thenation--2020-07-30--Trump Can’t Delay the Election—So He’s Trying to Make It a Chaotic Mess

On the morning of July 30 , 96 days before the November election that polls suggest he is likely to lose , Donald Trump jumped onto Twitter and screamed : Everything about that message from the president of the United States was wrong .
Voting by mail provides a safe and secure model for casting ballots , as states such as Oregon and Washington have proven , and as election experts confirm .
The true embarrassment to the United States is that the president and his allies have blocked funding to assure that the November 3 election can be organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , early voting , and in-person voting on Election Day—even if there is a Covid-19 surge this fall .
And this year ’ s presidential and congressional elections can not be delayed by this desperate and lawless president .
Trump knows this .
He is not serious about delaying the election .
He is serious about making it a mess .
Without Medicare for All , This Isn ’ t ‘ the Boldest Democratic Platform in American History ’ Call Trump ’ s Tactics What They Are : Fascist For this reason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a wake-up call .
The RealClearPolitics survey of recent national polls , showing Democrat Joe Biden averaging 50.1 percent versus 40.7 percent for Trump , and the battleground state surveys trending in Biden ’ s favor have this president scared .
And a scared Trump is a dangerous Trump .
When the president makes threats of this sort , he does so to create chaos and uncertainty .
He seeks to suppress and depress turnout .
As such , says New Mexico Senator Tom Udall , “ These statements should be immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders.
” These condemnations should be blunt .
They should recognize Trump ’ s disregard for democracy and the threat it poses .
That ’ s what Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison did immediately , with a Thursday morning tweet of his own : “ ‘ Delay the Election until… ’ says Trump .
This is how democracy dies in the USA .
Don ’ t let it happen.
” How do we do that ?
Here are the facts .
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution declares that “ the terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end at noon on the 20th day of January.
” To establish a timeline for the smooth transition of power that is essential in a democratic republic , the Congress has since 1845 established that elections to choose presidential electors and members of Congress will take place on “ the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.
” Practically , what this means is that Trump can ’ t delay the election without the approval of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who control the chamber that last year impeached the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s avenues for intervention are constrained .
In addition , precedent argues against a delay .
“ The United States has never delayed a presidential election , ” noted Becky Little in a recent essay on the turbulent “ Civil War election ” of 1864 .
Stacey Abrams , the former Georgia legislative leader and gubernatorial candidate who has become a national leader on voting rights , explains , “ We were able to vote during the Civil War .
We were able to vote during the 1918 Spanish flu .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020.
” Second , there is no question that the United States can hold a safe and fair November election .
As Abrams explained to me recently : South Korea had their first incidence of COVID-19 around the same time as the United States .
In the midst of their process , on April 15 , they had a national election , which achieved the highest turnout that they have had since the 1990s .
President Moon managed to maintain and manage a successful democracy in the midst of a pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
I do not believe that there is any justification—certainly not the abject lie of rampant voter fraud—that should deter us from doing what the majority of Americans believe , which is that if you ’ re eligible to vote , you should be able to vote , and that means you should be able to vote by mail if you choose , and if you choose not to or can not , that you can vote in-person .
Abrams is right .
There is no excuse for suggesting that Covid-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November election .
What ’ s needed are standards and funding .
The standards must begin with the premise that voting should be easy—offering smart options that work for all voters : universal access to voting by mail , easy absentee voting , and systems to assure there can be safe early voting and safe in-person voting on Election Day .
To make that happen , the Senate should complete the job begun by the House in May , when it approved $ 3.6 billion in funding to help state and local government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-turnout election .
The House also approved funding to keep the US Postal Service up and running , which is essential to voting by mail and absentee voting , and the Senate must do the same .
Third , Trump is not worried about “ voter fraud , ” he is worried about losing .
This is a chaotic moment for American politics and elections .
As the Brennan Center for Justice explains : At the top of the list of “ fake crises , ” according to the Brennan Center , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rampant : Universal vote-by-mail systems do not promote voter fraud .
In fact , as the American Civil Liberties Union has long maintained , allowing universal voting by mail “ would ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to vote by mail in federal elections for any reason .
This bill [ the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007 ] would give all voters the choice of voting by mail by eliminating the unnecessary , burdensome , and often intrusive requirements that some states impose on voters requesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear about what Trump is doing : panicking .
