truthout--2020-10-28--Let’s Hold Senate Democrats’ Feet to the Fire Following Barrett Confirmation

The last weekend of January 2017 was a radicalizing moment for many Americans .
Less than 10 days after being sworn into office , Donald Trump issued an executive order carrying out his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States .
As more than 100 people were detained in airports across the country , thousands came out in the frigid winter weather to protest such blatant bigotry .
Days before that , millions around the world took to the streets during the Women ’ s March to symbolically push back against Trump ’ s inauguration .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masses of Americans again came out to demonstrate against the Trump administration ’ s zero-tolerance policy of child separation at the U.S.-Mexico border .
There have since been grassroots campaigns to lobby against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act at town halls in red districts , rallies against Trump ’ s nakedly partisan Supreme Court nominees in Washington , and a blue wave of Democratic midterm election victories across the country .
To top off this moment of protest and resistance , this year has brought the type of nearly nonstop protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights movement of the 1960s .
So Monday night ’ s shameful victory lap for newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the White House — an open troll of liberals , progressives and especially feminists just a week ahead of a momentous presidential election — may finally be the moment that radicalizes the ostensible representatives of the people who have shown up in historic fashion over these last four years .
Barrett , a conservative activist whose main experience is as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 52-48 on Monday night , with no Democrats voting in favor .
( One Republican , Susan Collins of Maine , voted no . )
It ’ s the first time a Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed without a single vote from a major opposition party since 1869 .
Of course , that didn ’ t stop the Trump campaign from turning Barrett ’ s 11th-hour appearance at the White House into a literal ad for the president ’ s reelection campaign .
Republicans have cunningly exploited our system to entrench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court has now been nominated by a president who got three million fewer votes than his opponent and confirmed by a minority-controlled Senate that represents more cows than Americans .
This is not sustainable — and there are signs that top Democrats finally understand that .
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware , a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said on Monday that there needs to be a “ wide-open conversation ” on the ideological balance of the federal courts after Republicans confirmed 220 Trump-appointed judges in four years — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency .
“ Yes , the two Supreme Court cases that have been stolen , where these processes that are just wildly hypocritical have been used to jam through partisan nominees .
But we ’ ve got to look at our federal courts as a whole , ” Coons told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow following Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Coons is a close ally of Joe Biden and one of the Senate ’ s staunchest institutionalists .
If he ’ s willing to talk court expansion , it ’ s safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marching orders from the Democrats ’ presidential nominee .
Coons suggested as much in a recent interview , telling Axios , “ If we happen to be in the fact pattern where we have a President Biden , we ’ ll have to look at what the right steps are to rebalance our federal judiciary.
” Another Judiciary Committee Democrat , Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , called out Republicans for “ shattering the norms and breaking the rules and breaking their word , ” warning that “ there will be consequences ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Nothing less than everything is at stake .
A shift in the balance of the court that will last for decades if we do not correct it — and believe me , there are appropriate measures that should be considered , ” he said .
Even Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia , the most conservative Democrat in the Senate — who conceded he might have supported Barrett for a lower court seat , appeared taken aback by Republicans ’ aggressive push to ram her nomination through in record time .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial crisis , ” Manchin said this week .
“ There ’ s still five conservatives to three progressives .
What are they afraid of that they need insurance ?
The election and the Affordable Care Act.
” Maine Sen. Angus King , an independent who caucuses with the Democrats , pointed out on CNN that “ the size of the Supreme Court is not set in the Constitution .
It ’ s up to the Congress .
It ’ s changed seven times over our history.
” King , who still opposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans who are clutching their pearls now … in three states … over the last three or four years , the Republicans have packed their courts !
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted : “ Every option needs to be on the table to restore the Supreme Court ’ s credibility and integrity .
Every option to expand our democracy .
Every option to ensure that all Americans have equal justice in our courts and representation in our institutions.
” For his part , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not content with simply gloating about his historic victory .
He issued a threat to Democrats after Barrett ’ s confirmation .
“ Every high school student in America learns about Franklin Roosevelt ’ s unprincipled assault on judicial independence , ” he told Politico , warning Democrats not to repeat it .
The climate has shifted : Democrats can ’ t return to moderation and prudence now without risk of being seen as negligent .
In the past , Democrats have defended their reluctance to hold Republicans accountable as an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect of their refusal to wield power has been the shattering of our system and the near-complete corruption of our government .
This is no time for milquetoast half measures .
There ’ s simply no future for the current vision of Democratic politics unless the party ’ s elected leaders are finally willing to take action to protect the nation from domestic enemies .
The number of senators needed to impeach a Supreme Court justice is 67 .
That ’ s a pretty high bar .
But should Democrats win control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well decide to investigate the dark-money forces that promoted Barrett ’ s nomination , as well as that of Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
“ Should we expand the court ?
Well let ’ s take a look and see , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC host Chris Hayes Monday night .
“ Not just the Supreme Courts , but the other courts , ” she added .
“ In 1876 there were nine justices on the court .
Our population has grown enormously since then.
” Mapping Supreme Court justices to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubling the number of judges interpreting our laws at the highest level , is one of many ideas Democrats must explore .
No option is too radical for this moment .
Biden has pledged to review options put forth by “ a bipartisan commission of scholars , constitutional scholars , Democrats , Republicans , liberals , conservatives ” on “ how to reform the court system because it ’ s getting out of whack ” within his first six months in office .
Should Biden win next Tuesday , there is no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first six months of Donald Trump ’ s presidency should let up during the first six months of Biden ’ s presidency .

Are Democrats open to expanding the Supreme Court? After the hasty confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, it looks that way.
The last weekend of January 2017 was a radicalizing moment for many Americans. Less than 10 days after being sworn into office, Donald Trump issued an executive order carrying out his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States. As more than 100 people were detained in airports across the country, thousands came out in the frigid winter weather to protest such blatant bigotry.
Days before that, millions around the world took to the streets during the Women’s March to symbolically push back against Trump’s inauguration. The fight continued six months later, as masses of Americans again came out to demonstrate against the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy of child separation at the U.S.-Mexico border. There have since been grassroots campaigns to lobby against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act at town halls in red districts, rallies against Trump’s nakedly partisan Supreme Court nominees in Washington, and a blue wave of Democratic midterm election victories across the country. To top off this moment of protest and resistance, this year has brought the type of nearly nonstop protests for Black liberation not seen since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
So Monday night’s shameful victory lap for newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the White House — an open troll of liberals, progressives and especially feminists just a week ahead of a momentous presidential election — may finally be the moment that radicalizes the ostensible representatives of the people who have shown up in historic fashion over these last four years.
Barrett, a conservative activist whose main experience is as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 52-48 on Monday night, with no Democrats voting in favor. (One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted no.) It’s the first time a Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed without a single vote from a major opposition party since 1869. Of course, that didn’t stop the Trump campaign from turning Barrett’s 11th-hour appearance at the White House into a literal ad for the president’s reelection campaign.
Republicans have cunningly exploited our system to entrench their minority rule. One-third of the Supreme Court has now been nominated by a president who got three million fewer votes than his opponent and confirmed by a minority-controlled Senate that represents more cows than Americans. This is not sustainable — and there are signs that top Democrats finally understand that.
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Monday that there needs to be a “wide-open conversation” on the ideological balance of the federal courts after Republicans confirmed 220 Trump-appointed judges in four years — the most since Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
“Yes, the two Supreme Court cases that have been stolen, where these processes that are just wildly hypocritical have been used to jam through partisan nominees. But we’ve got to look at our federal courts as a whole,” Coons told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow following Barrett’s confirmation.
Coons is a close ally of Joe Biden and one of the Senate’s staunchest institutionalists. If he’s willing to talk court expansion, it’s safe to assume he’s taking his marching orders from the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Coons suggested as much in a recent interview, telling Axios, “If we happen to be in the fact pattern where we have a President Biden, we’ll have to look at what the right steps are to rebalance our federal judiciary.”
Another Judiciary Committee Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, called out Republicans for “shattering the norms and breaking the rules and breaking their word,” warning that “there will be consequences” in a floor speech on Monday.
“Nothing less than everything is at stake. A shift in the balance of the court that will last for decades if we do not correct it — and believe me, there are appropriate measures that should be considered,” he said.
Even Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate — who conceded he might have supported Barrett for a lower court seat, appeared taken aback by Republicans’ aggressive push to ram her nomination through in record time. “Look, there’s not a judicial crisis,” Manchin said this week. “There’s still five conservatives to three progressives. What are they afraid of that they need insurance? The election and the Affordable Care Act.”
Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, pointed out on CNN that “the size of the Supreme Court is not set in the Constitution. It’s up to the Congress. It’s changed seven times over our history.” King, who still opposes filibuster reform, also noted that “the Republicans who are clutching their pearls now … in three states … over the last three or four years, the Republicans have packed their courts!”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted: “Every option needs to be on the table to restore the Supreme Court’s credibility and integrity. Every option to expand our democracy. Every option to ensure that all Americans have equal justice in our courts and representation in our institutions.”
For his part, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, facing his own re-election fight in Kentucky, was not content with simply gloating about his historic victory. He issued a threat to Democrats after Barrett’s confirmation. “Every high school student in America learns about Franklin Roosevelt’s unprincipled assault on judicial independence,” he told Politico, warning Democrats not to repeat it.
The climate has shifted: Democrats can’t return to moderation and prudence now without risk of being seen as negligent. In the past, Democrats have defended their reluctance to hold Republicans accountable as an effort to protect our system, but the effect of their refusal to wield power has been the shattering of our system and the near-complete corruption of our government. This is no time for milquetoast half measures. There’s simply no future for the current vision of Democratic politics unless the party’s elected leaders are finally willing to take action to protect the nation from domestic enemies.
The number of senators needed to impeach a Supreme Court justice is 67. That’s a pretty high bar. But should Democrats win control of the Senate next week, they could well decide to investigate the dark-money forces that promoted Barrett’s nomination, as well as that of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“Should we expand the court? Well let’s take a look and see,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC host Chris Hayes Monday night. “Not just the Supreme Courts, but the other courts,” she added. “In 1876 there were nine justices on the court. Our population has grown enormously since then.” Mapping Supreme Court justices to the federal circuit courts, in effect doubling the number of judges interpreting our laws at the highest level, is one of many ideas Democrats must explore. No option is too radical for this moment.
Biden has pledged to review options put forth by “a bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives” on “how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack” within his first six months in office. Should Biden win next Tuesday, there is no reason why those Americans who were radicalized by the first six months of Donald Trump’s presidency should let up during the first six months of Biden’s presidency.
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-28--The Case for Abolition After Philadelphia Police Kill Walter Wallace Jr.

Protesters in Philadelphia mark a second night of calling for the abolition of police after two Philadelphia police shot and killed Walter Wallace Jr. , a 27-year-old Black man , while he was having a mental health crisis .
The shooting reflects decades of defunding of social services , including for mental health , while police departments have continued to grow , says author and activist Marc Lamont Hill , who argues , “ If all you have is a hammer , then every problem looks like a nail.
” Lamont Hill is professor of media studies and urban education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still Here : Pandemic , Policing , Protest , and Possibility .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This story today — a warning to our audience — it contains descriptions of police violence and disturbing images .
Protesters took to the streets of Philadelphia for a second night on Tuesday to condemn the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr .
The National Guard has been deployed to Philadelphia as outrage grows after two Philadelphia police officers shot and killed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was having a mental health crisis .
Both police officers were reportedly wearing body cameras when they shot Wallace .
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Tuesday she does not know if she will release bodycam footage of the killing .
Wallace ’ s lawyer said Tuesday his family has called for an — was calling for an ambulance to help him with a mental health crisis , but police arrived on the scene instead .
Cellphone video of the fatal shooting shows Walter Wallace Jr. ’ s mother trying to restrain him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the officers , who then shot Wallace at least 10 times .
Police allege Wallace refused to drop a knife he was holding .
Wallace was at least 10 feet away from the police officers when they shot him .
At least one witness told The Philadelphia Inquirer the officers were , quote , “ too far from him , ” and said bystanders were trying to deescalate the situation .
On Tuesday , Walter Wallace Jr. ’ s mother Cathy Wallace told reporters the officers knew her son was in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been to the family ’ s house three times on Monday .
AMY GOODMAN : During Tuesday night ’ s emotional news conference , the Wallace family ’ s attorney , Shaka Johnson , said Wallace ’ s wife Dominique , who witnessed his killing , is pregnant and scheduled to have labor induced today .
Johnson said Wallace had nine children .
Several of his young sons introduced themselves .
AMY GOODMAN : One of the sons of Walter Wallace Jr .
He was killed Monday by Philadelphia police .
For more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re joined by Marc Lamont Hill , professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University , his forthcoming book , We Still Here : Pandemic , Policing , Protest , and Possibility .
He was at Monday night ’ s protest .
Marc , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Can you talk about everything you understand at this point that has unfolded , beginning with Monday , when the mom said that the police knew full well her son was in a mental health crisis because they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day ?
And they said that night they were calling for an ambulance for him .
MARC LAMONT HILL : Right .
Well , that ’ s exactly the point .
When the police began to release their statements and tell their version of events , they left out that they had been to the house three times earlier that day .
They said , “ Oh , we had no way of knowing that he had a mental health episode.
” One , it was clear from the previous phone calls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mother told them on the scene , not to mention anyone chasing police around a car with a knife — or , walking — he wasn ’ t actually chasing the police — walking around with a knife , is clearly having an episode .
And so , from all those elements , it was clear that the police did not respond as if someone were having a mental health episode .
Instead , they decided to shoot him , instead of exercising deescalation , any kind of negotiation .
And again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police .
They were calling for an ambulance .
They were calling for mental health support .
And this is part of the fundamental problem of society right now , is that the police become the response to all of our social crises and contradictions .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Marc , specifically , I wanted to ask you about that .
There ’ s so many incidents we ’ ve seen , not only over the last year or two , but over decades , of police responding to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very few cities have the structure by which there can be mental health professionals responding .
It ’ s always the police , and it always becomes a situation where violence is , unfortunately , used .
MARC LAMONT HILL : That ’ s exactly right .
If all you have is a hammer , then every problem looks like a nail , right ?
If the only solution we have is policing , then we ’ re going to have a militarized and a policing type of — and criminalized response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen is a sort of raid of the social resources .
We no longer have access to mental health , schooling , housing , education .
All these things are taken out of the public good and replaced by more militarization , replaced by more policing .
And so the police become the response to all of our social problems and crises .
The police aren ’ t equipped to do this .
The police aren ’ t equipped to handle a situation for mental health .
And we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Reagan and into President Carter ’ s — I ’ m sorry , beginning with President Carter ’ s administration and entering Reagan ’ s administration .
We ’ ve seen the stripping of mental health resources .
And so we see the criminalization of mental health , as mentally ill people end up on the street and then get locked up for loitering .
We see the killing of people with mental illness when they have confrontations with police .
And in many ways , Juan and Amy , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than even when unarmed people die , because for every George Floyd that gets killed unarmed , there are dozens and hundreds of people with mental illness that are forced to be criminalized and have these types of engagements with law enforcement every single day .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Marc , I wanted to ask you about the response of President Trump immediately because of the protests , and also there was some violence and looting that occurred , but there have been now pretty credible reports that there have been agents provocateurs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
I recommend the article that CounterPunch had early this month that detailed several of these cities , including they mention in Philadelphia in June , numerous reports circulated that peaceful protests across the state were being infiltrated by white supremacists .
And they quoted there the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission director Chad Dion Lassiter , who said , “ What I saw was a coordinated effort of looting encouraged by white supremacists who [ hide ] behind signs demanding justice while promoting anarchy.
” Could you talk about the violence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days from these protests , and also how President Trump is responding , trying to use what ’ s happened here to say that there are definitely now poll watchers needed in Philadelphia , trying to utilize this violence as part of his campaign in Philadelphia ?
MARC LAMONT HILL : Yeah , a couple of things .
First , yeah , there are agents provocateurs .
We saw it on the ground in Ferguson .
I saw it with my own eyes .
I saw it in June with my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse me , Tuesday , with — Monday , excuse me , with my own eyes .
When you look at what ’ s happening on the ground , it ’ s often not the people who are righteously rebelling who are engaged in these wanton acts of reckless violence .
And it ’ s important to acknowledge that .
It ’ s important to acknowledge that this then becomes the pretext for people like Donald Trump — and Governor Wolf , for that matter — calling in more military — calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling in more troops , as a means of engaging in more violence and really squelching the dissent .
But it ’ s also important to say that even when people on the ground are engaged in acts of resistance , that this is righteous resistance .
I don ’ t want to simply dismiss all acts of pushback and rebellion to provocateurs .
It ’ s important to say that the state is killing us , and we have a right to respond .
We have a right to scar public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have our voices heard .
These aren ’ t riots ; these are rebellions .
That ’ s what I talk about in my book We Still Here .
These are rebellions that are intended to force the world to pay attention , because no one pays attention to Black death unless it affects their money or they think their lives or their safety is threatened .
