truthout--2020-08-23--Reforms Are Won When Social Movements Inflict Real Costs on the Economic Elite

There ’ s a tendency in U.S. progressive politics to focus on rehabilitating capitalism for working people .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign for president had the patina of an “ anti-corruption ” crusade , giving a populist spin to technocratic fixes that would update the embedded liberalism of the postwar era for the twenty-first century .
Think tanks and public intellectuals likewise emphasize antitrust as a means to improve the welfare of consumers and workers while giving smaller firms a better chance to succeed .
Even during a global pandemic , the underlying concern is that neoliberal governance has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be replaced with something akin to social democracy without losing American capitalism ’ s purported dynamism .
This tendency is a response , in part , to the Trump administration , whose pursuit of tax cuts , corporate bailouts , and deregulation exemplifies not so much artful subterfuge but a brazen contempt for proper oversight of industry .
While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party reasserts its voice , its arsenal of proposed reforms ultimately promises to mend a grossly inequitable system , not challenge it outright .
The problem with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by Kevin A .
Young , Tarun Banerjee , and Michael Schwartz , shows , is that it doesn ’ t admit the deeper , fundamental structure of policymaking in capitalist societies , and the intrinsic control economic elites wield over it .
With principal case studies from the Obama era , Levers of Power illustrates the degree of institutionalized policy capture within Congress , federal agencies , and the White House itself .
Even in the throes of an economic emergency , elites maintain several ways to impede reform .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly-defined cost-benefit analyses that exclude measures of public well-being ; the culture of the “ corporate compromise ” and attendant political pressures to maintain it ; and legal challenges by business to sabotage or at least curtail the reach of reforms during their implementation phase , if they manage to survive the “ sausage-making ” of congressional legislation .
The effect is to both preclude ambitious , change-seeking insurgents from leading the Democratic Party and compel the potential reformers that do win election to greatly constrict their goals .
In an interview over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed the limits of electoral politics to advance a more egalitarian social contract and the strategies today ’ s social movements can employ to fight injustice .
The challenges are formidable , especially given the Trump administration ’ s exercise of a new and despotic federal police power in reaction to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests against police violence .
As Levers of Power demonstrates through examples from the labor movement and Civil Rights Movement , the path to enduring change requires mobilization that inflicts real costs on capitalists and disrupts the nexus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while progressive political allies are instrumental when it comes to implementing reform , they are never its true locus .
Justin H. Vassallo : In Levers of Power , the process of policy capture doesn ’ t come across the way corruption is popularly conceived .
Instead , it ’ s depicted as a negotiated circumscription of policy choices between elites that then limits what the public believes to be politically possible .
How does this differ from the relationship between the state , business , and labor during mid-twentieth century capitalism ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ usage of the term “ corruption ” is far too limited for understanding how political power operates .
Rarely is the process a directly transactional one in which economic elites bribe policymakers to obtain a specific end .
The more typical function of campaign contributions is to purchase access to the policymaking process – that is , a guarantee that their interests will be prioritized , and that they ’ ll be consulted before any policy changes are made .
My sense is that the relationship between the state , business and labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century : Even at the height of labor ’ s political power , business was deeply involved in policymaking discussions and the key sectors typically had to give their consent prior to major changes .
There is a difference from that period , but it ’ s one of degree : Wealth has become even more concentrated , the floodgates have been thrown ( further ) open to corporate campaign donations , and labor has been greatly weakened .
If the working class was sometimes able to force changes on business and government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that policymakers have to take into account .
I ’ ve been reading Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean and Dark Money by Jane Mayer in tandem .
What distinguishes this process from the evisceration of the mixed economy and state capacity as pursued by the Koch network and other radical libertarians ?
Those books are important contributions , but they can be read to imply that devious right-wing billionaires and their “ stealth plan ” are the primary enemies of democracy and egalitarianism – which is an oversimplification .
The Koch brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we should understand them as only the most extreme incarnations of a far broader anti-democratic consensus among U.S. elites , including liberal politicians , investors and executives , and intellectuals .
It ’ s useful to remember political scientist Samuel Huntington ’ s warning in 1975 against an “ excess of democracy , ” which he felt the upsurge of the 1960s and early 1970s had produced .
As we argue in the book , anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian policies are not just dependent on the preferences of individual elite leaders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers due to the way that our economy and state are organized .
So even “ maverick ” politicians are subject to larger forces they can ’ t control .
Social movements can alter that balance of forces , but in the absence of mass disruption , elite preferences usually win .
Your book builds on research that explains how inequality has worsened over the last forty years , but where it departs is in its examination of how much consultative authority business-friendly , unelected officials have .
If this is a missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what conditions enabled it ?
The consolidation of this authority ( and politicians ’ deference ) is a process that has compounded over time .
Roughly , campaign contributions and threats of disinvestment ensure that business-friendly politicians get elected , or at least that they appoint business-friendly advisors and regulators .
Those appointed personnel then help usher in institutional changes , such as the 1996 legislation signed by Clinton that expanded the use of cost-benefit analysis and gave it a more business-friendly definition .
Those changes further restrict the autonomy of elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incentive to accommodate business .
The weakness of countervailing progressive forces since the 1980s has removed some of the disincentives for politicians to accommodate business .
Should a social democrat ever win the presidency in the future , what can they do differently to overcome corporate threats ?
Or does the globalization of capital flows ineluctably limit their options ?
We need more case studies of how corporate opposition – including in the era of footloose capital – can be overcome .
We argue that even a President Bernie Sanders would ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to take executive actions that a president is legally allowed to take .
There is some wiggle room , and [ it ] can be increased when mass disruption of elite interests is added into the equation .
As we argue , conservative elite interests have themselves ended up pressuring politicians for progressive reforms in order to avert more radical outcomes .
There ’ s reason to believe that moments of deep crisis , like the current one , give politicians more latitude to defy corporate interests .
What ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any real costs , they will ferociously oppose progressive reforms , and a social democratic president ( or governor , or mayor ) will have a tough time countering them .
Most ideas offered by progressive Democrats seem to spring from a political and intellectual culture that lacks real proximity to social movements .
How would you characterize the dynamic between the world of reformist elites and the world of non-electoral activism ?
What do social movements need to do to obtain more leverage in developing and influencing policy without diluting their autonomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from liberal Democrats lack real proximity to social movements .
Those voices envision solutions that are often technocratic and modest , even by the standards of the Eisenhower or Nixon eras .
Some proposals from more progressive Democrats [ go ] somewhat further , but even [ then ] , systemic solutions are rarely discussed .
Stronger regulations on business are great , but why should private banks or corporate executives have any power to determine investments ?
Higher wages are great , but why should some people be consigned to a life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others get to do creative and fulfilling work ?
Those discussions are unlikely to be broached in Washington .
Labor and other movements need to do it .
As for how movements can obtain more leverage , I favor engagement with electoral politics on a limited basis .
Most of the policy solutions – at least the reform solutions – are out there and politicians or their staffs can find them if they bother to look .
I suppose direct consultation between politicians and movements can be a good thing – for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice from a movement .
But movements should never be fooled into thinking their power comes from access to policymakers .
The fact they ’ re consulted at all reflects a preexisting power that the politician realizes they need to take into account .
Did Bernie Sanders ’ campaigns demonstrate the limits of forging a social movement within electoral politics ?
Or were they part of a dialectic — channeling energies from Occupy , the Fight for 15 , the teachers ’ strikes , Black Lives Matter , and the immigrant rights movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local , and sometimes non-electoral , strategies for change ?
I ’ d be interested to see studies of how activists have been mobilized : Did people get excited about Bernie , then join other movements , including non-electoral ones , because of the Bernie campaign ?
Or did the activists in non-electoral movements gravitate to the Bernie campaign because of their prior experience in non-electoral movements , while the people who got politicized by Bernie faded away again after his campaign ended , meaning that the long-term impact of the Bernie campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had done more to encourage non-electoral organizing , but it wasn ’ t in the campaign ’ s short-term interest , since they naturally wanted people making calls and knocking on doors for the campaign .
That problem is arguably inherent in electoral politics .
How do current social movements transcend the common desire for reform and press for a transformational future ?
The world that carceral state abolitionists and climate activists envision entails far more than a robust welfare state , crucial as that is .
The left has a crucial role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liberated society in all realms .
It ’ s impossible to offer a precise blueprint but a basic vision is important , for two reasons : It can foster debate about the key principles that should govern society , and show there are realistic alternatives to our current system .
The left needs to be engaged in building unions , tenants ’ councils , and other mass organizations , and fighting for reforms within the current system .
The process of struggle is itself educational : collectively confronting oppressive institutions sharpens our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limitations of reform .
Once a movement wins a reform , the inadequacy of that reform soon becomes apparent .
That ’ s the way many people radicalize .
The presence of an organized , visible left that is promoting radical analysis can help , by offering people tools for the fight .
Meanwhile , the infusion of new voices can enrich the left ’ s own analysis , vision , and strategy .
The left should also pursue what Robin Hahnel calls “ experiments in equitable cooperation ” : alternative institutions like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and restorative justice programs .
