.”

This has not led to better healthcare for Americans. Indeed, as Wolff explained in our interview and his book, Americans pay far more than citizens of other advanced industrial countries for health care and receive mediocre outcomes in return. We struggle with major public health problems like obesity, the opioid epidemic, high blood pressure and diabetes. Yet despite all of this, the health industry monopoly has been able to successfully fight back against all but the most modest reforms (such as the Affordable Care Act, which even now it is pushing to repeal) because it cares less about serving the public than maintaining its industry dominance.

“The medical profession, therefore, never wants the government anywhere near what they’re doing, because it would threaten their monopoly,” Wolff told Salon. “If the government were making regular purchases, being the intermediary — as governments are virtually everywhere else on this planet — it would draw the attention of a mass public to the problem of government money being used to sustain a profession. And then there would be no excuse anymore for the lunatic arrangement we now have. The monopoly would be attacked and it would be undermined.”

Salon also asked Wolff for his thoughts on the 2020 presidential election. In his book he makes it clear that the Democrats and Republicans both subscribe to pro-capitalist ideals that are destructive to both America and the rest of the world. Like many others on the left — including the former supporters of Biden’s chief opponent in the primaries, the democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont —  Wolff is clearly disappointed with Biden’s center-left positions. As such, does he feel that electing Biden defeating Trump will help America?

“I don’t think it makes a major difference in dealing with the underlying problems, but it does make a significant difference in dealing with a whole set of other less foundational or less fundamental or less deeply rooted problems,” Wolff told Salon. “And so it’s crystal clear for me that, just for me personally, choosing Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump is a no brainer. And so I have no problem with people who make that choice. I would maintain that what I hear and see from Mr. Biden falls way short of coping with the kinds of issues that I try to raise in that book and in the work that I do generally.”

He added, “I regret that. I think it’s a mistake on his part even within the framework of his objectives.”

“Who doesn’t love hot cheese?”: Cookbook author shares grilled cheese tips & a creamy burrata pasta

The title of Polina Chesnakova’s new cookbook, “Hot Cheese,” immediately brings to mind some of the most comforting dishes on the planet: bubbling macaroni and cheese, savory enchiladas and crisp and creamy grilled cheese sandwiches. That’s the beauty of the concept. 

As Chesnakova says, “you can find melted cheese in almost every cuisine…because it really does appeal to everyone.” 

She spoke with Salon about how the book came together, her tips for making a better grilled cheese sandwich, her thoughts on fondue making a serious comeback — and shared her recipe for Butternut Squash, Ricotta, Pancetta Stuffed Shells with Baked Burrata. 

What drew you to the idea of doing a cookbook centered on cheese? 

Prior to working on the book, I was writing for “Culture” magazine. I had started out as an intern with them and after I finished my internship, I continued to write a lot of their cooking features because I had a culinary background. I loved cooking with cheese — not just eating cheese on cheese plates, but cooking with it. A few years ago, Chronicle found my work through “Culture” and they actually came up with the idea of “Hot Cheese.” 

They wanted to see if I was interested in the idea, and I was, so I kind of took it and ran with it. I think at the end of the day, for me, hot cheese just has a sort of magic to it. Something about it is universally appealing. The number one response I received when I told them that I was working on a hot cheese cookbook was like, “Oh my gosh, who doesn’t love hot cheese?” I’ve lost count of the number of times people have said that. 

So, I really think there’s something exciting about when you apply heat to cheese — there’s always that moment of suspense before it hits the table. 

Well, and to that point of hot cheese having a universal appeal, this book features a really diverse mix of recipes from all across the globe. Was that intentional?

Very much so. You can find melted cheese in almost every cuisine and, again, it’s because it really does appeal to everyone. There were a handful of recipes that I just kind of grew up eating like the Georgian Khachapuri and the Russian French-style Chicken. My family is from the Republic of Georgia and Russia, so I knew immediately that I wanted to include those recipes, but then I just kind of looked across cultures just because I wanted to make the book inclusive and also exciting for folks. I wanted to  expose them to new ideas of eating cheese and combining ingredients that they normally wouldn’t have thought, so that was definitely intentional. Once I started researching, I found hot cheese in almost every cuisine and it was hard to narrow it down. 

So, I have a couple specific questions based on the recipes in your book. First up, tell me about some of your tips for making a better grilled cheese? I think it’s something that people are making a lot right now because it’s both simple and comforting. 

I would say for one, definitely, smear the outsides with melted butter or mayonnaise to get that beautiful golden-brown crust. If you look at the recipe, I use mayonnaise because it has a really nice tang to it. Not only is it delicious on its own, but it helps cut through the richness. 

I would also tell people not to be afraid to play around with different cheese combinations where you use a mixture.

Right. Your recipe uses cheddar and parmesan, right? 

Right, because you get the sharpness of the cheddar and the nuttiness, but then you’ve got the salty-sweetness of the parmesan. They kind of play off  each other. Definitely if you get a really good cheddar, it’ll be delicious on its own, but when you combine it with another cheese, you can really elevate it. 

And I’d also say, definitely invest in the highest quality cheese you can — because the cheese is the star of the show. 

Something that struck me about the book is that you have a section dedicated to fondue. Do you think fondue will ever make a comeback once we can get back together in groups again? 

You know, I obviously wrote the book pre-COVID, and so many of these dishes are meant to be shared. There’s a whole chapter devoted to gathering around the table and getting people to crowd around and eat together. So it’s interesting to think about that in the context of how social distancing is the norm now. 

But you know, you don’t have to have a part of six to eight to enjoy fondue. For the Swiss, it’s like everyday food. You go skiing, then you have it, and you just really need two or three people to really enjoy it. 

And this winter, we’re going to be home more than evry, so why not do something new and venture from the norm and do fondue? The process of making it is really fun and it’s also really fun to kind of figure out and put together all the accoutrements and just create a spread. I feel like you can’t go to a party now without a cheese plate. People have a lot of fun picking out the cheeses and also the different things to go with it, so people can have the same fun with fondue. 

People are kind of flocking to comfort food right now, and for a lot of people that means cheese — do you have two or three favorite recipes from your book would you recommend? 

Personally, the Stuffed Pork Tenderloin with Shallots, Apple and Fontina — to me, it screams autumn for me and it’s so comforting. It combines all of my favorite flavors. I also love the Russian French-Style Chicken. That is a dish that I grew up with my mom making all the time when we had guests. But it’s just so easy to put together and it’s so delicious. I also love the Penne alla Vodka with Sausage and Smoked Mozzarella. 

***

Another one of Chesnakova’s favorite recipes for fall is her Butternut Squash, Ricotta, Pancetta Stuffed Shells with Baked Burrata. As she writes in “Hot Cheese,” when torn over pasta and baked, Burrata — essentially mozzarella stuffed with curds and cream — “can transform into an effortlessly melty and gooey sauce. 

“Here, the cheese blankets pasta shells stuffed with roasted butternut squash, pillowy ricotta, and crispy pancetta,” she writes. 

Butternut Squash, Ricotta, Pancetta Stuffed Shells with Baked Burrata 
Serves 4 

1 lb [455 g] butternut squash, cut into 1/2 in [6.5 cm] cubes (3 cups)
2 tsp olive oil
Kosher salt
20 jumbo pasta shells
3 thick slices pancetta, diced (about 6 oz [170 g])
1/2 medium red onion, chopped
2 garlic cloves, cut into thin slices
2 Tbsp dry white wine
13 oz [370 g] ricotta cheese (about 11/2 cups)
1/4 cup [60 ml] heavy cream
1 Tbsp minced fresh sage
1 1/2 oz [40 g] fresh Parmesan cheese, medium grated (about 1/2 cup)
2 tsp lemon zest
Freshly cracked black pepper 8 oz [230 g] Burrata cheese

1. Preheat the oven to 400°F [200°C]. Line a plate with paper towels.

2. On a large baking sheet, toss the squash with the oil and season with 1 tsp of salt. Spread evenly on the sheet. Bake for 25 to 30 minutes, or until fork tender and lightly browned. Let cool.

3. Meanwhile, bring a large pot of water to a boil over high heat and salt generously. Add the pasta shells and cook according to the package directions until al dente. Drain and let cool completely. Set aside. 

4. In a large skillet, cook the pancetta over medium heat until the fat renders and the pancetta is golden and crispy, 6 to 8 minutes. With a slotted spoon, transfer the pancetta to the prepared plate. Discard all but 1 Tbsp of the fat. 

5. Add the red onion and a pinch of salt to the same skillet and cook over medium heat, stirring frequently, until the onion begins to soften, about 5 minutes. Add the garlic and cook for 1 minute more. Add the wine and deglaze the pan, stirring to scrape up the browned bits from the bottom of the skillet. Cook until the liquid evaporates, about 2 minutes. Remove from the heat and set aside.

6. In a medium bowl, mix the ricotta with the heavy cream, sage, half of the Parmesan, and lemon zest. Fold in the pancetta, red onion, and butternut squash. Season with salt and black pepper.

7. Butter an 8 by 11 in [20 by 28 cm] baking dish. Stuff each pasta shell with the filling and snuggle the shells into the baking dish. The assembled dish can be wrapped in plastic wrap and refrigerated for up to 2 days.

8. Cover the dish with aluminum foil and bake for 20 minutes, until cooked through. Remove from the oven and remove the foil. Tear the Burrata into pieces over the dish, allowing its creamy interior to spread evenly over and around the pasta. Sprinkle with the remaining Parmesan and season with black pepper. Return to the oven and cook until the cheese is melted, about 10 minutes. Serve immediately.

This recipe is reprinted with permission from  “Hot Cheese” by Polina Chesnakova with permission by Chronicle Books, 2020. If you love this recipe as much as we do, order her book here. 

These easy-to-bake apple cider caramel cronuts taste like fall

God, I miss the good old days. You know, the mid-2010’s. Remember 2015? Barack Obama was in the White House. Ta-Nehisi Coates released “Between the World and Me.” “Hamilton” opened on Broadway. “Empire,” “Mr. Robot” and “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” premiered. Steph Curry recalibrated the bar for MVP. “Uptown Funk,” “Hotline Bling” and “Blank Space” provided the soundtrack to it all. And the cronut was riding high.

The tulip fever level mania for the croissant-donut hybrid began roughly the day the pastry debuted out of Dominique Ansel’s small, chic Soho bakery in 2013. Soon, the lines around the block began forming in the pre-dawn hours, and enterprising scalpers were re-selling cronuts on Craigslist at top dollar.

Waves of imitators followed — Dunkin’ Donuts was surely fooling no one when it rolled out its “croissant donut.” Then, Ansel himself pulled back the curtain in his “Dominique Ansel: The Secret Recipes,” sharing with the world the meticulous, three day-long process of the creating the cronut. And as The Guardian correctly reported at the time, “You will never make one.”

I have had the real thing, and it is indeed one of the most exquisite pastry experiences in the world. In my own home, however, I’ve been known to just fry up some thawed Trader Joe’s croissants, pour chocolate sauce all over them and call it a day.

But ever since the pandemic began, the lines to get into New York Trader Joe’s outposts have far exceeded those of any trendy bakery in its heyday. And so, in the depths of my nostalgia, I’ve learned to re-hack the cronut for our new — and so far — entirely godawful, dumpster fire of a decade.

Superhero ingredient puff pastry does nearly all the work here, creating a flaky base. You will not get the glorious, sky-high rise of a yeasted dough, but you will get a luxuriously light, buttery, donut-shaped creation.

At Dominique Ansel, they regularly switch up the cronut flavors to align with the seasons. In that spirit, I’ve made mine with a salted apple cider caramel. If you make it, you’ll have some left over, which I promise you’ll have no problem polishing off (possibly straight from the pan). You can, of course, feel free to just drizzle your creations with store-bought caramel syrup for an even lower effort experience.

Is it the end result the same as something created by a trained pastry chef over the course of nearly half a week? Well, no. Duh. But this fauxnut is a very, very delicious treat you can throw together in a half an hour while you’re freaking out about the state of the world.

I made these the day after the first debate. My teen daughter and I happily ate them in the middle of the afternoon, a respite in the storms of chaos. And for just a moment, I felt like I was back five years ago. Or maybe I was even in some future fall day I can’t yet imagine, but I can hope will somehow be sweet.

***

Recipe: Salted Apple Cider Caramel Cronuts, adapted from Food Folks and Fun and The Cafe Sucre Farine

Makes approximately five cronuts and holes

Ingredients:

For the cronuts

  • 1 sheet of puff pastry, thawed
  • 1 egg, whisked
  • 3 cups of neutral oil

For the sugar dip

  • 1/2 cup of white sugar
  • 2 teaspoons of cinnamon

For the glaze

  • 2 cups of apple cider
  • 1/2 stick of butter
  • 1/4 cup of brown sugar
  • 1/2 teaspoon of salt (grab flaky sea salt, if you have it)

Instructions:

  1. Put cider in a heavy-bottomed pan. Boil for about ten minutes, or until it begins to thicken.
  2. Meanwhile, unfold your puff pastry on to a sheet of parchment paper.
  3. Brush with egg mixture, and then refold back into thirds. Place in the freezer to firm back up.
  4. Add butter to the cider mixture, and stir. Add in the sugar and salt, and let bubble up until smooth and syrupy. Remove from heat.
  5. In a shallow bowl, mix sugar and cinnamon.
  6. Heat your oil to 375° in a heavy, deep pan. If you don’t have a thermometer, heat until a small piece of bread or a pinch of your raw pastry bubbles up and sizzles like crazy when you put it in the oil.
  7. While the oil heats, stamp out three cronuts and cronut holes. (If you don’t have a donut cutter, you need two differently-sized clean circular objects, such as a glass and a bottle cap.) Gently re-roll your scraps, and stamp out two more.
  8. Fry the cronuts for roughly two minutes on each side, until they are puffed and deeply golden. Don’t crowd the pan – no more than two at a time. 
  9. Roll each hot cronut in your cinnamon sugar mixture, and place on a cookie sheet or straight on a large plate.
  10. Spoon caramel sauce all over them.
  11. Enjoy warm if possible. If, by any chance, you have any leftovers the next day, they’re extraordinary delicious crumbled up and mixed into vanilla ice cream.

The first presidential debate: A night of rapid-fire interruptions and inaccuracies

Tuesday night, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden appeared for the first presidential debate, offering voters their first side-by-side comparison of the candidates.

Little was said about what either candidate would do if elected; at one point, Biden’s attempts to explain his health care plan were drowned out by Trump’s persistent interruptions about Biden’s Democratic primary opponents.

Instead, the presidential nominees traded a dizzying array of accusations and falsehoods. Our partners at PolitiFact unpacked a number of them for you in their wide-ranging debate night fact check.

Here are some health care highlights:

Trump: “I’m getting [insulin] so cheap it’s like water.”Rating: Mostly False

Trump signed an executive order on insulin at the end of July, but the scope was limited. It targeted a select group of health care providers that represent fewer than 2% of the relevant outlets for insulin. Between 2017 and 2018, insulin prices for seniors rose.

“The truth is that patients who need drugs like insulin are having a hard time affording them, particularly for the many who are now uninsured,” said Vanderbilt Medical Center’s Stacie Dusetzina.

Biden: “The president has no plan” for the coronavirus pandemic. Needs context

The Trump administration has announced a plan for distributing vaccines. The plan shows that the federal government aims to make the two-dose vaccine free of cost, for instance.

However, public health experts have said Trump and his administration did not have a plan to combat the pandemic or a national testing plan.

Biden: Trump suggested that “maybe you could inject some bleach in your arm and that would take care of [the coronavirus].” Needs context

Trump did not explicitly suggest that people inject bleach into their arms. He did express interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection. The comment came after an administration official presented a study that found sun exposure and cleaning agents like bleach could kill the virus when it lingers on surfaces.

Trump said at the time: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”

During the debate Tuesday, Trump discounted his previous remarks as “sarcastic.”

Trump: Biden “wants to shut down the country.” Needs context

In an interview with CBS News, Biden was asked if he was prepared to shut down the country to deal with the coronavirus.

