newyorker--2020-08-31--Would an Election Victory Be Joe Biden’s F.D.R. Moment?

Joe Biden has been playing it safe during the coronavirus pandemic , but Evan Osnos got a chance to sit down with the nominee in person .
It was too hot to sit outside , but the campaign staff didn ’ t want an outsider in Biden ’ s home , so the interview took place in a small house on the property in which Biden ’ s late mother stayed .
In a wide-ranging conversation , Biden compared his position—should he win—to that of Franklin Roosevelt : by taking office during a disaster , he argued , he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious agenda , one driven by pragmatism rather than ideology .
( He was not comparing himself to Roosevelt , he hastened to add . )
While the country is ever more partisan , Biden described his centrism and his propensity for off-the-cuff remarks as an advantage .
“ The good news is the bad news , ” he told Osnos .
“ Everybody knows me , and you guys know me , the good and bad .
.
.
.
It ’ s kind of hard to pin a label on someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
To make me out to be a revolutionary—it ’ s awful hard to do .
Conversely , it ’ s awful hard to make me out to be a right-wing , very conservative Democrat .
”

Download a transcript.|||
Photograph by Drew Angerer / Getty
Joe Biden has been playing it safe during the coronavirus pandemic, but Evan Osnos got a chance to sit down with the nominee in person. It was too hot to sit outside, but the campaign staff didn’t want an outsider in Biden’s home, so the interview took place in a small house on the property in which Biden’s late mother stayed. In a wide-ranging conversation, Biden compared his position—should he win—to that of Franklin Roosevelt: by taking office during a disaster, he argued, he would have an opportunity to effect a hugely ambitious agenda, one driven by pragmatism rather than ideology. (He was not comparing himself to Roosevelt, he hastened to add.) While the country is ever more partisan, Biden described his centrism and his propensity for off-the-cuff remarks as an advantage. “The good news is the bad news,” he told Osnos. “Everybody knows me, and you guys know me, the good and bad. . . . It’s kind of hard to pin a label on someone that’s inconsistent with who they are. To make me out to be a revolutionary—it’s awful hard to do. Conversely, it’s awful hard to make me out to be a right-wing, very conservative Democrat.”


newyorker--2020-08-31--Concerned Citizens Urge Trump to Stay Away from United States

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Donald J. Trump ’ s plans to travel to Kenosha , Wisconsin , hit @ @ @ @ @ after millions of concerned Americans wrote a letter urging him to stay away from the @ @ @ @ @ letter , the Americans told Trump that his “ message of hatred and intolerance ” @ @ @ @ @ country .
“ What the United States needs now is calm , and your presence @ @ @ @ @ achieving that , ” the letter continued .
“ Please stay away.
” Although Trump @ @ @ @ @ since taking office , the letter appears to be the first effort that directly targets @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s response to the letter , the White House press secretary , Kayleigh @ @ @ @ @ President Trump does not have a policy of reading .
”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump’s plans to travel to Kenosha, Wisconsin, hit a snag on Monday, after millions of concerned Americans wrote a letter urging him to stay away from the United States.
In the letter, the Americans told Trump that his “message of hatred and intolerance” is not welcome in their country.
“What the United States needs now is calm, and your presence here would be counterproductive to achieving that,” the letter continued. “Please stay away.”
Although Trump has issued many travel bans since taking office, the letter appears to be the first effort that directly targets him.
When asked for Trump’s response to the letter, the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said, “President Trump does not have a policy of reading.”


newyorker--2020-08-31--Daily Cartoon: Monday, August 31st

Daily Cartoon: Monday, August 31st

© 2020 Condé Nast .
All rights reserved .
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ Policy and Cookie Statement ( updated 1/1/20 ) and Your California Privacy Rights .
may @ @ @ @ @ from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with @ @ @ @ @ this site may not be reproduced , distributed , transmitted , cached or otherwise used @ @ @ @ @ written permission of Condé Nast .
Ad Choices

“It’s days like this that make me wonder if I should be tweeting more or golfing more. . . .”


newyorker--2020-09-01--“The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour”

“The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour”

Fox News is dedicated to providing our viewers with a wide array of programming that offers a fair and balanced view of American life .
And we at the network recently noticed a significant lack of late-night hosts supporting President Trump ’ s vision for making America great again .
We can ’ t let this anti-American censorship of conservative comedic voices go unanswered .
So we are pleased to announce that , beginning this fall , Fox News will be premièring its own late-night program : “ The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour.
” Monday through Friday , starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow the antics of America ’ s favorite congressional cut-ups , Representative Matt Gaetz , of Florida , and Representative Louie Gohmert , of Texas .
If you loved some of their classic routines—such as storming into a classified briefing , wearing a gas mask to mock believers in the COVID-19 pandemic , or banging on the dais in order to drown out a witness ’ s testimony—then we at Fox are confident that you are going to love this hour-long , vaudevillian , comedic variety show that follows their escapades around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , each episode will end with a rousing rendition of “ God Bless America , ” after which Representative Gohmert will share some of his favorite recipes for asparagus .
In addition to Gaetz and Gohmert , we ’ re pleased to announce a wide-ranging crew of crazy side characters , to help or hinder Matt and Louie on their wacky adventures .
This supporting cast will feature the coach ( Jim Jordan ) , the corrupt and mean old boss ( Nancy Pelosi ) , and the boss ’ s bumbling sidekicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ villains always trying to take over America .
Watch also as Gaetz tries to avoid the temptations of the evil femme fatale , A.O.C .
We already have an exciting lineup of some of your favorite stars of the MAGA universe to appear as guests on the show , including Donald Trump , Jr. , and American hero Eddie Gallagher .
There will be standup from some of your favorite comics as well , such as Steven Crowder and that guy who got fired from “ S.N.L.
” by the cancel-culture left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by none other than the Motor City Madman himself , Ted Nugent , who will be backed by the No-Mask Players .
While Fox Studios is unfortunately forced to abide by the unconstitutional social-distancing and shutdown laws enacted by communist Governor Andrew Cuomo , Representative Gaetz told us he has a studio in Florida that we can use for free , with a wide assortment of props to help keep the laughs coming .
So tune in weeknights at eleven for “ The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour , ” starting with our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to work wearing blackface and Gohmert seeks his assistance in trying to get those pesky Democrats outlawed .
And stay tuned for a special , legally mandated ten-hour appearance by everyone ’ s favorite criminal , Crooked Hillary .
Laughs are guaranteed !

Fox News is dedicated to providing our viewers with a wide array of programming that offers a fair and balanced view of American life. And we at the network recently noticed a significant lack of late-night hosts supporting President Trump’s vision for making America great again. We can’t let this anti-American censorship of conservative comedic voices go unanswered. So we are pleased to announce that, beginning this fall, Fox News will be premièring its own late-night program: “The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour.”
Monday through Friday, starting at 11 P.M., we’ll follow the antics of America’s favorite congressional cut-ups, Representative Matt Gaetz, of Florida, and Representative Louie Gohmert, of Texas. If you loved some of their classic routines—such as storming into a classified briefing, wearing a gas mask to mock believers in the COVID-19 pandemic, or banging on the dais in order to drown out a witness’s testimony—then we at Fox are confident that you are going to love this hour-long, vaudevillian, comedic variety show that follows their escapades around the halls of Congress. As a bonus, each episode will end with a rousing rendition of “God Bless America,” after which Representative Gohmert will share some of his favorite recipes for asparagus.
In addition to Gaetz and Gohmert, we’re pleased to announce a wide-ranging crew of crazy side characters, to help or hinder Matt and Louie on their wacky adventures. This supporting cast will feature the coach (Jim Jordan), the corrupt and mean old boss (Nancy Pelosi), and the boss’s bumbling sidekicks, Pencilneck and Fat Jerry, dastardly villains always trying to take over America. Watch also as Gaetz tries to avoid the temptations of the evil femme fatale, A.O.C.
We already have an exciting lineup of some of your favorite stars of the MAGA universe to appear as guests on the show, including Donald Trump, Jr., and American hero Eddie Gallagher. There will be standup from some of your favorite comics as well, such as Steven Crowder and that guy who got fired from “S.N.L.” by the cancel-culture left. Plus, the house band is led by none other than the Motor City Madman himself, Ted Nugent, who will be backed by the No-Mask Players.
While Fox Studios is unfortunately forced to abide by the unconstitutional social-distancing and shutdown laws enacted by communist Governor Andrew Cuomo, Representative Gaetz told us he has a studio in Florida that we can use for free, with a wide assortment of props to help keep the laughs coming.
So tune in weeknights at eleven for “The Gaetz and Gohmert Comedy Hour,” starting with our première episode, in which Gaetz shows up to work wearing blackface and Gohmert seeks his assistance in trying to get those pesky Democrats outlawed. And stay tuned for a special, legally mandated ten-hour appearance by everyone’s favorite criminal, Crooked Hillary. Laughs are guaranteed!


newyorker--2020-09-01--Susan Choi Reads “Flashlight”

Susan Choi Reads “Flashlight”

Susan Choi reads her story from the September 7 , 2020 , issue of the magazine .
Choi is the @ @ @ @ @ including “ My Education ” and “ Trust Exercise , ” which won the National @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .

