truthout--2020-09-05--NYC Teachers Say Union Leadership Made Unsafe Reopening Plan With City Officials

For the past several months , New York City public school teachers have been terrified of what the reopening plans for September will look like .
NYC is one of the only school districts of a major city in the country planning on re-opening : others have been pushed online due to a combination of rising cases and educator activism .
Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s attitude has been that teachers need to “ show up and serve people , ” and to stop complaining about the serious lack of safety measures taken by the city .
De Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best it can .
“ Their job is to come in and serve our kids… it ’ s the right thing to do for our kids.
” Thus far , the city has done nothing that would truly ensure safety .
Moreover , it is impossible to pivot to small class sizes , ventilated classrooms and time outside in a school system that has been underfunded at every level and is based primarily around fitting as many kids in a classroom as possible to pass standardized tests .
So while both Cuomo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for education , the mayor is now trying to distract from this systemic issue by claiming the United Federation of Teachers ( UFT ) has been too demanding in its safety requests .
The union leadership had started preparations for a strike , claiming that the district was not ready to re-open and that opening now would put students , teachers and communities at risk .
Then , on Tuesday , UFT leadership cancelled the strike votes and announced that it had come to an agreement with the DOE to reopen schools as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a few small changes .
Rank and file teachers were shocked : schools are unsafe and this decision , taken without any input from the rank and file members of the union , is a direct betrayal of the union membership and will put thousands of lives at risk .
The deal itself includes almost no remedy for the dangers posed by a school reopening .
There is still no change to the fact that students will be eating in groups , in small classrooms with their masks off .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for teachers with immunocompromised or otherwise medically vulnerable family members .
The “ big change ” in addressing the lack of ventilation , apparently involves little more than what the district is calling “ ventilation checks.
” Anyone who saw the videos that circulated on social media last week knows that the city considers a test done with a piece of toilet paper sufficient for these .
The biggest shift in the plan , however , involves when to reopen .
According to the agreement students will not be returning to in-person instruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only seven school days from the original reopening .
Meanwhile , teachers are still expected to return to school on September 8 , as planned , with most riding crowded public transportation to get there .
There will be a UFT 50-item safety checklist required to be completed before a school can reopen , but there is no forthcoming information on whether there is any way to enforce this agreement .
Long before the agreement with the UFT , the city had already promised to quarantine any class that has a single positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any school with more than one positive result , for two weeks .
However , there are still massive testing shortages and delays , with some people waiting up to 18 days for results .
That ’ s why NYC private schools like Poly Prep are setting up their own testing structures .
Further , the city ’ s track record with sticking to safety plans is deadly .
In March , the city promised to shut down schools with coronavirus cases and then hid positive test results , even instructing people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort to keep as many schools open as possible .
The issue of nurses in schools has also been a systematic one .
The Black Lives Matter movement has consistently highlighted that there are more cops than guidance counselors and nurses in schools .
Now , the city is promising “ a school nurse in every building ” — the biggest compromise they have made with the union thus far .
The problem , however , is that many school buildings house several schools and thousands of students , and the prospect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not terribly reassuring .
And there is still no provision for bussing of District 75 students , many of whom have severe disabilities and health problems .
But even if these meager safety requirements were more robust , in-person schooling still simply wouldn ’ t be safe .
There are new Covid outbreaks occurring in some NYC neighborhoods already , and the New York State Nurses Association ( NYSNA ) has said “ There is no question that reopening in-person schooling will accelerate the spread of COVID-19 and expose educators and school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The influx of the city ’ s one million students into the public transportation system each day could also trigger new outbreaks , yet neither the city nor the UFT has addressed this at all .
The UFT Is Betraying NYC Teachers and Communities Despite the outcry from teachers who realize what a terrible and dangerous plan their own union has agreed to , UFT leadership has completely dropped the threat of a strike , revealing to the public how little it is willing to fight for teachers and students .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original demands — themselves woefully insufficient were also dropped .
Additionally , a strike would have confronted the anti-union Taylor Law , which prohibits strikes by NY state public employees , and which has been lorded over public sector workers for decades to force them to accept terrible contracts .
The Taylor Law is fundamentally anti-worker .
Teachers should go on strike against unsafe re-openings .
It ’ s long past time for rank and file New York City teachers to force the UFT leadership to stop hiding behind the Taylor Law as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it ’ s necessary — like now , in a life-and-death situation .
While the city had initially agreed to random temperature checks , UFT President Michael Mulgrew had said that this wasn ’ t enough .
The UFT argued that “ The state could expand [ the vaccination ] requirement by insisting that all students and staff who are planning on attending school be tested in August for active or prior exposure to the coronavirus.
” But Mulgrew has since walked back this demand for full testing , saying now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 10 percent of students and teachers once a month is a “ win ” for teachers .
The new reopening plan agreed to by the UFT is a clear abdication of its responsibility , not only to keep all of its own members safe , but to keep students , families , and communities safe as well .
The teachers who comprise the UFT care deeply about their students and their families , and the thought of people losing family members due to a rushed reopening of schools is terrifying .
Teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans will be for Black and Latinx communities , which have already been disproportionately affected by the pandemic .
In an attempt to “ sell ” this terrible deal to the membership , the UFT leadership has insisted over and over again that “ We showed them we would not go back until it was safe.
” Lower-level members of the union leadership have been insisting for weeks that the UFT could not demand that schools be fully remote .
First they said it was because parents were needed as allies , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly not in favor of the DOE reopening plan , the narrative shifted .
Now UFT leaders are trying to sell the necessity of in-person school to their own members by pointing to the fact that in some districts with full remote learning , legislatures have used it as an excuse to lay off teachers .
The fact that the same union leadership that is proclaiming its own union ’ s strength is asking its membership to cower in the face of layoffs instead of fighting back is a serious weakness , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as obedient participants in the economic agenda of the city .
The leadership ’ s handling of the reopening has also exposed the ways in which it attempts to keep teachers in line .
Weak demands are formulated without member input or without a systematic attempt to discuss next steps thoroughly .
There were some meetings held with membership at the district level , though whether or not teachers learned about them was dependent on the workings of their individual chapter , and strike authorization votes had been planned and publicized .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as the MORE caucus , as well as a DSA-led solidarity group , had frequent meetings to discuss next steps and to plan for the possibility of the first strike of the UFT in 45 years .
A deal was then made with politicians and presented as a win .
The Delegate Assembly , who agreed to the deal after a speech in which Mulgrew spoke about how proud he was of his union ’ s strength , passed the resolution to approve the deal with 82 percent of the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UFT Delegate Assembly operates — with membership in the leadership caucus , Unity , being contingent on the signing of a loyalty oath requiring them to vote as directed — many of the votes seldom reflect the actual wishes or demands of the rank and file , illustrated by the results of the meeting on Tuesday .
There was no attempt or opportunity to hear from rank and file teachers about their vision of the new plan , much less allow the rank and file an opportunity to vote on it .
Teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the part of their own leadership and the bureaucratic methods used to try to convince members to accept the deal .
It has become painfully clear that the rank and file of the UFT must fight back against the city ’ s incredibly dangerous plan that puts teachers , students , and families in jeopardy .
This city government ’ s priorities have always been money over people , the economy over lives .
They are recklessly sacrificing people , and our only option now is to stop them ourselves .
Plans for @ @ @ @ @

For the past several months, New York City public school teachers have been terrified of what the reopening plans for September will look like. NYC is one of the only school districts of a major city in the country planning on re-opening: others have been pushed online due to a combination of rising cases and educator activism. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s attitude has been that teachers need to “show up and serve people,” and to stop complaining about the serious lack of safety measures taken by the city. De Blasio insists that the city is doing the best it can. “Their job is to come in and serve our kids… it’s the right thing to do for our kids.”