I ’ m not suggesting we go out and kill people .
What I am saying , though , is that we have to use some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebellion , if we are to have our voices heard .
AMY GOODMAN : On that point of the white supremacists , we are seeing one arrest after another that the initial breaking of the glass , the initial fires that are set — now there are actually arrests of those white supremacists involved .
In fact , we talked about this yesterday with Alicia Garza .
It was Vice President Mike Pence who , in his Republican National Convention address , brought in the relative of a federal security guard who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed by Black Lives Matter activists , but he was killed by a “ boogaloo boi , ” who was arrested , and it was well known .
But your point is not lost , Marc , how — the response to these killings , the responses within the protests , and what you think needs to happen now ?
We were looking at some of your tweets over the last days .
On Monday , you wrote , “ Abolition now.
” Can you talk about Wallace ’ s killing in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I mean , as you said , every — when you have a hammer , everything looks like a nail .
I think something like half the city budget of Louisville — that ’ s , of course , where Breonna Taylor was killed by police — half the budget is for the police .
MARC LAMONT HILL : And that ’ s exactly the problem .
An abolitionist vision , of course , ultimately is a world without policing and prisons .
And that builds on the work of Critical Resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mariame Kaba and Ruth Wilson Gilmore and other important Black feminist voices , radical Black feminists , who encourage us to have these ambitious sort of freedom dreams of what the world could be .
It ’ s important to think about that .
But it ’ s not just about what we ’ re getting rid of .
It ’ s what we want .
We want a world where people ’ s needs are met , where people can have access to jobs , where people can have access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , then we ’ re going to continue to end up with circumstances like this .
That ’ s why I say an example like what we see with Walter Wallace is exactly why we need abolition , because the money we ’ re spending for policing should be spent to provide mental health .
When people call for defunding , they ’ re saying , “ What would it mean for a public safety force to come out rather than police ?
What would it mean to have a social worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later ?
” This is the problem .
We need to reimagine what the world looks like .
And we need to reimagine our social arrangement .
For me , that is abolition .
So , as we fight on the ground — and we saw this in June — we went from a call to abolition , to a call to defunding , to a call to integrate police forces , to a call to reform , to police taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloth , right ?
We ’ ve watered down our freedom dream .
We ’ ve taken the teeth out of the radical demand .
We need to return to this vision of a future without policing and without prisons .
And to start , we begin with this defunding .
Defunding is a step toward abolition , if we ’ re doing this the right way .
And so , in Philadelphia , in Milwaukee , in Louisville , we need to be calling to take money out of these police force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can actually have their needs met .
That ’ s the key here .
It ’ s like Kiese Laymon says : good love , healthy choices and second chances .
We need a structure that allows for those things to happen .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Marc , along that line , how do you assess how the city of Philadelphia has handled this particular shooting now of Walter Wallace ?
And often you find progressive politicians — you supposedly have one in Philadelphia in Mayor Kenney — and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being influenced sharply by the enormous power that police unions and their supporters have , whether it ’ s in the city municipal governments or at the state level .
How do you see the city handling not only this situation , but the whole issue of defunding police ?
MARC LAMONT HILL : Yeah , Mayor Kenney has essentially thrown his hands up .
Larry Krasner , maybe one of the most progressive district attorneys in the country , I think , has made tremendous moves forward .
But the question right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once there ’ s a police shooting ?
It ’ s one thing to decriminalize things .
It ’ s one thing to eliminate cash bail .
These are all necessary moves toward abolition .
But what we have right now is a situation where the police union continues to lead a path toward reinforcing militarization , toward justifying bad shoots .
We have a Black police commissioner , who I think and who I know cares about Black people , but , again , the structure is the problem .
And unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many people around the city can ’ t imagine a world without policing and prisons .
And so we have to reorient them .
That means our call on the ground has to be consistent , because what politicians are doing right now is saying we need community policing .
What they ’ re saying right now is we need body cameras .
But these are all reform measures that can convince the world that policing , as an institution , is still a viable possibility .
And what we see in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to , say , a George Floyd or Breonna Taylor , is that it ’ s not , because , again , when a George Floyd happens , which is a moral atrocity , everybody agrees that that ’ s bad , and they say , “ Let ’ s get rid of the crazy cops that did it.
” With Breonna Taylor , they can say , “ Let ’ s get rid of the bad apples.
” But when you see Walter Wallace Jr. laying on the ground and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot her baby down in front of her , what we see is that the institution of policing is not designed to deal with mental illness or homelessness or domestic violence or rape culture or any of the other extraordinary social ills that we wrestle with .
We need something different .

Protesters in Philadelphia mark a second night of calling for the abolition of police after two Philadelphia police shot and killed Walter Wallace Jr., a 27-year-old Black man, while he was having a mental health crisis. The shooting reflects decades of defunding of social services, including for mental health, while police departments have continued to grow, says author and activist Marc Lamont Hill, who argues, “If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.” Lamont Hill is professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University and author of We Still Here: Pandemic, Policing, Protest, and Possibility.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This story today — a warning to our audience — it contains descriptions of police violence and disturbing images.
Protesters took to the streets of Philadelphia for a second night on Tuesday to condemn the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr. The National Guard has been deployed to Philadelphia as outrage grows after two Philadelphia police officers shot and killed the 27-year-old Black father on Monday while he was having a mental health crisis.
Both police officers were reportedly wearing body cameras when they shot Wallace. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Tuesday she does not know if she will release bodycam footage of the killing.
Wallace’s lawyer said Tuesday his family has called for an — was calling for an ambulance to help him with a mental health crisis, but police arrived on the scene instead. Cellphone video of the fatal shooting shows Walter Wallace Jr.’s mother trying to restrain him before he pushes her away and walks toward the officers, who then shot Wallace at least 10 times. Police allege Wallace refused to drop a knife he was holding. Wallace was at least 10 feet away from the police officers when they shot him. At least one witness told The Philadelphia Inquirer the officers were, quote, “too far from him,” and said bystanders were trying to deescalate the situation. On Tuesday, Walter Wallace Jr.’s mother Cathy Wallace told reporters the officers knew her son was in a mental health crisis, because they had been to the family’s house three times on Monday.
REPORTER 1: Did you tell the police about his condition when you called 911? CATHY WALLACE: Yeah. They already knew about that. They already knew [inaudible]. They already know. REPORTER 2: They were there earlier in the day, right? CATHY WALLACE: Huh? REPORTER 2: Were they there earlier that day? CATHY WALLACE: Yeah, they was there early that day, and they were standing out there laughing at us. They weren’t trying to help us. They didn’t give a damn about us. And my son said, “Look at them. They’re standing there laughing at us.” REPORTER 2: What do you want the — CATHY WALLACE: So I took my son, and I walked, and I left them standing out there. That’s what me and my son — we walked down the street and left the cops standing out there. That’s it. I’m done.
AMY GOODMAN: During Tuesday night’s emotional news conference, the Wallace family’s attorney, Shaka Johnson, said Wallace’s wife Dominique, who witnessed his killing, is pregnant and scheduled to have labor induced today. Johnson said Wallace had nine children. Several of his young sons introduced themselves.
ZAMIR JOHNSON: Zamir. REPORTER: What’s your name? ZAKA WALLACE: Zaka [phon.] Wallace. REPORTER: What’s your name, bud? ZENA WALLACE: Zena [phon.]. REPORTER: Can you tell us about your dad? ZAMIR JOHNSON: OK. So, we used to always hang out, and we used to always go places, and we used to always play around. SUPPORTER: That’s all right, son. Keep it going. Keep going. Be strong. ZAMIR JOHNSON: And we used to — and he looked to always teach me how to be a man. SUPPORTER: Praise God! Praise God! That’s right. That’s right. ZAMIR JOHNSON: And these white racist cops got my own dad, because — and Black lives still matter.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the sons of Walter Wallace Jr. He was killed Monday by Philadelphia police.
For more, we go to Philadelphia, where we’re joined by Marc Lamont Hill, professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University, his forthcoming book, We Still Here: Pandemic, Policing, Protest, and Possibility. He was at Monday night’s protest.
Marc, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about everything you understand at this point that has unfolded, beginning with Monday, when the mom said that the police knew full well her son was in a mental health crisis because they had been to the house three times that day? And they said that night they were calling for an ambulance for him.
