thenation--2020-06-02--The FBI Finds ‘No Intel Indicating Antifa Involvement’ in Sunday’s Violence

The FBI ’ s Washington Field Office “ has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence ” in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests over the murder of George Floyd , according to an internal FBI situation report obtained exclusively by The Nation .
That same day , President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he would designate “ Antifa ” a terrorist organization , even though the government has no existing authority to declare a domestic group a terrorist organization , and antifa is not an organized group .
Following the president ’ s tweet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , “ The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.
” The FBI report , however , states that “ based on CHS [ Confidential Human Source ] canvassing , open source/social media partner engagement , and liaison , FBI WFO has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence.
” The statement followed a list of violent acts like throwing bricks at police and the discovery of a backpack containing explosive materials , which were flagged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” section of the report .
The FBI has been issuing such reports daily since the weekend , according to a Bureau source , who added that none of these documents contained any evidence of Antifa violence .
Antifa , short for “ anti-fascist , ” is a type of militant anti-racist , anti-nationalist organizing that does not rely on the justice system to confront the far right .
Groups associated with antifa have destroyed property and committed violence in the past , but the fact that the FBI ’ s situation reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement now suggests that fears about such groups may be exaggerated .
The report did warn that individuals from a far-right social media group had “ called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents , use automatic weapons against protesters.
” ( The Nation is withholding the name of the group in order to not disrupt any potential law enforcement investigations . )
Last year , FBI documents obtained by this reporter showed that the Bureau has listed “ Racially Motivated Violent Extremists ” among its top counterterrorism priorities .
While those priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also included what the FBI called “ Black Identity Extremists.
” The documents reveal that the Bureau linked “ retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement ” to the “ shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri , ” from which the Black Lives Matter movement originated .
The report , marked “ For official use only ” ( FOUO ) , was provided to The Nation by an FBI official on condition of anonymity .
The report is titled , “ Civil Unrest in Washington AOR [ Area of Responsibility ] Following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reference to “ CHS ” suggests that the Bureau possesses secret informants participating in the protests .
Asked about the report and why they ’ ve been unable to substantiate antifa involvement in the violence , the FBI ’ s Washington Field Office declined to comment .

The FBI’s Washington Field Office “has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence” in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests over the murder of George Floyd, according to an internal FBI situation report obtained exclusively by The Nation. That same day, President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he would designate “Antifa” a terrorist organization, even though the government has no existing authority to declare a domestic group a terrorist organization, and antifa is not an organized group. Following the president’s tweet, Attorney General William Barr said in a statement, “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.” Related Article The Border Patrol Praises Stonewall While Deploying Officers to Suppress Protests Ken Klippenstein
The FBI report, however, states that “based on CHS [Confidential Human Source] canvassing, open source/social media partner engagement, and liaison, FBI WFO has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence.” The statement followed a list of violent acts like throwing bricks at police and the discovery of a backpack containing explosive materials, which were flagged by the FBI under a “Key Updates” section of the report. The FBI has been issuing such reports daily since the weekend, according to a Bureau source, who added that none of these documents contained any evidence of antifa violence.
Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is a type of militant anti-racist, anti-nationalist organizing that does not rely on the justice system to confront the far right. Groups associated with antifa have destroyed property and committed violence in the past, but the fact that the FBI’s situation reports cannot find any evidence of such involvement now suggests that fears about such groups may be exaggerated.
The report did warn that individuals from a far-right social media group had “called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents, use automatic weapons against protesters.” (The Nation is withholding the name of the group in order to not disrupt any potential law enforcement investigations.)
Last year, FBI documents obtained by this reporter showed that the Bureau has listed “Racially Motivated Violent Extremists” among its top counterterrorism priorities. While those priorities did include white supremacist groups, they also included what the FBI called “Black Identity Extremists.” The documents reveal that the Bureau linked “retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement” to the “shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,” from which the Black Lives Matter movement originated.
The report, marked “For official use only” (FOUO), was provided to The Nation by an FBI official on condition of anonymity. The report is titled, “Civil Unrest in Washington AOR [Area of Responsibility] Following Death of George Floyd.” The report’s reference to “CHS” suggests that the Bureau possesses secret informants participating in the protests.
Asked about the report and why they’ve been unable to substantiate antifa involvement in the violence, the FBI’s Washington Field Office declined to comment.


thenation--2020-06-02--Military Leaders Have an Extraordinary Choice to Make as the Nation Protests

