thenation--2020-06-04--The Pandemic Is a Threat. The President Is Worse.

Over the past week , we ’ ve seen editors and reporters , looking for a new angle on the pandemic , start to suggest—with the help of some experts—that protests risk fueling a resurgence of Covid-19 around the United States .
Are these gatherings , large and small , something we should be worrying about ?
Anywhere people assemble in close proximity for extended periods presents some risk of viral transmission , so these protests are certainly not risk-free , even if they are outdoors , where the risk from SARS-COV-2 is far less than in indoor environments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of science and medicine at the University of Michigan , reminds us , outdoor events can carry great epidemiological significance .
The Liberty Loan parades in Philadelphia and Detroit likely helped to spread influenza in 1918 .
In most cases , bringing thousands of people together for several hours in cities and towns across the country as we have seen over the past week wouldn ’ t be advisable .
But this is not “ most cases.
” First , what most if not all of the articles linking protests to the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and situations that present a far greater ongoing risk of amplifying SARS-COV-2 transmission in the United States .
Foremost among these are the decisions by many governors to reopen their states without their seeing case numbers in decline or having sufficient testing in place .
Reopening in the context of uncontrolled local outbreaks presents opportunities day after day for the virus to spread .
In addition , we already know that prisons and jails , ICE detention facilities , meatpacking plants , and Amazon warehouses are sites for super-spreader events ; these all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission of SARS-COV-2 .
Instead of being invoked to put the protests in context , these larger drivers of infection have just been erased from the discussion .
There is a distinct “ out with the old , in with the new ” flavor to this focus on the protests across the country against police violence—it ’ s as if the media has become bored with the sustained catastrophe of our national response to Covid-19 and needs something fresh to highlight .
Another fact absent from many of these stories is that police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2019 , there were only 27 days when police didn ’ t kill someone in the United States .
Beyond police violence , homicide and suicide among young African Americans , particularly young men , are off the charts .
Furthermore , each year in this country , there are between 75,000 and 100,000 excess premature deaths for African Americans compared with their white counterparts .
As scientists who have studied the issue have said , “ Race-based differences in health and longevity remain large and race remains a predominant social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , racism and white supremacy kill .
The Astroturf protests to “ liberate ” states that we saw several weeks ago , with lots of guns and no masks , didn ’ t attract nearly as much focus on the threat to public health from either the actions of those assembled or the policies they advocated .
In fact , many of those rallies were explicitly about defying public health advice and denying the seriousness of the pandemic , with participants carelessly endangering those who were protesting with and near them and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts .
Of course , the anger and frustration about the economic impact of Covid-19 and disruptions to people ’ s lives was both real and understandable .
But the protesters ’ response was grounded in the president ’ s own antipathy to protecting the public health .
In contrast , the recent protests against police violence , despite the risks of transmission of SARSARS-COV-2 involved , can be thought of as pro–public health in some ways : ending police violence and confronting racism require political action , as these excess causalities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy and require a public response .
What is also different about these marches are the ways that protesters are trying to take care of themselves and others .
Look at the photos .
Many are wearing masks and telling police to put them on as well .
No one has to remind many of these protesters about the risk of Covid-19 : The epidemic is killing African Americans and Latinos at far greater rates than others in the United States .
Harm reduction guidelines—from epidemiologists and even the New York City Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to more safely protest in an epidemic : by wearing masks and goggles or other eye protection ; hanging out with a small group of friends rather than moving in and out of the crowd alone ; using drums or noisemakers rather than shouting , which spreads droplets that could carry SARS-COV-2 ; trying to maintain separation between yourself and others if possible ; using hand sanitizer regularly , ; and staying hydrated .
In addition , these informal guidelines urge people who feel sick to stay home , and suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and seek SARS-COV-2 testing .
But the recommendations for harm reduction go further here too by addressing the dangers that police are adding to the protests .
Rubber bullets , which have been commonly used over the past week to disperse crowds , can maim , blind , or kill—thus recommendations to “ wear thick clothing , like denim or even leather , that doesn ’ t leave much skin exposed , ” “ layer clothes , wear protective pads made for athletes , ” “ wear goggles made with ‘ ballistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has been banned in warfare since 1925 , and which can cause asthma-like conditions and other kinds of chemical lung injury , has been used frequently by police and other law enforcement on American citizens over the past few days as well .
Some guidelines recommend heat-resistant gloves—in addition to extra protective eyewear and clothing—to throw tear gas canisters away from the crowds , or , using a technique perfected by protesters in Hong Kong , to otherwise minimize the effects of tear gas by covering canisters with traffic cones and dousing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on top .
But the best way to reduce harm from tear gas is to leave the area , flush your eyes well with cold water , and when you can , get out of your clothes and shower with cool water .
What is going on right now is that communities are confronting what epidemiologists call “ competing risks , ” where someone is exposed to more than one mutually exclusive hazard , the prospect of death from different causes .
Covid-19 is a pandemic ravaging communities of color , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with us since 1619 .
We can and must fight both .
Egging on further violence , escalating to military-style crowd control , by the president of the United States has made things worse .
Donald Trump is a public health menace—in more ways than one .
Covid-19 .
Police violence .
Using rubber bullets and tear gas against Americans .
He ’ s fueled all three .
He ’ s a versatile , triple threat .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Over the past week, we’ve seen editors and reporters, looking for a new angle on the pandemic, start to suggest—with the help of some experts—that protests risk fueling a resurgence of Covid-19 around the United States. Are these gatherings, large and small, something we should be worrying about? Anywhere people assemble in close proximity for extended periods presents some risk of viral transmission, so these protests are certainly not risk-free, even if they are outdoors, where the risk from SARS-COV-2 is far less than in indoor environments. But as Howard Markel, a historian of science and medicine at the University of Michigan, reminds us, outdoor events can carry great epidemiological significance. The Liberty Loan parades in Philadelphia and Detroit likely helped to spread influenza in 1918. In most cases, bringing thousands of people together for several hours in cities and towns across the country as we have seen over the past week wouldn’t be advisable. But this is not “most cases.”
First, what most if not all of the articles linking protests to the pandemic fail to mention are the major events and situations that present a far greater ongoing risk of amplifying SARS-COV-2 transmission in the United States. Foremost among these are the decisions by many governors to reopen their states without their seeing case numbers in decline or having sufficient testing in place. Reopening in the context of uncontrolled local outbreaks presents opportunities day after day for the virus to spread. In addition, we already know that prisons and jails, ICE detention facilities, meatpacking plants, and Amazon warehouses are sites for super-spreader events; these all remain settings with a high risk of transmission of SARS-COV-2. Instead of being invoked to put the protests in context, these larger drivers of infection have just been erased from the discussion. There is a distinct “out with the old, in with the new” flavor to this focus on the protests across the country against police violence—it’s as if the media has become bored with the sustained catastrophe of our national response to Covid-19 and needs something fresh to highlight.