MARC LAMONT HILL: Right. Well, that’s exactly the point. When the police began to release their statements and tell their version of events, they left out that they had been to the house three times earlier that day. They said, “Oh, we had no way of knowing that he had a mental health episode.” One, it was clear from the previous phone calls, but it was also clear from what his mother told them on the scene, not to mention anyone chasing police around a car with a knife — or, walking — he wasn’t actually chasing the police — walking around with a knife, is clearly having an episode. And so, from all those elements, it was clear that the police did not respond as if someone were having a mental health episode. Instead, they decided to shoot him, instead of exercising deescalation, any kind of negotiation.
And again, the parents weren’t calling the police. They were calling for an ambulance. They were calling for mental health support. And this is part of the fundamental problem of society right now, is that the police become the response to all of our social crises and contradictions.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Marc, specifically, I wanted to ask you about that. There’s so many incidents we’ve seen, not only over the last year or two, but over decades, of police responding to what are essentially mental health issues, and very few cities have the structure by which there can be mental health professionals responding. It’s always the police, and it always becomes a situation where violence is, unfortunately, used.
MARC LAMONT HILL: That’s exactly right. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail, right? If the only solution we have is policing, then we’re going to have a militarized and a policing type of — and criminalized response to the problem. For decades what we’ve seen is a sort of raid of the social resources. We no longer have access to mental health, schooling, housing, education. All these things are taken out of the public good and replaced by more militarization, replaced by more policing. And so the police become the response to all of our social problems and crises.
The police aren’t equipped to do this. The police aren’t equipped to handle a situation for mental health. And we’ve seen this since the 1970s, beginning with Reagan and into President Carter’s — I’m sorry, beginning with President Carter’s administration and entering Reagan’s administration. We’ve seen the stripping of mental health resources. And so we see the criminalization of mental health, as mentally ill people end up on the street and then get locked up for loitering. We see the killing of people with mental illness when they have confrontations with police. And in many ways, Juan and Amy, this is more emblematic of the crisis of policing than even when unarmed people die, because for every George Floyd that gets killed unarmed, there are dozens and hundreds of people with mental illness that are forced to be criminalized and have these types of engagements with law enforcement every single day.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Marc, I wanted to ask you about the response of President Trump immediately because of the protests, and also there was some violence and looting that occurred, but there have been now pretty credible reports that there have been agents provocateurs in many of these protests across the country. I recommend the article that CounterPunch had early this month that detailed several of these cities, including they mention in Philadelphia in June, numerous reports circulated that peaceful protests across the state were being infiltrated by white supremacists. And they quoted there the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission director Chad Dion Lassiter, who said, “What I saw was a coordinated effort of looting encouraged by white supremacists who [hide] behind signs demanding justice while promoting anarchy.” Could you talk about the violence that has erupted now in the last couple of days from these protests, and also how President Trump is responding, trying to use what’s happened here to say that there are definitely now poll watchers needed in Philadelphia, trying to utilize this violence as part of his campaign in Philadelphia?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah, a couple of things. First, yeah, there are agents provocateurs. We saw it on the ground in Ferguson. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw it in June with my own eyes. I saw it Monday — excuse me, Tuesday, with — Monday, excuse me, with my own eyes. When you look at what’s happening on the ground, it’s often not the people who are righteously rebelling who are engaged in these wanton acts of reckless violence. And it’s important to acknowledge that. It’s important to acknowledge that this then becomes the pretext for people like Donald Trump — and Governor Wolf, for that matter — calling in more military — calling for more militarization, calling in more police, calling in more troops, as a means of engaging in more violence and really squelching the dissent.
But it’s also important to say that even when people on the ground are engaged in acts of resistance, that this is righteous resistance. I don’t want to simply dismiss all acts of pushback and rebellion to provocateurs. It’s important to say that the state is killing us, and we have a right to respond. We have a right to scar public tissue. We have a right to have our voices heard. These aren’t riots; these are rebellions. That’s what I talk about in my book We Still Here. These are rebellions that are intended to force the world to pay attention, because no one pays attention to Black death unless it affects their money or they think their lives or their safety is threatened. I’m not suggesting we go out and kill people. What I am saying, though, is that we have to use some form of resistance, some form of rebellion, if we are to have our voices heard.
AMY GOODMAN: On that point of the white supremacists, we are seeing one arrest after another that the initial breaking of the glass, the initial fires that are set — now there are actually arrests of those white supremacists involved. In fact, we talked about this yesterday with Alicia Garza. It was Vice President Mike Pence who, in his Republican National Convention address, brought in the relative of a federal security guard who was killed in Oakland as if he was killed by Black Lives Matter activists, but he was killed by a “boogaloo boi,” who was arrested, and it was well known. But your point is not lost, Marc, how — the response to these killings, the responses within the protests, and what you think needs to happen now? We were looking at some of your tweets over the last days. On Monday, you wrote, “Abolition now.” Can you talk about Wallace’s killing in light of the movement to defund the police? I mean, as you said, every — when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think something like half the city budget of Louisville — that’s, of course, where Breonna Taylor was killed by police — half the budget is for the police.
MARC LAMONT HILL: And that’s exactly the problem. An abolitionist vision, of course, ultimately is a world without policing and prisons. And that builds on the work of Critical Resistance, the wonderful work of Angela Davis and Mariame Kaba and Ruth Wilson Gilmore and other important Black feminist voices, radical Black feminists, who encourage us to have these ambitious sort of freedom dreams of what the world could be. It’s important to think about that.
But it’s not just about what we’re getting rid of. It’s what we want. We want a world where people’s needs are met, where people can have access to jobs, where people can have access to mental health support. And without those things, then we’re going to continue to end up with circumstances like this.
That’s why I say an example like what we see with Walter Wallace is exactly why we need abolition, because the money we’re spending for policing should be spent to provide mental health. When people call for defunding, they’re saying, “What would it mean for a public safety force to come out rather than police? What would it mean to have a social worker or a therapist on the scene instead of these police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later?” This is the problem. We need to reimagine what the world looks like. And we need to reimagine our social arrangement. For me, that is abolition.
So, as we fight on the ground — and we saw this in June — we went from a call to abolition, to a call to defunding, to a call to integrate police forces, to a call to reform, to police taking knees and members of Congress wearing kente cloth, right? We’ve watered down our freedom dream. We’ve taken the teeth out of the radical demand. We need to return to this vision of a future without policing and without prisons.
And to start, we begin with this defunding. Defunding is a step toward abolition, if we’re doing this the right way. And so, in Philadelphia, in Milwaukee, in Louisville, we need to be calling to take money out of these police force budgets and place them in places where people can actually have their needs met. That’s the key here. It’s like Kiese Laymon says: good love, healthy choices and second chances. We need a structure that allows for those things to happen.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Marc, along that line, how do you assess how the city of Philadelphia has handled this particular shooting now of Walter Wallace? And often you find progressive politicians — you supposedly have one in Philadelphia in Mayor Kenney — and they end up, little by little, being influenced sharply by the enormous power that police unions and their supporters have, whether it’s in the city municipal governments or at the state level. How do you see the city handling not only this situation, but the whole issue of defunding police?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah, Mayor Kenney has essentially thrown his hands up. Larry Krasner, maybe one of the most progressive district attorneys in the country, I think, has made tremendous moves forward. But the question right now is: How do you engage once there’s a police shooting? It’s one thing to decriminalize things. It’s one thing to eliminate cash bail. These are all necessary moves toward abolition. But what we have right now is a situation where the police union continues to lead a path toward reinforcing militarization, toward justifying bad shoots. We have a Black police commissioner, who I think and who I know cares about Black people, but, again, the structure is the problem. And unfortunately, the mayor, the City Council and many people around the city can’t imagine a world without policing and prisons. And so we have to reorient them. That means our call on the ground has to be consistent, because what politicians are doing right now is saying we need community policing. What they’re saying right now is we need body cameras. But these are all reform measures that can convince the world that policing, as an institution, is still a viable possibility.
And what we see in the case of Walter Wallace, as opposed to, say, a George Floyd or Breonna Taylor, is that it’s not, because, again, when a George Floyd happens, which is a moral atrocity, everybody agrees that that’s bad, and they say, “Let’s get rid of the crazy cops that did it.” With Breonna Taylor, they can say, “Let’s get rid of the bad apples.” But when you see Walter Wallace Jr. laying on the ground and his mother crying for help as the police shoot her baby down in front of her, what we see is that the institution of policing is not designed to deal with mental illness or homelessness or domestic violence or rape culture or any of the other extraordinary social ills that we wrestle with. We need something different.


truthout--2020-10-28--Tuesday’s Down-Ticket Elections Are the Most Important in Generations

Presidential contests have a quadrennial way of sucking all the oxygen out of the room , to the detriment of the local races which matter as much , if not more , as the one atop the ticket .