Modern warfare runs on PowerPoint .
Even those in the military who roll their eyes at slides demand them , because their bosses demand them , as do their bosses above them .
As an intelligence officer deployed abroad with special operations units , I was grudgingly responsible for more than my share of PowerPoint slides , always depicting in grainy imagery and bulleted text the situation on the ground in some remote village or compound somewhere .
That ’ s how we understood places like Afghanistan : in pictures copied and pasted from Google Earth and finicky text boxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which is to say , of course , that many of us had little understanding at all .
I thought of those slides when I saw their facsimiles in this magazine on Saturday , in a report that the military was producing intelligence reports on the protest movements in at least seven states .
The slides , leaked to The Nation by a Defense Department official concerned that soldiers were ill-prepared for the task at hand , looked much like the ones I used in Afghanistan and later East Africa .
Replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baraawe ” with “ Louisville , ” my hometown , and “ Columbus.
” When Trump stood in the Rose Garden Monday evening and threatened to deploy the US military into American cities—if governors , whom he called “ weak , ” refused to crack down—National Guardsmen were already deployed in the nation ’ s capital , clad in mismatched camouflage and gripping clumsy wooden batons .
It was a frightening scene , tempered slightly for me by the fact that I have known many of the young men and women behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather be home playing video games .
More terrifying , as police helicopters traced circles over Washington , D.C. , where I live , was the image of active-duty troops convoying into the streets and all the misunderstandings , miscalculations , and tragedy that could follow .
Social media erupted with speculation in response to Trump ’ s remarks : Could he do that ?
Many suggested the Posse Comitatus Act forbids it .
It does , in fact , not .
Posse Comitatus—passed originally in 1872 , ending the Army ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic use of federal troops .
But the Insurrection Act of 1807 provides a workaround , authorizing the president to employ federal troops to suppress “ rebellion ” and leaving him significant discretion to determine the circumstances under which this would be necessary .
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 by George H.W .
Bush , when Army and Marine units were deployed to Los Angeles at the request of California ’ s then-Governor Pete Wilson to help quell the Rodney King riots .
Nobody was killed as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M-16 rounds into a family home in Compton , thanks to a minor miscommunication with police , despite strict conditions governing the Marines ’ use of force .
It should go without saying that just because a president can use the military doesn ’ t mean he should .
Knowing this president , it ’ s unlikely he ’ ll hesitate to further escalate .
And so , it falls to those beneath him to make their own decisions to obey or defy Trump .
In the United States , when military officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than enlisted men and women .
Whereas enlisted servicemembers swear to “ obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me , ” officers swear their oath only to the Constitution .
Though all military members may disobey unlawful orders , the idea is that officers are not only empowered but obligated to refuse them .
A significant body of military thinking goes farther to say that officers should also disobey unjust or immoral orders .
( That is , an order may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
The oath , however , does not specify where the line falls ; officers must judge for themselves .
As a young officer , fresh out of Navy ROTC classes that encouraged reflection on this question , I often wondered if a moment would one day arrive when my conscience might obligate me to say “ no.
” But overwhelmingly I found myself in the company of senior officers whom I liked and trusted to lead my peers and me in the right direction—and perhaps to shield us from political tumult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The moral decision may seem simple on paper .
Less so , if you consider that a lost job for many service members could mean missed meals for their families , or that a court-martial or dishonorable discharge could carry lasting stigma .
But if ever there were a time to contemplate the personal sacrifices that disobeying orders might entail , it is now , when the very identities of America and the military that serves it are at question .
Any logical conversation about “ just ” use of force , laying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might begin with these questions : Is it necessary and proportional , and have all nonviolent options been exhausted ?
In this case , the president has not even attempted peaceful reconciliation , so we can not know if force is necessary .
For this reason , it was grotesque to watch Secretary of Defense Mark Esper , a retired Army lieutenant colonel , and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Mark Milley , walk alongside the president yesterday after peaceful protesters were beaten back with tear gas to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The leaders ’ presence suggested loudly that the military necessarily stands against the protesters who Trump so easily swatted out of his way .
Perhaps they agreed with the president ’ s tactics .
Perhaps they felt it wasn ’ t the right moment to challenge him .
Either way , they were wrong .
( To contrast , the Air Force ’ s senior-most enlisted leader offered an altogether more inspired take . )
I ’ ll suggest another reason disobedience might be warranted , which any military officer with more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should understand well : flawed and politically motivated intelligence .
Throughout the weekend , as cities all over the country grappled with unrest , Trump varyingly blamed , in sporadic tweets from the White House bunker , “ THUGS , ” “ ANTIFA , ” and the “ radical left.
” Yesterday , he labeled the protests and their accompanying violence “ domestic terror.
” But even a glancing review of the past days ’ events belies these claims .
In fact , the majority of protesters have been peaceful , with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media coverage and the national conversation .
Credible reports also suggest that right-wing instigators are to blame for some of the violence—when the cops aren ’ t attacking first .
For anyone willing to see it , it is clear that the federal government has no idea what ’ s going on in America ’ s streets—or , just as likely , that the men in charge are unwilling to see it .
Will US Military Leaders Ever Stand up to Trump ?
Flawed intelligence means a flawed view of the “ battlespace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weekend .
And already , this moment finds a military woefully disconnected from the public it serves .
( “ We ’ re at war while America is at the mall , ” the saying goes of the civilian-military divide that enables forever wars abroad . )
But American servicemen and women are not separate from the public .
They are part of it .
That is to say that today ’ s military is not made for the streets of America , if the American military ever has been .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training in dynamic domestic environments—and therefore a force , possibly , with little understanding at all .
That is not to the military ’ s discredit ; I left the military in 2017 and have deep respect for many of the men and women I met along the way .
It is to say instead that every officer in between the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the lowest private who might be called up to serve in America ’ s streets has a grave decision on their hands should the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Disobedience doesn ’ t have to mean wholly refusing to show up ; it works in smaller acts of resistance , too : insisting on de-escalation over escalation , for instance , even when police fail to do the same .
But then , there ’ s no manual for military disobedience .
The greatest responsibility , of course , sits with senior leaders .
Esper and Milley seem unlikely to rise to the occasion , so the cadre of leaders beneath them , the general staff that collectively might have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it is uttered , must find the courage to draw the line .
It ’ s one thing to be fired after 30-some years of service , another to be fired in your 20s .
But regardless of rank and no matter the consequences , officers in want of a reason to refuse the president in this historic moment needn ’ t look further than the false narratives justifying their mobilization .
I often heard in the Navy a truism that the military is best when it reflects the country it serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coin : cause for celebration when “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” was repealed , for example , and cause for shame in observing the persistent lack of diversity in the upper ranks .
The military is not perfect , and neither is America .
But when the order is given by this president to deploy to our cities , leaders will have a clear choice .
Will they reflect the real and diverse and grieving America , or something else ?

