alternet--2020-10-13--Trump's true legacy is that of a warmonger

In the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11 , the Bush Administration invaded Iraq and tortured prisoners of war and terrorism suspects , in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions .
As a result , the United States lost standing among many of its traditional allies around the world .
President Barack Obama 's global charm offensive brought friends and allies back to America 's side , but his ten-fold increase in drone strikes to assassinate often innocent terrorism suspects , and his failure to reverse the ever-expanding violence and chaos of U.S. wars , overshadowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility , especially in the Global South .
The 2016 election was a make-or-break moment in U.S. history .
Would the United States build on the constructive elements in Obama 's record , like the nuclear agreement with Iran and restored relations with Cuba ?
Or would it perpetuate catastrophic neocolonial wars justified as humanitarian interventions ?
Trump campaigned on a platform of ending `` endless wars , '' in contrast to his hawkish opponent , Hillary Clinton .
A detailed study by Douglas L. Kriner of Cornell University and Francis X. Shen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached the stunning conclusion that support for Trump in counties with a high number of war casualties—especially in the battleground states of Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin—played a critical role in the elections .
Yet Trump , far from delivering the peace he promised , doubled down on the worst of Obama 's policies , particularly in regard to the nation 's covert and proxy wars .
In Libya , Syria , Somalia , Iraq , Afghanistan , and Yemen , U.S. allies still do most of the fighting while the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations `` kill or capture '' raids , training , and weapons for its proxies .
This strategy has resulted in massive casualties to combatants and civilians in those countries .
But it reduced domestically sensitive U.S. war deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to just thirty in 2015 and thirty-three in 2016 , compared with 560 at the peak of Obama 's escalation in Afghanistan in 2010 and 1,021 in 2007 at the peak of the Iraq War .
And while Trump has reduced U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan under a peace agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 8,600 U.S. troops there , slightly more than when he took office .
Trump has promised another reduction to less than 5,000 U.S. troops by November , which would amount to the smallest deployment in Afghanistan since 2001 .
But this would still be less than a full withdrawal , leaving the door open for yet another cycle of reinforcement and re-escalation .
Trump 's war on Afghanistan has relied heavily on bombing , with a record 7,423 bombs and missiles dropped in 2019 .
So far , the agreement with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , nor the United States ' support for the corrupt Afghan government .
The fact that Trump can wave around a piece of paper during his re-election campaign does not mean that the war is over .
As part of his bid to win another four years as commander-in-chief , Trump has bragged about how he crushed ISIS in Iraq and Syria ; but few Americans comprehend the level of U.S. brutality that this involved .
The U.S. military used almost 40,000 bombs and missiles , and thousands more artillery shells and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other ISIS-held areas in 2017 .
In 2015 , candidate Trump threatened to kill ISIS family members along with the fighters , saying , `` When you get these terrorists , you have to take out their families . ''
The Iraqi forces that captured the last ISIS refuge in Mosul 's Old City in 2017 massacred everyone left alive : men , women , and children .
According to Kurdish Iraqi intelligence reports , more than 40,000 civilians in Mosul were killed in the attack to retake the city .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has clinched with Saudi Arabia .
Both Obama and Trump sold the repressive Saudi dictatorship so many U.S. weapons that , for three years , the Saudis ' military spending exceeded every country in the world except the United States and China .
The Saudi-led coalition , which included the United Arab Emirates , used these weapons to carry out a catastrophic war in Yemen that has caused the world 's worst humanitarian disaster .
Impervious to the suffering of the Yemeni people , Trump has vetoed five bipartisan bills seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War Powers bills to end the U.S. role in the war and three bills to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
Meanwhile , Trump has continued to support Israel 's bombing of Gaza and planned annexation of its illegal settlements , with only limited autonomy for what is left of the Palestinian territories .
Now Trump has further sacrificed Palestine 's future in order to cement a dangerous anti-Iran military alliance between Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
Besides not ending any of the wars that he promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to starting even more catastrophic wars against North Korea , Iran , and Venezuela .
His devastating campaigns of unilateral economic sanctions target thirty-nine countries , affecting a third of humanity .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 's accusation that Europe is `` siding with the Ayatollahs '' in Iran is an admission that Trump 's policies of withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and imposing `` maximum pressure '' are isolating the United States as much as Iran .
But Trump 's disdain for international cooperation goes far beyond the Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States out of the Paris climate accord , the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , the Open Skies agreement , and three U.N. agencies : WHO , UNESCO , and the Human Rights Council .
Despite Democratic hawks smearing him as a Russian puppet , Trump has led the United States back into a Cold War with Russia and China that most Americans thought we had left behind a generation ago .
His National Security and Defense Strategy documents have unequivocally redefined Russia and China as enemies of the United States , courting major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years to come .
This is a startling departure from Obama 's 2015 National Security Strategy , which `` welcome [ d ] the rise of a stable , peaceful , and prosperous China '' and promised to `` keep the door open to greater collaboration with Russia in areas of common interests . ''
Although Obama set a new post-World War II record for U.S. military spending , at $ 5.67 trillion over eight years ( in 2020 dollars ) , Trump has used his Cold War with Russia and China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing ahead with Obama 's $ 1.2 trillion plan to `` modernize '' U.S. nuclear weapons .
Under the rising double danger of nuclear war and the climate crisis , The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in January advanced the hands of its Doomsday Clock to just 100 seconds to midnight , closer to self-destruction than ever .
And while he once blasted NATO as `` obsolete , '' Trump has switched to browbeating NATO countries to spend more money on their militaries .
To retaliate against pushback from German Chancellor Angela Merkel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Germany and repositioned 5,500 troops in Poland to `` enhance deterrence against Russia . ''
Trump has also ordered increasingly provocative U.S. naval patrols in the South China Sea and stationed 23,000 more U.S. troops in Japan , Guam , South Korea , and Australia .
He also sent 14,000 more U.S. troops to the Middle East in 2019 and ramped up drone strikes in Somalia and West Africa .
Behind the smoke and mirrors of Trump 's tweets and publicity stunts , he has doubled down on everything that was already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
As the November 3 election has drawn closer , Trump and Secretary Pompeo have stoked tensions at every flashpoint around the world , seeking to stir up the most jingoistic instincts in American voters .
Americans can disagree about whether Trump set out to escalate U.S. wars , sanctions , and brinkmanship , and to revive the old divisions of the Cold War , or whether he was duped into all this by the `` Deep State '' or the Military-Industrial Complex , or by Democratic opposition to his attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adversaries such as North Korea 's Kim Jong-un .
But the legacy of Donald Trump remains one of continued U.S. wars and aggression , backed by a bloated military budget .
The only positive aspect of Trump 's foreign policy legacy may be his unintended contribution to hastening the day when the sun finally sets on the U.S. empire .

