newrepublic--2020-06-15--The Pandemic-Era Rebrand of Family Separation

After a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd , the city ’ s police department first released a statement to the press attributing his death to an act of nature : “ Man dies after medical incident during police interaction.
” The statement made no mention of the officer who knelt on Floyd ’ s neck , cutting off the flow of oxygen to his brain .
Instead , as is often the case with instances of police violence , it took cell phone footage captured by a bystander to reveal the true version of events behind Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proved inadequate to the task of holding police accountable for excessive force and lethal violence , though it still serves an evidentiary function .
But there are places cameras often can ’ t reach : prisons , jails , immigrant detention centers .
In its own battles against oversight and transparency , Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken advantage of these dark spaces .
Last month , immigration attorneys said ICE attempted to usher in a new era of family separation in its three secretive “ family residential centers.
” Even after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being coerced to separate from their children , ICE released a bevy of public denials , directly contradicting their claims .
Without footage or clean paper trails—another means of skirting accountability—the burden of proving their own experience fell on parents still stuck in detention , and the incident passed with little public attention .
Maritza , a Salvadoran asylum-seeker who told us she ’ s been detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley for nine months , was one of those parents .
According to Maritza , routines in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the Covid-19 pandemic began , until something unusual happened on the morning of May 13 : One by one , mothers in the facility were told they ’ d be meeting with ICE agents .
“ They told us they wanted to ask us questions , ” Maritza , who asked that we not use her real name because of her ongoing asylum case , told The New Republic .
When Maritza ’ s turn came , she said guards ushered her into a room where ICE agents presented her with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like many of the other parents detained in Dilley , Maritza couldn ’ t read the form—it was in English .
But she recalls ICE said the form offered her a choice : If she wanted her child released , she could sign and agree to be separated from him .
Her son would be sent to live with a sponsor as she remained in detention .

As the agency went on the press offensive, the calls from attorneys and organizations like Amnesty International immediately collapsed into the maelstrom of uncertainty and epistemic chaos that has defined the Trump era. Even as a growing number of parents reported they’d been coerced to separate from their children, ICE maintains it was simply letting parents choose whether they wanted to send their children to live with sponsors while their cases continued. Attorneys told us that the fog of confusion and anxiety reminded them of the first family separation crisis in the spring and summer of 2018, as the Trump administration denied having a family separation policy, even as attorneys received calls from desperate parents who had been torn away from their children.
As is inevitable when law enforcement agencies spread uncertainty, whether in the aftermath of police violence or ICE enforcement actions, the people hit the hardest are the most vulnerable. Reached by phone two days after her meeting with ICE agents, Maritza said she could still hear sobs across the detention center. “Children are still crying,” she said in Spanish. “I hear it everywhere. They’re terrified. They’re terrified to be separated from their mothers.”
What happened on May 13 remains contested: That day and the next, pro-bono attorneys who represent immigrants held in ICE’s three family detention centers say they received a flood of calls from distraught clients. The lawyers alerted reporters, who in turn reached out to ICE for its version of events. In a press release intended to address alleged faults in “recent media coverage,” ICE claimed it wasn’t attempting to separate families but was instead letting them exercise their “court-ordered option” to release their children to a sponsor. The form Maritza and the other detained parents were asked to sign, ICE said in the same statement, “is nothing more than an internal worksheet used to document answers to questions regarding parole.… It is not a legally binding document and does not convey any legal implications on the family unit.”


newrepublic--2020-06-15--Trump’s Antifa Derangement Syndrome

Trump’s Antifa Derangement Syndrome

On June 4 , a Buffalo police officer shoved 75-year-old Martin Gugino to the ground as his colleagues attempted to clear an area , to enforce a curfew during a Black Lives Matter protest .
As with so many similar incidents , the scene was captured on video , which allowed millions to witness the casual contempt with which the officer pushed the elderly gentleman , the sickening crack as his head hit the pavement , and the sorry spectacle of police officers hurriedly marching past his limp form , as blood seeped out of his ear .
( Gugino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brain injury . )
In mere minutes , the video captured so many aspects of the problem with police that have sparked protest—except , of course , that the victim was white .
Not all viewers were sympathetic .
On June 9 , President Trump offered his take : Gugino “ could be an ANTIFA provocateur.
” Apparently citing OANN , the right-wing news network for those who think the Fox News Channel has become overrun with liberal squishes , Trump alleged Gugino was “ appearing to scan police communications in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also claimed Gugino “ fell harder than he was pushed.
” It ’ s the sort of addled conspiracy that is a familiar standby for Trump : Based on nothing , including an allusion to some vague but spooky technology ( like the “ acid-washed ” Clinton servers ) , and phrased as a question .
Antifa is not an organization ; it is a loose term covering all kinds of left-wing radicals and anarchists , some of whom are willing to use violence to fight fascism , racism , and anti-Semitism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any unrest or criminal activity related to these protests has come at the direction of an organization known as “ antifa , ” let alone Martin Gugino .
The Nation reported that the FBI found no evidence that antifa was involved in D.C.-area violence on May 31 , though it did find that a “ far-right social media group ” had called for attacks on federal agents and protesters .
The New York Times reviewed dozens of arrest records and found “ no known effort by antifa to perpetrate a coordinated campaign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-government political leanings among suspects.
” Still , the right-wing political-media complex , with Trump at its apex , continues to chase the ideological golden goose of antifa .
It would simply be more convenient for them if these protests were the product of a bunch of bored , white trust-fund kids out to undermine America by busting up some windows , rather than a legitimate outpouring of rage at an unjust system of racial oppression .
It ’ s a dream that ’ s not so easily given up .
Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for obvious hoaxes and jokes about antifa , even retweeting one post about where “ juggalos ” —the fan base of the band Insane Clown Posse—fall in the “ antifa clown hierarchy.
” ( A side note : After Googling “ antifa protesters , ” the ads I was served , holding the prized top two search results , were for a right-wing think tank called the Acton Institute and Lara Logan ’ s Fox Nation program . )

Trump is a classic demagogue, of course, happy to gin up outrage for political purposes. He is also personally very concerned with enemies. Ten years ago, it might have been Graydon Carter or Bette Midler, or someone who was insufficiently complimentary of his luxurious taste at a party he threw. Now, his haters are America’s haters. There is always the question of whether these characters and theories began with him and filtered down to an obedient right-wing media complex, eager to provide legitimacy for his wild theories; or whether they began in that fever swamp and were picked up by Trump, given his absolutely terrible media diet of outlets like OANN and Breitbart, the equivalent of eating only Jimmy Dean breakfasts and broken glass.
But whichever direction the stream of sewage has flowed this time, the result is the same: The president has ended up baselessly accusing a 75-year-old peace activist of being an antifa provocateur, and his Department of Justice is prosecuting cases with no known antifa connection, even while his attorney general claims the department has some “very focused investigations [underway] on certain individuals that relate to antifa.” The desperation reached the point where a 24-year-old guy who tweeted sarcastically that he was an antifa leader got a call from the FBI, which turned into the agent asking the man if he would be interested in becoming an informant. (“Sure,” he told them—“just send me the information.”)
As blatantly insincere as it is, Trump’s campaign has made attempts to court black voters—criticizing Joe Biden for his work on the 1994 crime bill, for example. One remarkable thing about this recent outburst of attention to systemic racism is how many conservatives have been careful to pretend that they are just as outraged as liberals about what happened to George Floyd, a stark contrast with how conservatives reacted to the deaths of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. Focusing on antifa allows Trump to criticize the protesters without directly addressing their core critique. He doesn’t have to say, “No, the police aren’t racist,” like conservatives did just a few years ago; instead, he can refocus the conversation on those largely white phantom agitators in antifa.


newrepublic--2020-06-15--Neil Gorsuch Just Upended the Conservative Legal Project

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers from discriminating against workers on multiple grounds , including their sex .
On Monday , the Supreme Court ruled that the sex-discrimination provision also protects gay , lesbian , and transgender Americans in the workplace nationwide .
The landmark ruling is matched only by Obergefell v. Hodges as a victory for LGBT rights at the nation ’ s highest court .
“ The statute ’ s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous : An individual ’ s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the court in a 6–3 ruling .
“ That ’ s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
” Chief Justice John Roberts and the court ’ s four liberal justices joined the opinion .
Beyond its practical implications for millions of Americans , the ruling is a bracing defeat for social conservatives , the Trump administration , and the conservative legal movement .
Legal conservatives have long justified their support for Trump by citing his success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bench , with Gorsuch as the foremost example of their victory .
Monday ’ s ruling suggests that the reliably conservative Supreme Court majority sought for so long by right-wing legal activists may not be quite as reliable as it seems—and that their moral and ethical sacrifices to pursue it may have been in vain .
The court ’ s decision came in three intertwined cases .
One of the two cases on sexual orientation , Bostock v. Clayton County , involved Gerald Bostock , a county child-welfare advocate in Georgia who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played for a local gay softball league .
The other case , Altitude Express v. Zarda , involved Donald Zarda , a skydiving instructor in New York who was fired a few days after he told two customers that he was gay .
( Zarda died in a skydiving accident during litigation , but his estate continued it on his behalf . )