The media enjoy covering big shiny things , and covering the nearly 500 House and Senate elections happening on the federal level alone involves encompassing a vast array of details that don ’ t squeeze well into the two-minute dollops of wisdom proffered by the networks .
This year , of course , it isn ’ t even a fight .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a well-funded challenger makes for a stirring story , to be sure .
It has trouble , however , competing for media space with a White House that has declared the COVID-19 pandemic to be over even as the U.S. reports 500,000 new cases in the last week alone .
It has trouble competing with a Trump campaign that is already running Facebook ads declaring the president the winner of next week ’ s election .
Both of those things happened yesterday , so yeah , Senator Floopdoodle can take a number .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ local press is for , I suppose , though that precious institution has been withering and dying for years now .
The down-ticket races are where the ballgame resides in terms of effective presidential governing , and this has never been truer than it is today .
How we go forward as a nation , and as a species , is on the ballot this Tuesday right alongside every House member and a third of the Senate .
Three scenarios leap to mind : 1 .
In defiance of the polls ( again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP manages to maintain its Senate majority , after which COVID will continue to rage unchecked while vital issues like climate disruption remain unaddressed ; 2 .
Joe Biden wins , but the Democrats fail to take the Senate , ushering in four years of nothing getting done ; 3 .
Biden wins big enough to bring the Senate with him .
The possibilities that bloom under scenario # 3 are almost too huge to contemplate , and not bereft of irony .
Joe Biden — avatar and partial architect of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last five decades — stands on the cusp of potentially becoming a genuinely transformative progressive president… if the voters give him a Senate majority to match the House .
Whether Biden will rise to that occasion or get bogged down in the unilateral surrender of “ bipartisanship ” is a matter for a later article .
It is the possibilities that tantalize at the moment .
A number of shoes have to drop before any of those possibilities can begin to see daylight .
Democrats in the House of Representatives need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control , which is precisely what appears to be happening .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already announced her intention to stand for the gavel again next term , and there appear to be no rivals with enough muscle to push her aside .
The Senate , then , is where the show is .
The GOP controls 53 seats to the Democrats ’ 45 , with two seats held by Dem-caucusing Independents and Senate President Mike Pence holding the potential tie-breaking vote .
There are 35 senators running for reelection : 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter a downhill-run advantage from the go .
The real Democratic advantage this year is Donald Trump , who campaigns in favor of his own resounding defeat better than any three other people combined .
The simple existence of Trump at the top of the GOP ticket is a millstone around the necks of GOP senators hoping to keep their jobs , one that grows heavier by the hour .
“ Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats to win the chamber if Biden loses , ” reports CNN .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consistently ranked the seat most likely to flip this year — they need to flip five other seats .
But if Biden wins the presidency , they need a net gain of only three since the vice president breaks ties in the Senate .
Again , assuming they lose Alabama , Democrats would need to flip four seats.
” Arizona , Colorado , Maine and North Carolina appear at present to be the most likely states to serve as that definitive four , should Biden prevail and the Democrats not lose more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama .
Martha McSally , Arizona ’ s incumbent GOP Senator , has been trailing her opponent , former astronaut Mark Kelly , in the polls since he first entered the race , and trails today by five , according to the latest Predictive Insights poll .
Kelly , husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords , has also enjoyed a stupendous fundraising advantage over McSally from the beginning .
Arizona is one of many states where Trump is dragging down every other Republican on the ballot .
In Colorado , GOP incumbent Cory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit against his opponent , Democrat John Hickenlooper .
The latest Morning Consult poll has Hickenlooper leading Gardner 50-42 .
That same poll shows Biden leading Trump in Colorado by a galloping 16 points .
In Maine , GOP incumbent Susan Collins is paying the price for her shameless flip-floppery during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process last year , and for every other instance of the same over her three terms in office .
An empty vote cast on Monday against Amy Coney Barrett may not be enough to salvage Collins ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ranked-choice voting in her state makes her road even more difficult .
Today ’ s Colby College poll has challenger Sara Gideon up by three , but Collins has been down from the beginning , and may not have the steam to complete a comeback .
In North Carolina , a sexting scandal surrounding Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham has not served to blow up his lead over GOP incumbent Thom Tillis .
The latest CBS/YouGov polling has Cunningham leading Tillis by six points , while the presidential race in that state remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four horsemen of the Trumpocalypse in the Senate .
Iowa is close , with challenger Theresa Greenfield leading GOP incumbent Joni Ernst by a slim three points .
Montana is close .
Georgia is close .
Minnesota is close , too .
Even if ( when ) the Democrats lose Alabama and Doug Jones , there is still a significant opportunity for that party to take the Senate away from Mitch McConnell once and for all .
Oh , and not for nothing , but Lindsey Graham and challenger Jamie Harrison are tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not always about the top of the ticket .
This year , of all years , is looking to prove that out .

It’s not always about the top of the ticket. This year, of all years, is looking to prove that out.
Presidential contests have a quadrennial way of sucking all the oxygen out of the room, to the detriment of the local races which matter as much, if not more, as the one atop the ticket. The media enjoy covering big shiny things, and covering the nearly 500 House and Senate elections happening on the federal level alone involves encompassing a vast array of details that don’t squeeze well into the two-minute dollops of wisdom proffered by the networks.
This year, of course, it isn’t even a fight. Five-term Senator Floopdoodle’s battle against a well-funded challenger makes for a stirring story, to be sure. It has trouble, however, competing for media space with a White House that has declared the COVID-19 pandemic to be over even as the U.S. reports 500,000 new cases in the last week alone. It has trouble competing with a Trump campaign that is already running Facebook ads declaring the president the winner of next week’s election. Both of those things happened yesterday, so yeah, Senator Floopdoodle can take a number.
The Floopdoodle kind of story is what local press is for, I suppose, though that precious institution has been withering and dying for years now. The down-ticket races are where the ballgame resides in terms of effective presidential governing, and this has never been truer than it is today. How we go forward as a nation, and as a species, is on the ballot this Tuesday right alongside every House member and a third of the Senate.
Three scenarios leap to mind: 1. In defiance of the polls (again), Donald Trump wins reelection and the GOP manages to maintain its Senate majority, after which COVID will continue to rage unchecked while vital issues like climate disruption remain unaddressed; 2. Joe Biden wins, but the Democrats fail to take the Senate, ushering in four years of nothing getting done; 3. Biden wins big enough to bring the Senate with him.
The possibilities that bloom under scenario #3 are almost too huge to contemplate, and not bereft of irony. Joe Biden — avatar and partial architect of the center-right drift the Democratic Party has taken over the last five decades — stands on the cusp of potentially becoming a genuinely transformative progressive president… if the voters give him a Senate majority to match the House. Whether Biden will rise to that occasion or get bogged down in the unilateral surrender of “bipartisanship” is a matter for a later article. It is the possibilities that tantalize at the moment.
A number of shoes have to drop before any of those possibilities can begin to see daylight. Democrats in the House of Representatives need to either hold or expand their majority control, which is precisely what appears to be happening. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already announced her intention to stand for the gavel again next term, and there appear to be no rivals with enough muscle to push her aside.
The Senate, then, is where the show is. The GOP controls 53 seats to the Democrats’ 45, with two seats held by Dem-caucusing Independents and Senate President Mike Pence holding the potential tie-breaking vote. There are 35 senators running for reelection: 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats, giving the latter a downhill-run advantage from the go.
Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina appear at present to be the most likely states to serve as that definitive four.
The real Democratic advantage this year is Donald Trump, who campaigns in favor of his own resounding defeat better than any three other people combined. The simple existence of Trump at the top of the GOP ticket is a millstone around the necks of GOP senators hoping to keep their jobs, one that grows heavier by the hour.
“Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats to win the chamber if Biden loses,” reports CNN. “Assuming Democrats lose Alabama — which CNN has consistently ranked the seat most likely to flip this year — they need to flip five other seats. But if Biden wins the presidency, they need a net gain of only three since the vice president breaks ties in the Senate. Again, assuming they lose Alabama, Democrats would need to flip four seats.”
Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina appear at present to be the most likely states to serve as that definitive four, should Biden prevail and the Democrats not lose more than Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama.
Martha McSally, Arizona’s incumbent GOP Senator, has been trailing her opponent, former astronaut Mark Kelly, in the polls since he first entered the race, and trails today by five, according to the latest Predictive Insights poll. Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, has also enjoyed a stupendous fundraising advantage over McSally from the beginning. Arizona is one of many states where Trump is dragging down every other Republican on the ballot.
In Colorado, GOP incumbent Cory Gardner is likewise facing a large polling deficit against his opponent, Democrat John Hickenlooper. The latest Morning Consult poll has Hickenlooper leading Gardner 50-42. That same poll shows Biden leading Trump in Colorado by a galloping 16 points.