Democrats and Republicans should denounce his claims as what they are : self-serving lies designed to undermine confidence in this election and democracy in general .
Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio did a good job of it when she said Thursday , “ In America , politicians don ’ t get to pick and choose their election day .
President Trump ’ s cynical suggestion to move the election is underscored by his calculated efforts to undermine Postal Service delivery and voting from home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to edge out an electoral victory in November by moving the finish line is unconstitutional , undemocratic , and un-American.
” This robust rejection of Trump ’ s lies must be coupled with action at the federal , state , and local levels to establish standards and allocate funds to ensure that voting in the November 3 election is easy , safe , and fair .
“ If Trump truly cared about our elections , he would demand Congress provide the $ 3.6 billion in funding that states and localities need to properly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Public Citizen president Robert Weissman .
Trump won ’ t do that .
Americans who care about democracy must .

On the morning of July 30, 96 days before the November election that polls suggest he is likely to lose, Donald Trump jumped onto Twitter and screamed:
With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???
Everything about that message from the president of the United States was wrong. Voting by mail provides a safe and secure model for casting ballots, as states such as Oregon and Washington have proven, and as election experts confirm. The true embarrassment to the United States is that the president and his allies have blocked funding to assure that the November 3 election can be organized with a smart combination of mail voting, early voting, and in-person voting on Election Day—even if there is a Covid-19 surge this fall. And this year’s presidential and congressional elections cannot be delayed by this desperate and lawless president.
Trump knows this. He is not serious about delaying the election. He is serious about making it a mess. 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
For this reason, Trump’s tweet should be read as a wake-up call. The RealClearPolitics survey of recent national polls, showing Democrat Joe Biden averaging 50.1 percent versus 40.7 percent for Trump, and the battleground state surveys trending in Biden’s favor have this president scared. And a scared Trump is a dangerous Trump.
When the president makes threats of this sort, he does so to create chaos and uncertainty. He seeks to suppress and depress turnout. As such, says New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, “These statements should be immediately met with universal condemnation by all American leaders.”
These condemnations should be blunt. They should recognize Trump’s disregard for democracy and the threat it poses. That’s what Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison did immediately, with a Thursday morning tweet of his own: “‘Delay the Election until…’ says Trump. This is how democracy dies in the USA. Don’t let it happen.”
How do we do that?
With facts and action.
Here are the facts.
First, presidents cannot delay elections.
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution declares that “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” To establish a timeline for the smooth transition of power that is essential in a democratic republic, the Congress has since 1845 established that elections to choose presidential electors and members of Congress will take place on “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” Practically, what this means is that Trump can’t delay the election without the approval of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who control the chamber that last year impeached the president. 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
As such, Trump’s avenues for intervention are constrained.
In addition, precedent argues against a delay. “The United States has never delayed a presidential election,” noted Becky Little in a recent essay on the turbulent “Civil War election” of 1864. Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia legislative leader and gubernatorial candidate who has become a national leader on voting rights, explains, “We were able to vote during the Civil War. We were able to vote during the 1918 Spanish flu. There is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020.”
Second, there is no question that the United States can hold a safe and fair November election.
As Abrams explained to me recently:
South Korea had their first incidence of COVID-19 around the same time as the United States. In the midst of their process, on April 15, they had a national election, which achieved the highest turnout that they have had since the 1990s. President Moon managed to maintain and manage a successful democracy in the midst of a pandemic. I believe America is capable of the same. I do not believe that there is any justification—certainly not the abject lie of rampant voter fraud—that should deter us from doing what the majority of Americans believe, which is that if you’re eligible to vote, you should be able to vote, and that means you should be able to vote by mail if you choose, and if you choose not to or cannot, that you can vote in-person.
Abrams is right. There is no excuse for suggesting that Covid-19, or anything else, should delay the November election.
What’s needed are standards and funding. The standards must begin with the premise that voting should be easy—offering smart options that work for all voters: universal access to voting by mail, easy absentee voting, and systems to assure there can be safe early voting and safe in-person voting on Election Day. To make that happen, the Senate should complete the job begun by the House in May, when it approved $3.6 billion in funding to help state and local government agencies take necessary steps to organize a high-turnout election. The House also approved funding to keep the US Postal Service up and running, which is essential to voting by mail and absentee voting, and the Senate must do the same.
Third, Trump is not worried about “voter fraud,” he is worried about losing.