But Gorsuch argued that the majority’s conclusion sprang naturally from the law’s plain text. It is functionally impossible, he argued, for employers to discriminate against gay or transgender employees without making judgments about them based on their sex. He posed a hypothetical involving two identical employees, one male and one female, who are both attracted to men. “If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague,” he explained. Gorsuch applied the same logic for transgender employees: “If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth.” In both circumstances, an employee’s sex “plays an unmistakable and impermissible role” in their firing.
Gorsuch also turned the implicit accusations of heresy back against his colleagues. In his own dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that neither Title VII’s authors in 1964 nor Congress itself since then had suggested that the provision’s ban on sex discrimination also applied to sexual orientation and gender identity. “For several decades, Congress has considered numerous bills to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation,” he wrote. “[Although] Congress has come close, it has not yet shouldered a bill over the legislative finish line. In the face of the unsuccessful legislative efforts (so far) to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, judges may not rewrite the law simply because of their own policy views.”
In response, Gorsuch suggested that his colleagues were relying upon legislative history to bypass the law’s plain meaning, an approach that Scalia famously spent decades crusading against. “Rather than suggesting that the statutory language bears some other meaning, the employers and dissents merely suggest that, because few in 1964 expected today’s result, we should not dare to admit that it follows ineluctably from the statutory text,” Gorsuch responded. “When a new application emerges that is both unexpected and important, they would seemingly have us merely point out the question, refer the subject back to Congress, and decline to enforce the plain terms of the law in the meantime.” This approach, Gorsuch concluded, was incompatible with their obligation to interpret and apply the law as it’s written.


newrepublic--2020-06-15--The Righteous Power of the George Floyd Mural

On May 28 , a group of artists got to work on the side of the Cup Foods grocery store , on the corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue South in Minneapolis .
Three days earlier , George Floyd had been killed there by police officer Derek Chauvin .
A mural now stands at the site : Floyd ’ s face is front and center , his name etched in big blocky yellow letters on either side .
A sunflower blazes behind him like a fiery halo ; in its center , the names of other victims of police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The phrase “ I can breathe now ” is drawn across his chest , an inversion of what he could not do in the last moments of his life .
People have left letters , stuffed animals , and flowers beneath the mural to pay their respects , turning it into a kind of shrine .
During Floyd ’ s memorial , a digitized rendition of the mural served as the backdrop behind his casket .
It ’ s one of the most recognizable images to have come out of the protests raging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proliferated , so did the murals .
Portraits of Floyd have appeared on an Israeli separation wall in Bethlehem and on the last remains of a building damaged by air strikes in Idlib , Syria .
Murals of Floyd spread as far as the news of his death .
They do more than just garner likes on someone ’ s feed or catch the eye of passersby .
These displays of public art have a long historical connection to civil rights movements in the United States and are an organic expression of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is insistent , collaborative , and suspicious of institutions of all kinds .
The modern political mural has its origins in the 1920s , in Mexico .
The post-revolutionary government commissioned the creation of murals in order to inspire nationalistic fervor .
Artists like Diego Rivera , José Clemente Orozco , and David Alfaro Siquieros—los tres grandes—were hired to paint on public buildings across the country .
Franklin Roosevelt ’ s Public Works Administration , which came out of the New Deal , was inspired by the Mexican muralist movement .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murals in the U.S. and later hired American artists as part of an effort to stimulate the economy during the Great Depression .
In introducing political murals into the American mainstream , FDR established them as a top-down art form emanating from the dominant authority .
Often , artists would paint murals in neighborhoods they didn ’ t belong to , spending only a few weeks there to complete the assigned project .
The role of the mural changed during the civil rights movement .
In the late 1960s , black people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We had already lost Martin .
Malcolm X died in ’ 65 , and many African Americans artists and writers had turned away from mainstream society , ” says University of Illinois professor Abul Alkalimat , the founding chair of the Organization of Black American Culture .
“ We were in search of a redefinition of the self : ‘ Who are we ?
’ ” In 1967 , OBAC members in Chicago had the answer : They painted a mural showcasing black identity , a bold affirmation of their rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The faces of Muhammad Ali , W.E.B .
DuBois , and Harriet Tubman , among others , appeared on the side of a building at 43rd Street and Langley Avenue .
The Wall of Respect is cited by scholars as the first true community mural in America ; a declaration of resistance from the people rather than state-sponsored propaganda .
It inspired a mural movement across the city , and in the years that followed , an additional 1,500 murals appeared in black neighborhoods in the rest of the U.S .

On May 28, a group of artists got to work on the side of the Cup Foods grocery store, on the corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue South in Minneapolis. Three days earlier, George Floyd had been killed there by police officer Derek Chauvin. A mural now stands at the site: Floyd’s face is front and center, his name etched in big blocky yellow letters on either side. A sunflower blazes behind him like a fiery halo; in its center, the names of other victims of police brutality have been painted in white. The phrase “I can breathe now” is drawn across his chest, an inversion of what he could not do in the last moments of his life. People have left letters, stuffed animals, and flowers beneath the mural to pay their respects, turning it into a kind of shrine. During Floyd’s memorial, a digitized rendition of the mural served as the backdrop behind his casket. It’s one of the most recognizable images to have come out of the protests raging around the world.
As the protests proliferated, so did the murals. Portraits of Floyd have appeared on an Israeli separation wall in Bethlehem and on the last remains of a building damaged by air strikes in Idlib, Syria. Murals of Floyd spread as far as the news of his death. They do more than just garner likes on someone’s feed or catch the eye of passersby. These displays of public art have a long historical connection to civil rights movements in the United States and are an organic expression of the politics the latest movement has unleashed—a politics that is insistent, collaborative, and suspicious of institutions of all kinds.


newrepublic--2020-06-16--Don’t Just Save the Postal Service. Reinvent It.

If we ’ re lucky enough to see the derangements of the current era pass—such as the Trump administration and its farcical response to a once-in-a-century pandemic—the stewards of the next phase in American life have an awesome task ahead of them .
They ’ ll need to author a new economic recovery and reboot the federal government ; more likely than not , they ’ ll also need to find a way to restore the American people ’ s lost faith in institutions and forge a more equitable future .
Simple action items are in short supply , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reimagining of the U.S .
Postal Service .
USPS officials have beseeched lawmakers for a bailout during the pandemic , raising concerns that the agency could be insolvent by the autumn .
In April , the White House put the kibosh on $ 13 billion worth of sustenance , even as it let far less worthy corporate interests fatten themselves on the Covid-19 bailout teat .
( A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is even seeking to cut in predatory payday lenders on the bailout deal , in an apparent attempt to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump has referred to the USPS as a joke and demanded , as a precondition for aid , that it charge Amazon higher rates—the better to stick it to its founder , Jeff Bezos , whose Washington Post , he believes , has been out to get him from the start .
Bezos can weather the collapse of the Postal Service , but the average American can ’ t .
Right now , for hundreds of thousands strewn across the nation ’ s expanse , the Postal Service is their last real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this vital intersection will only add to the isolation that so many people needlessly experience .
There are already too many communities living as if they resided on a remote archipelago , rather than in a unified nation .
But we shouldn ’ t stop at merely providing the USPS with the $ 89 billion it has asked for .
Rather , this is a moment when we can revitalize the agency and use it to restore our faith in America .
The good old post office doesn ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters .
For millions of unbanked Americans , it can be a place where checks are cashed , bills paid , and loans provided .
This isn ’ t a pie-in-the-sky plan .
From 1911 to 1967 , post offices were the venue for postal banking and a vital lifeline for those hit by the Great Depression ; it can serve these needs again .
Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Kirsten Gillibrand have all backed postal banking .

If we’re lucky enough to see the derangements of the current era pass—such as the Trump administration and its farcical response to a once-in-a-century pandemic—the stewards of the next phase in American life have an awesome task ahead of them. They’ll need to author a new economic recovery and reboot the federal government; more likely than not, they’ll also need to find a way to restore the American people’s lost faith in institutions and forge a more equitable future. Simple action items are in short supply, but here’s one: a broad reimagining of the U.S. Postal Service.
USPS officials have beseeched lawmakers for a bailout during the pandemic, raising concerns that the agency could be insolvent by the autumn. In April, the White House put the kibosh on $13 billion worth of sustenance, even as it let far less worthy corporate interests fatten themselves on the Covid-19 bailout teat. (A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is even seeking to cut in predatory payday lenders on the bailout deal, in an apparent attempt to win the Nobel Prize for bottom-feeding.) Donald Trump has referred to the USPS as a joke and demanded, as a precondition for aid, that it charge Amazon higher rates—the better to stick it to its founder, Jeff Bezos, whose Washington Post, he believes, has been out to get him from the start.