Another fact absent from many of these stories is that police violence is itself a public health issue. In 2019, there were only 27 days when police didn’t kill someone in the United States. Beyond police violence, homicide and suicide among young African Americans, particularly young men, are off the charts. Furthermore, each year in this country, there are between 75,000 and 100,000 excess premature deaths for African Americans compared with their white counterparts. As scientists who have studied the issue have said, “Race-based differences in health and longevity remain large and race remains a predominant social factor in American life.” In other words, racism and white supremacy kill.
The Astroturf protests to “liberate” states that we saw several weeks ago, with lots of guns and no masks, didn’t attract nearly as much focus on the threat to public health from either the actions of those assembled or the policies they advocated. In fact, many of those rallies were explicitly about defying public health advice and denying the seriousness of the pandemic, with participants carelessly endangering those who were protesting with and near them and advocating the immediate lifting of disease control efforts. Of course, the anger and frustration about the economic impact of Covid-19 and disruptions to people’s lives was both real and understandable. But the protesters’ response was grounded in the president’s own antipathy to protecting the public health. In contrast, the recent protests against police violence, despite the risks of transmission of SARSARS-COV-2 involved, can be thought of as pro–public health in some ways: ending police violence and confronting racism require political action, as these excess causalities are more than anything else deaths by public policy and require a public response. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
What is also different about these marches are the ways that protesters are trying to take care of themselves and others. Look at the photos. Many are wearing masks and telling police to put them on as well. No one has to remind many of these protesters about the risk of Covid-19: The epidemic is killing African Americans and Latinos at far greater rates than others in the United States. Harm reduction guidelines—from epidemiologists and even the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene—are circulating for how to more safely protest in an epidemic: by wearing masks and goggles or other eye protection; hanging out with a small group of friends rather than moving in and out of the crowd alone; using drums or noisemakers rather than shouting, which spreads droplets that could carry SARS-COV-2; trying to maintain separation between yourself and others if possible; using hand sanitizer regularly,; and staying hydrated. In addition, these informal guidelines urge people who feel sick to stay home, and suggest that those who do protest consider self-isolation afterwards, and seek SARS-COV-2 testing.
But the recommendations for harm reduction go further here too by addressing the dangers that police are adding to the protests. Rubber bullets, which have been commonly used over the past week to disperse crowds, can maim, blind, or kill—thus recommendations to “wear thick clothing, like denim or even leather, that doesn’t leave much skin exposed,” “layer clothes, wear protective pads made for athletes,” “wear goggles made with ‘ballistic grade glassware.’” Tear gas, which has been banned in warfare since 1925, and which can cause asthma-like conditions and other kinds of chemical lung injury, has been used frequently by police and other law enforcement on American citizens over the past few days as well. Some guidelines recommend heat-resistant gloves—in addition to extra protective eyewear and clothing—to throw tear gas canisters away from the crowds, or, using a technique perfected by protesters in Hong Kong, to otherwise minimize the effects of tear gas by covering canisters with traffic cones and dousing them with water through the narrow opening on top. But the best way to reduce harm from tear gas is to leave the area, flush your eyes well with cold water, and when you can, get out of your clothes and shower with cool water.
What is going on right now is that communities are confronting what epidemiologists call “competing risks,” where someone is exposed to more than one mutually exclusive hazard, the prospect of death from different causes. Covid-19 is a pandemic ravaging communities of color, but the virus of racism in America has been with us since 1619. We can and must fight both. Egging on further violence, escalating to military-style crowd control, by the president of the United States has made things worse. Donald Trump is a public health menace—in more ways than one. Covid-19. Police violence. Using rubber bullets and tear gas against Americans. He’s fueled all three. He’s a versatile, triple threat.


thenation--2020-06-04--The Forgotten Workers of Tiananmen Square

On June 4 , 1989 , the Chinese military violently suppressed the protest movement of students and workers in Beijing ’ s Tiananmen Square .
The protests had begun earlier that spring ; at their peak , they may have included as many as 1 million people .
To put an end to them , the government invaded Beijing with as many as 250,000 soldiers , supported by tanks and armored personnel carriers , who shot , bayoneted , and ran over civilians .
Protesters resisted by building blockades along the road to Tiananmen Square , setting vehicles on fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Molotov cocktails .
But they were overwhelmed .
When the protesters surrendered , they were beaten , arrested , and imprisoned .
Many were executed .
The Chinese government , which suppresses commemoration of this event within China ( and this year , for the first time , in Hong Kong ) , has never revealed how many protesters died that day .
Some put the number at hundreds ; one report estimated that it could be as many as 10,000 .
This year , the anniversary of that massacre arrives in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Widespread anger at the racist murders of black people by both police and civilians has given rise to a black-led , multiracial movement for justice—one that is now being answered with further police brutality , as well as threats from the president to deploy the military in American cities .
This June 4 also comes after years of rising tensions between the United States and China—tensions that have become much more acute over the last few months .
Anti-China hawks in the US ruling class have been eager to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China and Chinese people as an opportunity to push for a new Cold War with China .
And China , in turn , has imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong , threatening the city ’ s civil liberties .
This has further antagonized the US government and strengthened the arguments of anti-China hawks .
We should expect excruciating moments of hypocrisy from US politicians today .
Right-wing nationalists in this country , claiming a deep commitment to human rights , will use this anniversary as an occasion to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They will wax poetic about pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen in 1989 and in Hong Kong today , even as they make excuses for ongoing police brutality right next door .
In truth , their desire for greater confrontation with China is driven by a fear of a possible future in which the United States is no longer able to dominate the planet .
But by feigning a deep commitment to human rights , they will try to cover up this nationalistic hubris with a facade of high moral principle .
This hypocrisy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portrays American and Chinese societies as polar opposite : the first , as a liberal democracy , the second as an authoritarian state .
US liberalism and Chinese authoritarianism are supposedly alien to each other , have nothing in common , and are radically incompatible .
In this narrative , June 4 was the turning point when China rejected the possibility of joining the liberal democratic order and chose to remain an outsider and a threat to it .
In this telling , the key protagonists of China ’ s 1989 protests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only part of the truth .
The events of June 4 were an assault on human life and human rights , a defeat of pro-democracy forces and a victory for the authoritarianistic regime that has remained in force until today .
The Chinese government ’ s hard-line approach to Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy movement and its recent threats to Hong Kong ’ s relative autonomy are part of the legacy of June 4 .
But China ’ s authoritarianism has hardly been incompatible with the US-led liberal democratic world .
That world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global neoliberal economy—and authoritarian China has become an essential partner .
We usually remember June 4 as the end of a student protest movement .
But June 4 also marked the moment when China chose to accelerate its integration into this US-led order .