Thus far, the city has done nothing that would truly ensure safety. Moreover, it is impossible to pivot to small class sizes, ventilated classrooms and time outside in a school system that has been underfunded at every level and is based primarily around fitting as many kids in a classroom as possible to pass standardized tests. So while both Cuomo and the NYC City Council have slashed funding for education, the mayor is now trying to distract from this systemic issue by claiming the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has been too demanding in its safety requests.
The union leadership had started preparations for a strike, claiming that the district was not ready to re-open and that opening now would put students, teachers and communities at risk. Then, on Tuesday, UFT leadership cancelled the strike votes and announced that it had come to an agreement with the DOE to reopen schools as planned with only a week delay and with a few small changes. Rank and file teachers were shocked: schools are unsafe and this decision, taken without any input from the rank and file members of the union, is a direct betrayal of the union membership and will put thousands of lives at risk.
A Deadly Plan
The deal itself includes almost no remedy for the dangers posed by a school reopening. There is still no change to the fact that students will be eating in groups, in small classrooms with their masks off. There is still no plan to make any accommodation for teachers with immunocompromised or otherwise medically vulnerable family members. The “big change” in addressing the lack of ventilation, apparently involves little more than what the district is calling “ventilation checks.” Anyone who saw the videos that circulated on social media last week knows that the city considers a test done with a piece of toilet paper sufficient for these.
The biggest shift in the plan, however, involves when to reopen. According to the agreement students will not be returning to in-person instruction until September 21, a delay of only seven school days from the original reopening. Meanwhile, teachers are still expected to return to school on September 8, as planned, with most riding crowded public transportation to get there.
There will be a UFT 50-item safety checklist required to be completed before a school can reopen, but there is no forthcoming information on whether there is any way to enforce this agreement. Long before the agreement with the UFT, the city had already promised to quarantine any class that has a single positive coronavirus test result, and to close any school with more than one positive result, for two weeks. However, there are still massive testing shortages and delays, with some people waiting up to 18 days for results. That’s why NYC private schools like Poly Prep are setting up their own testing structures.
Further, the city’s track record with sticking to safety plans is deadly. In March, the city promised to shut down schools with coronavirus cases and then hid positive test results, even instructing people in schools not to report them, in an effort to keep as many schools open as possible.
The issue of nurses in schools has also been a systematic one. The Black Lives Matter movement has consistently highlighted that there are more cops than guidance counselors and nurses in schools. Now, the city is promising “a school nurse in every building” — the biggest compromise they have made with the union thus far. The problem, however, is that many school buildings house several schools and thousands of students, and the prospect of one nurse for all of them is not terribly reassuring. And there is still no provision for bussing of District 75 students, many of whom have severe disabilities and health problems.
But even if these meager safety requirements were more robust, in-person schooling still simply wouldn’t be safe. There are new Covid outbreaks occurring in some NYC neighborhoods already, and the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) has said “There is no question that reopening in-person schooling will accelerate the spread of COVID-19 and expose educators and school staff to greater risk of infection.” The influx of the city’s one million students into the public transportation system each day could also trigger new outbreaks, yet neither the city nor the UFT has addressed this at all.
The UFT Is Betraying NYC Teachers and Communities
Despite the outcry from teachers who realize what a terrible and dangerous plan their own union has agreed to, UFT leadership has completely dropped the threat of a strike, revealing to the public how little it is willing to fight for teachers and students. In fact, some of the union’s original demands — themselves woefully insufficient were also dropped. Additionally, a strike would have confronted the anti-union Taylor Law, which prohibits strikes by NY state public employees, and which has been lorded over public sector workers for decades to force them to accept terrible contracts. The Taylor Law is fundamentally anti-worker. Teachers should go on strike against unsafe re-openings. It’s long past time for rank and file New York City teachers to force the UFT leadership to stop hiding behind the Taylor Law as a way to avoid taking militant action when it’s necessary — like now, in a life-and-death situation.
While the city had initially agreed to random temperature checks, UFT President Michael Mulgrew had said that this wasn’t enough. The UFT argued that “The state could expand [the vaccination] requirement by insisting that all students and staff who are planning on attending school be tested in August for active or prior exposure to the coronavirus.” But Mulgrew has since walked back this demand for full testing, saying now that a plan to test a random sample of 10 percent of students and teachers once a month is a “win” for teachers.
The new reopening plan agreed to by the UFT is a clear abdication of its responsibility, not only to keep all of its own members safe, but to keep students, families, and communities safe as well. The teachers who comprise the UFT care deeply about their students and their families, and the thought of people losing family members due to a rushed reopening of schools is terrifying. Teachers also know just how catastrophic these reopening plans will be for Black and Latinx communities, which have already been disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
In an attempt to “sell” this terrible deal to the membership, the UFT leadership has insisted over and over again that “We showed them we would not go back until it was safe.” Lower-level members of the union leadership have been insisting for weeks that the UFT could not demand that schools be fully remote. First they said it was because parents were needed as allies, then when it became clear that parents were overwhelmingly not in favor of the DOE reopening plan, the narrative shifted. Now UFT leaders are trying to sell the necessity of in-person school to their own members by pointing to the fact that in some districts with full remote learning, legislatures have used it as an excuse to lay off teachers.
The fact that the same union leadership that is proclaiming its own union’s strength is asking its membership to cower in the face of layoffs instead of fighting back is a serious weakness, and it exposes their determination to present teachers as obedient participants in the economic agenda of the city.
The leadership’s handling of the reopening has also exposed the ways in which it attempts to keep teachers in line. Weak demands are formulated without member input or without a systematic attempt to discuss next steps thoroughly. There were some meetings held with membership at the district level, though whether or not teachers learned about them was dependent on the workings of their individual chapter, and strike authorization votes had been planned and publicized. In contrast, rank and file teacher organizations, such as the MORE caucus, as well as a DSA-led solidarity group, had frequent meetings to discuss next steps and to plan for the possibility of the first strike of the UFT in 45 years.
A deal was then made with politicians and presented as a win. The Delegate Assembly, who agreed to the deal after a speech in which Mulgrew spoke about how proud he was of his union’s strength, passed the resolution to approve the deal with 82 percent of the vote. However, given the way the UFT Delegate Assembly operates — with membership in the leadership caucus, Unity, being contingent on the signing of a loyalty oath requiring them to vote as directed — many of the votes seldom reflect the actual wishes or demands of the rank and file, illustrated by the results of the meeting on Tuesday. There was no attempt or opportunity to hear from rank and file teachers about their vision of the new plan, much less allow the rank and file an opportunity to vote on it.
Teachers are understandably furious about this sellout on the part of their own leadership and the bureaucratic methods used to try to convince members to accept the deal. It has become painfully clear that the rank and file of the UFT must fight back against the city’s incredibly dangerous plan that puts teachers, students, and families in jeopardy. This city government’s priorities have always been money over people, the economy over lives. They are recklessly sacrificing people, and our only option now is to stop them ourselves. Plans for a strike must continue.


truthout--2020-09-05--Court Strikes Blow Against Dark Money Just in Time for the 2020 Elections

Good news is infrequent when you ’ re on the anticorruption beat .
Notable recent incidents , for example , have included the sentencing of a former U.S. congressman ’ s wife for misuse of campaign funds and the resignation of a North Carolina state legislator who had pled guilty to tax evasion charges .
However , in a rare positive development , the D.C .
Circuit Court ruled last month that the Federal Elections Commission ( FEC ) ’ s disclosure rules on dark money were too weak .
In the case at hand , CREW v. FEC ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , including a 2018 case of the same name ) , the plaintiffs were led by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , a nonpartisan nonprofit organization whose mission is to hold government officials accountable to ethics rules , campaign finance laws , and the Constitution .
Meanwhile , the defendant was the FEC , the agency responsible for administering federal campaign finance laws , including transparency rules .