newrepublic--2020-06-16--A Glimpse of a Trans Future

A Glimpse of a Trans Future

Back in October , the evening before oral arguments in her Supreme Court case , I met Aimee Stephens and her wife at a Hyatt not far from the court .
She wasn ’ t unprepared when her boss , Thomas Rost , fired her , she said .
At meetings of the trans community group she was part of , people talked about their own experiences with their bosses , including some who went through what she would later go through herself .
What happened to her “ had probably happened to thousands of other people.
” Finding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time she learned that “ there were people delivering our message .
And even then I had no idea that that would be me at one point.
” Stephens , who died in May , was right , both about the scope of the workplace discrimination experienced by trans people and her place among those “ delivering our message.
” On Monday , in a 6-3 opinion , the high court ruled in favor of Stephens and two gay men , affirming that their employers had violated federal anti-discrimination law by firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ people were included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
Writing , improbably , for the majority , conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch explained the justices ’ interpretation of that federal anti-discrimination law : There , in Title VII , Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race , color , religion , sex , or national origin .
Today , we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender .
The answer is clear .
An employer who fires an individual for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex .
Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision , exactly what Title VII forbids .
Gorsuch ’ s fellow conservatives on the court , Justices Samuel Alito , Brett Kavanaugh , and Clarence Thomas , all disagreed ( while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority ) .
Alito wrote in his dissent that the answer to the question of discrimination was just as clear to him : As written , Title VII didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity .
And while Gorsuch along with the majority didn ’ t dispute this , their opinion states , “ Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex , an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII .
”

Privately, Murray wrote she experienced “the very natural falling in love with the female sex.” This was in the 1930s. In another note to herself, she asked why she was “wearing pants, wanting to be one of the men, doing things that fellows do.” She also rejected the idea that she was a lesbian, in part because she said she was attracted most to “feminine and heterosexual” women, not “homosexual” women. “She wondered why someone who believed she was internally male could not become more so by taking male hormones,” writes historian Rosalind Rosenberg, in her biography of Pauli Murray, Jane Crow. One time, police picked her up while she was dressed in male attire, after which, Rosenberg writes, a psychiatrist diagnosed her with schizophrenia. “In the doctor’s view, she suffered from a delusion: she believed that she was a man.”
Murray may have lacked the words we may use today to describe herself (which also means that writing about her now requires risking misidentifying her). But would she, the legal scholar who advocated for “sex” to be included in Title VII, exclude herself from the law’s purview? As the court has now ruled, she was included from the beginning. There should be no different legal standard, the majority opinion states, when an employer “discriminates against women who are attracted to women, or persons identified at birth as women who later identify as men.”
This decision truly captures the state of the LGBTQ rights movement: hoping—again improbably—that the highest court wouldn’t enshrine anti-LGBTQ discrimination in case law by ruling in favor of employers who fired gay and trans workers, at the same time as many, many more queer and trans people don’t have the means to bring such a case or don’t even have jobs to lose. The case came as an apparent departure, after several decades in which the official “gay rights” agenda had turned to winning acceptance from institutions like the military or marriage and turned away from what happens at work.


newrepublic--2020-06-16--Trump’s Potemkin Reelection Campaign

Trump’s Potemkin Reelection Campaign

In a presidential campaign , few decisions prompt more meetings and memos than the candidate ’ s schedule .
Time is the most irreplaceable commodity in politics—and it is folly to squander it on events in locales that have no bearing on the outcome .
So never in modern presidential history has a campaign kickoff been put together on a whim and a prayer .
Last week , Donald Trump announced that he would launch his reelection drive at a massive , I ’ m-tougher-than-Covid rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on June 19 .
The campaign had either overlooked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial subtext—the president would be celebrating Juneteenth on the site of a horrendous white riot and massacre in 1921 .
Eventually , the rally was postponed until Saturday .
But that does nothing to erase the desperate absurdity of the campaign sending the president to a state that has been safely in Republican hands since 1964 .
Trump will be the first presidential candidate to visit Oklahoma during the general election campaign in modern memory .
Of course , Trump would have gone to Antarctica if it provided what he psychologically craved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shoulder in a packed auditorium , and few places , other than Oklahoma with its pliant Republican governor , would allow it .
But the Oklahoma odyssey is also a symbol of the weird dynamics that power the Trump campaign : The president ’ s advisors are more interested in feeding his fragile ego than they are in pursuing a rational reelection strategy .

In his new book, John Bolton contends, “I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations.” But despite Trump’s seeming obsession with a second term, he refuses to make any personal sacrifices to achieve it.
In fact, he seems to be willfully endangering the lives of his supporters with a rally schedule that is the political equivalent of the Dance of Death. After Oklahoma (where the local health commissioner has said that he is “concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event”), Trump will be heading on June 23 to Arizona, which had the fourth-highest number of new Covid-19 cases last week. At these events, where the risks of infection are high, it would be a good idea for Trump to stress casting an absentee ballot early. Very early.
Normal presidents running for a second term understand the trade-offs that are required. Bill Clinton was so fixated on his 1996 reelection campaign that he had Dick Morris conduct polls to choose the most man-of-the-people vacation spot. As a result, the president and Hillary reluctantly abandoned Martha’s Vineyard to do their version of camping and roughing it in the Grand Tetons. Barack Obama also decided that his traditional August on Martha’s Vineyard would send the wrong political message, so he instead briefly vacationed in 2012 with his family at Camp David.


newrepublic--2020-06-16--Asterix Comes to America

Asterix Comes to America

From inside his comic strip rectangle , one of Cleopatra ’ s lackeys makes a face as he tastes her snack for poison .
“ Yuck , ” he thinks .
“ I hate too much pearl in my vinegar.
” I loved this page of Asterix and Cleopatra as a kid , even though I didn ’ t really get the joke ( it ’ s a riff on an old story in which Cleopatra drank her own earrings at dinner ) .
But that ’ s precisely the appeal of the Asterix comics to the children who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1959 .
The jokes are all a little bit too adult to understand and rich with the promise of unknown , grown-up information .
Asterix is one of the great postwar Franco-Belgian comics ( or bandes dessinées in French , meaning “ drawn strips ” ) .
Like its contemporary Tintin , it has led a lucrative and long commercial life .
Generations of readers have grown up with Asterix , especially in France , where he is a sort of national icon ( there is a Parc Astérix outside Paris ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ marking a drop-off in the quality of the franchise ’ s text , but illustrator Albert Uderzo lived until March of this year and administered the Asterix empire himself until 2013 , when he sold it to Hachette .
Now America is getting its own edition .
Last fall , children ’ s press Papercutz bought the U.S. rights to the Asterix books , which it is newly publishing in omnibus form .
There will also be new stories , starting with The Chieftain ’ s Daughter , which stars a new teen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Johnson has redone the text , according to Papercutz , “ with a focus on making the French puns work for a U.S. audience , and making the Ancient European and Latin references more understandable to U.S. readers.
” Asterix first came to life in the magazine Pilote , before appearing in his first full-length comic “ album , ” Asterix the Gaul , in 1961 .
All the books are set in the year 50 B.C .
and star the tiny Asterix and gigantic Obelix , his superstrong sidekick , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finish his conquest of Gaul by beating these holdouts .
Asterix is indomitable , however , because his druid friend Getafix gives him a special potion to drink .
Obelix gets none as he fell entirely in the cauldron as a baby and was permanently affected—an allusion to Achilles and his babyhood dunk in the Styx .
Everybody ’ s name explains who they are , from Unhygienix , the fishmonger , to Cacofonix , the atrocious bard .

Asterix and Cleopatra, which contains the pearls-in-vinegar scene, is an Orientalist fantasy from 1965 set in Egypt and one of the series’ most popular installments (it was also turned into an animated movie in 1968). Asterix and Obelix travel to Egypt to help Getafix’s old architect friend, Edifis, build a palace so beautiful that Cleopatra will win a bet against Julius Caesar. The queen is slinky and beige, often portrayed bathing in milk and seducing or hectoring Caesar, who comments, “She’s a nice girl, but her nose is easily put out of joint.” Asterix and Obelix have a ball, beating up crocodiles and mercenaries left and right. Keen to explore, Obelix breaks the Sphinx’s nose off under his weight when he tries to climb her—yet another nose joke.
Such are the many revisions of history in these stories, which descend into a combination of satire, farce, and bloodless violence (people never die in Asterix), making the self-important bigwigs (the Romans) and lunkheaded warriors (the Gauls) alike look silly.
You can see why this combination of levity and undauntedness appealed to French readers, who in the decades after World War II were keen to forget the oppressions of the Vichy regime and to embrace a nationalist myth of the Gauls as unbroken survivors, all while having a long-awaited laugh. Gaulish warriors, as Paul Smith has pointed out, appear in war memorial statuary all over France and on every pack of Gauloise cigarettes. Although the real Gauls ended up massacred brutally by the Romans, and Hitler hammered the French (and Belgians) during World War II, the Asterix comics reconfigure French history into a tale about the unconquerable spirit of the underdog.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--Trump Is Losing His Hold on the Senior Vote