Photograph by Yudi Ela for The New Yorker
Susan Choi reads her story from the September 7, 2020, issue of the magazine. Choi is the author of five novels, including “My Education” and “Trust Exercise,” which won the National Book Award for Fiction in 2019.


newyorker--2020-09-01--David Gilbert Reads Samantha Hunt

David Gilbert Reads Samantha Hunt

David Gilbert joins Deborah Treisman to read and discuss “ Three Days , ” by Samantha Hunt , which appeared @ @ @ @ @ the magazine .
Gilbert is the author of two novels , “ & Sons ” @ @ @ @ @ ”

Audio available Listen to this story
Download a transcript.
Photograph by Leonardo Cendamo / Getty
David Gilbert joins Deborah Treisman to read and discuss “Three Days,” by Samantha Hunt, which appeared in a 2006 issue of the magazine. Gilbert is the author of two novels, “& Sons” and “The Normals.”


newyorker--2020-09-01--The Met Is Back, and So Are We

The Met Is Back, and So Are We

On Saturday , I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art .
Can you believe it ?
That sentence would once have been too ordinary to type , and now it seems like science fiction .
After six long months of closure owing to—what else ?
—the coronavirus , the museum is now open again , at twenty-five-per-cent capacity , with a sensible new timed-entry system .
One of the supreme pleasures of being a New Yorker has always been having the power to pop into the Met at any hour , for any amount of time , for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the lobby before getting on the train or spend hours wandering and looking .
It ’ s the city ’ s living room , as Central Park is its collective back yard .
That splendidly entitled , casual access is gone , for now , and that ’ s fine .
The 2 P.M. crowd this past Saturday stretched in a long horseshoe from the museum steps toward Eighty-fourth Street and back around to the hot-dog and pretzel venders who are once again in business at the lip of Fifth Avenue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which idled in a long , hopeful line for what looked to be no takers . )
It was enough to induce palpitations in a heart accustomed to quarantine , and not all of the good kind .
Were the line-waiters distancing ?
Sort of .
It ’ s hard to repress the New York instinct to crowd .
At least everyone was masked .
Then up the steps and into the lobby , where , after I was shot in the head by a nice man with a thermometer gun , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were immediate and powerful .
Our poor city !
The hell it ’ s been through , and here the museum was the whole time , just waiting it out .
When you have feelings like that—deep , mortal feelings about the passing of a tumultuous time—it ’ s good to get in touch with the past , so I turned right and went to commune with human ancestors , in the Ancient Egyptian wing .
What we went through ?
Look at what they went through .
Their whole glorious civilization is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now people rush by their kings and queens on their way to get a sandwich in the American wing .
On the other hand , isn ’ t that the best hope that any civilization could have—to stay , somehow , among the living ?
What touched me , on this millionth time walking through the rooms , was the care that the Ancient Egyptians took of their dead , which no longer seemed exotic or superstitious but noble nearly beyond belief .
To send a loved person off on their journey to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pounded gold ; to delicately extract the intestines and liver and stomach and lungs of a princess and place them in exquisite alabaster jars sculpted to match her likeness—the intensity of my admiration was broken for a moment by a young boy shouting excitedly about mummies , but that was his prerogative .
The other thing that made a big impression this time round , more so even than the painted sarcophagi , with their placid , beaming eyes , was the jewelry , the rings and bracelets and necklaces of lapis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It felt uncanny and comforting to be so close to these spectacular objects that people three thousand years ago wore on their bodies , almost like touching the necks and wrists and fingers themselves .
The same was true of the exquisite bowls and vases of streaked , translucent alabaster , and an impressive display of tasseled linen from the burial chamber of two people called Ramose and Hatnofer , provided for them by their generous son , Senetumut .
You know you are getting older when the same things that for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now what you would take if given your choice of anything on display .
At that point , drained and restored , I meant to leave , but instead I wandered into the sculpture court of the American wing .
Here the critical brain began sending its signals again .
At the north end of the court , by the benches in front of the neoclassic façade of the United States Bank Branch , where families were relaxing and checking their phones , I ran into Thomas Crawford ’ s “ Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pastiche , in marble , of a young woman in a headdress clutching her naked breast as she gracefully expires .
The sculpture has been ironized , to an extent , by an accompanying poem by Livia Corona Benjamin , part of a Met initiative called Native Perspectives .
Even so , I don ’ t think it would be missed if it was shunted into storage or some out-of-the-way place .
( Another thing that should be retired : the Sackler name , which still graces the wing that contains the Temple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reeks of death . )
A greater range of Native perspectives is available around the corner , in “ Art of Native America , ” an exhibit of a hundred and sixteen objects which opened in 2018 and is , if you can believe it , the first-ever major display of Native art in the American wing .
The collection , donated by Charles and Valerie Diker on the condition that it be shown , was denounced by the Association on American Indian Affairs , which objected to the display on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ceremonial purposes and suggested that they had been originally stolen or looted .
The Met disagreed and denied .
The controversy is not easily resolved .
Without intending to tip the balance in one direction or another , I will say that , as a viewer who is used to the glaring Euro-American whiteness of the American wing—all that white marble and mahogany furniture—the exhibit was thrilling , and not big enough .
In fact , it was barely larger than the neighboring Frank Lloyd Wright Room .
If you grow up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to seeing Native objects displayed anthropologically and , it must be said , dingily at the American Museum of Natural History—where , at long last , the heinous statue of a horse-bestridden Theodore Roosevelt stoically leading an African and a Native American man toward the East Side is coming down .
To my mind , calling the works “ art ” ennobles , not degrades , them , and gives a long-overdue middle finger to the portrait of Andrew Jackson that hangs , in a gilded frame , just around the corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am glad to have seen , among other things , a pearlescent parka , by Annie Oktokiyuk , of the Saint Lawrence Island Yupik , made of dried seal intestines and spectacularly ornamented with the beaks and feathers of auklets .
Then it really was enough time breathing shared air for one day .
Out the front doors , past the beautiful , regal sculptures by Wangechi Mutu and Yoko Ono ’ s hilariously phoned-in banners , which read “ DREAM TOGETHER ” and look like an ad campaign for nothing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room for someone else to enter—maybe you .

On Saturday, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Can you believe it? That sentence would once have been too ordinary to type, and now it seems like science fiction. After six long months of closure owing to—what else?—the coronavirus, the museum is now open again, at twenty-five-per-cent capacity, with a sensible new timed-entry system. One of the supreme pleasures of being a New Yorker has always been having the power to pop into the Met at any hour, for any amount of time, for any reason. You can rest your feet in the lobby before getting on the train or spend hours wandering and looking. It’s the city’s living room, as Central Park is its collective back yard. That splendidly entitled, casual access is gone, for now, and that’s fine. The 2 P.M. crowd this past Saturday stretched in a long horseshoe from the museum steps toward Eighty-fourth Street and back around to the hot-dog and pretzel venders who are once again in business at the lip of Fifth Avenue. (So are the yellow cabs, which idled in a long, hopeful line for what looked to be no takers.) It was enough to induce palpitations in a heart accustomed to quarantine, and not all of the good kind. Were the line-waiters distancing? Sort of. It’s hard to repress the New York instinct to crowd. At least everyone was masked.
Then up the steps and into the lobby, where, after I was shot in the head by a nice man with a thermometer gun, all was forgiven and forgotten. The feelings were immediate and powerful. Our poor city! The hell it’s been through, and here the museum was the whole time, just waiting it out. When you have feelings like that—deep, mortal feelings about the passing of a tumultuous time—it’s good to get in touch with the past, so I turned right and went to commune with human ancestors, in the Ancient Egyptian wing. What we went through? Look at what they went through. Their whole glorious civilization is gone, their tombs raided, and now people rush by their kings and queens on their way to get a sandwich in the American wing. On the other hand, isn’t that the best hope that any civilization could have—to stay, somehow, among the living? What touched me, on this millionth time walking through the rooms, was the care that the Ancient Egyptians took of their dead, which no longer seemed exotic or superstitious but noble nearly beyond belief. To send a loved person off on their journey to the afterlife with sandals made of thin, pounded gold; to delicately extract the intestines and liver and stomach and lungs of a princess and place them in alabaster jars sculpted to match her likeness—the intensity of my admiration was broken for a moment by a young boy shouting excitedly about mummies, but that was his prerogative.
The other thing that made a big impression this time round, more so even than the painted sarcophagi, with their placid, beaming eyes, was the jewelry, the rings and bracelets and necklaces of lapis lazuli, turquoise, gold, carnelian. It felt uncanny and comforting to be so close to these spectacular objects that people three thousand years ago wore on their bodies, almost like touching the necks and wrists and fingers themselves. The same was true of the exquisite bowls and vases of streaked, translucent alabaster, and an impressive display of tasseled linen from the burial chamber of two people called Ramose and Hatnofer, provided for them by their generous son, Senetumut. You know you are getting older when the same things that for years bored the life out of you are now what you would take if given your choice of anything on display.
At that point, drained and restored, I meant to leave, but instead I wandered into the sculpture court of the American wing. Here the critical brain began sending its signals again. At the north end of the court, by the benches in front of the neoclassic façade of the United States Bank Branch, where families were relaxing and checking their phones, I ran into Thomas Crawford’s “Mexican Girl Dying,” a cheesy nineteenth-century pastiche, in marble, of a young woman in a headdress clutching her naked breast as she gracefully expires. The sculpture has been ironized, to an extent, by an accompanying poem by Livia Corona Benjamin, part of a Met initiative called Native Perspectives. Even so, I don’t think it would be missed if it was shunted into storage or some out-of-the-way place. (Another thing that should be retired: the Sackler name, which still graces the wing that contains the Temple of Dendur, and more than ever reeks of death.)
A greater range of Native perspectives is available around the corner, in “Art of Native America,” an exhibit of a hundred and sixteen objects which opened in 2018 and is, if you can believe it, the first-ever major display of Native art in the American wing. The collection, donated by Charles and Valerie Diker on the condition that it be shown, was denounced by the Association on American Indian Affairs, which objected to the display on the ground that many of the objects were intended for ceremonial purposes and suggested that they had been originally stolen or looted. The Met disagreed and denied. The controversy is not easily resolved. Without intending to tip the balance in one direction or another, I will say that, as a viewer who is used to the glaring Euro-American whiteness of the American wing—all that white marble and mahogany furniture—the exhibit was thrilling, and not big enough. In fact, it was barely larger than the neighboring Frank Lloyd Wright Room. If you grow up in New York City, you get used to seeing Native objects displayed anthropologically and, it must be said, dingily at the American Museum of Natural History—where, at long last, the heinous statue of a horse-bestridden Theodore Roosevelt stoically leading an African and a Native American man toward the East Side is coming down. To my mind, calling the works “art” ennobles, not degrades, them, and gives a long-overdue middle finger to the portrait of Andrew Jackson that hangs, in a gilded frame, just around the corner. I may be wrong. But I am glad to have seen, among other things, a pearlescent parka, by Annie Oktokiyuk, of the Saint Lawrence Island Yupik, made of dried seal intestines and spectacularly ornamented with the beaks and feathers of auklets.
Then it really was enough time breathing shared air for one day. Out the front doors, past the beautiful, regal sculptures by Wangechi Mutu and Yoko Ono’s hilariously phoned-in banners, which read “DREAM TOGETHER” and look like an ad campaign for nothing, and onto the Avenue, to make room for someone else to enter—maybe you.