The dominant institutions won ’ t allow these to get very big , but they still serve an educational purpose in that they demonstrate that humans can organize themselves based on values other than greed , individualism , and vengeance .
Practically speaking , they prepare us for the tasks of running a future society ( skills which are especially vital in moments of acute crisis like a pandemic in which the state has all but abdicated its responsibility for the general welfare ) .
To what extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence reconcile civil disobedience with more overtly militant tactics , without losing the public support it ’ s garnered ?
It would be unwise to prescribe universal guidelines .
Sometimes “ overtly militant ” tactics are strategically advantageous to a movement , sometimes not .
Riots and other property destruction sometimes produce beneficial outcomes , but they can also subject a movement to more repression .
Organizers need to weigh the potential consequences .
And we should bear in mind that the most “ militant ” actions are not always the most disruptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to public opinion without being too obsessed with it .
Most of the iconic social movement victories in U.S. history , from the abolition of slavery onward , have happened without majority support .
In the case of the current movement against police terror , disrupting business interests is probably one key to confronting the police , since business can compel politicians to rein in the cops .
How can activists impose sufficient costs on capitalists to divide elites and create a pathway toward real reform , as Levers of Power ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it harder and more dangerous for today ’ s movements to replicate some of the successful strategies the book expounds upon ?
We face a slew of deeply authoritarian institutions with awesome capacity for repression .
They ’ ve gotten bigger , more militarized , and more empowered in recent decades .
But all things considered , I don ’ t think the terrain is more daunting or dangerous than it was in past eras .
From the last decades of the 19th century up until the 1940s , employers and the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , usually with impunity .
Likewise in the Jim Crow South , where state-sanctioned terrorists killed , raped , and tortured thousands of people to enforce white supremacy , segregation , and labor control .
Yet those movements found creative ways to cause disruption while enabling their members to withstand repression .
For instance , in Birmingham they didn ’ t try to fight the cops in the streets – which would ’ ve been suicidal – but instead targeted downtown businesses with boycotts , which led the businesses to command the cops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the electoral system has dubious worth , where should activists devote energy beyond disruptive strategies ?
I think movements must develop our capacity to take care of each other independently of authoritarian institutions like the state and private business .
That doesn ’ t mean we should completely ignore the state .
Government has vast resources at its disposal and we should demand that those resources be used for collective welfare .
Absent alternative institutions that can reach everyone , government services are often the best option available to us in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or sectoral activities are sometimes idealized , the communities that constitute socialist hopes are stronger when they position particular struggles toward a greater project of solidarity and liberation .
What should labor , climate , and racial justice movements do to elevate their international dimension ?
We must avoid an overly “ autonomist , localist , or sectoral ” focus .
There ’ s often an aversion among organizers to “ mixing issues , ” particularly in the NGO world , probably due to concerns about funding .
But that phrase implies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neatly compartmentalize issues , which is empirically absurd — we all have a class position , a race , a national identity , an interest in a safe and healthy environment , and so on .
Those interests can ’ t be artificially separated .
The left should focus on building organizations that can do two things : confront predatory institutions and build alternatives .
Our movements need to do both simultaneously .
Kevin A .
Young is co-author , with Tarun Banerjee and Michael Schwartz , of Levers of Power : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 99 % Can Do About It .

There’s a tendency in U.S. progressive politics to focus on rehabilitating capitalism for working people. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for president had the patina of an “anti-corruption” crusade, giving a populist spin to technocratic fixes that would update the embedded liberalism of the postwar era for the twenty-first century. Think tanks and public intellectuals likewise emphasize antitrust as a means to improve the welfare of consumers and workers while giving smaller firms a better chance to succeed. Even during a global pandemic, the underlying concern is that neoliberal governance has become dysfunctional, but that it can be replaced with something akin to social democracy without losing American capitalism’s purported dynamism. This tendency is a response, in part, to the Trump administration, whose pursuit of tax cuts, corporate bailouts, and deregulation exemplifies not so much artful subterfuge but a brazen contempt for proper oversight of industry. While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party reasserts its voice, its arsenal of proposed reforms ultimately promises to mend a grossly inequitable system, not challenge it outright. The problem with the reformist approach, as Levers of Power, by Kevin A. Young, Tarun Banerjee, and Michael Schwartz, shows, is that it doesn’t admit the deeper, fundamental structure of policymaking in capitalist societies, and the intrinsic control economic elites wield over it.
With principal case studies from the Obama era, Levers of Power illustrates the degree of institutionalized policy capture within Congress, federal agencies, and the White House itself. Even in the throes of an economic emergency, elites maintain several ways to impede reform. These include capital strikes, or disinvestment; narrowly-defined cost-benefit analyses that exclude measures of public well-being; the culture of the “corporate compromise” and attendant political pressures to maintain it; and legal challenges by business to sabotage or at least curtail the reach of reforms during their implementation phase, if they manage to survive the “sausage-making” of congressional legislation. The effect is to both preclude ambitious, change-seeking insurgents from leading the Democratic Party and compel the potential reformers that do win election to greatly constrict their goals.
In an interview over email, co-author Kevin A. Young discussed the limits of electoral politics to advance a more egalitarian social contract and the strategies today’s social movements can employ to fight injustice. The challenges are formidable, especially given the Trump administration’s exercise of a new and despotic federal police power in reaction to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests against police violence. As Levers of Power demonstrates through examples from the labor movement and Civil Rights Movement, the path to enduring change requires mobilization that inflicts real costs on capitalists and disrupts the nexus of elite interests. This means that while progressive political allies are instrumental when it comes to implementing reform, they are never its true locus.
Justin H. Vassallo: In Levers of Power, the process of policy capture doesn’t come across the way corruption is popularly conceived. Instead, it’s depicted as a negotiated circumscription of policy choices between elites that then limits what the public believes to be politically possible. How does this differ from the relationship between the state, business, and labor during mid-twentieth century capitalism?
Kevin A. Young: The common usage of the term “corruption” is far too limited for understanding how political power operates. Rarely is the process a directly transactional one in which economic elites bribe policymakers to obtain a specific end. The more typical function of campaign contributions is to purchase access to the policymaking process – that is, a guarantee that their interests will be prioritized, and that they’ll be consulted before any policy changes are made.
My sense is that the relationship between the state, business and labor has not fundamentally changed since the mid-20th century: Even at the height of labor’s political power, business was deeply involved in policymaking discussions and the key sectors typically had to give their consent prior to major changes. There is a difference from that period, but it’s one of degree: Wealth has become even more concentrated, the floodgates have been thrown (further) open to corporate campaign donations, and labor has been greatly weakened. If the working class was sometimes able to force changes on business and government, now there are fewer countervailing forces that policymakers have to take into account.
I’ve been reading Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean and Dark Money by Jane Mayer in tandem. What distinguishes this process from the evisceration of the mixed economy and state capacity as pursued by the Koch network and other radical libertarians?
Those books are important contributions, but they can be read to imply that devious right-wing billionaires and their “stealth plan” are the primary enemies of democracy and egalitarianism – which is an oversimplification. The Koch brothers and James McGill Buchanan are truly vile, but we should understand them as only the most extreme incarnations of a far broader anti-democratic consensus among U.S. elites, including liberal politicians, investors and executives, and intellectuals. It’s useful to remember political scientist Samuel Huntington’s warning in 1975 against an “excess of democracy,” which he felt the upsurge of the 1960s and early 1970s had produced.
As we argue in the book, anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian policies are not just dependent on the preferences of individual elite leaders. There are profound structural constraints on all policymakers due to the way that our economy and state are organized. So even “maverick” politicians are subject to larger forces they can’t control. Social movements can alter that balance of forces, but in the absence of mass disruption, elite preferences usually win.
Your book builds on research that explains how inequality has worsened over the last forty years, but where it departs is in its examination of how much consultative authority business-friendly, unelected officials have. If this is a missing link when it comes to policy capture, what conditions enabled it?
The consolidation of this authority (and politicians’ deference) is a process that has compounded over time. Roughly, campaign contributions and threats of disinvestment ensure that business-friendly politicians get elected, or at least that they appoint business-friendly advisors and regulators. Those appointed personnel then help usher in institutional changes, such as the 1996 legislation signed by Clinton that expanded the use of cost-benefit analysis and gave it a more business-friendly definition. Those changes further restrict the autonomy of elected politicians and their appointees, and increase the incentive to accommodate business. The weakness of countervailing progressive forces since the 1980s has removed some of the disincentives for politicians to accommodate business.
Should a social democrat ever win the presidency in the future, what can they do differently to overcome corporate threats? Or does the globalization of capital flows ineluctably limit their options?
We need more case studies of how corporate opposition – including in the era of footloose capital – can be overcome. We argue that even a President Bernie Sanders would’ve been severely constrained, even in attempts to take executive actions that a president is legally allowed to take.