If you had any doubt that America is a gerontocracy , consider that we ’ ve been talking for three days now about the president ’ s uncertain gait as he descended a ramp at West Point on Saturday .
On the following day , Donald Trump turned 74—making him one year older than Ronald Reagan when , in the recollection of his son Ron , Jr. , he appeared “ lost and bewildered ” during a 1984 re-election debate with Walter Mondale .
( Reagan nonetheless went on to win a second term , during which he displayed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2020 , as in 1984 , cognitive function will likely play no decisive role in our presidential balloting .
That ’ s not , mind you , because Trump is a shoo-in for re-election ( at the moment he seems poised for defeat ) .
Instead , it ’ s because Trump ’ s opponent Joe Biden will be 78 on inauguration day next year -- and he ’ s a little unsteady himself ( as Trump never tires of suggesting in a barrage of Twitter asides about “ sleepy Joe ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaches are remarkably old—older , in fact than the much-mocked Soviet Politburo at the time of Leonid Brezhnev ’ s death , when its median age was a comparatively sprightly 71 .
There are a variety of reasons for this , including the aging of the Baby Boom and great health strides in recent decades for the over-70 set .
But the real determining factor , I think , is that the voting population is very , very old .
In 2016 , voters age 65 and older represented only 15 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of all ballots cast , thanks to their 71 percent turnout .
In 2020 this cohort will represent nearly one-quarter of the electorate -- and consequently could account for one third or more of all ballots .
Older voters were once a reliably Democratic constituency , thanks in large part to their reliance on Medicare and Social Security .
But during the past couple of decades they ’ ve leaned Republican , and in 2016 they were a key Trump constituency .
Fifty-two percent of voters aged 65 and older ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older ) went for Trump in 2016 , according to exit polls , even as Trump lost voters aged 18-44 .
As a bastion of the fabled Trump base , the elderly vote ranks up there with the evangelical vote and the white blue-collar vote .

Trump is aware of the problem, but he can’t seem to stop doing things to alienate this group. He’s minimizing the health threat from the coronavirus—at a time when at least 40 percent of Covid-19 deaths have occurred in nursing homes, according to The Wall Street Journal. He opposes voting by mail (never mind that Trump voted for himself by mail in the March 17 Florida primary). He’s suggested that Martin Gugino, the 75-year-old protester whose skull was fractured on June 4, when a Buffalo cop pushed him to the ground, was “an antifa provocateur” who “fell harder than he was pushed.” And Trump, who once prided himself on refraining from traditional conservative calls to cut Social Security and Medicare while campaigning for president, has proposed reductions to these programs now that he’s in office, and he’s started to speak more openly about that.
The gerontocratic bias in the American electorate creates all sorts of problems for our democracy. The septuagenarian-led status quo keeps fresh faces out of Congress and makes it harder to bring new ideas into the political conversation. It made it possible, just barely, for a person like Donald Trump to get himself elected president. The best way to address these problems is to increase electoral participation by younger voters.
But barring such an upsurge—which would not play to Trump’s demographic strengths—the gerontocracy must impose some internal discipline, and something like that appears now to be happening. It’s increasingly unlikely that elderly voters will invite Trump back for a second term. In 2021, we’ll still watch the president walking very carefully down the occasional staircase or ramp. But he will probably be a different president.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--The Pandemic Welfare State for the One Percent

In addition to claiming the lives of over 110,000 people , throwing the economy into ruin , and putting more than 30 million people out of work , the pandemic has inconvenienced the rich .
Forced to abandon their Manhattan penthouses or Brooklyn Heights brownstones to weather lockdown orders in the Hamptons , the economic elite has struggled mightily with being relegated to lavish outposts without domestic workers or Botox refreshes .
“ Being in quarantine is like being in jail , ” Ellen DeGeneres joked in early April from the living room of one of her homes , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Around the same time , Justin Timberlake , presumably facing normal parenting responsibilities for the first time , said that “ 24-hour parenting is just not human.
” One resident of Manhattan ’ s tony Upper East Side observed that the pandemic had left him struggling to use a vacuum but , happily , had made it easier to get an elevator now that most of his neighbors had decamped to their second homes .
Perhaps all that hardship is why the government decided early on to lend the rich a helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , the Cares Act—the $ 2 trillion stimulus package that sent a onetime payment of $ 1,200 to workers making under $ 75,000—also contained a number of tax advantages for the well-off , including reductions in capital gains taxes for the top one percent , and other provisions described by a tax law professor at the University of California , Irvine , as “ just shoveling money to rich people.
” A recent report in ProPublica further found that the combined tax breaks for the rich in the bill would , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , the U.S. public—an estimated $ 257.95 billion for the 2020 calendar year.
” At the same time , the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated this week that as many as 12 million low-income people hadn ’ t yet received stimulus checks as a result of not filing taxes .
Non-filers typically include the most vulnerable : those with extremely low incomes , people with disabilities that prevent them from working , and the homeless .
The rich have also managed to come out on top following an infusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , the Times reported that a number of well-off hospital chains that had received billions of dollars in emergency funding had furloughed workers or reduced their pay while keeping CEO compensation packages—some worth more than $ 20 million—mostly intact .
“ Industry officials argue that furloughs and pay reductions allow hospitals to keep providing essential services at a time when the pandemic has gutted their revenue , ” the Times noted .
“ But more than a dozen workers at the wealthy hospitals said in interviews that their employers had put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including low-paid cafeteria workers , janitors , and nursing assistants.
” The essential workers who took pay cuts , then , continue to effectively subsidize the preservation of their bosses ’ stock options and bonuses while also risking daily exposure to the coronavirus .
Incidentally , a new poll indicates that only around 30 percent of essential workers—who are disproportionately black and Hispanic—are receiving hazard pay , with employers ready to yank it away as soon as the public ’ s attention is elsewhere .
None of this even touches the looming disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , student loan and mortgage freezes , and other coronavirus emergency policies like the $ 600 supplement to unemployment insurance .
( A BuzzFeed editor nicely synthesized the economic crisis to come , just days before he was laid off as part of that newsroom ’ s pandemic-era rolling furloughs and terminations . )
Then , of course , there are the corporations ( which , I suppose , also count as rich people ) and the financial sector , or institutions that are generally impervious to any kind of oversight , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on behalf of the Trump administration , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to disclose the names of any businesses that had received money from the $ 500 billion bailout , a move that stands to cloak wide-scale corporate plunder of federal relief at a time when politicians are debating whether workers could do with another stimulus check .
As Bartlett Naylor , a policy expert with the group Public Citizen , told Common Dreams , “ Zero transparency is a red carpet for hucksters , schemers , and battlefield scavengers.
” Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed by Trump advisers while the president was threatening to use military force against protesters , stands to line the pockets of private equity investors .
The law will now allow companies to include previously prohibited high-risk private equity investments in their workers ’ 401 ( k ) plans , potentially subjecting those workers to high fees .
“ The private-equity industry—a massive campaign donor , by the way—wants your money , ” MarketWatch ’ s Brett Arends wrote .
“ The typical private-equity manager charges 2 % of assets as an annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then takes 20 % of any profits.
” By at least one estimate , that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in new income for private equity firms .
And conveniently , if those firms tank or underperform—as they often do , despite proponents ’ bluster—it ’ ll be workers who are once again left holding the bag .

Then, of course, there are the corporations (which, I suppose, also count as rich people) and the financial sector, or institutions that are generally impervious to any kind of oversight, let alone real public accountability. Last week, on behalf of the Trump administration, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to disclose the names of any businesses that had received money from the $500 billion bailout, a move that stands to cloak wide-scale corporate plunder of federal relief at a time when politicians are debating whether workers could do with another stimulus check. As Bartlett Naylor, a policy expert with the group Public Citizen, told Common Dreams, “Zero transparency is a red carpet for hucksters, schemers, and battlefield scavengers.” Meanwhile, a new regulatory change, quietly pushed by Trump advisers while the president was threatening to use military force against protesters, stands to line the pockets of private equity investors. The law will now allow companies to include previously prohibited high-risk private equity investments in their workers’ 401(k) plans, potentially subjecting those workers to high fees. “The private-equity industry—a massive campaign donor, by the way—wants your money,” MarketWatch’s Brett Arends wrote. “The typical private-equity manager charges 2% of assets as an annual fee, just for showing up, and then takes 20% of any profits.” By at least one estimate, that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in new income for private equity firms. And conveniently, if those firms tank or underperform—as they often do, despite proponents’ bluster—it’ll be workers who are once again left holding the bag.
In other words, for all its rhetoric of helping American families in an unprecedented moment of crisis, the government has mostly doubled down on what Martin Luther King Jr. once famously called, “socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.” Though the government is perfectly happy to buoy the one percent, its solution to the economic plight of anyone who isn’t already rich has been to hasten the end of statewide lockdowns in order to force people back to work as soon as possible. Of course, as a result of this reckless single-mindedness, parts of the country now appear to be on the cusp of a second outbreak, or more of a continuation of an already frightening wave. Though unemployment is projected to remain in the double digits until at least the end of the year, earlier this week, Trump adviser Larry Kudlow pledged to end the aforementioned $600 weekly unemployment supplement, calling it a “disincentive to work.” One could argue that having to risk one’s life to keep one’s employer’s profits flowing is another one.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--The Gentlemanly Hater’s Guide to Gone With the Wind