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?
Modern warfare runs on PowerPoint. Even those in the military who roll their eyes at slides demand them, because their bosses demand them, as do their bosses above them. As an intelligence officer deployed abroad with special operations units, I was grudgingly responsible for more than my share of PowerPoint slides, always depicting in grainy imagery and bulleted text the situation on the ground in some remote village or compound somewhere. That’s how we understood places like Afghanistan: in pictures copied and pasted from Google Earth and finicky text boxes that never quite aligned with each other.
Which is to say, of course, that many of us had little understanding at all.
I thought of those slides when I saw their facsimiles in this magazine on Saturday, in a report that the military was producing intelligence reports on the protest movements in at least seven states. The slides, leaked to The Nation by a Defense Department official concerned that soldiers were ill-prepared for the task at hand, looked much like the ones I used in Afghanistan and later East Africa. Replace words like “Kabul” and “Baraawe” with “Louisville,” my hometown, and “Columbus.”
When Trump stood in the Rose Garden Monday evening and threatened to deploy the US military into American cities—if governors, whom he called “weak,” refused to crack down—National Guardsmen were already deployed in the nation’s capital, clad in mismatched camouflage and gripping clumsy wooden batons. It was a frightening scene, tempered slightly for me by the fact that I have known many of the young men and women behind the uniforms and felt certain that most would rather be home playing video games. More terrifying, as police helicopters traced circles over Washington, D.C., where I live, was the image of active-duty troops convoying into the streets and all the misunderstandings, miscalculations, and tragedy that could follow.
Social media erupted with speculation in response to Trump’s remarks: Could he do that? Many suggested the Posse Comitatus Act forbids it. It does, in fact, not.
Posse Comitatus—passed originally in 1872, ending the Army’s occupation of formerly Confederate Southern states—does limit domestic use of federal troops. But the Insurrection Act of 1807 provides a workaround, authorizing the president to employ federal troops to suppress “rebellion” and leaving him significant discretion to determine the circumstances under which this would be necessary. The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 by George H.W. Bush, when Army and Marine units were deployed to Los Angeles at the request of California’s then-Governor Pete Wilson to help quell the Rodney King riots. Nobody was killed as a result of their deployment—but Marines did unload over 200 M-16 rounds into a family home in Compton, thanks to a minor miscommunication with police, despite strict conditions governing the Marines’ use of force. 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
It should go without saying that just because a president can use the military doesn’t mean he should. Knowing this president, it’s unlikely he’ll hesitate to further escalate. And so, it falls to those beneath him to make their own decisions to obey or defy Trump. Current Issue View our current issue
In the United States, when military officers are commissioned, they take different oaths than enlisted men and women. Whereas enlisted servicemembers swear to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,” officers swear their oath only to the Constitution. Though all military members may disobey unlawful orders, the idea is that officers are not only empowered but obligated to refuse them.
A significant body of military thinking goes farther to say that officers should also disobey unjust or immoral orders. (That is, an order may be both lawful and unjust or immoral.) The oath, however, does not specify where the line falls; officers must judge for themselves.
As a young officer, fresh out of Navy ROTC classes that encouraged reflection on this question, I often wondered if a moment would one day arrive when my conscience might obligate me to say “no.” But overwhelmingly I found myself in the company of senior officers whom I liked and trusted to lead my peers and me in the right direction—and perhaps to shield us from political tumult higher in the chain of command.
The moral decision may seem simple on paper. Less so, if you consider that a lost job for many service members could mean missed meals for their families, or that a court-martial or dishonorable discharge could carry lasting stigma. But if ever there were a time to contemplate the personal sacrifices that disobeying orders might entail, it is now, when the very identities of America and the military that serves it are at question.
Any logical conversation about “just” use of force, laying aside the facts on the ground, might begin with these questions: Is it necessary and proportional, and have all nonviolent options been exhausted? In this case, the president has not even attempted peaceful reconciliation, so we cannot know if force is necessary. For this reason, it was grotesque to watch Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, walk alongside the president yesterday after peaceful protesters were beaten back with tear gas to make way for a vainglorious photo op. The leaders’ presence suggested loudly that the military necessarily stands against the protesters who Trump so easily swatted out of his way. Perhaps they agreed with the president’s tactics. Perhaps they felt it wasn’t the right moment to challenge him. Either way, they were wrong. (To contrast, the Air Force’s senior-most enlisted leader offered an altogether more inspired take.)
I’ll suggest another reason disobedience might be warranted, which any military officer with more than a decade of service under their belt should understand well: flawed and politically motivated intelligence.
Throughout the weekend, as cities all over the country grappled with unrest, Trump varyingly blamed, in sporadic tweets from the White House bunker, “THUGS,” “ANTIFA,” and the “radical left.” Yesterday, he labeled the protests and their accompanying violence “domestic terror.” But even a glancing review of the past days’ events belies these claims. In fact, the majority of protesters have been peaceful, with no part in the looting that unfortunately dominates media coverage and the national conversation. Credible reports also suggest that right-wing instigators are to blame for some of the violence—when the cops aren’t attacking first. For anyone willing to see it, it is clear that the federal government has no idea what’s going on in America’s streets—or, just as likely, that the men in charge are unwilling to see it. The Brass Will US Military Leaders Ever Stand up to Trump? Tyson Manker
Flawed intelligence means a flawed view of the “battlespace,” as Esper described America over the weekend. And already, this moment finds a military woefully disconnected from the public it serves. (“We’re at war while America is at the mall,” the saying goes of the civilian-military divide that enables forever wars abroad.) But American servicemen and women are not separate from the public. They are part of it.
That is to say that today’s military is not made for the streets of America, if the American military ever has been. It is a military with PowerPoints and scant training in dynamic domestic environments—and therefore a force, possibly, with little understanding at all.
That is not to the military’s discredit; I left the military in 2017 and have deep respect for many of the men and women I met along the way. It is to say instead that every officer in between the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the lowest private who might be called up to serve in America’s streets has a grave decision on their hands should the president point them at the American people. Disobedience doesn’t have to mean wholly refusing to show up; it works in smaller acts of resistance, too: insisting on de-escalation over escalation, for instance, even when police fail to do the same. But then, there’s no manual for military disobedience.
The greatest responsibility, of course, sits with senior leaders. Esper and Milley seem unlikely to rise to the occasion, so the cadre of leaders beneath them, the general staff that collectively might have the power to halt an order as soon as it is uttered, must find the courage to draw the line. It’s one thing to be fired after 30-some years of service, another to be fired in your 20s. But regardless of rank and no matter the consequences, officers in want of a reason to refuse the president in this historic moment needn’t look further than the false narratives justifying their mobilization.
I often heard in the Navy a truism that the military is best when it reflects the country it serves. The words were two sides of a coin: cause for celebration when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed, for example, and cause for shame in observing the persistent lack of diversity in the upper ranks. The military is not perfect, and neither is America. But when the order is given by this president to deploy to our cities, leaders will have a clear choice. Will they reflect the real and diverse and grieving America, or something else?


thenation--2020-06-02--The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Will Go Full Authoritarian—It’s How We’ll Respond

Yesterday evening , President Donald Trump ordered mounted units of the National Guard and US Park Police to march on a peaceful gathering of his fellow citizens .
Those units , unprovoked , launched tear gas at the retreating protesters .
The assault was carried out live on television .
As we learned shortly after , the constitutional rights of the citizens and press were violated so the president could pose for a picture while waving a Bible outside St. John ’ s Episcopal Church .
Before the photo opportunity ( it does not appear that Trump actually opened the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech in the Rose Garden .
Trump , who was impeached for abuse of power and has ignored multiple congressional subpoenas , falsely declared himself a “ law-and-order president.
” He then threatened violence against Americans and protesters—and threatened to deploy the military on American soil to conduct local police actions over the objection of state and local authorities .
Instead of trying to heal the country , Trump threatened to use the military against the country .
“ If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them , ” he said .
In fact , Trump has already deployed heavily armed federal personnel to Washington , D.C .
The town handles protests more professionally than most in the country , but Trump is easily frightened , and D.C. residents were long ago robbed of their civil rights .
The district isn ’ t even allowed a governor to try to protect them .
As has become customary after each grotesque , new low plumbed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrambled to find legal justifications for Trump ’ s actions since he did not bother to provide them himself .
Perhaps , they theorized , the Insurrection Act gives Trump the power to deploy “ thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers , military personnel and law enforcement officers ” over the objection of state governors .
Right-wing pundits posited that peaceful protesters should have listened to warnings before Trump sent troops galloping toward them in a hail of tear gas and fireworks .
It ’ s like we ’ re being robbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to haggle over how much money we owe the mugger .
There is only one truth left to wrestle with : It does not matter if what Trump is doing is legal .
It does not matter if what he ’ s doing is constitutional .
It doesn ’ t matter , because nobody is going to stop him .
We had our chance to prosecute him , but Robert Mueller decided that the Office of Legal Counsel ’ s suggestion that the president could not be prosecuted while in office was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Mueller testified that he ’ d found 10 instances of obstruction of justice , and nobody did anything because Mueller looked really old on television ?
We had our chance to remove Trump from office , but 52 Republican senators refused to convict him or even call witnesses during their “ trial.
” Remember how the media has let every day since February 5 pass without asking people like Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski to justify their craven decision to place Trump beyond accountability ?
Trump has been told that he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be removed .
He ’ s been shown that the media will repeat and amplify his message , even when his messages are filled with demonstrable lies that contribute to the deaths of over 100,000 Americans .
He straight-up refuses to acknowledge the authority of the other branches of government that are meant to check his power .
He ’ s turned former critics , like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz , into mewling sycophants .
And he ’ s convinced the opposition party to pin its hopes on a future election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does , certainly won ’ t happen without foreign interference and industrial-strength voter suppression .
And nobody has stopped him .
Nobody is even really trying to stop him anymore .
Those who want him stopped are just kind of waiting and hoping he goes away .
Maybe on January 20 , 2021 , he ’ ll just leave , and we can get back to having a society .
He won ’ t just leave .
He won ’ t leave unless the men with guns—the armed agents of the federal government—make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of protests is going to tell us if there is any hope of those men doing the right thing .
Right now , it sure looks like the men with guns will fold to Trump ’ s will just as cravenly and pathetically as everybody else .
The only thing that could have stopped Trump from ordering those national guardsmen to ride down peaceful protesters and shoot them with tear gas would have been the guardsmen themselves .
They could have refused to carry out the order .
Instead , they marched on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Blasio Has Failed the Test of This Moment People Can Only Bear So Much Injustice Before Lashing Out There ’ s Only One Possible Conclusion : White America Likes Its Killer Cops I expect other military units will act the same .
I expect the military will choose the strong man over the right one every time .
If the military is told to occupy New York City or Los Angeles , they ’ ll go .
If they ’ re told to secure the streets , in violation of the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll do it .
If they ’ re told to round up and arrest protesters , or members of the press , they ’ ll do it .
They won ’ t even have to open fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians—the threat that one of them might is more than enough to vitiate any pretense of constitutional democracy .
Trump is beyond the rule of law now .
Republicans have placed him there , and armed men keep him there .
People have to think through what that means , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above the law , using all the peaceful tools ( always the peaceful tools ) available to us .
If history is any guide , there ’ s no simple option .
The only way to stop a brutish demagogue like Trump , the only way men like that have ever been stopped , is by people who are willing to lay down their lives to do so .
Who is going to be our Hero of Tiananmen , our Unknown Rebel who stands in front of the tanks when they come rolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be our John Lewis and get their skull fractured as Trump Troopers hurl projectiles at peace ?
Who wants to be Thich Quang Duc ?
Lots of people are willing to fight this administration ; how many are willing to sacrifice their lives opposing it ?
Not me .
Not yet .
I think I could stay in jail just long enough to get a really cool-looking tattoo , but then I ’ d be ready to go home .
I don ’ t know that I can give what Abraham Lincoln @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devotion ” to my cause .
And , more than that , I ’ m afraid that even if I did , it wouldn ’ t matter .
Lots of martyrs have died in vain .
Nobody has stopped Trump .
I don ’ t think any single person can .
But the question is no longer whether Trump “ can ” do something ; the only relevant question is what we are prepared to do when he does it .
How much of ourselves are we willing to give ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s the one authoritarians always get around to asking .
It is the question Trump keeps asking the country .
He assumes we ’ ll continue to flub the answer .