In Maine, GOP incumbent Susan Collins is paying the price for her shameless flip-floppery during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process last year, and for every other instance of the same over her three terms in office. An empty vote cast on Monday against Amy Coney Barrett may not be enough to salvage Collins’s seat, and the use this year of ranked-choice voting in her state makes her road even more difficult. Today’s Colby College poll has challenger Sara Gideon up by three, but Collins has been down from the beginning, and may not have the steam to complete a comeback.
In North Carolina, a sexting scandal surrounding Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham has not served to blow up his lead over GOP incumbent Thom Tillis. The latest CBS/YouGov polling has Cunningham leading Tillis by six points, while the presidential race in that state remains razor-close.
These races are potentially the four horsemen of the Trumpocalypse in the Senate. Iowa is close, with challenger Theresa Greenfield leading GOP incumbent Joni Ernst by a slim three points. Montana is close. Georgia is close. Minnesota is close, too. Even if (when) the Democrats lose Alabama and Doug Jones, there is still a significant opportunity for that party to take the Senate away from Mitch McConnell once and for all.
Oh, and not for nothing, but Lindsey Graham and challenger Jamie Harrison are tied in South Carolina as of yesterday.
It’s not always about the top of the ticket. This year, of all years, is looking to prove that out.
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--2020-10-28--After Installing Barrett, McConnell Adjourns Senate for Recess Sans COVID Relief

After installing right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court just days ahead of the November presidential election , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell summarily adjourned his chamber for recess late Monday without approving any additional coronavirus relief , effectively signaling that the prospect of an aid package ahead of next week ’ s contest is dead .
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin are set to continue negotiating the details of a roughly $ 2 trillion relief package as economic suffering intensifies nationwide , the Republican-controlled Senate ’ s departure late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been one of the primary obstacles to additional stimulus legislation — has no interest in passing a bill before November 3 .
When the Senate returns on November 9 , nearly a week after the election , its first scheduled vote is on a procedural motion to advance yet another right-wing federal judge .
“ Amid an historic public health crisis that has already taken more than 225,000 lives in the U.S. alone , Trump and his Senate allies have gone full speed ahead on confirming their extremist Supreme Court pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Kyle Herrig , president of government watchdog group Accountable.US , said in a statement late Monday .
“ Small business owners , workers , and families are desperate for support — and lawmakers and the president abandoned them in order to focus on jamming through a historically non-transparent and extreme Supreme Court pick , ” Herrig continued .
“ Senators should be ashamed of themselves.
” Leah Greenberg , co-executive director of progressive advocacy group Indivisible , noted that Barrett ’ s rapid confirmation process “ demonstrates that the Republican Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something is important.
” “ They just didn ’ t think Covid relief was important , ” Greenberg tweeted .
Depending on the outcome of the November 3 election — from who wins the presidency to which party emerges with control of the Senate — the failure to approve additional coronavirus relief prior to the contest could delay an additional aid package for months , leaving millions of jobless , hungry , and eviction-prone Americans without desperately needed assistance as the coronavirus continues to spread .
“ We should be voting on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working people of this country , who by the tens of millions have lost their jobs , ” Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) said before heading to the Senate floor to vote against Barrett ’ s confirmation .
“ They ’ re struggling right now as to whether or not they can pay their rent , whether they can get health insurance , whether they can put food on the table to feed their kids.
” In an appearance on MSNBC Monday night , Pelosi indicated that a deal with the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent , pointing to the Trump administration ’ s refusal to accept Democrats ’ demand for a national Covid-19 testing strategy .
As it stands , the bill would provide a $ 400-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance , an additional round of stimulus checks to most Americans , and $ 300 billion in aid to cash-strapped state and local governments .
“ We ’ ve got to crush the virus , ” Pelosi told MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes .
“ We ’ ve got to have our children safely in schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as people are going into poverty , we are asking them for Earned Income Tax Credit , Child Tax Credit , all these things that take people out of poverty .
They ’ re insisting on keeping their big tax cut $ 150 billion for the wealthiest people in the country.
” “ We do not have shared values , ” Pelosi added , “ but we hope that some pragmatism might set in on them that the public would demand that they crush the virus .
”

The failure to approve additional pandemic relief prior to next week’s election could delay an aid package for months.
After installing right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court just days ahead of the November presidential election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell summarily adjourned his chamber for recess late Monday without approving any additional coronavirus relief, effectively signaling that the prospect of an aid package ahead of next week’s contest is dead.
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin are set to continue negotiating the details of a roughly $2 trillion relief package as economic suffering intensifies nationwide, the Republican-controlled Senate’s departure late Monday appeared to confirm that McConnell — who has been one of the primary obstacles to additional stimulus legislation — has no interest in passing a bill before November 3.
When the Senate returns on November 9, nearly a week after the election, its first scheduled vote is on a procedural motion to advance yet another right-wing federal judge.
“Amid an historic public health crisis that has already taken more than 225,000 lives in the U.S. alone, Trump and his Senate allies have gone full speed ahead on confirming their extremist Supreme Court pick while leaving hurting Americans in the dust,” Kyle Herrig, president of government watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement late Monday.
“Small business owners, workers, and families are desperate for support — and lawmakers and the president abandoned them in order to focus on jamming through a historically non-transparent and extreme Supreme Court pick,” Herrig continued. “Senators should be ashamed of themselves.”
The US Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court judge in 31 days. It's been 87 days since enhanced unemployment aid and a lot of small biz aid expired. Still no stimulus dealhttps://t.co/lz4ZVKXsMx — Heather Long (@byHeatherLong) October 27, 2020
Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of progressive advocacy group Indivisible, noted that Barrett’s rapid confirmation process “demonstrates that the Republican Senate can move incredibly fast when they think something is important.”
“They just didn’t think Covid relief was important,” Greenberg tweeted.
Depending on the outcome of the November 3 election — from who wins the presidency to which party emerges with control of the Senate — the failure to approve additional coronavirus relief prior to the contest could delay an additional aid package for months, leaving millions of jobless, hungry, and eviction-prone Americans without desperately needed assistance as the coronavirus continues to spread.
“We should be voting on a major Covid-19 stimulus package to protect the working people of this country, who by the tens of millions have lost their jobs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said before heading to the Senate floor to vote against Barrett’s confirmation. “They’re struggling right now as to whether or not they can pay their rent, whether they can get health insurance, whether they can put food on the table to feed their kids.”
I am going down to the Senate floor to vote AGAINST the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. We should not be voting on a Supreme Court justice—we should be voting on major COVID19 relief to protect working families. We will make this the top priority of a Democratic Senate. pic.twitter.com/nIEOlwPuAr — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 26, 2020
In an appearance on MSNBC Monday night, Pelosi indicated that a deal with the White House on coronavirus relief is far from imminent, pointing to the Trump administration’s refusal to accept Democrats’ demand for a national Covid-19 testing strategy.
As it stands, the bill would provide a $400-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance, an additional round of stimulus checks to most Americans, and $300 billion in aid to cash-strapped state and local governments.
“We’ve got to crush the virus,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. “We’ve got to have our children safely in schools. We’ve got to insist that as people are going into poverty, we are asking them for Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, all these things that take people out of poverty. They’re insisting on keeping their big tax cut $150 billion for the wealthiest people in the country.”
“We do not have shared values,” Pelosi added, “but we hope that some pragmatism might set in on them that the public would demand that they crush the virus.”
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-28--Is Trump Trying to Suppress Votes by Saying He’ll Disregard Election Results?

As November nears , the world waits on pins and needles for the results of the U.S. presidential election , not least because of a valid concern that there may not be a peaceful transfer of power .
President Donald Trump has been casting doubt on the results with veiled warnings like , “ The only way we ’ re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.
” He panders to law enforcement at his rallies and has earned the endorsement of the largest police union in the country , causing worries that the president may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day .
During the first presidential debate , Trump spoke directly to the far right group the Proud Boys , telling them to “ stand back and stand by , ” and he encouraged his supporters to show up at the polls to keep “ watch , ” leading to anxieties about public intimidation or even violence at polling places .
Add to this the right-wing demonization of the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-fascists , a global pandemic and looming economic crisis , and we have a powder keg of conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) could exploit to remain in power should he not win at the ballot box .
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , leaving a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court , has only raised further questions about the integrity of the 2020 election .
With Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett newly sworn in , we will see a court split with six conservative-leaning and only three liberal-leaning justices .