Until this week , I had never seen Gone With the Wind .
That neglect was one of the very few things keeping me feeling young at age 43 .
But then HBO temporarily pulled the movie from its streaming service last week to add an introduction that would provide vital context to a movie that is widely beloved but is also SUPER racist .
Well of course , our finest Applebee-American citizens weren ’ t pleased to see the film get temporarily shelved by literally one streaming service among MANY , MANY others that have left it untouched .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ strapped on their bandoliers , and made Victor Fleming ’ s 1940 Best Picture winner the number one movie on Amazon in retaliation .
Because these people must always be staging the least worthy protest they can possibly conceive of .
# DeadRacistLivesMatter .
So , in the interest of journalism , and because I have nothing better to do , I decided to bust my cherry and watch Gone With the Wind with my own eyes .
All four goddamn hours of the thing .
Here are my findings .
Please note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me : Someone out there will earnestly bitch about them .
I already noted that Gone With the Wind is super racist , and that ’ s not me being presumptuous .
You know exactly what you ’ re in for the second the preamble starts scrolling .
Read it for yourself : There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South ...
Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow ...
Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it only in books , for it is no more than a dream remembered .
A Civilization gone with the wind ... See what I mean ?
It ’ s like reading the splash page copy for Draper James .
I figured I was subjecting myself to a Confederate monument in celluloid form , and that opening passage left no doubt .
This is the fall of the Confederacy writ as tragedy .
You can draw a direct line between it and dipshit Southern pride folks who tag # heritagenothate at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see why HBO rushed to film a pre-buttal by African-American film scholar Jacqueline Stewart , to warn audiences at home about the poison that lies ahead .

But I’m gonna also go ahead and confess that, from a pure entertainment standpoint, Gone With the Wind is spectacular. There’s a reason that, adjusted for inflation, it’s the all-time box office champ. I was prepared to be bored out of my fucking skull watching this thing. And indeed, the opening scenes promised an old-timey slog: orchestral swells over everything, men in comically large trousers, grown women in pigtails, adult characters falling in love as quickly as middle schoolers, actresses directed for maximum histrionics, white people ballroom-dancing in formation, etc. I kept waiting for characters to bust out into song. But there came a point when I went from having to watch this movie to wanting to. Composition-wise, its cinematography is breathtaking. And its four hours of storytelling are not languid. It’s a soap opera and a war movie. Juicy shit abounds.
Don’t believe me? OK, well lemme run down a few highlights for you. First of all, our heroine is Scarlett O’Hara (Vivian Leigh), who starts out the movie in love with her neighbor, only to look on heartbroken as the neighbor marries his own cousin. (Can’t believe this story takes place in Georgia and not one state to the left.) Scarlett marries some random loser to make the neighbor jealous. Then the random loser dies. Then she marries another dude for money because—and this is true—Scarlett’s major crisis in the middle of the film comes when the Union levies $300 in extra property taxes on her family’s plantation. Three hundred bucks?! What will the Union do with that money? Fund schools? WHY, THE GALL OF THESE CURSED YANKEES, I DO DECLARE. Anyway, that husband dies, too. So then our white widow marries the now-iconic Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable, 12 years older than Vivian Leigh and with eyebrows for a mustache) to preserve her lifestyle needs.
That’s where Gone With the Wind took me by surprise. Before this, I only knew a few iconic snippets of the movie. You know … the ones from every Oscar montage: “As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!”; “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn,” etc. I assumed the movie was an epic love story between Rhett and Scarlett. But it’s not. Their marriage is a loveless one, featuring alcoholism, abuse, Scarlett gargling cologne (!), rape, a stunning miscarriage that made me cry “Oh, shit!” out loud, and Scarlett’s daughter breaking her neck and dying after falling off a horse. And little Bonnie is the second character in the movie to die that way. Again, juicy.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--Letting Jeffrey Epstein’s Pals Off the Hook

The list of eminences who dined with Epstein , flew on his plane , went to his island , and stayed at his mansions is an absurd compendium of the rich and powerful .
( Here ’ s Epstein ’ s little black book , published by Gawker in 2015 . )
Some have been accused by name of abusing and raping girls procured by Epstein ’ s operation .
Nearly all of these people—among the most well-resourced people on the planet—claim innocence and ignorance .
They simply had no idea that they were associating with perhaps the most prolific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mysterious flows of money , houses filled with surveillance equipment , walls adorned with photos of underage girls , massage tables in every room , young girls constantly coming and going—everyone looked the other way .
Law enforcement has its own failures to account for here .
Someone tipped off Epstein when his Palm Beach mansion was going to be raided by police , and computer hard drives subsequently disappeared .
Alex Acosta , who was later appointed labor secretary by Epstein ’ s one-time friend Donald Trump , bears responsibility for cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not only immunized Epstein against further prosecution but also covered all of his co-conspirators—named and un-named—for any crimes committed in the past or even in the future .
It was a stunning giveaway , one that broke the hearts of victims and their advocates .
Acosta later explained , in a remark that he might regret , that he was told that Epstein “ belonged to intelligence.
” That brings us to the ultimate question hovering over the Epstein saga , one that ’ s difficult to address because it bleeds so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all for ?
Victim testimony describes the Epstein trafficking network as being much more than a vehicle for one man ’ s perverse sexual enjoyment .
Many others partook .
The stench of blackmail hangs over the whole enterprise .
Alex Acosta seemed to believe that Epstein , who had foreign passports under different names and was friends with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak , worked for an intelligence agency .
Ghislaine Maxwell ’ s father , Robert Maxwell , was widely believed to be an Israeli spy .
Even Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the prestigious Dalton School—which allowed him to make the connections to transition into banking—was facilitated by Donald Barr , a former OSS officer and father of current Attorney General William Barr .
( These connections make it less surprising that Barr has slow-played the investigation into Epstein ’ s death and issued contradictory statements about seeing video—now claimed to be lost—from outside the cell where Epstein died . )
As it is , Epstein ’ s larger circle of collaborators remains either unknown , unrepentant , or unpunished .
Along with Maxwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who helped procure girls for Epstein ’ s “ sexual molestation pyramid scheme ” ; none of them have been arrested .
Notable associates like Jean Luc Brunel , a French model scout and multiply accused rapist , have disappeared .
Maxwell somehow is still on the lam .
None of the numerous people on the Epstein payroll seems to have been charged with a crime .
And while the New York Times has reported on Epstein ’ s supposedly more legitimate businesses—ventures in data mining , genetic research , and finance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islands—no one has emerged to claim they ever worked at these places .

That brings us to the ultimate question hovering over the Epstein saga, one that’s difficult to address because it bleeds so easily into the conspiratorial: What was it all for? Victim testimony describes the Epstein trafficking network as being much more than a vehicle for one man’s perverse sexual enjoyment. Many others partook. The stench of blackmail hangs over the whole enterprise. Alex Acosta seemed to believe that Epstein, who had foreign passports under different names and was friends with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, worked for an intelligence agency. Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was widely believed to be an Israeli spy. Even Epstein’s first job as a teacher at the prestigious Dalton School—which allowed him to make the connections to transition into banking—was facilitated by Donald Barr, a former Office of Strategic Services officer and father of current Attorney General William Barr. (These connections make it less surprising that Barr has slow-played the investigation into Epstein’s death and issued contradictory statements about seeing video—now claimed to be lost—from outside the cell where Epstein died.)
As it is, Epstein’s larger circle of collaborators remains either unknown, unrepentant, or unpunished. Along with Maxwell, Filthy Rich names three other women who helped procure girls for Epstein’s “sexual molestation pyramid scheme”; none of them have been arrested. Notable associates like Jean Luc Brunel, a French model scout and multiply accused rapist, have disappeared. Maxwell somehow is still on the lam. None of the numerous people on the Epstein payroll seem to have been charged with a crime. And while The New York Times has reported on Epstein’s supposedly more legitimate businesses—ventures in data mining, genetic research, and finance, scattered from New Mexico to the Virgin Islands—no one has emerged to claim they ever worked at these places.
“We don’t need to know what happened to know we’ve probably been lied to,” Goodman and Halper write. But from where will the truth emerge, and who is qualified to tell it? Perhaps a dogged reporter like Julie Brown will write the definitive Epstein book, but for now, observers are left to piece together disparate sources and to occasionally indulge in wild speculation. As Goodman and Halper put it, “Who would you believe to tell you what happened? The elite, the press, our political leaders, or law enforcement? These are the institutions every American has been told since childhood [to trust].… But these are the very same institutions that shielded Jeffrey Epstein for years.”