This is a chaotic moment for American politics and elections. As the Brennan Center for Justice explains:
The Covid-19 pandemic has already caused major disruptions to our elections system, and the risk that other real crises—natural disaster, machine breakdown, foreign interference—will further disrupt the election is significant. But there is also a significant risk that political actors will manufacture crises to undermine election results they don’t like. These fake crises can undercut trust in the accuracy of election outcomes, inflame partisan tensions, and destabilize our democracy.
At the top of the list of “fake crises,” according to the Brennan Center, is the notion that “voter fraud” is rampant:
Based on a meticulous review of elections that had been investigated for voter fraud, the Brennan Center found miniscule incident rates of ineligible individuals fraudulently casting ballots at the polls—no more than 0.0025 percent. Numerous reports have confirmed our finding that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Research shows that voter fraud is similarly rare with mail ballots.
Universal vote-by-mail systems do not promote voter fraud. In fact, as the American Civil Liberties Union has long maintained, allowing universal voting by mail “would ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to vote by mail in federal elections for any reason. This bill [the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007] would give all voters the choice of voting by mail by eliminating the unnecessary, burdensome, and often intrusive requirements that some states impose on voters requesting absentee ballots.”
So everyone should be clear about what Trump is doing: panicking. Democrats and Republicans should denounce his claims as what they are: self-serving lies designed to undermine confidence in this election and democracy in general. Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio did a good job of it when she said Thursday, “In America, politicians don’t get to pick and choose their election day. President Trump’s cynical suggestion to move the election is underscored by his calculated efforts to undermine Postal Service delivery and voting from home. The President’s blatant attempt to edge out an electoral victory in November by moving the finish line is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and un-American.”
This robust rejection of Trump’s lies must be coupled with action at the federal, state, and local levels to establish standards and allocate funds to ensure that voting in the November 3 election is easy, safe, and fair.
“If Trump truly cared about our elections, he would demand Congress provide the $3.6 billion in funding that states and localities need to properly and safely administer them amid the pandemic,” says Public Citizen president Robert Weissman.
Trump won’t do that. Americans who care about democracy must.


thenation--2020-07-30--The Biography That Reimagined a Life—and the Genre

In her introduction to the 1972 biography The True History of the First Mrs. Meredith and Other Lesser Lives , Vivian Gornick imagines its author , Diane Johnson , playing a board game .
The people she writes about are pawns in her control ; she can move them around the board however she likes .
She might skip spaces and abruptly pull them into new settings or send them forward or backward in time : “ Any persona might be moved to a position on the board that might increase or decrease their point value and send the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also the one who assembled the board .
The result , Gornick says , is one of the most unusual , eccentric biographies she has ever read .
The True History of the First Mrs. Meredith and Other Lesser Lives In Lesser Lives , reissued this month by New York Review Books , Johnson is settling a score : History has remembered the famous Victorian writer and poet George Meredith but forgotten his first wife , Mary Ellen Peacock .
Her life , for decades overshadowed by his , was notable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a forward-thinking father to be independent and ambitious , and her expectations for her life exceeded those of her Victorian contemporaries .
Always straining against the conventions of her milieu , she had a child with a husband who drowned at sea , married Meredith , had more children , began an affair with the painter Henry Wallis , and had a child with him , to great scandal .
Peacock might also have become a famous writer , publishing poetry and nonfiction—some of which Meredith initially took credit for and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying of renal disease at 40 .
Meredith scarcely spoke of her after that , and when he did , it was with bitterness , exaggerating their age difference ( she was seven years older ) and calling her a madwoman .
But much of Lesser Lives is not about Peacock .
Johnson is equally interested in the lives that intersected with hers .
To a more conventional biographer , those on the periphery might not be worth mentioning .
They would be , in other words , considered lesser .
Johnson lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back of the book titled “ Brief Lives , ” writing short bios for each , even if it ’ s just to acknowledge , as she notes for a woman who was fleetingly involved with Peacock ’ s father , that “ nothing whatever is known about her.
” In a single sentence about Matilda Bucket , a servant Meredith ’ s grandfather ran off with , Johnson inserts a parenthetical , lamenting , “ How one longs to know more about Matilda Bucket.
” There is no life that is too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the book goes on long after its primary subject ’ s death , so filled with the lives of others that they crowd out Meredith .