In the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration invaded Iraq and tortured prisoners of war and terrorism suspects, in flagrantviolation of the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions. As a result, the United States lost standing among many of its traditional allies around the world.
President Barack Obama's global charm offensive brought friends and allies back to America's side, but his ten-fold increase in drone strikes to assassinate often innocent terrorism suspects, and his failure to reverse the ever-expanding violence and chaos of U.S. wars, overshadowed his efforts to restore America's international credibility, especially in the Global South.
Then came Donald Trump.
The 2016 election was a make-or-break moment in U.S. history. Would the United States build on the constructive elements in Obama's record, like the nuclear agreement with Iran and restored relations with Cuba? Or would it perpetuate catastrophic neocolonial wars justified as humanitarian interventions?
Trump campaigned on a platform of ending "endless wars," in contrast to his hawkish opponent, Hillary Clinton. A detailed study by Douglas L. Kriner of Cornell University and Francis X. Shen of the University of Minnesota Law School reached the stunning conclusion that support for Trump in counties with a high number of war casualties—especially in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—played a critical role in the elections.
Yet Trump, far from delivering the peace he promised, doubled down on the worst of Obama's policies, particularly in regard to the nation's covert and proxy wars. In Libya, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, U.S. allies still do most of the fighting while the U.S. military provides devastating air support, special operations "kill or capture" raids, training, and weapons for its proxies.
This strategy has resulted in massive casualties to combatants and civilians in those countries. But it reduced domestically sensitive U.S. war deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to just thirty in 2015 and thirty-three in 2016, compared with 560 at the peak of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan in 2010 and 1,021 in 2007 at the peak of the Iraq War.
And while Trump has reduced U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan under a peace agreement with the Taliban, there are still about 8,600 U.S. troops there, slightly more than when he took office. Trump has promised another reduction to less than 5,000 U.S. troops by November, which would amount to the smallest deployment in Afghanistan since 2001. But this would still be less than a full withdrawal, leaving the door open for yet another cycle of reinforcement and re-escalation.
Trump's war on Afghanistan has relied heavily on bombing, with a record 7,423 bombs and missiles dropped in 2019. So far, the agreement with the Taliban has not ended the U.S. air campaign, nor the United States' support for the corrupt Afghan government. The fact that Trump can wave around a piece of paper during his re-election campaign does not mean that the war is over.
As part of his bid to win another four years as commander-in-chief, Trump has bragged about how he crushed ISIS in Iraq and Syria; but few Americans comprehend the level of U.S. brutality that this involved. The U.S. military used almost 40,000 bombs and missiles, and thousands more artillery shells and rockets, to bombard Mosul, Raqqa, and other ISIS-held areas in 2017.
In 2015, candidate Trump threatened to kill ISIS family members along with the fighters, saying, "When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families." The Iraqi forces that captured the last ISIS refuge in Mosul's Old City in 2017 massacred everyone left alive: men, women, and children. According to Kurdish Iraqi intelligence reports, more than 40,000 civilians in Mosul were killed in the attack to retake the city.
Trump also brags about the weapons deals he has clinched with Saudi Arabia. Both Obama and Trump sold the repressive Saudi dictatorship so many U.S. weapons that, for three years, the Saudis' military spending exceeded every country in the world except the United States and China. The Saudi-led coalition, which included the United Arab Emirates, used these weapons to carry out a catastrophic war in Yemen that has caused the world's worst humanitarian disaster.
Impervious to the suffering of the Yemeni people, Trump has vetoed five bipartisan bills seeking to rein in this endless massacre: two War Powers bills to end the U.S. role in the war and three bills to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Meanwhile, Trump has continued to support Israel's bombing of Gaza and planned annexation of its illegal settlements, with only limited autonomy for what is left of the Palestinian territories. Now Trump has further sacrificed Palestine's future in order to cement a dangerous anti-Iran military alliance between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Besides not ending any of the wars that he promised to end, Trump has come dangerously close to starting even more catastrophic wars against North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. His devastating campaigns of unilateral economic sanctions target thirty-nine countries, affecting a third of humanity. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's accusation that Europe is "siding with the Ayatollahs" in Iran is an admission that Trump's policies of withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and imposing "maximum pressure" are isolating the United States as much as Iran.
But Trump's disdain for international cooperation goes far beyond the Iran deal. He has pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies agreement, and three U.N. agencies: WHO, UNESCO, and the Human Rights Council.
Despite Democratic hawks smearing him as a Russian puppet, Trump has led the United States back into a Cold War with Russia and China that most Americans thought we had left behind a generation ago. His National Security and Defense Strategy documents have unequivocally redefined Russia and China as enemies of the United States, courting major power confrontations and ensuring record military budgets for years to come.
This is a startling departure from Obama's 2015 National Security Strategy, which "welcome[d] the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China" and promised to "keep the door open to greater collaboration with Russia in areas of common interests."
Although Obama set a new post-World War II record for U.S. military spending, at $5.67 trillion over eight years (in 2020 dollars), Trump has used his Cold War with Russia and China to justify spending even more, including pushing ahead with Obama's $1.2 trillion plan to "modernize" U.S. nuclear weapons. Under the rising double danger of nuclear war and the climate crisis, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in January advanced the hands of its Doomsday Clock to just 100 seconds to midnight, closer to self-destruction than ever.
And while he once blasted NATO as "obsolete," Trump has switched to browbeating NATO countries to spend more money on their militaries. To retaliate against pushback from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he has withdrawn thousands of troops from Germany and repositioned 5,500 troops in Poland to "enhance deterrence against Russia."
Trump has also ordered increasingly provocative U.S. naval patrols in the South China Sea and stationed 23,000 more U.S. troops in Japan, Guam, South Korea, and Australia. He also sent 14,000 more U.S. troops to the Middle East in 2019 and ramped up drone strikes in Somalia and West Africa.
Behind the smoke and mirrors of Trump's tweets and publicity stunts, he has doubled down on everything that was already wrong with America's catastrophic militarist foreign policy. As the November 3 election has drawn closer, Trump and Secretary Pompeo have stoked tensions at every flashpoint around the world, seeking to stir up the most jingoistic instincts in American voters.
Americans can disagree about whether Trump set out to escalate U.S. wars, sanctions, and brinkmanship, and to revive the old divisions of the Cold War, or whether he was duped into all this by the "Deep State" or the Military-Industrial Complex, or by Democratic opposition to his attempts to scaleback troop deployments and reach out to adversaries such as North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
But the legacy of Donald Trump remains one of continued U.S. wars and aggression, backed by a bloated military budget. The only positive aspect of Trump's foreign policy legacy may be his unintended contribution to hastening the day when the sun finally sets on the U.S. empire.


alternet--2020-10-13--Here's the real reason Trump is running scared from another debate

One of the most memorable scenes in movie history is from The Wizard of Oz .
The wearied travelers have finally made it to the Emerald City .
They find themselves in the Inner Sanctum before Oz himself .
There , a gaseous phantasm is erupting before them , thundering , `` I am Oz , the Great and Powerful ! ''
The travelers are terrified , and cowed , and rightly so .
It is little Toto who proves the hero of the day , scampering across the floor and pulling back the curtain .
There , frantically working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Oz , '' not great and powerful but small and pitiful .
He manages to make the machine bellow one last time , `` Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ! ''
But the scam is blown .
The travelers can not unsee what they 've seen .
Nor , are they stupid .
The scene—in fact , the whole movie—is a cinematic adaptation of Plato 's Allegory of the Cave , one of the most important lessons in the history of philosophy .
In the Allegory , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wall .
On the wall dance shadows , created by motion and light somewhere behind the people but which they can not see .
Not knowing the source of the shadows , they imagine them to be reality .
Plato 's message is that `` reality '' is not what you imagine it to be , but something far more profound that you can not see , something creating illusions that you mistake for reality .
Look beyond sensations to understand what is actually bringing your illusions into being .
THAT is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we have witnessed the Wizard of Oz moment of the 2020 presidential election .
In his first debate performance , Donald Trump revealed himself to be a modern-day Wizard of Oz .
His whole presidency , his entire public persona , is a fraud , built on his furiously working the machinery of media to create the illusion of prowess , of success .
But the debate pulled back the curtain and , just as the travelers in the movie , we can not unsee what we have seen .
We 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump revealed himself to be the bully , the fraud , and the repellent human being he actually is .
A second-term election is rightly a referendum on the incumbent but Trump could n't debate his accomplishments for they are so devastatingly , unambiguously negative .
The worst pandemic in a century ( 200,000+ dead with almost 8 million infected ) when other countries made it a routine matter of public health management .
The worst economic collapse since the Great Depression , with the greatest collapse in GDP ( 32 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of people unemployed ( 56 million ) , the greatest runup in public debt ( $ 6.3 trillion ) , an explosion in the trade deficit .
The negative superlatives ( negerlatives ? )
go on ad nauseum .
Should we go on ?
The desecration of fundamental pillars of the state and society including the rule of law , separation of powers , checks and balances , the media as a mechanism for informing the people .
Pre-delegitimizing the sanctity of elections , indeed of democracy itself , as predicate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sabotaging the Post Office in a transparent attempt to impede the counting of mail-in ballots , heavily favored by Democratic voters .
Should we go on ?
The worst race relations in half a century .
Basic civility in public discourse defiled .
Rampant , unchecked lying about almost everything .
Nakedly succoring white supremacists and right-wing terrorists .
The denigration of relations with other countries and alliances ( think NATO ) .
America 's reputation as a reliable leader of the international community debauched .
Think the Paris Climate Accord and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
Trump was desperate to not have these `` accomplishments '' a matter of public debate .
So , he literally trashed the event itself , making himself so obnoxious that that became the walkaway .
But pull back the curtain of Trump being an asshole and we have the reality staring us in the face of Trump being a failure .
A colossally destructive failure .
That is the reality he desperately needed to prevent us from seeing .
He was equally desperate to not have exposed his ideas for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , his intended future is so anathema to the public will .
He was desperate to not have on the record that he is doing all he possibly can—including litigating it at the Supreme Court right now—to destroy the Affordable Care Act with its protections of pre-existing conditions .
If he is successful , 20 million people will lose their insurance .
In the middle of a pandemic , with almost 8 million people already infected , that is almost suicidal .
Yet , that is Trump 's position .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett 's opposition to Roe v. Wade made explicit as it so violates most Americans'—certainly , women's—preferences that the government not control a woman 's body .
Hemorrhaging support from women , as he now is , that , too would be catastrophic to his chances for re-election .
Underwater with seniors ( a remarkable reversal from 2016 ) , he could n't survive a discussion of his stated plans to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare .
His suspension of the payroll withholding tax does exactly that and Trump has stated publicly that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent .
Not how you win back seniors .
Since the first debate , two more events have helped pull back the curtain , exposing the `` wizard '' for the fraud that he is .
The New York Times revealed that in 10 of the past 15 years , Trump paid no federal income tax .
He is either not the successful business mogul that he 's long pretended to be or he 's a massive tax cheat .
Those are the only possible interpretations , although both could be true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is built—wizard-like—on the illusion that he is a billionaire , a successful real estate developer , a savvy businessman , a cunning deal maker .
To be sure , he played a billionaire on TV but the Times ' revelations show him to be a massive loser , a catastrophically failed businessman , deeply in debt , a serial tax cheat .
Everything the persona is not .
And who , by the way , does Trump owe those hundreds of millions of dollars to , and what favors are they receiving in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those are legitimate questions that the public has a right to know answers to .
Given his perplexing subservience to the likes of Putin and Erdogan , the suspected answers are disquieting .
You would think he would want to dispel doubts .
If he could .
Would n't he ?
The second post-first-debate revelation that proves Trump to be the fraud that he is , is the fact of his contracting coronavirus .
The whole of his shtick on the virus was that it was a hoax , that it was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go away when the weather got warm , and disappear , `` like a miracle , '' that masks were for pansies and wimps .
All of that is blown to smithereens .
Trump has the greatest protective resources in the world at his disposal but he still could not protect his own family—his own wife—from the virus .
How can he possibly protect the American people ?
What can he say ?
Of course , this detonation was actually begun by the Woodward tapes showing Trump knew in January exactly how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet repeatedly , relentlessly lied about it .
A more sinister , homicidal betrayal of the American people and the public trust could not be contrived .
Indeed , since we now know that Trump knew in great detail how deadly the virus was , yet lied repeatedly about it , preventing a successful public response , it is plausible to conjecture whether he might not be the most successful bio-terrorist in history .
Who else could possibly challenge him ?
These are the real reasons Trump fled a second debate .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have no problem defending it .
If his plans were inspiring , he would jump at the chance of extolling them .
If his personal situation was exemplary , he would be the first to have it bared to the public .
Would n't he ?
But he stands exposed before the American people like the little fraud from the movie , bellowing pathetically , `` Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ?
It 's all fake news ! ''
But , just like the `` wizard '' in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the curtain is the real Donald Trump .
A fraud and a failure .
The saving grace in The Wizard of Oz is that the travelers finally discovered the truth .
Until the curtain was pulled back , they were destined to live , bewildered , in a world of fantasy .
It 's the same with the denizens in Plato 's cave .
Until they can see and understand the source of the shadows dancing on the wall of the cave they are destined to live in illusion , which in Plato @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is suffering .
It is the same with this election .
We 've now seen the curtain pulled back on Trump , exposing his deceit , his venality , his corruption , his phoniness , his vacuity , his pettiness , and his immaturity .
He desperately needs to avoid another withering exposure that another debate would cement .
That is why , true to the coward that he is , he 's hiding from it .
For Dorothy , her escape from fantasy came with the intonation , `` There 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no place like home . ''
For us , the intonation is `` There 's no escape but voting .
There 's no escape but voting . ''
And it 's just as true .
Fortunately , for us there are no ruby slippers required .
Robert Freeman is the author of The Best One Hour History series which includes World War I , The InterWar Years , The Cold War , and other titles .
He is the founder of The Global Uplift Project which builds small-scale infrastructure projects in the developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-development .