newrepublic--2020-06-17--Inside the Fight to Shape Biden’s Climate Policy

Progressives are also concerned about keeping those likely to block climate progress out of Biden ’ s “ kitchen ” and official cabinets .
For example , the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats have called for Biden to drop Larry Summers as an adviser .
As the incoming and then-acting head Barack Obama ’ s National Economy Council , Summers made key decisions to shrink the size of the planned stimulus package and eliminate greener and more ambitious proposals .
Michelle Chan , of Friends of the Earth Action , which is generating its own list of potential White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackrock CEO Larry Fink—who ’ s Biden donors have floated as a potential Treasury Secretary pick—as someone whose name should be taken off any shortlist .
Lower level officials deserve scrutiny , too ; in the primary , climate groups criticized Biden ’ s campaign for bringing on Heather Zichal as an adviser on climate and energy issues .
Zichal , once on the Domestic Policy Council in the Obama administration , served on the board of natural-gas company Cheniere Energy from 2014 to 2018 .
Calling out some appointees ’ and advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can influence the wider scope of who gets offered jobs moving forward .
While climate issues have traditionally been confined to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency , or Departments of Energy and the Interior , plenty of other posts hold power over reducing or fueling emissions .
In an economic system centered on fossil fuels , few policy fields won ’ t be involved at some level in decarbonization .
The Department of Agriculture will need to plan how to maintain food production through droughts and higher temperatures , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of industrial meat production .
Mid-level Treasury appointees liaise with the State Department in crafting trade policies that govern how the U.S. imports and exports emissions , and can set the agenda for international institutions like the World Bank and IMF .
The General Services Administration—which handles government procurement—can decide whether the United States ’ massive federal vehicle fleets and buildings run on clean energy .
In some cases , bodies that would appear to be mostly irrelevant to climate can exercise a deciding vote over decisions made in others .
The head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , has a voice on the Financial Stability and Oversight Committee , which could play an instrumental role in assessing the risks posed by fossil fuel companies and how to handle coal , their coal , oil , and gas assets those companies abandon as they become too costly or risky to dig up out of the ground .
“ Basically the entire executive branch is going to matter on climate work , especially if you ’ re in a situation in which the Senate is either majority-controlled by Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Manchin .
Realistically speaking you ’ re going to need a high-energy executive branch , ” said Hauser .
“ A whole of government approach is going to be really important , and very few executive branch appointments are unrelated to a green agenda.
” Evergreen Action , formed out of Washington Governor Jay Inslee ’ s climate-focused primary run , has been in talks with the Biden campaign on policy .
“ What we really need is a full mobilization of the federal government , ” said Maggie Thomas , Evergreen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansive plan , that would involve two crucial steps : every single federal agency accounting for its role in the climate crisis , and a larger restructuring of the federal government to take that on .
The group knows that will require a lot of people .
“ We wish there was a ZipRecruiter to fully staff a government that could take on climate change , ” Thomas joked .
Evergreen staff and affiliates Sam Ricketts , Bracken Henricks and Rhiana Gunn-Wright recently outlined their plan for a White House Office of Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that led the transformation of the domestic economy during World War II .
Critically , certain agencies—the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) and National Economic Council ( NEC ) , in particular—exercise de facto veto power within interagency processes .
“ You could have the best EPA [ Environmental Protection Agency ] administrator in the world , ” says Hauser .
“ If they get overruled by OMB or NEC it ’ s kind of irrelevant how good they are , or how hard they fight.
” They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of decarbonization but proactively committed to making it happen .
The flipside of these agencies ’ outsized power , Hauser added , is that an NEC head that ’ s enthusiastic about a green agenda could enforce that across cabinet posts .
That the NEC is generally staffed by economists could be a problem considering the discipline ’ s historically limited thinking on climate .
“ One of the highest areas of importance to get climate action baked into an administration is to make sure that as many of the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economists who understand climate and give a fuck about it , ” Brave Noisecat told me .
“ And I think that ’ s going to be really hard .
”

While climate issues have traditionally been confined to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, or departments of Energy and the Interior, plenty of other posts hold power over reducing or fueling emissions. In an economic system centered on fossil fuels, few policy fields won’t be involved at some level in decarbonization. The Department of Agriculture will need to plan how to maintain food production through droughts and higher temperatures, as well as tackle the methane-producing and pathogen-developing world of industrial meat production. Mid-level Treasury appointees liaise with the State Department in crafting trade policies that govern how the United States imports and exports emissions, and can set the agenda for international institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The General Services Administration—which handles government procurement—can decide whether America’s massive federal vehicle fleets and buildings run on clean energy. In some cases, bodies that would appear to be mostly irrelevant to climate can exercise a deciding vote over decisions made in others. The head of the National Credit Union Administration, for instance, has a voice on the Financial Stability and Oversight Committee, which could play an instrumental role in assessing the risks posed by fossil fuel companies and how to handle the coal, oil, and gas assets those companies abandon as they become too costly or risky to dig up out of the ground. “Basically the entire executive branch is going to matter on climate work, especially if you’re in a situation in which the Senate is either majority-controlled by Mitch McConnell or hinges on a swing vote from Joe Manchin. Realistically speaking, you’re going to need a high-energy executive branch,” said Hauser. “A whole of government approach is going to be really important, and very few executive branch appointments are unrelated to a green agenda.”
Evergreen Action, formed out of Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s climate-focused primary run, has been in talks with the Biden campaign on policy. “What we really need is a full mobilization of the federal government,” said Maggie Thomas, Evergreen’s political director. Per its expansive plan, that would involve two crucial steps: every single federal agency accounting for its role in the climate crisis and a larger restructuring of the federal government to take that on. The group knows that will require a lot of people. “We wish there was a ZipRecruiter to fully staff a government that could take on climate change,” Thomas joked. Evergreen staff and affiliates Sam Ricketts, Bracken Henricks, and Rhiana Gunn-Wright recently outlined their plan for a White House Office of Climate Mobilization, modeled on the cross-agency bodies that led the transformation of the domestic economy during World War II.
Critically, certain agencies—the Office of Management and Budget and the National Economic Council, in particular—exercise de facto veto power within interagency processes. “You could have the best EPA administrator in the world,” says Hauser. “If they get overruled by OMB or NEC, it’s kind of irrelevant how good they are, or how hard they fight.” They’ll need to be not just comfortable with the idea of decarbonization but proactively committed to making it happen. The flip side of these agencies’ outsize power, Hauser added, is that an NEC head who’s enthusiastic about a green agenda could enforce that across Cabinet posts. That the NEC is generally staffed by economists could be a problem, considering the discipline’s historically limited thinking on climate. “One of the highest areas of importance to get climate action baked into an administration is to make sure that as many of the economic policy positions as possible are staffed by economists who understand climate and give a fuck about it,” Brave NoiseCat told me. “And I think that’s going to be really hard.”


newrepublic--2020-06-17--The Solution to Police Murder Is Not More Money

In my neighborhood of D.C. , there is a Whole Foods on P Street NW , between 14th and 15th .
Prior to its ultra-gentrification , the neighborhood was home to one of the city ’ s most well-known homeless shelters ; years on , there are still often one or two homeless Washingtonians who spend the day on this particular block .
I recall one occasion , a couple of years ago , when I passed one such person in front of the grocery , wandering the sidewalk and shouting—something like “ fuck Trump , ” which is certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I left the store 15 minutes later , he was still outside , but was now arguing that Ronald Reagan might have been even worse than Trump ; another man sitting on the street outside the store agreed .
I smiled to myself as I walked by , resisting the urge to whitely say something like , “ Right on , sir !
” But as I turned the corner , I saw a middle-aged white guy talking to a police officer in a car , gesturing at the shouting man .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just complaining about the slightly elevated noise , or claiming that the man was somehow dangerous .
I can report that as a young-ish woman who can barely lift a bag of kitty litter , I did not feel threatened by his vigorous political speech .
Regardless of that particular man-Karen ’ s intentions , recent evidence has shown that this is what the police are to well-off white people : An omnipresent , benevolent force to be called when things are going wrong in any way .
There is little sense that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion—as a referee governing the ticky-tack conflicts of ordinary urban existence—consider what might happen once the cops get involved .
They are much more likely to see the police as a solution to , not a cause of , problems .
And so , armed men who are trained to mete out physical punishment in the name of keeping the order are sent into situations that don ’ t require that level of intervention .
The George Floyd killing was the spark for the recent protests against police , but as The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that happened on the same day also highlighted the “ entrenched racism ” black people face : The famous encounter in the Central Park Ramble , where Amy Cooper dialed 911 to sic the police on Christian Cooper , claiming that he was threatening her life , because he—a black man—had the temerity to ask her to leash her dog , as the park ’ s rules require .
This incident highlighted how the police function not just as an enforcer of a horrible racial order , always available to threaten black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white people know it exists for this reason , and are willing to use it as such .