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?
Yesterday evening, President Donald Trump ordered mounted units of the National Guard and US Park Police to march on a peaceful gathering of his fellow citizens. Those units, unprovoked, launched tear gas at the retreating protesters. The assault was carried out live on television. As we learned shortly after, the constitutional rights of the citizens and press were violated so the president could pose for a picture while waving a Bible outside St. John’s Episcopal Church.
Before the photo opportunity (it does not appear that Trump actually opened the Bible), the president gave a speech in the Rose Garden. Trump, who was impeached for abuse of power and has ignored multiple congressional subpoenas, falsely declared himself a “law-and-order president.” He then threatened violence against Americans and protesters—and threatened to deploy the military on American soil to conduct local police actions over the objection of state and local authorities. Instead of trying to heal the country, Trump threatened to use the military against the country. “If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” he said.
In fact, Trump has already deployed heavily armed federal personnel to Washington, D.C. The town handles protests more professionally than most in the country, but Trump is easily frightened, and D.C. residents were long ago robbed of their civil rights. The district isn’t even allowed a governor to try to protect them.
As has become customary after each grotesque, new low plumbed by this administration, media outlets and commentators scrambled to find legal justifications for Trump’s actions since he did not bother to provide them himself. Perhaps, they theorized, the Insurrection Act gives Trump the power to deploy “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers” over the objection of state governors. Right-wing pundits posited that peaceful protesters should have listened to warnings before Trump sent troops galloping toward them in a hail of tear gas and fireworks. It’s like we’re being robbed at gunpoint and we’re trying to haggle over how much money we owe the mugger.
There is only one truth left to wrestle with: It does not matter if what Trump is doing is legal. It does not matter if what he’s doing is constitutional. It doesn’t matter, because nobody is going to stop him.
We had our chance to prosecute him, but Robert Mueller decided that the Office of Legal Counsel’s suggestion that the president could not be prosecuted while in office was an ironclad principle. Remember that? Remember when Mueller testified that he’d found 10 instances of obstruction of justice, and nobody did anything because Mueller looked really old on television? 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
We had our chance to remove Trump from office, but 52 Republican senators refused to convict him or even call witnesses during their “trial.” Remember how the media has let every day since February 5 pass without asking people like Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski to justify their craven decision to place Trump beyond accountability? Current Issue View our current issue
Trump has been told that he can’t be prosecuted and won’t be removed. He’s been shown that the media will repeat and amplify his message, even when his messages are filled with demonstrable lies that contribute to the deaths of over 100,000 Americans. He straight-up refuses to acknowledge the authority of the other branches of government that are meant to check his power. He’s turned former critics, like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, into mewling sycophants. And he’s convinced the opposition party to pin its hopes on a future election that might never happen—and, if it does, certainly won’t happen without foreign interference and industrial-strength voter suppression.
And nobody has stopped him. Nobody is even really trying to stop him anymore. Those who want him stopped are just kind of waiting and hoping he goes away. Maybe on January 20, 2021, he’ll just leave, and we can get back to having a society.
He won’t just leave. He won’t leave unless the men with guns—the armed agents of the federal government—make him leave. And this upcoming week of protests is going to tell us if there is any hope of those men doing the right thing.
Right now, it sure looks like the men with guns will fold to Trump’s will just as cravenly and pathetically as everybody else. The only thing that could have stopped Trump from ordering those national guardsmen to ride down peaceful protesters and shoot them with tear gas would have been the guardsmen themselves. They could have refused to carry out the order. Instead, they marched on a peaceful, unarmed crowd. More from Mystal Bill de Blasio Has Failed the Test of This Moment Elie Mystal People Can Only Bear So Much Injustice Before Lashing Out Elie Mystal There’s Only One Possible Conclusion: White America Likes Its Killer Cops Elie Mystal
I expect other military units will act the same. I expect the military will choose the strong man over the right one every time. If the military is told to occupy New York City or Los Angeles, they’ll go. If they’re told to secure the streets, in violation of the constitutional right to peaceable assembly, they’ll do it. If they’re told to round up and arrest protesters, or members of the press, they’ll do it. They won’t even have to open fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians—the threat that one of them might is more than enough to vitiate any pretense of constitutional democracy.
Trump is beyond the rule of law now. Republicans have placed him there, and armed men keep him there. People have to think through what that means, about how to stop a man who is above the law, using all the peaceful tools (always the peaceful tools) available to us.
If history is any guide, there’s no simple option. The only way to stop a brutish demagogue like Trump, the only way men like that have ever been stopped, is by people who are willing to lay down their lives to do so. Who is going to be our Hero of Tiananmen, our Unknown Rebel who stands in front of the tanks when they come rolling through Times Square? Who is going to be our John Lewis and get their skull fractured as Trump Troopers hurl projectiles at peace? Who wants to be Thich Quang Duc? Lots of people are willing to fight this administration; how many are willing to sacrifice their lives opposing it?
Not me. Not yet. I think I could stay in jail just long enough to get a really cool-looking tattoo, but then I’d be ready to go home. I don’t know that I can give what Abraham Lincoln called the “last full measure of devotion” to my cause. And, more than that, I’m afraid that even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. Lots of martyrs have died in vain.
Nobody has stopped Trump. I don’t think any single person can. But the question is no longer whether Trump “can” do something; the only relevant question is what we are prepared to do when he does it. How much of ourselves are we willing to give?
It’s not an easy question to answer, but it’s the one authoritarians always get around to asking. It is the question Trump keeps asking the country.
He assumes we’ll continue to flub the answer.


