Republicans for Recession

None of this makes any political sense unless you look at it through the prism of economics .
State and local government represents a significant part of the economy , supplying nearly 19 percent of gross domestic product and more than 21 percent of personal income .
Starve state and local government coffers , and you make economic recovery more difficult to achieve , and slower when it finally comes .
States were very slow to rehire workers after the 2007–2009 Great Recession , and that was a major reason the recovery was so anemic .
Any legislator paying even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s review the Republican stance on aid to state and local governments .
In March , the Senate passed the Cares Act , which included $ 150 billion for state and local aid .
The vote was 96–0 ; not a single Republican opposed the bill .
( Four Republicans didn ’ t vote because they either had the coronavirus , feared they might have it , or had been exposed to it . )
Trump had taken some bad missteps on Covid-19 , but it was still possible to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequate , if not inspired , thus securing his reelection .
A March 29 Washington Post-ABC News poll suggested a possible Trump comeback , with Biden up only 2 points among registered voters .
“ Trump has moved from what was a seven-point deficit in February , ” reported the Post , “ to a near tie with Biden today .
”

We can all be grateful that employer indemnification has been jettisoned, and if the resulting bill really is the best Democrats can do right now, then by all means let’s get it passed. A $300 weekly sweetener to unemployment benefits, down from the $600 paid out through July, is better than nothing. (I still think Democrats would have ended up with more if they hadn’t started dealing away this benefit in July.)
But if it came as some surprise to me to find out that the Democrats couldn’t make a better deal, that’s because I never thought congressional Republicans really meant it when they refused to consider pandemic aid to state and local governments. Conservatives profess to believe that outside of defense spending, the only governance of any value occurs at the state and local level. President Richard Nixon was all about sending federal money to the states instead of governing from Washington. President Ronald Reagan made a habit of repeating Nixon’s “New Federalism” mantra (though when Reagan did it he consolidated the spending into block grants that quietly reduced the aid).


newrepublic--2020-12-21--The Unacceptable Costs of Appeasing MAGA Nation

Even after Donald Trump is evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue , he will still lead a multimillion-person political movement determined to protect and defend a white nation-state .
Deeply aggrieved , self-righteous , and well-armed , a substantial percentage of these belligerents harbor a far greater commitment to whiteness than to American democracy .
President-elect Joe Biden ’ s challenge is to face down this threat with something more than a heartfelt appeal to redeem the promise of a multiracial America .
But a strictly rhetorical plea to lay aside our differences and spontaneously unite is not only impossible ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so because these rote invocations of the better country remain intentionally blind to the catastrophic conditions that have broken our nation apart throughout its history .
Biden ’ s unrequited national unity overtures to the Trumpist coalition of anti-unionists are indeed a sad echo of ghastly overtures from our nation ’ s past—a long-running dystopian fantasy that tens of millions are willing to fight over .
Nationalism is typically understood to be an identification with one ’ s nation to the exclusion of the interests of other nations .
In America , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is the nonwhite and immigrant population that has long served to galvanize a lethal brand of white nationalism as a ruling ethos .
It ’ s the people burning cities to the ground , committing mass voter fraud , and stealing admission to jobs and universities ; it ’ s Black people , it ’ s Mexicans , it ’ s anyone whose identity wasn ’ t accepted when America was great—when America was Dixieland .

White supremacy was the bond that survived the war, that healed the breach, that soothed the hard feelings. It was at the same time the elixir that allayed any sense of responsibility to the millions who were left to suffer through the pogroms, lynchings, and abject domination in every conceivable pocket of Southern society. And as was the case a century and a half ago, the current bid for reconciliation reflects a frightening failure to confront exactly what the thirst is that Trumpism whets—or whose blood has to be sacrificed to satisfy it.
The return of this crushing dynamic could have been forestalled had the spoils of the last reunion not been so brilliantly encoded and naturalized into every sphere of American memory. Efforts to decode and contest the omnipresence of white supremacist ideology have supplied invaluable resources for the clear refutation of the Lost Cause since the myth’s brutal inception. Generations of thinkers, activists, and practitioners have honed observations, histories, and data into understandings of how our institutions function in ways that extend the mistakes of the past well into our future.
It’s thus no accident that Donald Trump, the twenty-first–century president of white grievance, has opened fire on these ideas. Last fall, he issued an executive order prohibiting their dissemination through the ranks of the federal bureaucracy and, by extension, into American society at large. In a stunning reversion to Lost Cause-ism throughout all levels of the federal government, ideas such as structural racism, intersectionality, implicit bias, and critical race theory were stigmatized, alongside initiatives like The New York Times’ 1619 Project, as un-American. And the far-from-subtle implication of this act of censorship—true cancel culture in action—was that these ideas and inquiries all violated the American social compact, because they make the white people Trump enlists into the base of the white-power GOP feel distressed.


newrepublic--2020-12-21--How to Restore the Glory of Government Science

This year , some of the most trusted science institutions in the world participated in a high-profile and disastrous national mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic .
In February , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) insisted on creating its own tests , rather than using ones developed by the World Health Organization .
The CDC-backed tests were then plagued with inaccuracies and shortages .
Then the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) authorized a series of treatments and tests with little or no apparent oversight : hydroxychloroquine , adopted on the scantest of evidence ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review of their accuracy ; convalescent plasma , the benefits of which were massively overstated .
The CDC refrained from commenting on the issue of public mask-wearing until April , when officials wanted to recommend mask-wearing in all areas of the country , but the White House insisted on emphasizing it was “ voluntary ” in high-transmission zones .
It took until July for the CDC to say that face coverings are a “ critical “ tool for ending the pandemic .
Then in August the CDC inexplicably changed its guidelines to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be tested after exposure , only changing it back in September as cases once more began to surge .
Meanwhile , political appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services tried to change results in CDC research reports and edited CDC guidance and press releases .
There has been no unified plan from federal agencies to coordinate a response to the pandemic with states .
All along , President Trump pushed the idea that the FDA could rush a vaccine by election day , and stifled any experts who disagreed with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic is never easy : No matter how many simulations you run and handbooks you create and trainings you conduct , there will always be bumps in the road .
But with unprecedented political interference and some major missteps , U.S. agencies like the CDC and FDA have taken massive blows to their credibility .
With a new administration starting January 20 , experts say a top priority should be rebuilding that trust in the country ’ s top medical and scientific institutions , which should issue guidance and regulations based on evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road will not be easy , they say , and some of these missteps have revealed glaring and longstanding vulnerabilities in the firewall between politicians and top scientists .

This year, some of the most trusted science institutions in the world participated in a high-profile and disastrous national mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic. In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention insisted on creating its own tests, rather than using ones developed by the World Health Organization. The CDC-backed tests were then plagued with inaccuracies and shortages. Then the Food and Drug Administration authorized a series of treatments and tests with little or no apparent oversight: hydroxychloroquine, adopted on the scantest of evidence; antibody tests, OK’d for use without review of their accuracy; convalescent plasma, the benefits of which were massively overstated.
The CDC refrained from commenting on the issue of public mask-wearing until April, when officials wanted to recommend mask-wearing in all areas of the country, but the White House insisted on emphasizing it was “voluntary” in high-transmission zones. It took until July for the CDC to say that face coverings are a “critical” tool for ending the pandemic. Then, in August, the CDC inexplicably changed its guidelines to say asymptomatic people didn’t need to be tested after exposure, only changing them back in September as cases once more began to surge. Meanwhile, political appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services tried to change results in CDC research reports and edited CDC guidance and press releases. There has been no unified plan from federal agencies to coordinate a response to the pandemic with states. All along, President Trump pushed the idea that the FDA could rush a vaccine by Election Day and stifled any experts who disagreed with his plans.
Managing the response to a pandemic is never easy: No matter how many simulations you run and handbooks you create and trainings you conduct, there will always be bumps in the road. But with unprecedented political interference and some major missteps, U.S. agencies like the CDC and the FDA have taken massive blows to their credibility. With a new administration starting January 20, experts say a top priority should be rebuilding that trust in the country’s top medical and scientific institutions, which should issue guidance and regulations based on evidence and science, not politics. But the road will not be easy, they say, and some of these missteps have revealed glaring and long-standing vulnerabilities in the firewall between politicians and top scientists.


newrepublic--2020-12-21--The Rise and Fall of a
Fracking Boom Town: An Oral History