Our Constitution is ambiguous enough for bad actors to exploit in close races , as we saw in the 2000 presidential election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump could even persuade GOP-controlled state legislatures to submit separate slates of electors declaring him the winner , despite the certified popular vote .
Democrats are trying to combat some of these threats in advance of the election .
On October 16 , Senate Democrats offered a preview of their plan to counter tactics that may be deployed by Trump and the GOP with the release of a guide called “ Counting Votes & What to Expect on Election Day , ” which primarily serves to relay basic voting rights , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting in key battleground states .
The guide also asks Americans to “ be patient ” and “ reject misinformation ” in the case that we do not have complete counts on November 3 .
Democrats are also pushing for a huge turnout to limit doubts about the winner , and will be working overtime to ensure that all votes are tallied .
Legal strategy is being directed primarily by the Biden campaign , with support from Democratic National Committee counsel Marc Elias , whose focus has been on mail-in voting laws .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services Committee have employed is to make formal , on-the-record requests of Trump cabinet members , calling for their commitment to a peaceful transition of power if he were to lose the election .
In a joint press release , Reps. Elissa Slotkin ( Michigan ) and Mikie Sherrill ( New Jersey ) lauded Gen. Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , who responded that he does “ not see the U.S. Military as part of this process.
” Notably , Defense Secretary Mark Esper has dodged definitive answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf have not responded to similar requests .
Across the aisle , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made his “ official ” statement on the transition via tweet : “ The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th .
There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792.
” Other Republicans have followed suit , but the question remains as to what the definition of “ orderly ” is to a party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cutthroat tactics made to advance their party .
Who Is on Our Side ?
The “ good ” news is that much of the ruling class , outside of Trump ’ s inner circle , has been critical of Trump and seems to be preparing for his departure .
The Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) , a U.S. nonprofit think tank and arguably the bipartisan political committee for the global ruling class , has published numerous articles slamming the president on everything from economics to foreign policy .
Richard Haass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s presidency and style of governing a threat to “ liberal world order , ” “ a liability for a great power ” and “ never strategically good , ” and says what we need is “ predictability , reliability and continuity.
” CFR ’ s attitude isn ’ t simply a part of a “ global liberal conspiracy ” as Trump would have his supporters believe .
Trump ’ s presidency , particularly during the COVID-19 crisis , has been incredibly destabilizing for the economy and what the Council longingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Those whose goal it is to protect capital simply won ’ t have this .
For a brief moment — and on this specific issue — the interests of poor and working-class Americans somewhat overlap with those of the ruling class .
Both stand to benefit from a fair election that removes Trump and puts an end to his chaotic administration .
Fears of an unruly presidential transition within elite circles are highlighted by the recent formation of the Transition Integrity Project ( TIP ) .
This bipartisan group of former government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academics organized four scenario exercises , “ to identify risks to the rule of law or to the integrity of the democratic process in the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day.
” In their final report , “ Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition , ” TIP was able to hypothesize a variety of potential disruptions to the democratic process and election integrity .
The report strongly urges progressive , pro-democracy groups to prepare now for the mass mobilization that they believe may be necessary to ensure a fair and accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition group organized by national nonprofit organizations Stand Up America and Indivisible is joining the action , calling themselves Protect the Results .
Progressive organizations are beginning to mobilize , and even unions are talking about how to resist if Trump refuses to concede .
A group of researchers , organizers and activists also assembled “ Hold the Line : A Guide to Defending Democracy , ” a 55-page political education piece encouraging people to step up to take action and protect the vote .
There are many players involved in the effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s election .
But it will be important to pay attention to who continues fighting alongside us on January 21 and beyond , regardless of who is inaugurated .
The ruling class and more moderate groups will only advance pro-democracy initiatives when they align with their interests .
Voter suppression will no doubt persist even if Trump transitions out of power in 2021 .
What steps will be taken and strategies developed during off years and primary elections to combat this trend ?
Like his other lies , gaslighting and media stunts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election fears has had a profound effect on the public ’ s consciousness .
A recent poll shows that 47 percent of Americans are afraid that Trump may lose the election but refuse to concede , and that number jumps up to 75 percent among Biden voters .
Is the threat of Trump not accepting the election results a form of voter suppression ?
According to a recent report , the number one obstacle to voter participation , regardless of one ’ s income level , are the beliefs that candidates are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote will not matter .
A candidate openly attesting that they may not honor election results is a signal to the public that their vote will not count .
This obstacle becomes even greater to poor and low-income Americans , who are 20 percent less likely to vote in national elections than those with higher incomes .
Trump ’ s onslaught of lies distorts our “ common sense ” knowledge over time , normalizing extremist ideas or actions .
When the public accepts or adheres to such manipulations , this is what master @ @ @ @ @ @ @ termed “ the engineering of consent.
” If his propaganda can generate fear in the public , Trump may be counting on a U.S. too overwhelmed to participate or fight back .
Trump has been misdirecting the public with his negative rhetoric about mail-in voting , giving the impression that it may fraudulently benefit his opponent .
But even before the pandemic , mail-in voting was gaining popularity among Democrats and Republicans alike .
In 2018 , 1 in 4 votes was cast by mail and “ the prevalence of voting by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personal characteristics , and there is little difference in voting by mail according to income status.
” In past elections , researchers at Stanford University found that there is little to no evidence that mail-in voting benefits one party or the other .
And Trump ’ s tactic may well backfire for him .
Trump ’ s war on the U.S .
Postal Service and voting by mail suppresses votes across the political spectrum , including members of his own older ( and higher COVID-risk ) base .
Some of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see could be thanks to Trump ’ s politicization of the pandemic , with calls for his supporters to be at the polls on Election Day — both for intimidation purposes and to collect evidence of so-called “ fraud.
” Given the current conditions and political climate , no one can accurately predict what may go down on Election Day .
But those committed to ensuring that every ballot is counted will need to be flexible and ready to take action .
Coups can be stopped when citizens reject misinformation , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people demonstrate their power .
But this is just the first step .
Regardless of the outcome of this election , our nation faces intersecting crises of unemployment , housing and food insecurity , racial injustice , lack of adequate health care coverage , overwhelming debt and climate catastrophe .
It ’ s not enough to mobilize voters and protect the polls for one election .
We need to build a sustained movement that will enable the people power necessary to make electoral demands that meet people ’ s basic needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place when states are deliberately not organized to participate in elections .
This means that those in power intend to benefit from a populace that is misinformed , has lost faith in their representatives and feels as though their votes won ’ t matter .
We must begin to see political education , voter participation and collaboration as revolutionary acts and expressions of our collective power .
Because the people , not the elite , should be the true arbiters of our democracy , it will be up to us to strategize and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights and needs .
One movement working to expand democracy is the Poor People ’ s Campaign : A National Call for Moral Revival .
For the past three years , we have been uniting the poor across racial and geographic divisions , recognizing that it will take more than “ not Trump ” to make long-term systemic change .
Campaign Co-Chair Rev .
William Barber recently stated , “ People will have to risk their lives to stand in line to vote in the midst of this pandemic .
Why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1965 ?
Because they thought what they were risking their life for was worth it .
We must give people that kind of policy agenda.
” And the campaign does just that with a comprehensive Moral Agenda that takes on the interlocking injustices of systemic racism , poverty , ecological devastation , militarism and the war economy , and the false narrative of religious nationalism here in the U.S .
The fusion of these key issues , along with the campaign ’ s non-partisan ( but very political ) stance , gives it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of organizers together for a sustained struggle , rather than isolating efforts in smaller , less impactful silos .
In addition to bringing people together around a progressive agenda , we must have a transformation in the way Americans think if we are to put a stop to Trumpism for good .
Our economic conditions must be studied and our electoral system rehauled .
We must recognize the tactics those in power use to divide us , and be willing to talk to people we don ’ t agree with .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds on the “ mental battlefield.
” Expanding our democracy by securing our elections and ending voter suppression is just the initial foundation for the work ahead .

As November nears, the world waits on pins and needles for the results of the U.S. presidential election, not least because of a valid concern that there may not be a peaceful transfer of power. President Donald Trump has been casting doubt on the results with veiled warnings like, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” He panders to law enforcement at his rallies and has earned the endorsement of the largest police union in the country, causing worries that the president may be angling for their extralegal support on Election Day. During the first presidential debate, Trump spoke directly to the far right group the Proud Boys, telling them to “stand back and stand by,” and he encouraged his supporters to show up at the polls to keep “watch,” leading to anxieties about public intimidation or even violence at polling places. Add to this the right-wing demonization of the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-fascists, a global pandemic and looming economic crisis, and we have a powder keg of conditions that an authoritarian leader (like Trump) could exploit to remain in power should he not win at the ballot box.