There is some wiggle room, and [it] can be increased when mass disruption of elite interests is added into the equation. As we argue, conservative elite interests have themselves ended up pressuring politicians for progressive reforms in order to avert more radical outcomes. There’s reason to believe that moments of deep crisis, like the current one, give politicians more latitude to defy corporate interests. What’s clear is that if elites are not bearing any real costs, they will ferociously oppose progressive reforms, and a social democratic president (or governor, or mayor) will have a tough time countering them.
Most ideas offered by progressive Democrats seem to spring from a political and intellectual culture that lacks real proximity to social movements. How would you characterize the dynamic between the world of reformist elites and the world of non-electoral activism? What do social movements need to do to obtain more leverage in developing and influencing policy without diluting their autonomy?
I agree that most ideas coming from liberal Democrats lack real proximity to social movements. Those voices envision solutions that are often technocratic and modest, even by the standards of the Eisenhower or Nixon eras. Some proposals from more progressive Democrats [go] somewhat further, but even [then], systemic solutions are rarely discussed. Stronger regulations on business are great, but why should private banks or corporate executives have any power to determine investments? Higher wages are great, but why should some people be consigned to a life of monotonous, unpleasant, unhealthy labor while others get to do creative and fulfilling work? Those discussions are unlikely to be broached in Washington. Labor and other movements need to do it. As for how movements can obtain more leverage, I favor engagement with electoral politics on a limited basis. Most of the policy solutions – at least the reform solutions – are out there and politicians or their staffs can find them if they bother to look. I suppose direct consultation between politicians and movements can be a good thing – for instance, if a liberal Dem solicits advice from a movement. But movements should never be fooled into thinking their power comes from access to policymakers. The fact they’re consulted at all reflects a preexisting power that the politician realizes they need to take into account.
Did Bernie Sanders’ campaigns demonstrate the limits of forging a social movement within electoral politics? Or were they part of a dialectic — channeling energies from Occupy, the Fight for 15, the teachers’ strikes, Black Lives Matter, and the immigrant rights movement — that has now fed back into local, and sometimes non-electoral, strategies for change?
I’d be interested to see studies of how activists have been mobilized: Did people get excited about Bernie, then join other movements, including non-electoral ones, because of the Bernie campaign? Or did the activists in non-electoral movements gravitate to the Bernie campaign because of their prior experience in non-electoral movements, while the people who got politicized by Bernie faded away again after his campaign ended, meaning that the long-term impact of the Bernie campaign was minimal?
I do wish Bernie had done more to encourage non-electoral organizing, but it wasn’t in the campaign’s short-term interest, since they naturally wanted people making calls and knocking on doors for the campaign. That problem is arguably inherent in electoral politics.
How do current social movements transcend the common desire for reform and press for a transformational future? The world that carceral state abolitionists and climate activists envision entails far more than a robust welfare state, crucial as that is.
The left has a crucial role to play in articulating a vision for a liberated society in all realms. It’s impossible to offer a precise blueprint but a basic vision is important, for two reasons: It can foster debate about the key principles that should govern society, and show there are realistic alternatives to our current system.
The left needs to be engaged in building unions, tenants’ councils, and other mass organizations, and fighting for reforms within the current system. The process of struggle is itself educational: collectively confronting oppressive institutions sharpens our understanding of the world and exposes the limitations of reform. Once a movement wins a reform, the inadequacy of that reform soon becomes apparent. That’s the way many people radicalize. The presence of an organized, visible left that is promoting radical analysis can help, by offering people tools for the fight. Meanwhile, the infusion of new voices can enrich the left’s own analysis, vision, and strategy. The left should also pursue what Robin Hahnel calls “experiments in equitable cooperation”: alternative institutions like worker-owned cooperatives, mutual aid networks, and restorative justice programs. The dominant institutions won’t allow these to get very big, but they still serve an educational purpose in that they demonstrate that humans can organize themselves based on values other than greed, individualism, and vengeance. Practically speaking, they prepare us for the tasks of running a future society (skills which are especially vital in moments of acute crisis like a pandemic in which the state has all but abdicated its responsibility for the general welfare).
To what extent can today’s movement against police violence reconcile civil disobedience with more overtly militant tactics, without losing the public support it’s garnered?
It would be unwise to prescribe universal guidelines. Sometimes “overtly militant” tactics are strategically advantageous to a movement, sometimes not. Riots and other property destruction sometimes produce beneficial outcomes, but they can also subject a movement to more repression. Organizers need to weigh the potential consequences. And we should bear in mind that the most “militant” actions are not always the most disruptive to dominant institutions.
Movements should pay attention to public opinion without being too obsessed with it. Most of the iconic social movement victories in U.S. history, from the abolition of slavery onward, have happened without majority support. In the case of the current movement against police terror, disrupting business interests is probably one key to confronting the police, since business can compel politicians to rein in the cops.
How can activists impose sufficient costs on capitalists to divide elites and create a pathway toward real reform, as Levers of Power’s theory of change suggests? Is it harder and more dangerous for today’s movements to replicate some of the successful strategies the book expounds upon?
We face a slew of deeply authoritarian institutions with awesome capacity for repression. They’ve gotten bigger, more militarized, and more empowered in recent decades. But all things considered, I don’t think the terrain is more daunting or dangerous than it was in past eras. From the last decades of the 19th century up until the 1940s, employers and the state murdered and maimed hundreds of striking workers, usually with impunity. Likewise in the Jim Crow South, where state-sanctioned terrorists killed, raped, and tortured thousands of people to enforce white supremacy, segregation, and labor control. Yet those movements found creative ways to cause disruption while enabling their members to withstand repression. For instance, in Birmingham they didn’t try to fight the cops in the streets – which would’ve been suicidal – but instead targeted downtown businesses with boycotts, which led the businesses to command the cops to stand down.
If prioritizing alliances within the electoral system has dubious worth, where should activists devote energy beyond disruptive strategies?
I think movements must develop our capacity to take care of each other independently of authoritarian institutions like the state and private business. That doesn’t mean we should completely ignore the state. Government has vast resources at its disposal and we should demand that those resources be used for collective welfare. Absent alternative institutions that can reach everyone, government services are often the best option available to us in the short term.
While autonomist, localist, or sectoral activities are sometimes idealized, the communities that constitute socialist hopes are stronger when they position particular struggles toward a greater project of solidarity and liberation. What should labor, climate, and racial justice movements do to elevate their international dimension?
We must avoid an overly “autonomist, localist, or sectoral” focus. There’s often an aversion among organizers to “mixing issues,” particularly in the NGO world, probably due to concerns about funding. But that phrase implies that it’s even possible to neatly compartmentalize issues, which is empirically absurd — we all have a class position, a race, a national identity, an interest in a safe and healthy environment, and so on. Those interests can’t be artificially separated.
The left should focus on building organizations that can do two things: confront predatory institutions and build alternatives. Our movements need to do both simultaneously.
Kevin A. Young is co-author, with Tarun Banerjee and Michael Schwartz, of Levers of Power: How the 1% Rules and What the 99% Can Do About It.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-23--Erasure of Black History in Favor of White Narratives Isn’t Limited to the US

In the midst of violent polarization in the political landscape of the United States , one fact many people can agree on is that monuments are a part of history .
Tearing down white bronze casts of dead white men will not erase enslavement and war in the past .
But it can be a step towards making room for the stories these men fought to erase — not only in the U.S. , but every place that is home to the African diaspora .
These invisibilized stories reveal the legacy behind the racialized oppression still seen across the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Janeiro , built over the bodies of enslaved Africans , is one of the largest in Brazil , and its 180-year history is symbolic of the relentless erasure of Black bodies and stories that persists today .
In Brazil , where the African diasporic population is higher than that of the U.S. ( and is the largest in the world ) , a cemetery of enslaved people was landfilled to accommodate other bodies , including the notable graves of enslavers and fascists .
Many , if not all , of these “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European view that Black people had no history , because history moves “ West like the sun ” toward its most advanced stage — “ Germanic ” civilization .
Such ideas shaped the institutional structure on which the Brazilian government was built , and its forefathers still have their legacy set in stone .
Furthest from Germanic civilization were not only Africans , but also Indigenous peoples .
History books and encyclopedias still perpetuate the false idea that Brazil was “ discovered ” by Europeans , as if it didn ’ t exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature , for example , not only describes Brazil as having been “ discovered , ” it soon after mentions the Indigenous people that were already there .
This “ History of Brazil ” somehow begins in 1500 , not thousands of years earlier with sophisticated civilizations of Indigenous peoples who carefully crafted forests and coastlines , and built monuments that were routinely land-filled and built over .
It was only when Brazil acquired a king that it became a sovereign nation , and therefore put on the map .
A prominent figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rests in peace at the Caju Cemetery , and still receives praise for helping “ to establish political subordination on the basis of Men ’ s universal reason ” on this land .
Influential men from the period of independence have been immortalized by much more than just the space they occupy in this cemetery .
They have also left a historical footprint by administering Black people ’ s role in society , with the purpose of extracting the most profit from it .
The interred Baron Antônio Pereira Passos , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but steady movement toward the abolition of slavery , a system he was heavily dependent on for building his wealth .
The baron ’ s son , Francisco Franco Pereira Passos , went on to become mayor of Rio de Janeiro in 1902 .