Kara : I do wonder if Rock Springs would ever become a ghost town .
Maybe it wouldn ’ t deteriorate that far , but I think it ’ s going to wither more as the coal industry fades away .
I can see all those new subdivisions going vacant and people staying in the older neighborhoods .
Laura : There ’ s pressure for you to get married , buy a $ 400,000 house , and have a lifted truck and all the toys .
You see all your friends with these expensive toys and houses .
But what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no industry to temper that or help people transition and develop new skills .
You can ’ t have that lifestyle and then decide to go work at the Post Office or something like that .
You can ’ t manage those expenses unless you work one of those high-paying energy jobs .
There ’ s no way .
When I was in high school , kids who graduated could work in the mines and make a killing .
That ’ s not the case anymore , and we haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are people looking forward to as far as their career ?
I think women manage it better because we ’ ve had to : Women have always thought of multiple careers , like teaching , nursing , getting into banking , or moving somewhere else to see what ’ s out there .
Women just don ’ t get paid as much .
For men , it ’ s pressurized .
You either leave completely and go to school or do something else , which is fairly unlikely ; or you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or mineral extraction .
What do you do when those jobs aren ’ t there anymore ?
Nate Martin : What Wyoming will do when coal dies out is the multimillion-dollar question .
There doesn ’ t seem to be any appetite at all as far as a concerted effort to diversify the state ’ s economy .
There are people working on it , but it ’ s going to be hard .
It already is hard .
Rock Springs has a few other things going for it—the trona mines most notably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to execute this land deal where they ’ re going to buy a bunch of land that ’ s rich in trona and try to mine it .
It honestly sounds insane and completely stupid , especially since the economy is getting destroyed by the pandemic .
[ Editor ’ s note : A private company ended up outbidding the state for the land . ]
But what will happen to Rock Springs ?
It ’ s going to shrink .
It ’ s going to become quiet .
I grew up during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my parents to Rock Springs was long over by the time I was coming of age .
It didn ’ t boom again until the year I left .
My whole experience of the town is during a bust period , and that ’ s what it ’ s entering into again .
But the difference now is that there ’ s not a boom on the other side of this bust .
Coal is not coming back .
Natural gas is abundant and cheap , so it ’ s not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People are moving away from fossil fuels in general .
Laura : There have been people who try to push Wyoming toward renewable energy .
Before he left office , Governor Matt Mead proposed plans for economic development outside of mineral extraction because he could see the writing on the wall with coal .
But not many people got on board .
He was trying to supplement Wyoming ’ s economy and help the state before all the mines and coal industry crumbled .
Unfortunately , soon after he left office , mines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it nearly happened in Rock Springs .
I feel like we ’ ve gone backward .
People here have doubled down on mineral extraction .
Who knows how the pandemic will affect all this ?
Some of those oil , gas , and coal companies have used Covid-19 as an excuse to leave Wyoming , but I think they were on their way out anyway .
Nate Martin : There ’ s going to be a very serious reckoning facing Rock Springs in terms of , “ Who do we want to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What kind of town do we want ?
” But I think a lot of people in Rock Springs ignore those types of questions .
They latch onto the economy that ’ s there—the jobs that are there—and they ride it like a horse .
You have the stereotype of the rugged individual that ’ s prevalent here in Wyoming , but in reality , the Western mining town has no control over its own fate .
Natalie : I worked in the open-pit mine at Jim Bridger .
I worked as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the production line , which was extremely tedious .
I had an interview to work underground at Black Butte , but it made me feel claustrophobic to be down there .
It ’ s barely wide enough to drive a pickup through .
There ’ s a lot of groundwater , which I didn ’ t know going in .
I was wearing my steel toes , but most people wear waders .
The water went up to the top of my boots , and yeah , it was pretty cold .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mine .
I work in one of the trona mines now .
Basically , you get all your gear on , including a respirator that can let you breathe for about an hour if there ’ s carbon dioxide in the air .
You go down , and thankfully it ’ s wider than the coal mines , and it stays about 65 degrees down there .
It ’ s easy to forget that you ’ re 800 feet underground .
I go to my work table and wait for my boss to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let me know what needs to get done .
Two union organizations have approached us , but , right now , we ’ re not unionized .
When one union was talking to us , our company basically said they ’ d give us the money we would ’ ve paid in dues as bonuses .
But that never happened .
Chris Hawks : I remember driving through not long ago and looking at this hill that they had strip-mined .
The landscape was totally different .
Flying over it going from Salt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coal seams .
The amount of earth they ’ d moved was absolutely staggering .

Nate Martin: There’s going to be a very serious reckoning facing Rock Springs in terms of, “Who do we want to be? What do we want to be? What kind of town do we want?” But I think a lot of people in Rock Springs ignore those types of questions. They latch onto the economy that’s there—the jobs that are there—and they ride it like a horse. You have the stereotype of the rugged individual that’s prevalent here in Wyoming, but in reality, the Western mining town has no control over its own fate.
Natalie: I worked in the open-pit mine at Jim Bridger. I worked as a glorified shop hand and then on the production line, which was extremely tedious.
I had an interview to work underground at Black Butte, but it made me feel claustrophobic to be down there. It’s barely wide enough to drive a pickup through. There’s a lot of groundwater, which I didn’t know going in. I was wearing my steel toes, but most people wear waders. The water went up to the top of my boots, and yeah, it was pretty cold. The temperature stays around 35 degrees in that mine.
I work in one of the trona mines now. Basically, you get all your gear on, including a respirator that can let you breathe for about an hour if there’s carbon dioxide in the air. You go down, and thankfully it’s wider than the coal mines, and it stays about 65 degrees down there. It’s easy to forget that you’re 800 feet underground. I go to my work table and wait for my boss to come out of his morning meeting to let me know what needs to get done.
Two union organizations have approached us, but, right now, we’re not unionized. When one union was talking to us, our company basically said they’d give us the money we would’ve paid in dues as bonuses. But that never happened.
Chris Hawks: I remember driving through not long ago and looking at this hill that they had strip-mined. The landscape was totally different. Flying over it going from Salt Lake to Denver, you could see the coal seams. The amount of earth they’d moved was absolutely staggering.


newrepublic--2020-12-21--The Empty Ethics of “Shop Small”

The Empty Ethics of “Shop Small”

This spring , Marissa Nuncio , director of the Garment Worker Center in Los Angeles , had a Zoom meeting with some of the center ’ s 300 members .
Even during the pandemic , when they were considered essential workers as they made thousands of face masks , the members reported a lack of personal protective equipment , no social distancing , and little disinfection of facilities or even time to wash their hands during long factory shifts .
Nuncio searched Etsy for face masks to show workers what the going rate was .
“ Our members show a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nuncio said .
“ And they just cracked up laughing— $ 20 !
$ 15 !
They were like , ‘ We ’ re getting paid two cents a mask in our factories.
’ ” Much has been written about the explosive interest in hobbies like sewing , knitting , and other crafts as people who could afford to stay home during the pandemic sought to keep their hands busy amid ceaseless waves of tragedy .
This year , even the compulsion to shop for the holidays might look a bit different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the coronavirus outbreak .
As local economies crater , the call to “ shop local ” and “ shop small ” has gained new force .
( American Express has built an entire holiday campaign around it . )
The “ craftcore ” trend is bolstering not just small-batch and independently produced goods but even mass-produced clothing pretending to be homemade .
But most of the garments people buy and wear aren ’ t made in cozy workspaces by the artisan-entrepreneur type with a social media presence .
There are an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of whom work long , grueling hours in factories that operate under what advocates call sweatshop conditions .
And despite the skill and textile knowledge required of industrial garment workers—and the fact that no matter the retail price , a person was behind the clothes you ’ re wearing now—their output is the primary target for indignation within fashion , the boogeyman for a vein of activism that demands shoppers consume more rather than ask what we can do to make workers ’ conditions more livable .
The idea of voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the holiday season , but as researchers and labor organizers have long argued , fundamentally reforming the garment industry requires more than shifting individual shopping habits : Exploitative , anti-worker practices are too entrenched for consumers to literally shop their way out of the problems .
Small-business aesthetics will not save us .

Scroll through a few of the top Instagram posts tagged #handmade, and you’ll notice a pattern: Perfectly lit photos of everything from trendy geometric clay earrings to crocheted “granny square” cardigans, artfully arranged in flat layers on kitchen tables. Most of it is also for sale. There’s an endless stream of microshops on Etsy, Instagram, Depop, and elsewhere that have found success in the handmade and made-to-order fashion sphere. According to her website, Lirika Matoshi, designer of the tulle strawberry dress that flooded social media earlier this year, started out selling choker necklaces on Etsy; the label was picked up by Nordstrom and has shared clips of employees hand-knitting sweaters to be sold online. Often, crafters and sellers position their products against budget or “fast” fashion, as a more ethical and, by extension, more fashionable alternative to mass-produced garments. When you buy something handmade, you’re paying not just for the product itself but also for the social currency of being able to say you made the “right” choice. This emphasis on alternative consumption is always the answer repeated to buyers who are angered by harmful production practices: Just buy this more “ethical” (and more expensive) version of the same thing.
A “handmade” label might soothe consumers’ concerns about the origins of the product they just purchased, but the line between what is and isn’t handmade is ill-defined. At times, it’s a marketing tactic with a variety of interpretations. Etsy, for example, has a detailed handmade policy distinguishing between “makers” and “designers,” and requires sellers to disclose if they use “production assistance.” But even those guidelines are subject to change at any time, as they did in 2013, when the company, much to the ire of some sellers, loosened restrictions around hiring outside production help. That change allowed Etsy sellers to use garment factories in Los Angeles to produce masks as demand exploded in the spring and, as The Verge reported, make millions in the process. After a certain point, it becomes impossible to scale a business that depends on one person making the product from start to finish, a reality Etsy embraced as it prioritized growth.