One of the most memorable scenes in movie history is from The Wizard of Oz. The wearied travelers have finally made it to the Emerald City. They find themselves in the Inner Sanctum before Oz himself.
There, a gaseous phantasm is erupting before them, thundering, "I am Oz, the Great and Powerful!" The travelers are terrified, and cowed, and rightly so. It is little Toto who proves the hero of the day, scampering across the floor and pulling back the curtain.
There, frantically working the machinery of his illusion, is "Oz," not great and powerful but small and pitiful. He manages to make the machine bellow one last time, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" But the scam is blown. The travelers cannot unsee what they've seen. Nor, are they stupid.
The scene—in fact, the whole movie—is a cinematic adaptation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, one of the most important lessons in the history of philosophy.
In the Allegory, people sit chained in a cave, facing a wall. On the wall dance shadows, created by motion and light somewhere behind the people but which they cannot see. Not knowing the source of the shadows, they imagine them to be reality.
Plato's message is that "reality" is not what you imagine it to be, but something far more profound that you cannot see, something creating illusions that you mistake for reality. Look beyond sensations to understand what is actually bringing your illusions into being. THAT is reality.
In the past two weeks, we have witnessed the Wizard of Oz moment of the 2020 presidential election.
In his first debate performance, Donald Trump revealed himself to be a modern-day Wizard of Oz. His whole presidency, his entire public persona, is a fraud, built on his furiously working the machinery of media to create the illusion of prowess, of success. But the debate pulled back the curtain and, just as the travelers in the movie, we cannot unsee what we have seen. We're not that stupid.
In the debate, Trump revealed himself to be the bully, the fraud, and the repellent human being he actually is. A second-term election is rightly a referendum on the incumbent but Trump couldn't debate his accomplishments for they are so devastatingly, unambiguously negative.
The worst pandemic in a century (200,000+ dead with almost 8 million infected) when other countries made it a routine matter of public health management. The worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, with the greatest collapse in GDP (32% annualized in Q2), the highest number of people unemployed (56 million), the greatest runup in public debt ($6.3 trillion), an explosion in the trade deficit.
The negative superlatives (negerlatives?) go on ad nauseum. Should we go on?
The desecration of fundamental pillars of the state and society including the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, the media as a mechanism for informing the people. Pre-delegitimizing the sanctity of elections, indeed of democracy itself, as predicate for denouncing his imminent, humiliating defeat. Sabotaging the Post Office in a transparent attempt to impede the counting of mail-in ballots, heavily favored by Democratic voters. Should we go on?
The worst race relations in half a century. Basic civility in public discourse defiled. Rampant, unchecked lying about almost everything. Nakedly succoring white supremacists and right-wing terrorists. The denigration of relations with other countries and alliances (think NATO). America's reputation as a reliable leader of the international community debauched. Think the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. We could go on.
Trump was desperate to not have these "accomplishments" a matter of public debate. So, he literally trashed the event itself, making himself so obnoxious that that became the walkaway. But pull back the curtain of Trump being an asshole and we have the reality staring us in the face of Trump being a failure. A colossally destructive failure. That is the reality he desperately needed to prevent us from seeing.
He was equally desperate to not have exposed his ideas for a second term because, just like his past, his intended future is so anathema to the public will.
He was desperate to not have on the record that he is doing all he possibly can—including litigating it at the Supreme Court right now—to destroy the Affordable Care Act with its protections of pre-existing conditions. If he is successful, 20 million people will lose their insurance. In the middle of a pandemic, with almost 8 million people already infected, that is almost suicidal. Yet, that is Trump's position.
He was equally desperate to not have Amy Coney Barrett's opposition to Roe v. Wade made explicit as it so violates most Americans'—certainly, women's—preferences that the government not control a woman's body. Hemorrhaging support from women, as he now is, that, too would be catastrophic to his chances for re-election.
Underwater with seniors (a remarkable reversal from 2016), he couldn't survive a discussion of his stated plans to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare. His suspension of the payroll withholding tax does exactly that and Trump has stated publicly that if re-elected he would make the suspension permanent. Not how you win back seniors.
Since the first debate, two more events have helped pull back the curtain, exposing the "wizard" for the fraud that he is.
The New York Times revealed that in 10 of the past 15 years, Trump paid no federal income tax. He is either not the successful business mogul that he's long pretended to be or he's a massive tax cheat. Those are the only possible interpretations, although both could be true.
The whole of Trump's public persona is built—wizard-like—on the illusion that he is a billionaire, a successful real estate developer, a savvy businessman, a cunning deal maker. To be sure, he played a billionaire on TV but the Times' revelations show him to be a massive loser, a catastrophically failed businessman, deeply in debt, a serial tax cheat. Everything the persona is not.
And who, by the way, does Trump owe those hundreds of millions of dollars to, and what favors are they receiving in return for not foreclosing on him? Those are legitimate questions that the public has a right to know answers to. Given his perplexing subservience to the likes of Putin and Erdogan, the suspected answers are disquieting. You would think he would want to dispel doubts. If he could. Wouldn't he?
The second post-first-debate revelation that proves Trump to be the fraud that he is, is the fact of his contracting coronavirus. The whole of his shtick on the virus was that it was a hoax, that it was no worse than the flu, that it would go away when the weather got warm, and disappear, "like a miracle," that masks were for pansies and wimps.
All of that is blown to smithereens. Trump has the greatest protective resources in the world at his disposal but he still could not protect his own family—his own wife—from the virus. How can he possibly protect the American people? What can he say?
Of course, this detonation was actually begun by the Woodward tapes showing Trump knew in January exactly how deadly and transmissible the virus was, yet repeatedly, relentlessly lied about it. A more sinister, homicidal betrayal of the American people and the public trust could not be contrived.
Indeed, since we now know that Trump knew in great detail how deadly the virus was, yet lied repeatedly about it, preventing a successful public response, it is plausible to conjecture whether he might not be the most successful bio-terrorist in history. Who else could possibly challenge him?
These are the real reasons Trump fled a second debate. If his track record was good, he would have no problem defending it. If his plans were inspiring, he would jump at the chance of extolling them. If his personal situation was exemplary, he would be the first to have it bared to the public. Wouldn't he?
But he stands exposed before the American people like the little fraud from the movie, bellowing pathetically, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain? It's all fake news!" But, just like the "wizard" in the movie, that little man behind the curtain is the real Donald Trump. A fraud and a failure.
The saving grace in The Wizard of Oz is that the travelers finally discovered the truth. Until the curtain was pulled back, they were destined to live, bewildered, in a world of fantasy. It's the same with the denizens in Plato's cave. Until they can see and understand the source of the shadows dancing on the wall of the cave they are destined to live in illusion, which in Plato's world, as in our own, is suffering.
It is the same with this election.
We've now seen the curtain pulled back on Trump, exposing his deceit, his venality, his corruption, his phoniness, his vacuity, his pettiness, and his immaturity. He desperately needs to avoid another withering exposure that another debate would cement. That is why, true to the coward that he is, he's hiding from it.
For Dorothy, her escape from fantasy came with the intonation, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home." For us, the intonation is "There's no escape but voting. There's no escape but voting." And it's just as true. Fortunately, for us there are no ruby slippers required.
Robert Freeman is the author of The Best One Hour History series which includes World War I, The InterWar Years, The Cold War, and other titles. He is the founder of The Global Uplift Project which builds small-scale infrastructure projects in the developing world to improve humanity's capacity for self-development.