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leaving a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, has only raised further questions about the integrity of the 2020 election. With Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett newly sworn in, we will see a court split with six conservative-leaning and only three liberal-leaning justices. Our Constitution is ambiguous enough for bad actors to exploit in close races, as we saw in the 2000 presidential election, and the Electoral College only complicates matters. Trump could even persuade GOP-controlled state legislatures to submit separate slates of electors declaring him the winner, despite the certified popular vote.
Democrats are trying to combat some of these threats in advance of the election. On October 16, Senate Democrats offered a preview of their plan to counter tactics that may be deployed by Trump and the GOP with the release of a guide called “Counting Votes & What to Expect on Election Day,” which primarily serves to relay basic voting rights, with details about the final dates for vote counting in key battleground states. The guide also asks Americans to “be patient” and “reject misinformation” in the case that we do not have complete counts on November 3. Democrats are also pushing for a huge turnout to limit doubts about the winner, and will be working overtime to ensure that all votes are tallied. Legal strategy is being directed primarily by the Biden campaign, with support from Democratic National Committee counsel Marc Elias, whose focus has been on mail-in voting laws.
Another strategy two Democrats on the Armed Services Committee have employed is to make formal, on-the-record requests of Trump cabinet members, calling for their commitment to a peaceful transition of power if he were to lose the election. In a joint press release, Reps. Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) and Mikie Sherrill (New Jersey) lauded Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who responded that he does “not see the U.S. Military as part of this process.” Notably, Defense Secretary Mark Esper has dodged definitive answers on the issue, and Attorney General William Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf have not responded to similar requests.
Across the aisle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made his “official” statement on the transition via tweet: “The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792.” Other Republicans have followed suit, but the question remains as to what the definition of “orderly” is to a party that has a track record defined by gridlock and cutthroat tactics made to advance their party.
Who Is on Our Side?
The “good” news is that much of the ruling class, outside of Trump’s inner circle, has been critical of Trump and seems to be preparing for his departure. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a U.S. nonprofit think tank and arguably the bipartisan political committee for the global ruling class, has published numerous articles slamming the president on everything from economics to foreign policy. Richard Haass, president of CFR, has called Trump’s presidency and style of governing a threat to “liberal world order,” “a liability for a great power” and “never strategically good,” and says what we need is “predictability, reliability and continuity.”
There are many players involved in the effort to secure the results of this year’s election. But it will be important to pay attention to who continues fighting alongside us on January 21 and beyond .
CFR’s attitude isn’t simply a part of a “global liberal conspiracy” as Trump would have his supporters believe. Trump’s presidency, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, has been incredibly destabilizing for the economy and what the Council longingly refers to as “international world order.” Those whose goal it is to protect capital simply won’t have this. For a brief moment — and on this specific issue — the interests of poor and working-class Americans somewhat overlap with those of the ruling class. Both stand to benefit from a fair election that removes Trump and puts an end to his chaotic administration.
Fears of an unruly presidential transition within elite circles are highlighted by the recent formation of the Transition Integrity Project (TIP). This bipartisan group of former government and military officials, political operatives and academics organized four scenario exercises, “to identify risks to the rule of law or to the integrity of the democratic process in the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day.” In their final report, “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition,” TIP was able to hypothesize a variety of potential disruptions to the democratic process and election integrity. The report strongly urges progressive, pro-democracy groups to prepare now for the mass mobilization that they believe may be necessary to ensure a fair and accurate count.
A candidate openly attesting that they may not honor election results is a signal to the public that their vote will not count.
To that end, a coalition group organized by national nonprofit organizations Stand Up America and Indivisible is joining the action, calling themselves Protect the Results. Progressive organizations are beginning to mobilize, and even unions are talking about how to resist if Trump refuses to concede. A group of researchers, organizers and activists also assembled “Hold the Line: A Guide to Defending Democracy,” a 55-page political education piece encouraging people to step up to take action and protect the vote.
There are many players involved in the effort to secure the results of this year’s election. But it will be important to pay attention to who continues fighting alongside us on January 21 and beyond, regardless of who is inaugurated. The ruling class and more moderate groups will only advance pro-democracy initiatives when they align with their interests. Voter suppression will no doubt persist even if Trump transitions out of power in 2021. What steps will be taken and strategies developed during off years and primary elections to combat this trend?
The Engineering of Consent
Like his other lies, gaslighting and media stunts, Trump’s repeated stoking of election fears has had a profound effect on the public’s consciousness. A recent poll shows that 47 percent of Americans are afraid that Trump may lose the election but refuse to concede, and that number jumps up to 75 percent among Biden voters. Is the threat of Trump not accepting the election results a form of voter suppression? According to a recent report, the number one obstacle to voter participation, regardless of one’s income level, are the beliefs that candidates are not speaking to their issues and that their vote will not matter. A candidate openly attesting that they may not honor election results is a signal to the public that their vote will not count. This obstacle becomes even greater to poor and low-income Americans, who are 20 percent less likely to vote in national elections than those with higher incomes.
Trump’s onslaught of lies distorts our “common sense” knowledge over time, normalizing extremist ideas or actions. When the public accepts or adheres to such manipulations, this is what master propagandist and public relations pioneer Edward Bernays termed “the engineering of consent.” If his propaganda can generate fear in the public, Trump may be counting on a U.S. too overwhelmed to participate or fight back.
Trump has been misdirecting the public with his negative rhetoric about mail-in voting, giving the impression that it may fraudulently benefit his opponent. But even before the pandemic, mail-in voting was gaining popularity among Democrats and Republicans alike. In 2018, 1 in 4 votes was cast by mail and “the prevalence of voting by mail has been increasing across a wide range of personal characteristics, and there is little difference in voting by mail according to income status.” In past elections, researchers at Stanford University found that there is little to no evidence that mail-in voting benefits one party or the other.
It’s not enough to mobilize voters and protect the polls for one election. We need to build a sustained movement that will enable the people power necessary to make electoral demands that meet people’s basic needs.
And Trump’s tactic may well backfire for him. Trump’s war on the U.S. Postal Service and voting by mail suppresses votes across the political spectrum, including members of his own older (and higher COVID-risk) base. Some of the “blue shift” we’re starting to see could be thanks to Trump’s politicization of the pandemic, with calls for his supporters to be at the polls on Election Day — both for intimidation purposes and to collect evidence of so-called “fraud.”
Given the current conditions and political climate, no one can accurately predict what may go down on Election Day. But those committed to ensuring that every ballot is counted will need to be flexible and ready to take action. Coups can be stopped when citizens reject misinformation, do not consent to illegal actions and when the people demonstrate their power. But this is just the first step.
The Long Game
Regardless of the outcome of this election, our nation faces intersecting crises of unemployment, housing and food insecurity, racial injustice, lack of adequate health care coverage, overwhelming debt and climate catastrophe. It’s not enough to mobilize voters and protect the polls for one election. We need to build a sustained movement that will enable the people power necessary to make electoral demands that meet people’s basic needs.
We must remember that voter suppression takes place when states are deliberately not organized to participate in elections. This means that those in power intend to benefit from a populace that is misinformed, has lost faith in their representatives and feels as though their votes won’t matter. We must begin to see political education, voter participation and collaboration as revolutionary acts and expressions of our collective power. Because the people, not the elite, should be the true arbiters of our democracy, it will be up to us to strategize and organize a future that secures our basic human rights and needs.
One movement working to expand democracy is the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival. For the past three years, we have been uniting the poor across racial and geographic divisions, recognizing that it will take more than “not Trump” to make long-term systemic change. Campaign Co-Chair Rev. William Barber recently stated, “People will have to risk their lives to stand in line to vote in the midst of this pandemic. Why did people in Selma risk their lives in 1965? Because they thought what they were risking their life for was worth it. We must give people that kind of policy agenda.” And the campaign does just that with a comprehensive Moral Agenda that takes on the interlocking injustices of systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, militarism and the war economy, and the false narrative of religious nationalism here in the U.S. The fusion of these key issues, along with the campaign’s non-partisan (but very political) stance, gives it the flexibility to bring a mass movement of organizers together for a sustained struggle, rather than isolating efforts in smaller, less impactful silos.
In addition to bringing people together around a progressive agenda, we must have a transformation in the way Americans think if we are to put a stop to Trumpism for good. Our economic conditions must be studied and our electoral system rehauled. We must recognize the tactics those in power use to divide us, and be willing to talk to people we don’t agree with. It will take discipline to change people’s minds on the “mental battlefield.” Expanding our democracy by securing our elections and ending voter suppression is just the initial foundation for the work ahead.
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.