newrepublic--2020-12-21--The War on Christmas, Covid Edition

The War on Christmas, Covid Edition

On April 3 , as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic raged through the country , a Federalist columnist named David Marcus wrote an article titled “ we can not destroy the country for the sake of New York City.
” A New Yorker himself , Marcus argued that the lockdown restrictions like the ones imposed on his home city were devastating the rest of the country , where , he wrote , “ an economic hammer is falling faster than the virus can spread.
” Even though Marcus himself was scared of the virus ( “ I open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my elbow ” ) , he feared for those in rural America who would lose their jobs to an unnecessary shutdown .
“ Err on the side of caution , many say , but is it cautious to destroy entire communities through economic collapse ?
” Eight months later , as the virus surged through rural states like South Dakota , claiming as many as 2,500 lives a day , Marcus had turned to a new topic : “ Is Fortnite Live The Future Of Television ?
” The other organs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom had joined him in beating the but-the-economy drum , were similarly silent .
During the first 10 days of December , The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board , which in March had decried “ the extreme state lockdowns , ” published no articles about the virus ’ s latest surge ; National Review ’ s senior political correspondent , Jim Geraghty , who in April had peddled the conspiracy theory that the virus may have come from a Chinese lab , today spills as much ink trying to convince his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
Their silence might seem to indicate that pundits on the right have ceded the debate over containing the virus—after all , New York ’ s sustained shutdown has helped tamp down the spread , while more conservative areas have seen months of uncontrolled contagion .
But the more strident sections of the conservative commentariat had merely shifted from an economic argument against shutdowns to a cultural one .
As the holidays approached , Breitbart ’ s John Nolte warned his readers that they should “ Be Prepared for Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fascist governors ” would “ use a virus with a 996 out of 1000 survival rate ” as an excuse to snuff out the holiday .
And Tucker Carlson speculated that politicians had “ figured out that Christmas is bigger than they are and therefore it ’ s a threat to them .
”

On April 3, as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic raged through the country, a Federalist columnist named David Marcus wrote an article titled “we cannot destroy the country for the sake of New York City.” A New Yorker himself, Marcus argued that the lockdown restrictions like the ones imposed on his home city were devastating the rest of the country, where, he wrote, “an economic hammer is falling faster than the virus can spread.” Even though Marcus himself was scared of the virus (“I open the door to my bodega in Brooklyn with my elbow”), he feared for those in rural America who would lose their jobs to an unnecessary shutdown. “Err on the side of caution, many say, but is it cautious to destroy entire communities through economic collapse?”
Eight months later, as the virus surged through rural states like South Dakota, claiming as many as 2,500 lives a day, Marcus had turned to a new topic: “Is Fortnite Live The Future Of Television?” The other organs of the conservative media, nearly all of whom had joined him in beating the but-the-economy drum, were similarly silent about the rising death toll.* During the first 10 days of December, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which in March had decried “the extreme state lockdowns,” published no articles about the virus’s latest surge; National Review’s senior political correspondent, Jim Geraghty, who in April had peddled the conspiracy theory that the virus may have come from a Chinese lab, today spills as much ink trying to convince his fellow Republicans that Trump did indeed lose the election.


newrepublic--2020-12-16--Death to the Negative Restaurant Review

Death to the Negative Restaurant Review

Last February , I had the honor of being publicly snubbed by Jay Rayner , the fiery restaurant critic for The Guardian , who dismissed my essay about the “ crisis ” of the American restaurant review as “ staggeringly parochial.
” Apparently , my essay did not say enough about the British restaurant review .
Rayner sketched a broad distinction between the somber American critic driven by “ civic duty ” with a “ respectful and solicitous ” tone ( not adjectives commonly associated with the Stars and Stripes ) and the Brits , who are the “ writerly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans write descriptions such as “ creamy slips of uni ” or “ a fragrant lake of oil , ” the English understand the simple joy of comparing a rude waitstaff to an “ unlubricated colonoscopy.
” Rayner ended his column with an appeal to un-seriousness : “ Learn to relax a little .
After all , we ’ re not war reporters .
We ’ re only writing about lunch.
” Then the pandemic hit .
As restaurants across the world were forced to close , the value of Rayner ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
While American reviewers reacted to the shutdown with broader assessments of the state of the restaurant industry and its future , the major British critics spent the lockdown taking “ trips down Memory Lane ” and “ becoming emotionally attached to frying pans.
” Then in June , Rayner declared an indefinite hiatus from negative reviews , announcing , “ If I can ’ t be broadly positive I simply won ’ t be writing anything , ” even though the shift “ risks making me less readable.
” Here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism that bad food makes for better copy than good .
As Eater expounds , “ It ’ s those baffling , disappointing , and downright bad meals that often make for the most entertaining reads.
” “ I never send stuff back , ” confesses Sam Sifton of The New York Times , “ because there could be the delicious possibility of awfulness at the end of the dish that could make for great prose.
” In fact , it is fair to say that the smackdown review may be the single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food journalism .
Every December , Eater gleefully catalogs the year ’ s “ most scathing restaurant reviews , ” enshrining the savage one-liners that show critics going “ for the kill.
” Roast chicken lived in a greasy no-man ’ s land—and no man I know would love it .
Overwhelming notes of Robitussin and rubbing alcohol .
Risotto with scallops is where hope goes to die .
But there are no articles commemorating the year ’ s most scintillating culinary compliments .
Why ?
Because entertainment comes from cruelty .

This pledge of blanket positivity comes at a moment of unprecedented hardship and uncertainty for the restaurant industry. Now is not the time for phony optimism or mandatory applause but righteous rage and indignation—yet redirected from problems in table décor toward problems in kitchen culture. Contemporary dining teems with contentious issues crying out for serious discussion: widespread unemployment among food workers, sexual misconduct allegations in top kitchens, hazardous labor laws, a lack of diversity in food media, record food insecurity in the U.K. and the U.S., to name a few. Any of these questions would benefit from a critic’s incisive intellect and informed reporting. Yet traditional reviewers remain trapped in the simplistic binary of barbaric putdowns or mindless praise.
This paralysis is a symptom of a larger generational debate over the proper role of the food critic. In the classical view, the reviewer is a gastronomic evaluator whose judgments exist outside any social context. For younger generations, the food critic is closer to a gastronomic ecologist responsible for exploring patterns of meaning in eating culture at large. The classical tradition draws a hard red line between plate and politics that prohibits the critic’s mind from leaving the dining room, but the pandemic is just one reason among many that the old divide between the food critic and the food journalist has started to blur.
In the middle of a historic crisis, it is time to reassess food criticism’s dominant, machismo style that teaches reviewers to write sharply on minor culinary mistakes but blunt their pen when confronted with sweeping problems. Moreover, by studying how the pugilist style works, I believe we can diagnose what ails the larger tradition of food writing in the Anglosphere. To make this diagnosis, I read hundreds of negative restaurant reviews across two decades, including every piece mentioned in an Eater annual list since 2011. Overall, I compiled a 6,000-word compendium of critical insults from dozens of reviewers. Every quote cited below comes from a real review and critic. What I found is a prose pathology whose manic habits infiltrate and sabotage the public perception and social analysis of food in many subversive ways.


newrepublic--2020-12-21--The Conservative War Against the Black Church

Indeed , even those twentieth-century conservatives who did not regard integration as a Communist plot came to accept inequality as inevitable .
Evangelist Billy Graham was one such figure , famously dismissing Dr. King ’ s “ Dream ” speech , “ Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children.
” Graham and other high-profile conservatives likewise perceived workers ’ movements and the New Deal to be , at best , misguided attempts on the part of liberal Christians , which were actually going to give rise to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
It was much better for Americans ’ spiritual welfare if they worked long hours under unsafe conditions and let big corporations operate as they pleased .
It ’ s impossible to ignore the legacy of this anti-statism , not only in today ’ s Protestant circles but in the Catholic church , which has been significantly influenced by the post-1970s rise of evangelicalism .
MAGA-oriented Catholics like Taylor Reed Marshall and Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò , both of whom spoke at the Jericho March , trash Pope Francis for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disdained Black Liberation theologians : They regard social justice as a secular endeavor .
According to Marshall and Viganò , the progressive pontiff ’ s election culminates a centuries-long effort to infiltrate the Church with communism .
Francis is “ hyper-focused ” on uplifting the poor , dismantling institutional racism , encouraging environmental reforms , and fighting discrimination against LGBTQ persons—all priorities that distract from or directly subvert the more essential Christian missions of saving souls and surveilling people ’ s sex lives .
For all their phony claims , conservatives have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nones ” and the media have accepted the terrestrial-versus-celestial framing , even as they ’ ve tried to counter conservatives ’ influence .
Ever since Karl Marx called religion the opium of the people , claiming its promise of divine salvation placated the proletariat from rising up , many Communists and socialists have seized upon his utterance to claim that faith has no part in the revolution .
( Marx ’ s critique of religion was somewhat more complicated . )
In doing so , they have provided endless fodder for conservatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand in other ways : by describing conservatives as traditionalists or “ devout ” Christians ; by presuming democratic politicians who discuss their faith are merely pandering ; by tagging issues like abortion and gay marriage , but not immigration and health care , as religious issues ; and by downplaying the religiosity of figures ranging from FDR to Dr. King .
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons has named the prejudice undergirding the last trend .
Discussing the secularization of the civil rights icon , he writes , “ Erasing King ’ s religiosity isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this racist tradition of whom we label ‘ religious ’ today.
” It may be that secular progressives also desire to redeem historical figures from what they perceive to be outmoded or backward belief systems .
But it ’ s impossible to segment someone like King ’ s social and spiritual convictions , according to Graves-Fitzsimmons .
The movement he led was “ rooted not in some vague ‘ progressive values ’ or a generic equality , but in the gospel message Jesus Christ proclaimed.
” And it was precisely the religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to civil rights that electrified the movement .