“I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives, because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus,” Biden said. “In order to keep the country running and moving and the economy growing, and people employed, you have to fix the virus, you have to deal with the virus.”

And then he said, “I would shut it down. I would listen to the scientists.”

Trump: “We guaranteed preexisting conditions.” Misleading

President Trump signed an executive order on Sept. 24 that says those with preexisting conditions will be able to get affordable health care coverage. The executive order language was a response to criticisms about Trump’s efforts against the Affordable Care Act. However, legal and health policy experts said the executive order guarantees nothing near the protections in the ACA. The experts said actual congressional legislation, not this type of order, is necessary to maintain these preexisting conditions protections if the ACA goes away.

Biden: “One in 1,000 African Americans has been killed because of the coronavirus.” Needs context

It’s tough to say precisely how many African Americans have died of COVID-19 because the government does not have complete information about the race and ethnicity of those who have died. But based on the limited available data, Biden seems to be in the ballpark. Earlier this month, the research arm of American Public Media found that 1 in 1,020 Black Americans have died of the virus — the highest mortality rate of any racial group nationwide — based on death rate data collected from every state and the District of Columbia.

Trump: “Dr. Fauci said the opposite, he said very strongly,” challenging Biden’s statement that no “serious person” would say masks weren’t important in reducing the spread of COVID-19. Misleading 

In a March 7 CBS News interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.” At the time, still early in the COVID pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not recommending that Americans wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Masks were instead being reserved for health care workers, because there were concerns about shortages of personal protective equipment.

As it became clear that many people were asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19, the CDC updated its guidelines April 3 to recommend wearing masks. Fauci later acknowledged the resulting confusion but said public health leaders were making decisions based on the information they had at the time. He has since maintained that masks are important in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

This report was written by PolitiFact staff writers Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson, Amy Sherman, Samantha Putterman, Miriam Valverde, Bill McCarthy, Noah Y. Kim and Daniel Funke and KHN reporters Victoria Knight and Emmarie Huetteman.

Amy Coney Barrett’s environmental track record is sparse — but “concerning”

Amy Coney Barrett, the staunch social conservative who was formerly Antonin Scalia’s favorite law clerk, is on track to become America’s next Supreme Court justice.

Her nomination just eight days after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death prompted concern from Democrats — not only because of her anti-abortion views, but also because of what a Barrett nomination might mean for environmental policy.

The prediction is that Barrett’s conservatism would tip the scales of justice rightward, opening up a Pandora’s box of climate hostility. A sixth conservative justice could pit the Supreme Court against regulatory efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, making it harder for federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to act aggressively on climate. A 6-3 conservative court majority could also make it more difficult for the court to take up judicial challenges to the Trump administration’s rules.

Scary prospects, to be sure! But so far, these predictions are based on Barrett’s generally conservative inclination — we don’t know much about her views on climate and the environment. That’s partly because she has such little judicial experience to point to, having spent most of her career teaching law rather than practicing it. She has made few public comments about the environment, and she received no questions about climate change during her nomination hearing for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2017.

Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said he could identify only three cases providing specific insight into Barrett’s environmental views. The first and most direct insight comes from a 2018 case in which a housing developer sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the right to put up a housing project on a 13-acre stretch of Illinois wetland. The corps had designated the area off-limits for construction, using the Clean Water Act to argue that the wetlands counted as “waters of the United States.” Barrett didn’t write the ruling on this case, but she signed onto a decision against the Army Corps of Engineers, forcing the agency to reconsider its determination.

It’s not damning evidence that Barrett is bent on destroying the environment. But according to the environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice, it signals her “willingness to interpret environmental laws like the Clean Water Act narrowly in favor of industry interests.”

The other two cases Hartl highlighted have more to do with Barrett’s interpretation of “standing” and “injury,” legal terms that determine one’s power to sue. If you want to go to court, Hartl explained, you have to earn standing by demonstrating that you’ve been injured. And like many conservatives, Barrett’s track record suggests that she favors a narrow and literal interpretation of standing. In one case, she found that a woman suing her debt collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act didn’t have standing — according to Barrett, the woman failed to prove that the violation had caused her a tangible injury.

In the more recent case, decided just last month, Barrett ruled against a park protection organization and a group of Chicago citizens who were trying to stop the Obama Presidential Center from being constructed in Jackson Park. “Our parks are the last remnants of open space,” said Charlotte Adelman, one of the plaintiffs, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Adelman and the other plaintiffs argued that clearing trees and bird habitat to construct the presidential center would serve not the public interest, but rather private interests.

In her ruling, Barrett determined that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue the Chicago Parks District, rejecting all three of their claims: that they had standing as taxpayers, that they would suffer injury from the center’s construction, and — notably — that the project would damage Jackson Park. “The plaintiffs can’t repackage an injury to the park as an injury to themselves,” she wrote in her opinion, explicitly citing a precedent claiming that damage to the environment is not sufficient to prove standing.

What does this mean for any bigger, broader environmental cases that the court might hear? “It is quite problematic,” Hartl said, especially for environmentalists who might try to argue that they have been injured by things like climate change and biodiversity loss, whose effects are difficult to quantify.

It remains to be seen whether Barrett’s nomination will truly be a “catastrophe for climate“; her track record is very slim, and the information we do have is only a snapshot. But if confirmed, the 48-year-old Barrett would be the Supreme Court’s youngest justice, “poised to shape a generation of American law,” according to the New York Times.

“Her record is sparse,” Hartl said. “But what is there is certainly concerning.”

‘”Saturday Night Live” starts with Alec Baldwin and Jim Carrey recreating the presidential debate

The moment comedy fans have long-been waiting for has finally arrived: NBC late-night sketch series “Saturday Night Live” returned for its 46th season on Oct. 3, jumping right into the political news of the times with a cold open sketch about the first presidential debate, which took place on Sept. 29.

“We thought it was important to see it again, since it might be the only presidential debate,” the narrator said at the start of the sketch, which you can watch above.

After rotating guest stars portrayed former vice president and current democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden in Season 45, Jim Carrey slipped into the white wig for this premiere sketch, and for the season going forward. He was joined by Alec Baldwin as President Donald Trump, and Beck Bennett, who played Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who moderated.

Read more from Variety: Megan Thee Stallion delivers powerful “protect black women” statement on “Saturday Night Live”

Maya Rudolph also popped in, reprising her Emmy-winning role of Senator and vice presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, and Harry Styles made a cameo when Carrey’s Biden needed to take a break to listen to a meditation tape. (Styles appeared in a thought bubble, reading a calming, meditative story.)

Carrey’s Biden walked out on the debate stage in dark-tinted aviator sunglasses, mugging for the crowd by adjusting his tie and offering finger guns. He also pulled out a tape measure to check the distance between the podiums and pull his back a few inches as needed. Although the real-life Trump did not reportedly test positive for COVID-19 until Wednesday, hindsight allowed the series to work some commentary about the virus into this sketch.

“You did take the COVID test you promised you’d take in advance” Bennett’s Wallace asked Baldwin’s Trump.

“Absolutely, scout’s honor,” he replied, holding up two fingers that were, of course, crossed.

When asked if he was ready to debate, Carrey’s Biden said “absolutely not” but he did have “the beginnings of 46 fantastic ideas I may or may not have access to.”

Read more from Variety: “Saturday Nght Live” and Kate McKinnon pay tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Season 46 premiere

The debate began with the topic of the Supreme Court, with Baldwin’s Trump starting things off by instead just listing complaints, such as, “People are mean to me. Joe here is very mean; Chris Wallace is mean; the economy is mean — it keeps losing jobs, which is mean, to me. And the China virus has been very mean to me in being a hoax. And that statement will probably come back to haunt me later this week.”

When it was Carrey’s Biden’s turn to answer the same question, Baldwin’s Trump interrupted him immediately, to which Carrey’s Biden responded, “No, don’t let your inner Whitey Bulger come out. Just flash them all that smile the taught you in anger management.”

On the topic of Trump’s taxes, Baldwin said, “The terms ‘law’ and ‘order’ are very vague terms, and rules are meant to be broken. It’s the same with masks. I’ve got mine right here in my pocket.” (He then pulled out a thong.) “You don’t need one all the time. It’s like a seatbelt: You just wear it when you’re backing out of the driveway and then you can take it off.”

Baldwin’s Trump also commented on how Biden is always wearing “the biggest mask” and standing 200 feet away from people.

“I’ll rip that thing off your head and burn it and bury it in the pet cemetery where it came rom,” Carrey’s Biden responded, referring to Trump’s hair.

Throughout the sketch, Carrey’s Biden also gave himself little pep talks to keep him from losing his cool, including to “just stand here and look lucid.” And of course, the topic of white supremacy came up just under the wire for the 13-minute long sketch. Baldwin’s Trump listed a number of groups, including the Proud Boys and White Eagles and said “I wouldn’t even know how to signal them if I tried” as he delivered a white power symbol.

Rudolph’s Harris showed up after Baldwin’s Trump started using a laser pointer on Carrey’s Biden (which he claimed it was “a wand that curs the COVID.”) Rather than her “fun aunt” aka “funt” persona, this time she was “Mamala” of the group, telling Baldwin’s Trump “my Joe” is a “nice boy” and needed an apology.

She actually got him to apologize and then said, “I think if there’s one thing we learned tonight, it’s that America needs a WAP: woman as president. But for now, I’ll settle for HVPIC: hot vice president in charge.”

The end of the sketch came back around on COVID, though. Carrey’s Biden literally took out a television remote and paused Baldwin’s Trump mid-word in order to talk directly to the American people.

Read more from Variety: “SNL”: Chris Rock covers COVID, voting and “renegotiating” with the government in host monologue

“I think we all needed a break. Isn’t that satisfying? Just not to hear his voice for a single goddamned second. Let’s wallow in it. Let’s bask in the Trump-lessness,” he said. “America, look at me. Look directly into my eyeballs. You can trust me because I believe in science and karma. Now just imagine if science and karma could some team up to send us all a message about how dangerous this virus can be.”

He looked directly at Baldwin’s Trump, who was still frozen in his pose. “I’m not saying I want it to happen. Just imagine it did. So this November, please get on the Biden train, which is literally a commuter train to Delaware. And we can all make America not actively on fire again.”

Later in the episode, Colin Jost and Michael Che sat back behind the Weekend Update desk again, kicking off the segment by admitting how hard it was to process the news of Trump’s COVID diagnosis right before they were scheduled to return to air after four months of hiatus. Che noted that there may not be anything funny about the situation from a moral standpoint, but mathematically in joke construction, “this is all the ingredients you need.”

“It’s a bad sign for America that when Trump says that he tested positive for a virus, 60% of people were like, ‘Prove it,'” Jost said. “It’s been very weird to see all of these people who clearly hate Trump come out and say, ‘We wish him well.’ I think a lot of them are just guilty that their first wish came true.”

“The Good Lord Bird” is a zany, rollicking ride through the mania of abolitionist rebellion

What’s striking about Ethan Hawke’s personification of the militant abolitionist John Brown in “The Good Lord Bird” is the grime. Road dust cakes his face, already a topography of freckles and lines without the soil. His beard is a wild advertisement for the character’s unpredictable nature, and when a notion stokes a fire within his soul Hawke bellows erratically, spittle flying in repulsive globs.

So much spittle.

This cruddy mask has a point beyond announcing the sustained ferocity Hawke brings to this role, which is . . . the filth really brings out his eyes.

Serious, the contrast between muck and iris further shouts Brown’s mercurial mindset at us, helping us to understand why the man’s fire and brimstone speeches ensnare the imagination of everyone he encounters. He’s also comically waving his pistols at them in some scenes but mostly it’s the charisma holding them hostage, not the threat of taking a bullet.

“The Good Lord Bird” hurtles forth on the power of Hawke’s zeal and a performance placing him nose to nose with the viewer in every scene, regardless of whether the shots are wide or tight enough to study the specks on his face.

The actor’s larger-than-life performance matches the comedic verve that James McBride poured into his National Book Award-winning novel, a comical (and zanily loose) retelling of the events leading up to Brown’s doomed raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Va., in 1859.

Brown was hanged for the act and painted as a kook in many history books, but the raid and his death sparked the kindling that ignited the Civil War. Hawke’s performance doesn’t transform Brown into a figure driven by sense or intellectual sobriety, although his leader is not a drinker. Instead he embraces the spirit of what Brown stood for to grant him a measure of benediction while still portraying him as a man who has to be chided for kissing the muzzle of a stranger’s horse or turning grace before dinner into a full-fledged sermon.

But while Hawke commands the center of attention in his seven-episode series, its writers are careful to spread substantive dialogue and center stage opportunities to all the key actors in the cast, even personalities who only appear for an episode or two. McBride’s writing style takes a boisterous approach to history, helped by presenting Brown through the perspective of a wide-eyed, young Kansas enslaved child whom the leader nicknames Onion.

Joshua Caleb Johnson takes on that role and in doing so becomes the focal point of these hours if not quite its star. Johnson holds his own among a cast that includes Daveed Diggs as a pompous, preening Frederick Douglass with Zainab Jah quietly reigning over her scenes as a pragmatic Harriet Tubman. However, he’s mainly the witness to history carrying the audience on his shoulder. If Johnson doesn’t steal any scenes, that’s because his character isn’t designed for that job.

Instead the writers and Hawke focus much of their striving to make Brown’s humanity bleed through his interpersonal myopia, nailing the greater point that Brown wasn’t a high-strung loon so much of a man of fury and passion. The blend of comedy and tragedy woven throughout “The Good Lord Bird” brings Brown’s main foibles into relief; so laser focused is he on his great God-given mission to end slavery through battle that he ignores the obvious absurdity in his midst – mainly the fact that Onion, the girl he’s so proud of freeing, is a boy who feels forced to follow him.

(The story goes that Brown accidentally hears Henry’s name as Henrietta during a gun confrontation that kills the boys father, and insists he wear a dress from that moment on.) And Onion, raised in bleak circumstances and taught that it’s better to be protected by a disguise than die as boy who gets shot to death.

McBride inserts the dress as a constant reminder of the deceptions enslaved people engaged in to survive as opposed to using it as a gag, and Johnson wears that intent’s spirit throughout the series’ seven episodes as ably as Hawke carries Brown’s leathery tenaciousness. And we see other moving examples of this notion in earlier episodes, notably in an enslaved woman named Sibonia (Crystal Lee Brown) who masks her cunning in the appearance of derangement.

Hawke and co-creator Mark Richard (who also executive produce the series along with McBride) hew closely to the 2013 novel’s spirit, a factor that plays in its favor for the most part but cuts against it as some sequences as Brown and his band of recruits draw nearer to their fates and Harper’s Ferry.

And while this enables Hawke to stretch into artistic territory that challenges the border between appropriately grandiose and too much, it also illustrates the story’s current as an exaggerated example of white savior syndrome gone crazy that chooses to commiserate with those who suffer through it while forgiving the transgressor.

Putting all that aside, what matters most is that the series takes a brutish time in history frequently presented dryly out of respect, and dares successfully to capture the uproarious insanity of a righteous, outgunned rebel.  Brown’s image may not be wholly transformed by this rendition of “The Good Lord Bird,” but surely Hawke’s work here should elevate our estimation of his skills and how far he’s willing to go to resurrect our estimation of figures moldering and, if not forgotten, at least somewhat misconstrued.

“The Good Lord Bird” premieres Sunday, Oct. 4 at 9 p.m. on Showtime.

Don’t underestimate the power of the putdown in a presidential debate

Before the first presidential debate, President Donald Trump demanded that his Democratic challenger Joe Biden submit to a drug test.

Trump was again suggesting — without evidence — that his opponent takes performance-enhancing drugs.

If Trump brings this up during the debate, no one should be surprised if Biden has a comeback prepared. Biden’s campaign has already issued a statement on the president’s unusual challenge — “If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it,” said Biden’s deputy campaign manager — but the Democratic presidential nominee has yet to answer himself.

Biden could respond as U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, did during a televised debate in 1986 with his Republican opponent Henry McMaster, who similarly challenged him to take a drug test.

“Henry, I’ll take a drug test if you’ll take an IQ test,” Hollings said.