CREW sues the FEC often because the agency is known for failing to achieve its main objective — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While many critics scream at the FEC , “ you had one job !
” , CREW actually does the hard work of litigation in order to prompt the agency toward action .
The case started eight years ago when CREW filed a complaint at the FEC against Crossroads GPS , a dark money group that had engaged in secret spending during the 2012 election cycle .
When the FEC failed to take action , CREW then sued the FEC — and won their case in a federal district court in August 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that lower court opinion .
The CREW v. FEC case literally turns on the difference between the words “ an ” and “ the ” .
While this may seem like an infinitesimal difference , it actually matters for how our democracy works .
In fact , the difference created a huge loophole in campaign finance law that allowed for $ 1 billion in dark money spending in federal elections over the past decade .
The issue in the case was the 1979 version of the Federal Election Campaign Act ( FECA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which requires disclosing the identity of anyone who contributed more than $ 200 toward independent expenditures — ads that promote or attack political candidates .
The key language in the statute from subsection 30104 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( C ) requires independent expenditure makers to disclose “ each person who made a contribution in excess of $ 200 .
.
.
for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.
” Note the use of the word “ an.
” However , when the FEC promulgated their regulations ( 11 C.F.R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) ( vi ) ) in 1980 implementing this statute , they used language that required disclosing the identity only of persons whose contributions were “ made for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure.
” Note the use of the word “ the ” — a choice that allowed election lawyers representing dark money groups to argue successfully for decades that donors only had to be disclosed if they had earmarked funds for a particular political ad .
And the FEC has enshrined this pro-dark money approach in its instructions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FEC ’ s traditional approach to “ disclosure ” led to Alice-in-Wonderland filings at the agency that reported millions in spending that all appeared to come from no one at all .
For example , if you pull the independent expenditure report for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the 2018 election , you will find a listing for $ 7,458,414.89 in spending and $ 0 from donors .
Similarly , if you look at the FEC filings for the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action ( NRA-ILA ) — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election cycle — you will find a listing for $ 33,341,464.65 spending and $ 0 from donors .
The recent ruling in CREW v. FEC throws out the FEC rule that never matched up with its controlling statute .
This shuts down a big avenue for dark money just in time for the 2020 federal elections .
Now donors who bankroll political ads that meet the independent expenditure definition need to disclose their role in attacking or supporting candidates .
This change is long overdue .
Open Secrets , a nonpartisan research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has noted that “ more than $ 116 million in political spending and 2020 contributions can be traced back to ‘ dark money ’ groups aligned with Democratic or Republican party leadership.
” The group also noted that dark money conduits are also funding super PACs during the 2020 cycle .
The bad news is that the FEC is without a quorum for the second time in the 2020 election cycle .
This could delay the FEC from complying with the D.C .
Circuit Court ’ s good CREW v. FEC decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed are the author ’ s own and not necessarily those of the Brennan Center .

Good news is infrequent when you’re on the anticorruption beat. Notable recent incidents, for example, have included the sentencing of a former U.S. congressman’s wife for misuse of campaign funds and the resignation of a North Carolina state legislator who had pled guilty to tax evasion charges. However, in a rare positive development, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled last month that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)’s disclosure rules on dark money were too weak.
In the case at hand, CREW v. FEC (which should not be confused with other cases, including a 2018 case of the same name), the plaintiffs were led by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonpartisan nonprofit organization whose mission is to hold government officials accountable to ethics rules, campaign finance laws, and the Constitution. Meanwhile, the defendant was the FEC, the agency responsible for administering federal campaign finance laws, including transparency rules. CREW sues the FEC often because the agency is known for failing to achieve its main objective — the enforcement of campaign finance laws. While many critics scream at the FEC, “you had one job!”, CREW actually does the hard work of litigation in order to prompt the agency toward action.
The case started eight years ago when CREW filed a complaint at the FEC against Crossroads GPS, a dark money group that had engaged in secret spending during the 2012 election cycle. When the FEC failed to take action, CREW then sued the FEC — and won their case in a federal district court in August 2018. The 2020 case involves an appeal of that lower court opinion.
The CREW v. FEC case literally turns on the difference between the words “an” and “the”. While this may seem like an infinitesimal difference, it actually matters for how our democracy works. In fact, the difference created a huge loophole in campaign finance law that allowed for $1 billion in dark money spending in federal elections over the past decade.
The issue in the case was the 1979 version of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) at 52 USC § 30104, which requires disclosing the identity of anyone who contributed more than $200 toward independent expenditures — ads that promote or attack political candidates. The key language in the statute from subsection 30104(c)(2)(C) requires independent expenditure makers to disclose “each person who made a contribution in excess of $200 . . . for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.” Note the use of the word “an.”
However, when the FEC promulgated their regulations (11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi)) in 1980 implementing this statute, they used language that required disclosing the identity only of persons whose contributions were “made for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure.” Note the use of the word “the” — a choice that allowed election lawyers representing dark money groups to argue successfully for decades that donors only had to be disclosed if they had earmarked funds for a particular political ad. And the FEC has enshrined this pro-dark money approach in its instructions for FEC forms used by contributors.
The FEC’s traditional approach to “disclosure” led to Alice-in-Wonderland filings at the agency that reported millions in spending that all appeared to come from no one at all. For example, if you pull the independent expenditure report for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the 2018 election, you will find a listing for $7,458,414.89 in spending and $0 from donors. Similarly, if you look at the FEC filings for the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) — the biggest dark money spender in the 2016 presidential election cycle — you will find a listing for $33,341,464.65 spending and $0 from donors.
The recent ruling in CREW v. FEC throws out the FEC rule that never matched up with its controlling statute. This shuts down a big avenue for dark money just in time for the 2020 federal elections. Now donors who bankroll political ads that meet the independent expenditure definition need to disclose their role in attacking or supporting candidates.
This change is long overdue. Open Secrets, a nonpartisan research group that tracks dark money in politics, has noted that “more than $116 million in political spending and 2020 contributions can be traced back to ‘dark money’ groups aligned with Democratic or Republican party leadership.” The group also noted that dark money conduits are also funding super PACs during the 2020 cycle.
The bad news is that the FEC is without a quorum for the second time in the 2020 election cycle. This could delay the FEC from complying with the D.C. Circuit Court’s good CREW v. FEC decision in a timely fashion.
The views expressed are the author’s own and not necessarily those of the Brennan Center.


truthout--2020-09-05--American Political Cynicism Could Benefit Trump in November

Steve Bannon ’ s recent arrest marked the eighth time that a former adviser of President Donald Trump had been taken into custody .
When asked about the “ culture of lawlessness ” that seems to permeate his administration , the president replied , “ There was great lawlessness in the Obama administration.
” This response represents a well-established pattern : When accused of corruption , Trump and his allies attempt to levy those same charges against his opponents .
Unfortunately , the focus on presidential corruption plays into the cynical view many Americans have of politics and politicians .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign for reelection .
If all politicians are corrupt , whoever holds the highest office is immaterial .
Given the administration ’ s past and present scandals , and the well-documented corruption of several of his current and former cabinet members , it may seem like an odd campaign strategy to draw more attention to the notion of corruption with false allegations against former President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
Transparency International — an organization focused on tackling corruption worldwide — gives each country a transparency score from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a composite measure of 13 independent surveys from organizations like the World Bank and World Economic Forum , which look at variables like instances of bribery , protection for whistleblowers and anti-corruption infrastructure in measure corruption .
Denmark and New Zealand were the least corrupt countries in 2019 , according to Transparency International , with a score of 87 .
The United States scored a 69 , tying with France for 26th place .
The average country score was 43 .
Polling data paint a far bleaker picture of recent public perceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
A 2015 Gallup poll showed that 75 percent of Americans believed government corruption was “ widespread.