Conservatives claim long-standing tradition for their suspicion of the political, citing scripture on the supremacy of the spiritual realm, ignoring scripture on structural sin, and generally pretending that Jesus and centuries of his followers didn’t make broad demands for a new society and instead sought merely crumbs for the poor and outcast. History, however, reveals the privatization of sin and the intense cynicism toward material politics to be relatively recent inventions, developed precisely to counter racial progress and other social reforms. It illuminates how conservatives’ individualist theology is little more than a pretext for upholding the status quo—a ruse that secular institutions have nevertheless taken seriously.
Before the Civil War, most white Christians in America prioritized social reform as a means of bringing about the thousand-year era of peace and prosperity prophesied in the New Testament. Believing Jesus would only return to earth when civilization had adequately advanced to this golden millennium, Christians crusaded for temperance, an end to poverty, and the “humane” treatment of enslaved persons, as if there were such a thing. It was only after the North forced racial equality upon the South that Southern believers became disillusioned. They decided that if slavery was a “lost cause,” then so was the notion of heaven on earth. By their reckoning, God’s ideal for human society necessitated chattel slavery, and without it, the world was doomed. The reality of injustice thus became “the unsurprising outcome of a fallen world, not a call for action,” in the words of religion scholar and author of White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity Robert P. Jones. The revamped theology, which soon worked its way to Northern states, postulated, “In due time, Christ [would] return and set things right. In the meantime … Christians should focus on spirituality and the care of souls.”
In the North, evangelists like Dwight Moody and his successor Billy Sunday appealed to the same pessimism to express alarm about waning Victorian gender norms, the rise of workers’ movements, and increasing immigration, as well as to discredit the Social Gospel movement, through which progressive Christians sought a range of social and economic reforms. These evangelists reasoned that labor strikes and governmental interventions were never going to eliminate human suffering—only God could do that. “I look on this world as a wrecked vessel,” Moody once said. “God has given me a life-boat, and said to me, ‘Moody, save as many as you can.’” Following World War I, Sunday gave such doomsday-ism a nationalist bent, describing Woodrow Wilson’s proposed League of Nations and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal as precursors to the end of the world and America, as people knew them.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--The Lethal Inequality on American Farms

The Lethal Inequality on American Farms

When Flavio first heard about a temporary farm work program in the U.S. , it sounded like a great deal .
Everything from his salary to his housing would be guaranteed in advance by his employer , who would also sponsor his visa .
He forked over more than $ 1,000 to a recruiter in Mexico and was approved in April for a H-2A agricultural visa through a farm labor contractor .
These contractors , a small but fast-growing part of the legal migrant worker system , hire laborers directly and then pair them with farmers .
They are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a background in cross-border smuggling , according to the Farm Labor Organizing Committee .
Several weeks after his visa was approved , Flavio boarded a bus , chartered by the contractor , that would take him from his hometown in Hidalgo to the farm in North Carolina .
The problems started when the contractor asked Flavio and his coworkers to smuggle nearly $ 50,000 across the border .
“ Before we got to the border , they gave us each $ 1,000 , ” Flavio said .
“ After we got past the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Flavio asked that he be referred to only by his first name and not name his employer because of an ongoing lawsuit and fears of retaliation . )
This would prove to be the first in a series of labor violations , including cramped and unsafe accommodations , that would force Flavio to lose his visa and his opportunity to earn a living .
Over the past decade , farmers have faced severe workforce shortages—a paucity exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic .
Many American workers have avoided agricultural employment since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their families and avoid the cramped working conditions of many farms .
To meet their labor needs , farmers have turned to hiring foreign workers who come to the U.S. on temporary agricultural visas , mainly the H-2A program , which allows employer-sponsored workers to stay in the U.S. for up to 10 months every year .
In theory , this helps farmers fill employee shortages while providing the workers with a higher income than they could earn in their native countries ; employers must pay a living wage and offer safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labor , which administers the H-2A program , monitors working conditions on the farms and investigates allegations of wage theft and abuse .

When Flavio first heard about a temporary farm work program in the United States, it sounded like a great deal. Everything from his salary to his housing would be guaranteed in advance by his employer, who would also sponsor his visa. He forked over more than $1,000 to a recruiter in Mexico and was approved in April for an H-2A agricultural visa through a farm labor contractor. These contractors, a small but fast-growing part of the legal migrant worker system, hire laborers directly and then pair them with farmers. They are also notorious for human trafficking, and many have a background in cross-border smuggling, according to the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. Several weeks after his visa was approved, Flavio boarded a bus, chartered by the contractor, that would take him from his hometown in Hidalgo to the farm in North Carolina.
The problems started when the contractor asked Flavio and his co-workers to smuggle nearly $50,000 across the border. “Before we got to the border, they gave us each $1,000,” Flavio said. “After we got past the checkpoint, they took it right back.” (Flavio asked that he be referred to only by his first name and not name his employer because of an ongoing lawsuit and fears of retaliation.) This would prove to be the first in a series of labor violations, including cramped and unsafe accommodations, that would force Flavio to lose his visa and his opportunity to earn a living.
Over the past decade, farmers have faced severe workforce shortages—a paucity exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Many American workers have avoided agricultural employment since the pandemic began, choosing to stay closer to their families and avoid the crowded working conditions of many farms. To meet their labor needs, farmers have turned to hiring foreign workers who come to the U.S. on temporary agricultural visas, mainly the H-2A program, which allows employer-sponsored workers to stay in the U.S. for up to 10 months every year. In theory, this helps farmers fill employee shortages while providing the workers with a higher income than they could earn in their native countries; employers must pay a living wage and offer safe housing for employees. The Department of Labor, which administers the H-2A program, monitors working conditions on the farms and investigates allegations of wage theft and abuse.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--Let Them Eat $600

Let Them Eat $600

Nine months .
That ’ s how long it took Congress to pass a second round of legislative relief in response to a global pandemic recession .
In the interim , the economy imploded , the death toll reached and then surpassed 300,000 , millions were pushed into poverty , and millions more lost their jobs .
None of which stopped Mitch McConnell from sounding downright triumphant on Sunday as he announced the deal .
“ At long last , we have the bipartisan breakthrough the country has needed , ” he said from the Senate floor .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible.
” After putting their heads together , Chuck Schumer , Nancy Pelosi , Kevin McCarthy , and Mitch McConnell arrived on a $ 900 billion deal that is both late and inadequate .
A half-measure of a half-measure—the deeply flawed $ 2.2 trillion Cares Act was a short-term salve—the new bill will leave those who need the most help living week-to-week , and it does little to address the financial gaps or exploitative labor practices that the pandemic has magnified .
On the evening news and in the papers of record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise ; in truth , it ’ s closer to a betrayal .
As expected , the package includes $ 300 in weekly unemployment benefits for 11 weeks , extended benefits for gig and contract workers , nearly $ 300 billion for small businesses , a one-month extension of the eviction moratorium and $ 25 billion in rental assistance , just over $ 80 billion for schools , and one-time $ 600 stimulus checks for adults making under $ 75,000 , with an additional $ 600 for child and adult dependents .