His main accomplishment was a massive urban planning endeavor to smooth this “ work-force ” transition into the industrial era .
Inspired by a rapidly industrializing Paris and the interests of the coffee industry , he demolished homes and built roads to accommodate the increasing European immigrant population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially displaced countless freed families and laid the groundwork for what we today call favelas .
The “ freeing ” of enslaved people was a scrupulous process concocted by powerful white men for at least half a century .
Although abolition became official in Brazil in 1888 , Black families were used as pawns in negotiations between Western countries and American colonies soon after these colonies proclaimed themselves “ free ” and independent .
This independence threatened the former colonizers , who were losing access to cheap colonial labor and didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less expensive prices of merchandise coming from Brazil .
Also buried in the Caju Cemetery is José Maria da Silva Paranhos , the viscount known for negotiating a slow plan for abolition , in order to satisfy the British without threatening the Brazilian monarchy ’ s grasp on power , which was in the interest of neither of them .
This plan was the “ Law of Free Birth , ” which gave enslavers “ the choice to either deliver children , born after 1871 , whose mothers were slaves to the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educate them.
” Certainly , the law was not as humane as it sounds .
As a legal loophole , it did nothing more than guarantee that elites didn ’ t lose wealth or power as the system transitioned from a colonialist system fueled by chattel slavery to a capitalist one fueled by industrial workers .
This brings us to the next wave of problematic monuments — the fascists .
With industrial capitalism came the anti-capitalist resistance , which marked most of the 20th century .
Brazil found itself with one iconic anti-communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While some of those who resisted simply disappeared , others got mausoleums .
In the Caju Cemetery , there is a Mausoleum of Integralistas , where the remains of members of a fascist movement inspired by Italy ’ s Benito Mussolini can be found .
Their opposition to the first dictatorship of that century certainly put Brazil between a rock and a hard place — a nationalist dictatorship opposed by a failed fascist uprising .
Meanwhile , the disappearance of several anarchists responsible for the General Strike of 1917 remained unsolved until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discovery of a clandestine mass grave in a São Paulo cemetery .
The Perus Cemetery was founded during Brazil ’ s second dictatorship of the 20th century ( in the 1970s ) and was known for burying the poor , unidentified and homeless .
Dozens of unnamed bodies were buried there daily .
Today , the cemetery has a graffiti monument to honor the dead and missing militants .
Many of the bodies that were found there are still unidentified , and it ’ s painfully clear that impunity is largely due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bodies of poor people — which made it possible for dead militants to remain missing for this long .
This lack of respect for Black , poor or homeless bodies is consistent throughout the centuries .
It continuously robs people of their history , and of their place in the collective psyche .
It would be naive to think this condition has not been carried with us into the 21st century .
For nearly 150 years , the Caju Cemetery was run by Santa Casa de Misericórdia ( Holy House of Mercy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2015 , it changed hands after a highly televised corruption scandal involving tax evasion , illicit real estate transactions , irregular constructions and labor rights infringements .
The new administration , Concessionária Reviver ( Revive Concessionaire ) , has not shown much improvement , since it ’ s involved in nearly 300 lawsuits , including a class action over improper charging of maintenance fees .
While cemetery administrators collected these maintenance fees , a child worked maintenance for tips .
Throughout the last four months , Brazilian photographer Fabio Teixeira followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Josué Vicente Pereira ( nicknamed “ Fumaça ” ) , at the Caju Cemetery .
The resulting photographic essay , called Entre a Cruz e a Infância ( Between the Cross and the Youth ) , shows the child cleaning the graves , painting crosses and exchanging flowers .
He has done this work since he was 7 years old in exchange for tips from visiting families .
During the coronavirus pandemic , his income ( which his younger siblings also depend on ) dropped significantly , but he continues to work even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m afraid of the coronavirus , but I can ’ t stop working here , ” Fumaça said .
“ My mother lost her baby two months ago ; we receive the state ’ s family allowance , but I have two younger siblings , and my mother is sick with depression .
My stepfather could not get government assistance , he was denied , so I need to work.
” This type of corruption and exploitation is a modern-day expression of the racial oppression that remains throughout time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land-owners .
A century and a half after the passing of the “ Law of Free Birth , ” poor Black children are still not born free .
They can not be born free when the wealth their family produced has been hoarded by other families for centuries , and they are still forced to work under deplorable conditions to survive .
A nameless body that is tossed in a mass grave , robbed of its history , can not be free either .
When the names and bodies of free people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time — and it ’ s called history — it makes sense that those who don ’ t see themselves in this history feel compelled to show that it ’ s time to resist .
Paradoxically , it has been commonplace in history to erase the history of a people .
The monuments of “ great statesmen ” can attempt to erase the history of not only the U.S. , but of all the African diaspora .
As the longest-running enslavist regime in Latin America , Brazil went through its own version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defended slavery as if it symbolized political sovereignty from Western European states , the same way U.S. Southerners proclaimed states ’ rights .
Our rejection of these distorted narratives of history rooted in white supremacy is long overdue .

In the midst of violent polarization in the political landscape of the United States, one fact many people can agree on is that monuments are a part of history. Tearing down white bronze casts of dead white men will not erase enslavement and war in the past. But it can be a step towards making room for the stories these men fought to erase — not only in the U.S., but every place that is home to the African diaspora. These invisibilized stories reveal the legacy behind the racialized oppression still seen across the world today. The Caju Cemetery in Rio de Janeiro, built over the bodies of enslaved Africans, is one of the largest in Brazil, and its 180-year history is symbolic of the relentless erasure of Black bodies and stories that persists today.
In Brazil, where the African diasporic population is higher than that of the U.S. (and is the largest in the world), a cemetery of enslaved people was landfilled to accommodate other bodies, including the notable graves of enslavers and fascists. Many, if not all, of these “notables” adhered to the scientifically racist European view that Black people had no history, because history moves “West like the sun” toward its most advanced stage — “Germanic” civilization. Such ideas shaped the institutional structure on which the Brazilian government was built, and its forefathers still have their legacy set in stone. Furthest from Germanic civilization were not only Africans, but also Indigenous peoples.
History books and encyclopedias still perpetuate the false idea that Brazil was “discovered” by Europeans, as if it didn’t exist before. This New York Times travel feature, for example, not only describes Brazil as having been “discovered,” it soon after mentions the Indigenous people that were already there. This “History of Brazil” somehow begins in 1500, not thousands of years earlier with sophisticated civilizations of Indigenous peoples who carefully crafted forests and coastlines, and built monuments that were routinely land-filled and built over.
It was only when Brazil acquired a king that it became a sovereign nation, and therefore put on the map. A prominent figure behind this acquisition, José Clemente Pereira, rests in peace at the Caju Cemetery, and still receives praise for helping “to establish political subordination on the basis of Men’s universal reason” on this land.
Influential men from the period of independence have been immortalized by much more than just the space they occupy in this cemetery. They have also left a historical footprint by administering Black people’s role in society, with the purpose of extracting the most profit from it.
Fabio Teixeira, from the series Entre a Cruz e a Infância (Between the Cross and the Youth)
The interred Baron Antônio Pereira Passos, an enslaver coffee grower, witnessed a slow but steady movement toward the abolition of slavery, a system he was heavily dependent on for building his wealth. The baron’s son, Francisco Franco Pereira Passos, went on to become mayor of Rio de Janeiro in 1902. His main accomplishment was a massive urban planning endeavor to smooth this “work-force” transition into the industrial era. Inspired by a rapidly industrializing Paris and the interests of the coffee industry, he demolished homes and built roads to accommodate the increasing European immigrant population. But by doing that, Francisco Passos essentially displaced countless freed families and laid the groundwork for what we today call favelas.
Black families were used as pawns in negotiations between Western countries and American colonies soon after these colonies proclaimed themselves “free” and independent.
The “freeing” of enslaved people was a scrupulous process concocted by powerful white men for at least half a century. Although abolition became official in Brazil in 1888, Black families were used as pawns in negotiations between Western countries and American colonies soon after these colonies proclaimed themselves “free” and independent. This independence threatened the former colonizers, who were losing access to cheap colonial labor and didn’t want to have to compete with the less expensive prices of merchandise coming from Brazil.
Also buried in the Caju Cemetery is José Maria da Silva Paranhos, the viscount known for negotiating a slow plan for abolition, in order to satisfy the British without threatening the Brazilian monarchy’s grasp on power, which was in the interest of neither of them. This plan was the “Law of Free Birth,” which gave enslavers “the choice to either deliver children, born after 1871, whose mothers were slaves to the state or keep them in their power and educate them.” Certainly, the law was not as humane as it sounds. As a legal loophole, it did nothing more than guarantee that elites didn’t lose wealth or power as the system transitioned from a colonialist system fueled by chattel slavery to a capitalist one fueled by industrial workers. This brings us to the next wave of problematic monuments — the fascists.