While students were at the center of the 1989 movement , it is too often forgotten that workers protested , too , and they brought distinct demands .
When the protests were suppressed , it was the workers who suffered the most fallout .
We should remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for democracy .
It was a defeat for working-class power .
The Tiananmen Square movement came at the end of a decade of drastic market reform in China .
After the Maoist state-controlled economy fell into a severe slowdown in the 1970s , the Chinese government spent the ’ 80s trying to build a more competitive and open economy .
This meant decollectivizing rural economies , loosening price controls , decentralizing political and economic power , and increasing the profitability of the state-owned enterprises ( SOEs ) that ran coal , steel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban economies .
By that point , China had a large population of relatively healthy , well-educated , but low-wage workers—products of the preceding Maoist path of development and social spending .
The Chinese Communist Party used those workers , and the market reforms , to attract foreign capital into China and revive the economy .
And it worked—at the cost of increasing inequality and growing popular resentment .
SOEs cut their welfare programs and workers ’ pay , and replaced guaranteed lifetime employment with short-term contracts .
Meanwhile , corruption was rampant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms to get rich .
A combination of loosened price controls and corruption led to high inflation , further squeezing the workers .
These problems generated widespread dissatisfaction among both university students and the urban workers in the SOEs .
But for the most part , the students and the workers had different grievances and different agendas .
Both groups were against growing inequality and corruption .
Workers critiqued the economic reforms , objecting to inflation and the attacks on their livelihood and economic security .
They wanted improved workers ’ rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the students demanded political reforms .
They did not object to the economic reforms that were already taking place ; rather , they believed that the economic chaos and corruption would be solved if political liberalization accompanied economic liberalization .
The two sets of demands were distinct , but not contradictory .
One could imagine integrating them—for example , using a social democratic model .
Sadly , this did not come to pass .
Students spent most of the movement at the center of the Tiananmen Square occupation , while workers were relegated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workers were marginalized , their great weapon—the power of the strike—was marginalized too .
After the Chinese government declared martial law in late May , the students asked the workers to exercise more power through a general strike , but it was already too late .
On June 4 , the military entered Beijing and smashed the Tiananmen Square occupation .
Protesters and other civilians were killed .
Even more were arrested or disappeared .
While both students and workers were assaulted and killed on June 4 , and persecuted afterward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merciless .
And it was the workers ’ collective power that was more thoroughly shattered .
If the massacre ended the students ’ hopes for China ’ s political future , it also ended the workers ’ hopes of stopping the assault on their livelihoods .
After June 4 , the Chinese government greatly accelerated the integration of China into the neoliberal global economy .
China turned to Washington and Wall Street for advice , and radicalized the economic reform program .
The post-1989 economy flourished , with very different consequences for workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as SOEs were pushed further toward profitability and many were privatized outright .
These increasingly vulnerable urban workers were also joined by an influx of millions of rural migrant workers from the countryside , forming a huge army of low-wage , disempowered workers for export-oriented sectors such as textiles and other manufacturing industries .
Meanwhile , university graduates found opportunities in the new economy , becoming highly educated professionals and part of China ’ s rising middle class .
Many were able to gain status within the Chinese Communist Party , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highly educated and private entrepreneurs .
‘ All You Want Is Money !
All I Want Is Revolution !
’ It ’ s common for mainstream liberal thinkers to assume that the highly educated middle class is the key to democratization .
The aftermath of June 4 is a clear counterexample .
As Ho-fung Hung writes in his 2016 book The China Boom , surveys in China during the 1990s and early 2000s found that “ most middle-class professionals and entrepreneurs [ were ] sternly opposed to political liberalization out of fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social demands from below.
” In general , research shows that it is the working class—not the middle class—who drive this kind of change .
In the 31 years since the massacre , the United States and other liberal democratic powers have been crucial collaborators in suppressing the Chinese working class , and thus the potential for political liberalization .
They have conspired with the Chinese government to undermine the power of Chinese workers , in pursuit of cheap labor and profits for their transnational corporations .
They refused to make global labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoliberal global economy .
Instead , they fostered a race to the bottom in workers ’ rights , suppressing wages in China , the United States , and all over the world .
For decades , China ’ s economic development has depended on its ability to ascend within this US-led , anti-worker global order .
Working within the unforgiving terms of the neoliberal system , the only way for China to climb out of poverty was through a highly authoritarian form of governance that would keep the working class in check .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Years of slowing growth have given way to a global depression , triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic .
We are in the midst of a deep crisis—and that makes radical change inevitable .
The question is whether this change will lead to our liberation .
The deep economic integration between the United States and China is metastasizing into zero-sum competition , as both countries compete for a larger slice of a shrinking pie .
This feeds into the demands of anti-China hawks for a new Cold War—and , for political leaders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solution to domestic political problems .
An emancipatory alternative to this disastrous path is , in large part , in the hands of the global working class , of which Chinese workers form a large and crucial part .
If we want to resolve the growing dysfunction of the neoliberal global order , we need to increase the status and power of workers .
We must shift income and power away from capital , and toward labor .
China has been a hotbed of wildcat strikes and other worker unrest for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism .
Last year , the China Labour Bulletin recorded nearly 1,400 such actions ; the CLB , which is a nonprofit based in Hong Kong , estimates that this number represents only 5 to 10 percent of the true total .
Worker unrest spans industries , including manufacturing , construction , retail , the gig economy , and the tech sector .
To be sure , these tend to be small , localized actions .
They don ’ t challenge the central government of China , and are ill-suited to winning structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 crisis creates the potential for something new .
The crisis has caused a sharp jump in unemployment , which China is not well-equipped to correct .
Jobless workers are poorly covered by the social welfare programs that have been corroding since the 1980s .
This is especially true for China ’ s nearly 300 million rural migrant workers , who live and work in urban areas as second-class citizens cut off from the welfare programs that do exist .
Meanwhile , Chinese university graduates are facing the same issue as their US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined with a slowing economy .
Even before this year , this led to a hyper-competitive job market and frustrated aspirations for university graduates .
Now , because of the Covid-19 crisis , China ’ s class of 2020 will graduate into the worst year yet .
Herein lies the potential for a new cross-class alliance : Perhaps professional-class university graduates and less-educated workers could overcome the divide that destroyed the hopes of 1989 , and reunite their demands for political and economic democratization .
It would be foolish to try to predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and our ability to influence the outcome from the United States is limited .
But one thing we can do is resist the anti-China hawks pushing for Cold War politics , which can only undermine the Chinese working class .
That includes Senator Josh Hawley , who warns that China seeks to dominate us as an imperialist power ; Senator Tom Cotton , who demands retribution against China for Covid-19 ; and Senator Marco Rubio , who argues that the key to winning a “ pro-worker ” economy is an economic war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s world , “ pro-worker ” means more government handouts to US corporations . )
We must protect Chinese international students , now under attack by the Trump administration .