Nine months. That’s how long it took Congress to pass a second round of legislative relief in response to a global pandemic recession. In the interim, the economy imploded, the death toll reached and then surpassed 300,000, millions were pushed into poverty, and millions more lost their jobs. None of which stopped Mitch McConnell from sounding downright triumphant on Sunday as he announced the deal. “At long last, we have the bipartisan breakthrough the country has needed,” he said from the Senate floor. “I hope we can do this as promptly as possible.”
After putting their heads together, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell arrived at a $900 billion deal that is both late and inadequate. A half measure of a half measure—the deeply flawed $2.2 trillion Cares Act was a short-term salve—the new bill will leave those who need the most help living week to week, and it does little to address the financial gaps or exploitative labor practices that the pandemic has magnified. On the evening news and in the papers of record, the bill has been called a compromise; in truth, it’s closer to a betrayal.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--The Case for Giving Workers Ownership Rights

It ’ s a certainty that we ’ ll be entering both the new year and a new Democratic administration with the American economy on its knees .
We ’ ll return to something resembling normalcy with time , but communities across the country and the lives of millions have already been irrevocably altered .
The lesson of the last financial crisis—that precarity endures for working Americans long after the markets and headline figures rebound—will have to be learned again .
And the central truth of our economic system will have to be confronted afresh : Ours is an economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a class of owners who , as we ’ ve seen this year , are willing and able to work their employees quite literally to death .
The fact that the Biden administration is unlikely to produce solutions that get to the heart of our national iniquities hasn ’ t absolved us from the responsibility of devising , discussing , and promoting solutions to them .
Many of the most promising ideas in circulation now proceed from a simple principle : Our economy will continue to fail the American people until they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of the proposals that should be given consideration concern the reallocation of power at the firm level : that is to say , “ reshaping company ownership so that it is democratic , inclusive , and purposeful by design , ” as the policy analyst Peter Gowan wrote last year .
In an interview this week , Gowan told me , “ We should be encouraging the development of a lot of alternative economic models .
And we should be encouraging people and workers on the ground to think about how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives.
” Gowan points , for instance , to the 100,000 establishments that have already permanently shuttered over the course of the pandemic , many of which might have been rescued with some assistance from the government or their own workers .
“ The bars that are closing down didn ’ t become unusable under Covid , ” Gowan said .
“ It would have been entirely possible for them to sort of be put on ice and opened back up .
But what happened is that a source of money got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more profitable use of resources .
And that does a huge amount of damage to the economy—the consequences of that are measured not in dollar terms but in whole communities that get hollowed out .
”

It’s a certainty that we’ll be entering both the new year and a new Democratic administration with the American economy on its knees. We’ll return to something resembling normalcy with time, but communities across the country and the lives of millions have already been irrevocably altered. The lesson of the last financial crisis—that precarity endures for working Americans long after the markets and headline figures rebound—will have to be learned again. And the central truth of our economic system will have to be confronted afresh: Ours is an economy where profits and power accrue almost wholly to a class of owners who, as we’ve seen this year, are willing and able to work their employees quite literally to death. The fact that the Biden administration is unlikely to produce solutions that get to the heart of our national iniquities hasn’t absolved us from the responsibility of devising, discussing, and promoting solutions to them. Many of the most promising ideas in circulation now proceed from a simple principle: Our economy will continue to fail the American people until they are given more control over it.
Some of the proposals that should be given consideration concern the reallocation of power at the firm level: that is to say, “reshaping company ownership so that it is democratic, inclusive, and purposeful by design,” as the policy analyst Peter Gowan wrote last year. In an interview this week, Gowan told me, “We should be encouraging the development of a lot of alternative economic models. And we should be encouraging people and workers on the ground to think about how the private ownership of capital is negatively impacting their lives.”
Gowan points, for instance, to the 100,000 establishments that have already permanently shuttered over the course of the pandemic, many of which might have been rescued with some assistance from the government or their own workers. “The bars that are closing down didn’t become unusable under Covid,” Gowan said. “It would have been entirely possible for them to sort of be put on ice and opened back up. But what happened is that a source of money got cut off and capital intervened to find a more profitable use of resources. And that does a huge amount of damage to the economy—the consequences of that are measured not in dollar terms but in whole communities that get hollowed out.”


newrepublic--2020-12-22--Billion-Dollar Book Companies Are Ripping Off Public Schools

For most of America ’ s 10 million middle schoolers , English class means enjoying—or , perhaps , enduring—the timeless narratives of the Western canon : Fahrenheit 451 , Black Boy , The Giver , Parable of the Sower , 1984 .
Teachers order these books every year , and school librarians stock up for fall classes .
It ’ s a cash cow for book publishers and distributors—and they intend to keep it that way .
Over the past decade , Silicon Valley ’ s tech behemoths have discreetly and methodically tightened their grip on American schools , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squeeze even tighter .
By 2017 , tens of millions of students were already using Google Chromebooks and apps for reading , writing , and turning in their work .
Google Classroom now has more than 100 million users worldwide—nearly seven times the number reported in The New York Times three years ago .
When we emerge from the pandemic , schools will be even more reliant on such systems .
Industry is bolting an adamantine layer of technology onto the world ’ s classrooms , in what amounts to a stealth form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may seem obvious .
They should provide a cheap , convenient way to supply millions of kids with classic novels : They don ’ t wear out , they can ’ t get lost or be defaced with underlining , doodles , or the name of your latest crush , and , with a pandemic still raging , they provide a safe , instantaneous way to distribute books to students who are stuck at home .

For most of America’s 10 million middle schoolers, English class means enjoying—or, perhaps, enduring—the timeless narratives of the Western canon: Fahrenheit 451, Black Boy, The Giver, Parable of the Sower, 1984. Teachers order these books every year, and school librarians stock up for fall classes. It’s a cash cow for book publishers and distributors—and they intend to keep it that way.
Over the past decade, Silicon Valley’s tech behemoths have discreetly and methodically tightened their grip on American schools, and the pandemic has given them license to squeeze even tighter. By 2017, tens of millions of students were already using Google Chromebooks and apps for reading, writing, and turning in their work. Google Classroom now has more than 100 million users worldwide—nearly seven times the number reported in The New York Times three years ago. When we emerge from the pandemic, schools will be even more reliant on such systems. Industry is bolting an adamantine layer of technology onto the world’s classrooms, in what amounts to a stealth form of privatization.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--Monopolization Is Killing Art

Monopolization Is Killing Art

Netflix is pumping out “ Netflix Originals ” that frequently star the same cast of actors , used over and over again , as if determined to wear them to breaking point .
If Carla Gugino ( Gerald ’ s Game , The Haunting of Hill House , The Haunting of Bly Manor ) manages to stagger through to 2021 , she deserves a medal .
The company is meanwhile producing new works of wildly varying quality , many of which are seemingly done on the cheap .
The Haunting of Bly Manor , for example , featured close-up shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plastic plants jammed into soil .
This shift has long-term consequences for actors .
As Refinery29 has reported , many Black actresses end up doing their own hair on set .
Despite wig technology being mastered every day by ordinary people all over America , some of the wigs we ’ re asked to accept as a part of television simply stretch credulity .
This is partly because of the high price of entry into the cosmetologists ’ guild , in an industry where membership is everything .
It would appear that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power structures of Hollywood production , only everything else .
The homogenization of the arts happened slowly , then all at once , over the course of my lifetime .
In the 1990s , the murder of bookshops by the likes of Barnes & Noble was a crisis sympathetic enough to fire an entire rom-com .
In the 2000s , the tech bubble rocked print media , with the long-term effect of eviscerating local news and kicking thousands of journalists out of a job .
Spotify announced one million paid users in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a living from album sales .
Nobody really cares—until the quality of the products starts to dwindle , and America is suddenly no longer a global leader in previously lucrative exports like cinema or television .
Acquisitions and mergers are usually treated purely as business news , particularly if the acquisition , like Mulan , can play well in China ’ s enormous market .
A former staffer with Apple , which also wants to get in the streaming game , told the Times that a senior vice president has told people that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do are hard-core nudity and China , ” out of fear of offending the Chinese .
In the same report , the Times revealed that Apple CEO Tim Cook killed a Gawker television show in the works , likely as retaliation for outing him as gay some years ago .

All these developments have knock-on effects with culture-wide ramifications. The Wrap recently reported that Marvel was planning to “adjust” its compensation packages for its actors, should the pandemic force it to release all of its 2021 titles via Disney+. Marvel stars make extra money when their films perform well at the box office, which means that streaming-only will inevitably cut wages, stifle competition, and ultimately cause the product to deteriorate. Part of Marvel’s problem is the pandemic limiting theatrical runs, of course, but its industry-dominating franchise was already sucking all the money out of Hollywood’s corpse with its infinite parade of sequels.
Netflix is pumping out “Netflix Originals” that frequently star the same cast of actors, used over and over again, as if determined to wear them to breaking point. If Carla Gugino (Gerald’s Game, The Haunting of Hill House, The Haunting of Bly Manor) manages to stagger through to 2021, she deserves a medal. The company is meanwhile producing new works of wildly varying quality, many of which are seemingly done on the cheap. The Haunting of Bly Manor, for example, featured close-up shots of supposedly real vegetation clearly played by plastic plants jammed into soil.
This shift has long-term consequences for actors. As Refinery29 has reported, many Black actresses end up doing their own hair on set. Despite wig technology being mastered every day by ordinary people all over America, some of the wigs we’re asked to accept as a part of television simply stretch credulity. This is partly because of the high price of entry into the cosmetologists’ guild, in an industry where membership is everything. It would appear that the anti-labor tech giants can’t disrupt the power structures of Hollywood production, only everything else.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--Make Media Small Again

Make Media Small Again

In 2020 , the media got bigger .
The New York Times continued its hegemonic expansion , announcing that it had topped five million subscribers in March , six million in June , and seven million in November .
It has used its clout to hire whomever it wants , and digital publications , once seen as an existential threat , are now a hunting ground .
A wave of consolidation swept through those digital publications , culminating in BuzzFeed ’ s acquisition of HuffPost last month .
Unprecedented election interest swelled the coffers of cable networks , which practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development given the rise of cord-cutting .
Another way of thinking about this , however , is that the media shrank .
BuzzFeed ’ s acquisition of HuffPost capped a frenetic year-and-a-half period of digital consolidation—Vox acquired New York last September ; Vice bought Refinery29 a month after that .
Covid-19-related revenue loss led to the industry shedding tens of thousands of jobs ; if 2019 was a bleak year for layoffs , then 2020 was much , much worse .
By hoovering up nearly all of the ad dollars online , Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to run a modestly sized , modestly profitable digital newsroom .
The internet once abounded with punchy , scrappy , unpredictable outlets like Gawker and The Awl , but the fun internet is now nearly extinct , absorbed by larger entities .
Local newspapers , moreover , have been decimated by declining ad money and circulation , leaving what The Washington Post ’ s Margaret Sullivan has termed “ news deserts ” spreading across the country .