Hollings won the exchange — and the election.

A way to have the last word

In my recent book, “The Art of the Political Putdown: The Greatest Comebacks, Ripostes, and Retorts in History,” I point out that delivering a comeback can be a potent political weapon, deflecting criticism, hammering home a point and even leaving an opponent speechless.

A politician who wields a comeback with skill can use it as both a bludgeon and a shield, damaging the opponent without hurting their own popularity with voters.

President Barack Obama frames a comeback to a criticism from Mitt Romney in 2012.

During one of the 2012 presidential debates, Republican Mitt Romney repeated one of his favorite campaign lines — that the U.S. Navy was the smallest it had been since World War I.

“Well, Governor,” President Barack Obama responded, “we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities?”

Obama won the exchange and the election.

Republican candidate Donald Trump zings his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, with a one-liner.

Insults can work

During the GOP primaries in 2016, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told Donald Trump he could not insult his way to the nomination or “certainly not the presidency.”

But Trump did just that.

Trump produced perhaps the most memorable moment of the 2016 presidential debates when Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton chided him after he called his temperament “his strongest asset.”

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” she said.

Because you’d be in jail,” Trump shot back.

The crowd roared — and Trump won the election.

President Ronald Reagan quashes a key criticism with humor.

Humor is more effective

Trump’s strategy has a poor record in history. A far better strategy, as President Ronald Reagan exhibited when he ran for reelection in 1984, is humor.

Reagan, who was 73, stumbled in his first debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. He knew he would be asked about his age during the next debate. When the question came, he answered, “I want you to know that … I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Even Mondale laughed. Reagan easily won reelection.

Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, IUPUI

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

What I learned about human politics from studying colobus monkeys

For years I spent my days, from before dawn until after dusk, following a troop of mostly arboreal, endangered western red colobus monkeys (Piliocolobus badius temminckii) around a small West African forest. For the most part, the simian soap opera taking place above my head involved domestic themes, like feeding on unripe fruits, young leaves and pieces of termite mounds; sleeping on the widest branches in the tallest trees; resting with family members and friends; and forming and maintaining alliances. 

While each colobus troop consisted of a group of individuals, that associated together and shared a common home range, social groups within the troop often divided up and re-united into subgroups – sometimes for just a few hours, sometimes for days. On the whole this fluid fission-fusion type of social life was well organized and peaceful. But, as with many soap operas, from time to time life here became totally unfocused and utterly confusing. The plots—and there were many—looked familiar: sometimes sitcom, sometimes rom-com, sometimes melodrama, sometimes kill-’em-dead’ bloody action and sometimes high scary political drama. The characters, each with their own individual life histories and personas, had enough variety to delight any casting director. Ranging from timid to bold, calm, cool and collected to out-of-control, supportive to back-stabbing, compassionate to downright spiteful, it quickly became clear that we are not the only creature with individual personalities. 

There was the smallest adult male, Captain Crook, a benevolent alpha male.  During his two-year reign as the highest-ranking male, he appeared to think along the lines of us and we and our. He was a favorite grooming partner, a hit with the females; unusually for a male, he played with infants and frequently groomed a young orphaned juvenile female. 

Patient, confident, composed, socially skilled, adaptable and the possessor of what I can only describe as a fine political mind, Crook was able to sail himself and the troop through crises. Internal disputes amongst members were easily and quickly settled, home-grown crises were short-lived and stability was fairly well maintained. While he was the alpha male, there was little uncertainty and decisions appeared to be made for the good of the troop.

Crook and his amiable wingman, the gentle, counterintuitively-named, Mr. Mean, maintained a rather aloof relationship and yet had a stable, coordinated, cohesive bond when facing external threats.  Together they led the troop into battle during territorial skirmishes and their associates, cheerleading along the way, willingly followed. Their united front and their ability to mobilize collective action resulted in fewer lost territorial skirmishes with neighboring troops. They knew how to present themselves to the outside world. Like Teddy Roosevelt, metaphorically speaking, mostly they spoke softly and yet, when necessary, they also sometimes carried big sticks. 

Was benign Crook, the popular, socially-skilled alpha male, the colobus equivalent of a respected, compassionate, empathetic president or prime minister?

After Crook disappeared from the political arena, Yunk, a bully, took his place. Working alone with no allies, Yunk created havoc. Driven up the slippery dominance pole by his massive ego to gain power, he threatened all and sundry along the way: infants, juveniles, mothers with dependent young, older males, younger males and sexually receptive females. He hassled the older guys until they bowed down and accepted him as the alpha male. He harassed the younger guys until they were exiled, skulking around bushes, sneaking through trees, just waiting for him to disappear. Within days of his disappearance, three of his victims returned. Yunk’s short seven-month reign ended with a new, benevolent alpha male.

Often nasty, self-serving, egotistical and unable or unwilling to curb those leanings, while Yunk was alpha male, the troop appeared to run on fear – particularly amongst the low-ranking members. Stability suffered, chaos thrived, internal strife was an everyday occurrence, territorial disputes were often lost and female immigration slid downhill.

Yunk appeared to lack the simian equivalent of social intelligence and emotional maturity, and the troop suffered for it. Yunk was always on edge, full of malice and loaded with active schadenfreude, constantly indulging his dark side. He was almost a caricature of the so-called beastly animal. Were the parts of his brain that contain the theoretical colobus empathy circuits absent, or barely functioning? Can a colobus be born bad?

Was malignant Yunk, the ticking-time-bomb, with an almost maniacal determination to achieve power and status, the colobus equivalent of a dictator?

With each passing day spent with these red- and black-haired, potbellied, thumbless, sometimes clumsy acrobats, it became more and more obvious to me that many things happening in this simian population were likely to have evolutionary continuity with what happens both with and to us humans.

While humans and colobus are very, very distant relatives, separated by over 20 – 25 million years of evolution, they are far more like us than many would like to admit. Or as Darwin pronounced almost 150 years ago, “The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

For me, the similarities were most obvious — sometimes frighteningly obvious — when it came to the distribution of power and the uses and abuses of some alpha males. The more time I spent with them, the more evident parallels emerged between their social, psychological and political journeys and ours.

Many of these lessons related to leadership. A first-class alpha male colobus needs to weigh costs against benefits, to communicate clearly, gather and cooperate with allies, uphold collective confidence, maintain awareness of other troops and avoid senseless battles. He sees how all the parts of the social, political and physical environment relate to the whole, and always looks both inward and outward, upward and downward. 

At the same time, he has to avoid doing too much so that he doesn’t risk exhaustion, or doing too little and loses sight of all the essential resources or allows chaos to ensue. Too much or too little? Either way could result in failure, for him and the troop.

While a successful alpha male cannot allow the troop to be uncontrollably overrun by non-troop members, with the colobus, female immigration is critical to maintain the overall welfare of the troop, both in the present and in the future.  A troop needs gene flow in order to keep it hale, hearty and healthy. Immigration sometimes also creates a cultural flow of innovative behaviours so that novel food sources and new travel routes and feeding and sleeping areas introduced by female immigrants could possibly enhance nutritional and environmental opportunities. In order for immigration benefits to occur, an alpha male needs to show that he, the troop and their territory, appear attractive to immigrants.

Contrary to common parlance, an alpha male is not necessarily the biggest or strongest or nastiest and a bully-boy alpha male is not particularly popular. In fact, a popular alpha male does not engage in bullying. If anything, he seems to almost favor the underdog.                  

And so, as I observed the colobus over the years, it was easy to picture popular Crook, who displayed empathy, reciprocity, reconciliation and consolation, as the colobus equivalent of a compassionate, successful head of state and the browbeating, unpopular Yunk as the colobus equivalent of a selfish, narcissistic, unhinged bully-boy dictator (or wanna-be dictator).

While colobus bully-boys push their troop mates around, human bully-boy leaders are similar: they may violate the rights of minorities, rabble-rouse, ridicule, gaslight, or stridently support fake information – particularly information that is of personal, political or financial benefit to them. They may, like the incompetent colobus leaders, shut the door to much-needed immigration. These human attitudes and actions appear to be massively hyped up extensions of what I think of as Yunkishness, sometimes made worse by the potential of the human mind and our use of language.

The human bully-boy appears to be habitually cruel. He seems to actually enjoy receiving false fawning from, and humiliating, his subordinates. He relishes and is often an expert in the act of finger-pointing and scapegoating. He doesn’t care about serving the public good or working for the betterment of the society to which he belongs — he only cares about himself. If an institution or an individual does not agree with him, it is to be disbanded or dismissed as a “witch hunt” against him. With no vision of a shared identity or future, he exists in a world of me, me, me, I, I, I, not we or our or us. A group, a political party or a country ruled by a bully-boy, is going to be governed badly, and its non-compliant/non-ruling members will suffer – more so during a crisis.

Fortunately for the colobus, a change in alpha male — such as the ousting or disappearance of a bully like Yunk — can bring about fairly immediate reversals of fortune.

Unfortunately for us, it doesn’t quite work that way. Human primate society takes a much longer time to recover from the havoc and toxic environment created by an incompetent, ruthless bully.

Maybe one simple message to be taken from decades of research studying our fellow primates is this: While our species perceives the world through our own uniquely tuned assortment of senses, with our own uniquely chartered evolutionary history in our own unique environment, our behaviour — from cooperation and collaboration to selfishness and deception, be it political, social or psychological — is built on an evolutionary scaffold linking us to our primate past.

Which is all to say: Perhaps we ought to be more vigilant to the dangers of allowing bullies to attain and then maintain positions of authority.  Indeed, history — past and present — is fraught with bullies commandeering control, or being elected by the public. Consequently, we need to keep our ears and eyes always focused on the aspirants to and the leaders of the world, in commerce or politics. For whenever someone exhibiting Yunk-ishness gains power we have a lot to lose.  

Obviously our primate evolutionary history does not explain all the modern-day hows and whys of human alpha males and bullies and human bully-boy supporters. Nor will watching colobus or other primates provide the definitive answer. Since we are not simply creatures of instinct or slaves to our genes or our history, we can act differently if we choose to.

Furthermore, while the colobus and the other non-human primates are far more sophisticated than most people dare to imagine, they are basically illiterate. We, on the other hand, have access to something very special; something that goes far beyond anything that non-human primates use or can be taught. We have access to sophisticated language with complex grammar and syntax systems. And, using our sophisticated language skills with veracity, fairness, empathy and dignity – be it speaking, signing or writing — allows us to “stand up to bullies. Not follow them,” to paraphrase Barack Obama.

Serenity now: Shepard Smith returns as the calm eye of the misery cyclone of news

Chaotic weeks call for . . . hiding from live TV news using all available means and methods, frankly. The information cycle was upgraded into a misery cyclone this week, much of it manufactured by partisan cable news outlets to prop up ratings.

That makes it as fine a time as any for Shepard Smith to return to cable news, this time on CNBC.  “The News with Shepard Smith” bowed on Wednesday, not quite 24 hours after a purported debate that had all the civic worth of a noxious chemical spill on a four-lane highway.

Smith has been making his rounds to promote his new series on CNBC and to nobody’s surprise, his debut was silken. That’s to be expected after nearly a year away from Fox News Channel; when you’ve worked at a place for 23 years and under one of the most repugnant figures in American media, a sustained amount of detoxification is surely required. (My impression, not his; when Roger Ailes was still alive, Smith had nothing but pleasant and appreciative insights to offer about his boss on the record.)

However, if you’re curious to see what an anchor looks like when he’s finally free of the invisible tonnage he carried on his shoulders for years, check out Smith’s new series.  No longer obligated to fly the flag of journalistic integrity on a network that crushed that concept in a compactor eons ago, Smith looks downright serene. 

“I’m Shepard Smith on CNBC. This is the news,” he boomed in his Thursday night intro, a no-frills entrance into rounding up the day’s headlines, yet delivered with a note of cheer that wasn’t present in his waning months with Fox, a period marked with spats between himself and that network’s primetime propagandists, namely Tucker Carlson.

CNBC has not thrived in the ratings for many a moon, and Smith’s arrival won’t change that overnight. The Wednesday debut of “The News with Shepard Smith” attracted an average of 373,000 viewers in its hour, and averaged of 56,000 viewers in 25 to 54 demographic, the primary demographic target for news programming. According to the network, those numbers represent a better performance than the previous timeslot holder, and I couldn’t honestly tell you what that was.

This is precisely why Smith’s CNBC debut is well-timed.  Appearing as he did in a week marked by an escalating sense of disaster, Smith’s presence at his new desk means cable news viewers have a place to level out, receive information and not come under attack by bickering partisans. MSNBC’s mainstays will get more attention; sure enough, when news that Donald Trump was being airlifted to Walter Reed Medical Center after testing positive for COVID-19 and displaying symptoms, the MSNBC brass called upon Brian Williams to offer florid narration of the moment.

Smith’s strength is in speaking plainly – he doesn’t do hyperbole. When he unexpectedly signed off in October 2019, his parting words weren’t an act of bridge-burning but aspiration: “Even in our currently polarized nation it is my hope that the facts will win the day, that the truth will always matter, that journalism and journalists will thrive.”

OK, so there was a bit of shade in there – he offered that wish into Fox News’ cameras, remember. Before this week Smith spent more than two decades at Fox and the fact that he made headlines in his final years for stating facts, indicates how far into right wing fantasyland the place has gone.

Smith rarely if ever said anything negative about his old employer, but even as far back as the midterm elections, you could see the weariness prickling through his calm exterior.

When he serenely informed Fox viewers that the so-called “migrant caravans” heading northward from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico posed no threat, and that Donald Trump’s ordering the military to the border was an empty ploy, the media world was agog. Meanwhile, if the look on his face had its own translator it would say something along the lines of, “I can’t believe I have to say this on camera.”

Returning on Thursday, when he struck a balance between seriousness and levity as coverage explored the economic uncertainties facing families whose breadwinners have been laid off or updated viewers on the wildfires ravaging the West Coast, he plied the signature empathy that served him well during his own location coverage in past national disasters.

Friday’s coverage of Trump’s evolving health status following Thursday night’s report that he and the First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for COVID-19  showed Smith regaining his breaking news stride – again, from an even-keeled state instead of having to project calm from the heart of “Hannity” country.

But I’m also reminded of when I was tasked with analyzing coverage 15 years ago during Hurricane Katrina, when Smith was among the few on-camera personalities to display empathy and careful reporting while too many other reporters from across every network were all too happy to be caught in the net of partisanship. Smith’s record isn’t perfect; nobody’s is.

I recall noting back then that if there were any Fox name-brand journalist who could successfully transition from that network to a traditional news outlet, it would be him.  It is strange to watch these first three telecasts of “The News with Shepard Smith” and marvel at the show’s overall sobriety. That says a lot about the frazzled state we find ourselves in and the state of anchored newscasts generally.  

The fact that Smith’s mere presence places CNBC back on the media radar indicates how much rebuilding is ahead for the network, and I’d wager his duties will quickly expand as we draw nearer to an election that promises to test the nation to its soul. An early view of “The News” shows it to be a plain-dealing news destination – and in a roiling breaking news ecosystem, that has value.

“The News with Shepard Smith” airs weeknights at 7 p.m. ET on CNBC.

Biden has become shockingly competitive in South Carolina: analysis

While North Carolina is a swing state that has a Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, and went for President Barack Obama in 2008, South Carolina has been a deep red state. Pundits have consistently described North Carolina as being in play for former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, but they haven’t been saying that about South Carolina — until now. A Quinnipiac poll finds President Donald Trump ahead of Biden by only 1% in South Carolina. And this comes at a time when South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is facing the toughest reelection fight of his career.

When Democrat Jaime Harrison took on Graham — who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee — in South Carolina’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, the word “longshot” was often used to describe his campaign. Harrison himself acknowledged that he was fighting an uphill battle given how conservative South Carolina is known for being. A Democrat hasn’t won a U.S. Senate race in South Carolina since 1998, and the last Democratic presidential nominee who won South Carolina’s electoral votes was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Trump, in 2016, defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by 14% in South Carolina.