There is a reason that calls to abolish or defund the police are more prevalent in this round of protests against police brutality, and it isn’t just that the left is louder than it was five years ago. In part, there is a recognition that, having watched the same violent ineptitude play on a loop for several decades running, the police force we have cannot be meaningfully “reformed.”
Nevertheless, prominent Democratic politicians, from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to the mayor of Minneapolis, have rejected the notion that the police should be defunded or abolished.
Nevertheless, prominent Democratic politicians, from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to the mayor of Minneapolis, have rejected the notion that the police should be defunded or abolished. Instead, politicians have countered that these departments actually need more funding, for things like racial bias training or the expansion of community policing. This is in direct contrast to the argument made by supporters of defunding the police, an argument articulated well by Derecka Purnell and Marbre Stahly-Butts months before Floyd’s death, in The New York Times: That the damage of mass incarceration cannot be healed “without reducing the size and scope of the police,” because “police fill prisons.” That is what the police are for, and that is what they will do.
Community policing is a popular concept among those who want to reform the police without abolishing it, the idea being that police officers who are more in touch with the communities around them will be better able to prevent crime without force. Joe Biden mentioned it in his recent op-ed on police brutality and systemic racism. But community policing has been criticized by activists such as Philip V. Harris, who in 2019 noted in The Appeal that the “strategy further floods communities with police and legitimizes an institution that is centered on punishment and control.” A recent article in The Boston Globe about the city’s use of community policing reported that different departments, even within the same cities, interpret what “community policing” means in different ways. Naturally, this has led to wide variations in the practice’s success, with many police using it as “a kind of bumper-sticker slogan while making no real effort to carry out the necessary work.” A perfect policy, then, for a Democratic politician to propose.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--The Political Power of Protests

The Political Power of Protests

After three weeks of protests against police violence , the energy of the demonstrations remains undiminished .
Episode 10 of @ @ @ @ @ what is motivating the actions , the political effects they ’ ve already had , @ @ @ @ @ come .
Hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene talk to Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw , the @ @ @ @ @ Policy Forum and a regular contributor to The New Republic , about the connection between @ @ @ @ @ s disproportionate toll on black Americans .
Osita Nwanevu , a staff writer at the @ @ @ @ @ shapes policy .
And Patrick Blanchfield , the author of Gunpower : The Structure of @ @ @ @ @ coptalk ” —the euphemism and officialese police use to paper over the harms they commit @

After three weeks of protests against police violence, the energy of the demonstrations remains undiminished. Episode 10 of The Politics of Everything explores what is motivating the actions, the political effects they’ve already had, and what’s to come.
Hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene talk to Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, the founder of the African American Policy Forum and a regular contributor to The New Republic, about the connection between police killings and Covid-19’s disproportionate toll on black Americans. Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer at the magazine, explores how protest shapes policy. And Patrick Blanchfield, the author of Gunpower: The Structure of American Violence, explains “coptalk”—the euphemism and officialese police use to paper over the harms they commit.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--At-Will Employment Is the Real Cancel Culture

On Monday , the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and trans people from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity .
The decision was historic but , as my colleague Melissa Gira Grant wrote on Tuesday , exists in that nebulous space of “ progress , ” its impact landing somewhere “ between what the law can do and what justice looks like.
” As Suzanne Goldberg , a co-director of Columbia Law School ’ s Center for Sexuality and Gender Law , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision “ does not mean a complete end to discrimination against LGBT workers , but it does mean that employers are on notice that continuing to discriminate is unlawful and may be very costly.
” ( Even with the law on their side , such costs will mostly still fall on workers who wish to challenge such discrimination in court . )
The decision about unlawful workplace discrimination , and the attendant conversation about the limited means most workers still have to real recourse , came at a heavy moment : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and non-Black workers of color who have been historically marginalized in their industries started speaking out about their experiences at majority-white and white-led workplaces .
In media , some of this reckoning was prompted by food writer Tammie Teclemariam , who shared a photo of Bon Appétit editor in chief Adam Rapoport in brownface .
Under pressure from staff , Rapoport swiftly resigned and was followed out by Condé Nast vice president Matt Duckor , who was one of the many media executives to help institutionalize a company culture that marginalized and underpaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffers at The New York Times organized a public campaign denouncing Senator Tom Cotton ’ s opinion piece calling on the military to “ restore order ” among protests in American cities .
In response , the paper ’ s editorial page editor , James Bennet , stepped down .
Predictably , a chorus of white liberals and conservatives called these resignations a frightening example of “ cancel culture ” or “ mob rule ” or whatever it ’ s being called now when white people face consequences for their actions .
Trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court ’ s decision and the media ’ s reckoning on race might seem like a lot , but the through line feels clear : Removing one bad boss or winning a Supreme Court case does not fix institutional inequity .
That solution comes in strengthening the position of all marginalized workers , and that starts with fixing the working models that only encourage this power imbalance .
Most private-sector employees in the United States work under what is known as at-will employment contracts , which give their boss the arbitrary and capricious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for any reason .
In every state save for Montana , employers can fire their workers freely without a justifiable reason , as long as they can prove in court the firing didn ’ t violate anti-discrimination laws .
( But as we ’ ve seen above , that burden of proof can be a hard one to meet . )
At-will employment effectively grants bosses all the power throughout the duration of a person ’ s employment .
This is a catastrophic scenario for millions of workers whose basic livelihood and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to holding down a job .
And despite this being a grave threat to already vulnerable workers , the question of getting fired only seems to pique national interest when a well-paid white executive resigns in shame .

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and trans people from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision was historic but, as my colleague Melissa Gira Grant wrote on Tuesday, exists in that nebulous space of “progress,” its impact landing somewhere “between what the law can do and what justice looks like.” As Suzanne Goldberg, a co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Sexuality and Gender Law, told Sarah Jones for New York magazine, the decision “does not mean a complete end to discrimination against LGBT workers, but it does mean that employers are on notice that continuing to discriminate is unlawful and may be very costly.” (Even with the law on their side, such costs will mostly still fall on workers who wish to challenge such discrimination in court.)
The decision about unlawful workplace discrimination, and the attendant conversation about the limited means most workers still have to real recourse, came at a heavy moment: In the weeks preceding it, many Black and non-Black workers of color who have been historically marginalized in their industries started speaking out about their experiences at majority-white and white-led workplaces. In media, some of this reckoning was prompted by food writer Tammie Teclemariam, who shared a photo of Bon Appétit editor in chief Adam Rapoport in brownface. Under pressure from staff, Rapoport swiftly resigned and was followed out by Condé Nast vice president Matt Duckor, who was one of the many media executives to help institutionalize a company culture that marginalized and underpaid nonwhite workers. Before that, Black staffers at The New York Times organized a public campaign denouncing Senator Tom Cotton’s opinion piece calling on the military to “restore order” among protests in American cities. In response, the paper’s editorial page editor, James Bennet, stepped down. Predictably, a chorus of white liberals and conservatives called these resignations a frightening example of “cancel culture” or “mob rule” or whatever it’s being called now when white people face consequences for their actions.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--Florida Man Leads His State to the Morgue

To get a sense of Florida ’ s priorities amid a viral pandemic , economic ruin , and a campaign for black lives , just look to the letter I received from state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis on Monday evening , asking me if I was a paid Chinese Communist agent .
The form letter was addressed to the Florida-based S-corporation I formed in 2009 to handle my freelance writing and editing , and which , as a “ veteran-owned ” business , is registered as a state vendor , even though I ’ ve never bid on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The letter ’ s aim was “ to identify state vendors who are owned or controlled by the Communist Party of China.
” Accordingly , it said , “ you are hereby requested to respond within 30 days by verifying your status as a company owned and controlled by U.S .
Interests , in order to avoid necessary follow up ” by the state Department of Financial Services .
As a Republican state representative , Patronis—whose family runs a restaurant , winery , real estate , and bottled-water empire , and whose cousin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state gun lobby—was the Florida chairman of the notorious conservative , Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council .
He earned fame for championing lobbyist-written bills that denuded Florida ’ s critical ecology and despoiled its environment .
After he was term-limited out of the state House in 2014 , he joined the state Cabinet as its elected CFO and promptly was accused of hiring lobbyists and moochers and pressuring state officials to stop cooperating with a case against a Miami financial adviser who had donated $ 25,000 to Patronis ’ s campaign .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was mailing state corporations to try and ferret out Commies in their midst , Florida identified 2,783 new cases of coronavirus among its residents , the state ’ s highest single-day total since the global pandemic broke out .
It was the third record-high daily case total Florida reported in the past week .

Now, nonwealthy Floridians are getting sick and dying in record numbers. Sixteen women attended a recent birthday party at a prematurely opened, packed, mostly maskless bar in Jacksonville, and all contracted the virus. Five workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s “Hurricane Hunter” airbase in Lakeland have come down with the virus, just as an especially active storm season is kicking off in Florida. Multiple bars in St. Petersburg have voluntarily shut down after the coronavirus roared back among their service staff.
Back in April, the Trump administration used a controversially sunny projection model to predict that, at worst, 100,000 Americans would die of coronavirus-related illness. That model now puts Florida at a literal inflection point: From here until October 1, it predicts, Florida’s Covid-19 deaths will likely sextuple, from 3,000 to more than 18,000. That’s the likeliest course; there’s a possibility up to 55,000 Floridians may be dead by then. If so, the dead would number roughly twice DeSantis’s margin of victory in his 2018 gubernatorial election.
On Tuesday, DeSantis took a break from welcoming the Republican National Convention to Jacksonville, waving the starting flag at a Nascar race south of Miami, and pushing for schools to open this fall, to announce that “No, we’re not shutting down, you know, we’re going to go forward.” He also echoed President Trump and Vice President Pence in writing off the troubling rise in Covid cases as attributable to higher rates of testing. But all the available data show that Florida has a dangerously high, rising number of positive tests per capita; positive tests now make up as many as 7 percent of all tests in Florida. Testing is finding more afflicted Floridians because there are more afflicted Floridians. “The fact that these are going up means there’s more community spread,” said Palm Beach County health director Alina Alonso. “The virus now has food out there. It has people that are out there without masks, without maintaining distancing. So it’s infecting more people.”