In 2020, the media got bigger. The New York Times continued its hegemonic expansion, announcing that it had topped five million subscribers in March, six million in June, and seven million in November. It has used its clout to hire whomever it wants, and digital publications, once seen as an existential threat, are now a hunting ground. A wave of consolidation swept through those digital publications, culminating in BuzzFeed’s acquisition of HuffPost last month. Unprecedented election interest swelled the coffers of cable networks, which practically minted their own money, a remarkable development given the rise of cord-cutting.
Another way of thinking about this, however, is that the media shrank. BuzzFeed’s acquisition of HuffPost capped a frenetic year-and-a-half period of digital consolidation—Vox acquired New York last September; Vice bought Refinery29 a month after that. Covid-19-related revenue loss led to the industry shedding tens of thousands of jobs; if 2019 was a bleak year for layoffs, then 2020 was much, much worse.
By hoovering up nearly all of the ad dollars online, Facebook and Google have made it all but impossible to run a modestly sized, modestly profitable digital newsroom. The internet once abounded with punchy, scrappy, unpredictable outlets like Gawker and The Awl, but the fun internet is now nearly extinct, absorbed by larger entities. Local newspapers, moreover, have been decimated by declining ad money and circulation, leaving what The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan has termed “news deserts” spreading across the country.


newrepublic--2020-12-23--How to Make Kleptocrats Fear America Again

Four years ago , the United States was widely viewed as the towering , swaggering leader of global anti-corruption efforts .
While other countries struggled with money-laundering banks and corrupt oligarchs bent on placing profits above patriotism , the U.S. enacted policy after policy to create the most full-throated anti-corruption regime in the entire world .
That regime now lies in shambles , collapsed within the larger detritus of Donald Trump ’ s presidency .
All of the facets of America ’ s broader pro-transparency reputation stand wrecked by Trump ’ s misrule and through his effort to open the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of dirty money burning holes in their pockets .
The good news , though , is that the U.S. has been here before , decades ago , when it struggled to slough off the legacy of the most corrupt president the country had seen in a half-century and succeeded in launching an unprecedented anti-corruption reform as a result .
And this time around , there ’ s an incoming president who—despite his history , despite his provenance—may be perfectly placed to rebuild America ’ s crumbled anti-corruption platform .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task President-elect Joe Biden faces and the extent to which Trump demolished our reputation for anti-corruption leadership , and how swiftly he brought it low .
Consider the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , which explicitly bars Americans and American companies from bribing foreign officials and foreign entities—the undisputed linchpin of America ’ s anti-corruption playbook .
Trump came into office having already publicly declared the FCPA a “ horrible law.
” Almost immediately , he set about trying to dismantle it , along with our entire suite of programs that criminalize foreign bribery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the likelihood that he participated in similar schemes in notoriously corrupt places like Azerbaijan . )

Four years ago, the United States was widely viewed as the towering, swaggering leader of global anti-corruption efforts. While other countries struggled with money-laundering banks and corrupt oligarchs bent on placing profits above patriotism, the U.S. enacted policy after policy to create the most full-throated anti-corruption regime in the entire world.
That regime now lies in shambles, collapsed within the larger detritus of Donald Trump’s presidency. All of the facets of America’s broader pro-transparency reputation stand wrecked by Trump’s misrule and through his effort to open the U.S. to any and all with a bit of dirty money burning holes in their pockets. The good news, though, is that the U.S. has been here before, decades ago, when it struggled to slough off the legacy of the most corrupt president the country had seen in a half-century and succeeded in launching an unprecedented anti-corruption reform as a result. And this time around, there’s an incoming president who—despite his history, despite his provenance—may be perfectly placed to rebuild America’s crumbled anti-corruption platform.
It’s important to come to grips with the task President-elect Joe Biden faces and the extent to which Trump demolished our reputation for anti-corruption leadership, and how swiftly he brought it low. Consider the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which explicitly bars Americans and American companies from bribing foreign officials and foreign entities—the undisputed linchpin of America’s anti-corruption playbook. Trump came into office having already publicly declared the FCPA a “horrible law.” Almost immediately, he set about trying to dismantle it, along with our entire suite of programs that criminalize foreign bribery. (This was perhaps predictable, given the likelihood that he participated in similar schemes in notoriously corrupt places like Azerbaijan.)


newrepublic--2020-12-23--End the Cops’ Cannibalization of Our Budgets

The debate shifts , then , from Is it possible to defund the police ?
to If we did , what would be possible ?
Activists in Los Angeles started from there and got their proposed budget on the November ballot , to require that the county allocate at least 10 percent of locally generated revenues be set aside every year for community investment and alternatives to incarceration , like pretrial noncustodial services , including health services , as well as restorative justice programs .
“ By prohibiting these specific funds from being spent on jails , law enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disproportionate amount of spending—it would move toward accomplishing what many activists across the country have been calling for , ” as Jennifer Swann wrote for The New Republic , “ a government that spends its resources on housing , health care , and community instead of just cops.
” They won , a victory for the defund movement and for this strategy of funding the future you want .
When people are asked if they support redirecting resources out of law enforcement and toward social services , they support it , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as FiveThirtyEight framed the polling results , the “ slogan is unpopular , ” when it comes to the actual act of defunding , “ there does appear to be some support for rethinking police departments ’ role in local budgets and the community.
” What this means is that the potential base of support for the demand to defund can include both those who want to abolish the police and those who want to cut their budgets but aren ’ t necessarily abolitionists .
That matters more than this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messaging to help Democrats .
A focus on crafting policy that works and meets urgent local needs is something a community can organize around , and—as it did in Los Angeles County—can win .
The future , though , is not limited to whatever now falls under the policy banner of reforming the police .
If safety is really the goal , organizers can draw people together around the question of what would it take to feel safe—not just from harm now but to address what conditions enable harm .
“ Defund the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or childcare , or a decent job .
That ’ s a future that won ’ t just take us away from the police .
As Aronoff wrote in June , there are considerable overlaps between defunding the police and good climate policy : “ At the local level , especially , the types of climate policy that mayors and city councils have leverage over are also the investments campaigners in the movement for black lives have urged to make communities safer and stronger : affordable housing , rapid bus transit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminalizing black communities , that is , are ill-suited for taking on the climate crisis.
” A divestment in the police can be part of investment in everything else life-sustaining .
It is air to breathe .
In December , the Minneapolis City Council and mayor came to a compromise and cut nearly $ 8 million from the police budget .
“ This was a tremendous win , ” Reclaim the Block policy organizer Sheila Nezhad told the MinnPost .
“ It ’ s the first time in at least 20 years—that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records go—that the base budget for Minneapolis police has been cut.
” It is not everything they wanted .
But the power they built—which could extend to every city and county where this is now , for the first time , a matter of debate—is the win , too .

Six months ago, after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, the city moved to defund the department. That was the headline in June, but the story in the months since has been more complicated. Debates over what defund means, a cop slowdown, conflict over who does the job of police in the meantime, packed city budget meetings—all are part of a power struggle that, far from a failure, is an indication of what it really looks like to take on the work of reimagining the budget as a moral document, a statement about whose life is valued. 2020 is not the year we fully defunded the police, but the undoubtedly imperfect process of inventing a world without police has begun.
This is not a flip-of-the-switch kind of change. To defund the police is a discrete, complete demand: Zero out that line item in your municipal budget. But “defunding the police” is also a series of commitments—a horizon of possibilities that follow that decisive, moral act. “It’s not a slogan,” said Representative-elect Cori Bush, a veteran of the Ferguson protests. “It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive.” To defund the police is to begin to pose that larger question: What must be done to keep our people alive?
To answer this, we first have to reckon with what policing is—the system in its full history. “There is a broad misconception among most of the American public, including among police themselves, that the reason police departments exist is to promote general well-being and public safety. If that were true, then reforming police would mean simply bringing them into better alignment with their fundamental purpose,” historian Simon Balto wrote in November. “The inconvenient truth of police history in the United States, however, is that police departments were not designed to keep a generic public safe. Rather, they were meant to serve the needs of capital and to uphold racial and ethnic hierarchies. To put it differently, police were designed with power and control in mind, not generalized public safety.”