But Harrison has turned out to be shockingly competitive in South Carolina. Quinnipiac’s most recent poll on South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race finds Graham and Harrison in a dead heat. And that poll was not an outlier. Polls released during the second half of September found Harrison either trailing Graham by only 1% (Morning Consult) or leading by 1% (YouGov) or 2% (Brilliant Corners Research).

The new Quinnipiac poll showing Biden trailing Trump by only 1% in South Carolina might be the former vice president’s best so far in that state, although Biden’s performance in other recent polls has been decent in light of how deeply Republican South Carolina is. Polls released during the second half of September found Trump ahead of Biden in South Carolina by 4% (Data for Progress) or 6% (Morning Consult). Considering Trump’s 14% victory in South Carolina in 2016, it’s easy to make an argument that he is underperforming there — even if he ultimately wins the state again.

The battle for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court could be a factor in South Carolina’s races. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham is aggressively pushing for Trump’s far-right nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, to be confirmed by the Senate before the presidential election — which is a major flip-flop on Graham’s part. In the past, he promised that if a Supreme Court seat became available in 2020, he would want to wait until after the election to vote on a nominee.

Graham’s flip-flop is obviously designed to strengthen his support among far-right white evangelicals, but it is also firing up his Democratic critics. During a Fox News appearance on September 24, Graham sounded downright panicked when he discussed Harrison’s impressive Democratic fundraising operation and told host Ainsley Earhardt, “I’m being killed financially. This money is because they hate my guts.”

Tim Malloy, a polling analyst for Quinnipiac, discussed the fact that Biden and Harrison are as competitive as they are in South Carolina.

South Carolina’s The State quotes Malloy as saying, “I would say the president is truly on the ropes right now…. Lindsey Graham is being challenged like he’s never been before, which means he’s not terribly popular. Lindsey Graham is close to the president. He speaks to the president often; so, it’s probably no coincidence that both of them simultaneously have lost enough ground to be challenged.”

These cozy apple crisp bars redefine a classic fall dessert

Fall is officially in the air, as evidenced by the first apple-picking photos of the season already taking over your social media streams. And what better way to highlight the fresh fruit of the moment than an easy-to-bake, handmade crisp? 

The Spiked Apple Crisp Cheesecake Bars developed by Salon’s resident pastry chef Meghan McGarry were a viral hit last fall. McGarry is known for making over timeless desserts, and the cheesecake bars spoke to the core of her popular Buttercream Blondie brand. They maintained the integrity of a classic fruit crisp, while sending it soaring to new heights.

Salon Food has invited McGarry to share her go-to bakes with us every week this season, and this Sunday we’re turning back the clock to the OG Apple Crisp Bars. They’re one of the most popular recipes ever viewed on Buttercream Blondie, and that’s because all of the ingredients in this pastry work together to magnify the star of this dessert: ripe apples. 

“Warm brown sugar and spices are made for chilly fall mornings, and you taste the apple in every single bite,” McGarry says of her dessert. “I recommend using granny smith apples for this recipe, because their tartness adds a brightness of flavor, which contrasts perfectly with the warmth of the fall flavors you expect in a seasonal dessert.”

This is the traditional fruit crisp you know and love, except once again in bar form. These bars are three layers of fall bliss, each of which magnifies the flavor of the apples as they bake. We begin with a brown sugar shortbread base, which is like a beautifully buttery and flaky cookie crust. Pouring in an optional splash of whiskey adds an extra punch of fall coziness — and the opportunity to create hand-held boozy treats. 

RELATED: These spiked apple crisp cheesecake bars are a hit even if it’s not fall

Next, spoon the apple compote on top of the cooled shortbread crust to build the fruit layer. To make the compote, you’ll cook down your apples on the stove along with vanilla bean to intensify their flavor. The most important thing to remember when making any fruit compote is to cut your ingredient of choice the same size and length in order to ensure it cooks evenly. 

The final layer is a crisp topping, which combines brown sugar, cinnamon and oats to make one epic blanket of flavor. McGarry recommends making a batch of crisp topping ahead of time and storing it in the freezer. This way, when you want to make these crisps or their apple cheesecake twist, you’ll already be ready to go. This comes in handy in a big way on busy days like Thanksgiving. 

RELATED: This spiked apple spice loaf cake is better than any pumpkin dessert you’ll bake this fall

“My tip is to bake this recipe now, and make sure you also keep it on hand for the holidays,” McGarry says. “It’s a home run every single Thanksgiving when I make it.”

Yes, this technically is a dessert. But you can have a little piece for breakfast or a square for a snack. It’s totally acceptable to eat dessert all day if it’s in bar form, right? While these bars taste perfect on their own, they’re also excellent served warm with a scoop of ice cream or dollop of fresh whipped cream on top. 

RELATED: You can bake this quick loaf with ingredients on hand in your pantry, because substitutions are easy

The holidays aren’t here yet, but everyone could use a little apple crisp in their life. So make an extra batch to take to bring to an outdoor dinner or leave on your neighbor’s front door. They’re guaranteed to warm up even the crispest of fall days. 

***

Recipe: Apple Crisp Bars

Ingredients:

Crisp Topping

  • 1/2 cup all-purpose flour
  • 3/4 cup brown sugar
  • 1/2 cup rolled oats
  • 1/2 tsp. salt
  • 1 tsp. cinnamon
  • 1/3 cup unsalted butter, cold

Brown Sugar Shortbread Base

  • 8 ounces unsalted butter, room temp
  • 3/4 cup light brown sugar
  • 1/2 tsp. salt
  • 1 tsp. vanilla bean paste or vanilla extract
  • 1 tbsp. bourbon
  • 2 cups all-purpose flour

Instructions:

  1. Preheat oven to 325 degrees.
    Crisp Topping:
  2. Stir dry ingredients together in a bowl.
  3. Cut in butter with your fingers until you have pea sized pieces.
  4. Store in fridge till ready to use.
    Brown Sugar Shortbread Base:
  5. Spray 9 x 13″ pan with nonstick spray, line with parchment paper and spray with nonstick again.

Click here to access the remainder of Meghan McGarry’s apple crisp bars. And don’t forget to follow @ButtercreamBlondie on Instagram for more ways to bake through it.

Katie Porter eviscerates Big Pharma CEO over “exorbitant” drug prices

House Democrats—including three Squad members—tore into pharmaceutical industry chief executives during a Wednesday congressional hearing on Big Pharma profiteering, with Rep. Katie Porter verbally eviscerating one CEO for more than tripling the price of a critical cancer drug. 

Wednesday marked the first day of a two-day House Oversight Committee hearing titled “Unsustainable Drug Prices: Testimony from the CEOs.” Bristol Myers Squibb CEO Giovanni Caforio, Teva Pharmaceuticals CEO Kåre Schultz, and former Celgene CEO Mark Alles all endured nearly four hours of grilling over the price of prescription drugs—which are almost always far more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

Porter (D-Calif.), a former consumer protection attorney, was the most ferocious committee member to address the CEOs. Bringing out her infamous white board, she attacked Celgene’s repeated price hikes for the cancer drug Revlimid, which now costs $763 per dose—in 2005 it cost $215. When Alles attempted to explain that the drug has been approved for new uses, Porter hit back, and hard.

“Did the drug start to work faster? Were there fewer side effects? How did you change the formula or production of Revlimid to justify this price increase?” Porter asked. “To recap here: The drug didn’t get any better, the cancer patients didn’t get any better, you just got better at making money—you just refined your skills at price gouging.”

Porter has built a reputation for speaking tough truth to power, on issues ranging from defending access to crucial public benefits, to challenging mega-bank CEOs on income inequality, to exposing the pernicious influence of dark money in politics.

Toward the end of Wednesday’s nearly four-hour session, three of the four members of the so-called Squad—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—slammed the CEOs over what Ocasio-Cortez called the “exorbitant cost” of life-saving medications. 

Armed with a chart showing the cost of 40 milligrams of Teva’s multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone is more than five times as high in the U.S. as in Britain, Ocasio-Cortez refuted an assertion by Schultz that medications cost more in the United States because American patients have “very broad, and very early access” to new drugs.

Citing Teva’s own internal documents, Ocasio-Cortez showed the company was forced to lower prices by European governments—which unlike the U.S. have institutedspending controls—even as it raised prices for American patients.

Pressley asserted that “the lack of access to affordable life-saving medicine is an injustice [that] represents an act of economic violence and an attack on the basic principle that healthcare is a fundamental human right,” while Tlaib ripped Schultz for using charitable donations like “a side hustle.”

“Your pharmaceutical company makes these so-called charitable donations so you look like you give a shit about sick people,” said Tlaib. “But in reality these are just another scheme by your corporation to make money off of sick people.”

Dystopian plagues and fascist politics in the age of Trump: Finding hope in the darkness

Reality now resembles a dystopian world that could only be imagined as a harrowing work of fiction or biting political commentary. The works of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury and Sinclair Lewis now appear as an understatement in a world marked by horrifying political horizons — a world in which authoritarian and medical pandemics merge. In this age of uncertainty, time and space have collapsed into a void of relentless apprehension and the possibility of an authoritarian abyss. The terrors of everyday life point to a world that has descended into darkness. 

The COVID-19 crisis has amplified a surrealist hallucination that floods our screens and media with images of fear, trepidation, and dread. We can no longer shake hands, embrace our friends, use public transportation, sit inside a restaurant, go to a movie theater or walk down the street without experiencing real anxiety and stress. Doorknobs, packages, counters, the breath we exhale and anything else that offers the virus a resting place is comparable to a ticking bomb ready to explode resulting in massive suffering and untold deaths. Amid this collective terror, the architecture of fascist politics has resurfaced with a vengeance in the form of a waking nightmare with a cast of horrors. Surveillance technologies proliferate, armed militia defend groups refusing to wear protective masks, conspiracy theories originate or are legitimated by President Trump, right-wing federal judges are confirmed by a right-wing Senate at breakneck speed in order to destroy civil liberties. Republican politicians and reactionary media pundits use vitriolic language against almost anyone who criticizes Trump’s destructive and death-dealing policies, including Democratic governors and liberal and progressive members of the press and media.

The current coronavirus pandemic is more than a medical crisis; it is also a political and ideological crisis. It is a crisis deeply rooted in years of neglect by neoliberal governments that denied the importance of public health and the public good while defunding institutions that made them possible. At the same time, this crisis cannot be separated from the crisis of massive inequalities in wealth, income and power that grew relentlessly since the 1970s. Nor can it be separated from a crisis of democratic values, critical education and civic literacy. With respect to the latter, the COVID-19 pandemic is deeply interconnected with the politicization of the social order through the destructive assaults waged by neoliberal capital on the welfare state and the  ecosystem.  

The pandemic has revealed the ugly and cruel face of neoliberalism, which has waged war on the social contract, public sphere and the welfare state since the 1970s. Neoliberalism is a worldview that takes as its central organizing idea that the market should govern not only the economy but all aspects of society. This is a worldview that vilifies the public sphere, rejects the social contract and public values; at the same time, it promotes untrammeled self-interest and privatization as central governing principles. In this logic, “individual interests are the only reality that matters and those interests are purely monetary.” 

Neoliberalism views government as the enemy of the market, limits society to the realm of the family and individuals, embraces a fixed hedonism and challenges the very idea of the common good.  In addition, neoliberalism cannot be disconnected from the spectacle of fear-mongering, ultranationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment and bigotry that has dominated the national zeitgeist as a means of promoting shared anxieties rather than shared responsibilities. Neoliberal capitalism has created, through its destruction of the economy, environment, education and public health, a petri dish for the virus to wreak havoc and wide-scale destruction. 

What is clear is that the COVID-19 plague must also be understood as part of a comprehensive political and educational narrative in which neoliberalism plays a central role. In this case, we cannot separate the struggle for public health from the struggles for emancipation, social equality, economic justice and democracy itself. The horror of the pandemic often blinds us to the fact that a range of anti-democratic economic and political forces have been grinding away at the social order for the last 40 years. As engaged citizens, it is crucial to examine the anti-democratic and iniquitous political, economic and social forces that have intensified the pandemic while failing to contain it.

This is especially true at a time when a growing number of authoritarian regimes around the globe replace thoughtful dialogue and critical engagement with the suppression of dissent and a culture of forgetting. This does not only include the usual suspects such as Turkey and Hungary, but also allegedly democratic countries such as England, where government officials recently “ordered schools … not to use resources from organizations which have expressed a desire to end capitalism.” This state act of censorship should remind us that fascism begins with language, the suppression of critical ideas, the undermining of institutions that support them, and finally with the elimination of groups considered undesirable and disposable.

How do we situate our analysis of white supremacy, nativism and the suppression of dissent as part of a broader discourse and mode of analysis that interrogates the promises, ideals and claims of a substantive democracy? What role does the legacy and continued force of systemic racism play in the virus disproportionately infecting and killing poor people of color? How do we fight against iniquitous relations of power and wealth that empty power of its emancipatory possibilities, and as Hannah Arendt has argued, “makes most people superfluous as human beings”? How might we understand how a society driven by the accumulation of capital at any costs, with its appropriation of market-based values and regressive notions of freedom and agency, uses language to infiltrate daily life? These are not merely economic and political issues but also educational considerations.

Oppressive forms of education have now become central elements of a society threatened by a number of pandemics that threaten human life and the planet itself. The propaganda machines of the right-wing media echo the Trump regime’s support for conspiracy theories, lies about testing and fake cures for the virus, all the while engaging in a politics of evasion that covers up both Trump’s incompetence and the machineries of violence, greed, and terminal exclusion at the core of a society that believes the market is the template for governing not just the economy but all aspects of society. One consequence is that truth, evidence and science fall prey to the language of mystification, which legitimates a tsunami of ignorance and the further collapse of morality and civic courage. 

What the COVID-19 pandemic reveals in shocking images of long food lines, the stacking of dead bodies and the state-sanctioned language of social Darwinism and racial cleansing is that a war culture has become an extension of politics and functions as a form of repressive education in which critical thought is derailed, dissent suppressed, surveillance normalized, racism intensified, and ignorance elevated to a virtue. This pandemic has made clear the false and dangerous market-driven ideological notion that all problems are a matter of individual responsibility and that the state is simply the tool of the ruling financial elite. 

Neoliberal ideology now works in tandem with corporate media conglomerates to produce identities defined narrowly by market values, while normalizing a notion of individual responsibility that convinces people that whatever problems they face, they have no one to blame but themselves. Right-wing media platforms such as Breitbart News, the Sinclair Broadcast Group and the Rush Limbaugh podcast reproduce endlessly the falsehoods, misrepresentations and lies that sustain the conditions that disproportionately produce chronic illness among poor people of color and contribute to the acceleration rise of infections and deaths caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.   

This is a strain of pernicious neoliberal common sense and public pedagogy that celebrates unchecked self-interest, disdains civic freedoms, scorns scientific evidence and turns away from the reality of a society with deep-seated institutional rot and the continuous unraveling of social connections and the social contract. Americans do not simply inhabit a deeply divided country, which has become the phrase of the day among the liberal media, but a war culture.

Everyday life has taken on the character of a war zone. The walls and cement barriers now surrounding Trump’s White House signify a mode of governance wedded to both a warlike mentality and an expansive culture of cruelty and ruthlessness, most clearly visible in the police violence waged against poor people of color. The latter is a murderous violence enabled and encouraged by the white supremacist ideology at the center of the Trump administration. State violence hides behind the power of a badge as the police terrorize the spaces in which Black people drive, conduct their everyday lives, walk the streets and sleep. 

What are the ideologies, institutions and spectrum of injustice in America that allow the police to kill, with impunity, Breonna Taylor while she slept in her own home? What allows a police officer to believe without a modicum of self-reflection that he could brutally kill George Floyd by pinning him to the ground and kneeling on his neck until he showed no signs of life? What order of injustice allows the police to shoot, on different occasions, Philando Castile and Jacob Blake while their children were in the back seat of their car? What is the connective tissue between the brazen forms of police brutality at work in American society, the violence Trump calls for and enables among his right-wing extremist followers, and the organizing principles of violence at work in Trump’s policies?