” A growing cynicism about the value of democracy in both the United States and Europe can increase support for more authoritarian alternatives , according to a 2016 Journal of Democracy study .
For example , the authors found that when asked — on a scale of 1 to 10 — how important it was to live in a democracy , 72 percent of respondents born in the United States before 1941 choose 10 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents born after 1980 .
Relatedly , the authors note that in 1995 , 1 in 16 Americans thought that military rule would be a “ good thing.
” By 2016 , that number was one in six .
The study found that Western European countries exhibited similar trends .
Evidence from a Pew Research Center 2019 global study echoes this idea , and suggests citizens of Western democracies — like Canada , the Netherlands and Sweden — who believe that “ most politicians are corrupt ” also tend to be dissatisfied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This lack of support for democracy can lead to support for anti-establishment or fringe parties .
For instance , a recent study by the European Data Journalism Network measures the growth in support for anti-European Union and populist parties over time .
Even in well-established democracies like the Netherlands , the vote share of these parties has increased from 5 percent in 1998 to 30 percent in 2017 .
A 2018 Cambridge University Press journal study of contemporary autocrats reveals that strongmen were able to rise to power in previously democratic countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part due to their promises to expose the corruption of political elites .
A later 2018 study from the Center for American Progress showed 91 percent of respondents believed that the U.S. government worked to benefit politicians , while only 26 percent answered that the government worked to benefit people like them .
In that same study , 68 percent of voters thought that reducing corruption at the federal level was more important than reducing government spending .
When asked about specific instances of corruption , those same poll respondents overwhelmingly stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
For example , when asked about Trump family businesses profiting off of the presidency , 57 percent of respondents said this made them feel less confident in the administration versus the 7 percent who said it made them feel more confident .
Yet , without denying corruption in his administration , Trump insists corruption doesn ’ t matter because everyone else is corrupt too .
Americans , historically cynical about the levels of government corruption before Trump , have been primed to accept this argument .
When voters adopt the attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” it allows those who are most corrupt to remain in office .
As a political scientist working in Ecuador , I watched as cynicism regarding the corruption of traditional elites allowed a populist president to rewrite the constitution to strengthen his power and extend his own term limits .
Ultimately , if voters believe that democratic government works only for the corrupt elites , leaders can more easily subvert democratic norms .
Voters are less likely to fight to preserve a system that they believe was not working for them to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter cynicism regarding corruption — and the desire for a perceived strongman to fix it — has been pushed to the extreme by the rise of the QAnon conspiracy theory .
QAnon followers reportedly believe that Trump is secretly working to root out corruption and pedophilia at the top levels of government .
The FBI has labeled the movement a domestic terrorism threat , yet 19 Republicans running for Congress and the Texas Republican Party openly support QAnon .
When the president was recently asked about QAnon and its followers , he acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much about them , he considered them “ people that love our country.
” His remarks gave new legitimacy to the shadowy group .
Additionally , GOP supporters in the Senate continue to push a false narrative about Biden ’ s role in the firing of Ukraine ’ s top prosecutor when Biden was vice president .
Though these allegations have been thoroughly debunked , White House intelligence officials have warned that the false allegations against Biden are part of a Russian disinformation campaign to influence the November elections .
Addressing voter cynicism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intrinsic value of democracy will require concerted action on the part of politicians and voters themselves .
While voters may have overestimated the level of government corruption in recent history , their fears were also not unfounded .
That is why Trump ’ s 2016 campaign promise to “ drain the swamp ” held appeal to voters .
To counter that push , the Democratic presidential campaign can endeavor to rebuild trust in the federal bureaucracy and demonstrate that any corruption is unacceptable .
A Biden administration could start by investigating ethics violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public needs to see officials who misused government funds or lied under oath to Congress being held accountable for their actions .
Future administrations also need to demonstrate that politicians work for their constituents rather than special interests .
In so doing , a possible Biden administration should adopt an anti-corruption agenda that reforms campaign financing , better regulates lobbying and ends practices like partisan gerrymandering that make it difficult for voters to hold politicians accountable .
Additionally , the economic crisis surrounding COVID-19 is on course to increase wealth inequality just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is dangerous as economically disadvantaged citizens — perhaps rightly — take a more skeptical view of government .
To start , Congress needs to pass a better economic relief package for citizens economically impacted by COVID-19 .
Finally , voters need to do their part .
There are real substantive differences between candidates like Donald Trump and Joe Biden in terms of public corruption .
While it is easy to be cynical about government — particularly in the Trump era — there are still decent people who serve in office .
Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves , voters can look to politicians who behave like true public servants .
Yes , some cynicism is healthy .
But voters need to stop accepting corruption as a matter of course .

If voters believe that democracy works only for the corrupt elites, leaders can more easily subvert democratic norms.
Steve Bannon’s recent arrest marked the eighth time that a former adviser of President Donald Trump had been taken into custody. When asked about the “culture of lawlessness” that seems to permeate his administration, the president replied, “There was great lawlessness in the Obama administration.”
This response represents a well-established pattern: When accused of corruption, Trump and his allies attempt to levy those same charges against his opponents.
Unfortunately, the focus on presidential corruption plays into the cynical view many Americans have of politics and politicians. Perversely, such cynicism could benefit the Trump campaign for reelection. If all politicians are corrupt, whoever holds the highest office is immaterial.
Given the administration’s past and present scandals, and the well-documented corruption of several of his current and former cabinet members, it may seem like an odd campaign strategy to draw more attention to the notion of corruption with false allegations against former President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Transparency International — an organization focused on tackling corruption worldwide — gives each country a transparency score from 0 to 100. The transparency score is a composite measure of 13 independent surveys from organizations like the World Bank and World Economic Forum, which look at variables like instances of bribery, protection for whistleblowers and anti-corruption infrastructure in measure corruption. Denmark and New Zealand were the least corrupt countries in 2019, according to Transparency International, with a score of 87. The United States scored a 69, tying with France for 26th place. The average country score was 43.
Polling data paint a far bleaker picture of recent public perceptions of political corruption over the past few years. A 2015 Gallup poll showed that 75 percent of Americans believed government corruption was “widespread.”
A growing cynicism about the value of democracy in both the United States and Europe can increase support for more authoritarian alternatives, according to a 2016 Journal of Democracy study. For example, the authors found that when asked — on a scale of 1 to 10 — how important it was to live in a democracy, 72 percent of respondents born in the United States before 1941 choose 10, as opposed to only 30 percent of respondents born after 1980. Relatedly, the authors note that in 1995, 1 in 16 Americans thought that military rule would be a “good thing.” By 2016, that number was one in six. The study found that Western European countries exhibited similar trends.
When accused of corruption, Trump and his allies attempt to levy those same charges against his opponents.
Evidence from a Pew Research Center 2019 global study echoes this idea, and suggests citizens of Western democracies — like Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden — who believe that “most politicians are corrupt” also tend to be dissatisfied with the way democracy works in their country. This lack of support for democracy can lead to support for anti-establishment or fringe parties. For instance, a recent study by the European Data Journalism Network measures the growth in support for anti-European Union and populist parties over time. Even in well-established democracies like the Netherlands, the vote share of these parties has increased from 5 percent in 1998 to 30 percent in 2017.
A 2018 Cambridge University Press journal study of contemporary autocrats reveals that strongmen were able to rise to power in previously democratic countries of Hungary, Venezuela and Turkey in part due to their promises to expose the corruption of political elites.
A later 2018 study from the Center for American Progress showed 91 percent of respondents believed that the U.S. government worked to benefit politicians, while only 26 percent answered that the government worked to benefit people like them. In that same study, 68 percent of voters thought that reducing corruption at the federal level was more important than reducing government spending.