alternet--2020-10-13--Trump demands Puerto Rico vote for him. There’s just one glaring problem

At his rally at Orlando Sanford International Airport on Monday , President Donald Trump devoted part of his speech to @ @ @ @ @ has been a terrific president for the island and demanding that its people vote for @ @ @ @ @ 's only one problem with Trump 's demand : Puerto Ricans can not vote for @ @ @ @ @ is not a state .
While the GOP 's official platform includes statehood for Puerto @ @ @ @ @ broadly opposed granting it , out of fear that Democrats would dominate its congressional representation @ @ @ @ @ Rico has no say in either the Electoral College or Congress has empowered the president @ @ @ @ @ He was roundly criticized for a slow and insufficient response to hurricane devastation in Puerto @ @ @ @ @ asked his officials to look into whether he could trade the `` dirty '' and @ @ @ @ @ Denmark in exchange for Greenland .

At his rally at Orlando Sanford International Airport on Monday, President Donald Trump devoted part of his speech to Puerto Rico — proclaiming he has been a terrific president for the island and demanding that its people vote for him for president.
There's only one problem with Trump's demand: Puerto Ricans cannot vote for Trump, because Puerto Rico is not a state.
While the GOP's official platform includes statehood for Puerto Rico, party leaders have broadly opposed granting it, out of fear that Democrats would dominate its congressional representation.
The fact that Puerto Rico has no say in either the Electoral College or Congress has empowered the president to ignore the island. He was roundly criticized for a slow and insufficient response to hurricane devastation in Puerto Rico, and once even asked his officials to look into whether he could trade the "dirty" and "poor" island to Denmark in exchange for Greenland.


alternet--2020-10-14--Justice Sotomayor warns of 'irreparable harm' as the Supreme Court cuts the census short

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the sole dissenter on Tuesday when the Supreme Court decided to allow the Trump administration to cut short the census , which a lower court had ordered must continue until Oct. 31 .
Under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , the Census Bureau had initially extended its deadline for completing the census — a count of the people in the United States crucial for determining the distribution of funds , services , and electoral representatives — until the end of October because of disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
The census had already been a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood accused of using a citizenship question ( since removed ) to discourage minority residents from responding to the survey .
But after deciding to extend the census , officials abruptly reversed themselves and cut the count short , hoping to end it by the last day of September .
A group of various individual an entities who fear they would be harmed by this change challenged the decision legally , and eventually the Commerce Department was ordered by the courts to continue the count .
But now , the Supreme Court his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop counting in a brief , unsigned declaration offering no explanation for its decision .
Only Sotomayor objected , writing a detailed dissent explaining why she though the majority 's decision is wrong .
`` I would deny a stay of that injunction , '' she wrote .
'The Government fails to demonstrate that the injunction is likely to cause it irreparable harm .
Regardless of the merits of respondents ' claims , this failure , alone , requires denying the requested stay . ''
The only reason the administration claimed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said , is that it is required to turn over the results of the census to the president by the end of the year , according to the statute .
But , Sotomayor pointed out , officials have already said that it is `` impossible '' for the Census Bureau to turn over the results of the count by the Dec. 31 deadline regardless of whether they stop now .
And they have an alternative : The administration can ask Congress to simply extend the deadline , which officials had already begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department decided to cut the census short .
They also could direct more resources toward speeding up the analysis of the census data , Sotomayor said , but the department does not appear to have considered this option .
So while the harms the administration says it will suffer seem dubious , Sotomayor said the harms suffered by people impacted by an undercount could be significant .
`` In contrast to the Government 's unsupported claims of irreparable harm , respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found , and the Ninth Circuit credited , ' [ a ] n inaccurate count would affect the distribution of federal and state funding , the deployment of services , and the allocation of local resources , '' she wrote .
She also noted that the administration has claimed it has already counted 99 percent of people .
`` But even a fraction of a percent of the Nation 's 140 million households amounts to hundreds of thousands of people left uncounted , '' she explained .
`` And significantly , the percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marginalized populations and in hard-to-count areas , such as rural and tribal lands . ''
She also noted that in 2010 , the Census continued its count for a full month after already reaching the 99 percent threshold .
`` The harms caused by rushing this year 's census count are irreparable .
And respondents will suffer their lasting impact for at least the next 10 years , '' Sotomayor concluded .

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the sole dissenter on Tuesday when the Supreme Court decided to allow the Trump administration to cut short the census, which a lower court had ordered must continue until Oct. 31.
Under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Census Bureau had initially extended its deadline for completing the census — a count of the people in the United States crucial for determining the distribution of funds, services, and electoral representatives — until the end of October because of disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The census had already been a major point of political controversy, as Republicans stood accused of using a citizenship question (since removed) to discourage minority residents from responding to the survey. But after deciding to extend the census, officials abruptly reversed themselves and cut the count short, hoping to end it by the last day of September.
A group of various individual an entities who fear they would be harmed by this change challenged the decision legally, and eventually the Commerce Department was ordered by the courts to continue the count. But now, the Supreme Court his stayed that order, permitting the administration to stop counting in a brief, unsigned declaration offering no explanation for its decision.
Only Sotomayor objected, writing a detailed dissent explaining why she though the majority's decision is wrong.
"I would deny a stay of that injunction," she wrote. 'The Government fails to demonstrate that the injunction is likely to cause it irreparable harm. Regardless of the merits of respondents' claims, this failure, alone, requires denying the requested stay."
The only reason the administration claimed it needed to end the count early, she said, is that it is required to turn over the results of the census to the president by the end of the year, according to the statute.
But, Sotomayor pointed out, officials have already said that it is "impossible" for the Census Bureau to turn over the results of the count by the Dec. 31 deadline regardless of whether they stop now. And they have an alternative: The administration can ask Congress to simply extend the deadline, which officials had already begun to do by the time the Commerce Department decided to cut the census short. They also could direct more resources toward speeding up the analysis of the census data, Sotomayor said, but the department does not appear to have considered this option.
So while the harms the administration says it will suffer seem dubious, Sotomayor said the harms suffered by people impacted by an undercount could be significant.
"In contrast to the Government's unsupported claims of irreparable harm, respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency. As the District Court found, and the Ninth Circuit credited, '[a]n inaccurate count would affect the distribution of federal and state funding, the deployment of services, and the allocation of local resources," she wrote.
She also noted that the administration has claimed it has already counted 99 percent of people.
"But even a fraction of a percent of the Nation's 140 million households amounts to hundreds of thousands of people left uncounted," she explained. "And significantly, the percentage of nonresponses is likely much higher among marginalized populations and in hard-to-count areas, such as rural and tribal lands."
She also noted that in 2010, the Census continued its count for a full month after already reaching the 99 percent threshold.
"The harms caused by rushing this year's census count are irreparable. And respondents will suffer their lasting impact for at least the next 10 years," Sotomayor concluded.