20th Century Dictatorships and Nameless Graves
With industrial capitalism came the anti-capitalist resistance, which marked most of the 20th century. Brazil found itself with one iconic anti-communist dictatorship for each half of that century. While some of those who resisted simply disappeared, others got mausoleums. In the Caju Cemetery, there is a Mausoleum of Integralistas, where the remains of members of a fascist movement inspired by Italy’s Benito Mussolini can be found. Their opposition to the first dictatorship of that century certainly put Brazil between a rock and a hard place — a nationalist dictatorship opposed by a failed fascist uprising.
Fabio Teixeira, from the series Entre a Cruz e a Infância (Between the Cross and the Youth).
This lack of respect for Black, poor or homeless bodies is consistent throughout the centuries. It continuously robs people of their history, and of their place in the collective psyche.
Meanwhile, the disappearance of several anarchists responsible for the General Strike of 1917 remained unsolved until more than 70 years later, with the discovery of a clandestine mass grave in a São Paulo cemetery. The Perus Cemetery was founded during Brazil’s second dictatorship of the 20th century (in the 1970s) and was known for burying the poor, unidentified and homeless. Dozens of unnamed bodies were buried there daily. Today, the cemetery has a graffiti monument to honor the dead and missing militants. Many of the bodies that were found there are still unidentified, and it’s painfully clear that impunity is largely due to the blatant lack of respect for the bodies of poor people — which made it possible for dead militants to remain missing for this long. This lack of respect for Black, poor or homeless bodies is consistent throughout the centuries. It continuously robs people of their history, and of their place in the collective psyche. It would be naive to think this condition has not been carried with us into the 21st century.
Fabio Teixeira, from the series Entre a Cruz e a Infância (Between the Cross and the Youth)
For nearly 150 years, the Caju Cemetery was run by Santa Casa de Misericórdia (Holy House of Mercy), a 15th-century Portuguese charity organization. In 2015, it changed hands after a highly televised corruption scandal involving tax evasion, illicit real estate transactions, irregular constructions and labor rights infringements. The new administration, Concessionária Reviver (Revive Concessionaire), has not shown much improvement, since it’s involved in nearly 300 lawsuits, including a class action over improper charging of maintenance fees. While cemetery administrators collected these maintenance fees, a child worked maintenance for tips.
Throughout the last four months, Brazilian photographer Fabio Teixeira followed the work of a 14-year-old boy, Josué Vicente Pereira (nicknamed “Fumaça”), at the Caju Cemetery. The resulting photographic essay, called Entre a Cruz e a Infância (Between the Cross and the Youth), shows the child cleaning the graves, painting crosses and exchanging flowers. He has done this work since he was 7 years old in exchange for tips from visiting families. During the coronavirus pandemic, his income (which his younger siblings also depend on) dropped significantly, but he continues to work even with a tremendous risk of COVID-19 infection.
Fabio Teixeira, from the series Entre a Cruz e a Infância (Between the Cross and the Youth).
Black children cannot be born free when the wealth their family produced has been hoarded by other families for centuries, and they are still forced to work under deplorable conditions to survive.
“I’m afraid of the coronavirus, but I can’t stop working here,” Fumaça said. “My mother lost her baby two months ago; we receive the state’s family allowance, but I have two younger siblings, and my mother is sick with depression. My stepfather could not get government assistance, he was denied, so I need to work.”
This type of corruption and exploitation is a modern-day expression of the racial oppression that remains throughout time — low-wage labor for the profit of land-owners. A century and a half after the passing of the “Law of Free Birth,” poor Black children are still not born free. They cannot be born free when the wealth their family produced has been hoarded by other families for centuries, and they are still forced to work under deplorable conditions to survive. A nameless body that is tossed in a mass grave, robbed of its history, cannot be free either. When the names and bodies of free people are forged into matter that resists the test of time — and it’s called history — it makes sense that those who don’t see themselves in this history feel compelled to show that it’s time to resist.
Paradoxically, it has been commonplace in history to erase the history of a people. The monuments of “great statesmen” can attempt to erase the history of not only the U.S., but of all the African diaspora. As the longest-running enslavist regime in Latin America, Brazil went through its own version of the Civil War. Brazilian nationalists defended slavery as if it symbolized political sovereignty from Western European states, the same way U.S. Southerners proclaimed states’ rights. Our rejection of these distorted narratives of history rooted in white supremacy is long overdue.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-23--Trans Women Who Report Abuse in Prison Are Targets of Retaliation

For trans people in the U.S. , 2020 might be a record high year for fatal violence .
As tens of thousands of people poured into the streets to declare # BlackTransLivesMatter in June , six Black trans women ( Brayla Stone , Merci Mack , Shaki Peters , Draya McCary , Tatiana Hall and Bree Black ) were found dead within a nine-day period .
At the end of July , two other Black trans women ( Queasha D. Hardy and Tiffany Harris ) became the 20th and 21st trans women murdered this year .
“ If this rapid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will set a record for violence against the transgender community , ” wrote Devin Norelle .
The killings of trans and gender nonconforming people disproportionately target Black trans women and trans women of color .
In 2018 , 82 percent of trans people killed were trans women of color .
In 2019 , 26 trans women died from fatal violence ; 20 of those women were Black .
A report by the Human Rights Coalition found that , of fatal violence in the trans and gender nonconforming communities between 2013 and 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black or African American and at least 103 were trans women of color .
Behind prison walls , trans women are also targeted for physical , sexual and fatal violence .
When they attempt to report their assaults , they are subjected to additional violence from both prison staff and those around them .
Trans women in men ’ s prisons are 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than cisgender men .
According to data provided by CDCR , over 50 percent report fearing for their safety if they report harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a pervasive problem of not believing and dismissing complaints of [ transphobic ] harassment because it ’ s so normalized , ” said Jen Orthwein , an attorney with Medina Orthwein LLP , a queer-owned civil rights law firm , who has represented trans women in California prisons .
Orthwein also notes that , within prisons , authorities often perceive trans people to be the perpetrators of violence , even when they have been the victims of sexual abuse and harassment .
While there is no data about the intersections of race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual abuse , they note that they have seen ongoing retaliation against trans women of color who report sexual abuse .
That ’ s what happened to Orthwein ’ s client C. Jay Smith , a 59-year-old Black trans woman who is now suing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( CDCR ) for failing to protect her from continued sexual harassment and assault and retaliating when she reported sexual abuse .
While her story is not unique among trans and gender nonconforming people imprisoned across the nation , it is indicative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat complaints of sexual abuse and harassment , particularly by Black trans women and women of color .
“ I would never have reported any of this [ abuse ] if I knew I would go through this , ” Smith told Truthout .
“ You Are Not the Victim .
You ’ re Always the One Being Accused.
” San Quentin is one of less than a dozen California prisons designated as appropriate for transgender people .
But Smith ’ s lawsuit charges that the prison has been far from safe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ( PREA ) , prison officials must offer trans people the opportunity to shower separately from others .
But San Quentin staff consistently failed to provide that opportunity to Smith and other trans women .
Smith was often forced to shower either with , or in full view of , dozens of men in custody .
She has been openly harassed , stared at and stalked .
In 2013 , Smith was violently raped from behind , but did not see the assailant .
She did not report the attack .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report anything , they lock you up and transfer you .
You are not the victim .
You ’ re always the one being accused , ” she told Truthout .
“ From experience , you ’ re locked up and you ’ re thrown away .
I had come too far for that .
I didn ’ t want to ruin my chances of being allowed to take advantage of rehabilitation [ at San Quentin ] .
How would it look if I reported the assault and I didn ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report it for my own safety , so I could get a new start.
” Five years later , in 2018 , Smith became the target of pervasive sexual harassment and assaults by an incarcerated man known as “ Prado.
” In early 2019 , Prado was moved to the cell next to hers and began throwing paper airplanes and other objects into her cell .
When near her , he slapped her butt or grabbed her breasts .
He exposed himself while watching her shower or standing at the entrance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prison staff , who did not intervene .
Prado escalated his harassment , exposing himself and demanding oral sex .
Smith requested that staff remove Prado , but they refused .
The abuse continued .
At one point , when Prado exposed himself , he drew her attention to what appeared to be a large marble-shaped object inside the head of his penis , taunting “ Remember , you liked it.
” His words made Smith realize that Prado had been the person who had raped her in 2013 .
Shortly after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ B. Haub , about Prado ’ s harassment and requested that he be moved .
When Haub refused , she requested that she be transferred to another cell .
He refused that request as well .
On March 6 , 2019 , Smith reported the sexual assaults to a mental health clinician , who then filed a PREA report .
After leaving the clinic , Smith was stopped by Haub , who escorted her to an Investigative Services Unit ( ISU ) trailer , then shoved her against a wall , searched her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and locked her in a 3-foot-by-3-foot cage .
While inside the cage , she was questioned for hours by ISU officers , who called her a “ liar , ” a “ drama queen ” and an “ attention seeker.
” Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act , Smith should have been given access to outside advocates , a victim support person during the investigation and a victim advocate .
She was offered none of these .
Instead , officers ordered her to provide a urine sample , later claiming that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a controlled substance .
When she was unable to urinate , they issued her a rules violation report for failing to provide a urine sample .