newyorker--2020-09-01--The Israel-U.A.E. Deal May Boost Both Economies, but It’s Also Another Netanyahu Ploy

Just before noon on Monday , El Al flight 971 took off from Tel Aviv , cruised into Saudi airspace , and , three and a half hours later , landed in Abu Dhabi , the first fruit of the normalization agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
The flight carried Israeli and American officials , among the latter , Jared Kushner , who claimed that his father-in-law , President Trump , was “ writing a script for a new Middle East.
” That is an exaggeration , but , as Adam Smith famously argued , commercial exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain , it also establishes provisional trust , eventually building into “ sympathy.
” That ’ s the theory , anyway .
Israelis want to believe it and have reasons to do so .
The deal immediately boosted the Israeli stock market and strengthened the shekel .
Outwardly , Israelis seem willing to bear a political cost for the anticipated commercial benefit .
The U.A.E.
’ s Ambassador to the United States , Yousef Al Otaiba , called it “ a win for diplomacy ” that immediately stops Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Bank “ and the potential for violent escalation.
” The U.A.E.
’ s foreign-affairs minister , Anwar Gargash , claimed that normalization reflected “ badly needed realism.
” A snap poll revealed that nearly eighty per cent of Israelis prefer normalization over annexation .
But Israelis—some suspicious , some admiring—also understand the deal to be Netanyahu ’ s latest political maneuver .
Another survey , conducted in the wake of the deal ’ s announcement , revealed that half of respondents thought that Netanyahu was mainly concerned with “ his legal future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trust began on May 24th—and only eighteen per cent thought he cared about “ the interests of the state.
” Still , the same survey reported that , were yet another election called , a Netanyahu-led right-wing coalition would easily win a majority in the Knesset , Israel ’ s parliament .
Netanyahu , for his part , is trying to capitalize on his new asset , as if a new election campaign were already under way .
He claimed success for the “ Netanyahu Doctrine ” — “ peace through strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured the deal—indeed , that those who said that Palestinians had a veto over Israel ’ s advance in the Arab world were proved wrong .
Presumably , the deal ’ s rejection by the Palestinian Authority ( a spokesman denounced it as a “ betrayal of Jerusalem ” ) only exposed its leadership ’ s recalcitrance and lack of imagination .
Yet , as if the U.A.E.
’ s leaders were not listening , Netanyahu also insisted that he agreed merely to “ wait temporarily ” and that annexation will happen “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
The public ebullience is real in Israel , but it is hard to see where regional improvement begins and Netanyahu ’ s ploy ends .
The “ realism ” of the U.A.E .
is easiest to credit .
Abu Dhabi ’ s crown prince , Mohammed bin Zayed , the undisputed leader of the Emirates , clearly has been drawn to Jerusalem by an imminent threat , Iran—twenty-one miles across the Strait of Hormuz , a chokepoint for shipping Gulf oil .
With this deal , bin Zayed is hedging his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help and advanced U.S. weapons systems ; bin Zayed reportedly demanded F-35 jets and Predator drones from the U.S. before he agreed to proceed with normalization .
Netanyahu , defensively , claimed to have retained for Israel a “ qualitative military edge.
” But U.A.E .
leaders also face an economic threat , which has nothing to do with Teheran and everything to do with the decline in the price of oil .
The U.A.E .
is a federation of seven desert oil kingdoms , built around luxuriant coastal cities—preëminently , Dubai , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of the population lives .
There are around a million citizens , pampered by reserves of petrodollars .
Dubai police drive Bugattis , Ferraris , and Lamborghinis ; in May , officers arrested one young citizen for publishing a video on TikTok in which he sneezed into a banknote , thus committing the crime of “ insulting the prestige and status of U.A.E .
institutions.
” There are also some nine million expatriate immigrants and guest workers in the U.A.E.
, about sixty per cent of whom are South Asian .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens—legally , the process begins with thirty years of residency—but they do most of the real work , technical and menial . )
There are also at least a hundred thousand Palestinians there , including some in very high government positions .
Mohammed Dahlan , a senior adviser , is a former Fatah strongman in Gaza—now also a rival to Mahmoud Abbas—and is suspected of having worked to advance the deal with Israeli intelligence behind the scenes .
The future economic foundation of the U.A.E .
is highly uncertain .
The oil industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the G.D.P.
, will not continue to produce enough revenue to buy off foreseeable discontent .
The government claims success at diversifying the economy , but this is a mirage .
Genuine diversification entails vastly improving scientific and technological abilities among the citizens and residents .
Ideally , this is what partnerships with Israeli companies , based in Tel Aviv , ought to bring : the regional powerhouse of financial capital engaging with the regional powerhouse of digital technology .
The technology investor Yossi Vardi told me that , after the deal was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the U.A.E .
about starting a joint venture-capital fund.
” A rumor was flying among investors I spoke with that “ the U.A.E .
will pay a million dollars a year ” to any Israeli who served in the legendary 8200 intelligence unit of the Israel Defense Forces , where much of the country ’ s tech talent has been incubated .
Henrique Cymerman , a veteran Israeli journalist , has been working for a decade to cultivate business relations between Israelis and entrepreneurs in Jordan and the Gulf states ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooperation Council Chamber of Commerce .
He told me that he anticipates Israel and the U.A.E .
focussing on “ biopharmaceuticals and medical devices , water desalination and reuse , hydroponic agriculture , cybersecurity , telecom infrastructure , green energy , and tourism ” —not arms-length businesses .
The Saudis , he says , will be watching the experiment .
“ A high Saudi official once explained that seventy per cent of our population is under thirty .
For them , and the other youth in the Gulf states , the war of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 73 are like the wars of the Roman period , ” Cyberman said .
Young Saudis know that there is “ already huge coöperation in defense and intelligence.
” But , his Saudi friend cautioned , one can not “ develop a tree with only one root.
” None of this supports the claim that Netanyahu alone made normalization happen .
The former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told me that initial high-level contacts were established under his predecessor , Ariel Sharon , and were greatly boosted during his own tenure , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , has long been “ solid , ” especially in military and intelligence sharing regarding Iran : “ The relationship with the Emirates , in some significant areas , is deeper and wider than the relationship with Jordan or Egypt.
” The economic ties deepened , in other words , long before Netanyahu ’ s doctrine .
In fact , Olmert added , “ The U.A.E .
has sought partnerships with our high-tech companies , scientific communities , universities .
Were Bibi not intransigent on Palestine , we could have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the claim that annexation has been “ stopped ” only clouds what ’ s de facto with what ’ s ostensibly de jure .
Trump has insisted that annexation is “ off the table ” ; but Palestinians will be forgiven for noticing what ’ s still on the ground .
“ Netanyahu gave up on the legal enactment of annexation , but he is still pursuing the process of annexation , perpetuating complete domination over the West Bank and its residents , ” Michael Sfard , a lawyer who advises human-rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The U.A.E .
have not received any assurance that Israel will not expand settlements , establish new ones , or consolidate the Israeli bureaucracy in the territory.
” Sam Bahour , a businessman in Ramallah , wrote in Haaretz that the deal weakened Abbas ’ s standing as custodian of a diplomatic track , and will only push Palestinian civilians back to armed struggle—a “ disturbing trend.
” In a phone conversation , he told me , “ Netanyahu ’ s Israel has already stolen the land , made a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for rescinding the threat ?
Abbas ’ s regime is in a stupor , but we are not .
”