thenation--2020-06-02--We Really Need to Tax the Rich

We Really Need to Tax the Rich

Every big idea cherished by progressives—including the Green New Deal , Medicare for All , universal child care , and tuition-free college—requires massive government spending and a robust regulatory structure .
None of these urgent proposals will come to fruition without the ability to reverse four decades of withering austerity by raising taxes on corporations and the superrich .
For the past 45 years , right-wing culture warriors and the corporate elite have united around one simple concept that enables them to achieve their agenda : cutting taxes on themselves and dismantling the enforcement powers of every agency dedicated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public education , the environment , and labor .
Rather than rely on presidential candidates as our saviors or endlessly revise utopian policy proposals , it is crucial that we examine which strategies , led by whom , are winning and why.1 In November 2012 , after two years of devastating budget cuts brought on by the Wall Street–induced Great Recession , a multiracial coalition of membership-based community organizations in California teamed up with forward-thinking unions and did the unthinkable : By 55 to 45 percent , it won a statewide ballot initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign began , it proposed an increase in the personal income tax rate for people earning $ 1 million or more annually .
In the back-and-forth of power and politics , a last-minute negotiation to win the support of then-Governor Jerry Brown resulted in a compromise : a personal income tax increase on people earning more than $ 250,000 coupled with a 0.25 percentage point increase in the sales tax .
Although the grassroots coalition ’ s original proposal was for purely progressive taxation , the deal reached with the governor to include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure into the win column .
Framed as a response to the fiscal crisis , these tax increases were temporary ; both were scheduled to sunset after several years.2 In 2016 the coalition returned , proposing and winning a second ballot initiative that extended the tax on the rich until 2030 and ended the sales tax increase .
The revenue from those 2012 tax increases alone took California from being on the precipice of disaster , deep in the red and gutting public services , to having a rainy day fund that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolstered by the 2016 extension of the tax hike on the rich .
It was this coalition of grassroots , membership-led community groups and unions that gave California the fiscal ability to act and be seen as the resistance to Donald Trump ’ s agenda.3 This group of capable organizers , rooted in structure-based organizations in the workplace and in the community , composed of many groups whose leaders and members are overwhelmingly women and people of color , is now attempting the unthinkable : challenging Proposition 13 , passed by California voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the very law that launched the nationwide anti-tax movement , directly contributing to the destruction of public education and public everything-else-good , and exacerbating wealth and power inequality by gutting the vital services to low-income families that help them climb into the middle class .
If these twice-successful anti-austerity organizers succeed , they will set the stage for community-based organizations and unions nationwide to tax corporations and the superrich , thus increasing our chances of actually winning on the progressive policies that pile up year after year with no hope of ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore , the first president of the virulently anti-tax conservative political machine known as the Club for Growth , in an opinion he penned in 1998 as the fiscal policy chief at the Cato Institute:5 Proposition 13 rolled back property taxes to 1975 levels and then capped them at 1 percent of the property ’ s assessed value , taking a slow-moving , often hard-to-see wrecking ball to funding for public schools and city and county budgets .
In addition , deploying right-wing strategic savvy in going for structural long-term change rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s Constitution , henceforth requiring any state tax increase to pass by a minimum two-thirds vote in the legislature and any local tax initiatives to get approval from at least two-thirds of voters .
Meanwhile , cutting taxes requires only a simple majority .
( Statewide ballot initiatives like the one that raised taxes on the rich in 2012 also require only a simple majority , but getting an initiative on the ballot entails a whole other set of legal hurdles and organizing expenses . )
7 Anthony Thigpenn , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millionaire tax and its extension , is now spearheading the challenge to Prop 13 , called the Schools and Communities First ballot initiative .
As he notes , “ The passage of Prop 13 was part of the racist backlash to the social movements of the ’ 60s , the battles to desegregate schools , and the large-scale entry of workers of color into unionized public sector jobs.
” The conservative movement behind the measure campaigned on saving Californians money , but the very same players behind Prop 13 were also resisting fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school integration .
Its real objectives were clearly racist.8 The genius of Schools and Communities First is that it focuses exclusively on closing a giant corporate loophole that never should have been part of the original law , by removing commercial property from Prop 13 ’ s protections .
Called a split-roll initiative , the measure will result in $ 12 billion being funneled back into public schools and local governments .
And if this measure was important in the pre-Covid-19 days , it ’ s crucial now .
Says Thigpenn , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic crisis , the strategic significance is that rather than accepting austerity budgets , which increase economic and racial inequality , we are challenging corporate dominance and providing resources for schools and communities with a racial justice lens.
” 9 To explain its repeated success in what few progressives have achieved—taxing corporations and the rich and renewing the public sector ’ s funding base—the coalition points to its political analysis , which holds that economic , gender , and racial justice are inseparable , and its strategy , which combines serious political education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base .
Rather than pop up every four years , spend a lot of money , and then shut down ( as far too many electoral campaigns do ) , these organizations have worked consistently on expanding the universe of people they can mobilize when it ’ s time to turn out the vote.10 New Beginnings : Time to Think Big !
More in this series The labor unions key to this effort all have memberships rooted in the mission-driven sector of today ’ s service economy : the California Teachers Association , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the California State Council of the Service Employees International Union .
And dozens of membership-based community groups—often dismissed by the national players—have coalesced into the California Calls coalition .
On the union side , some of the earliest supporters came from the leadership of United Teachers of Los Angeles , whose 34,000 members waged an incredibly successful all-out strike in 2019 .
The impetus to get the statewide education unions behind these efforts began with progressive teacher-leaders in UTLA in 2011 and continued last year with another major education union that waged and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education Association .
Across the state , local unions and community-based groups work together to determine who has the strongest base in a given area , taking assignments for critical voter education work in order to complement one another ’ s efforts .
Instead of wasting time and resources by talking to the same voters , this approach allows the coalition ’ s members to spread their resources strategically.11 For progressives across the nation , the lesson from these efforts in California is clear : To win , we need a long view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , neither the unions nor the community-based groups could have won in 2012 or 2016 ; to win in 2020 , it will likewise require deep and honest collaboration .
The unions involved are ones that have real relationships , not merely transactional ones , with their rank and file .
The community-based groups , too , have membership bases in which ordinary people exercise real agency ; they are not advocacy groups that merely speak on behalf of the poor .
To win all across America , to stand a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will require commitment by unions that have first learned to rebuild their supermajority strike muscle , carrying their big numbers and organization into supermajority political participation .
It will also require forging real partnerships with bottom-up , community-based organizations that have been all but ignored by the big foundations and big donors .
Winning , in short , is not about shortcuts ; it ’ s about deep organizing.12