This is a subtle trick , which Johnson achieves not by relentlessly critiquing Meredith—though she does , at times , deride him—but by creating an equilibrium where there was none before .
Lesser Lives is a biography against biography , a reimagining of a genre that often takes its own conventions seriously .
In its traditional form , biographies can replicate the biases of history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented and casting others aside .
For Johnson , correcting these biases requires a willingness to get one ’ s hands dirty , a desire to not just retell events but create them anew .
This approach may be especially necessary when it comes to reassembling a marriage , particularly a literary one , an arrangement in which there is often a “ Famous Writer , ” as Johnson refers to Meredith early on , and his opposite , a lesser life .
Johnson ’ s approach to biography does away with objectivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabulation .
It is indeed helpful to think of Johnson moving pieces across a game board , as Gornick suggests ; she is omniscient , viewing history , far from settled , as something that holds infinite imaginative possibilities .
When Johnson can not find a letter or journal entry to confirm her suspicions , she tells us what Peacock and Meredith must have thought or how they might have reacted to a crumbling marriage , an affair , a death .
“ Of Mary Ellen ’ s mother there remains only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine her how we please , ” Johnson tells us .
In encouraging us to give ourselves over to conjecture , she asks us to redistribute the attention that would ordinarily funnel toward the person thought to be most important .
It is exciting to read this way : We feel we are helping Johnson build a richer and more populous world than has been rendered before .
I came to think of Johnson as a camera—not the person operating it but the camera itself .
She can take high-up , sweeping shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early in Lesser Lives : “ We have stopped , or we have pretended to stop , the flow of time , and all the lesser lives with which we are here concerned are collected for introduction , ” she writes in the first lines of the book , which describe the scene at Peacock ’ s funeral , attended only by her maid , her son ’ s nurse , and a friend of her father ’ s , a mere acquaintance .
“ As for the others , since they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall have to look around for them , ” Johnson continues , and suddenly the camera finds other faces and brings them into focus .
She is constantly zooming in and out , pulling new people into the foreground while allowing others to recede .
This is rhetorical as well as instructive .
Johnson is teaching us how to see and whom to notice .
But why is it important to pay attention to Peacock ?
Johnson ’ s interest in her grew out of frustration upon reading biographies of Meredith and finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word when he described his first wife as unhappy and dishonorable .
Mention of Peacock in these biographies usually lasted no more than a paragraph or a page , Johnson said , as though her life were merely an episode in someone else ’ s .
A 1929 biography refers to her only as one half of a couple , never calling her by her first name .
( It is an unavoidable irony that the contemporary reader is unlikely to recognize the name George Meredith , either . )
Meredith considered himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was a “ good Victorian , ” or thought himself to be , and that has long been the accepted version of events .
But all the while , Johnson shows us , he was accumulating a great debt in Peacock ’ s ledger .
She had become worn down by their financial troubles , a result of Meredith ’ s unwillingness to take on any non-writing work in his dogged pursuit of a literary career .
She , too , loved to write , but her writing was eclipsed by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was a dyspeptic who couldn ’ t enjoy the meals she prepared for him .
Over time , these slights and inequities added up and became the prevailing narrative of their marriage—but only for her .
Lesser Lives is a corrective , resurfacing during a time when there is a greater demand for women ’ s stories in literature , particularly when there is the sense that a man ’ s story has won out over hers .
But Johnson is after more than just that : She understands that each life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it can easily be blotted out by one deemed more significant .
This idea and the style of biography that usually accompanies it—defined by speculation and imagination , as is Johnson ’ s way—were not always appreciated .
When Lesser Lives was first published , some critics balked at her retelling of Meredith and Peacock ’ s marriage , accusing Johnson of twisting the truth to achieve her ends .
“ She has had to shore up her defense [ of Peacock ] with a reiteration of ‘ perhaps , ’ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” reads a New York Times review .
But Johnson ’ s approach to biographical writing quickly became more widespread , and what was once contentious about Lesser Lives is now largely taken for granted .
“ That there are two sides to every story is a cliché , ” as Haley Mlotek put it in a 2018 piece on the psychotherapist Esther Perel .
“ That there are two stories to every marriage is almost a science.
” One begins to see this philosophy everywhere .
The End of the Novel of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of essays on the diminishing power of love as a metaphor in the 20th century novel , is equal parts biography and criticism , imagining how writers like Grace Paley and Jean Rhys conceived of the narrative arc of their romantic lives and transformed it into literature .