newrepublic--2020-12-23--The Green Fantasy and Messy Reality of Nuclear Power

The notion that nuclear power is necessary and inevitable is far from a fringe viewpoint .
Last year , The New York Times ran an op-ed called “ Nuclear Power Can Save the World , ” written by three Ph.D.-holders , including cognitive neuroscientist and radical optimist Steven Pinker .
According to this brand of eco-contrarianism , nuclear is not just viable , but the only pragmatic plan for decarbonizing the U.S. energy grid .
Built into this message is invariably the idea that plans outlined by environmentalists , activists , and alternative energy proponents are actually doing more harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these folks want nuclear to have a seat at the table as humanity negotiates its energy future ; they want to nuke-pill the whole climate movement .
But inevitably , this rhetoric has to address the chief problem of nuclear power , which is that it is extremely time-consuming and expensive to build new reactors .
The solution , nuclear supporters argue , is to take a modular approach to our nuclear construction .
Modularity means minimal variation at each new site , a streamlined design process , and less of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down .
In other words , cookie-cutter them into the energy landscape as quickly as possible .
There ’ s reason to be skeptical of this approach .
“ Claims about the technical and economic attractiveness of modular or small scale nuclear reactors , I think , are potentially especially problematic on the political side of things , ” Delucchi said .
“ A lot of the costs associated with nuclear power are based on technologies that are not commercialized , or even particularly close.
” Plans based on 100 percent renewable energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet available or cost-effective .
Clearly , though , that ’ s also true for nuclear power .
Nuclear fans , then , are asking the country to bet on a successful nuclear expansion at a time when we have less than ten years—roughly the time it takes to carry out the relatively smooth construction of a single nuclear power plant—to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 40–50 percent from 2010 , or else we ’ ll blow past the ugly 1.5 degree warming threshold according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves into climate chaos .
That ’ s quite a bet .

“It kinda boggles my mind how anyone who has any clue about solving problems related to climate or energy still considers nuclear power,” said Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and a frequent collaborator with Delucchi. As Jacobson pointed out, there’s next to no active construction of nuclear power plants currently going on in the U.S. All of the U.S. nuclear energy construction happening right now consists of two reactors in Georgia that Jacobson says “may never even be finished.” A project in Utah set to break ground soon was set in motion by politicians accused of conflicts of interest, and construction of that plant has faced opposition from activists since its inception. In 2017, two U.S. nuclear reactor projects were canceled after construction had begun, leaving investors on the hook for billions of dollars. “So people are trying to say that we should build lots of these things that you can’t even build one of?” Jacobson said.
Despite the near impossibility of constructing one of these plants, greater federal investment in nuclear energy appears to be on the table. Biden’s transition team includes Rachel Slaybaugh, a Berkeley nuclear engineer. The Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works earlier this month approved a bipartisan bill aimed at protecting existing nuclear infrastructure, developing new nuclear technology, and supporting uranium mining.
America’s pro-nuclear voices tend to hail from the aggressively moderate part of the political spectrum. The centrist think tank Third Way says on its website that “advanced nuclear is shaping up to be a key component in our race to zero emissions.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy conceded in February that climate change is real—a step not all Republicans have taken—but claimed that the Democrats are going about trying to fix it all wrong. We should be, McCarthy wrote on his website, “investing in clean energy technology that will lead to less emissions, lower costs, and produce as much or more power. Chief among them is advanced nuclear technology.”


Meritocracy on Trial

When it comes to politics , Sandel expresses skepticism about the pertinence and value of a college degree .
He points out that our arguably most recent great president , Harry Truman , didn ’ t have a college degree , and that a full seven of the members of Prime Minister Clement Attlee ’ s postwar Labour Cabinet were coal miners .
Franklin Roosevelt ( himself a Harvard grad ) had a very eclectic group of advisers during the New Deal ; his chief deputy , Harry Hopkins , was a social worker from Iowa .
Governing well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and civic virtue , ” and neither of these capabilities is developed very well in most universities today .
He finds little correlation between “ political judgment , which involves moral character as well as insight , and the ability to score well on standardized tests.
” A meritocracy , as Young foresaw , is , in effect , really no more equitable than a hereditary order .
Being born with a high I.Q .
or exceptional skill of some kind is just as arbitrary , in a moral sense , as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference is that those who make it to the top in a meritocracy are susceptible to self-congratulation and hubris , freed from the notion that they owe anything to those less fortunate than them , while those at the bottom are driven to bitter feelings of inferiority and resentment .
This is a dangerous combination in a would-be democracy , in which disillusionment can build support for a figure like Trump , who claims no allegiance to the meritocratic elites .
Sandel and Young follow in a long tradition of critics of meritocratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theological debate surrounding the issue of moral desert arose in the early days of Christianity .
St. Augustine established the principle that individual salvation could not be earned through strict religious observance or the performance of good works , but could only come from the grace of God .
Centuries later , Martin Luther initiated a massive rebellion against a Catholic Church in which this doctrine had become so diluted that its representatives were selling the remission of sins on the open market , while granting it in return for the performance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
“ The Protestant Reformation was born , ” Sandel writes , “ as an argument against merit.
” John Calvin put major emphasis on the doctrine of predestination , which holds that an individual ’ s salvation ( or damnation , as the case might be ) is determined by God before that person is even born .
This tenet , of course , precluded the possibility that a person might earn salvation through any form of merit .
You were either born as one of the elect , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of merit soon crept back in .
Calvin preserved Luther ’ s emphasis on the spiritual importance of working strenuously in a “ calling ” for the glory of God , which became the “ work ethic ” brought to America by the Puritan disciples of Calvin .
Max Weber , in his essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , made two points relevant to Sandel ’ s thesis .
The first was that Calvinist asceticism , with its emphasis on the importance of accumulating wealth while spending little of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial basis for launching a capitalist economic order .
The second was that the prospect of being damned forever could not but encourage the hope ( or presumption ) that success in one ’ s calling was a sign you were among the elect .
Sandel extends this point , suggesting it was a virtually inevitable step from there to the conviction that you had earned your superior status and fully deserved it .
As Weber wrote , “ The fortunate [ person ] is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a right to his good fortune .
”

Sandel is aware of the appeal of the ethic of mastery, which inspires in individuals a sense of empowerment and responsibility for their own fate. At the same time, he critiques the ethic on grounds similar to those that caused him to question John Rawls’s doctrine of the priority of the right over the good: It is corrosive, if not preclusive, of community, since it enfeebles the sense that “we are all in this together.” In fact, with the ethic of mastery, we are very much in the world of the Rawlsian autonomous individual, who depends on himself alone for his direction in life. In a section titled “Do we deserve our talents?” Sandel illustrates how arbitrary each of our fates actually is: LeBron James, he points out, was born doubly lucky, not only with an extraordinary gift for playing the game of basketball, but also at a time in history when that talent was highly prized and extravagantly remunerated. If he had been born in Renaissance Florence, when fresco painting was a more sought-after skill, he would have been out of luck.
A number of conservative economists—including Friedrich Hayek, a pioneer of the right-wing Austrian School of Economics, and Frank Knight, one of the founders of neoclassical economics at the University of Chicago—have argued likewise that outsize levels of financial compensation have no relation to moral desert. They justify them, instead, on the grounds that they are simply the result of the efficient operation of open markets that give customers the goods they want at the price they can afford. Money, as Knight saw it, is neither a measure of a person’s merit, nor of the value of their contribution to society. Sandel makes this point himself, asking the reader to weigh the comparative contribution to society of the multibillionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, on the one hand, and that of a nurse or doctor on the other. Few, he suggests, would argue in favor of Sheldon Adelson.
John Rawls, in the supposedly egalitarian utopia he conjures up in A Theory of Justice (and in subsequent modified versions thereof), especially rejects making moral desert the basis for justice, because to do so would amount to putting the good (moral desert) before the right (the rules or justice by which the society will be governed), which always takes precedence over any particular concept of the good. Rawls seems to be making a strong case against the idea of meritocracy, and in his essay “Justice as Fairness,” he argued that the wealth of successful individuals should be subject to redistribution among the rest of the population. Yet another one of Rawls’s principles of justice, “entitlements to legitimate expectations,” introduces a catch. Under this principle, successful citizens are entitled to disproportionate financial rewards to the extent their skill and efforts benefit the least advantaged members of society. For Sandel, this deviation from egalitarian principles amounts to sneaking the concept of meritocracy into the mix. One can imagine the range of things the Wall Street Journal editorial page could justify using the concept.


newrepublic--2020-12-23--Congress Is the Problem Child of American Democracy

When Americans learn about Congress in civics classes , they ’ re taught that passing legislation can be a lengthy , multi-stage process .
Bills are introduced by a member of either the House or the Senate , then sent to committee for mark-up and deliberation ; from there proceeding to the floor for amendments and a final vote .
Bills passed by one chamber generally go to the other chamber for approval , and if it ’ s granted , to the president for their signature or veto .
This is not rocket science , it ’ s Schoolhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now awaits President Donald Trump ’ s signature , however , went through a process that is almost unrecognizable to students of these legislative arts .
This much needed relief package was the product of lengthy negotiations between House Democratic leaders , Senate Republican leaders , and the Trump administration .
Rank-and-file lawmakers—the ones that most Americans actually elected—had limited opportunities to directly weigh in on the bill ’ s provisions during those negotiations .
They had even less time to actually read the legislation before voting on it : The final text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the House and Senate votes were scheduled on Monday .
The 5,593-page omnibus bill served multiple purposes .
It doubled as a continuing resolution for the federal government ’ s operations , averting yet another government shutdown for now .
( Congress hasn ’ t actually passed a real budget in almost a decade . )
It also bundled together a series of relief measures for the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , including $ 600 direct payments for most Americans and a short-term boost to unemployment insurance .
As my colleague Nick Martin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woefully short of what the American people need right now .