The scapegoating of these students is not only racist , it inhibits some of the most inspiring and hopeful organizing happening now , among international students who are challenging nationalism , anti-worker politics , and gender oppression in China .
Anti-Chinese US nationalism also stokes nationalism within China—the Chinese government ’ s chief ideological weapon to justify attacks on labor organizers and activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persecution of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities is also justified through nationalistic claims that Uighurs have been infected by ideologies of Islamic terrorism from abroad , allowing the government to portray its concentration camps as part of the Global War on Terror .
The Chinese government has a talent for diverting domestic unrest toward nationalist rivalry , just as Trump uses anti-China nationalism to shift attention away from his own failings .
Not only that , but when the United States leads attacks on China ’ s economy , it directly harms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on employees even more intensely to protect Chinese corporate profits .
Instead of lusting after a new Cold War , we can start by agitating for US-China cooperation to beat Covid-19—an idea that most polls have found many people support , despite the rise in anti-China sentiment .
And we can , and should , go further than that : We could demand a radical renegotiation of the US-China economic relationship along progressive principles , one that centers around labor standards , climate-friendly industrial policy , and job creation at the international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key Chinese priorities—such as the Belt and Road initiative—in exchange for improved standards , we can dial down tensions and create a new win-win relationship , increasing the chances of progress on human rights issues .
Today , US pundits and politicians will tell us that the lesson of June 4 is that the United States should confront China .
But we should remember the forgotten workers of Tiananmen Square instead—and the forgotten workers of the United States as well .
That will bring us to a different conclusion : What we truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working-class solidarity between the United States and China , and beyond .

On June 4, 1989, the Chinese military violently suppressed the protest movement of students and workers in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. The protests had begun earlier that spring; at their peak, they may have included as many as 1 million people. To put an end to them, the government invaded Beijing with as many as 250,000 soldiers, supported by tanks and armored personnel carriers, who shot, bayoneted, and ran over civilians. Protesters resisted by building blockades along the road to Tiananmen Square, setting vehicles on fire, and fighting back with rocks and Molotov cocktails. But they were overwhelmed.
When the protesters surrendered, they were beaten, arrested, and imprisoned. Many were executed. The Chinese government, which suppresses commemoration of this event within China (and this year, for the first time, in Hong Kong), has never revealed how many protesters died that day. Some put the number at hundreds; one report estimated that it could be as many as 10,000.
This year, the anniversary of that massacre arrives in the midst of a nationwide uprising in the United States. Widespread anger at the racist murders of black people by both police and civilians has given rise to a black-led, multiracial movement for justice—one that is now being answered with further police brutality, as well as threats from the president to deploy the military in American cities.
This June 4 also comes after years of rising tensions between the United States and China—tensions that have become much more acute over the last few months. Anti-China hawks in the US ruling class have been eager to use the racist identification of the Covid-19 pandemic with China and Chinese people as an opportunity to push for a new Cold War with China. And China, in turn, has imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong, threatening the city’s civil liberties. This has further antagonized the US government and strengthened the arguments of anti-China hawks. Related Article The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong Wilfred Chan
We should expect excruciating moments of hypocrisy from US politicians today. Right-wing nationalists in this country, claiming a deep commitment to human rights, will use this anniversary as an occasion to argue for a more aggressive stance toward China. They will wax poetic about pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen in 1989 and in Hong Kong today, even as they make excuses for ongoing police brutality right next door. In truth, their desire for greater confrontation with China is driven by a fear of a possible future in which the United States is no longer able to dominate the planet. But by feigning a deep commitment to human rights, they will try to cover up this nationalistic hubris with a facade of high moral principle. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
This hypocrisy is enabled by a dominant narrative that portrays American and Chinese societies as polar opposite: the first, as a liberal democracy, the second as an authoritarian state. US liberalism and Chinese authoritarianism are supposedly alien to each other, have nothing in common, and are radically incompatible. In this narrative, June 4 was the turning point when China rejected the possibility of joining the liberal democratic order and chose to remain an outsider and a threat to it. In this telling, the key protagonists of China’s 1989 protests are pro-democracy student activists.
This narrative captures only part of the truth. The events of June 4 were an assault on human life and human rights, a defeat of pro-democracy forces and a victory for the authoritarianistic regime that has remained in force until today. The Chinese government’s hard-line approach to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and its recent threats to Hong Kong’s relative autonomy are part of the legacy of June 4.
But China’s authoritarianism has hardly been incompatible with the US-led liberal democratic world. That world depends not on liberal democracy but on the global neoliberal economy—and authoritarian China has become an essential partner.
We usually remember June 4 as the end of a student protest movement. But June 4 also marked the moment when China chose to accelerate its integration into this US-led order. While students were at the center of the 1989 movement, it is too often forgotten that workers protested, too, and they brought distinct demands. When the protests were suppressed, it was the workers who suffered the most fallout. We should remember that the massacre was not only a defeat for democracy. It was a defeat for working-class power.
Young protesters chant as they drive to Tiananmen Square to support the demonstrations, May 19, 1989. (Sadayuki Mikami / AP Photo)
The Tiananmen Square movement came at the end of a decade of drastic market reform in China. After the Maoist state-controlled economy fell into a severe slowdown in the 1970s, the Chinese government spent the ’80s trying to build a more competitive and open economy. This meant decollectivizing rural economies, loosening price controls, decentralizing political and economic power, and increasing the profitability of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that ran coal, steel, and other major industries and thus dominated urban economies.
By that point, China had a large population of relatively healthy, well-educated, but low-wage workers—products of the preceding Maoist path of development and social spending. The Chinese Communist Party used those workers, and the market reforms, to attract foreign capital into China and revive the economy. And it worked—at the cost of increasing inequality and growing popular resentment. SOEs cut their welfare programs and workers’ pay, and replaced guaranteed lifetime employment with short-term contracts. Meanwhile, corruption was rampant among elite officials; some used the reforms to get rich. A combination of loosened price controls and corruption led to high inflation, further squeezing the workers.
These problems generated widespread dissatisfaction among both university students and the urban workers in the SOEs. But for the most part, the students and the workers had different grievances and different agendas.
Both groups were against growing inequality and corruption. Workers critiqued the economic reforms, objecting to inflation and the attacks on their livelihood and economic security. They wanted improved workers’ rights and an end to profiteering. Meanwhile, the students demanded political reforms. They did not object to the economic reforms that were already taking place; rather, they believed that the economic chaos and corruption would be solved if political liberalization accompanied economic liberalization.
The two sets of demands were distinct, but not contradictory. One could imagine integrating them—for example, using a social democratic model. Sadly, this did not come to pass.