During a cell search three days after her interrogation , an officer groped Smith , then tossed and tore apart her belongings , including letters from her mother who is deceased .
Officers threw away many of her personal items and , claiming that a broken statue was a makeshift weapon , wrote her a violation report for possession of a deadly weapon .
Smith was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of isolation in which a person is locked in a cell 23 to 24 hours each day without their belongings .
When she appealed the charge , Warden Ron Davis wrote , “ You initiated an investigation by San Quentin ISU when you claimed to be the victim of PREA .
During the course of that investigation you were found to be in possession of an inmate manufactured weapon resulting in your ASU Placement.
” The district attorney pursued the weapons charge with the threat of an additional 10-year prison sentence .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 calls and comments , the district attorney dropped the charges . )
In May 2019 , prison officials informed Smith that her PREA allegation was unfounded , meaning that , after investigation , the allegation was “ proven not to have occurred.
” This isn ’ t unusual — that year , approximately 25 percent of California ’ s PREA investigations against other incarcerated people were deemed unfounded .
That percentage rose to nearly 50 percent for complaints against prison staff .
That same day , prison officials listed Prado as Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that meant that the two could not be housed in the same prison .
Smith was transferred from San Quentin , where she had been attending GED classes and participating in both the Inmate Advisory Council and the California Reentry Institute .
Now at the California Medical Facility ( CMF ) , she is not allowed to work or participate in prison programs until her ticket for the possession of a deadly weapon is adjudicated .
CDCR ’ s own data collection shows that correctional staff disproportionately target and retaliate against transgender women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collected in December 2019 from transgender and other gender variant people in CDCR custody reveal that over 50 percent of that population in CDCR facilities designated for men fear for their safety if they report harassment , discrimination or violence perpetrated against them .
In late 2019 , CDCR officials and community advocates met with transgender and gender variant people in custody at all the prisons designated for transgender people to conduct surveys and listen to individuals ’ experiences in custody .
By then , Smith had been transferred to CMF .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended and discussed their experiences of sexual assault in prison .
“ I told [ CDCR officials ] that I would not recommend any of these women report anything to staff at their institutions because the institution is going to take care of themselves before the girls , ” Smith recalled .
“ The [ correctional counselor ] took down my name and number and told me she would look into my case .
I never heard anything back .
What they were saying to us was totally rehearsed .
None of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not one of us.
” “ I ’ m Not Going to Make It Out of This Prison Alive If I ’ m Left Here Any Longer ” Syiaah Skylit is a 30-year-old Black trans woman who has been incarcerated in multiple California men ’ s prisons .
In May 2019 , she was transferred to the Kern Valley State Prison .
Shortly after , she witnessed an incarcerated man named David Brieby attack another trans woman .
Although Skylit provided testimony in the ongoing criminal case against him for attempted murder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same prison yard as her .
When Skylit expressed concerns for her safety , she was placed in administrative segregation ( ad seg ) , in which she was locked into her cell for most of the day .
Brieby attacked a gay man on the yard and was also placed in ad seg .
Once again , Skylit expressed concerns for her safety .
Prison officials transferred her to another yard — where they later transferred Brieby .
On April 10 , Brieby assaulted Skylit .
To protest the prison ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in a hunger strike .
In response , prison officials placed her on suicide watch , a form of confinement in which she was stripped of all of her possessions and placed in isolation .
On April 15 , Skylit was released to another yard where she was attacked by another person , then sexually assaulted with a baton by an officer .
She filed a PREA complaint against the officer .
Like Smith , she was not offered a victim advocate or support person .
As of August 6 , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation .
That same evening , officers entered Skylit ’ s cell , stripped her naked , put her clothes and property on the tier ( corridor outside her cell ) for others to take and then left her naked without a mattress or blanket until the next shift , when another officer provided her with a blanket and clothing .
The next morning , other officers punched , kicked and maced Skylit , calling her homophobic names .
She was then placed in a holding cell where she was attacked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by officers who filed a rules violation report claiming that Skylit had battered another incarcerated person .
Skylit is once again locked in ad seg , where she spent her 30th birthday .
Brieby also remains in ad seg and thus in the common areas during the times that people are allowed out of their cells .
Prison staff have told Skylit that , because of COVID , both can expect to remain there until January 2021 .
For years , Skylit requested transfer to a women ’ s prison to no avail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing discrimination with the state ’ s Department of Fair Employment and Housing .
“ I ’ m not going to make it out of this prison alive if I ’ m left here any longer , ” she told her lawyers in June 2020 .
Her fears are not unfounded .
In 2013 , Kern Valley State Prison staff ignored threats to Carmen Guerrero , a trans woman .
The man who was assigned to her cell had stated that he would kill Guerrero if they were celled together .
They ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
In 2019 , he was sentenced to death for her murder .
That same year , California ’ s Senate passed a bill requiring trans people to be housed according to their gender identity .
COVID delayed the expected Assembly vote , but advocates are hopeful for a final vote before August ends .
Even in a women ’ s prison , Skylit may not be safe from sexual abuse or staff retaliation .
Rojas , a gender nonconforming person , spent 15 years in the Central California Women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassed them because of their gender identity .
Staff , they told Truthout , “ are always harassing .
That ’ s the culture of the place .
They harass trans and GNC [ gender nonconforming ] folks.
” Furthermore , Rojas noted that staff attempt to rile women into participating in harassment .
“ If you don ’ t give them [ trans and gender nonconforming people ] a hard time , they give you a hard time , ” they explained .
That hard time could include not being given mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent room searches or being denied the ability to get medical care .
As reported previously , in November 2015 , Rojas informed prison officers that they had been documenting their derogatory comments for weeks and was planning to complain to the internal investigation unit .
In response , officers ripped apart Rojas ’ s cell and physically attacked them and two cellmates , who said they would report the attack .
All three were placed in small cages , typically used to confine people during programming , for nearly 12 hours and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were then placed in administrative segregation .
In November 2017 , Rojas , the two cellmates and a trans man incarcerated at CCWF filed a lawsuit charging that the continual sexual harassment , excessive force and subsequent denial of medical care violated the Eighth Amendment ’ s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment .
Their suit demanded more control and accountability when violence , whether physical or sexual , occurs , as well as safe reporting options to a third party outside the prison .
Rojas , now out of prison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end sexual and gender-based violence in prisons .
Two of their co-plaintiffs remain incarcerated , however , and continually face retaliation for their involvement in the lawsuit , which is still pending .
On June 29 , 2020 , Smith filed a lawsuit against CDCR for violating her constitutional rights and to change how California prisons treat sexual abuse complaints , particularly those lodged by LGBTQI people .
She is also seeking to remove the violations staff issued in retaliation for her PREA complaint .
Because Smith is in prison , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a screening required by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act — before CDCR can be served .
CDCR Deputy Press Secretary Terry Thornton confirmed that the agency has not been served and noted that CDCR can not comment on pending litigation .
In an email to Truthout , Thornton wrote , “ CDCR is committed to providing a safe , humane , rehabilitative and secure environment for all people housed in the state ’ s correctional facilities .
CDCR maintains a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment , sexual violence , staff sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all incarcerated people , all CDCR employees , all volunteers and all contractors .
Moreover , the Prison Rape Elimination Act ( PREA ) drives all of CDCR ’ s efforts to combat sexual abuse and sexual misconduct.
” Smith disagrees .
“ At the time … I thought that PREA was going to protect me , and … I thought the prison system had evolved to where I thought I would have been protected , ” she told Truthout .
“ I was wrong , just like I was wrong to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t prevent justice for me .
There will never be a justice for me .
I think this is a life sentence in the flesh and in the bone that I ’ m serving .
For me to be able to get up every morning , clothed in my right mind , is a struggle .
I will not stop fighting for the girls .
”

Note: This piece contains detailed descriptions of sexual violence.
For trans people in the U.S., 2020 might be a record high year for fatal violence. As tens of thousands of people poured into the streets to declare #BlackTransLivesMatter in June, six Black trans women (Brayla Stone, Merci Mack, Shaki Peters, Draya McCary, Tatiana Hall and Bree Black) were found dead within a nine-day period. At the end of July, two other Black trans women (Queasha D. Hardy and Tiffany Harris) became the 20th and 21st trans women murdered this year. “If this rapid pace continues through the year, 2020 will set a record for violence against the transgender community,” wrote Devin Norelle.
The killings of trans and gender nonconforming people disproportionately target Black trans women and trans women of color. In 2018, 82 percent of trans people killed were trans women of color. In 2019, 26 trans women died from fatal violence; 20 of those women were Black. A report by the Human Rights Coalition found that, of fatal violence in the trans and gender nonconforming communities between 2013 and 2018, 95 of the 128 victims identified were Black or African American and at least 103 were trans women of color.
Behind prison walls, trans women are also targeted for physical, sexual and fatal violence. When they attempt to report their assaults, they are subjected to additional violence from both prison staff and those around them. Trans women in men’s prisons are 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than cisgender men. According to data provided by CDCR, over 50 percent report fearing for their safety if they report harassment, discrimination or violence.