The culture of violence runs deep in American society. For example, Attorney General Bill Barr allowed military forces to attack demonstrators in the streets outside the White House so that Trump could walk to a nearby church and pose for a photo op, while ironically holding up a Bible — all the while giving new meaning to a display of fascist agitprop.  It is worth noting that Trump referred to the right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis who marched in a hate rally in Charlottesville in 2017 in which Heather Heyer was killed as including “very fine people,” while calling protesters who marched against racism and police violence “thugs,” “terrorists” and “anarchists.” Trump is not just deaf to the violence being provoked by vigilantes, armed extremists and right-wing militia groups around the country, he encourages their actions.

Such spectacularized violence cannot be abstracted from those political and economic forces driving hyper-capitalism, ultranationalism and the politics of racial sorting, spiraling poverty and soaring inequality. These rapacious economic structures extend from a predatory financial sector to big corporations that produce massive misery, engage in unchecked exploitation, plunder the public sector and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a ruling elite. This war culture also assaults every element of the welfare state.

The current stage of hyper-capitalism has waged war on the social contract, public sphere and the public good for the last four decades. One consequence has been the publicly owned bones of society — public education, roads, bridges, levees, water systems — have been underfunded and in many ways pushed to the breaking point of disrepair and dysfunctionality. Moreover, this attack on the welfare state and common good is increasingly legitimated and normalized through tyrannical forms of education in a variety of sites, especially in the broader cultural sphere. This is a space in which perverse ignorance, the disdain of science, the repudiation of evidence and conspiracy theories are produced not only at the highest levels of government but also in the media and other cultural apparatuses — such as conservative talk radio and Fox News in the U.S., which David Enrich describes as playing a “democracy-decaying role as a White House propaganda organ masquerading as conservative journalism.” Fox News and a number of other conservative cultural apparatuses function ideologically and politically to objectify people of color, promote spectacles of violence, endorse consumerism as the only viable expression of citizenship, and legitimate a language of exclusion, bigotry and white nationalism. One consequence is a deep-seated anxiety, loneliness, cynicism and profound emptiness at the heart of American society, coupled with an accelerating culture of cruelty and white supremacy.

Unfortunately, the political, medical and economic crises Americans are experiencing has not been matched by a crisis of ideas — that is, by a critical understanding of the conditions that produced the crises in the first place. Yet the U.S. and several other countries are in the midst of a medical, racial, political, economic and educational crisis that touches every aspect of public life. Fascist politics no longer hides behind the call for market freedoms, small government and individual expressions of freedom. For example, Trump’s hatred of dissent not only reveals itself in his view of the free press as an “enemy of the people,” but also in his disdain for any institution that does not promote the willful narrative of white nationalism. How else to explain his call for a commission to establish what he embarrassingly labeled “patriotic education,” a term one associates with dictatorial and fascist regimes? 

Trump’s admiration for racial purity and “his ongoing eugenics fixation” has been expressed in his lavish praise for what he called the “good genes” of an overwhelmingly white audience in Minnesota. This is the menacing logic of a eugenicist rhetoric that disdains bad genes, and hence willingly labels some groups as undesirable and subject to terminal exclusion. There is more at stake here than an investment in racial purity; there is also the willingness to erase and rewrite historical memory, especially the history of racial oppression. This may be most obvious in Trump’s criticism of the New York Times‘ 1619 Project, which teaches students about the history of slavery. There is more at stake here than the divisive rhetoric of a president who is “a gift to polarization.” This is an ominous language that both echoes a horrifying and dangerous historical period and normalizes the mobilizing passions of an updated fascism. This is a language that, as Adam Weinstein of the New Republic observes, reveals a government that inflames partisan positions that creates chaotic contexts not unlike those that enabled fascist movements to come to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s. He further argues that the Trump administration represents a gangster state that has “reached an important stage of fascist maturity”: 

It is time to embrace the parallels, to be unafraid to speak a clear truth: Whether by design or lack of it, Donald Trump and the Republican Party operate an American state that they have increasingly organized on fascist principles. It is also time to consider what else the fascists may yet do, during an unprecedented pandemic, amid unprecedented unemployment, faced with unprecedented resistance ahead of an unprecedented election.

As part of a broader autocratic maneuver, Trump has made clear that he will not agree to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election. Not only has he questioned the legitimacy of the upcoming election, which the polls indicate he will lose, he has also nominated a prospective right-wing Supreme Court justice whose presence may play a crucial role in enabling him to secure his re-election if he contests it. Under such circumstances, fascist politics is now embraced by him, his sycophantic political allies and his followers without apology. Antonio Gramsci’s notion that as the old dies and the new order has yet to emerge, a new form of barbarism can appear, seems more prescient than ever and has become increasingly visible under a Trump era that mirrors a frightening reality.

It is worth repeating that most of the globe is experiencing a new historical period produced by a hyper-capitalist neoliberal system that is at odds with any just, prudent and equitable notion of the future. This is a system which, since the 1970s, with its tools of financialization, deregulation and austerity, has transformed American society, if not most of the world, in pernicious ways. We now live in an age in which economic activity is divorced from social costs, all the while enabling policies of racial cleansing, militarism and white nationalism along with staggering levels of inequality that have become the defining features of everyday life and established modes of governance. The economic brutality and barbarism of neoliberal capital has joined forces with the forces of white supremacy and white nationalism to create an updated form of neoliberal fascism. 

We get glimpses of this new political formation in Trump’s massive tax giveaway to the ultra-rich and his reversal of policy regulations designed to protect workers, the public and the environment. Trump’s White House has become a monument to white nationalism. Consider Trump’s defense of Confederate monuments and his support for racial sorting, his formulation of suburbs as white public spheres, his attempt to pass laws that deny citizenship to particular groups, and his definition of cities as dark enclaves of criminality, all of which echoes a history rooted in earlier forms of fascism. Most recently, in his first presidential debate with Joe Biden, Trump refused to denounce white supremacy while signaling his support to members of the Proud Boys, a right-wing extremist group, to “stand back and stand by.”  

His inflammatory remarks not only revealed his tribute to white supremacy and his willingness to stoke racial fears but also his support for right-wing extremist groups to continue using violence to promote social change. Trump has made it clear that he is a candidate for aggrieved white Americans and that he is willing to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry. His racist remarks reveal the degree to which he has turned democracy into ashes.

American fascism presents itself in the form of unabashed white supremacy, a defense of nativism, the longing for a strongman, a cult of ignorance that denies scientific evidence, the elevation of emotion over reason, a disregard for the law and civil liberties, an enthusiasm for using armed militias to attack protesters and a celebration of the enabling rhetoric of violence. Nativist populism as one register of an updated notion of American fascism has a long history in the United States. What is different today is that it occupies the center of power in the White House. Sarah Churchwell argues persuasively that fascism has resurfaced in America and that “it draws on familiar national customs to insist it is merely conducting political business as usual.” She writes: 

American fascist energies today are different from 1930s European fascism, but that doesn’t mean they’re not fascist, it means they’re not European and it’s not the 1930s. They remain organized around classic fascist tropes of nostalgic regeneration, fantasies of racial purity, celebration of an authentic folk and nullification of others, scapegoating groups for economic instability or inequality, rejecting the legitimacy of political opponents, the demonization of critics, attacks on a free press, and claims that the will of the people justifies violent imposition of military force. Vestiges of interwar fascism have been dredged up, dressed up, and repurposed for modern times. Colored shirts might not sell anymore, but colored hats are doing great.

Fascism in America has never gone away, it simply exists in different forms, often at the margins of society. In its updated form, American neoliberal fascism does not need to make a spectacle of swastikas, jackboots or Nazi salutes, or to call for sending those considered disposable to concentration camps. Fascism today wraps itself in local customs, ultra-nationalism, the rhetoric of purification, the flag and Nuremberg-like spectacles — and legitimates itself not by banishing the media but by controlling it. Moreover, the tropes of fascism are being mainstreamed in the midst of a plague that reinforces what Bill Dixon calls “the protean origins of totalitarianism … loneliness as the normal register of social life, the frenzied lawfulness of ideological certitude, mass poverty and mass homelessness, the routine use of terror as a political instrument, and the ever growing speeds and scales of media, economics, and warfare.”

As I have said elsewhere, talk of a fascist politics emerging in the United States and in the rise of right-wing populist movements across the globe is often criticized as a naive exaggeration or a misguided historical analogy. In the age of Trump, such objections feel like reckless efforts to deny the growing relevance of the term and the danger posed by a society staring into the abyss of a menacing authoritarianism. In fact, the case can be made that rather than harbor an element of truth, such criticism further normalizes the very fascism it critiques, allowing the extraordinary and implausible, if not unthinkable, to become ordinary. Under such circumstances, history is not simply being ignored or distorted, it is being erased. In this instance, the claim of moral witnessing disappears. Moreover, after decades of a savage global capitalist nightmare both in the United States and around the globe, the mobilizing passions of fascism have been unleashed unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s.  

This is a fascism that not only grants impunity to the ultra-rich and big corporations, regardless of their criminogenic behavior, but also exhibits a disdain for weakness and a propensity for violence. It poisons the air we breathe and thrives on producing widespread misery. In its current forms, the checks and balances that liberals point to as an impregnable defense against fascism in America appear quaint if not delusional in the face of Trump’s frontal assault on all the institutions that shore up a democratic society along with his increasing use of state violence to squash dissent. As Peter Maass points out in the Intercept:

… the accessories and devices of dictatorship have expanded with infectious ruthlessness in American cities. The police swinging batons wildly, the paramilitary forces refusing to identify themselves, the hysterical president trying to incite war, the vigilantes in league with the police, military helicopters clattering overhead, the general marching in the streets in combat fatigues, the state TV network loosing its tales of sabotage and mayhem — it’s all there, loud and clear.

Turning away from the horrors of an updated fascism can be both complicitous and dangerous. While there is no perfect fit between Trump and the historical fascist politics of leaders such as Mussolini, Hitler and Pinochet, “the basic tenets of extreme nationalism, racism, misogyny, and disgust for democracy and the rule of law” are too similar to ignore. 

The COVID-19 plague cannot be separated from a broader plague of hyper-capitalism, right-wing populism and surging fascist politics around the globe. These forces represent the underside of the COVID-19 pandemic and relentlessly subject workers, the disabled, the homeless, the poor, children, people of color and, more recently, frontline hospital and emergency workers and all others considered at risk to lives of despair, precarity, massive danger and, in some cases, death. At the roots of this larger pandemic is an unbridled lawlessness and deep-seated disdain for critical thought, meaningful forms of education and any mode of analysis that holds power accountable. The pandemic has revealed the toxic underside of a form of neoliberal fascism with its assault on the welfare state, its undermining of public health, its attack on workers’ rights and its prioritizing of the economy and the accumulation of capital over human needs and life itself. 

The full-blown pandemic has revealed in all its ugliness the death-producing mechanisms of systemic inequality, deregulation, a culture of cruelty, the increasingly dangerous assault on the environment and an anti-intellectual culture that derides any notion of critical education. Beneath the massive failure of leadership from the Trump administration lies the long history of concentrated power in the hands of the one percent, shameless corporate welfare, political corruption, the legacy of racial violence, and the merging of money and politics to deny the most vulnerable access to health care, a living wage, worker protection and strong labor movements capable of challenging corporate power and the cruelty of austerity and right-wing policies that maim, cripple and kill hundreds of thousands, as is evident in the current pandemic. 

The brutality of casino capitalism, with its hyped-up version of social Darwinism, is now openly defended by Trump and many Republican governors in their call to reopen the economy and undercut or eliminate protective measures that would slow the pace of the virus. Most at risk are those populations who have been considered disposable, such as poor people of color, undocumented immigrants, the racially incarcerated, the elderly warehoused in nursing homes and the working class. These populations are now told to sacrifice their lives in the interest of filling the coffers of the corporate elite.  

At the same time, the claims of neoliberal capitalism have been broken and what was once unthinkable is now being said in public by large groups of people. Young people are calling for a new narrative to repair the safety net, provide free health care, child care, elder care and quality public schools for everyone. There are loud calls to address state violence and the plagues of poverty, homelessness and the pollution of the planet. The spirit of democratic socialism is in the air. The pandemic crisis has shattered the myth that each of us is defined exclusively by our self-interest and as individuals are solely responsible for the problems we face. Both myths run the risk of breaking down as it becomes obvious that, as the pandemic unfolds, shortages in crucial medical equipment, lack of testing, lack of public investments and failed public health services are largely due to right-wing neoliberal measures such as regressive tax policies and bloated military budgets that have drained resources from public health, public goods and other vital social institutions such as public and higher education. 

The pandemic has torn away the cover of a neoliberal economic system marked by what Thomas Piketty calls “the violence of social inequality.” Inequality is a toxin that destroys lives, democratic institutions and civic culture and it is normalized through politicians and a right-wing media culture reduced to sounding boards for the rich and powerful. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s infamous quip that “there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families” no longer holds the status of neoliberal common sense in a society in which matters of social responsibility and strong, morally responsive government institutions are crucial in order to fight the pandemic and the economic and political conditions that worsen its effects.  

If neoliberalism contributed to the unraveling of social connections and the institutions that support them, the pandemic has made clear how vital such connections are to both the public health of a society and its democratic institutions. As social spheres are privatized, commercialized and individualized, it becomes difficult to translate private issues into systemic considerations, inequality becomes normalized, and the pandemic crisis is isolated from the political, economic, social and cultural conditions that fuel it.  

The ideological virus-plague has as one of its roots a politics of depoliticization and normalization. It attempts to rob people of their sense of agency, all the while making the unthinkable matters of alleged common sense. Through a variety of market-based assumptions and pedagogical practices, it works to undermine and normalize those ideas, values, modes of identification and desires that enable individuals to become critically engaged actors.

Crucial to any politics of resistance is the necessity to take seriously the notion that education is central to politics itself, and that social problems have to be critically understood before people can act as a force for empowerment and liberation. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, matters of criticism, informed judgment and critical modes of understanding are crucial in making a choice between democracy and authoritarianism, life and death.

The stark choices regarding what the future might look like appear to hang between the forces of despotism and democracy. Yet as ominous as this foreboding appears, history is open, and how it will unfold hangs in the balance. The pandemic is a crisis that cannot be allowed to turn into a catastrophe in which all hope is lost. While this pandemic threatens democracy’s ability to breathe, it should also offer up the possibility to rethink politics and the habits of critical education, human agency and elements of social responsibility crucial to any viable notion of what life would be like in a democratic socialist society. Amid the corpses produced by neoliberal capitalism and COVID-19, there are also flashes of hope, a chance to move beyond the contemporary resurgence of authoritarianism. Beyond the normalizing ideologies of a poisonous cynicism and a paralyzing conformity endemic to neoliberal capitalism, there is a growing movement to reclaim a collective political vision that is more compassionate, equitable, just and inclusive.  

In spite of the ugly terror of a fascist abyss that lurks in the background of the COVID-19 crisis, the pandemic can teach us that democracy is fragile as “a way of life” and that if it is to survive, critical education, civic courage, historical consciousness, moral witnessing and political outrage must become central elements of a pedagogical practice capable of producing citizens who are informed, politically aware and willing to struggle to keep justice, equity and the principles of a socialist democracy alive. Rosa Luxemburg’s once-celebrated claim that under capitalism humanity faces a choice between “socialism or barbarism” is more appropriate today than in her own time at the beginning of the 20th century.

The pandemic has done more than expose the cult of capitalism and its production of social inequities operating on a vast scale in the U.S. and around the globe. It has also revealed the inner workings of a Trump government that has been more concerned about the health of the economy than saving lives, especially the lives of those marginalized by color, class, age and pre-existing health conditions. Because of Trump’s failure to address the crisis, the United States has been turned into a giant cemetery. Trump lied about the severity of the virus, calling it no more dangerous than the flu, even saying it would just disappear. He admitted to journalist Bob Woodward that the virus was deadly and airborne and that millions of people could get infected, sick and die. He flouted the advice of scientific experts and put incompetents in positions of power to shape health policies. Moreover, as the virus spread throughout the country, Trump disregarded the advice of medical and health experts and held indoor rallies in cities around the United States, impervious to the danger large group gatherings posed to his followers.