Students spent most of the movement at the center of the Tiananmen Square occupation, while workers were relegated to the periphery. So long as the workers were marginalized, their great weapon—the power of the strike—was marginalized too. After the Chinese government declared martial law in late May, the students asked the workers to exercise more power through a general strike, but it was already too late. On June 4, the military entered Beijing and smashed the Tiananmen Square occupation. Protesters and other civilians were killed. Even more were arrested or disappeared.
While both students and workers were assaulted and killed on June 4, and persecuted afterward, the violence against working-class protesters was especially merciless. And it was the workers’ collective power that was more thoroughly shattered.
Family members try to comfort a woman who has just learned that her son, a student protester, was killed by soldiers at Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. (David Turnley/Corbis / VCG via Getty Images)
If the massacre ended the students’ hopes for China’s political future, it also ended the workers’ hopes of stopping the assault on their livelihoods. After June 4, the Chinese government greatly accelerated the integration of China into the neoliberal global economy. China turned to Washington and Wall Street for advice, and radicalized the economic reform program. The post-1989 economy flourished, with very different consequences for workers and students. Workers suffered massive layoffs as SOEs were pushed further toward profitability and many were privatized outright. These increasingly vulnerable urban workers were also joined by an influx of millions of rural migrant workers from the countryside, forming a huge army of low-wage, disempowered workers for export-oriented sectors such as textiles and other manufacturing industries.
Meanwhile, university graduates found opportunities in the new economy, becoming highly educated professionals and part of China’s rising middle class. Many were able to gain status within the Chinese Communist Party, as the party reformed its membership criteria to incorporate the highly educated and private entrepreneurs. Related Article ‘All You Want Is Money! All I Want Is Revolution!’ Liao Yiwu
It’s common for mainstream liberal thinkers to assume that the highly educated middle class is the key to democratization. The aftermath of June 4 is a clear counterexample. As Ho-fung Hung writes in his 2016 book The China Boom, surveys in China during the 1990s and early 2000s found that “most middle-class professionals and entrepreneurs [were] sternly opposed to political liberalization out of fear that it [would] unleash increasing social demands from below.” In general, research shows that it is the working class—not the middle class—who drive this kind of change.
In the 31 years since the massacre, the United States and other liberal democratic powers have been crucial collaborators in suppressing the Chinese working class, and thus the potential for political liberalization. They have conspired with the Chinese government to undermine the power of Chinese workers, in pursuit of cheap labor and profits for their transnational corporations. They refused to make global labor standards part of the architecture of the neoliberal global economy. Instead, they fostered a race to the bottom in workers’ rights, suppressing wages in China, the United States, and all over the world.
For decades, China’s economic development has depended on its ability to ascend within this US-led, anti-worker global order. Working within the unforgiving terms of the neoliberal system, the only way for China to climb out of poverty was through a highly authoritarian form of governance that would keep the working class in check.
Today the neoliberal system is breaking down. Years of slowing growth have given way to a global depression, triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. We are in the midst of a deep crisis—and that makes radical change inevitable. The question is whether this change will lead to our liberation.
The deep economic integration between the United States and China is metastasizing into zero-sum competition, as both countries compete for a larger slice of a shrinking pie. This feeds into the demands of anti-China hawks for a new Cold War—and, for political leaders in both countries, presents belligerent nationalism as a solution to domestic political problems.
An emancipatory alternative to this disastrous path is, in large part, in the hands of the global working class, of which Chinese workers form a large and crucial part. If we want to resolve the growing dysfunction of the neoliberal global order, we need to increase the status and power of workers. We must shift income and power away from capital, and toward labor. Related Article This Lunar New Year, Demand Solidarity Tobita Chow
China has been a hotbed of wildcat strikes and other worker unrest for many years—even after recent government crackdowns on labor activism. Last year, the China Labour Bulletin recorded nearly 1,400 such actions; the CLB, which is a nonprofit based in Hong Kong, estimates that this number represents only 5 to 10 percent of the true total. Worker unrest spans industries, including manufacturing, construction, retail, the gig economy, and the tech sector.
To be sure, these tend to be small, localized actions. They don’t challenge the central government of China, and are ill-suited to winning structural change. Now, however, the Covid-19 crisis creates the potential for something new. The crisis has caused a sharp jump in unemployment, which China is not well-equipped to correct. Jobless workers are poorly covered by the social welfare programs that have been corroding since the 1980s. This is especially true for China’s nearly 300 million rural migrant workers, who live and work in urban areas as second-class citizens cut off from the welfare programs that do exist.
Meanwhile, Chinese university graduates are facing the same issue as their US counterparts: increasing enrollment in higher education combined with a slowing economy. Even before this year, this led to a hyper-competitive job market and frustrated aspirations for university graduates. Now, because of the Covid-19 crisis, China’s class of 2020 will graduate into the worst year yet. Herein lies the potential for a new cross-class alliance: Perhaps professional-class university graduates and less-educated workers could overcome the divide that destroyed the hopes of 1989, and reunite their demands for political and economic democratization.
A Chinese military tank rolls through Beijing’s streets in the aftermath of the massacre, June 6, 1989. (Jacques Langevin / Sygma via Getty Images)
It would be foolish to try to predict how this will play out in China, and our ability to influence the outcome from the United States is limited. But one thing we can do is resist the anti-China hawks pushing for Cold War politics, which can only undermine the Chinese working class. That includes Senator Josh Hawley, who warns that China seeks to dominate us as an imperialist power; Senator Tom Cotton, who demands retribution against China for Covid-19; and Senator Marco Rubio, who argues that the key to winning a “pro-worker” economy is an economic war with China. (In Rubio’s world, “pro-worker” means more government handouts to US corporations.)
We must protect Chinese international students, now under attack by the Trump administration. The scapegoating of these students is not only racist, it inhibits some of the most inspiring and hopeful organizing happening now, among international students who are challenging nationalism, anti-worker politics, and gender oppression in China.
Anti-Chinese US nationalism also stokes nationalism within China—the Chinese government’s chief ideological weapon to justify attacks on labor organizers and activists of all kinds. China’s persecution of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities is also justified through nationalistic claims that Uighurs have been infected by ideologies of Islamic terrorism from abroad, allowing the government to portray its concentration camps as part of the Global War on Terror. The Chinese government has a talent for diverting domestic unrest toward nationalist rivalry, just as Trump uses anti-China nationalism to shift attention away from his own failings. Not only that, but when the United States leads attacks on China’s economy, it directly harms Chinese workers, as the state cracks down on employees even more intensely to protect Chinese corporate profits.