In her memoir Aftermath , Rachel Cusk admits that hers is just one take on the dissolution of her marriage .
“ My husband believed that I had treated him monstrously , ” she reflects .
“ This belief of his couldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
It was his story , and lately I have come to hate stories.
” Once she and her husband decided to separate , it was as if they “ had undone history itself.
” How could any unvarnished truth remain ?
Parallel Lives , Phyllis Rose ’ s 1983 biography of five Victorian marriages , is Lesser Lives ’ most direct successor .
It is easy to see Johnson ’ s influence .
In her introduction , Rose argues that in the “ ordinary process of living , ” each of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” requiring a biographer to act more like a literary critic .
This is especially the case when writing about marital relationships , she says , which fail not when love wanes but when a single thread splits in two , a shared life becomes a set of parallel ones .
Facts are not important to Rose because in such matters there are only stories .
Parallel Lives was also reissued this year , in March by Daunt Books , buoyed by a generation of young women to rediscover it and find it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will pore over Lesser Lives ) .
Marriage has always been a great subject of fascination—particularly when it comes to other people ’ s—but it is Rose ’ s insistence on marriage as plot that explains the book ’ s resurgence .
This is the only satisfying way I have ever heard the arrangement described , marriage no longer holding the transformative promise for a life it once did .
A marriage , of course , might be just one chapter .
Eventually , Meredith came to an understanding of marriage that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two decades after Peacock ’ s death , he published Diana of the Crossways , whose heroine—as intelligent and lively as his first wife—turns away from love , knowing it will only bring about destruction for herself and for everyone involved .
In The End of the Novel of Love , Gornick posits that when writing this character , Meredith had come to the realization that “ love is not to the point at all : the antagonism one feels within oneself in its presence is far more crucial.
” There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage and how the self is made and remade through it .
Peacock saw herself as capable of transgressing the boundaries of Victorian notions of acceptability for a mother and wife because of Meredith ’ s rigidity ; he found in himself a well of resentment and spite he might not have known before .
After all , he did not even allow their youngest child to visit his mother before she died , and neither one attended her funeral .
The push and pull of marriage , however , is also what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies beneath it—though it is usually only one person in the pair who detects it .

In her introduction to the 1972 biography The True History of the First Mrs. Meredith and Other Lesser Lives, Vivian Gornick imagines its author, Diane Johnson, playing a board game. The people she writes about are pawns in her control; she can move them around the board however she likes. She might skip spaces and abruptly pull them into new settings or send them forward or backward in time: “Any persona might be moved to a position on the board that might increase or decrease their point value and send the story spinning,” Gornick writes. Johnson is also the one who assembled the board. The result, Gornick says, is one of the most unusual, eccentric biographies she has ever read. Books in Review The True History of the First Mrs. Meredith and Other Lesser Lives By Diane Johnson Buy this book
In Lesser Lives, reissued this month by New York Review Books, Johnson is settling a score: History has remembered the famous Victorian writer and poet George Meredith but forgotten his first wife, Mary Ellen Peacock. Her life, for decades overshadowed by his, was notable in its own right. She was raised by a forward-thinking father to be independent and ambitious, and her expectations for her life exceeded those of her Victorian contemporaries. Always straining against the conventions of her milieu, she had a child with a husband who drowned at sea, married Meredith, had more children, began an affair with the painter Henry Wallis, and had a child with him, to great scandal.
Peacock might also have become a famous writer, publishing poetry and nonfiction—some of which Meredith initially took credit for and then later renounced—but did not become one before dying of renal disease at 40. Meredith scarcely spoke of her after that, and when he did, it was with bitterness, exaggerating their age difference (she was seven years older) and calling her a madwoman.
But much of Lesser Lives is not about Peacock. Johnson is equally interested in the lives that intersected with hers. To a more conventional biographer, those on the periphery might not be worth mentioning. They would be, in other words, considered lesser. Johnson lists their names in a section at the back of the book titled “Brief Lives,” writing short bios for each, even if it’s just to acknowledge, as she notes for a woman who was fleetingly involved with Peacock’s father, that “nothing whatever is known about her.” In a single sentence about Matilda Bucket, a servant Meredith’s grandfather ran off with, Johnson inserts a parenthetical, lamenting, “How one longs to know more about Matilda Bucket.”