Just before noon on Monday, El Al flight 971 took off from Tel Aviv, cruised into Saudi airspace, and, three and a half hours later, landed in Abu Dhabi, the first fruit of the normalization agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The flight carried Israeli and American officials, among the latter, Jared Kushner, who claimed that his father-in-law, President Trump, was “writing a script for a new Middle East.” That is an exaggeration, but, as Adam Smith famously argued, commercial exchange among strangers does not just advance private gain, it also establishes provisional trust, eventually building into “sympathy.” That’s the theory, anyway. Israelis want to believe it and have reasons to do so. The deal immediately boosted the Israeli stock market and strengthened the shekel.
Outwardly, Israelis seem willing to bear a political cost for the anticipated commercial benefit. The U.A.E.’s Ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, called it “a win for diplomacy” that immediately stops Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threatened annexation of part of the West Bank “and the potential for violent escalation.” The U.A.E.’s foreign-affairs minister, Anwar Gargash, claimed that normalization reflected “badly needed realism.” A snap poll revealed that nearly eighty per cent of Israelis prefer normalization over annexation.
But Israelis—some suspicious, some admiring—also understand the deal to be Netanyahu’s latest political maneuver. Another survey, conducted in the wake of the deal’s announcement, revealed that half of respondents thought that Netanyahu was mainly concerned with “his legal future”—his trial for bribery and breach of trust began on May 24th—and only eighteen per cent thought he cared about “the interests of the state.” Still, the same survey reported that, were yet another election called, a Netanyahu-led right-wing coalition would easily win a majority in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.
Netanyahu, for his part, is trying to capitalize on his new asset, as if a new election campaign were already under way. He claimed success for the “Netanyahu Doctrine”—“peace through strength”—suggesting that he alone could have secured the deal—indeed, that those who said that Palestinians had a veto over Israel’s advance in the Arab world were proved wrong. Presumably, the deal’s rejection by the Palestinian Authority (a spokesman denounced it as a “betrayal of Jerusalem”) only exposed its leadership’s recalcitrance and lack of imagination. Yet, as if the U.A.E.’s leaders were not listening, Netanyahu also insisted that he agreed merely to “wait temporarily” and that annexation will happen “only in coördination” with the United States. The public ebullience is real in Israel, but it is hard to see where regional improvement begins and Netanyahu’s ploy ends.
The “realism” of the U.A.E. is easiest to credit. Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, the undisputed leader of the Emirates, clearly has been drawn to Jerusalem by an imminent threat, Iran—twenty-one miles across the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for shipping Gulf oil. With this deal, bin Zayed is hedging his bets, gaining Israeli aerial and intelligence help and advanced U.S. weapons systems; bin Zayed reportedly demanded F-35 jets and Predator drones from the U.S. before he agreed to proceed with normalization. Netanyahu, defensively, claimed to have retained for Israel a “qualitative military edge.”
But U.A.E. leaders also face an economic threat, which has nothing to do with Teheran and everything to do with the decline in the price of oil. The U.A.E. is a federation of seven desert oil kingdoms, built around luxuriant coastal cities—preëminently, Dubai, in addition to Abu Dhabi—where almost ninety per cent of the population lives. There are around a million citizens, pampered by reserves of petrodollars. Dubai police drive Bugattis, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis; in May, officers arrested one young citizen for publishing a video on TikTok in which he sneezed into a banknote, thus committing the crime of “insulting the prestige and status of U.A.E. institutions.” There are also some nine million expatriate immigrants and guest workers in the U.A.E., about sixty per cent of whom are South Asian. (Expatriates have little prospect of becoming citizens—legally, the process begins with thirty years of residency—but they do most of the real work, technical and menial.) There are also at least a hundred thousand Palestinians there, including some in very high government positions. Mohammed Dahlan, a senior adviser, is a former Fatah strongman in Gaza—now also a rival to Mahmoud Abbas—and is suspected of having worked to advance the deal with Israeli intelligence behind the scenes.
The future economic foundation of the U.A.E. is highly uncertain. The oil industry, now less than a third of the G.D.P., will not continue to produce enough revenue to buy off foreseeable discontent. The government claims success at diversifying the economy, but this is a mirage. Genuine diversification entails vastly improving scientific and technological abilities among the citizens and residents. Ideally, this is what partnerships with Israeli companies, based in Tel Aviv, ought to bring: the regional powerhouse of financial capital engaging with the regional powerhouse of digital technology. The technology investor Yossi Vardi told me that, after the deal was announced, he was “contacted by people in the U.A.E. about starting a joint venture-capital fund.” A rumor was flying among investors I spoke with that “the U.A.E. will pay a million dollars a year” to any Israeli who served in the legendary 8200 intelligence unit of the Israel Defense Forces, where much of the country’s tech talent has been incubated.
Henrique Cymerman, a veteran Israeli journalist, has been working for a decade to cultivate business relations between Israelis and entrepreneurs in Jordan and the Gulf states; last February, he founded the Israel-Gulf Cooperation Council Chamber of Commerce. He told me that he anticipates Israel and the U.A.E. focussing on “biopharmaceuticals and medical devices, water desalination and reuse, hydroponic agriculture, cybersecurity, telecom infrastructure, green energy, and tourism”—not arms-length businesses. The Saudis, he says, will be watching the experiment. “A high Saudi official once explained that seventy per cent of our population is under thirty. For them, and the other youth in the Gulf states, the war of ’48, ’67, and ’73 are like the wars of the Roman period,” Cyberman said. Young Saudis know that there is “already huge coöperation in defense and intelligence.” But, his Saudi friend cautioned, one cannot “develop a tree with only one root.”
None of this supports the claim that Netanyahu alone made normalization happen. The former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told me that initial high-level contacts were established under his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, and were greatly boosted during his own tenure, from 2006 to 2008. The partnership, he said, has long been “solid,” especially in military and intelligence sharing regarding Iran: “The relationship with the Emirates, in some significant areas, is deeper and wider than the relationship with Jordan or Egypt.” The economic ties deepened, in other words, long before Netanyahu’s doctrine. In fact, Olmert added, “The U.A.E. has sought partnerships with our high-tech companies, scientific communities, universities. Were Bibi not intransigent on Palestine, we could have had this deal ten years ago.”
Moreover, the claim that annexation has been “stopped” only clouds what’s de facto with what’s ostensibly de jure. Trump has insisted that annexation is “off the table”; but Palestinians will be forgiven for noticing what’s still on the ground. “Netanyahu gave up on the legal enactment of annexation, but he is still pursuing the process of annexation, perpetuating complete domination over the West Bank and its residents,” Michael Sfard, a lawyer who advises human-rights groups in Israel, told me. “The U.A.E. have not received any assurance that Israel will not expand settlements, establish new ones, or consolidate the Israeli bureaucracy in the territory.” Sam Bahour, a businessman in Ramallah, wrote in Haaretz that the deal weakened Abbas’s standing as custodian of a diplomatic track, and will only push Palestinian civilians back to armed struggle—a “disturbing trend.” In a phone conversation, he told me, “Netanyahu’s Israel has already stolen the land, made a threat to declare it Israeli, and then gets credit for rescinding the threat? Abbas’s regime is in a stupor, but we are not.”
Netanyahu’s ability to continue benefitting from the deal might nevertheless depend on keeping the talk of annexation confusing. His personal popularity, even after the deal, is not what it was; to organize a compliant rightist government in the future, he will need allies from the twenty per cent of the Jewish population for whom formal annexation matters. Indeed, the reasons for his decline have hardly gone away. His government, which had won praise for its initial handling of the coronavirus pandemic, precipitously opened schools and restaurants and permitted large celebrations. In late August, the number of new infections spiked to more than two thousand a day. More than half a million Israelis are still unemployed.
Corruption allegations linger. On the day that his trial opened, in May, he showed up in court flanked by Likud ministers and leaders, and attacked state prosecutors and the press, which he’d accused of concocting indictments against him. In early August, Yediot Ahronot published a detailed report reviving suspicions that, since 2010, Netanyahu and close allies had personally profited from the procurement of vessels and submarines from a German supplier. By mid-July, opposition to his authoritarian-style of leadership moved to the streets. Weekly Saturday-night demonstrations, building to as many as twenty thousand people in August, roiled the neighborhood near his Jerusalem residence; democrats condemning his indictments were joined by small-businesspeople crushed by the pandemic. (Netanyahu’s son, Yair, tweeted out the names and addresses of protest leaders, inviting his followers to picket their homes; a Jerusalem court, fearing incitement, ruled that he must delete the posts and stop harassing activists for six months, “in any form.”) Netanyahu, meanwhile, spoke of annexation, but never produced a definite plan to his cabinet. The White House conveyed its own doubts to Netanyahu. Increasingly, Netanyahu’s private connection to Trump and distance from the Democratic leadership seemed a public liability. A Channel Thirteen poll from July 12th found that sixty-one per cent of Israelis disapproved of Netanyahu’s over-all handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and seventy-five per cent were unhappy about his handling of its economic fallout.
The deal with the U.A.E. changed all that, but it hasn’t put an end to Netanyahu’s unease. According to the unity agreement he struck with Benny Gantz, his erstwhile opponent, after the last election, Gantz is scheduled to rotate into the premiership in November of next year. Netanyahu knows that, once he is no longer Prime Minister, he may be vulnerable to a Supreme Court ruling that, as an ordinary minister under indictment, he must resign from the cabinet. To gain immunity from further prosecution, he must win a new election. Furthermore, the agreement stipulates that, should the current government fall owing to a vote of non-confidence in the Knesset after the first six months, Gantz automatically becomes the transitional Prime Minister until a new government is formed.
This would all seem to put Netanyahu in an impossible bind. He must stall on annexation to placate U.A.E. leaders, while rhapsodizing about it to placate the rightist Israeli allies that he’ll need to avoid the risk of prison. The hypocrisy is brazen; it is also not beyond him. The immediate problem is how to trigger an election in a way that Gantz does not take over as transitional Prime Minister—and the solution is clear. For convoluted reasons, if Netanyahu’s “unity” government does not pass a budget within four months, the Knesset will be dispersed and new elections will be called. Netanyahu will remain in power until a new government is sworn. “Gantz apparently did not take into account that a manufactured budget crisis could topple the government in a way that elides his agreement with Netanyahu,” Suzie Navot, a constitutional-law professor at the Haim Striks School of Law, told me.