When asked about specific instances of corruption, those same poll respondents overwhelmingly stated that these actions lowered their trust in the administration. For example, when asked about Trump family businesses profiting off of the presidency, 57 percent of respondents said this made them feel less confident in the administration versus the 7 percent who said it made them feel more confident.
Yet, without denying corruption in his administration, Trump insists corruption doesn’t matter because everyone else is corrupt too. Americans, historically cynical about the levels of government corruption before Trump, have been primed to accept this argument. When voters adopt the attitude that “all politicians are corrupt,” it allows those who are most corrupt to remain in office.
As a political scientist working in Ecuador, I watched as cynicism regarding the corruption of traditional elites allowed a populist president to rewrite the constitution to strengthen his power and extend his own term limits.
Ultimately, if voters believe that democratic government works only for the corrupt elites, leaders can more easily subvert democratic norms. Voters are less likely to fight to preserve a system that they believe was not working for them to begin with.
In the United States, voter cynicism regarding corruption — and the desire for a perceived strongman to fix it — has been pushed to the extreme by the rise of the QAnon conspiracy theory.
QAnon followers reportedly believe that Trump is secretly working to root out corruption and pedophilia at the top levels of government. The FBI has labeled the movement a domestic terrorism threat, yet 19 Republicans running for Congress and the Texas Republican Party openly support QAnon.
When the president was recently asked about QAnon and its followers, he acknowledged that while he didn’t know much about them, he considered them “people that love our country.” His remarks gave new legitimacy to the shadowy group.
Additionally, GOP supporters in the Senate continue to push a false narrative about Biden’s role in the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor when Biden was vice president. Though these allegations have been thoroughly debunked, White House intelligence officials have warned that the false allegations against Biden are part of a Russian disinformation campaign to influence the November elections.
If voters believe that democratic government works only for the corrupt elites, leaders can more easily subvert democratic norms.
Addressing voter cynicism regarding the corruption of elites and the intrinsic value of democracy will require concerted action on the part of politicians and voters themselves.
While voters may have overestimated the level of government corruption in recent history, their fears were also not unfounded. That is why Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to “drain the swamp” held appeal to voters.
To counter that push, the Democratic presidential campaign can endeavor to rebuild trust in the federal bureaucracy and demonstrate that any corruption is unacceptable.
A Biden administration could start by investigating ethics violations committed during the Trump administration. The public needs to see officials who misused government funds or lied under oath to Congress being held accountable for their actions.
Future administrations also need to demonstrate that politicians work for their constituents rather than special interests. In so doing, a possible Biden administration should adopt an anti-corruption agenda that reforms campaign financing, better regulates lobbying and ends practices like partisan gerrymandering that make it difficult for voters to hold politicians accountable.
Additionally, the economic crisis surrounding COVID-19 is on course to increase wealth inequality just as the 2008 financial crisis did. This is dangerous as economically disadvantaged citizens — perhaps rightly — take a more skeptical view of government. To start, Congress needs to pass a better economic relief package for citizens economically impacted by COVID-19.
Finally, voters need to do their part. There are real substantive differences between candidates like Donald Trump and Joe Biden in terms of public corruption. While it is easy to be cynical about government — particularly in the Trump era — there are still decent people who serve in office. Rather than cynically expecting politicians to be out for themselves, voters can look to politicians who behave like true public servants.
Yes, some cynicism is healthy. But voters need to stop accepting corruption as a matter of course.
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--2020-09-05--Trump Breaks With US History of Global Cooperation in Eradicating Diseases

Buried amid this week ’ s avalanche of news about the Trump administration ’ s posturing and pandering to extremists and conspiracy theorists was one action that is fraught with peril in relation to the global pandemic we face : The decision to end U.S. participation in international efforts to develop and to globally distribute a COVID-19 vaccine .
Trump is seeking to justify the decision by citing U.S. opposition to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , which is a key party to the effort .
But in reality , it is an epic act of global sabotage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punitive plan is that U.S. vaccine advances over the coming months and years won ’ t be a centerpiece of a coordinated plan to get new vaccines widely distributed in poor countries .
It also means that , if the U.S. vaccine development program under Operation Warp Speed doesn ’ t bear fruit , the U.S. will be outside of the technology and vaccine-sharing agreements likely to be negotiated by most of the world ’ s countries .
Earlier this summer , WHO reported that at least 150 countries were discussing the shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would take , and since then , that number has gone up .
Trump ’ s decision to sit this partnership out means that the United States is alienating , yet again , its allies around the world with its go-it-alone priorities .
And it means that the U.S. is now committed to using vaccines as a diplomatic weapon , holding out the prospect that it will selectively share U.S. vaccines with certain countries , presumably in exchange for economic and military concessions , while withholding its medical discoveries and technological know-how from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extortionist approach to government that has defined Trump ’ s entire foreign policy .
Take , for example , his demands that South Korea and Japan pony up protection money in exchange for ongoing U.S. military guarantees .
Or his efforts to block international aid to desperately poor countries in Central America unless they accepted asylum seekers deported from the United States .
Trump ’ s people have , from the get-go , regarded any and all international treaties and binding international agreements , as well as an array of UN agencies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accords ; and two years later , it began the actual withdrawal process .
In 2018 , it pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council and ceased being a party to the multi-country nuclear deal with Iran .
In 2019 , it abandoned a key nuclear arms treaty with the Russians .
In 2020 , at the height of the worst global pandemic in a century , the U.S. pulled out of the World Health Organization .
The administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pondered scrapping the agreements underpinning the international postal system and mused about withdrawing from NATO .
But the decision to give the middle finger to the rest of the world when it comes to a coordinated COVID-19 vaccine response is a new nadir .
And it also represents a stark break with the U.S. ’ s past .
For , over the last century , U.S. administrations from both sides of the political aisle , and U.S. public health agencies , have made sure that U.S. scientists worked with colleagues from around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival nations , to eradicate or to at least control the spread of many of the deadliest , most contagious diseases .
To take just a few examples : The U.S. has been a long-term funder and participant in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative , and has helped fund mass polio vaccination campaigns in poorer countries in the more than half-century since the vaccine became widely available .
The result has been the near-eradication of a highly contagious disease that once killed or grievously harmed huge numbers of children annually .
The U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , UNICEF and other international organizations in ongoing efforts to control the spread of measles — which , in 2018 , the last year for which data is available , killed 140,000 children around the world — and to tamp down new epidemic outbreaks .
Under President George W. Bush , in 2002 , the U.S. began contributing to a new initiative called the Global Fund to Fight AIDS , Tuberculosis and Malaria , which has worked to channel resources to poorer countries , especially in Africa .
While not without criticism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saved over 30 million lives in the past 18 years .
As for working across ideological divides , the ability to cooperate with countries or agencies one doesn ’ t always agree with has long been a core principle in U.S. approaches to public health .
Witness the way in which , at the height of the Cold War , U.S. and Soviet political figures and scientists were able to cooperate to bring the long scourge of smallpox to a close , by helping create a funding and distribution system to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor countries around the globe .
In the end , the Soviets produced 450 million doses of a vaccine that the U.S. then funded the distribution of .
By the 1980s , smallpox had been conquered .
And the list goes on .
Pick pretty much any mass-killer disease — be it tuberculosis or swine flu , malaria or yellow fever — and the U.S. has embedded itself at the center of international efforts to tackle the crisis .
That ’ s not necessarily because of altruistic reasoning ; more likely this engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades because of an awareness that bacteria and viruses respect no national borders , and that a medical or public health crisis that starts in one country will , almost certainly , impact all countries sooner or later .
But in Trumpland , such basic medical truths no longer hold .
In Trumpland , diseases can be held at bay by building walls and excluding foreigners from U.S. shores .
In Trumpland , political disputes , be they with countries ( China ) or with international organizations ( WHO ) , always will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Trumpland , if it ’ s possible to leverage favors by withholding vital assistance or turning medical discoveries into weapons , you can be sure that ’ s the road decision-makers will go down .