After downplaying the virus since its inception while modeling behavior that promotes it, going so far as to treat mask-wearing as a weakness while ridiculing his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, for wearing one, Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, have now tested positive for COVID-19. For four years, this administration has lied, deceived the public and undermined the health and safety of the nation. Events have now caught up with Trump’s world of deceit, lies and willful ignorance, and he has to bear the fate of his own hypocrisy and moral failing. What is crucial here is that Trump is not the only victim of his own inept leadership and the disdain of health experts and the laws of science. More importantly, because of his lack of leadership the economy tanked, millions lost their jobs, at least 208,000 people have died and more than 7.3 million are infected. Trump did not deserve this virus, but neither did the people who contracted it because of his irresponsible and vicious disregard for the lives of others. Trump has blood on his hands, and his failure to address the pandemic’s reach, severity and danger is no longer an issue he can ignore. 

Calls to remove Trump from office, raise the minimum wage, support decent and safe work, offer access to affordable housing, provide universal health care, lower prescription drug costs, provide free quality education to everyone, expand infrastructure, defund the police and military, and invest in community services are important. But they do not deal with the larger issue of eliminating a market-driven economic system structured in massive racial and economic inequalities. Renowned educator David Harvey is right to argue that the “immediate task is nothing more nor less than the self-conscious construction of a new political framework for approaching the question of inequality [and racism], through a deep and profound critique of our economic and social system.” The battle against capitalism can only take place through a movement that unites its disparate movements for social justice, emancipation and economic equality. 

This is a crisis in which different threads of oppression must be understood as part of the general crisis of capitalism. The various protests now evolving internationally at the popular level offer the promise of new global movements for the struggle for popular sovereignty and economic, racial and social justice. Central to this struggle is the challenge of destroying the neoliberal global order. In the current moment, democracy may be under a severe threat and appear frighteningly vulnerable, but with young people and others rising up across the globe — inspired, energized and marching in the streets — the future of a radical democracy is waiting to be reimagined, if not reborn. Democracy needs to breathe again, inspired by collective struggles to dismantle the machinery of social death at the heart of neoliberal fascist empire. 

5 grim observations on Trump’s Supreme Court

The deed is done. President Donald John Trump has nominated 48-year-old 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. Barring a miracle, Senate Republicans, now reduced to little more than a personality cult ever faithful to their führer, will confirm the nomination.

The consequences of Ginsburg’s passing and Barrett’s elevation will be horrendous, and felt for generations. Here are five grim observations to help explain the scope of the anticipated nightmare.

1. Barrett will drive the court sharply to the right

Every new Supreme Court justice alters the ideological orientation of the institution. Trump’s first two appointees to the high tribunal—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—made the panel more conservative, and transformed Chief Justice John Roberts into the court’s most important and frequent swing voter.

Barrett’s confirmation will create a solid 6-3 conservative majority. And while Roberts will remain in the political center, the center itself will move decisively to the right.

Barrett was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2017. In her brief judicial tenure, she has authored about 100 opinions. In addition, as a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she taught constitutional law and statutory interpretation until her 7th Circuit appointment, she wrote several influential academic articles and delivered a number of public speeches, creating an extraordinarily large paper trail.

Taken as a whole, Barrett’s body of work has been hostile to gun controlcritical of Obamacare, antagonistic to employment and sex discrimination claims, and skeptical of consumer rights and economic regulation generally.

In criminal law, she has questioned the constitutionality of the “Miranda rule,” which requires arrestees subject to custodial interrogation to be advised of their right to remain silent.

In immigration law, earlier this year, she dissented from a 7th Circuit ruling that struck down the Trump administration’s “public charge” policy, which bars noncitizens from receiving a green card if federal authorities believe they are likely to apply for public assistance. (The policy has since been reinstated as a result of a decision issued by a different federal circuit court.)

Most distressing of all is Barrett’s outlook on abortion and the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade. While stopping short of declaring that Roe should be overturned, she has expressed support for state laws that impose strict requirements on the operation of abortion clinics, placing her at odds with recent Supreme Court rulings. And in two dissenting votes cast in 2018 and 2019, she endorsed an Indiana law that required fetal remains to be buried or cremated after an abortion.

If you’re looking for a historical parallel to measure the potential impact that a Barrett for Ginsburg swap could have, don’t look to Gorsuch, who succeeded Antonin Scalia, or Kavanaugh, who replaced Anthony Kennedy. Look instead to Clarence Thomas, who filled the vacancy left by the retirement of the liberal legend Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

Like Thomas, Barrett is a staunch and inflexible proponent of “originalism,” the jurisprudential philosophy popularized by Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked from 1998 to 1999 after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, where she ranked first in her class.

In its current iteration, originalism asserts that core legal terms and concepts like “freedom of speech,” “due process” and “equal protection” should be interpreted by judges today according to the “original public meaning” they had when they were first inserted in the Constitution or added by subsequent amendments.

Also like Thomas, Barrett has questioned the importance of adhering to past Supreme Court precedent decisions, writing in a 2013 article for the University of Texas Law Review: “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” She voiced a similar position in a 2016 article she coauthored for the University of Pennsylvania’s Journal of Constitutional Law, acknowledging that adherence to precedent presents “a notoriously difficult problem for originalists.”

Even more so than Thomas, Barrett is a religious zealot. She and her husband Jesse, a former federal prosecutor, are reportedly members of People of Praise, a small, tightly knit, patriarchal charismatic Christian sect based in South Bend, Indiana, that professes admiration for “the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community.”

In a 2006 law school commencement speech at Notre Dame, Barrett urged graduates to become a “different kind of lawyer,” who sees that a “legal career is but a means to an end, and… that end is building the kingdom of God… [I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

According to the Washington Post, Barrett “was a paid speaker five times, starting in 2011, at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program established to inspire a ‘distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law’… to show students ‘how God can use them as judges, law professors and practicing attorneys to help keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel in America.'”

In 2015, Barrett signed a letter “from Catholic Women” to the Synod of Bishops, an advisory body to the Pope, that committed the signatories to act “in service to the Church’s evangelizing mission.”

Trump initially added Barrett to his list of possible Supreme Court nominees in November 2017. She was subsequently passed over, but, according to Axios, the president has been ghoulishly “saving” her to replace Ginsburg. Given Barrett’s extreme views, it’s easy to understand why her moment has arrived.

2. Barrett’s nomination is the culmination of a decades-long Republican push to remake the judiciary

Beginning in the early 1970s in reaction to the liberal—and historically atypical—work of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the right has lobbied to place conservative ideologues on the federal bench.

Within the counterrevolution, no group has been more influential than the Federalist Society. From its founding in 1982 by three law students at Yale and the University of Chicago, the society has grown to include more than 200 chapters at law schools across the United States. From its base in Washington, D.C., today, the society also operates a “lawyers division” with more than 70,000 attorneys enrolled in chapters and “practice groups” in 90 cities.

Barrett is a former Federalist Society member. The other Republican-appointed justices on the court (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) are also either current or former members.

Once confirmed, Barrett will be Trump’s third Supreme Court appointment. In the past 50 years, only Richard Nixon, who added four justices, has exceeded that total.

Trump has also been highly successful in placing Federalist Society members on the lower courts. Thus far, the Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed 53 Trump judges to the federal appellate courts, and 161 to the federal district trial courts.

3. Trump is banking on Barrett to support him in the event of a disputed election

Trump is a man of dubious intellectual rigor. He may or may not fully comprehend—or personally care about—the long-term impact his judicial nominees will have on American law and society.

One thing he does understand, however, is self-interest. As I have argued before, Trump desperately wants to be returned to power after the November election, not only to gratify his bloated ego, but, quite literally, to avoid possible prosecution for an array of federal offenses committed before and after he became president. He knows full well that under Department of Justice policy, sitting presidents cannot be indicted and prosecuted for federal crimes. Remaining in the Oval Office while the statute of limitations on his misdeeds expires is his stay-out-of-jail ticket.

Trump has been working feverishly to undermine public confidence in the election because he is trailing Joe Biden in most polls. Unable to restrain himself, he disclosed on September 23 that he expected the election to “end up in the Supreme Court” in a replay of Bush v. Gore, the infamous judicial coup d’état that handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. A ninth justice, Trump insists, will be needed to break any 4-4 ties in order to determine the winner of the election should disputes over state voting results reach the Supreme Court.

Enter Barrett, Trump’s choice to deliver him a second term by judicial fiat.

4. The Democrats must support structural reforms to take back the courts

The time has long since expired for the Democrats to meet the Republican judicial counterrevolution with equal resolve. It no longer suffices for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and their ilk to appeal to the nonexistent decency of Republicans to adhere to constitutional norms and practices. Trump and the Republicans are interested only in retaining and wielding power.

Structural reforms are essential to respond to Republican tyranny. These include, at a minimum, ending the filibuster rule in the Senate; expanding the number of Supreme Court justices as well as the number of lower-court federal judges; and promoting statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

All of these changes can be implemented legislatively if the Democrats regain a Senate majority and repeal the filibuster. None requires a constitutional amendment.

As the veteran legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained in a recent New Yorker column:

“The number of Justices is not fixed in the Constitution but, rather, established by statute… [T]he Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court. To do so would be to play hardball in a way that is foreign to the current Senate Democrats. But maybe, in light of all that’s happened, that’s a game they should learn to play.”

5. The slide to minority rule continues

The United States has entered an unmistakable era of minority rule. Because of the Electoral College, we have a president who lost the 2016 popular vote by nearly 2.9 million ballots. Because of the constitutional design of the Senate, which allocates two senators to each state regardless of population, we have a Republican Senate majority, even though Democratic candidates for the Senate in 2018 received more than 58 percent of the aggregate popular vote for the upper chamber.

The confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court will be yet another inflection point in the slide to minority rule. In a real democracy, it would be unthinkable for an outlier like Barrett to receive a lifetime appointment to the most powerful judicial body in the land.

Yet here we are. And here we will remain unless and until enough ordinary Americans, not just the operatives who run the Democratic Party, rise up and say that they have had enough.

How the pandemic has changed life for new parents

When Carrie Anderson got pregnant, she had expectations of what the next year would look like: a baby shower, then the birth with her mother there in the hospital, and later a new mom group to and connect with. But when the coronavirus pandemic shut down the country in March, all these dreams went up in the air. She was five months pregnant.

“The first debacle came with the baby shower, then there was no baby shower, then with the hospital it was just my husband who was allowed,” Anderson, who gave birth in June, told Salon. “I’m 39 years old — this was my first pregnancy, I’m an only child and this is my mom’s first grandchild — so it was really emotional, and I cried that my mom wouldn’t be able to hold her grandchild in the hospital.”

The anxiety didn’t stop after birth. Could Anderson’s parents come over and meet the baby? She was concerned about her dad, who is 70 and falls into a higher risk group for having worse complications if infected with COVID-19.

“We had conversations with the pediatrician about who’s allowed to come inside of our home, who’s allowed, is it a visit through a window?” Anderson said. “It just was sad — it should be a joyful time and it was all just really emotional.”

From giving birth to the postpartum period, the pandemic has upended the experience of having birth and added new complexities to what can already be an overwhelming life moment. Anderson was one of several new parents whom Salon spoke with about the challenges of welcoming a baby during the pandemic.

Many parents felt the experience of giving birth during the pandemic was bittersweet, as changes in hospital procedures and restrictions around visitation and interactions have upended a communal ritual that goes back to the dawn of humanity.

Starting with labor, hospitals have changed their procedures to limit the amount of time parents are in the hospital. Valerie Flaherman, M.D., M.P.H., and an associate professor of pediatrics, epidemiology and biostatistics at University of California – San Francisco (UCSF), told Salon some hospitals are requiring visitor testing, limiting the number of visitors, or excluding visits by children.

“This can be confusing for expectant moms because an individual hospital’s guidelines and regulations may have changed several times throughout the course of the pandemic, often in accordance with guidance from the local health department which may fluctuate,” Flaherman said, adding that once the pandemic is over normal visitations will likely return.

“I haven’t heard anyone in any hospital around the country say that once the pandemic is over, there will still be restrictions on visitors,” Flaherman said.

Allie Schmidt is a new mom living with a rare, motor neuron disease that’s caused her arm to become paralyzed, something she blogs about on Disability Dame. Schmidt had her son in December 2019, right before the pandemic hit. In an email, Schmidt said it’s been hard not having her in-laws be able to visit and spend much time with their new grandson.

“My in-laws live in New York City and have only been able to visit us in Nashville once since Covid started,” Schmidt said. “It is tremendously sad watching our son grow up without getting to see his grandparents.”

Schmidt fretted over the social repercussions for her son. 

“Having my son so isolated during his first year makes me wonder how this will affect him in the future,” Schmidt said. “I think all the moms are feeling this way. He’s only met a handful of other people; It may end up not affecting him much, but I think it’s something that we’ll have to wait and see.”

Lisa Alemi, who blogs at Move Mamma Move, says that having her second child during the pandemic has in some ways made her feel like a new mom again, as the rituals of motherhood have changed completely.

“I’ve had the same sort of nervousness, or lack of knowledge, as I did as a first-time mom,” Alemi said, who gave birth to her second son in December 2019. When the pandemic hit, Alemi says she felt like it was very unclear what was safe and what wasn’t safe for her baby.

“I didn’t know where to go to the park, was it safe to walk around the neighborhood, was it safe to do any of these things, and so I kind of felt paralyzed,” Alemi said. “Similar to when I was a first time mom trying to figure these things out.”

Alemi said she’s been trying to thread the needle between caution and paranoia.

“I feel like if we are too cautious, then we’re paranoid and if were a little more liberal with our choices, then we are irresponsible and there isn’t much of an in between, and that’s hard,” Alemi said.  

For all parents, there remains a persistent fear of their babies getting infected inside and outside the womb. Fortunately, infants born to women with COVID-19 showed few “adverse outcomes,” according to a study led by UCSF researchers. 

“Overall, the initial findings regarding infant health are reassuring, but it’s important to note that the majority of these births were from third trimester infections,” senior author Stephanie L. Gaw, MD, PhD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF, said in a statement. “The outcomes from our complete cohort will give the full picture of risks throughout pregnancy.”

New parents say the biggest struggle of all is loneliness. Anderson told Salon she’s joined virtual mom groups, but there is a certain emptiness to them. At age 39, she said it’s been hard for her friends who already have kids to relate to the experience of having a baby during the pandemic.

“I just found a mom’s group that’s half virtual, and they will do some small gatherings in person, that has been emotional,” Anderson said. “I have friends, but their babies are over the age of eight and so they don’t really relate to me — and then of course no one can relate to the whole pandemic thing happening.”

Trump riles up Minnesota supporters with racist attack on Somali refugees

Just 24 hours after refusing to condemn white supremacists during the first 2020 general election debate, President Donald Trump late Wednesday launched a racist attack on refugees from Somalia and other nations and parroted an unfounded right-wing claim about Rep. Ilhan Omar, sparking “lock her up!” chants from his Minnesota supporters.

“Another massive issue for Minnesota is the election of Joe Biden’s plan to inundate your state with a historic flood of refugees,” Trump said to boos from the crowd gathered at Duluth International Airport. “Coming from the most dangerous places in the world including Yemen, Syria, and your favorite country, Somalia. Right? You love Somalia… Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp.”

In the middle of his xenophobic rant against refugees—which the president has made central to his Minnesota stump speech in recent weeks, given the state’s large Somali population—Trump veered into an attack on Omar, who is herself a Somali refugee.

“And what about Omar, where she gets caught harvesting?” Trump said, referring to a video released Sunday by Project Veritas, a group that is criticized for releasing misleading footage typically purporting to expose Democratic lawmakers and organizations. The video Project Veritas unveiled Sunday—shortly after the New York Times published its bombshell report on the president’s tax returns—was described by researchers as “a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like.”

Watch Trump’s comments:

“This is the overlap between white supremacy, the climate emergency, misogyny, and human rights abuses,” tweeted meteorologist Eric Holthaus in response to Trump’s latest attack on refugees. “This is fascism.”