newyorker--2020-09-01--How Political Violence Became a Presidential-Campaign Issue

On Monday , Joe Biden travelled to Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , for what was , in this pandemic year , a rare campaign speech delivered outside the confines of his Delaware home .
“ We ’ ve had a lot of talk about who is going where , ” Biden said , “ and how I ’ ve decided to come to Pittsburgh to talk about what ’ s going on right now.
” This past week , during protests in Kenosha , Wisconsin , and Portland , Oregon , four people were shot and three of them were killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer recently shot a Black man named Jacob Blake , a white seventeen-year-old named Kyle Rittenhouse , who came to town armed with an assault rifle and intent on patrolling the protests , has been charged with two murders .
The details are sketchier in Portland , which has been roiled by protests , riots , and draconian law-enforcement actions since the spring , but reports have suggested that a man wearing a hat associated with a far-right group was shot dead by a protester .
These bleak deaths were quickly absorbed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of positioning and tactics .
Politico wrote that the shootings were “ redefining the contours of the presidential race—shifting the immediate debate over how to quell the clashes , who should own the unrest and which candidate is better suited to lead the nation through strife.
” Less than two weeks ago , accepting the Democratic Party ’ s Presidential nomination at its Convention , Biden gave a soaring twenty-five-minute address that referred to the current occupant of the Oval Office by name exactly zero times .
“ I will be an ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darkness , ” was the payoff line .
On Monday , in a blunter speech of roughly the same length , Biden deployed the President ’ s name thirty-two times .
“ Donald Trump looks at this violence and sees a political lifeline , ” Biden said .
“ Having failed to protect this nation from a virus that has killed more than a hundred and eighty thousand Americans , Trump posts all-cap tweets screaming ‘ LAW AND ORDER ’ to save his campaign.
” There ’ s plenty of evidence for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conway , the outgoing White House adviser , said on “ Fox & Friends , ” “ The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns , the better it is for the very clear choice on who ’ s best on public safety and law and order.
” Three years ago , Conway , whose reputation is that of a savvy communicator , helped shape the public ’ s understanding of Trump ’ s first term in office by confessing to its preference for “ alternative facts.
” Now , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she may have performed a similar service to Trump ’ s reëlection effort .
Clearly , Trump would prefer to spend the next two months parading around with the police-union officials and sheriffs ’ associations who have backed him rather than touring hospitals and P.P.E .
factories , or addressing the tens of millions of Americans out of work and facing unpaid bills , eviction , hunger , and desperation as a result of the economic collapse brought on by the coronavirus .
But it ’ s not at all clear that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election about looting , or that a contest which turns on what has happened in America ’ s streets since the killing of George Floyd , in May , would even be good for him .
In the lead-up to Monday ’ s speech , Trump and his campaign had challenged Biden to denounce the riots and looting that have been seen in Kenosha , Portland , Chicago , and elsewhere .
Biden did so unequivocally .
“ I want to be clear about this , ” he said .
“ Rioting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , setting fires is not protesting.
” And then he turned the question around and accused Trump of refusing to “ stand up to any form of violence.
” This was a fight that Trump had picked , and yet at a White House press conference just a few hours later , when he was asked about the Kenosha shooter , Trump replied , “ He was trying to get away from them , I guess , it looks like , and he fell .
And then they very violently attacked him.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the crowd rushed him after he shot his first victim , Joseph Rosenbaum , who was unarmed . )
The Trump campaign wants to make the election a referendum on street chaos , and yet there was the candidate , at a lectern inside the White House , excusing alleged murder because the killer supposedly supports him .
This is a closing argument in a Presidential election ?
It is difficult , at this moment , to properly frame the state of the race because of two seemingly contradictory facts that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral system .
On the one hand , Trump has almost no chance of winning the popular vote , which he lost to Hillary Clinton by nearly three million votes , in 2016 .
The margin may well be even bigger in November .
At the same time , Trump still has a chance of being reëlected , thanks to the Electoral College .
His campaign looks at the map of the country and thinks , if it can hold on to the Republican-leaning states Trump won in 2016 , it needs only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Midwestern swing states—Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , or Michigan—to top two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College .
This presupposes that Trump can hang on to Arizona , North Carolina , and Georgia ( not to mention Florida ) , where Biden currently looks strong , but it does help explain the campaign ’ s narrowly crafted rhetoric in statements and advertisements .
Last week , the Republican Party turned over much of its Convention to making the case that the President wasn ’ t racist .
Over the weekend , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as sixteen per cent of the Black vote in November .
This is a President playing for the margins in a few key states , not the majority across the country .
Biden is thinking about the map , too .
As he alluded to in his remarks , there had also been a question of whether he would travel to Wisconsin this week to see things for himself .
Trump planned to travel to Kenosha on Tuesday , over the objections of the state ’ s Democratic governor , Tony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , where , in a speech dedicated to addressing racial violence , he found time to assure local residents that he had no intention of banning fracking , the fossil-fuel-extraction process that helps the regional economy , even as it helps doom the planet .
( Neither campaign seems eager to travel to the electorally irrelevant state of Oregon . )
The shootings in Kenosha and Portland were awful evidence of how much worse things can get at a time when they are already historically bad .
( Eighty-four per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , according to the latest Gallup poll . )
But the pattern of the Trump era , from the beginning , has been that each development greeted as unthinkable and indelible is inevitably forgotten a week or two later , when another astounding development presents itself .
Why wouldn ’ t the pattern repeat itself again with these shootings ?
What horrors have Americans not eventually forgotten in recent years ?
Biden , in his remarks on Monday , seemed aware that the challenge between now and Election Day will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention as it will be to win arguments .
“ Ask yourself , ” Biden countered .
“ Do I look to you like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters ?
Really ?
” Look at me , Trump constantly says to America .
On Monday , Biden responded , Look at me , too .