alternet--2020-10-13--How Indian Prime Minister Modi Is helping imperialists dominate the country's agriculture

This article was produced by Globetrotter .
The two bills rushed through India 's parliament on September 20 were objectionable in every conceivable sense .
The very fact that they were being rammed through the Rajya Sabha , without being put to vote despite demands for a division , was grossly anti-democratic .
The fact that the Center made unilateral and fundamental changes in agricultural marketing arrangements that fall within the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution was a blow against federalism .
To resurrect the pre-independence arrangement under which the peasantry was exposed to the capitalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and which crushed it during the Great Depression of the 1930s , was a betrayal of the promise of independence .
To pit millions of small peasants against the might of a handful of private buyers , as the bills propose to do , is to open them up to monopsonistic exploitation , meaning exploitation by a single or a few buyers .
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi , of course , has been claiming that the state is not leaving peasants at the mercy of the monopsonists and that the government-guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue .
But the bills contain nothing on this ; and the government refuses to incorporate into law , which testifies to its bad faith , the right of the peasantry to get a minimum support price in accordance with the Swaminathan Commission recommendation that puts the MSP at Cost C2 plus 50 percent .
The peasants in short are being thrown , as under colonialism , to the mercies of a market where price fluctuations have a notoriously high amplitude ; and they are rightly putting up a fight against their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this entire debate , however , an important dimension has been missed .
The debate has been entirely about the condition of the peasantry .
But one must also take into account the question of food security , which immediately brings imperialism into the picture .
Imperialism has long been attempting to push countries like India to become food-import-dependent and to divert their land area currently devoted to food grains toward other crops that imperialist countries can not grow , as these can be grown only in tropical and semitropical regions .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tropical and semitropical countries would have to abandon food security .
Food security in a country like India requires self-sufficiency in food production .
Food imports are no substitute for domestic food production for several reasons .
First , whenever a country the size of India approaches the world market for food grain imports the world prices shoot up , making imports exorbitantly priced .
Secondly , quite apart from the fact that the country may not have sufficient foreign exchange to pay for such import , there is also the additional fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchasing power to buy food imported at such exorbitant prices .
Third , since food surpluses exist with the imperialist countries , even buying food at such exorbitant prices requires the blessings of imperialism .
In fact , denying food to a country at a crucial juncture is a powerful lever in the hands of imperialism to browbeat countries to kowtow to its demands .
All this is not an abstract matter .
India was a food grain importer under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 or the PL-480 from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When there were two disastrous harvests in 1965-66 and 1966-67 , and Bihar in particular faced famine conditions , India was forced to become a virtual supplicant before the United States for food imports .
It became a case literally of carrying food from ships to kitchens .
That is when former Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi asked Jagjivan Ram , the then food minister , to expedite the drive toward food self-sufficiency , and the Green Revolution was ushered in .
The country is still far from being self-sufficient in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequate food .
But at least it is no longer import-dependent ; on the contrary , so drastic is the squeeze on purchasing power in the hands of the people that it has been making regular and substantial exports every year despite India 's people being among the hungriest in the world .
Africa by contrast was cajoled by imperialism into abandoning domestic food grain production and shifting areas toward export crops .
The consequences in terms of recurring famines in Africa in the recent period are too well-known to need repetition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of MSP , procurement prices , issue prices , procurement operations carried out in the mandis ( agricultural markets ) , a public distribution system , and food subsidies has been devised that seeks to ensure that the interests of the producers and the consumers are reconciled and the country grows enough food to obviate any need for imports .
This mechanism is fundamentally antithetical to neoliberalism ; not surprisingly it has been getting whittled at the margin , through for instance the distinction introduced in the mid-1990s between the above poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line ( BPL ) populations , with only the latter being eligible for subsidized food grains .
Even so , it has prevented the country 's becoming a mendicant for food in the world economy .
Imperialism has made strenuous efforts to dismantle this arrangement , the most obvious being the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization negotiations during which the United States has been arguing that India 's procurement operations at a preannounced price are against the principles of free trade and should be wound up .
No government in India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gullible as to cave in to this imperialist pressure , because of which the Doha Round has been stalled .
Now , alas , India has for the first time a government that is either too scared or too ignorant to stand up to imperialism on this issue .
In the name of `` modernizing agricultural markets '' `` 21st-century technology '' and the like , India is going back to the colonial days when per capita food grain output was declining even as land was being diverted toward export crops .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
True , the immediate beneficiaries of the new agricultural marketing policy will be business tycoons like the Ambanis and the Adanis , but they will be entering into contract farming arrangements not so much for food grains as for fruits , vegetables , flowers , and a range of other crops that they will not only sell in the domestic market but also process for exports .
An essential corollary of contract farming by private monopsonists is a shift of acreage from food grains to non-food grains , exactly as had happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of export crops like opium and indigo had come up in lieu of food grains in the Bengal Presidency .
And the exploitation of peasants by indigo merchants , famously captured in Dinabandhu Mitra 's 19th-century play `` Nil Darpan , '' is exactly what the peasantry today is apprehensive about and wishes to avoid .
What has been striking about the agricultural arrangement till now is that while looking after ( however inadequately ) the interests of the peasants , it has prevented the large-scale diversion of land use toward non-food grains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that arrangement will not only hurt the peasantry but also lead to a diversion of area from food grains to non-food grains and export crops , thereby undermining the country 's food security .
The matter indeed is simple .
Since land is a scarce resource , land use must be socially controlled .
It can not be dictated by considerations of private profitability .
True , since land is in the possession of the peasants , they have to be looked after even while land use is being socially controlled .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remunerative price even as land use is being socially controlled .
This is what the existing arrangement tried to achieve , which the present government wants to destroy ; whatever failings it had , it needed to be rectified within the ambit of that arrangement itself .
Destroying that arrangement without even being aware of the need to have social control over land use is precisely the kind of folly that one associates with India 's current Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) government .
Imperialism would like such destruction ; and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only region in the entire non-socialist third world that has shown an acute awareness of the need to have social control over land use , since land is a scarce resource , is Kerala , which has enacted a legislation against the diversion of paddy land for other purposes .
That legislation showed perspicacity ; the BJP government 's agriculture bills show just the opposite .
Prabhat Patnaik is an Indian political economist and political commentator .