Instead of lusting after a new Cold War, we can start by agitating for US-China cooperation to beat Covid-19—an idea that most polls have found many people support, despite the rise in anti-China sentiment. And we can, and should, go further than that: We could demand a radical renegotiation of the US-China economic relationship along progressive principles, one that centers around labor standards, climate-friendly industrial policy, and job creation at the international level. By offering US cooperation with key Chinese priorities—such as the Belt and Road initiative—in exchange for improved standards, we can dial down tensions and create a new win-win relationship, increasing the chances of progress on human rights issues.
Today, US pundits and politicians will tell us that the lesson of June 4 is that the United States should confront China. But we should remember the forgotten workers of Tiananmen Square instead—and the forgotten workers of the United States as well. That will bring us to a different conclusion: What we truly need is to build global cooperation and working-class solidarity between the United States and China, and beyond.


thenation--2020-06-04--Jim Mattis vs. Tom Cotton: No Contest

Jim Mattis vs. Tom Cotton: No Contest

As the revolt against The New York Times ’ decision to publish GOP Senator Tom Cotton ’ s op-ed calling on President Donald Trump to “ send in the troops ” spread across social media Wednesday night , encouraged by brave Times writers who publicly challenged the move , it was clear that Times leadership—in this case James Bennet , who edits the opinion section—had made another boneheaded choice .
It looked especially bad when , later the same day , The Atlantic published a searing , eloquent broadside against all of Donald Trump ’ s fascist posturing from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The contrast between the writing and the moral stature of the two men was unmistakable .
For one thing , Cotton ’ s argument was a clown car of clichés , exaggeration , and intellectual dishonesty ( more on that later ) , while Mattis ’ s argument was textured , impassioned , convincing .
That simple contrast laid bare the Times ’ mistake : Cotton ’ s piece didn ’ t meet the paper ’ s own standards .
The Cotton piece should have been rejected , not “ suppressed ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t very good .
At its best , the Times op-ed pages publish articles that are brilliantly argued and superbly written , as well as ones that explore new , marginalized , even controversial ways of thinking with which its readership needs to engage .
This was neither .
This was boilerplate sloganeering , intellectually dishonest , denouncing “ bands of miscreants ” and supposed “ elites ” who encouraged them ( for that he linked to a Fox News report distorting a commentary from CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way defended violence ) .
A favorite line : “ The riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.
” Excuse me ?
Cotton blamed much of the violence on “ cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd ’ s death for their own anarchic purposes , ” though the Times ’ own news pages have debunked those claims .
( To his credit , the Times ’ Marc Tracy covered the internal conflict fairly , here . )
The moral heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be said to have one , comes in his citing the presidents , from Republican Dwight Eisenhower through Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson , who sent in federal forces to protect school integration—in Eisenhower ’ s case , in Cotton ’ s home state of Arkansas .
But that argument is disingenuous on its face .
Tom Cotton is no crusader for racial justice : He ’ s the senator who blocked Barack Obama ’ s appointment of black Arkansas NAACP lawyer Cassandra Butts as an ambassador ; she died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome .
Cotton is also not advancing a particularly novel or sidelined point of view : It ’ s shared by Trump and Attorney General William Barr , apparently along with the entire GOP Senate majority , since not one of them has spoken out , and it needs to be fought by everyone who cares about the Constitution .
Enter Jim Mattis .
I ’ ve criticized the former secretary of defense for not speaking up earlier about his concerns with Trump ’ s fitness for office , most recently this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too little , too late .
Well , I can ’ t say it ’ s too little : It ’ s a devastating indictment of the president ’ s non-leadership , calling Trump “ the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people… .
Instead , he tries to divide us , ” and asking Americans to “ reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.
” He continues : “ When I joined the military , some 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , with military leadership standing alongside .
We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square.
” Read the whole thing here .
Reading Cotton and Matthis side by side is especially painful because the GOP senator is widely believed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially since the current one , Mark Esper , has publicly expressed reservations about Trump ’ s use of the 1807 Insurrection Act to send in federal troops .
Also yesterday , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley released a letter to troops reminding them that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution , which “ gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
” Milley , like Esper , joined Trump for the ugly Lafayette Square photo-op Monday night .
Finally , a few military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution .
Trump Is Deploying Troops Against Americans , and Military Leaders Are Abetting Him ‘ Starve the Beast ’ : A Q & A With Alex S. Vitale on Defunding the Police The Pandemic Is a Threat .
The President Is Worse .
I ’ ve seen a few white people on social media question the black staffers at the Times and elsewhere who have said Cotton ’ s op-ed endangers them personally .
The hopeless Andrew Sullivan is calling what these Times writers are doing an attempted “ coup ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coup by Trump and Barr .
Going back to my piece earlier in the week : When black people tell you something endangers them personally , or endangers their family , try believing them .
This is just another sad episode in “ bad decision-making at the country ’ s paper of record in the age of Trump.
” I can imagine a time when Matthis would have sent his statement to the Times .
Kudos to The Atlantic for bringing us this truly needed voice in a time of crisis .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As the revolt against The New York Times’ decision to publish GOP Senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed calling on President Donald Trump to “send in the troops” spread across social media Wednesday night, encouraged by brave Times writers who publicly challenged the move, it was clear that Times leadership—in this case James Bennet, who edits the opinion section—had made another boneheaded choice. It looked especially bad when, later the same day, The Atlantic published a searing, eloquent broadside against all of Donald Trump’s fascist posturing from Trump’s former defense secretary James Mattis.
The contrast between the writing and the moral stature of the two men was unmistakable. For one thing, Cotton’s argument was a clown car of clichés, exaggeration, and intellectual dishonesty (more on that later), while Mattis’s argument was textured, impassioned, convincing. That simple contrast laid bare the Times’ mistake: Cotton’s piece didn’t meet the paper’s own standards. The Cotton piece should have been rejected, not “suppressed” or “censored,” mainly because it wasn’t very good.
At its best, the Times op-ed pages publish articles that are brilliantly argued and superbly written, as well as ones that explore new, marginalized, even controversial ways of thinking with which its readership needs to engage. This was neither. This was boilerplate sloganeering, intellectually dishonest, denouncing “bands of miscreants” and supposed “elites” who encouraged them (for that he linked to a Fox News report distorting a commentary from CNN’s Chris Cuomo the other night, which in no way defended violence). A favorite line: “The riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.” Excuse me?
Cotton blamed much of the violence on “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes,” though the Times’ own news pages have debunked those claims. (To his credit, the Times’ Marc Tracy covered the internal conflict fairly, here.)
The moral heart of Cotton’s argument, if it can be said to have one, comes in his citing the presidents, from Republican Dwight Eisenhower through Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who sent in federal forces to protect school integration—in Eisenhower’s case, in Cotton’s home state of Arkansas. But that argument is disingenuous on its face. Tom Cotton is no crusader for racial justice: He’s the senator who blocked Barack Obama’s appointment of black Arkansas NAACP lawyer Cassandra Butts as an ambassador; she died of cancer before that opposition could be overcome.