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.
This article appears in the June 15/22, 2020 issue.
Every big idea cherished by progressives—including the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, universal child care, and tuition-free college—requires massive government spending and a robust regulatory structure. None of these urgent proposals will come to fruition without the ability to reverse four decades of withering austerity by raising taxes on corporations and the superrich. For the past 45 years, right-wing culture warriors and the corporate elite have united around one simple concept that enables them to achieve their agenda: cutting taxes on themselves and dismantling the enforcement powers of every agency dedicated to anything good, including civil rights, public education, the environment, and labor. Rather than rely on presidential candidates as our saviors or endlessly revise utopian policy proposals, it is crucial that we examine which strategies, led by whom, are winning and why.1
In November 2012, after two years of devastating budget cuts brought on by the Wall Street–induced Great Recession, a multiracial coalition of membership-based community organizations in California teamed up with forward-thinking unions and did the unthinkable: By 55 to 45 percent, it won a statewide ballot initiative that would increase taxes. When the campaign began, it proposed an increase in the personal income tax rate for people earning $1 million or more annually. In the back-and-forth of power and politics, a last-minute negotiation to win the support of then-Governor Jerry Brown resulted in a compromise: a personal income tax increase on people earning more than $250,000 coupled with a 0.25 percentage point increase in the sales tax. Although the grassroots coalition’s original proposal was for purely progressive taxation, the deal reached with the governor to include a regressive sales tax increase helped push the measure into the win column. Framed as a response to the fiscal crisis, these tax increases were temporary; both were scheduled to sunset after several years.2
In 2016 the coalition returned, proposing and winning a second ballot initiative that extended the tax on the rich until 2030 and ended the sales tax increase. The revenue from those 2012 tax increases alone took California from being on the precipice of disaster, deep in the red and gutting public services, to having a rainy day fund that has enjoyed robust reserves since then, bolstered by the 2016 extension of the tax hike on the rich. It was this coalition of grassroots, membership-led community groups and unions that gave California the fiscal ability to act and be seen as the resistance to Donald Trump’s agenda.3
This group of capable organizers, rooted in structure-based organizations in the workplace and in the community, composed of many groups whose leaders and members are overwhelmingly women and people of color, is now attempting the unthinkable: challenging Proposition 13, passed by California voters more than four decades ago. This is the very law that launched the nationwide anti-tax movement, directly contributing to the destruction of public education and public everything-else-good, and exacerbating wealth and power inequality by gutting the vital services to low-income families that help them climb into the middle class. If these twice-successful anti-austerity organizers succeed, they will set the stage for community-based organizations and unions nationwide to tax corporations and the superrich, thus increasing our chances of actually winning on the progressive policies that pile up year after year with no hope of ever being put into practice.4 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
According to Stephen Moore, the first president of the virulently anti-tax conservative political machine known as the Club for Growth, in an opinion he penned in 1998 as the fiscal policy chief at the Cato Institute:5
Political analysts often argue about when the modern-day conservative movement in America began. Some say that it began with Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964. Others say it began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I believe that the conservative, anti-big-government tide in America began 20 years ago with the passage of…Proposition 13 in California. Proposition 13 was a political earthquake…. It also incited a nationwide tax revolt at the state and local levels. Within five years of Proposition 13’s passage, nearly half the states strapped a similar straitjacket on politicians’ tax-raising capabilities.6
Proposition 13 rolled back property taxes to 1975 levels and then capped them at 1 percent of the property’s assessed value, taking a slow-moving, often hard-to-see wrecking ball to funding for public schools and city and county budgets. In addition, deploying right-wing strategic savvy in going for structural long-term change rather than short-term gain, the proposition amended the state’s Constitution, henceforth requiring any state tax increase to pass by a minimum two-thirds vote in the legislature and any local tax initiatives to get approval from at least two-thirds of voters. Meanwhile, cutting taxes requires only a simple majority. (Statewide ballot initiatives like the one that raised taxes on the rich in 2012 also require only a simple majority, but getting an initiative on the ballot entails a whole other set of legal hurdles and organizing expenses.)7 Current Issue View our current issue
Anthony Thigpenn, a longtime organizer and the brains behind the millionaire tax and its extension, is now spearheading the challenge to Prop 13, called the Schools and Communities First ballot initiative. As he notes, “The passage of Prop 13 was part of the racist backlash to the social movements of the ’60s, the battles to desegregate schools, and the large-scale entry of workers of color into unionized public sector jobs.” The conservative movement behind the measure campaigned on saving Californians money, but the very same players behind Prop 13 were also resisting fair housing laws, school busing, and school integration. Its real objectives were clearly racist.8
The genius of Schools and Communities First is that it focuses exclusively on closing a giant corporate loophole that never should have been part of the original law, by removing commercial property from Prop 13’s protections. Called a split-roll initiative, the measure will result in $12 billion being funneled back into public schools and local governments. And if this measure was important in the pre-Covid-19 days, it’s crucial now. Says Thigpenn, “In this time of deep health and economic crisis, the strategic significance is that rather than accepting austerity budgets, which increase economic and racial inequality, we are challenging corporate dominance and providing resources for schools and communities with a racial justice lens.”9
Taxing behavior: California’s then-Governor Jerry Brown at a 2012 rally to pass Proposition 30, which imposed a state surtax on high-income earners. (Eric Risberg / AP Photo)
To explain its repeated success in what few progressives have achieved—taxing corporations and the rich and renewing the public sector’s funding base—the coalition points to its political analysis, which holds that economic, gender, and racial justice are inseparable, and its strategy, which combines serious political education and deep organizing to expand its rank-and-file base. Rather than pop up every four years, spend a lot of money, and then shut down (as far too many electoral campaigns do), these organizations have worked consistently on expanding the universe of people they can mobilize when it’s time to turn out the vote.10 Labor Organizing Inflation Is Falling. So Why Are the Fiscal Austerians Back in the Headlines? Marshall Auerback Is This a Form of Capitalism Progressives Can Embrace? Katrina vanden Heuvel NIH Fellows Win Recognition as Workers With the Right to Join a Union Peter Lucas
The labor unions key to this effort all have memberships rooted in the mission-driven sector of today’s service economy: the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California State Council of the Service Employees International Union. And dozens of membership-based community groups—often dismissed by the national players—have coalesced into the California Calls coalition. On the union side, some of the earliest supporters came from the leadership of United Teachers of Los Angeles, whose 34,000 members waged an incredibly successful all-out strike in 2019. The impetus to get the statewide education unions behind these efforts began with progressive teacher-leaders in UTLA in 2011 and continued last year with another major education union that waged and won a successful strike, the Oakland Education Association. Across the state, local unions and community-based groups work together to determine who has the strongest base in a given area, taking assignments for critical voter education work in order to complement one another’s efforts. Instead of wasting time and resources by talking to the same voters, this approach allows the coalition’s members to spread their resources strategically.11
For progressives across the nation, the lesson from these efforts in California is clear: To win, we need a long view, not an electoral-cycle view. Alone, neither the unions nor the community-based groups could have won in 2012 or 2016; to win in 2020, it will likewise require deep and honest collaboration. The unions involved are ones that have real relationships, not merely transactional ones, with their rank and file. The community-based groups, too, have membership bases in which ordinary people exercise real agency; they are not advocacy groups that merely speak on behalf of the poor. To win all across America, to stand a chance to push back against massive Covid austerity, will require commitment by unions that have first learned to rebuild their supermajority strike muscle, carrying their big numbers and organization into supermajority political participation. It will also require forging real partnerships with bottom-up, community-based organizations that have been all but ignored by the big foundations and big donors. Winning, in short, is not about shortcuts; it’s about deep organizing.12


thenation--2020-06-02--Time to Fundamentally Rethink What Trump Means by Security