There is no life that is too minor for Johnson’s consideration, and the book goes on long after its primary subject’s death, so filled with the lives of others that they crowd out Meredith. This is a subtle trick, which Johnson achieves not by relentlessly critiquing Meredith—though she does, at times, deride him—but by creating an equilibrium where there was none before.
Lesser Lives is a biography against biography, a reimagining of a genre that often takes its own conventions seriously. In its traditional form, biographies can replicate the biases of history, magnifying figures whose lives are already well documented and casting others aside. For Johnson, correcting these biases requires a willingness to get one’s hands dirty, a desire to not just retell events but create them anew. This approach may be especially necessary when it comes to reassembling a marriage, particularly a literary one, an arrangement in which there is often a “Famous Writer,” as Johnson refers to Meredith early on, and his opposite, a lesser life. 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
Johnson’s approach to biography does away with objectivity and replaces it with a kind of fabulation. It is indeed helpful to think of Johnson moving pieces across a game board, as Gornick suggests; she is omniscient, viewing history, far from settled, as something that holds infinite imaginative possibilities. When Johnson cannot find a letter or journal entry to confirm her suspicions, she tells us what Peacock and Meredith must have thought or how they might have reacted to a crumbling marriage, an affair, a death. “Of Mary Ellen’s mother there remains only one of her letters, so we may imagine her how we please,” Johnson tells us. In encouraging us to give ourselves over to conjecture, she asks us to redistribute the attention that would ordinarily funnel toward the person thought to be most important. It is exciting to read this way: We feel we are helping Johnson build a richer and more populous world than has been rendered before.
I came to think of Johnson as a camera—not the person operating it but the camera itself. She can take high-up, sweeping shots from the sky, as she does early in Lesser Lives: “We have stopped, or we have pretended to stop, the flow of time, and all the lesser lives with which we are here concerned are collected for introduction,” she writes in the first lines of the book, which describe the scene at Peacock’s funeral, attended only by her maid, her son’s nurse, and a friend of her father’s, a mere acquaintance. “As for the others, since they did not come to her funeral, we shall have to look around for them,” Johnson continues, and suddenly the camera finds other faces and brings them into focus. She is constantly zooming in and out, pulling new people into the foreground while allowing others to recede.
This is rhetorical as well as instructive. Johnson is teaching us how to see and whom to notice. But why is it important to pay attention to Peacock? Johnson’s interest in her grew out of frustration upon reading biographies of Meredith and finding that they largely took him at his word when he described his first wife as unhappy and dishonorable. Mention of Peacock in these biographies usually lasted no more than a paragraph or a page, Johnson said, as though her life were merely an episode in someone else’s. A 1929 biography refers to her only as one half of a couple, never calling her by her first name. (It is an unavoidable irony that the contemporary reader is unlikely to recognize the name George Meredith, either.)
Meredith considered himself as a loving and generous husband. He was a “good Victorian,” or thought himself to be, and that has long been the accepted version of events. But all the while, Johnson shows us, he was accumulating a great debt in Peacock’s ledger. She had become worn down by their financial troubles, a result of Meredith’s unwillingness to take on any non-writing work in his dogged pursuit of a literary career. She, too, loved to write, but her writing was eclipsed by his. She was a gourmet cook; he was a dyspeptic who couldn’t enjoy the meals she prepared for him. Over time, these slights and inequities added up and became the prevailing narrative of their marriage—but only for her.
Lesser Lives is a corrective, resurfacing during a time when there is a greater demand for women’s stories in literature, particularly when there is the sense that a man’s story has won out over hers. But Johnson is after more than just that: She understands that each life lived is a story unto itself but that it can easily be blotted out by one deemed more significant. This idea and the style of biography that usually accompanies it—defined by speculation and imagination, as is Johnson’s way—were not always appreciated. When Lesser Lives was first published, some critics balked at her retelling of Meredith and Peacock’s marriage, accusing Johnson of twisting the truth to achieve her ends. “She has had to shore up her defense [of Peacock] with a reiteration of ‘perhaps,’ ‘maybe,’ ‘possibly,’” reads a New York Times review.
But Johnson’s approach to biographical writing quickly became more widespread, and what was once contentious about Lesser Lives is now largely taken for granted. “That there are two sides to every story is a cliché,” as Haley Mlotek put it in a 2018 piece on the psychotherapist Esther Perel. “That there are two stories to every marriage is almost a science.”