newrepublic--2020-06-17--The Police Can’t Shake Their Persecution Complex

As Kreutter noted , the aggrieved response to criticism of police from cops and their defenders has been especially notable in the years since the Black Lives Matter movement began .
This defense of police turns the tables , arguing that it ’ s not actually black people who live in constant fear of threat or menace in America : It ’ s the cops who are under attack .
It ’ s not enough to falsely say that critics of modern police tactics are wrong about the prevalence of police brutality .
Instead , they go full throttle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies as if this was a tall-tale-telling competition and not an adult critique of policies as they ’ re practically applied in the real world .
And so : Antifa is lurking behind the bushes !
Anarchists are manning the deep fryer !
You can see this in the obvious lies pushed by police departments about things like buckets of concrete “ disguised as ice cream ” strategically placed by protesters , despite the cups obviously containing concrete sample mixes used on construction sites .
( As many Twitter users pointed out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ CAUTION : HOT ” warning ? )
Columbus , Ohio , police tweeted a picture of a Scary Antifa Bus , which they claimed was full of “ riot equipment ” like clubs ; the bus turned out to belong to traveling street performers , and the clubs were juggling clubs .
There is an interesting intersection here between the police persecution complex , as manifested in accusations of maliciously bitten McChickens , and the broader mentality of conservative victimhood .
Many writers on the left have documented the importance of fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the conservative movement .
In a 2012 piece for The Baffler , Rick Perlstein deconstructed the “ theology of fear ” that animates conservatism , “ conjuring up the most garishly insatiable monsters , ” and its overlap with the snake-oil salesmen who use that fear to sell bullshit on mailing lists and right-wing websites like Newsmax .
Ginning up fear of liberals , Commies , MS-13 , or even the Green New Deal ’ s war on hamburgers is as fundamental to the modern conservative movement as pushing for tax cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other .
You must , always and before anything else , recognize that our values are under attack .
But the conservative victim mentality is not just pure fear : It is fear of power and privilege being taken away .
As Corey Robin wrote in The Reactionary Mind , “ [ V ] ictimhood has been a talking point of the right ever since Burke decried the mob ’ s treatment of Marie Antoinette.
” But it ’ s a particular kind of victim : “ one who has lost something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wretched of the earth , whose chief complaint is that they never had anything to lose.
” Or one who is merely in danger of losing something of value .
We are supposed to feel bad for conservatives who complain that white people can ’ t even get a job anymore because of affirmative action—clearly untrue—or that political correctness is stifling their freedom of thought and expression .
The implicit other side to this is that the jobs that were previously easier to get for white people would no longer be so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whites enjoyed deploying would no longer be acceptable .
The heart of the conservative ’ s complaint , as Robin demonstrates , is not that change is happening .
It is that the change threatens their position of power .
It ’ s a similar dynamic for the police .
Cops occupy a privileged position in society : If recent events haven ’ t been a powerful enough demonstration , one need only reflect on the fact that few municipal public servants are endowed by the state to wield as much death-dealing capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , we discover that a cop can murder someone , claim they were in fear of their lives , and through a combination of jurisprudential doctrine and the latitude granted by the law and order industry—where you can “ indict a ham sandwich ” but never a police officer—usually get away with it .

There is an interesting intersection here between the police persecution complex, as manifested in accusations of maliciously bitten McChickens, and the broader mentality of conservative victimhood. Many writers on the left have documented the importance of fear and the constant evolution of new threats to the conservative movement. In a 2012 piece for The Baffler, Rick Perlstein deconstructed the “theology of fear” that animates conservatism, “conjuring up the most garishly insatiable monsters,” and its overlap with the snake-oil salesmen who use that fear to sell bullshit on mailing lists and right-wing websites like Newsmax. Ginning up fear of liberals, Commies, MS-13, or even the Green New Deal’s war on hamburgers is as fundamental to the modern conservative movement as pushing for tax cuts. You cannot do one without the other. You must, always and before anything else, recognize that our values are under attack.
But the conservative victim mentality is not just pure fear; it is fear of power and privilege being taken away.
But the conservative victim mentality is not just pure fear: It is fear of power and privilege being taken away. As Corey Robin wrote in The Reactionary Mind, “[V]ictimhood has been a talking point of the right ever since Burke decried the mob’s treatment of Marie Antoinette.” But it’s a particular kind of victim: “one who has lost something of value, as opposed to the wretched of the earth, whose chief complaint is that they never had anything to lose.” Or one who is merely in danger of losing something of value. We are supposed to feel bad for conservatives who complain that white people can’t even get a job anymore because of affirmative action—clearly untrue—or that political correctness is stifling their freedom of thought and expression. The implicit other side to this is that the jobs that were previously easier to get for white people would no longer be so, or that harmful slurs or insults that whites enjoyed deploying would no longer be acceptable. The heart of the conservative’s complaint, as Robin demonstrates, is not that change is happening. It is that the change threatens their position of power.
It’s a similar dynamic for the police. Cops occupy a privileged position in society: If recent events haven’t been a powerful enough demonstration, one need only reflect on the fact that few municipal public servants are endowed by the state to wield as much death-dealing capacity as the police. Time and time again, we discover that a cop can murder someone, claim they were in fear of their lives, and through a combination of jurisprudential doctrine and the latitude granted by the law and order industry—where you can “indict a ham sandwich” but never a police officer—usually get away with it.


newrepublic--2020-06-17--Abolish These Police Departments

Abolish These Police Departments

Everything I ’ ve read over the last week about what to do about policing , from the conscientious to the glib , I ’ ve read with those two Star Tribune articles in the back of my mind and with the knowledge that Minneapolis ’ s city council has already agreed to what we are told is too extreme a demand—disbanding its police force .
Even if you believe this particular assembly of politicians in Minneapolis can ’ t deliver ( a perfectly legitimate belief , given the entire history of reform efforts ) , the fact that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conversation from what is politically “ possible ” in this moment to what is necessary .
Too much of the debate over what to do about policing is abstract .
If police abolition represents the radical boundary of our discourse , if “ defund the police ” sounds baffling to people who are rarely policed and scary to people who believe they depend on police for their safety , it might be easier to move from the general to the specific .
What should be done about the Minneapolis Police Department ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound like radical demands , or on the fence about a slogan like “ defund the police , ” I urge you to read both of these articles , and think about “ the police , ” not in the abstract or even in the personal ( who would I call if someone broke into my house ? )
but in terms of the currently existing institution of the Minneapolis Police Department .
Maybe the question “ Does Minneapolis need cops ?
” can be answered after a more urgent question : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” This is a police department in a very liberal city , run by a black man who once sued the department and who replaced a chief who had , during her own term , already brought in the Justice Department to study its practices .
And yet , despite that leadership , it still could not rein in the Third Precinct—or implement a program that could ’ ve taken Derek Chauvin off the streets .
As a result , it has lost its legitimacy as a civic institution and therefore its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain precisely and in great detail how public safety will be maintained after we “ abolish police ” in general should explain why maintaining the existing Minneapolis Police Department is preferable to disbanding it and building some sort of alternative .
Before telling activists and protesters to abandon radical slogans for more targeted reforms , consider that Minneapolis has already tried a number of reforms—it has reached for nearly every piece of low-hanging fruit .
It would be great if police departments could more easily fire bad officers , and other police departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis Police Department couldn ’ t even implement a plan to identify problem officers .
Any attempt to do so—to identify problem officers and then fire them—would require an entirely different police culture .
It would require , in other words , dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department .

Everything I’ve read over the last week about what to do about policing, from the conscientious to the glib, I’ve read with those two Star Tribune articles in the back of my mind and with the knowledge that Minneapolis’s city council has already agreed to what we are told is too extreme a demand—disbanding its police force. Even if you believe this particular assembly of politicians in Minneapolis can’t deliver (a perfectly legitimate belief, given the entire history of reform efforts), the fact that it is their stated end goal should shift the conversation from what is politically “possible” in this moment to what is necessary.
Too much of the debate over what to do about policing is abstract. If police abolition represents the radical boundary of our discourse, if “defund the police” sounds baffling to people who are rarely policed and scary to people who believe they depend on police for their safety, it might be easier to move from the general to the specific. What should be done about the Minneapolis Police Department? If you’re scared of what sound like radical demands, or on the fence about a slogan like “defund the police,” I urge you to read both of these articles, and think about “the police,” not in the abstract or even in the personal (who would I call if someone broke into my house?) but in terms of the currently existing institution of the Minneapolis Police Department. Maybe the question “Does Minneapolis need cops?” can be answered after a more urgent question: “Does Minneapolis need the Minneapolis Police Department?”
This is a police department in a very liberal city, run by a black man who once sued the department and who replaced a chief who had, during her own term, already brought in the Justice Department to study its practices. And yet, despite that leadership, it still could not rein in the Third Precinct—or implement a program that could’ve taken Derek Chauvin off the streets. As a result, it has lost its legitimacy as a civic institution and therefore its right to exist. Those demanding activists explain precisely and in great detail how public safety will be maintained after we “abolish police” in general should explain why maintaining the existing Minneapolis Police Department is preferable to disbanding it and building some sort of alternative.