by Prabhat Patnaik
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
The two bills rushed through India's parliament on September 20 were objectionable in every conceivable sense. The very fact that they were being rammed through the Rajya Sabha, without being put to vote despite demands for a division, was grossly anti-democratic. The fact that the Center made unilateral and fundamental changes in agricultural marketing arrangements that fall within the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution was a blow against federalism. To resurrect the pre-independence arrangement under which the peasantry was exposed to the capitalist market without any support of the state, and which crushed it during the Great Depression of the 1930s, was a betrayal of the promise of independence. To pit millions of small peasants against the might of a handful of private buyers, as the bills propose to do, is to open them up to monopsonistic exploitation, meaning exploitation by a single or a few buyers.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, of course, has been claiming that the state is not leaving peasants at the mercy of the monopsonists and that the government-guaranteed minimum support price (MSP) regime will continue. But the bills contain nothing on this; and the government refuses to incorporate into law, which testifies to its bad faith, the right of the peasantry to get a minimum support price in accordance with the Swaminathan Commission recommendation that puts the MSP at Cost C2 plus 50 percent. The peasants in short are being thrown, as under colonialism, to the mercies of a market where price fluctuations have a notoriously high amplitude; and they are rightly putting up a fight against their descent into debt and destitution.
In this entire debate, however, an important dimension has been missed. The debate has been entirely about the condition of the peasantry. But one must also take into account the question of food security, which immediately brings imperialism into the picture.
Imperialism has long been attempting to push countries like India to become food-import-dependent and to divert their land area currently devoted to food grains toward other crops that imperialist countries cannot grow, as these can be grown only in tropical and semitropical regions. This, however, would mean that the tropical and semitropical countries would have to abandon food security.
Food security in a country like India requires self-sufficiency in food production. Food imports are no substitute for domestic food production for several reasons. First, whenever a country the size of India approaches the world market for food grain imports the world prices shoot up, making imports exorbitantly priced. Secondly, quite apart from the fact that the country may not have sufficient foreign exchange to pay for such import, there is also the additional fact that the people may not have enough purchasing power to buy food imported at such exorbitant prices. Third, since food surpluses exist with the imperialist countries, even buying food at such exorbitant prices requires the blessings of imperialism. In fact, denying food to a country at a crucial juncture is a powerful lever in the hands of imperialism to browbeat countries to kowtow to its demands.
All this is not an abstract matter. India was a food grain importer under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 or the PL-480 from the latter half of the 1950s. When there were two disastrous harvests in 1965-66 and 1966-67, and Bihar in particular faced famine conditions, India was forced to become a virtual supplicant before the United States for food imports. It became a case literally of carrying food from ships to kitchens. That is when former Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi asked Jagjivan Ram, the then food minister, to expedite the drive toward food self-sufficiency, and the Green Revolution was ushered in. The country is still far from being self-sufficient in the sense of growing enough to provide everyone adequate food. But at least it is no longer import-dependent; on the contrary, so drastic is the squeeze on purchasing power in the hands of the people that it has been making regular and substantial exports every year despite India's people being among the hungriest in the world.
Africa by contrast was cajoled by imperialism into abandoning domestic food grain production and shifting areas toward export crops. The consequences in terms of recurring famines in Africa in the recent period are too well-known to need repetition.
After 1966-67, an elaborate arrangement in terms of MSP, procurement prices, issue prices, procurement operations carried out in the mandis (agricultural markets), a public distribution system, and food subsidies has been devised that seeks to ensure that the interests of the producers and the consumers are reconciled and the country grows enough food to obviate any need for imports. This mechanism is fundamentally antithetical to neoliberalism; not surprisingly it has been getting whittled at the margin, through for instance the distinction introduced in the mid-1990s between the above poverty line (APL) and below poverty line (BPL) populations, with only the latter being eligible for subsidized food grains. Even so, it has prevented the country's becoming a mendicant for food in the world economy.
Imperialism has made strenuous efforts to dismantle this arrangement, the most obvious being the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization negotiations during which the United States has been arguing that India's procurement operations at a preannounced price are against the principles of free trade and should be wound up. No government in India until now was so timid or so gullible as to cave in to this imperialist pressure, because of which the Doha Round has been stalled. Now, alas, India has for the first time a government that is either too scared or too ignorant to stand up to imperialism on this issue. In the name of "modernizing agricultural markets" "21st-century technology" and the like, India is going back to the colonial days when per capita food grain output was declining even as land was being diverted toward export crops. It is in reality pushing the imperialist agenda.
True, the immediate beneficiaries of the new agricultural marketing policy will be business tycoons like the Ambanis and the Adanis, but they will be entering into contract farming arrangements not so much for food grains as for fruits, vegetables, flowers, and a range of other crops that they will not only sell in the domestic market but also process for exports. An essential corollary of contract farming by private monopsonists is a shift of acreage from food grains to non-food grains, exactly as had happened in the colonial period when a host of export crops like opium and indigo had come up in lieu of food grains in the Bengal Presidency. And the exploitation of peasants by indigo merchants, famously captured in Dinabandhu Mitra's 19th-century play "Nil Darpan," is exactly what the peasantry today is apprehensive about and wishes to avoid.
What has been striking about the agricultural arrangement till now is that while looking after (however inadequately) the interests of the peasants, it has prevented the large-scale diversion of land use toward non-food grains and export crops. The dismantling of that arrangement will not only hurt the peasantry but also lead to a diversion of area from food grains to non-food grains and export crops, thereby undermining the country's food security.
The matter indeed is simple. Since land is a scarce resource, land use must be socially controlled. It cannot be dictated by considerations of private profitability. True, since land is in the possession of the peasants, they have to be looked after even while land use is being socially controlled. They must, in short, get a remunerative price even as land use is being socially controlled. This is what the existing arrangement tried to achieve, which the present government wants to destroy; whatever failings it had, it needed to be rectified within the ambit of that arrangement itself. Destroying that arrangement without even being aware of the need to have social control over land use is precisely the kind of folly that one associates with India's current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Imperialism would like such destruction; and the BJP government is happily obliging.
The only region in the entire non-socialist third world that has shown an acute awareness of the need to have social control over land use, since land is a scarce resource, is Kerala, which has enacted a legislation against the diversion of paddy land for other purposes. That legislation showed perspicacity; the BJP government's agriculture bills show just the opposite.
Prabhat Patnaik is an Indian political economist and political commentator.


alternet--2020-10-13--Ro Khanna urges Democrats to strike COVID relief deal with White House: 'People are suffering'

Still alone among progressive members of Congress in publicly urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to run with the Trump White House 's $ 1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer , Rep. Ro Khanna said Monday that Democratic lawmakers have a `` moral obligation '' to pursue a deal to provide additional aid to individuals and families facing a deadly pandemic , mass layoffs , a growing hunger crisis , and a looming wave of evictions .
While Khanna is thus far the only progressive member of Congress to speak out in support of accepting most of what 's in the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus payments that for many families would be bigger than the previous round , a $ 400-per-week federal boost in unemployment insurance , and $ 300 billion to state and local governments—the California Democrat told Roll Call Monday that a number of his fellow Democrats have expressed a similar position in private .
`` Quite a few members feel this way , '' Khanna said , telling Roll Call that at least 10 of his progressive colleagues share his position on the $ 1.8 trillion stimulus proposal , which the White House put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jumpstart negotiations that have been stalled for months and were briefly called off by President Donald Trump last week .
`` Now I do n't know how many of them will be vocal , but members are hearing in their districts that people are suffering , '' said Khanna , the first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
`` We have a moral obligation to do something .
We are the party that stands for the working poor . ''
Acknowledging the important disagreements between the White House and Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relief negotiations—such as funding for coronavirus testing—Khanna said he believes they can be resolved .
Democratic leaders have demanded $ 75 billion for coronavirus testing but , thus far , the White House has only been willing to offer around $ 45 billion in new funds .
`` I think we can get the $ 30 billion and we should signal if the administration meets us at $ 75 billion ... and they have a national testing plan , then we have a deal , '' said Khanna .
The dire consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next month 's election have been on display in recent weeks as the nation 's economic crisis has continued to wreak havoc , permanently eliminating jobs and prompting warnings of a prolonged recession if another stimulus package is not forthcoming .
According to the Main Street Alliance , more than a third of U.S. small businesses are at risk of permanent closure by the end of the year if another relief bill is n't approved .
As HuffPost 's Zach Carter wrote Monday , the `` economic rationale '' for accepting the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House is `` straightforward . ''
`` According to the most recent weekly data , 840,000 people are losing their jobs every week , '' Carter noted .
`` Prior to the pandemic , the previous all-time weekly high was 695,000 .
Job growth picked up in June as states began reopening their economies , but that growth has slowed every month .
At the moment , growth is stalled out and the unemployment rate is 7.9 % . ''
`` The dispute over the stimulus in Democratic circles has not been about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of addressing it , '' Carter continued .
`` Passing a stimulus bill , critics argue , would hand Trump a much-needed legislative win heading into the November election . ''
But , as Common Dreams reported Monday , some progressives and Democratic commentators have countered that reaching a relief compromise with the White House and putting the onus on Senate Republicans could come with a substantial political upside for Democrats .
If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and his Republican colleagues reject the deal—as they 've indicated they would—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating fallout that could result from denying crucial economic aid to people and cash-strapped state and local governments .
If Republicans agree to pass the $ 1.8 trillion compromise bill without any sneaky poison pills , countless out-of-work Americans , hungry families , and frontline workers would receive help they desperately need to make ends meet .
As Carter put it , `` Heads , working people win ; tails , Republicans lose .
Pelosi should take the deal . ''
Matt Bruenig , founder of the People 's Policy Project , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Ro is right about this . ''
`` If there is a White House approved proposal for $ 1.8T , then the House should pass it .
Worst case scenario is it dies in the Senate , but possible it could pass with Trump 's support .
No downside , possible upside . ''
In an interview on MSNBC Tuesday morning , House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-Md . )
sounded a note of optimism when discussing the prospects of another coronavirus relief deal before next month 's election , pointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's four previous bipartisan agreements .
`` We ought to be able to make a fifth if the president would stay on target and have a single message , '' said Hoyer .
But Pelosi—whose chamber has passed two ambitious relief bills that Senate Republicans have refused to even consider—has shown no indication of backing away from her opposition to the Trump administration 's $ 1.8 trillion offer , which she denounced as riddled with `` deficiencies '' in a Dear Colleague letter on Tuesday .
`` A fly on the wall or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oval Office tells me that the president only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up , '' Pelosi said .
`` I remain hopeful that the White House will finally join us to recognize the needs of the American people , and take action to address the health and economic crisis in their lives . ''
On a House Democratic caucus call Tuesday , there was `` no pushback '' against Pelosi 's strategy of rejecting the White House 's $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post 's Jeff Stein .