One begins to see this philosophy everywhere. The End of the Novel of Love, Gornick’s 1997 collection of essays on the diminishing power of love as a metaphor in the 20th century novel, is equal parts biography and criticism, imagining how writers like Grace Paley and Jean Rhys conceived of the narrative arc of their romantic lives and transformed it into literature. In her memoir Aftermath, Rachel Cusk admits that hers is just one take on the dissolution of her marriage. “My husband believed that I had treated him monstrously,” she reflects. “This belief of his couldn’t be shaken: his whole world depended on it. It was his story, and lately I have come to hate stories.” Once she and her husband decided to separate, it was as if they “had undone history itself.” How could any unvarnished truth remain?
Parallel Lives, Phyllis Rose’s 1983 biography of five Victorian marriages, is Lesser Lives’ most direct successor. It is easy to see Johnson’s influence. In her introduction, Rose argues that in the “ordinary process of living,” each of us becomes a “fitful novelist,” requiring a biographer to act more like a literary critic. This is especially the case when writing about marital relationships, she says, which fail not when love wanes but when a single thread splits in two, a shared life becomes a set of parallel ones. Facts are not important to Rose because in such matters there are only stories.
Parallel Lives was also reissued this year, in March by Daunt Books, buoyed by a generation of young women to rediscover it and find it thrillingly resonant (perhaps the same group that will pore over Lesser Lives). Marriage has always been a great subject of fascination—particularly when it comes to other people’s—but it is Rose’s insistence on marriage as plot that explains the book’s resurgence. This is the only satisfying way I have ever heard the arrangement described, marriage no longer holding the transformative promise for a life it once did. A marriage, of course, might be just one chapter.
Eventually, Meredith came to an understanding of marriage that hewed closer to this view. More than two decades after Peacock’s death, he published Diana of the Crossways, whose heroine—as intelligent and lively as his first wife—turns away from love, knowing it will only bring about destruction for herself and for everyone involved. In The End of the Novel of Love, Gornick posits that when writing this character, Meredith had come to the realization that “love is not to the point at all: the antagonism one feels within oneself in its presence is far more crucial.”
There is something undeniably compelling about the duality of marriage and how the self is made and remade through it. Peacock saw herself as capable of transgressing the boundaries of Victorian notions of acceptability for a mother and wife because of Meredith’s rigidity; he found in himself a well of resentment and spite he might not have known before. After all, he did not even allow their youngest child to visit his mother before she died, and neither one attended her funeral. The push and pull of marriage, however, is also what alerts us to the inequality that often lies beneath it—though it is usually only one person in the pair who detects it.


thenation--2020-07-30--Trump’s October Surprise: A Vaccine for Covid-19?

The time it takes to develop an effective vaccine is ordinarily denominated in years .
For some pathogens , like HIV , a vaccine has proven to be elusive after almost four decades .
Yet President Donald Trump clearly expects a vaccine against SARS-Cov-2 ( the virus that causes the disease Covid-19 ) to be available this year .
Even some scientists , such as Dr. Anthony S. Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , only hedge a bit , pushing the window of availability into early 2021 .
There has been enormous hype @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with almost a billion dollars in federal money flowing to the maker of one of the widely touted vaccines , the biotech company Moderna , which has never brought a product to market , while the chief medical and financial officers of the firm have made tens of millions from trading in options on the company ’ s stock .
With the nation ’ s response to Covid-19 an utter failure , the hopes of many have been redirected to the promise of a vaccine that will arrive like a Christmas present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glistening bow .
No one wants to wake up Christmas morning to see nothing under the tree for them .
The hype about a SARS-Cov-2 vaccine is so intense , it ’ s almost inconceivable that the White House won ’ t roll out something in October as a boost to its fortunes at the voting booths the next month .
In fact , leading scientists have warned of an October surprise , in which , despite insufficient data , the president could instruct Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal approval process for vaccines for the sake of political expediency .
Right now , we have preliminary data on safety and immunogenicity ( i.e.
, whether a vaccine can produce an immune response of some kind—not necessarily protective against the disease ) for several of the vaccine candidates .
But the larger trials needed to determine whether these agents actually are effective against SARS-Cov-2 are just beginning .
They will enroll tens of thousands of patients each and will provide the needed critical information to guide the FDA in evaluating these vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October ?