On Monday, Joe Biden travelled to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for what was, in this pandemic year, a rare campaign speech delivered outside the confines of his Delaware home. “We’ve had a lot of talk about who is going where,” Biden said, “and how I’ve decided to come to Pittsburgh to talk about what’s going on right now.” This past week, during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon, four people were shot and three of them were killed. In Kenosha, where a police officer recently shot a Black man named Jacob Blake, a white seventeen-year-old named Kyle Rittenhouse, who came to town armed with an assault rifle and intent on patrolling the protests, has been charged with two murders. The details are sketchier in Portland, which has been roiled by protests, riots, and draconian law-enforcement actions since the spring, but reports have suggested that a man wearing a hat associated with a far-right group was shot dead by a protester. These bleak deaths were quickly absorbed into the Presidential campaign, turned into questions of positioning and tactics. Politico wrote that the shootings were “redefining the contours of the presidential race—shifting the immediate debate over how to quell the clashes, who should own the unrest and which candidate is better suited to lead the nation through strife.”
Less than two weeks ago, accepting the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination at its Convention, Biden gave a soaring twenty-five-minute address that referred to the current occupant of the Oval Office by name exactly zero times. “I will be an ally of the light, not of the darkness” was the payoff line. On Monday, in a blunter speech of roughly the same length, Biden deployed the President’s name thirty-two times. “Donald Trump looks at this violence and sees a political lifeline,” Biden said. “Having failed to protect this nation from a virus that has killed more than a hundred and eighty thousand Americans, Trump posts all-cap tweets screaming ‘LAW AND ORDER’ to save his campaign.” There’s plenty of evidence for this argument. Just last week, Kellyanne Conway, the outgoing White House adviser, said on “Fox & Friends,” “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order.” Three years ago, Conway, whose reputation is that of a savvy communicator, helped shape the public’s understanding of Trump’s first term in office by confessing to its preference for “alternative facts.” Now, with her “violence reigns” argument, she may have performed a similar service to Trump’s reëlection effort.
Clearly, Trump would prefer to spend the next two months parading around with the police-union officials and sheriffs’ associations who have backed him rather than touring hospitals and P.P.E. factories, or addressing the tens of millions of Americans out of work and facing unpaid bills, eviction, hunger, and desperation as a result of the economic collapse brought on by the coronavirus. But it’s not at all clear that he’ll be successful in making this election about looting, or that a contest which turns on what has happened in America’s streets since the killing of George Floyd, in May, would even be good for him. In the lead-up to Monday’s speech, Trump and his campaign had challenged Biden to denounce the riots and looting that have been seen in Kenosha, Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere. Biden did so unequivocally. “I want to be clear about this,” he said. “Rioting is not protesting, looting is not protesting, setting fires is not protesting.” And then he turned the question around and accused Trump of refusing to “stand up to any form of violence.” This was a fight that Trump had picked, and yet at a White House press conference just a few hours later, when he was asked about the Kenosha shooter, Trump replied, “He was trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like, and he fell. And then they very violently attacked him.” (The criminal complaint against Rittenhouse alleges that the crowd rushed him after he shot his first victim, Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.) The Trump campaign wants to make the election a referendum on street chaos, and yet there was the candidate, at a lectern inside the White House, excusing alleged murder because the killer supposedly supports him. This is a closing argument in a Presidential election?
It is difficult, at this moment, to properly frame the state of the race because of two seemingly contradictory facts that are allowed to coexist in America’s electoral system. On the one hand, Trump has almost no chance of winning the popular vote, which he lost to Hillary Clinton by nearly three million votes, in 2016. The margin may well be even bigger in November. At the same time, Trump still has a chance of being reëlected, thanks to the Electoral College. His campaign looks at the map of the country and thinks, if it can hold on to the Republican-leaning states Trump won in 2016, it needs only to win one of the three key Midwestern swing states—Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Michigan—to top two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College. This presupposes that Trump can hang on to Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia (not to mention Florida), where Biden currently looks strong, but it does help explain the campaign’s narrowly crafted rhetoric in statements and advertisements. Last week, the Republican Party turned over much of its Convention to making the case that the President wasn’t racist. Over the weekend, Trump approvingly retweeted speculation that he could win as much as sixteen per cent of the Black vote in November. This is a President playing for the margins in a few key states, not the majority across the country.
Biden is thinking about the map, too. As he alluded to in his remarks, there had also been a question of whether he would travel to Wisconsin this week to see things for himself. Trump planned to travel to Kenosha on Tuesday, over the objections of the state’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers. Biden opted instead for western Pennsylvania, where, in a speech dedicated to addressing racial violence, he found time to assure local residents that he had no intention of banning fracking, the fossil-fuel-extraction process that helps the regional economy, even as it helps doom the planet. (Neither campaign seems eager to travel to the electorally irrelevant state of Oregon.)
The shootings in Kenosha and Portland were awful evidence of how much worse things can get at a time when they are already historically bad. (Eighty-four per cent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, according to the latest Gallup poll.) But the pattern of the Trump era, from the beginning, has been that each development greeted as unthinkable and indelible is inevitably forgotten a week or two later, when another astounding development presents itself. Why wouldn’t the pattern repeat itself again with these shootings? What horrors have Americans not eventually forgotten in recent years? Biden, in his remarks on Monday, seemed aware that the challenge between now and Election Day will be as much to hold people’s attention as it will be to win arguments. “Ask yourself,” Biden countered. “Do I look to you like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” Look at me, Trump constantly says to America. On Monday, Biden responded, Look at me, too.
Read More About the 2020 Election


newyorker--2020-09-01--Can Greek Tragedy Get Us Through the Pandemic?

“ Children of Thebes , why are you here ?
” Oscar Isaac asked .
His face filled the monitor on my dining table .
( It was my partner ’ s turn to use the desk . )
We were a couple of months into lockdown , just past seven in the evening , and a few straggling cheers for essential workers came in through the window .
Isaac was looking smoldery with a quarantine beard , a gold chain , an Airpod , and a black T-shirt .
His display name was set to “ Oedipus.
” Isaac @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sophocles ’ “ Oedipus the King ” from their homes , in the first virtual performance by Theater of War Productions : a group that got its start in 2008 , staging Sophocles ’ “ Ajax ” and “ Philoctetes ” for U.S. military audiences and , beginning in 2009 , on military installations around the world , including in Kuwait , Qatar , and Guantánamo Bay , with a focus on combat trauma .
After each dramatic reading , a panel made up of people in active service , veterans , military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the play resonated with their experiences of war , before opening up the discussion to the audience .
Since its founding , Theater of War Productions has addressed different kinds of trauma .
It has produced Euripides ’ “ The Bacchae ” in rural communities affected by the opioid crisis , “ The Madness of Heracles ” in neighborhoods afflicted by gun violence and gang wars , and Aeschylus ’ “ Prometheus Bound ” in prisons .
“ Antigone in Ferguson , ” which focusses on crises between communities and law enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ son ’ s unburied body and that of Michael Brown , left on the street for roughly four hours after Brown was killed by police ; it was originally performed at Michael Brown ’ s high school .
Now , with trauma roving the globe more contagiously than ever , Theater of War Productions had traded its site-specific approach for Zoom .
The app was configured in a way I hadn ’ t seen before .
There were no buttons to change between gallery and speaker view , which alternated seemingly by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting , ” but one you were powerless to control , proceeding by itself , with the inexorability of fate .
There was no way to view the other audience members , and not even the group ’ s founder and director , Bryan Doerries , knew how numerous they were .
Later , Zoom told him that it had been fifteen thousand .
This is roughly the seating capacity of the theatre of Dionysus , where “ Oedipus the King ” is believed to have premièred , around 429 B.C .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of a pandemic : in their case , the Plague of Athens .
The original audience would have known Oedipus ’ story from Greek mythology : how an oracle had predicted that Laius , the king of Thebes , would be killed by his own son , who would then sleep with his mother ; how the queen , Jocasta , gave birth to a boy , and Laius pierced and bound the child ’ s ankles , and ordered a shepherd to leave him on a mountainside .
The shepherd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oedipus ( “ swollen foot ” ) , and gave him to a Corinthian servant , who handed him off to the king and queen of Corinth , who raised him as their son .
Years later , Oedipus killed Laius at a crossroads , without knowing who he was .
Then he saved Thebes from a Sphinx , became the king of Thebes , had four children with Jocasta , and lived happily for many years .
That ’ s where Sophocles picks up the story .
Everyone would have known where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Oedipus would blind himself—but not how they would get there .
How Sophocles got there was by drawing on contemporary events , on something that was in everyone ’ s mind , though it doesn ’ t appear in the original myth : a plague .
In the opening scene , Thebes is in the grip of a terrible epidemic .
Oedipus ’ subjects come to the palace , imploring him to save the city , describing the scene of pestilence and panic , the screaming and the corpses in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voiced Oedipus ’ response— “ Children .
I am sorry .
I know ” —made me feel a kind of longing .
It was a degree of compassion conspicuous by its absence in the current Administration .
I never think of myself as someone who wants or needs “ leadership , ” yet I found myself thinking , We would be better off with Oedipus .
“ I would be a weak leader if I did not follow the gods ’ orders , ” Isaac continued , subverting the masculine norm of never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent for the best information out there , from the Delphic Oracle .
Soon , Oedipus ’ brother-in-law , Creon—John Turturro , in a book-lined study—was doing his best to soft-pedal some weird news from Delphi .
Apparently , the oracle said that the plague wouldn ’ t end until the people of Thebes expelled Laius ’ killer : a person who was somehow still in the city , even though Laius had died many years earlier on an out-of-town trip .
Oedipus called in the blind prophet , Tiresias , played by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind a circular glare in his eyeglasses .
Reading “ Oedipus ” in the past , I had always been exasperated by Tiresias , by his cryptic lamentations— “ I will never reveal the riddles within me , or the evil in you ” —and the way he seemed incapable of transmitting useful information .
Spoken by a Black actor in America in 2020 , the line made a sickening kind of sense .
How do you tell the voice of power that the problem is in him , really baked in there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free to spew all of your vitriol and rage in my direction , ” Tiresias said , like someone who knew he was in for a tweetstorm .
Oedipus accused Tiresias of treachery , calling out his disability .
He cast suspicion on foreigners , and touted his own “ wealth , power , unsurpassed skill.
” He decried fake news : “ It ’ s all a scam—you know nothing about interpreting birds.
” He elaborated a deep-state scenario : Creon had “ hatched a secret plan to expel me from office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinterested agencies .
It was , in short , a coup , designed to subvert the democratic will of the people of Thebes .
Frances McDormand appeared next , in the role of Jocasta .
Wearing no visible makeup , speaking from what looked like a cabin somewhere with wood-panelled walls , she resembled the ghost of some frontierswoman .
I realized , when I saw her , that I had never tried to picture Jocasta : not her appearance , or her attitude .
What was her deal ?
How had she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How had she felt about being offered as a bride to whomever defeated the Sphinx ?
What did she think of Oedipus when she met him ?
Did it never seem weird to her that he was her son ’ s age , and had horrible scars on his ankles ?
How did they get along , those two ?
When you ’ re reading the play , you don ’ t have to answer such questions .
You can entertain multiple possibilities without settling on one .
But actors have to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision that had been made in this case : Oedipus really liked her .
“ Since I have more respect for you , my dear , than anyone else in the world , ” Isaac said , with such warmth in “ my dear.
” I was reminded of the fact that Euripides wrote a version of “ Oedipus ” —lost to posterity , like the majority of Greek tragedies—that some scholars suggest foregrounds the loving relationship between Oedipus and Jocasta .