There is something so entirely morally squalid about this understanding of human relations .
For when everything is transactional , nothing is inherently valuable .
Tens of millions of people the world over have been infected with COVID-19 in 2020 .
And hundreds of millions have been thrown into poverty by governments shutting down large parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease ’ s spread .
If , in the coming months , U.S. scientists develop a vaccine that has the potential to drastically reduce the disease ’ s death toll and allow economies to return to “ normal ” once again , providing a lifeline to millions of people living precariously on the margins , then the U.S. has a clear moral duty to share the fruits of that research .
Pretty much every other country on Earth has recognized this imperative .
But , under Trump , the United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This decision to shun the international community when it comes to vaccine distribution is a poster child for the amorality that now passes for leadership in Trump ’ s damaged land .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Buried amid this week’s avalanche of news about the Trump administration’s posturing and pandering to extremists and conspiracy theorists was one action that is fraught with peril in relation to the global pandemic we face: The decision to end U.S. participation in international efforts to develop and to globally distribute a COVID-19 vaccine.
Trump is seeking to justify the decision by citing U.S. opposition to the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a key party to the effort. But in reality, it is an epic act of global sabotage.
The effect of this petty and punitive plan is that U.S. vaccine advances over the coming months and years won’t be a centerpiece of a coordinated plan to get new vaccines widely distributed in poor countries. It also means that, if the U.S. vaccine development program under Operation Warp Speed doesn’t bear fruit, the U.S. will be outside of the technology and vaccine-sharing agreements likely to be negotiated by most of the world’s countries. Earlier this summer, WHO reported that at least 150 countries were discussing the shape that the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility would take, and since then, that number has gone up.
Trump’s decision to sit this partnership out means that the United States is alienating, yet again, its allies around the world with its go-it-alone priorities. And it means that the U.S. is now committed to using vaccines as a diplomatic weapon, holding out the prospect that it will selectively share U.S. vaccines with certain countries, presumably in exchange for economic and military concessions, while withholding its medical discoveries and technological know-how from other countries.
This is the same extortionist approach to government that has defined Trump’s entire foreign policy. Take, for example, his demands that South Korea and Japan pony up protection money in exchange for ongoing U.S. military guarantees. Or his efforts to block international aid to desperately poor countries in Central America unless they accepted asylum seekers deported from the United States.
Trump’s people have, from the get-go, regarded any and all international treaties and binding international agreements, as well as an array of UN agencies, with suspicion. In 2017, the Trump administration announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accords; and two years later, it began the actual withdrawal process. In 2018, it pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council and ceased being a party to the multi-country nuclear deal with Iran. In 2019, it abandoned a key nuclear arms treaty with the Russians. In 2020, at the height of the worst global pandemic in a century, the U.S. pulled out of the World Health Organization.
The administration has also withdrawn from Open Skies agreements, pondered scrapping the agreements underpinning the international postal system and mused about withdrawing from NATO.
But the decision to give the middle finger to the rest of the world when it comes to a coordinated COVID-19 vaccine response is a new nadir. And it also represents a stark break with the U.S.’s past. For, over the last century, U.S. administrations from both sides of the political aisle, and U.S. public health agencies, have made sure that U.S. scientists worked with colleagues from around the world, including with experts from geopolitical rival nations, to eradicate or to at least control the spread of many of the deadliest, most contagious diseases.
To take just a few examples:
The U.S. has been a long-term funder and participant in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, and has helped fund mass polio vaccination campaigns in poorer countries in the more than half-century since the vaccine became widely available. The result has been the near-eradication of a highly contagious disease that once killed or grievously harmed huge numbers of children annually.
The U.S. is now committed to using vaccines as a diplomatic weapon, holding out the prospect that it will selectively share U.S. vaccines with certain countries.
The U.S. has worked with the World Health Organization, UNICEF and other international organizations in ongoing efforts to control the spread of measles — which, in 2018, the last year for which data is available, killed 140,000 children around the world — and to tamp down new epidemic outbreaks.
Under President George W. Bush, in 2002, the U.S. began contributing to a new initiative called the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has worked to channel resources to poorer countries, especially in Africa. While not without criticism, the fund claims that its work has saved over 30 million lives in the past 18 years.
As for working across ideological divides, the ability to cooperate with countries or agencies one doesn’t always agree with has long been a core principle in U.S. approaches to public health. Witness the way in which, at the height of the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet political figures and scientists were able to cooperate to bring the long scourge of smallpox to a close, by helping create a funding and distribution system to get the smallpox vaccine into the far-flung corners of poor countries around the globe. In the end, the Soviets produced 450 million doses of a vaccine that the U.S. then funded the distribution of. By the 1980s, smallpox had been conquered.
And the list goes on. Pick pretty much any mass-killer disease — be it tuberculosis or swine flu, malaria or yellow fever — and the U.S. has embedded itself at the center of international efforts to tackle the crisis. That’s not necessarily because of altruistic reasoning; more likely this engagement achieved bipartisan support over the past several decades because of an awareness that bacteria and viruses respect no national borders, and that a medical or public health crisis that starts in one country will, almost certainly, impact all countries sooner or later.
But in Trumpland, such basic medical truths no longer hold. In Trumpland, diseases can be held at bay by building walls and excluding foreigners from U.S. shores. In Trumpland, political disputes, be they with countries (China) or with international organizations (WHO), always will end up crowding out international cooperation. In Trumpland, if it’s possible to leverage favors by withholding vital assistance or turning medical discoveries into weapons, you can be sure that’s the road decision-makers will go down.
There is something so entirely morally squalid about this understanding of human relations. For when everything is transactional, nothing is inherently valuable.
Tens of millions of people the world over have been infected with COVID-19 in 2020. And hundreds of millions have been thrown into poverty by governments shutting down large parts of their economies in desperate attempts to slow the disease’s spread. If, in the coming months, U.S. scientists develop a vaccine that has the potential to drastically reduce the disease’s death toll and allow economies to return to “normal” once again, providing a lifeline to millions of people living precariously on the margins, then the U.S. has a clear moral duty to share the fruits of that research. Pretty much every other country on Earth has recognized this imperative. But, under Trump, the United States is, once again, flying solo. This decision to shun the international community when it comes to vaccine distribution is a poster child for the amorality that now passes for leadership in Trump’s damaged land.
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--2020-09-07--Absent Appeals to the Left, Biden Faces Challenge to Win Over Latinx Voters

Though she couldn ’ t vote in past elections , Lucia Allain has spent over a decade in direct-action politics , advocating for immigrants and Latinxs .
In November , Allain , who was born in Peru , will vote for the first time since becoming a United States citizen .
The communications manager for the influential immigrant-rights organization The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services ( RAICES ) , Allain is as passionate about politics as anyone in this country ; she ’ s serious about removing President Donald Trump from office .
But in anticipation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s name on her first-ever ballot , she ’ s had trouble suppressing a thought : “ Am I really going to waste my vote on this guy ?
” Allain says .
Biden ’ s lack of enthusiasm among Latinx voters has been noted ever since he won the Democratic nomination over Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vermont ) .
During the primary , Latinx voters supported Sanders over Biden by sometimes enormous margins : In Nevada , Sanders won a shocking three times as many Latinx votes as Biden — 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
It was the same story in California , where 49 percent of Latinxs voted for Sanders compared to the 16 percent who voted for Biden , and in Texas , where Sanders ’ s 39 percent beat out Biden ’ s 26 percent .
There was hope that Biden ’ s vice-presidential pick might help Biden recoup some of the Latinx vote .