With American cities in flames , over 100,000 struck down by the pandemic , and more than 40 million losing their jobs , President Trump decided now is the perfect time to announce the United States ’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization .
“ The U.S. government has gone rogue at a time of humanitarian emergency , ” summarized the editor of the medical journal The Lancet .
The minority of Americans who elected Trump wanted someone who would shake things up .
The challenge for his successor will be how to dig out from the rubble .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball on the institutions of the “ liberal international order.
” He has withdrawn not only from the WHO but also from the Paris climate accord , multilateral trade arrangements , and the Iran nuclear deal .
He ’ s in the process of abandoning nuclear weapons arms control agreements while boasting of a new nuclear arms race .
He ’ s continued the endless wars in the Middle East , flip-flopped on announced withdrawals and expanded the relentless drone bombings .
After targeting Iran and Venezuela for regime change , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China—and possibly Russia .
Last month , more than 50 liberal and progressive groups penned an open letter to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , calling for him to embrace “ a more principled foreign policy , one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism.
” Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
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?
With American cities in flames, over 100,000 struck down by the pandemic, and more than 40 million losing their jobs, President Trump decided now is the perfect time to announce the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization. “The U.S. government has gone rogue at a time of humanitarian emergency,” summarized the editor of the medical journal The Lancet. The minority of Americans who elected Trump wanted someone who would shake things up. The challenge for his successor will be how to dig out from the rubble.
In foreign policy, Trump unleashed a wrecking ball on the institutions of the “liberal international order.” He has withdrawn not only from the WHO but also from the Paris climate accord, multilateral trade arrangements, and the Iran nuclear deal. He’s in the process of abandoning nuclear weapons arms control agreements while boasting of a new nuclear arms race. He’s continued the endless wars in the Middle East, flip-flopped on announced withdrawals and expanded the relentless drone bombings. After targeting Iran and Venezuela for regime change, he’s now gearing up for new confrontations with China—and possibly Russia.
Last month, more than 50 liberal and progressive groups penned an open letter to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, calling for him to embrace “a more principled foreign policy, one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism.”
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-06-02--Letters From the June 15/22, 2020, Issue

Jennifer Wilson ’ s review of Charles King ’ s Gods of the Upper Air [ “ The Circle , ” May 18/25 ] missed important aspects of the work of anthropologist Franz Boas and his students .
Their goal was less to “ explain human diversity ” than to understand the unfamiliar on its own terms , with cultural learning rather than biology as the main causal factor .
Of the group , only Zora Neale Hurston receives praise , for her contribution to “ literary anthropology , ” but blaming other Boasians for making racism “ more palatable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nonsense .
Perhaps Oscar Lewis ’ s concept of a “ culture of poverty ” was used in that way by politicians , but the main thrust of Boas and his students was the creation of scholarly work that embraced relativism over ethnocentrism and rejected race as an explanation for cultural development .
To blame them for “ liberal racism , ” whatever that may be , is simply wrong .
ignore this Philip K. Bock Emeritus Professor of Anthropology , University of New Mexico albuquerque Wilson ’ s review of Gods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insights into Boas and his most eminent anthropology students at Columbia in the 1920s but is wearyingly of our time .
Discounting King ’ s praise for the group ’ s salutary effect on prevalent American prejudices , Wilson observes in the manner of almost any respectable academic scholarship of recent decades , “ It becomes clear that their ideas about culture and cultural differences were not as distinct as they imagined from the notions of racial difference they sought to overturn.
” I don ’ t doubt it .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it shouldn ’ t be the main point .
Like all of us , they were to a large extent prisoners of their era .
To me , what is interesting is the degree to which they weren ’ t .
Ruth Benedict ’ s most widely read book , Patterns of Culture , which Wilson doesn ’ t mention , is a truly liberating and mind-expanding work .
Her scholarship has been criticized for its deficiencies but , to my knowledge , has not been debunked .
Benedict ’ s book is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalize our presuppositions proceeds from our culture and not from human nature per se .
Re “ Organizing on the Coasts Won ’ t Save the Planet ” [ by Jane Fleming Kleeb , May 4/11 ] : Windmills are so beautiful ?
Those coastal aesthetes have to be kidding .
One or two in isolation and seen from a slight distance might be , but scores or hundreds , all too near the road and extending sometimes for miles , are as ugly as any other industrial excrescence .
I would bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in cookie-cutter suburbs and have routinely referred to “ flyover country ” ever since they first heard the phrase .
They have never been there , and they have no knowledge of the beauty of a landscape under a vast sky that stretches from one uncluttered horizon to the other .
They do not care whether that is spoiled , since it ’ s not in their backyard .
Windmills may be necessary .
The Midwest may be a good place for them .
But don ’ t try to justify foisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re offering some sort of aesthetic gift .
Arrogant ignorance will not foster the alliances Kleeb rightly says are needed .
It was a pleasure reading Elie Mystal ’ s treatment of the Supreme Court justices in the current controversy over the court ’ s procedures during this period of social distancing [ “ Lights , Camera , SCOTUS !
” May 18/25 ] .
He makes an excellent case for the Supreme Court to be treated just like any other political organization , which it most certainly is , despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law to create an aura of mystery and an existence separate from and above the rest of society .
Mystal ’ s article is timely and sheds much-needed light into the dark recesses of the practice of law .
“ Woe unto you , lawyers !
” ( Luke 11:52 ) , for the public is catching on to the game .
The Road Already Taken When I was a kid , my mother would leave us a note before going to work .
We called these her “ or else ” notes—straighten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or else ; vacuum the carpet before I get home , or else .
In “ Can Biden Go Left ?
” [ May 4/11 ] , D.D .
Guttenplan writes that Joe Biden needs to disown his past concern with balanced budgets , needs to amend his relationship with the Latinx community , and needs to show he understands that returning to the past in terms of our broken health care system is no longer an option .
There was no need to ask my mother what “ or else ” meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or else ” implied in Guttenplan ’ s editorial ?
If it ’ s a threat , do we really want to go down that road again ?
Re “ The Extinction Crisis Comes Home ” [ Jimmy Tobias , May 4/11 ] , about the San Francisco Bay ecosystem : Beyond the region ’ s fisheries , another tragedy begs mentioning .
After the earthquake of 1906 , the spectacular Hetch Hetchy Valley , which was created by the Tuolumne River and is part of Yosemite National Park , was dammed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of a national park and a catalyst for the environmental movement .
The naturalist John Muir wrote of the devastation , “ Dam Hetch Hetchy !
As well dam for water-tanks the people ’ s cathedrals and churches , for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man .
”