“There is a pervasive problem of not believing and dismissing complaints of [transphobic] harassment because it’s so normalized,” said Jen Orthwein, an attorney with Medina Orthwein LLP, a queer-owned civil rights law firm, who has represented trans women in California prisons. Orthwein also notes that, within prisons, authorities often perceive trans people to be the perpetrators of violence, even when they have been the victims of sexual abuse and harassment. While there is no data about the intersections of race, gender identity and retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, they note that they have seen ongoing retaliation against trans women of color who report sexual abuse.
That’s what happened to Orthwein’s client C. Jay Smith, a 59-year-old Black trans woman who is now suing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for failing to protect her from continued sexual harassment and assault and retaliating when she reported sexual abuse. While her story is not unique among trans and gender nonconforming people imprisoned across the nation, it is indicative of the ways in which prison officials treat complaints of sexual abuse and harassment, particularly by Black trans women and women of color.
“I would never have reported any of this [abuse] if I knew I would go through this,” Smith told Truthout.
“You Are Not the Victim. You’re Always the One Being Accused.”
San Quentin is one of less than a dozen California prisons designated as appropriate for transgender people. But Smith’s lawsuit charges that the prison has been far from safe for her.
Within prisons, authorities often perceive trans people to be the perpetrators of violence, even when they have been the victims of sexual abuse and harassment.
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), prison officials must offer trans people the opportunity to shower separately from others. But San Quentin staff consistently failed to provide that opportunity to Smith and other trans women. Smith was often forced to shower either with, or in full view of, dozens of men in custody. She has been openly harassed, stared at and stalked.
In 2013, Smith was violently raped from behind, but did not see the assailant. She did not report the attack. “In the past, when transgender inmates report anything, they lock you up and transfer you. You are not the victim. You’re always the one being accused,” she told Truthout. “From experience, you’re locked up and you’re thrown away. I had come too far for that. I didn’t want to ruin my chances of being allowed to take advantage of rehabilitation [at San Quentin]. How would it look if I reported the assault and I didn’t know who did it? I decided not to report it for my own safety, so I could get a new start.”
Five years later, in 2018, Smith became the target of pervasive sexual harassment and assaults by an incarcerated man known as “Prado.” In early 2019, Prado was moved to the cell next to hers and began throwing paper airplanes and other objects into her cell. When near her, he slapped her butt or grabbed her breasts. He exposed himself while watching her shower or standing at the entrance of her cell.
Smith reported his actions to prison staff, who did not intervene. Prado escalated his harassment, exposing himself and demanding oral sex. Smith requested that staff remove Prado, but they refused. The abuse continued.
At one point, when Prado exposed himself, he drew her attention to what appeared to be a large marble-shaped object inside the head of his penis, taunting “Remember, you liked it.” His words made Smith realize that Prado had been the person who had raped her in 2013. Shortly after, Smith told a prison lieutenant, B. Haub, about Prado’s harassment and requested that he be moved. When Haub refused, she requested that she be transferred to another cell. He refused that request as well.
On March 6, 2019, Smith reported the sexual assaults to a mental health clinician, who then filed a PREA report. After leaving the clinic, Smith was stopped by Haub, who escorted her to an Investigative Services Unit (ISU) trailer, then shoved her against a wall, searched her breasts using the palms of his hands, and locked her in a 3-foot-by-3-foot cage. While inside the cage, she was questioned for hours by ISU officers, who called her a “liar,” a “drama queen” and an “attention seeker.”
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, Smith should have been given access to outside advocates, a victim support person during the investigation and a victim advocate. She was offered none of these. Instead, officers ordered her to provide a urine sample, later claiming that they suspected her to be under the influence of a controlled substance. When she was unable to urinate, they issued her a rules violation report for failing to provide a urine sample.
Escalating Retaliation
During a cell search three days after her interrogation, an officer groped Smith, then tossed and tore apart her belongings, including letters from her mother who is deceased. Officers threw away many of her personal items and, claiming that a broken statue was a makeshift weapon, wrote her a violation report for possession of a deadly weapon. Smith was placed in administrative segregation, a form of isolation in which a person is locked in a cell 23 to 24 hours each day without their belongings. When she appealed the charge, Warden Ron Davis wrote, “You initiated an investigation by San Quentin ISU when you claimed to be the victim of PREA. During the course of that investigation you were found to be in possession of an inmate manufactured weapon resulting in your ASU Placement.” The district attorney pursued the weapons charge with the threat of an additional 10-year prison sentence. (In July 2020, after receiving over 100 calls and comments, the district attorney dropped the charges.)
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, prison officials must offer trans people the opportunity to shower separately from others. But San Quentin staff consistently failed to provide that opportunity.
In May 2019, prison officials informed Smith that her PREA allegation was unfounded, meaning that, after investigation, the allegation was “proven not to have occurred.” This isn’t unusual — that year, approximately 25 percent of California’s PREA investigations against other incarcerated people were deemed unfounded. That percentage rose to nearly 50 percent for complaints against prison staff. That same day, prison officials listed Prado as Smith’s confidential enemy, a classification that meant that the two could not be housed in the same prison. Smith was transferred from San Quentin, where she had been attending GED classes and participating in both the Inmate Advisory Council and the California Reentry Institute. Now at the California Medical Facility (CMF), she is not allowed to work or participate in prison programs until her ticket for the possession of a deadly weapon is adjudicated.
CDCR’s own data collection shows that correctional staff disproportionately target and retaliate against transgender women when they report PREA allegations. Data collected in December 2019 from transgender and other gender variant people in CDCR custody reveal that over 50 percent of that population in CDCR facilities designated for men fear for their safety if they report harassment, discrimination or violence perpetrated against them.
In late 2019, CDCR officials and community advocates met with transgender and gender variant people in custody at all the prisons designated for transgender people to conduct surveys and listen to individuals’ experiences in custody. By then, Smith had been transferred to CMF. She was one of 10 trans women who attended and discussed their experiences of sexual assault in prison. “I told [CDCR officials] that I would not recommend any of these women report anything to staff at their institutions because the institution is going to take care of themselves before the girls,” Smith recalled. “The [correctional counselor] took down my name and number and told me she would look into my case. I never heard anything back. What they were saying to us was totally rehearsed. None of us heard back from any of them. Not one of us.”
“I’m Not Going to Make It Out of This Prison Alive If I’m Left Here Any Longer”
Syiaah Skylit is a 30-year-old Black trans woman who has been incarcerated in multiple California men’s prisons. In May 2019, she was transferred to the Kern Valley State Prison. Shortly after, she witnessed an incarcerated man named David Brieby attack another trans woman. Although Skylit provided testimony in the ongoing criminal case against him for attempted murder, prison officials attempted to place Brieby on the same prison yard as her. When Skylit expressed concerns for her safety, she was placed in administrative segregation (ad seg), in which she was locked into her cell for most of the day. Brieby attacked a gay man on the yard and was also placed in ad seg.
Once again, Skylit expressed concerns for her safety. Prison officials transferred her to another yard — where they later transferred Brieby. On April 10, Brieby assaulted Skylit.
To protest the prison’s indifference to her safety, Skylit engaged in a hunger strike. In response, prison officials placed her on suicide watch, a form of confinement in which she was stripped of all of her possessions and placed in isolation.
On April 15, Skylit was released to another yard where she was attacked by another person, then sexually assaulted with a baton by an officer. She filed a PREA complaint against the officer. Like Smith, she was not offered a victim advocate or support person. As of August 6, she has not received any documentation related to the investigation.
That same evening, officers entered Skylit’s cell, stripped her naked, put her clothes and property on the tier (corridor outside her cell) for others to take and then left her naked without a mattress or blanket until the next shift, when another officer provided her with a blanket and clothing. The next morning, other officers punched, kicked and maced Skylit, calling her homophobic names. She was then placed in a holding cell where she was attacked by another incarcerated person, then maced again by officers who filed a rules violation report claiming that Skylit had battered another incarcerated person.
Skylit is once again locked in ad seg, where she spent her 30th birthday. Brieby also remains in ad seg and thus in the common areas during the times that people are allowed out of their cells. Prison staff have told Skylit that, because of COVID, both can expect to remain there until January 2021.
For years, Skylit requested transfer to a women’s prison to no avail. She has filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
“I’m not going to make it out of this prison alive if I’m left here any longer,” she told her lawyers in June 2020.
Her fears are not unfounded. In 2013, Kern Valley State Prison staff ignored threats to Carmen Guerrero, a trans woman. The man who was assigned to her cell had stated that he would kill Guerrero if they were celled together. They ignored his threats; he tortured and killed her. In 2019, he was sentenced to death for her murder. That same year, California’s Senate passed a bill requiring trans people to be housed according to their gender identity. COVID delayed the expected Assembly vote, but advocates are hopeful for a final vote before August ends.
“I Will Not Stop Fighting”
Even in a women’s prison, Skylit may not be safe from sexual abuse or staff retaliation. Rojas, a gender nonconforming person, spent 15 years in the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) where staff continually harassed them because of their gender identity. Staff, they told Truthout, “are always harassing. That’s the culture of the place. They harass trans and GNC [gender nonconforming] folks.”