Still alone among progressive members of Congress in publicly urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to run with the Trump White House's $1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer, Rep. Ro Khanna said Monday that Democratic lawmakers have a "moral obligation" to pursue a deal to provide additional aid to individuals and families facing a deadly pandemic, mass layoffs, a growing hunger crisis, and a looming wave of evictions.
While Khanna is thus far the only progressive member of Congress to speak out in support of accepting most of what's in the $1.8 trillion White House proposal—which includes one-time stimulus payments that for many families would be bigger than the previous round, a $400-per-week federal boost in unemployment insurance, and $300 billion to state and local governments—the California Democrat told Roll Call Monday that a number of his fellow Democrats have expressed a similar position in private.
"Quite a few members feel this way," Khanna said, telling Roll Call that at least 10 of his progressive colleagues share his position on the $1.8 trillion stimulus proposal, which the White House put forth on Friday in the latest bid to jumpstart negotiations that have been stalled for months and were briefly called off by President Donald Trump last week.
"Now I don't know how many of them will be vocal, but members are hearing in their districts that people are suffering," said Khanna, the first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "We have a moral obligation to do something. We are the party that stands for the working poor."
Acknowledging the important disagreements between the White House and Democratic leaders on key issues at hand in the relief negotiations—such as funding for coronavirus testing—Khanna said he believes they can be resolved. Democratic leaders have demanded $75 billion for coronavirus testing but, thus far, the White House has only been willing to offer around $45 billion in new funds.
"I think we can get the $30 billion and we should signal if the administration meets us at $75 billion... and they have a national testing plan, then we have a deal," said Khanna.
The dire consequences of failing to pass additional aid before next month's election have been on display in recent weeks as the nation's economic crisis has continued to wreak havoc, permanently eliminating jobs and prompting warnings of a prolonged recession if another stimulus package is not forthcoming. According to the Main Street Alliance, more than a third of U.S. small businesses are at risk of permanent closure by the end of the year if another relief bill isn't approved.
As HuffPost's Zach Carter wrote Monday, the "economic rationale" for accepting the $1.8 trillion relief offer from the White House is "straightforward."
"According to the most recent weekly data, 840,000 people are losing their jobs every week," Carter noted. "Prior to the pandemic, the previous all-time weekly high was 695,000. Job growth picked up in June as states began reopening their economies, but that growth has slowed every month. At the moment, growth is stalled out and the unemployment rate is 7.9%."
"The dispute over the stimulus in Democratic circles has not been about the economic situation, but the politics of addressing it," Carter continued. "Passing a stimulus bill, critics argue, would hand Trump a much-needed legislative win heading into the November election."
But, as Common Dreamsreported Monday, some progressives and Democratic commentators have countered that reaching a relief compromise with the White House and putting the onus on Senate Republicans could come with a substantial political upside for Democrats.
If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his Republican colleagues reject the deal—as they've indicated they would—the GOP would be responsible for the potentially devastating fallout that could result from denying crucial economic aid to people and cash-strapped state and local governments. If Republicans agree to pass the $1.8 trillion compromise bill without any sneaky poison pills, countless out-of-work Americans, hungry families, and frontline workers would receive help they desperately need to make ends meet.
As Carter put it, "Heads, working people win; tails, Republicans lose. Pelosi should take the deal."
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, tweeted Monday that "Ro is right about this."
"If there is a White House approved proposal for $1.8T, then the House should pass it. Worst case scenario is it dies in the Senate, but possible it could pass with Trump's support. No downside, possible upside."
In an interview on MSNBC Tuesday morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) sounded a note of optimism when discussing the prospects of another coronavirus relief deal before next month's election, pointing to Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's four previous bipartisan agreements.
"We ought to be able to make a fifth if the president would stay on target and have a single message," said Hoyer.
But Pelosi—whose chamber has passed two ambitious relief bills that Senate Republicans have refused to even consider—has shown no indication of backing away from her opposition to the Trump administration's $1.8 trillion offer, which she denounced as riddled with "deficiencies" in a Dear Colleague letter on Tuesday.
"A fly on the wall or wherever else it might land in the Oval Office tells me that the president only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up," Pelosi said. "I remain hopeful that the White House will finally join us to recognize the needs of the American people, and take action to address the health and economic crisis in their lives."
On a House Democratic caucus call Tuesday, there was "no pushback" against Pelosi's strategy of rejecting the White House's $1.8 trillion offer, according to the Washington Post's Jeff Stein.


alternet--2020-10-13--Dozens of Amy Coney Barrett's Notre Dame colleagues ask her to stop her nomination

Amy Coney Barrett has failed to disclose an awful lot of documents to the Senate in her nomination to the Supreme Court .
This is probably one of them : a letter from 88 of her Notre Dame colleagues , dated October 10 , asking her to withdraw at least temporarily from consideration for the position .
They congratulate her on the nomination and pretty much inevitable confirmation .
That part of it—the inevitability—is why they write this open letter .
`` That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election . ''
Because `` while we are not pundits , from what we read your confirmation is all but assured . ''
That 's a problem for several reasons , which they clearly delineate and which all come down to the fact that this seat is sullied by circumstance and will forever have an asterisk attached .
Number , one , people are voting right now .
`` The rushed nature of your nomination process , which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics , may effectively deprive the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next Supreme Court justice , '' they write .
Not that they 're holding her responsible for any of this , they say , even `` the Republican hypocrisy of fast-tracking your nomination weeks before a presidential election when many of the same senators refused to grant Merrick Garland so much as a hearing a full year before the last election . ''
But , `` you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers , '' they suggested and then following the election , `` your nomination would proceed , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the winning candidate . ''
Next , they say , Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's dying wish was that her seat not be filled until after this election .
They remind Barrett that she referred to RBG in her nominating ceremony and that she praised RBG as `` a woman of enormous talent and consequence , whose life of public service serves as an example to us all . ''
So live up to that , they imply .
`` Your nomination just days after Ginsburg 's death was unseemly and a repudiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Justice Ginsburg , we ask that you repair the injury to her memory by calling for a pause in the nomination until the next president is seated . ''
Finally , they remind her that this is `` a treacherous moment '' for the country .
`` Our politics are consumed by polarization , mistrust , and fevered conspiracy theories , '' the faculty write .
`` Our country is shaken by pandemic and economic suffering .
There is violence in the streets of American cities .
The politics of your nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further inflame our civic wounds , undermine confidence in the court , and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens , especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and congress . ''
She can be an `` alternative to all that '' by doing the right thing and halting this nomination .
What 's in it for her , though likely not a seat on the Supreme Court the faculty acknowledge , is `` the respect of fair-minded people everywhere . ''
By risking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a model of civic selflessness .
And you might well inspire Americans of different beliefs toward a renewed commitment to the common good . ''
That , after all , should be the highest goal of all for someone aspiring to so lofty a seat as this .
There is an undercurrent to the whole letter , though , of these 88 faculty member realizing she does n't have the character to do any of this but hoping that they can appeal to something in her , if not her sense of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faculty who signed are from the law school , but also notably , two are from the Theology department .
Which says something about this devoutly religious nominee and the Catholic university they all represent .

Amy Coney Barrett has failed to disclose an awful lot of documents to the Senate in her nomination to the Supreme Court. This is probably one of them: a letter from 88 of her Notre Dame colleagues, dated October 10, asking her to withdraw at least temporarily from consideration for the position.
They congratulate her on the nomination and pretty much inevitable confirmation. That part of it—the inevitability—is why they write this open letter. "That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election." Because "while we are not pundits, from what we read your confirmation is all but assured." That's a problem for several reasons, which they clearly delineate and which all come down to the fact that this seat is sullied by circumstance and will forever have an asterisk attached.
Number, one, people are voting right now. "The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice," they write. Not that they're holding her responsible for any of this, they say, even "the Republican hypocrisy of fast-tracking your nomination weeks before a presidential election when many of the same senators refused to grant Merrick Garland so much as a hearing a full year before the last election." But, "you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers," they suggested and then following the election, "your nomination would proceed, or not, in accordance with the wishes of the winning candidate."
Next, they say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish was that her seat not be filled until after this election. They remind Barrett that she referred to RBG in her nominating ceremony and that she praised RBG as "a woman of enormous talent and consequence, whose life of public service serves as an example to us all." So live up to that, they imply. "Your nomination just days after Ginsburg's death was unseemly and a repudiation of her legacy. Given your admiration for Justice Ginsburg, we ask that you repair the injury to her memory by calling for a pause in the nomination until the next president is seated."
Finally, they remind her that this is "a treacherous moment" for the country. "Our politics are consumed by polarization, mistrust, and fevered conspiracy theories," the faculty write. "Our country is shaken by pandemic and economic suffering. There is violence in the streets of American cities. The politics of your nomination, as you surely understand, will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens, especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and congress." She can be an "alternative to all that" by doing the right thing and halting this nomination.
What's in it for her, though likely not a seat on the Supreme Court the faculty acknowledge, is "the respect of fair-minded people everywhere." By risking this seat, she could "provide a model of civic selflessness. And you might well inspire Americans of different beliefs toward a renewed commitment to the common good." That, after all, should be the highest goal of all for someone aspiring to so lofty a seat as this. There is an undercurrent to the whole letter, though, of these 88 faculty member realizing she doesn't have the character to do any of this but hoping that they can appeal to something in her, if not her sense of her own legacy.
Notably, none of the faculty who signed are from the law school, but also notably, two are from the Theology department. Which says something about this devoutly religious nominee and the Catholic university they all represent.