“This is why Congress needs time to actually read this package before voting on it,” New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter, referring to the streaming provisions. “Members of Congress have not read this bill. It’s over 5000 pages, arrived at 2pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in 2 hours. This isn’t governance. It’s hostage-taking.” Other progressive Democrats were also sharply critical. “I refuse to normalize an anti-democratic process where a few rich, predominantly white individuals negotiate behind closed doors for most of 2020 and give the rest of us a few hours to consider the 5,593 page result of their secret negotiations,” Cori Bush, a Black Lives Matter activist from Missouri who will join the House in January, wrote on Twitter.
Some conservatives also spoke up in frustration. “It’s ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then—hours later—demand an up-or-down vote on a bill nobody has had time to read,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz wrote on Twitter while concurring with Ocasio-Cortez’s criticism of how the bill was crafted. “Early this afternoon, we were finally provided the text of the combined $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill and $900 billion COVID relief bill,” Florida Senator Rick Scott said in a statement. “It is almost 5,600 pages long and we’re expected to vote on it tonight. Who in their right mind thinks that this is a responsible way of governing?”
Since legislative coercion is a bipartisan habit, it makes sense that it would draw bipartisan criticism. Earlier this year, I dove into how some congressional experts, think tanks, and ex-lawmakers have pushed harder in recent years for major internal reforms in how Congress operates. None of them agree completely on every aspect of what should and can be reformed. But the broad outline is familiar: Party leadership has centralized too much of the power once held by committees and their chairs, and it now wields too much control over which bills reach (or don’t reach) the floor. Thanks to a variety of formal and informal tools, those leaders also wield enough influence over rank-and-file lawmakers to quell most internal dissent over these power arrangements.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--The Return of Corporate Tax Incentives Is a Bad Omen for Blue States

In September , New Jersey officials announced a plan to borrow $ 4.5 billion to cover what The New York Times referred to as a “ gaping financial hole ” in the state ’ s budget .
It was an understandable move given the Covid-19 pandemic ’ s deleterious effect on employment and local tax revenue , and Democratic Governor Phil Murphy ’ s advisers said they wished to avoid the “ slashing of government services ” that working families rely on .
To that end , the budget also included a millionaire ’ s tax .
With direct federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the most recent Covid stimulus talks , thanks to Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s apparent desire to see widespread austerity spending cuts and service reductions , states like New Jersey , which can not print their own money as the federal government can , have to make difficult decisions about revenue and expenditures .
Terrified of borrowing and reluctant to raise taxes ( on the wealthy , at least ) , most states balance the books in regressive ways .
As an Economic Policy Institute study found , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local spending on K-12 education “ did not grow at all ( adjusted for inflation ) between 2008 and 2015.
” Much of the sluggish nature of the Obama-era recovery , in fact , can be attributed to this state and local austerity .
Which is why it was heartening to see a Democratic-run state signal that it was willing both to raise revenue from the rich and borrow money if necessary , in order to get through what could still be a temporary budget shock without harmful cuts to services that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much less heartening when , a few months later , New Jersey officials suddenly announced the return of a giant tax giveaway to politically connected corporations .
Crafted in secret , made public last week , and voted on with rapid speed , the new $ 14 billion corporate tax incentive program replaces one that collapsed in scandal and corruption last year , following revelations that much of the program benefited a local party machine boss and his family and associates .

In the continued absence of direct federal aid, or unprecedented action by the Federal Reserve, it is depressingly easy to imagine another nationwide pattern of disinvestment like the one we saw after the Great Recession, with states too terrified of alienating their “tax base” to actually consider taxing it. The “good news” so far is that the unequal nature of the economic downturn—which has harmed low-income workers much more than high-income ones, while the rich have only gotten richer—means many states have not seen the apocalyptic revenue declines they predicted earlier in the year. The bad news is that this will be used by the usual suspects in politics to argue that covering these shortfalls with progressive taxation is a bad idea, and states that already rely on heavily regressive tax systems—in particular, the so-called “low-tax” states, which are actually “high taxes for poor people” states—will see no reason to change course.
In much of the country where Democrats actually hold power, this could be an opportunity to use it to advance an agenda of actually making government work, leveraging the largely untouched income and growing wealth of their richest residents to more efficiently provide services, build infrastructure, and directly help residents. Instead, if New Jersey is any guide, they will return to the comfortable old ways of using complicated tax incentives aimed at large corporations to indirectly spur vaguely defined “growth,” while cities and municipalities pare back spending on the parts of the state people actually interact with every day.
In a few years, we’ll probably all read in ProPublica which politically connected wealthy investors actually benefitted from the program, and how much revenue—which could’ve gone to giving people better health coverage or building new rail lines or buying battery-powered electric city buses or paying teachers more—these investors leeched from the system. The Cool Zone, it turns out, is an economic opportunity zone as well.


newrepublic--2020-12-22--If the U.S. Already Had a Covid Variant, We Wouldn’t Know

News of specific , potentially more contagious coronavirus variants in the United Kingdom and South Africa have swept global headlines in recent days .
The two unrelated variants , health officials say , have spread in the past few weeks , supplanting other variations of the virus and leading officials to believe they are more transmissible .
International focus has quickly shifted to containment : Dozens of countries have now issued travel bans for the U.K .
The variant has not yet been detected in the United States , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 51,000 of 17 million cases have been sequenced so far .
“ Given the small fraction of U.S. infections that have been sequenced , the variant could already be in the United States without having been detected , ” the CDC said .
Few headlines , though , have focused on the bigger problem : If the U.S. already had its own variants , we wouldn ’ t know .
Researchers discovered the British and South African variants by sequencing the genomes of virus samples from positive patients .
The U.K. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , examines about 10 percent of all confirmed cases , using the information to guide shelter-in-place recommendations .
This month , U.K. researchers have uploaded 2,131 full sequences to an international repository , GISAID .
U.S. researchers , on the other hand , have uploaded only 36—despite this country having five times more people and hundreds of thousands of cases .
“ We ’ re flying blind .
Totally flying blind right now , ” Dr. Michael Worobey , head of the ecology and evolutionary biology department at the University of Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track genetic changes to the virus for two main reasons : first , to know whether the variants identified in the U.K. and South Africa are already here , and second , to see what other homegrown variants are emerging .
Viruses evolve frequently , making tiny changes every time they replicate .
The more chances they have to replicate—each time they infect a new person—the more likely they are to mutate .
That means the more cases we have , the more opportunities the virus has to change .
Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they happen bit by bit .
As the viruses evolve , our immune systems also change to combat them .
But when they mutate quickly and substantially , as the U.K. variant has done , they may be able to elude our immune responses , even when we ’ ve already had an infection or a vaccine .
And that ’ s what has experts worried .

But scientists and officials are taking the new variants seriously—in part because of concern for what these more substantial mutations might mean for the efficacy of vaccines that have only just been released. “There is reason to think that this new variant might actually be able to infect people who have already been affected by earlier variants, because it’s so different,” Worobey said. “And maybe the vaccine might be less protective against this new variant. No one knows the answers to those questions yet; lots of people are working on it rapidly. But it’s a possibility for sure.”
It usually takes a long time for a virus to evolve until a vaccine stops working entirely. More likely, Worobey said, the spread of new variants would simply make a vaccine a little less effective—not negate it completely. Researchers are racing to learn whether the virus has changed enough to reinfect people who already had it, whether the illness is more or less severe, and whether the vaccine still works very well against it. “This is a one-in-a-million event, for sure. Just off the charts,” Worobey said. But one-in-a-million events may become a lot more common when you have a million new cases every four days, as the U.S. now does.
Not only is the U.S. taking fewer measures than other countries to slow transmission (slowing transmission would mean slowing mutation), but it also hasn’t been devoting adequate resources to sequencing. Early in the pandemic, the U.K. government funded the COVID-19 Genomics UK, or COG-UK, consortium to track genomic changes like these. In the U.S., the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have similarly recommended tracking viral genome sequences (and comparing them with clinical and epidemiological data) in order to gain a much better grasp of how the virus is changing and spreading. So far, those recommendations haven’t been taken up. As Dr. Michal Tal, an instructor at Stanford University’s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, put it: “You’ll never find what you aren’t actively looking for. We’ve had more transmission and less tracking, so we almost certainly have variants that we aren’t aware of.”