Furthermore, Rojas noted that staff attempt to rile women into participating in harassment. “If you don’t give them [trans and gender nonconforming people] a hard time, they give you a hard time,” they explained. That hard time could include not being given mail on time or being subjected to more frequent room searches or being denied the ability to get medical care.
As reported previously, in November 2015, Rojas informed prison officers that they had been documenting their derogatory comments for weeks and was planning to complain to the internal investigation unit. In response, officers ripped apart Rojas’s cell and physically attacked them and two cellmates, who said they would report the attack. All three were placed in small cages, typically used to confine people during programming, for nearly 12 hours and denied medical care and bathroom use. They were then placed in administrative segregation.
In November 2017, Rojas, the two cellmates and a trans man incarcerated at CCWF filed a lawsuit charging that the continual sexual harassment, excessive force and subsequent denial of medical care violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Their suit demanded more control and accountability when violence, whether physical or sexual, occurs, as well as safe reporting options to a third party outside the prison.
Rojas, now out of prison, is organizing with the #MeTooBehindBars campaign to end sexual and gender-based violence in prisons. Two of their co-plaintiffs remain incarcerated, however, and continually face retaliation for their involvement in the lawsuit, which is still pending.
On June 29, 2020, Smith filed a lawsuit against CDCR for violating her constitutional rights and to change how California prisons treat sexual abuse complaints, particularly those lodged by LGBTQI people. She is also seeking to remove the violations staff issued in retaliation for her PREA complaint. Because Smith is in prison, her suit must go through an additional step — a screening required by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act — before CDCR can be served.
CDCR Deputy Press Secretary Terry Thornton confirmed that the agency has not been served and noted that CDCR cannot comment on pending litigation. In an email to Truthout, Thornton wrote, “CDCR is committed to providing a safe, humane, rehabilitative and secure environment for all people housed in the state’s correctional facilities. CDCR maintains a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, sexual violence, staff sexual misconduct and retaliation. This policy applies to all incarcerated people, all CDCR employees, all volunteers and all contractors. Moreover, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) drives all of CDCR’s efforts to combat sexual abuse and sexual misconduct.”
Smith disagrees. “At the time … I thought that PREA was going to protect me, and … I thought the prison system had evolved to where I thought I would have been protected,” she told Truthout. “I was wrong, just like I was wrong to think that my skin color wouldn’t prevent justice for me. There will never be a justice for me. I think this is a life sentence in the flesh and in the bone that I’m serving. For me to be able to get up every morning, clothed in my right mind, is a struggle. I will not stop fighting for the girls.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-24--Pelosi Warns Trump Against “Cutting Corners” on New Unproven Vaccine From UK

A new report suggests President Donald Trump may push for an unproven vaccine for coronavirus from the United Kingdom to be made available in the United States just one month before voters are set to decide if he deserves another term in office .
The Financial Times reported on Monday that Democrats in Congress were briefed in July about the administration ’ s considerations for the vaccine , a person familiar with the meeting told the publication .
According to the article , Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ( D-California ) tried to warn White House officials during that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any “ cutting corners ” with the vaccine if it could potentially be harmful to those who opt to get it .
Trump administration officials disputed the reporting , saying the fast-tracking of a vaccine for emergency use authorization isn ’ t being considered at this time .
A vaccine for COVID-19 , touted by Trump as the answer to stopping the spread of coronavirus in the U.S. , could indeed be an “ October surprise ” that would be beneficial to his reelection chances .
The president has struggled on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the pandemic , which has consistently been negative .
Numbers from this week show that just 31 percent of Americans approve of how Trump has managed the crisis , while 68 percent disapprove , according to a recent Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Monday .
The British vaccine in question has seen some success in testing with a small sample of 1,000 patients .
There have also been some documented side effects , however , and there ’ s no concluding evidence yet that the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 .
The reporting from The Financial Times , if accurate , may showcase how frantic Trump is to find a cure or vaccine for coronavirus ahead of Election Day in November .
The president has frequently promoted a number of treatments for the disease , touting them as being tremendous developments in the fight against its spread .
However , many of the remedies he has promoted over the past few months have been questionable at best , and outright dangerous in some instances .
Earlier this week , Trump touted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the blood of a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 is transfused into a patient currently afflicted with it , as a “ breakthrough ” for treating the virus , after the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) permitted emergency use authorization for the treatment .
“ This is a powerful therapy that transfuses very , very strong antibodies from the blood of recovered patients to help patients battling an infection , ” Trump said in a statement at the White House on Sunday .
“ It ’ s had an incredible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success rate Trump is suggesting is being questioned by health experts in the U.S. and around the world .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) , for example , has noted that not enough research has been conducted to make such conclusive remarks .
“ We recommend that convalescent plasma is still an experimental therapy .
It should be evaluated in well-designed , randomized , clinical trials , ” WHO ’ s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan said , adding that there ’ s “ very low-quality evidence ” to say it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be .
Thomas File , president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America , also urged caution when pushing the treatment .
“ While the data to date show some positive signals that convalescent plasma can be helpful in treating individuals with COVID-19 , especially if given early in the trajectory of disease , we lack the randomized controlled trial data we need to better understand its utility in COVID-19 treatment , ” he recently said .
In promoting the treatment , the White House cited a study from the Mayo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who received the convalescent plasma were more likely to survive another 30 days of coronavirus versus those who didn ’ t .
However , that study noted its own limitations , including the lack of a placebo group with which to compare the findings .
The FDA has permitted a treatment promoted by Trump before — the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine — for emergency use , only to later strip that authorization after it was determined through a number of studies that use of the drug to treat coronavirus was ineffective , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In spite of their removing the emergency use authorization for the drug , Trump continued to peddle it , including weeks later when he tweeted a video that stated hydroxychloroquine was a “ cure ” for the disease .

A new report suggests President Donald Trump may push for an unproven vaccine for coronavirus from the United Kingdom to be made available in the United States just one month before voters are set to decide if he deserves another term in office.
The Financial Times reported on Monday that Democrats in Congress were briefed in July about the administration’s considerations for the vaccine, a person familiar with the meeting told the publication. According to the article, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) tried to warn White House officials during that meeting that there couldn’t be any “cutting corners” with the vaccine if it could potentially be harmful to those who opt to get it.
Trump administration officials disputed the reporting, saying the fast-tracking of a vaccine for emergency use authorization isn’t being considered at this time.
A vaccine for COVID-19, touted by Trump as the answer to stopping the spread of coronavirus in the U.S., could indeed be an “October surprise” that would be beneficial to his reelection chances.
The president has struggled on the issue of how the American public perceives his handling of the pandemic, which has consistently been negative. Numbers from this week show that just 31 percent of Americans approve of how Trump has managed the crisis, while 68 percent disapprove, according to a recent Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Monday.
The British vaccine in question has seen some success in testing with a small sample of 1,000 patients. There have also been some documented side effects, however, and there’s no concluding evidence yet that the vaccine would be effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
The reporting from The Financial Times, if accurate, may showcase how frantic Trump is to find a cure or vaccine for coronavirus ahead of Election Day in November. The president has frequently promoted a number of treatments for the disease, touting them as being tremendous developments in the fight against its spread. However, many of the remedies he has promoted over the past few months have been questionable at best, and outright dangerous in some instances.
Earlier this week, Trump touted using convalescent plasma, where antibodies from the blood of a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 is transfused into a patient currently afflicted with it, as a “breakthrough” for treating the virus, after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorization for the treatment.
“This is a powerful therapy that transfuses very, very strong antibodies from the blood of recovered patients to help patients battling an infection,” Trump said in a statement at the White House on Sunday. “It’s had an incredible rate of success.”
Yet the high success rate Trump is suggesting is being questioned by health experts in the U.S. and around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, has noted that not enough research has been conducted to make such conclusive remarks.
“We recommend that convalescent plasma is still an experimental therapy. It should be evaluated in well-designed, randomized, clinical trials,” WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan said, adding that there’s “very low-quality evidence” to say it’s as effective as Trump makes it out to be.
Thomas File, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, also urged caution when pushing the treatment.
“While the data to date show some positive signals that convalescent plasma can be helpful in treating individuals with COVID-19, especially if given early in the trajectory of disease, we lack the randomized controlled trial data we need to better understand its utility in COVID-19 treatment,” he recently said.
In promoting the treatment, the White House cited a study from the Mayo Clinic that suggested 35 percent of patients who received the convalescent plasma were more likely to survive another 30 days of coronavirus versus those who didn’t. However, that study noted its own limitations, including the lack of a placebo group with which to compare the findings.
The FDA has permitted a treatment promoted by Trump before — the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine — for emergency use, only to later strip that authorization after it was determined through a number of studies that use of the drug to treat coronavirus was ineffective, and what’s worse, potentially dangerous. In spite of their removing the emergency use authorization for the drug, Trump continued to peddle it, including weeks later when he tweeted a video that stated hydroxychloroquine was a “cure” for the disease.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.