Jocasta’s immediate task was to defuse the potentially murderous argument between her husband and her brother. She took one of the few rhetorical angles available to a woman: why, such grown men ought to be ashamed of themselves, carrying on so when there was a plague going on. And yet, listening to the lines that McDormand chose to emphasize, it was clear that, in the guise of adult rationality and spreading peace, what she was actually doing was silencing and trivializing. “Come inside,” she said, “and we’ll settle this thing in private. And both of you quit making something out of nothing.” It was the voice of denial, and, through the play, you could hear it spread from character to character.
By this point in the performance, I found myself spinning into a kind of cognitive overdrive, toggling between the text and the performance, between the historical context, the current context, and the “universal” themes. No matter how many times you see it pulled off, the magic trick is always a surprise: how a text that is hundreds or thousands of years old turns out to be about the thing that’s happening to you, however modern and unprecedented you thought it was.
“Nothing can be foreseen,” Jocasta said, and I heard our President declaring, of the global pandemic about which he had been warned, repeatedly, in the direst possible terms, that “Nobody could have predicted something like this.” Then the voice of denial passed to Oedipus: “Why, my lady, should we ever again listen to the Pythian priestesses at Delphi or study the patterns of eagles and kingfishers shrieking loudly above us in the sky when they all foretold that I would one day kill my father? He is now dead in the ground and I am still here.” That one sounded like climate change, because it involved ignoring birds, but the sinister thing was precisely how the objects became interchangeable: global warming, gun violence, pandemics, sexual assault, genocide, the legacy of slavery.
You’ve never really seen “Oedipus,” I found myself thinking, till you’ve seen it during a plague. The plague hadn’t really stood out to me on previous readings, yet it was the key to everything: the way the denial of the contagion reflected right back on the contagion of denial, its tendency to morph into “denialism.” I felt a new appreciation, too, for all the work the plague was doing to power the plot. It reprised the riddle of the Sphinx: Oedipus had to save the city again. It was a ticking time bomb: every moment that he didn’t solve the plague, the bodies were piling up, death-rich Hades was making off with more shades. And the ultimatum from Delphi—solve the murder, or the plague goes on—turned the myth of Oedipus into a whodunnit, with Oedipus himself as both detective and murderer.
The plague arrived in Athens in 430 B.C., the second year of the Peloponnesian War. Athens was under siege from Sparta. Much of the rural population had, per instructions from the statesman Pericles, sought shelter within the city’s newly built fortifications, putting an extra burden on sanitation and housing. Perhaps as much as one-third of the Athenian population died, including Pericles and his two sons. Thucydides also got sick, but recovered, and was thus able to leave a vivid record, in his history of the Peloponnesian War, of not only the physical symptoms but the miasma of horror that swirled around the city: the confusion of the doctors, whose efforts to increase their knowledge about this unknown disease were generally rewarded by a slow and painful death; the absence of reliable advice, “for what helped one sufferer harmed another”; the apparent ineffectiveness of divine offerings and supplications, which led some people to become more religious, and others to embrace the most antisocial behavior; the collapse of the funeral rites and the desperation of the increasingly isolated survivors.
And yet: evidence suggests that the theatre was still open. What does that mean? Was Thucydides exaggerating how bad it was? Did Athenians not believe in social distancing? Or were the city’s actors and playwrights considered to be essential workers? Increasing research has been devoted, in recent years, to the connection between ancient theatre and medical treatment, which often took place in the temple to Asklepios, the god of healing. There is archeological evidence that some such temples had an adjoining theatre, and some have argued that listening to a play may have been a part of treatment that also typically included going to sleep in the main hall, praying for gods to appear in their dreams and guide them toward a cure, a dream that priests and attendants would then interpret. When Athens got its own temple to Asklepios, it was built adjacent to the theatre of Dionysus—reportedly, with some involvement by Sophocles. I’ve been to the Asklepion in Pergamon, in present-day Turkey: an underground passage provides easy access between the theatre and the patients’ sleeping hall. According to Doerries, the acoustics in Athens were such that a person bedridden in the temple would still be able to hear every word spoken in the theatre.
How differentiated was the function of the theatre from that of the clinic? The question might not have made that much sense at the time. Plato was born during the Plague of Athens, so he hadn’t yet gotten around to articulating some of the dichotomies—body versus soul, real versus ideal—without which we can now barely imagine the world. According to some historians of science, the idea of “religion” and “science” as opposing terms requiring reconciliation, eternal as it may seem to us now, dates only to the nineteenth century, at which time there was, for example, a lively debate—incited by Freud’s wife’s uncle—over whether katharsis (purification, purging), the term Aristotle used to describe the effect of tragedy on an audience, had primarily a medical or a religious connotation.
Freud himself would complicate the categories again in his study of hysteria: a disease marked by diverse physical symptoms in the absence of a physiological cause, occurring primarily in women. In the eighteen-eighties, Josef Breuer came up with and introduced Freud to a treatment he called the cathartic method. In Freud’s subsequent works, which were more radical and which proposed treating physical symptoms through, for example, the interpretation of dreams, he drew support from his knowledge of the temples of Asklepios, alluding to “such familiar procedures” from antiquity as “the elicitation of oracular dreams by sleeping in the temple precincts.” The records from the Asklepion at Epidaurus mentioned patients whose symptoms—headaches, paralysis, blindness, stomach distress—matched those of hysteria.
Freud had identified closely with the character of Oedipus since he was in high school, where he studied classical Greek. At the University of Vienna, he dreamed that he would be recognized for solving the riddle of the Sphinx. In his psychoanalytic office, he had an approximately two-thousand-year-old Greek Sphinx statue on his table and a reproduction of Ingres’s “Oedipus and the Sphinx” over the couch. His bookplates had a Sphinx on them. For Freud’s fiftieth birthday, his followers gave him a medallion engraved with an image of Oedipus and the Sphinx. Some sources say that, when Freud read the inscription—a quote from Sophocles that read, roughly, “he who knew the famous riddles and was a most powerful man”—he went pale: his adolescent fantasy had come true.
The basic insight of psychology, as it has come to us via Freud, is closely connected to the riddle of the Sphinx: “What is that which has one voice and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed?” Oedipus’ answer is man—who crawls as a baby, walks unassisted as an adult, and uses a cane in old age. Thus do some strands of psychology tell us that babies and children are already people, with emotions and boundaries and dignity that can be violated, and that these violations cause sickness in adults. Psychology also tells us that all adults, with no exceptions, were once babies, and aren’t free from the indignities they suffered in this capacity. These truths may seem self-evident, and classicists have occasionally critiqued the riddle of the Sphinx for being too easy: why was nobody able to solve it before Oedipus? And yet, however clear it is to us, intellectually, that the adult who walks around on two feet is the same person as the baby who crawled on hands and knees, we rarely acknowledge it fully. The adult doesn’t look the same as the baby, or feel the same. “Former baby” isn’t part of anyone’s self-image. All we want is to forget that we were ever so weak and helpless.


newyorker--2020-09-01--Donald Trump’s Incitements to Violence Have Crossed an Alarming Threshold