Cotton is also not advancing a particularly novel or sidelined point of view: It’s shared by Trump and Attorney General William Barr, apparently along with the entire GOP Senate majority, since not one of them has spoken out, and it needs to be fought by everyone who cares about the Constitution. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Enter Jim Mattis. I’ve criticized the former secretary of defense for not speaking up earlier about his concerns with Trump’s fitness for office, most recently this week. I hope this isn’t too little, too late. Well, I can’t say it’s too little: It’s a devastating indictment of the president’s non-leadership, calling Trump “the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people…. Instead, he tries to divide us,” and asking Americans to “reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” Current Issue View our current issue
He continues: “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square.” Read the whole thing here.
Reading Cotton and Matthis side by side is especially painful because the GOP senator is widely believed to be angling to become secretary of defense—and especially since the current one, Mark Esper, has publicly expressed reservations about Trump’s use of the 1807 Insurrection Act to send in federal troops. Also yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley released a letter to troops reminding them that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, which “gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.” Milley, like Esper, joined Trump for the ugly Lafayette Square photo-op Monday night. Finally, a few military leaders seem to be leading—to defend the Constitution. Related Articles Trump Is Deploying Troops Against Americans, and Military Leaders Are Abetting Him Andrew J. Bacevich ‘Starve the Beast’: A Q&A With Alex S. Vitale on Defunding the Police Zachary Siegel The Pandemic Is a Threat. The President Is Worse. Gregg Gonsalves
I’ve seen a few white people on social media question the black staffers at the Times and elsewhere who have said Cotton’s op-ed endangers them personally. The hopeless Andrew Sullivan is calling what these Times writers are doing an attempted “coup”; he should worry more about the attempted coup by Trump and Barr. Going back to my piece earlier in the week: When black people tell you something endangers them personally, or endangers their family, try believing them.
This is just another sad episode in “bad decision-making at the country’s paper of record in the age of Trump.” I can imagine a time when Matthis would have sent his statement to the Times. Kudos to The Atlantic for bringing us this truly needed voice in a time of crisis.


thenation--2020-06-04--Democratic Candidates Should Be Campaigning to End Toxic Policing

Donald Trump is a desperate man who knows his reelection prospects are narrowing .
So he is determined to make a political issue of the upsurge in protest against police brutality and the failure of our criminal justice system .
Democrats who are stuck in the past fear that they will lose the debate and experience the sort of political backlash that cynical Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan—and more than a few conservative Democrats , such as Los Angeles Mayor Tom Yorty and Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo—stirred up in the 1960s and ’ 70s .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the way to win this debate is not by going soft and hoping to ride out the storm , especially as a new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “ a majority of Americans sympathize with nationwide protests over the death of an unarmed black man in police custody and disapprove of President Donald Trump ’ s response to the unrest.
” The Democrats who have their finger on the pulse of the moment understand that what ’ s needed now is a politics that speaks blunt and necessary truths about a crisis fostered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is such a Democrat , and he is running an inspired race for the Democratic US Senate nomination to take on Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell .
From the start of his bid , Booker has challenged status quo thinking and status quo politics .
Instead of mounting a vague , centrist bid that avoids talking about the need for structural change , Booker campaigns as a true progressive , leaning into the discussion with an argument for necessary action .
D.C. Statehood Is the Answer to Trump ’ s Abuse of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party Is a Fight for the Future Transit Is a Social Justice Issue in the 2020 Election “ We are shifting the course of history right now , ” says the state legislator , who has marched in Louisville with activists who are demanding justice for Breonna Taylor , an EMT and emergency room technician who in March was killed in her home by Louisville police ; for George Floyd , who last week was killed while in police custody in Minneapolis ; and for all the victims of police brutality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place of moral clarity , and to get to the root of the issues we are discussing.
” The Louisville Democrat has been on the streets of his hometown this week , joining vigils and rallies to protest the killing of Taylor and others .
He has been teargassed and found himself in circumstances where he has been called upon to help dial down tensions .
He speaks poignantly about being heartbroken .
But he also speaks of a need to take on a system that has failed to deliver change , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful protest .
At the same time , the cries for justice , accountability , and humanity in response to Breonna Taylor ’ s killing must be heard .
And they must be understood .
The cries to end systemic racism can ’ t be hand-waved or dismissed in a conversation about how protesters should act.
” Booker is doing this as a statewide candidate , taking stories from the streets of Louisville to the rest of Kentucky as the June 23 Democratic primary approaches .
Wherever he goes , in an energetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state and that has sought to forge an urban-rural coalition , Booker raises the same concerns about economic and social and racial injustice—and about a particular need to “ make sure we are accounting for the racial disparities and inequities in our justice system.
” He did it Monday night , in a debate with Amy McGrath , the free-spending front-runner in the contest , and Mike Broihier , a former Marine officer who farms in south-central Kentucky .
“ Barely made it today because I left the streets where so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Booker said as he opened his remarks in the Kentucky Educational Television debate .
Keith Ellison on Police Brutality : ‘ We Need a Vision That Says There ’ s Going to Be Accountability ’ “ What we ’ re seeing now in Louisville [ and ] all over our country , ” he continued , “ are people that feel ignored and abandoned .
They feel like justice is not accountable to them .
They feel like their humanity is ignored and denied .
Very specifically , they ’ re feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has permeated [ society ] for generations .
I speak boldly on that ; it informs my platform and why I ’ m running for US Senate to beat Mitch McConnell , because we need real change—not just tweets , not just words .
So I ’ ve stood , not only in the legislature but in every level of government , demanding system-level change and accountability—and even in this moment of tension , racial tension , and angst in our community , standing up to say that we need to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dynamic that allowed for Breonna Taylor to be killed in her home , in her sanctuary .
And , also , understand that we need to reform and reimagine how we engage with policing .
Instead of a militaristic operation , how do we bring more partnership and collaboration into the community and create more accountability ?
” That ’ s precisely the way Democrats up and down the 2020 ticket—from Joe Biden to contenders for local law enforcement posts—should be talking about police brutality , and about the mass outpouring of protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to guarantee liberty and justice for all .
And that ’ s how Democrats who are in positions of power should be governing—by moving rapidly to enact meaningful changes , such as a House proposal to overturn the “ qualified immunity doctrine ” that shields police officers from lawsuits , and proposals by progressive Democrats in the US House and Senate to prohibit the transfer of federal military equipment to local police forces .
Getting specific and outlining the argument for fundamental change fills the political void with ideas and a sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it harder for demagogues like Trump and McConnell to frame the discussion .
“ I think that ’ s what people are demanding from the Democratic Party , ” Booker told me this week .
“ If you are saying you are going to stand up for people , then do it.
” The question is whether Democrats will “ do it ” right now—and in November .