Journalist Matt O’Brien echoed Holthaus’ characterization of the president’s rally Wednesday night as fascistic. “Demonizing refugees, attacking political opponents based on race, the crowd cheering for those opponents to be locked up,” O’Brien wrote, listing just some of the alarming components of the president’s event.

Trump’s Duluth campaign rally came after the president officially and unlawfully missed the deadline to establish the number of refugees who will be allowed into the United States in fiscal year 2021, effectively bringing the nation’s refugee admissions to a standstill.

“For the third year in a row, this administration is in violation of the immigration laws, specifically the refugee program requirements added by the Refugee Act of 1980,” Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said in a statement Wednesday. “This president has shown on countless occasions that he believes he is above the law. This time, refugees—including many who served alongside our troops—will be the victims of the Trump administration’s lawless approach.”

“The administration’s violations,” the lawmakers warned, “will bring our refugee admissions program to a halt, leaving thousands stranded abroad with their lives at risk.”

In a tweet late Wednesday, Omar said the U.S. refugee program “is a life or death matter to millions of children around the world.”

“I know because I was one of them,” Omar added.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article described Project Veritas as “a right-wing group that is notorious for spreading deceptive footage.” In a statement, John Sullivan, General Counsel of Project Veritas, has disputed the characterization that the video Project Veritas unveiled was a “coordinated disinformation campaign,” claiming that certain media outlets have engaged in such a campaign against Project Veritas. “We have already sued The New York Times,” he said. This article has been updated. 

Republicans panic that congressional COVID eruption will derail SCOTUS confirmation vote

Senate Republicans are reportedly begging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to send the Senate home for at least a week over fears that a mass COVID-19 infection could derail their plans to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

The Washington Post’s Robert Costa reports that Republicans are asking McConnell to “take the Senate out of session next week” after multiple Republicans, including President Donald Trump and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) tested positive for the novel coronavirus in just the last day.

The idea will be to get the spread of the disease among GOP officials under control so that they can all be healthy in time to vote on Barrett in mid-October.

“If some in the Republican caucus get sick, we are screwed,” one GOP senate aide tells Costa.

Sen. Lee on Friday said that he planned to stay in isolation for the next ten days after testing positive for the disease, with the goal of being healthy enough to work on Barrett’s confirmation in the middle of the month.

The political theater of climate change: a 62-year history of inaction

Just to be clear: it was 1958 when the United States government established its first carbon dioxide monitoring station. In other words, by 1958 the United States knew that the climate was changing, greenhouse gasses were the cause, and that these changes were disquieting enough that they warranted observation. I am inclined to note the year because it had to be explained to me in 2018, seventy years later, after I was well into adulthood. And in this way, I’m like a lot of people—which is frightening.

I remember, of course, learning about global warming in the 1980s. I was twelve when a good friend of mine started classes at a private school, where it was taught that there were planetary consequences to unchecked pollution. I learned by osmosis. Global warming trailed me into my adult life, in which I tried to be a good environmental citizen by making thoughtful choices, mostly at the cash register. I believed this kind of action would avert the worst consequences of a climate breakdown because that’s also what I was taught.  

Now, I know that only wholesale systemic change to things like energy and food systems are enough to halt carbon accumulation in the atmosphere, and draw it down to safe levels that will avert a planetary disaster. I know that if we marched forth with individual lifestyle changes alone, we’d actually only curb about 1 to 2 percent of carbon emissions. The U.S. government knows that too. And what’s especially frustrating – enraging, even – is for just how long our nation’s leaders have been clear on this science and have failed — not only to act, but to teach us what they know.

If you go back a couple of decades before the nation’s first carbon monitoring station in Hawaii, you arrive in 1938. That’s the year that English engineer Guy Callendar confirmed that the greenhouse effect was real, and occurring. Forty-eight years before that—in 1890—Svante Arrhenius had discovered it, warning that the world’s industrial processes emitted carbon dioxide that caused the planet’s atmosphere to warm. Hence, by 1958, the United States was concerned enough to fund a federal facility, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, to begin to take stock of the damage.

It didn’t take long for the results of that monitoring, along with new science, to prompt concern. By the late 1960s, Richard Nixon had commissioned agency reports, not just to study climate change, which was obvious by then, but to remedy it. The first such report was issued in 1973, making Nixon the first American president to preside over scientists who proffered a solution. He would not be the last.

Nixon’s national Energy Future report recommended a national shift away from fossil fuels and toward a renewable energy system in 1973. A couple of years later, when Gerald Ford gave his State of the Union address, he called for a reduction of oil imports, for development of alternative energy, and the establishment of pollution standards for cars. By 1977, the Government Accounting Office was warning that life on Earth would be harmed by 2 degrees Celsius of warming, and urged limits on atmospheric carbon emissions over the next 100 to 200 years. This came as Jimmy Carter spent an entire term trying to create climate policy, and commissioned more reports about climate change and how to solve it.

I know all of this because it was collected as evidence in the landmark lawsuit Juliana v. United States. The case was filed by 21 young litigants against the federal government for its role, not in ignoring climate change, but in perpetuating it. They argue the country’s continued authorization, permitting, and subsidizing of a fossil fuel energy system despite this knowledge violates their Constitutional rights.

Indeed, while Reagan was president, the nation reversed its solutions course. While it is broadly known that burning fossil fuels – coal, natural gas and oil – accounts for 87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions globally, Reagan was among several presidents to put increased focus on developing fossil fuels. Although the EPA recommended an end to coal burning by 2000, a ban on oil shale, and a 300 percent carbon tax—and predicted the Earth could reach 2 degrees Celsius of warming by 2040—Reagan implemented a Department of Energy research program on…hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

In similar fashion, George W. Bush later appointed cabinet members with close ties to the fossil fuel industry, adopted disinformation as an official strategy, and called for oil exploration and thousands of new, coal-fired energy plants. Donald Trump now carries that torch, stumping for increased coal production and oil and gas extraction beyond what markets will even bear. He denies climate change all the while, but interestingly his administration does not.

Even liberal administrations purportedly concerned about the outcome the Juliana plaintiffs deeply fear – a complete climate breakdown – have adopted what their lead attorney calls the “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Which means that while some proposed policies that countermand carbon emissions, they still catered to the industries that produce those emissions. Which says everything about how politics work in this country. And explains how Barack Obama spent $92 billion seeding an alternate energy system and slashed carbon from power plants at record rates, but still made the United States the number one producer of oil and gas in the world.

Now, the Earth is predicted to cross the 2 degree warming threshold a few years early in 2036. And the United States still has not accomplished many of the goals it laid out to avert that end over a half-century ago.

In fact, the United States enjoys the dubious distinction of having contributed 25 percent of historic global carbon accumulation to the atmosphere – a fact that the government admits in the Juliana case, though the political theater would convince us all otherwise. Meanwhile, the United States government has never taken a full accounting of the carbon that its economy emits, continuing to approve new fossil fuel energy projects while refusing to consider climate change as a reason not to. 

What does it say about the entrenchment of corporate interests in our government when three million acres have just burned across the west, devastating storms have just landed in the Gulf, and our leadership is still approving energy projects that perpetuate these disasters, even as world markets turn away from fossil fuels?  

And what does it say to the youth of America that our nation will take no action to spare theirs and future generations the catastrophic consequences of what they have wrought? These facts leave the young with radical solutions in place of those that, in the Nixon and Carter days, were once simply pragmatic.

The man who told the truth about Donald Trump … and no one listened

Of all the books about Donald Trump this year, the one that best explains the man, his rise to power and his inability to be president recalls the stellar work of a journalist who died almost four years ago.

The book is Without Compromise. a collection of columns by the late Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice, the first journalist to cover Trump seriously. Way back in 1979, when The New York Times was running puff pieces that helped propel Trump to national celebrity, Barrett revealed the real Trump with hard facts and moral clarity.

Just three of the collection’s 19 reprinted pieces are about Trump, but they are the foundation of all Trump coverage. They are rich with lasting insight and reasonably can be read as the alpha and omega of Trump coverage.

The Voice was shuttered two years ago. Then the Times woke up, seeing the light on the Trump it so utterly failed to investigate during the 2016 campaign. It noted Barrett’s “obsessive work on Donald J. Trump has become a resource for reporters covering the president today.”

In cold, clear prose Barrett laid bare the rot behind Trump’s carefully polished patina of success and respectability. The rest of the book is a college degree in corrupt politics and how journalists could, but largely don’t, cover government.

Barrett was a Brooklyn schoolteacher and community organizer who wangled a job with the Voice, the immensely profitable alternative weekly founded by Norman Mailer and three other journalists who couldn’t abide the straitjacket of conventional 1950s journalism.

Life, not journal school

Like many of our best journalists, Barrett got his approach not from journalism school, though he did graduate from the one at Columbia University and later taught for years at Columbia, but from life experience. He worked in cash-poor Brooklyn neighborhoods as a teacher and community organizer, which taught him about life beyond the glitter of Manhattan shown in his first Trump piece.

“Trump’s problem isn’t so much what he’s done as how he’s done it,” Barrett wrote after spending 15 hours interviewing Trump and many more digging through government records in New York and Philadelphia, interviewing law enforcement sources, competing developers and politicians.

Barrett saw right off that Trump’s money lust was not his worst attribute. Trump has a pathological need to introduce an evil twist into every deal, what another real estate developer called Trump’s “moral larceny.”

Trump, soon realizing Barrett was no lightweight feature writer he could romance, tried threats. When that failed, Trump turned to bribery. He offered Barrett a free Trump Tower apartment.

“Trump was testing me,” Barrett wrote, “to see what would work–convinced that either fear or the suggestion that I could have some undefined future relationship with his wealth or his influence could help shape the story. He had only to figure out what I wanted. Every relationship is a transaction.”

It never occurred to Donald that some people are immune to flattery and threats and don’t have a price. Nearly a decade later he tried the same strategies on me.

The three pieces about Trump in Without Compromise paint a more accurate, concise and damning portrait of the man than the later work of any other journalist including me.

Journalist and Barrett student  Eileen Markey chose the 19 pieces and rounded up notables in academia and journalism to write accompanying essays. Markey is one of many journalists who survived Barrett Bootcamp, the toughest journalism training in the country.

“You’re fired”

Barrett was an obsessively demanding boss, beloved by those who learned technique from him and put up with his famous yelling. Wayne called me once to basically say he needed to yell and no one else was around. So I patiently listened to my friend for 90 minutes.

Once Barrett shouted “You’re  fired!” at intern Marcus Baram, returning two hours late from an errand. Baram, later a Fast Company masthead editor, smartly took his seat and got to work. Barrett soon forgot his command.

Those who survived Barrett Bootcamp became some of the best journalists in New York. Among them: Timothy L. O’Brien of Bloomberg, Jennifer Gonnerman of The New Yorker, Errol Louis of NY1 television, Andrea Bernstein of WNYC, Jarrett Murphy of City Magazine and Markey who put together the anthology.

You can get an idea of how focused Barrett was on hard facts that matter from a story his wife Fran told my wife and me one night over dinner near Atlantic City. We lived there and the Barretts had a summer home there purchased with money from Barrett’s 1992 book Trump: The Deals and The Downfall.

“Wayne came back from interviewing Trump and was regaling me with this lie and that by Trump and I kept asking him about the apartment – what’s it like, Wayne?” Fran said.

“What? Oh, the apartment? It’s big.”

Truth’s surprising consequences

Barrett did his work with such decency that after he died at age 71, the day before Trump took office in 2017, his memorial service was filled with politicians he had exposed or influenced.

Both New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Senate minority leader, showered praise on Barrett.

Schumer told stories of how, but for Barrett’s journalistic policing when he first held office, he would never have made it to the Senate. Schumer said Barrett made him realize he was being seduced by money and “fancy women,” adding that’s why he married a Brooklyn cabbie’s daughter.

I visited Wayne at his Brooklyn townhouse one afternoon when the door was opened by Alan Hevesi, the former New York State comptroller who had gone to prison after Barrett exposed his criminal acts.

As the three of us ate lunch Hevesi told me he had no hard feelings. “I did it, Wayne nailed it down and reported it. How can I hold a grudge against a man who wrote the truth?”

That’s not the way Trump reacts.

Journalism, Barrett taught, is the only occupation where you get paid to tell the truth. That’s the job of journalists, start to finish: Tell the truth as best you can uncover it. That’s why Trump calls journalists the enemy of the people. He can’t stand the truth. Without Compromise is nothing but truth.

Never forget: All of this was his own damn fault

Political journalists covering the highly dramatic news that Donald Trump has been sickened by COVID-19 have been engaged in a public search for the right tone.

They are understandably intent that their giddiness about a huge story not appear to be gloating. As a result, you are hearing and reading in their reports a lot of sympathy, shock and concern — amid a whole lot of unanswered questions.

But it’s not gloating to point out that this could have been avoided if Trump had taken the obvious and proper precautions that he petulantly and ignorantly chose not to.

The entirely self-inflicted nature of this tragedy is one of its central elements, as is the way Trump’s incredible irresponsibility and arrogance was mimicked by his supporters, significantly exacerbating the pandemic. It’s a hugely important element of what’s going on here.

A common-sense initial reaction

Moments after breaking the news on CNN early Friday morning, anchor Robyn Curnow asked UCLA epidemiologist Ann Rimoin if Trump had essentially been playing Russian roulette.

“This has been the issue all along,” Rimoin said. “All of the public health experts including those people close to Donald Trump, all on the White House Task Force, the CDC, Dr. Fauci, have all said how important it is to wear a mask. How important social distancing is. And how critical it is to be able to stop the spread of the virus. And unfortunately, the Trump team has not done a good job of doing this or setting an example.”

Also in the early hours, Dr. Vin Gupta told MSNBC: “This was avoidable. This did not have to happen if they were practicing the proper procedures and not going to these rallies and having these chaotic events, where, of course, airborne exposure was going to happen even if it was in an outdoor setting. No masking, no distancing — what did they expect was going to happen?”

I have always trusted science and medical reporters over political reporters to get pandemic news straight and in its proper context. The great Helen Branswell led off her initial story for the health news site Stat this way:

President Donald Trump, who has frequently dismissed the significance of the Covid-19 pandemic and rarely wears masks in public, has contracted the coronavirus and is now in quarantine, he announced early Friday morning on Twitter.

Her Stat colleague Lev Facher wrote about how obvious it was all along that Trump’s only real precaution — the frequent use of diagnostic tests not widely available to others — wasn’t nearly enough:

To some public health experts, the news came as little surprise. Many have long warned that testing is inadequate as a preventive measure without other baseline mitigation strategies.

“If you told me that somebody who was only testing, not wearing their mask, not distancing, and not taking every other precautionary measure tested positive,” said Saskia Popescu, a University of Arizona epidemiology professor and biodefense expert, “I would say: No shit, Sherlock.”

The political press

The initial reporting from the political press corps didn’t focus on how Trump did this to himself, but was pretty blunt about how politically embarrassing it was after all his rhetoric minimizing the virus.

The first paragraph of Josh Dawsey and Colby Itkowitz‘s breaking news story for the Washington Post described Trump’s announcement as coming “after months in which he has often played down a pandemic that has killed more than 205,000 Americans and sickened millions more.”

Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman were admirably direct in their New York Times story, writing that even if Trump “does not become seriously ill, the positive test could prove devastating to his political fortunes given his months of diminishing the seriousness of the pandemic even as the virus was still ravaging the country and killing about 1,000 more Americans every day.”

The second sentence of the first story by Zeke Miller and Jill Colvin moving across the AP wire noted: “The positive test comes a month until the election and after the president has spent the year largely downplaying the threat of the virus.”

But as time went on, the AP backed away from that construction, replacing it with a much less useful clause about how “the virus that has killed more than 205,000 Americans spread to the highest reaches of the U.S. government just a month before the presidential election.”

In fact, I’m seeing less context rather than more as the coverage continues — and the plot thickens. That’s understandable to some extent, but it’s important not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

This happened for a reason — and it was a very bad reason.