alternet--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett's position on Obamacare is quite literally unbelievable

Amy Coney Barrett might just be only person in public life on Oct. 13 , 2020 who does not know how many people have been infected with the coronavirus in the U.S. ( more than 7 million ) or how many people have received health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) ( more than 20 million ) and from Medicaid expansion from that law ( around 15 million and growing , because of COVID-19 job loss ) .
She would have the Senate—and the American people—believe that she has been so much locked in her ivory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prejudged any issue that might come before her that she has no clue what 's happening in the biggest crisis facing the nation since WWII .
She sat there , with her blank notepad , demonstrating that she had absolutely no reason to even bother to prepare for these hearings because she knew no matter what , Sen. Mitch McConnell had the votes to put her on the highest court of the land .
So she could come before these senators and play dumb on the health care of every person in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which the Supreme Court will hear exactly one week after the election .
She continued to play dumb , telling Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the ACA challenge pending before `` the court does n't present that issue '' of preexisting conditions .
`` It 's not a challenge to pre-existing conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum relief to a cap . ''
That is absolutely not true .
The Trump administration , which chose her for this job , is challenging the entirety of the law .
The Republican states ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are challenging the entirety of the law , asking the court to strike down the entire thing .
That includes the health insurance of something like 23 million people and the preexisting condition protections for more than 100 million , a figure that grows with each coronavirus infection .
`` I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA .
I am not hostile to any statute that you pass , '' Barrett told Sen. Durbin , who asked about her previous comments criticizing Chief Justice Roberts ' reasoning in past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the law to remain intact .
`` You 've been unequivocal in being critical of the decisions both in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell and we naturally draw the conclusion there 's going to be a third strike when it comes to Texas and California , '' Durbin said .
She dismissed her well-documented criticisms of those decision as `` a law professor '' critiquing `` the statutory interpretations of the majority opinions '' and that `` I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA .
And that because I 'm hostile to the ACA , that I would decide a case in a particular way .
And I assure you , I am not .
I 'm not hostile to the ACA .
I 'm not hostile to any statute that you pass . ''
Which is a lot of hooey and talking around the fact that her hostility to the law is well-documented .
Now we 're expected to believe her that all that criticism is n't relevant anymore , that it wo n't even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge .
We 're supposed to believe now that Barrett is a total blank slate .
That nothing she has said and nothing she 's previously written has anything to do with what she 'll be on the Supreme Court .
That 's simply a lie .
Trump 's litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee was overturning Obamacare .
That 's why she 's sitting in that seat .

Amy Coney Barrett might just be only person in public life on Oct. 13, 2020 who does not know how many people have been infected with the coronavirus in the U.S. (more than 7 million) or how many people have received health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (more than 20 million) and from Medicaid expansion from that law (around 15 million and growing, because of COVID-19 job loss). She would have the Senate—and the American people—believe that she has been so much locked in her ivory tower where she can't possibly have prejudged any issue that might come before her that she has no clue what's happening in the biggest crisis facing the nation since WWII.
She sat there, with her blank notepad, demonstrating that she had absolutely no reason to even bother to prepare for these hearings because she knew no matter what, Sen. Mitch McConnell had the votes to put her on the highest court of the land. So she could come before these senators and play dumb on the health care of every person in this country in the middle of a pandemic. Which the Supreme Court will hear exactly one week after the election.
She continued to play dumb, telling Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the ACA challenge pending before "the court doesn't present that issue" of preexisting conditions. "It's not a challenge to pre-existing conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum relief to a cap." That is absolutely not true. The Trump administration, which chose her for this job, is challenging the entirety of the law. The Republican states' attorneys general, who brought the case, are challenging the entirety of the law, asking the court to strike down the entire thing. That includes the health insurance of something like 23 million people and the preexisting condition protections for more than 100 million, a figure that grows with each coronavirus infection.
"I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not hostile to any statute that you pass," Barrett told Sen. Durbin, who asked about her previous comments criticizing Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning in past ACA cases, which allowed the bulk of the law to remain intact. "You've been unequivocal in being critical of the decisions both in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell and we naturally draw the conclusion there's going to be a third strike when it comes to Texas and California," Durbin said.
She dismissed her well-documented criticisms of those decision as "a law professor" critiquing "the statutory interpretations of the majority opinions" and that "I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning, that I'm hostile to the ACA. And that because I'm hostile to the ACA, that I would decide a case in a particular way. And I assure you, I am not. I'm not hostile to the ACA. I'm not hostile to any statute that you pass." Which is a lot of hooey and talking around the fact that her hostility to the law is well-documented. Now we're expected to believe her that all that criticism isn't relevant anymore, that it won't even cross her mind when considering the current challenge.
We're supposed to believe now that Barrett is a total blank slate. That nothing she has said and nothing she's previously written has anything to do with what she'll be on the Supreme Court. That's simply a lie. Trump's litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee was overturning Obamacare. That's why she's sitting in that seat.


alternet--2020-10-13--GOP attorneys slam McConnell’s ‘naked hypocrisy’ — say it threatens the Supreme Court’s ‘credibility

GOP attorneys slam McConnell’s ‘naked hypocrisy’ — say it threatens the Supreme Court’s ‘credibility’

Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — President Donald Trump 's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — are now underway , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hoping for a full Senate vote before the presidential election .
Two conservative attorneys , Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles Raul , discuss the politicization of the Supreme Court in an op-ed for USA Today — and as they see it , modern-day Republicans are undermining public trust in the High Court .
Ayer and Raul both have very conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice alumni who served as deputy solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and deputy attorney general under President George H.W .
Bush , and Raul served in senior legal positions under Reagan and President George W. Bush .
But both of them believe that McConnell has done too much to politicize the High Court .
`` When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016 , '' Ayer and Raul write , `` Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms : 'The American people should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their next Supreme Court justice .
Therefore , this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president . '
Now , after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day , as voters are already casting ballots in many states , McConnell has reversed his position .
His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary . ''
Ayer and Raul stress that the purpose of their op-ed is not to discuss Barrett 's qualifications but rather , the way in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends , '' the conservative attorneys argue .
`` Indeed , if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players . ''
If Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she will be viewed as a political figure rather than a judicial figure .
`` The legitimacy of the judicial branch rests on the principle that judges are independent and unbiased interpreters of the law , '' the attorneys argue .
`` A fair process for nomination and selection is crucial to preserving a public perception of the justices of the Supreme Court as neutral jurists , rather than pawns of the political process . ''

Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — President Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — are now underway, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hoping for a full Senate vote before the presidential election. Two conservative attorneys, Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles Raul, discuss the politicization of the Supreme Court in an op-ed for USA Today — and as they see it, modern-day Republicans are undermining public trust in the High Court.
Ayer and Raul both have very conservative backgrounds. Ayer is a Department of Justice alumni who served as deputy solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, and Raul served in senior legal positions under Reagan and President George W. Bush. But both of them believe that McConnell has done too much to politicize the High Court.
"When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016," Ayer and Raul write, "Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.' Now, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day, as voters are already casting ballots in many states, McConnell has reversed his position. His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary."
Ayer and Raul stress that the purpose of their op-ed is not to discuss Barrett's qualifications but rather, the way in which she has been nominated.
"We believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends," the conservative attorneys argue. "Indeed, if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players."
If Barrett is confirmed, Ayer and Raul warn, she will be viewed as a political figure rather than a judicial figure.
"The legitimacy of the judicial branch rests on the principle that judges are independent and unbiased interpreters of the law," the attorneys argue. "A fair process for nomination and selection is crucial to preserving a public perception of the justices of the Supreme Court as neutral jurists, rather than pawns of the political process."