Booker is running an uphill June 23 primary race against Amy McGrath , a retired Marine fighter pilot and defeated 2018 congressional candidate who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional approach .
While Booker speaks movingly about his own connection to the protests—a cousin of his was close to Breonna Taylor , and he knew a local businessman who was shot and killed by Louisville police Monday—the Lexington Herald-Leader noted after Monday ’ s debate that “ Amy McGrath , the Democratic front-runner , cited the coronavirus pandemic as her reason for staying home.
” McGrath , a centrist who has mounted a predictable bid , was talked into running by Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and enjoys strong support from DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsements from 16 Democratic legislators from across Kentucky in what Kentucky Public Radio referred to as “ a reminder that not all Kentucky Democrats are on board with Amy McGrath.
” The leader of Democrats in the Kentucky legislature , Joni Jenkins , described Booker as “ head and shoulders ” above his rival .
Part of what makes people say that about Booker is his determination to challenge an awful status quo—on the grounds of practical necessity and principle .
“ We can lean into our integrity , ” he says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back off on issues of racial justice .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Donald Trump is a desperate man who knows his reelection prospects are narrowing. So he is determined to make a political issue of the upsurge in protest against police brutality and the failure of our criminal justice system.
Democrats who are stuck in the past fear that they will lose the debate and experience the sort of political backlash that cynical Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan—and more than a few conservative Democrats, such as Los Angeles Mayor Tom Yorty and Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo—stirred up in the 1960s and ’70s. But Democrats who look to the future recognize that the way to win this debate is not by going soft and hoping to ride out the storm, especially as a new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “a majority of Americans sympathize with nationwide protests over the death of an unarmed black man in police custody and disapprove of President Donald Trump’s response to the unrest.”
The Democrats who have their finger on the pulse of the moment understand that what’s needed now is a politics that speaks blunt and necessary truths about a crisis fostered by decades of neglect.
Charles Booker is such a Democrat, and he is running an inspired race for the Democratic US Senate nomination to take on Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. From the start of his bid, Booker has challenged status quo thinking and status quo politics. Instead of mounting a vague, centrist bid that avoids talking about the need for structural change, Booker campaigns as a true progressive, leaning into the discussion with an argument for necessary action. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
“We are shifting the course of history right now,” says the state legislator, who has marched in Louisville with activists who are demanding justice for Breonna Taylor, an EMT and emergency room technician who in March was killed in her home by Louisville police; for George Floyd, who last week was killed while in police custody in Minneapolis; and for all the victims of police brutality. “We need to speak from a place of moral clarity, and to get to the root of the issues we are discussing.”
The Louisville Democrat has been on the streets of his hometown this week, joining vigils and rallies to protest the killing of Taylor and others. He has been teargassed and found himself in circumstances where he has been called upon to help dial down tensions. He speaks poignantly about being heartbroken. But he also speaks of a need to take on a system that has failed to deliver change, saying, “We understand the importance of peaceful protest. At the same time, the cries for justice, accountability, and humanity in response to Breonna Taylor’s killing must be heard. And they must be understood. The cries to end systemic racism can’t be hand-waved or dismissed in a conversation about how protesters should act.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Booker is doing this as a statewide candidate, taking stories from the streets of Louisville to the rest of Kentucky as the June 23 Democratic primary approaches. Current Issue View our current issue
Wherever he goes, in an energetic campaign that has visited every corner of the state and that has sought to forge an urban-rural coalition, Booker raises the same concerns about economic and social and racial injustice—and about a particular need to “make sure we are accounting for the racial disparities and inequities in our justice system.” He did it Monday night, in a debate with Amy McGrath, the free-spending front-runner in the contest, and Mike Broihier, a former Marine officer who farms in south-central Kentucky.
“Barely made it today because I left the streets where so many Kentuckians are demanding justice and accountability,” Booker said as he opened his remarks in the Kentucky Educational Television debate. Police Violence Keith Ellison on Police Brutality: ‘We Need a Vision That Says There’s Going to Be Accountability’ John Nichols
“What we’re seeing now in Louisville [and] all over our country,” he continued, “are people that feel ignored and abandoned. They feel like justice is not accountable to them. They feel like their humanity is ignored and denied. Very specifically, they’re feeling the weight of structural racism and inequity that has permeated [society] for generations. I speak boldly on that; it informs my platform and why I’m running for US Senate to beat Mitch McConnell, because we need real change—not just tweets, not just words. So I’ve stood, not only in the legislature but in every level of government, demanding system-level change and accountability—and even in this moment of tension, racial tension, and angst in our community, standing up to say that we need to get rid of no-knock warrants, the same dynamic that allowed for Breonna Taylor to be killed in her home, in her sanctuary. And, also, understand that we need to reform and reimagine how we engage with policing. Instead of a militaristic operation, how do we bring more partnership and collaboration into the community and create more accountability?”
That’s precisely the way Democrats up and down the 2020 ticket—from Joe Biden to contenders for local law enforcement posts—should be talking about police brutality, and about the mass outpouring of protest against a criminal justice system that fails to guarantee liberty and justice for all. And that’s how Democrats who are in positions of power should be governing—by moving rapidly to enact meaningful changes, such as a House proposal to overturn the “qualified immunity doctrine” that shields police officers from lawsuits, and proposals by progressive Democrats in the US House and Senate to prohibit the transfer of federal military equipment to local police forces.
Getting specific and outlining the argument for fundamental change fills the political void with ideas and a sense of urgency about addressing them. That makes it harder for demagogues like Trump and McConnell to frame the discussion. “I think that’s what people are demanding from the Democratic Party,” Booker told me this week. “If you are saying you are going to stand up for people, then do it.”
The question is whether Democrats will “do it” right now—and in November. Booker is running an uphill June 23 primary race against Amy McGrath, a retired Marine fighter pilot and defeated 2018 congressional candidate who has much more money and a far more traditional approach. While Booker speaks movingly about his own connection to the protests—a cousin of his was close to Breonna Taylor, and he knew a local businessman who was shot and killed by Louisville police Monday—the Lexington Herald-Leader noted after Monday’s debate that “Amy McGrath, the Democratic front-runner, cited the coronavirus pandemic as her reason for staying home.”
McGrath, a centrist who has mounted a predictable bid, was talked into running by Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and enjoys strong support from DC insiders. But Booker has picked up endorsements from 16 Democratic legislators from across Kentucky in what Kentucky Public Radio referred to as “a reminder that not all Kentucky Democrats are on board with Amy McGrath.” The leader of Democrats in the Kentucky legislature, Joni Jenkins, described Booker as “head and shoulders” above his rival.
Part of what makes people say that about Booker is his determination to challenge an awful status quo—on the grounds of practical necessity and principle. “We can lean into our integrity,” he says, “and we don’t have to back off on issues of racial justice.”