However , the boost Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-California ) has given the former vice president among people of color might not be enough to re-invigorate Latinx ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that even though “ she ’ s the first woman of color on a presidential ticket , and that ’ s amazing , ” she “ can ’ t really feel that excited ” due to Harris ’ s history as a prosecutor and her historic support of both police and prisons .
It ’ s noticeable that with just two months until the general election , some Latinxs who have otherwise been passionate about politics are nonetheless lukewarm on Biden .
In February , the leading polling firm surverying Latinx voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Latinxs said they were “ certain ” to vote in November .
However , once Biden won the nomination , that number decreased significantly — all the way down to 60 percent in April .
( Luckily for Biden , there are some indications that that number is rebounding . )
Victoria Ramos is one of the voters who has felt a personal loss of enthusiasm .
During the 2018 midterms , Rios says she volunteered over 150 hours , writing postcards , text-banking , and helping people find rides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m so far pretty blah about this election , ” she said over email .
“ I ’ ve been wrestling with how much time I want to spend volunteering this year.
” Since spring , polling has found that Biden is doing worse among Latinxs than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in their respective elections .
Given Trump ’ s frequently hostile stance toward Latinx immigrants , some analysts have been confused about Biden ’ s lack of support .
However , when it comes to the 2020 election , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unacceptable options .
“ As a Latina , this election makes me feel like I have no choice , ” says Andrea Flores , a fellow at the immigration advocacy organization America ’ s Voice .
“ There is no way I ’ d ever vote for racist xenophobic , sexist Donald Trump , but how do I also justify voting for Joe Biden , when he also has a track record of dismissing people of color and making women feel uncomfortable and unsafe ?
” Nevertheless , numerous mainstream Latinx groups and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , including United Farmworkers , UnidosUS and Voto Latino , as well as former San Antonio Mayor Julían Castro , and the iconic labor activist Dolores Huerta .
August polling data from Latino Decisions suggests that the Biden-Harris ticket currently has the support of 66 percent of Latinxs polled , compared to Trump ’ s 24 percent .
If that number holds steady until Election Day , Biden will perform about as well as Clinton did among Latinxs in 2016 , but worse than Obama did in 2012 .
Real differences exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realm of rhetoric and in the realm of policy .
For example , Biden has declared he will undo many of Trump ’ s attacks on the refugee system , including Trump ’ s successive asylum bans and the controversial “ Remain in Mexico ” plan ( officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ) .
Despite her skepticism of Biden ’ s personal record , Flores expressed positivity about some of Biden ’ s stances such as his moves to re-establish asylum and to make immigration easier for family members .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t understand the Latino community , ” says Flores .
“ But after seeing his stance on immigration , it is clear that he is advised by the right people.
” Besides Biden ’ s more liberal approach to immigration , other aspects of Biden ’ s platform also align more closely with priorities of the Latinx community , especially during the COVID-19 pandemic .
According to August polling from Latino Decisions , most Latinxs dissapprove of Trump ’ s response .
The same poll found that 77 percent of Latinxs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine .
Given these differences , the lack of active enthusiasm for Biden within many Latinx communities is striking .
Latinxs will form the second-largest eligible voting block after white voters in 2020 , and the lack of enthusiasm among Latinx Democratic voters could prove dangerous for Biden ’ s chances come November .
Biden ’ s ongoing lack of popularity among Latinxs has been multifaceted .
First there ’ s the fact that Biden was part of the administration of former President Barack Obama , which deported more people , at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president in history , including Trump .
Furthermore , Biden , unlike Sanders , also failed to commit to the end of family and child detention along the border .
( Though Biden ’ s official platform calls for reducing the time children and families are detained , it stops short of calling for an end to either form of detention . )
However , Biden ’ s inability to rouse the Latinx vote goes deeper than immigration .
For decades , both major political parties have neglected the priorities most important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a monolith , or single-issue voters with regards to immigration , Latinxs actually care about many different aspects of social democracy .
( The fact that Sanders — with a platform prioritizing universal health care , higher education and historic investment in green public infrastructure — did so well among Latinxs is testament to that fact . )
Polling from the Pew Research Center earlier this year found that the vast majority of Latinxs “ want government to be more involved in solving the nation ’ s problems , ” including raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and establishing increased gun control .
According to the poll , over 70 percent of Latinxs believe that it ’ s the government ’ s responsibility to ensure everyone has health care , and , of those respondents , over half believe that there should be a national health insurance system .
Raised by an undocumented Mexican mother , Jorge Ramos says that he “ obviously ” considers immigration an important issue .
“ But we also care about other things , ” he says .
“ We care about the economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ care about all these issues , but Democrats see us in such a narrow-minded way .
They see us as a monolith , as people who are easily swayed and manipulated.
” Ramos , a graduate student in Latin American studies at California State University , says he ’ s been unimpressed by elementary-level Spanish on the Democratic debate stage and the co-opting of the Chicano Rights Movement ’ s “ Sí se puede ” slogan .
Allain also says she often sees politicians ’ pandering to the Latinx vote as decidedly superficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re trying to get us to come to Disneyland , ” she says , explaining how both Democrats and Republicans make grand promises to Latinxs every election cycle .
“ But then we show up and they say ‘ It ’ s going to cost you $ 300.
’ Oh and also you ’ re not allowed in.
” With November rapidly approaching , there ’ s a major question Democrats may have failed to ask : Will Latinxs show up to vote for Biden ?
Will Trump ’ s general unpopularity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino voters supported Clinton in 2016 ) be enough to scrape out a win for the former vice president ?
Allain and Ramos both concede that , from their perspective in the immigration advocacy world , they appreciate that Biden has made promising steps to bring progressives into his campaign and potential administration .
However , Ramos says he believes that Democrats could wake up to the fact that they ’ ve alienated Latinx voters if they lose yet another presidential election in November .
“ I think they ’ re underestimating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After dedicating a huge amount of energy to Sander ’ s primary campaign — he worked to organize voters on campus , and also in Los Angeles El Sereno and Boyle Heights neighborhoods — Ramos says he has spent a lot of time deciding whether or not to vote in November .
He says he ’ s terrified of four more years of a Trump administration , and he has continually entertained the idea of voting for Biden simply to “ put out the flames of the Trump presidency.
” But lately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward not voting , even amid his acute fears about Trump .
“ But just because me and my friends are choosing not to vote doesn ’ t mean we ’ re giving up , ” Ramos says .
“ We ’ re organizing on the streets , we ’ re protesting on the streets.
” “ The U.S. is a nation built on slavery and the murder of indigenous people — colonization at its finest , ” Ramos says .
“ Elections will not liberate us.
” The disaffection expressed by voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in recent months by many Latinx political figures — including former San Antonio Mayor Julían Castro — who have warned that Democrats have risked alienating left-leaning Latinxs from the electoral process all together .
Even Allain , who says she plans to vote for Biden come November , says she is doing so not because of any particular excitement about that candidate , but rather due to her rational examination of what sort of arena a Biden administration would create for ongoing advocacy .
“ I ’ m voting for the ticket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move forward , ” says Allain .
“ With the knowledge that we ’ re going to really need to keep pushing hard after the election for things to be able to get better .
”

Though she couldn’t vote in past elections, Lucia Allain has spent over a decade in direct-action politics, advocating for immigrants and Latinxs. In November, Allain, who was born in Peru, will vote for the first time since becoming a United States citizen. The communications manager for the influential immigrant-rights organization The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Allain is as passionate about politics as anyone in this country; she’s serious about removing President Donald Trump from office. But in anticipation of marking former Vice President Joe Biden’s name on her first-ever ballot, she’s had trouble suppressing a thought:
“Am I really going to waste my vote on this guy?” Allain says.