This article appears in the June 15/22, 2020 issue.
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?
Don’t Blame the Boasians
Jennifer Wilson’s review of Charles King’s Gods of the Upper Air [“The Circle,” May 18/25] missed important aspects of the work of anthropologist Franz Boas and his students. Their goal was less to “explain human diversity” than to understand the unfamiliar on its own terms, with cultural learning rather than biology as the main causal factor.
Of the group, only Zora Neale Hurston receives praise, for her contribution to “literary anthropology,” but blaming other Boasians for making racism “more palatable” in the 1960s and ’70s is nonsense. Perhaps Oscar Lewis’s concept of a “culture of poverty” was used in that way by politicians, but the main thrust of Boas and his students was the creation of scholarly work that embraced relativism over ethnocentrism and rejected race as an explanation for cultural development. To blame them for “liberal racism,” whatever that may be, is simply wrong.
ignore this
Philip K. Bock
Emeritus Professor of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico
albuquerque
Wilson’s review of Gods of the Upper Air provides some interesting insights into Boas and his most eminent anthropology students at Columbia in the 1920s but is wearyingly of our time. Discounting King’s praise for the group’s salutary effect on prevalent American prejudices, Wilson observes in the manner of almost any respectable academic scholarship of recent decades, “It becomes clear that their ideas about culture and cultural differences were not as distinct as they imagined from the notions of racial difference they sought to overturn.”
I don’t doubt it. It’s a point that needs making. But it shouldn’t be the main point. Like all of us, they were to a large extent prisoners of their era. To me, what is interesting is the degree to which they weren’t.
Ruth Benedict’s most widely read book, Patterns of Culture, which Wilson doesn’t mention, is a truly liberating and mind-expanding work. Her scholarship has been criticized for its deficiencies but, to my knowledge, has not been debunked. Benedict’s book is an invaluable reminder that our propensity to normalize our presuppositions proceeds from our culture and not from human nature per se. 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
Anthony Dangerfield
medford, mass. Current Issue View our current issue
Tilting at Windmills
Re “Organizing on the Coasts Won’t Save the Planet” [by Jane Fleming Kleeb, May 4/11]: Windmills are so beautiful? Those coastal aesthetes have to be kidding. One or two in isolation and seen from a slight distance might be, but scores or hundreds, all too near the road and extending sometimes for miles, are as ugly as any other industrial excrescence.
I would bet even money most of those people grew up in cookie-cutter suburbs and have routinely referred to “flyover country” ever since they first heard the phrase. They have never been there, and they have no knowledge of the beauty of a landscape under a vast sky that stretches from one uncluttered horizon to the other. They do not care whether that is spoiled, since it’s not in their backyard.
Windmills may be necessary. The Midwest may be a good place for them. But don’t try to justify foisting them on other people by pretending you’re offering some sort of aesthetic gift. Arrogant ignorance will not foster the alliances Kleeb rightly says are needed.
Katharine W. Rylaarsdam
baltimore
Dark Recesses
It was a pleasure reading Elie Mystal’s treatment of the Supreme Court justices in the current controversy over the court’s procedures during this period of social distancing [“Lights, Camera, SCOTUS!” May 18/25]. He makes an excellent case for the Supreme Court to be treated just like any other political organization, which it most certainly is, despite the attempts of many in the pseudoprofession of law to create an aura of mystery and an existence separate from and above the rest of society. Mystal’s article is timely and sheds much-needed light into the dark recesses of the practice of law. “Woe unto you, lawyers!” (Luke 11:52), for the public is catching on to the game.
Thomas Comeau
woodland hills, calif.
The Road Already Taken
When I was a kid, my mother would leave us a note before going to work. We called these her “or else” notes—straighten your room before I get home, or else; vacuum the carpet before I get home, or else. In “Can Biden Go Left?” [May 4/11], D.D. Guttenplan writes that Joe Biden needs to disown his past concern with balanced budgets, needs to amend his relationship with the Latinx community, and needs to show he understands that returning to the past in terms of our broken health care system is no longer an option. There was no need to ask my mother what “or else” meant, but what’s the “or else” implied in Guttenplan’s editorial? If it’s a threat, do we really want to go down that road again?
Bob Hanley
saginaw, mich.
Submerging the Valley
Re “The Extinction Crisis Comes Home” [Jimmy Tobias, May 4/11], about the San Francisco Bay ecosystem: Beyond the region’s fisheries, another tragedy begs mentioning. After the earthquake of 1906, the spectacular Hetch Hetchy Valley, which was created by the Tuolumne River and is part of Yosemite National Park, was dammed to create a reservoir for the city—a unique abuse of a national park and a catalyst for the environmental movement. The naturalist John Muir wrote of the devastation, “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.”
Thomas J. Straka
clemson, s.c.


105

Yes , of course : in the end , we found the guilty ones , aliens over-running the route .
We were not alone : we had to be tough .
It ’ s true : we were outnumbered .
But for quality we hold the record .
Which is why we will never lose first place when it comes to terror .
It ’ s good to appear peaceful .
As justification for the paragon of modern crime .
There ’ s no trace of the past , no more “ live up to our motto.
” Let the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new generation go out on attack !
Although it ’ s true , absolutely true , that since time immemorial those laws gave us total power and this star has never lost its cushion of sky and purity and the Western , Christian breath of our guardian angels , who got bloodied each time it was in our interest .
Which is why we ’ re still in first place when it comes to being free and up-to-date .
And we can never go back or repent or show our face because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , there is something visible in the invisible .
Translated from the Spanish by Marguerite Feitlowitz

This article appears in the June 15/22, 2020 issue.
Yes, of course: in the end, we found the guilty ones, aliens over-running the route.
We were not alone: we had to be tough.
It’s true: we were outnumbered. But for quality we hold the record. Which is why we
will never lose first place when it comes to terror.
It’s good to appear peaceful. As justification for the paragon of modern crime.
There’s no trace of the past, no more “live up to our motto.”
Let the misinformed old guys have their rest and the new generation go out on attack!
Although it’s true, absolutely true, that since time immemorial those laws gave us
total power and this star has never lost its cushion of sky and purity and the
Western, Christian breath of our guardian angels, who got bloodied each time
it was in our interest.
Which is why we’re still in first place when it comes to being free and up-to-date.
And we can never go back or repent or show our face because we follow orders
and keep secrets.
Yes, there is something visible in the invisible.
Translated from the Spanish by Marguerite Feitlowitz


thenation--2020-06-02--A Fourth Inspector General Bites the Dust

The IG had Pompeo in his sights .
An IG ’ s independence is required— Or was .
Pompeo needed @ @ @ @ @ to get that pesky fellow fired .

This article appears in the June 15/22, 2020 issue.
The IG had Pompeo in his sights.
An IG’s independence is required—
Or was. Pompeo needed just a word
With Trump to get that pesky fellow fired.