As Jeet Heer wrote in the Nation: “Now is not the time to be euphemistic about Trump’s recklessness.” He wrote:

A president contracting a disease thanks in large part to his own rashness is a political fact as well as a personal one. We can express, if we are so inclined, sympathy on a human level for Trump, but his thoughtlessness has wider consequences that need to be called out.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board described Trump as a “reckless president whose irresponsibility has endangered not only himself and his family but the stability of the country by throwing the executive branch into chaos.”

The argument against the “thoughts and prayers” response to the tragedy was made with particular eloquence by author Naomi Klein on Democracy Now. “I really think we should see Trump getting COVID as the epidemiological equivalent of a mass shooting where the shooter opens fire on the crowd, and then turns the gun on himself,” she said. “This is not a tragic accident — it is a crime scene, and should be treated as such.”

New York Daily Cartoonist Bill Bramhall contributed this:

Going forward

We need more reporting like the Guardian article by David Smith, who wrote that after so many ridiculous Trumpian assertions of invincibility, “the chickens have come home to roost, just as they did for the similarly cavalier British prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro.”

And we need more brave truth-telling like this from CNN’s Jake Tapper, on Friday afternoon: “Make no mistake, this was not just reckless behavior, this was a demonstration of a wanton disregard for human life. President Trump, now in quarantine, has become a symbol of his own failures.”

But I fear that, especially if Trump’s condition worsens, the attention will shift so entirely to the coverage of incremental developments and the political fallout that the American public will be deprived of this crucial context: He brought this upon himself.

What you need to know about the GOP takeover of the Supreme Court

Led by Mitch McConnell, Republicans are gearing up to reverse the precedent they themselves set in 2016, when they blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for 293 days because, they said, “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” 

They know if they let the people decide who should appoint the next Supreme Court justice, their last chance to implement minority rule could be lost.

What do I mean by minority rule?

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million people

And he was impeached. 

If confirmed, his nominee would be approved by Senate Republicans representing 11 million fewer Americans than their Senate Democratic counterparts. 

Two of those Senate Republicans – Kelly Loeffler of Georgia and Martha McSally of Arizona – weren’t even elected; they were appointed by their respective governors, meaning they will get to confirm a Supreme Court justice to a lifetime appointment without ever winning their elections.

That justice would join a Supreme Court alongside four conservative justices who were nominated by Republican presidents who also lost the popular vote. 

These 5 would have the power to negate laws supported by a majority of Americans. They would have the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution. 

They’d even have the power to determine the outcome of the presidential election – a not-so-far-fetched possibility, given that Trump has refused to say whether he’ll accept the results if he loses, and has a multimillion-dollar war chest to mount legal challenges. He’s even said his motivation for ramming through a new justice is to serve as a tiebreaker in determining who wins the presidency.

In other words, a president elected by a minority will appoint a justice who will be confirmed by senators representing a minority. That justice will have the power to subvert the will of the majority and possibly hand the election to a president who’s already been impeached. 

Most Americans – including half of Republicans – believe Justice Ginsburg’s vacancy should be filled by whomever wins the presidency weeks from now. 

The GOP’s attempt to hold onto power at all costs jeopardizes the foundations of our democracy and threatens the sanctity of the Supreme Court, whose power and influence depend on Americans’ trust in its non-partisan judgment. 

Not to mention the destruction a 6-3 conservative majority could wreak. Right now, a group of Republican states, backed by Trump’s Justice Department, is seeking to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. That decision would strip healthcare from upwards of 20 million Americans, remove women’s access to birth control, and eliminate protections for roughly 100 million people with preexisting conditions – including the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have recovered from COVID-19. 

And there’s no telling what that Supreme Court would do to reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, climate action, gun reform, union rights, immigrant rights, civil rights, and just about all civil liberties over the course of the next few decades.

The majority of Americans will not go down without a fight. 

First, we must defeat Trump and his Republican enablers in the upcoming election.

Next, when Democrats have control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency, the top priority must be to restructure the Supreme Court so it better reflects the will of the people. 

We must see the GOP’s exercise of raw power for what it is and meet it with even greater force.

The rise of Christian Nationalism in America

On August 26th, during the Republican National Convention, Vice President Mike Pence closed out his acceptance speech with a biblical sleight of hand. Speaking before a crowd at the Fort McHenry National Monument in Baltimore, he exclaimed, “Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents. Let’s fix our eyes on this land of heroes and let their courage inspire.” In doing so, he essentially rewrote a passage from the New Testament’s Book of Hebrews: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross.”

There’s nothing new, of course, about an American politician melding religion and politics on the campaign trail. Still, Pence’s decision to replace Jesus with the Stars and Stripes raised eyebrows across a range of religious and political persuasions. Indeed, the melding of Old Glory and Christ provided the latest evidence of the rising influence of Christian nationalism in the age of Trump.

It’s no longer hard to find evidence of just how deeply Christian nationalism influences our politics and policymaking. During the pandemic, the Bible has repeatedly been used (and distorted) to justify Covid-19 denialism and government inaction, not to speak of outright repression. In late March, as cities were locking down and public health officials were recommending strict quarantine measures, one of Donald Trump’s first acts was to gather his followers at the White House for what was billed as a “National Day of Prayer” to give Americans the strength to press on through death and difficulty.

Later in the spring, protests against pandemic shutdowns, funded with dark money from the likes of the Koch Brothers, demanded that states reopen for business and social distancing guidelines be loosened. (Forget about masking of any sort.) At them, printed protest signs said things like: “Even Pharaoh Freed Slaves in a Plague” and “Texas will not take the Mark of the Beast.” And even as faith communities struggled admirably to adjust to zoom worship services, as well as remote pastoral care and memorials, President Trump continued to fan the flames of religious division, declaring in-person worship “essential,” no matter that legal experts questioned his authority to do so.

And speaking of his version of Christian nationalism, no one should forget the June spectacle in Lafayette Square near the White House, when Trump had racial-justice protestors tear-gassed so he could stroll to nearby St. John’s Church and pose proudly on its steps displaying a borrowed bible. Though he flashed it to the photographers, who can doubt how little time he’s spent within its pages. (Selling those same pages is another matter entirely. After all, a Bible he signed in the wake of that Lafayette Square event is now on sale for nearly $40,000.)

The battle for the Bible in American history

To understand how power is wielded in America by wealthy politicians and their coteries of extremists in 2020, you have to consider the role of religion in our national life. An epic battle for the Bible is now underway in a country that has been largely ceded to white evangelical Christian nationalists. Through a well-funded network of churches and nonprofits, universities, and think tanks, and with direct lines to the nation’s highest political officials, they’ve had carte-blanche to set the terms of what passes for religious debate in this country and dictate what morality even means in our society.

Under Trump, such religious nationalism has reached a fever pitch as a reactionary movement that includes technocratic billionaires, televangelists, and armed militias has taken root with a simple enough message: God loves white Christian America, favors small government and big business, and rewards individualism and entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, the poor, people of color, and immigrants are blamed for society’s problems even as the rich get richer in what’s still the wealthiest country in the history of the world.

The dangers posed by today’s Christian nationalists are all too real, but the battle for the Bible itself is not new in America. In the 1700s and 1800s, slaveholders quoted the book of Philemon and lines from St. Paul’s epistles to claim that slavery was ordained by God. They also ripped the pages of Exodus from bibles they gave to the enslaved.  During the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, churches and politicians alike preached a “prosperity gospel” that extolled the virtues of industrial capitalism.

Decades later, segregationists continued to use stray biblical verses to rubberstamp Jim Crow practices, while in the late 1970s the Moral Majority helped to mainstream a new generation of Christian extremists into national politics. In my own youth, I remember politicians quoting Thessalonians in the lead up to the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act as proof that God believes in work-requirements for public assistance programs.

Students of religion and history know that, although such theological battles have often tipped disastrously toward the forces of violence, deprivation, and hate, Christian religious thinking has also been a key ingredient in positive social change in this country. Escaped slave Harriet “Moses” Tubman understood the Underground Railroad as a Christian project of liberation, while escaped slave Frederick Douglass fought for abolition through churches across the north in the pre-Civil War years. A century later, near the end of his life, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.explained how, to achieve his universal dream of justice, a beloved community of God would be built through a “freedom church of the poor.”

After all, in every chapter of American history, abolitionists, workers, labor organizers, civil rights leaders, and other representatives of the oppressed have struggled for a better nation not just in streets and workplaces, but in the pulpit, too. In the wreckage of the present Trumpian moment, with a fascistic, white nationalism increasingly ascendant, people of conscience would do well to follow suit.

The “psychological bird” of bad religion

In my book Always with Us? What Jesus Really Said About the Poor, I focus on a reality that has long preoccupied me: how, in this country, the Bible has so often been manipulated to obscure its potentially emancipatory power; in particular, the way in which what theologian Jim Wallis has called the most famous biblical passage on the poor (from the Gospel of Matthew) — “the poor will be always with us” — has been misused.

Since I was a young girl, scarcely a week has passed in which I haven’t heard someone quoting Matthew as an explanation for why poverty is eternal and its mitigation reserved at best for charity or philanthropy (but certainly not for government). The logic of such thinking runs through so many of our religious institutions including what’s now known as “evangelical Christianity,” but also our legislatures, courts, military, schools, and more. It hasn’t just shaped the minds of young Christians but has helped to spiritualize (and cement in place) poverty, while implicitly or even explicitly justifyingever greater inequality in this society.

Today, the idea that poverty is the result of bad behavior, laziness, or sin rather than decisions made by those with power is distinctly ascendant in Donald Trump’s and Mitch McConnell’s Washington. Biblical passages like that one in Matthew have become another ideological tool brandished by reactionaries and the wealthy to deflect attention from this country’s systemic failures.

Consider, for example, the historic development of what’s often known as the “Bible Belt” (or alternatively the “Poverty Belt”). It sweeps across the South, from North Carolina to Mississippi, Tennessee to Alabama, home to poor people of every race. It represents the deepest, most contiguous area of poverty in the United States made possible in part by heretical theology, biblical misinterpretation, and Christian nationalism.

The convergence of poverty and religion in the Bible Belt has a long history, stretching back to the earliest settler-colonists in the slave era. It echoed through the system of Jim Crow that had the region in its grip until the Civil Rights years and the modern political concept of “the solid South” (once Democratic, now Republican). Within its bounds lies a brutal legacy of divide and conquer that, to this day, politicizes the Bible by claiming that poverty results from sins against God and teaches poor white people in particular that, although they may themselves have little or nothing, they are at least “better” than people of color.

At the end of the bloody march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965, Martin Luther King explained the age-old politics of division in the region this way:

“If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow… And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man… And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.”

That “psychological bird” was seasoned and cooked in a volatile mix of racist pseudo-science, economic orthodoxy, and bad religion. In fact, it retained its enormous power in large part by using the Bible and a version of Christianity to validate plunder and human suffering on a staggering scale. De jure Jim Crow may no longer exist, but its history haunts America to this day, and the Bible continues to be weaponized to validate anti-poor, white racist political power.

As jobs and opportunity continue to vanish in twenty-first-century America and churches stand among the last truly functional institutions in many communities, the Bible, however interpreted, still influences daily life for millions. How it’s understood and preached affects the political and moral direction of the country. Consider that those Bible Belt states — where Christian nationalism (which regularly displays its own upside-down version of the Bible) now reigns supreme — account for more than 193 electoral college votes and so will play a key role in determining the fate of Donald Trump and Mike Pence in November.

I had my own experience with that version of biblical and theological interpretation and its growing role in our national politics in June 2019 during a hearing of the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives. Its subject was poverty in America and the economic realities of struggling familiesA racially and geographically diverse group of leaders of the Poor People’s Campaign (of which I’m the co-chair) were invited to testify on those realities. Alongside us that day were two Black pastors invited by Republican congressmen to stand as examples of how faith and hard work is the only recipe for a good and stable life for the impoverished.

We had come to present what we’ve called the Poor People’s Moral Budget, a study showing that the United States does have the money to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, and more, just not the political will to do so. In response, members of the committee turned to the same tired stereotypesabout why so many of us in such a wealthy country are poor. Some cited the supposed failure of the 1960s War on Poverty as evidence that programs of social uplift just don’t work, while ignoring the dramatic way politicians had undercut those initiatives in the years that followed. Like those pastors, others replied with tales of their own success rising out of economic hardship via bootstrap individualism and they plugged Christian charity as the way to alleviate poverty. I listened to them all as they essentially promoted a heretical theology that claimed people suffer from poverty largely because they’re estranged from God and lack a deep enough faith in Jesus.

That day, the walls of that House committee room rang with empty words twisting what the Bible actually says about the poor. One Republican representative typically remarked that, although he was familiar with the Bible, he had never found anyplace in it “where Jesus tells Caesar to care for the poor.” Another all-too-typically suggested that Christian charity, not government-sponsored programs, is the key to alleviating poverty.

Someone less familiar with the arguments of such politicians might have been surprised to hear so many of them seeking theological cover. As a biblical scholar and a student of the history of social movements, I know well how religious texts actually instruct us to care for the poor and dispossessed. As a long-time organizer, I’ve learned that those in power now regularly, even desperately, seek to abuse and distort the liberating potential of our religious traditions.

Indeed, in response to that representative, Reverand William Barber, my Poor People’s Campaign co-chair, and I pointed out how interesting it was that he identified himself with Caesar (not necessarily the most flattering comparison imaginable, especially as biblical Christianity polemicizes against Caesar and the Roman empire). Then I detailed for him many of the passages and commandments in the Bible that urge us to organize society around the needs of the poor, forgive debts, pay workers a living wage, rather than favoring either the rich or “Caesar.” That, of course, is indeed the formula of the Trump era (where, in the last six pandemic months, the 643 wealthiest Americans raked in an extra $845 billion, raising their combined wealth by 29%). I also pointed out that the most effective poverty-reduction programs like Head Start are federally funded, neither philanthropic nor a matter of Christian charity.

Good news from the poor

In the Poor People’s Campaign, we often start our organizing meetings by showing a series of color-coded maps of the country. The first has the states that have passed voter suppression laws since 2013; the next, those with the highest poverty rates; then, those that have not expanded Medicaid but have passed anti-LGBTQ laws. And so it goes. Our final map displays the states densest with self-identified evangelical Protestants.

I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that those maps overlap almost perfectly, chiefly in the Bible Belt, but also in the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic states, and even in parts of the Northeast and West. The point is to show how inextricably connected the battle for voting rights, healthcare, and other critical resources is to the battle for the Bible. The stakes are measured in the health of the entire nation, because the same politicians who manipulate the Bible and the right to vote to win elections then pass immoral budgets and policies.

When Vice President Pence altered that line from the Book of Hebrews, he was charging headfirst onto that very blood-soaked battlefield with a desecrated Bible in hand. The question is: why should he and other Christian nationalists have the power to define Christianity? If they are so intent on “fixing their eyes on Old Glory,” shouldn’t they also fix their eyes on what Jesus actually said?

The Greek word evangelia, out of which “evangelical” comes, means bringing good news to those made poor by systems of exploitation. The Bible’s good news, also defined as gospel, talks again and again about captives being freedslaves released, and all who are oppressed being taken care of. It’s said that were you to cut out every one of its pages that mentions poverty, the Bible would fall apart. And when you actually read the words on those pages, you see that the gospel doesn’t talk about the inevitability of poverty or the need for charity, but the responsibilities of the ruling authorities to all people and the possibility of abundance for all.

At a time when 43.5% of Americans are poor or one fire, storm, health-care crisis, pandemic, eviction, or job loss from poverty, it couldn’t be more important for Americans to begin to reckon with this reality and our moral obligation to end it. Instead, politicians pass voter suppression laws, kick kidsoff food programs, and allow the poisoning of our water, air, and land, while Christian nationalist religious leaders bless such policies and cherry-pick biblical verses to justify them as all-American. Consider such a reality not simply a matter of a religious but a political, economic, and moral crisis that, in the midst of a pandemic, is pushing this country ever closer to the brink of spiritual death.

If America is still worth saving, this is no longer a battle anyone should sit out.

Copyright 2020 Liz Theoharis

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