Biden’s lack of enthusiasm among Latinx voters has been noted ever since he won the Democratic nomination over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). During the primary, Latinx voters supported Sanders over Biden by sometimes enormous margins: In Nevada, Sanders won a shocking three times as many Latinx votes as Biden — 53 percent compared to Biden’s 17 percent. It was the same story in California, where 49 percent of Latinxs voted for Sanders compared to the 16 percent who voted for Biden, and in Texas, where Sanders’s 39 percent beat out Biden’s 26 percent. There was hope that Biden’s vice-presidential pick might help Biden recoup some of the Latinx vote. However, the boost Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) has given the former vice president among people of color might not be enough to re-invigorate Latinx’s enthusiasm — for instance, Allain said that even though “she’s the first woman of color on a presidential ticket, and that’s amazing,” she “can’t really feel that excited” due to Harris’s history as a prosecutor and her historic support of both police and prisons.
It’s noticeable that with just two months until the general election, some Latinxs who have otherwise been passionate about politics are nonetheless lukewarm on Biden. In February, the leading polling firm surverying Latinx voters, Latino Decisions, found that 73 percent of Latinxs said they were “certain” to vote in November. However, once Biden won the nomination, that number decreased significantly — all the way down to 60 percent in April. (Luckily for Biden, there are some indications that that number is rebounding.)
Victoria Ramos is one of the voters who has felt a personal loss of enthusiasm. During the 2018 midterms, Rios says she volunteered over 150 hours, writing postcards, text-banking, and helping people find rides to polling places. “But I’m so far pretty blah about this election,” she said over email. “I’ve been wrestling with how much time I want to spend volunteering this year.”
Since spring, polling has found that Biden is doing worse among Latinxs than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in their respective elections. Given Trump’s frequently hostile stance toward Latinx immigrants, some analysts have been confused about Biden’s lack of support. However, when it comes to the 2020 election, some Latinxs say they feel stuck between two unacceptable options.
August polling data from Latino Decisions suggests that the Biden-Harris ticket currently has the support of 66 percent of Latinxs polled.
“As a Latina, this election makes me feel like I have no choice,” says Andrea Flores, a fellow at the immigration advocacy organization America’s Voice. “There is no way I’d ever vote for racist xenophobic, sexist Donald Trump, but how do I also justify voting for Joe Biden, when he also has a track record of dismissing people of color and making women feel uncomfortable and unsafe?”
Nevertheless, numerous mainstream Latinx groups and politial leaders have mobilized in support of Biden, including United Farmworkers, UnidosUS and Voto Latino, as well as former San Antonio Mayor Julían Castro, and the iconic labor activist Dolores Huerta.
August polling data from Latino Decisions suggests that the Biden-Harris ticket currently has the support of 66 percent of Latinxs polled, compared to Trump’s 24 percent. If that number holds steady until Election Day, Biden will perform about as well as Clinton did among Latinxs in 2016, but worse than Obama did in 2012.
Real differences exist between Trump and Biden both in the realm of rhetoric and in the realm of policy. For example, Biden has declared he will undo many of Trump’s attacks on the refugee system, including Trump’s successive asylum bans and the controversial “Remain in Mexico” plan (officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols).
Despite her skepticism of Biden’s personal record, Flores expressed positivity about some of Biden’s stances such as his moves to re-establish asylum and to make immigration easier for family members.
“[Like Trump], Biden also doesn’t understand the Latino community,” says Flores. “But after seeing his stance on immigration, it is clear that he is advised by the right people.”
Besides Biden’s more liberal approach to immigration, other aspects of Biden’s platform also align more closely with priorities of the Latinx community, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to August polling from Latino Decisions, most Latinxs dissapprove of Trump’s response. The same poll found that 77 percent of Latinxs support a national mask mandate and continued quarantine.
Given these differences, the lack of active enthusiasm for Biden within many Latinx communities is striking.
Latinxs will form the second-largest eligible voting block after white voters in 2020, and the lack of enthusiasm among Latinx Democratic voters could prove dangerous for Biden’s chances come November.
Biden’s ongoing lack of popularity among Latinxs has been multifaceted. First there’s the fact that Biden was part of the administration of former President Barack Obama, which deported more people, at a faster average rate, than any other president in history, including Trump. Furthermore, Biden, unlike Sanders, also failed to commit to the end of family and child detention along the border. (Though Biden’s official platform calls for reducing the time children and families are detained, it stops short of calling for an end to either form of detention.)
However, Biden’s inability to rouse the Latinx vote goes deeper than immigration. For decades, both major political parties have neglected the priorities most important to the Latinx electorate. While often cast as a monolith, or single-issue voters with regards to immigration, Latinxs actually care about many different aspects of social democracy. (The fact that Sanders — with a platform prioritizing universal health care, higher education and historic investment in green public infrastructure — did so well among Latinxs is testament to that fact.) Polling from the Pew Research Center earlier this year found that the vast majority of Latinxs “want government to be more involved in solving the nation’s problems,” including raising the minimum wage, improving health care and establishing increased gun control. According to the poll, over 70 percent of Latinxs believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has health care, and, of those respondents, over half believe that there should be a national health insurance system.
Raised by an undocumented Mexican mother, Jorge Cruz says that he “obviously” considers immigration an important issue. “But we also care about other things,” he says. “We care about the economy. We care about climate change. We care about all these issues, but Democrats see us in such a narrow-minded way. They see us as a monolith, as people who are easily swayed and manipulated.”
Cruz, a graduate student in Latin American studies at California State University, says he’s been unimpressed by elementary-level Spanish on the Democratic debate stage and the co-opting of the Chicano Rights Movement’s “Sí se puede” slogan.
Allain also says she often sees politicians’ pandering to the Latinx vote as decidedly superficial: “It’s like they’re trying to get us to come to Disneyland,” she says, explaining how both Democrats and Republicans make grand promises to Latinxs every election cycle. “But then we show up and they say ‘It’s going to cost you $300.’ Oh and also you’re not allowed in.”
With November rapidly approaching, there’s a major question Democrats may have failed to ask: Will Latinxs show up to vote for Biden? Will Trump’s general unpopularity with the community (66 percent of Latino voters supported Clinton in 2016) be enough to scrape out a win for the former vice president?
Allain and Cruz both concede that, from their perspective in the immigration advocacy world, they appreciate that Biden has made promising steps to bring progressives into his campaign and potential administration.
However, Cruz says he believes that Democrats could wake up to the fact that they’ve alienated Latinx voters if they lose yet another presidential election in November. “I think they’re underestimating the power we have,” Cruz says.
Many Latinx political figures have warned that Democrats have risked alienating left-leaning Latinxs from the electoral process all together.
After dedicating a huge amount of energy to Sander’s primary campaign — he worked to organize voters on campus, and also in Los Angeles El Sereno and Boyle Heights neighborhoods — Cruz says he has spent a lot of time deciding whether or not to vote in November. He says he’s terrified of four more years of a Trump administration, and he has continually entertained the idea of voting for Biden simply to “put out the flames of the Trump presidency.” But lately, Cruz says he has been leaning toward not voting, even amid his acute fears about Trump. “But just because me and my friends are choosing not to vote doesn’t mean we’re giving up,” Cruz says. “We’re organizing on the streets, we’re protesting on the streets.”
“The U.S. is a nation built on slavery and the murder of indigenous people — colonization at its finest,” Cruz says. “Elections will not liberate us.”
The disaffection expressed by voters like Cruz underscores the relevance of arguments made in recent months by many Latinx political figures — including former San Antonio Mayor Julían Castro — who have warned that Democrats have risked alienating left-leaning Latinxs from the electoral process all together.
Even Allain, who says she plans to vote for Biden come November, says she is doing so not because of any particular excitement about that candidate, but rather due to her rational examination of what sort of arena a Biden administration would create for ongoing advocacy.
“I’m voting for the ticket that’s going to let us move forward,” says Allain. “With the knowledge that we’re going to really need to keep pushing hard after the election for things to be able to get better.”
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.