In December , 2016 , Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt , two political scientists at Harvard , published an opinion piece in the Times that posed the question “ Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy ?
” Relying on a set of criteria for anti-democratic leaders created by Juan José Linz , a Spanish expert on totalitarianism , which includes the incitement of violence for political purposes , the two scholars determined that Trump “ tests positive.
” During that year ’ s Presidential campaign , they reminded readers , Trump had incited violence by encouraging his supporters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In their Times piece , and at greater length in their book , “ How Democracies Die , ” from 2018 , Levitsky and Ziblatt developed the theme that Trump had authoritarian inclinations—and they also emphasized the fact that he took over the Presidency during a period of intense political polarization , when other right-wing extremists were already questioning the legitimacy of their political opponents .
While American democracy wasn ’ t in imminent danger of collapsing , they wrote , “ We must be vigilant .
The warning signs are real.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be flashing any brighter .
Over the weekend , Trump cheered on a caravan of his supporters that confronted groups of Black Lives Matters demonstrators in Portland , Oregon , the site of months of ongoing protests , some of which have turned violent .
In the clashes that ensued , one person—Aaron ( Jay ) Danielson , a supporter of the far-right group Patriot Prayer—was shot and killed .
Not content with fanning the flames in Portland , Trump retweeted a message that was supportive of Kyle Rittenhouse , the seventeen-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenosha , Wisconsin , last week , killing two of them .
Then , at a press conference on Monday , Trump defended Rittenhouse , suggesting that he had acted in self-defense .
“ I find it , frankly , terrifying , ” Levitsky told me on Monday , when I called to ask him about Trump ’ s latest rhetorical escalations .
Although the language that the President has adopted over the past few days is entirely consistent with his 2016 campaign , the inflammatory statements he issued at rallies then were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what he is doing now on a national stage , Levitsky said .
And the political environment , following months of protests against police racism and brutality , is even more incendiary .
“ We now have the potential in towns and cities across the country for pretty significant violence , with a large number of deaths , ” he said .
“ Trump is either unaware of this or he doesn ’ t care .
I don ’ t normally like to make these comparisons , but this sort of encouragement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to what the Fascist movement did in Europe during the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties.
” In these hyper-polarized , hyper-online times , the word “ fascist ” gets bandied around a great deal .
For this reason , among others , I have avoided using it when writing about the Trump Administration .
But Levitsky isn ’ t the only expert on democratic erosion who sees some alarming parallels between interwar Europe and what is happening in the United States today .
Ruth Ben-Ghiat , a historian at New York University , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian leaders , “ Strongmen : Mussolini to the Present.
” In a telephone conversation , she reminded me that the Fascist Italian dictator , before he ascended to power , in October , 1922 , exploited violent clashes between groups of his armed supporters , known as the Blackshirts , and their left-wing opponents .
“ He used the violence to destabilize Italian society , so he could position himself as the person to stop this violence , ” Ben-Ghiat said .
That ’ s what Trump is doing now , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical parallels aren ’ t exact .
After King Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini as Italy ’ s Prime Minister , Mussolini quickly obtained dictatorial powers and seized control of the state , converting the Blackshirts into a state-sanctioned official militia .
Trump has already been President for nearly four years .
He ’ s said and done some terrible things , but , when checked by the courts or by other institutions of state , he has generally backed down , at least for a while .
During the protests for racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , Pentagon chiefs successfully resisted Trump ’ s calls to send in federal troops .
Still , these recent events are extremely alarming .
By cheering on the members of the Portland caravan— “ GREAT PATRIOTS , ” he called them on Twitter—and defending Rittenhouse , despite the fact that he has been charged with two counts of first-degree homicide , the President has crossed a threshold .
Faced with the prospect of losing an election , and power , he has gone beyond mere scaremongering and resorted to fomenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The public embrace of militias and paramilitaries is clearly recognizable authoritarian behavior , ” Levitsky said of Trump ’ s incitements .
“ You see it in India , in the nineteen-nineties and two-thousands .
You see it in the American South , during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era .
What Trump is doing—encouraging this violence—is a time bomb .
We had three political deaths last week .
We should not be watching the political death count rise in a mature democracy like the United States.
” One of these deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the result of a left-wing protester shooting a Trump supporter in the chest .
The Oregonian has identified the suspect as Michael Forest Reinoehl , a forty-eight-year-old Portland man whose online postings identify him as a supporter of Black Lives Matter and Antifa .
I asked Levitsky and Ben-Ghiat what can be done to arrest a downward spiral into more bloodshed .
Both of them said that it was essential for leading politicians of both parties to denounce violence and call for calm .
This is what Joe Biden , Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m going to be very clear about all of this , ” the former Vice-President said , in a speech in Pittsburgh .
“ Rioting is not protesting .
Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not protesting .
None of this is protesting .
It ’ s lawlessness .
Plain and simple .
And those who do it should be prosecuted .
Violence will not bring change.
” Shortly after Biden spoke , Trump launched his defense of Rittenhouse and described the Portland caravan as a peaceful protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from other elected Republicans .
“ The most influential figures in the conservative movement—the commentators on Fox News and the Republican Party leaders—must come out and renounce this violence , ” Levitsky said .
“ If they don ’ t , we are in terrible trouble.
” Ben-Ghiat echoed Levitsky ’ s call for political leaders to distance themselves from Trump and stand up for peaceful democratic values .
She added that leaders of other institutions that have a vital interest in preserving the American system of government , such as businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , the business community has not stepped up and been vocal enough , ” she said .
If the country ’ s leaders don ’ t push back against Trump ’ s incitements now , the violence could take on a momentum of its own , raising the possibility of an authoritarian reaction .
That is what has happened in other failed democracies .
“ The only way you can avoid violence , and perhaps a constitutional crisis , is if the political leadership moves to de-escalate things and demobilize their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is doing precisely the opposite of that .
”

In December, 2016, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, two political scientists at Harvard, published an opinion piece in the Times that posed the question “Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?” Relying on a set of criteria for anti-democratic leaders created by Juan José Linz, a Spanish expert on totalitarianism, which includes the incitement of violence for political purposes, the two scholars determined that Trump “tests positive.” During that year’s Presidential campaign, they reminded readers, Trump had incited violence by encouraging his supporters to rough up protesters at his rallies.
In their Times piece, and at greater length in their book, “How Democracies Die,” from 2018, Levitsky and Ziblatt developed the theme that Trump had authoritarian inclinations—and they also emphasized the fact that he took over the Presidency during a period of intense political polarization, when other right-wing extremists were already questioning the legitimacy of their political opponents. While American democracy wasn’t in imminent danger of collapsing, they wrote, “We must be vigilant. The warning signs are real.”
Right now, those signs couldn’t be flashing any brighter. Over the weekend, Trump cheered on a caravan of his supporters that confronted groups of Black Lives Matters demonstrators in Portland, Oregon, the site of months of ongoing protests, some of which have turned violent. In the clashes that ensued, one person—Aaron (Jay) Danielson, a supporter of the far-right group Patriot Prayer—was shot and killed. Not content with fanning the flames in Portland, Trump retweeted a message that was supportive of Kyle Rittenhouse, the seventeen-year-old Illinois teen-ager who shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last week, killing two of them. Then, at a press conference on Monday, Trump defended Rittenhouse, suggesting that he had acted in self-defense.
“I find it, frankly, terrifying,” Levitsky told me on Monday, when I called to ask him about Trump’s latest rhetorical escalations. Although the language that the President has adopted over the past few days is entirely consistent with his 2016 campaign, the inflammatory statements he issued at rallies then were “on a micro scale” compared with what he is doing now on a national stage, Levitsky said. And the political environment, following months of protests against police racism and brutality, is even more incendiary. “We now have the potential in towns and cities across the country for pretty significant violence, with a large number of deaths,” he said. “Trump is either unaware of this or he doesn’t care. I don’t normally like to make these comparisons, but this sort of encouragement of violence for political purposes is worryingly similar to what the Fascist movement did in Europe during the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties.”
In these hyper-polarized, hyper-online times, the word “fascist” gets bandied around a great deal. For this reason, among others, I have avoided using it when writing about the Trump Administration. But Levitsky isn’t the only expert on democratic erosion who sees some alarming parallels between interwar Europe and what is happening in the United States today. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, is the author of a forthcoming book on authoritarian leaders, “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.” In a telephone conversation, she reminded me that the Fascist Italian dictator, before he ascended to power, in October, 1922, exploited violent clashes between groups of his armed supporters, known as the Blackshirts, and their left-wing opponents. “He used the violence to destabilize Italian society, so he could position himself as the person to stop this violence,” Ben-Ghiat said. That’s what Trump is doing now, she added.
To be sure, the historical parallels aren’t exact. After King Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini as Italy’s Prime Minister, Mussolini quickly obtained dictatorial powers and seized control of the state, converting the Blackshirts into a state-sanctioned official militia. Trump has already been President for nearly four years. He’s said and done some terrible things, but, when checked by the courts or by other institutions of state, he has generally backed down, at least for a while. During the protests for racial justice in Washington, earlier this year, for example, Pentagon chiefs successfully resisted Trump’s calls to send in federal troops.
Still, these recent events are extremely alarming. By cheering on the members of the Portland caravan—“GREAT PATRIOTS,” he called them on Twitter—and defending Rittenhouse, despite the fact that he has been charged with two counts of first-degree homicide, the President has crossed a threshold. Faced with the prospect of losing an election, and power, he has gone beyond mere scaremongering and resorted to fomenting violent unrest from the White House. “The public embrace of militias and paramilitaries is clearly recognizable authoritarian behavior,” Levitsky said of Trump’s incitements. “You see it in India, in the nineteen-nineties and two-thousands. You see it in the American South, during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. What Trump is doing—encouraging this violence—is a time bomb. We had three political deaths last week. We should not be watching the political death count rise in a mature democracy like the United States.”
One of these deaths, in Portland, appears to have been the result of a left-wing protester shooting a Trump supporter in the chest. The Oregonian has identified the suspect as Michael Forest Reinoehl, a forty-eight-year-old Portland man whose online postings identify him as a supporter of Black Lives Matter and Antifa. I asked Levitsky and Ben-Ghiat what can be done to arrest a downward spiral into more bloodshed. Both of them said that it was essential for leading politicians of both parties to denounce violence and call for calm.
This is what Joe Biden, Trump’s opponent, did on Monday. “I’m going to be very clear about all of this,” the former Vice-President said, in a speech in Pittsburgh. “Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness. Plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change.” Shortly after Biden spoke, Trump launched his defense of Rittenhouse and described the Portland caravan as a peaceful protest. Almost equally disturbing was the silence from other elected Republicans. “The most influential figures in the conservative movement—the commentators on Fox News and the Republican Party leaders—must come out and renounce this violence,” Levitsky said. “If they don’t, we are in terrible trouble.”
Ben-Ghiat echoed Levitsky’s call for political leaders to distance themselves from Trump and stand up for peaceful democratic values. She added that leaders of other institutions that have a vital interest in preserving the American system of government, such as businesses, should join this effort. “In this case, the business community has not stepped up and been vocal enough,” she said. If the country’s leaders don’t push back against Trump’s incitements now, the violence could take on a momentum of its own, raising the possibility of an authoritarian reaction. That is what has happened in other failed democracies. “The only way you can avoid violence, and perhaps a constitutional crisis, is if the political leadership moves to de-escalate things and demobilize their bases,” Levitsky said. “Trump is doing precisely the opposite of that.”
Read More About the 2020 Election