Well , that all depends on how fast the trials enroll , and how quickly the measures by which these vaccines will be evaluated—new infections—accumulate in each study to allow a comparison between the number of infections among vaccine and placebo recipients .
It is also very possible that this first generation of vaccines either do not perform at all , or only perform well enough that the difference in new infections between them and placebos is hard to discern .
With so much riding on the success of a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Moderna and ancient universities like Oxford , which are new to this game—to overstate their findings will be almost irresistible .
News reports on many of the vaccine candidates this spring and summer have hyped them as promising breakthroughs , although this is obviously misleading without efficacy data from larger trials .
At this point , all we know about the candidates that are progressing to this new phase of study are that they produced no ill effects and can raise some degree of immune response—none of which means that these vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the financial temptation for companies to overstate their results is strong , the political incentive for Trump ’ s people to torture the data until it confesses and tells them what they want to hear is even more powerful .
The president desperately needs good news among all the bad Covid-19 news he has generated for the past six months .
The New Lysenkoism in Washington ‘ We Are Not Even Beginning to Be Over This Pandemic ’ When Police and Public Health Collide in the Age of Covid-19 It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be evaluated properly .
In fact , that data should be held to an even higher standard today , given the multiple motives for manipulation .
The FDA should empanel a group of outside experts to review each of the studies , drawn from the best scientists in the country working on immunology , virology , vaccine development , and statistical sciences .
We should demand a commitment from FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn that he will not circumvent proper scrutiny of trial results to please the White House , and explicit assurance that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book and in the open , not via an Emergency Use Authorization decided in-house at the agency .
Each company should be required to share its data with outside scientists to verify any in-house analyses they may do .
There are precedents for this kind of data sharing in the industry—and this is a prime case for sharing data for reanalysis by others .
What do we have to lose this fall ?
We could put a vaccine on the market without rigorous evaluation , with open questions about its safety and efficacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in clinical trials , we need wide uptake in order to achieve that vaunted herd or community immunity we ’ ve all come to know about , in which enough people are vaccinated and protected against the virus that it finds only dead ends when it seeks to spread among us .
Skepticism and outright denialism about vaccine safety and efficacy existed way before Covid-19 , resulting in poor coverage by vaccines for some diseases and among some communities .
Uncertainty about the data or the specter of political manipulation of results will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need it most .
In addition , the logistical and resource requirements to scale up production of a new vaccine , and then deliver it widely and equitably across the United States and the world , will be monumental .
Even with a vaccine that is rigorously evaluated and shows some real efficacy , the challenges will be acute .
But imagine all this effort going into a vaccine with dubious effects .
Not only would that be a colossal waste of time and money ; with little protection against the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can stop practicing social distancing or wearing masks .
When the truth comes out , the reputation of all vaccines will suffer a tremendous hit , as will the scientific community and the industry that went along with the scheme .
If people get infected because they thought they were protected—if we don ’ t stop the Trump administration from juking the stats to give them a political victory this fall—we should all hang our heads in shame .
I ’ ve seen this before on a smaller scale , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with investigators using after-the-fact subgroup analyses to find some subset of people for whom an ineffective drug worked—not out of malice or desire to deceive , but because they were swept up in the need for hope in a time of desperation .
This fall , we need to remain vigilant to ensure that Trump ’ s desperate need to win in November doesn ’ t produce the sound and fury of an announcement of a new vaccine for SARS-Cov-2—but signifying nothing for the public health .

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?
The time it takes to develop an effective vaccine is ordinarily denominated in years. For some pathogens, like HIV, a vaccine has proven to be elusive after almost four decades. Yet President Donald Trump clearly expects a vaccine against SARS-Cov-2 (the virus that causes the disease Covid-19) to be available this year. Even some scientists, such as Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, only hedge a bit, pushing the window of availability into early 2021. There has been enormous hype about the candidate products in the pipeline, with almost a billion dollars in federal money flowing to the maker of one of the widely touted vaccines, the biotech company Moderna, which has never brought a product to market, while the chief medical and financial officers of the firm have made tens of millions from trading in options on the company’s stock. With the nation’s response to Covid-19 an utter failure, the hopes of many have been redirected to the promise of a vaccine that will arrive like a Christmas present, neatly wrapped and tied with a glistening bow. No one wants to wake up Christmas morning to see nothing under the tree for them.
The hype about a SARS-Cov-2 vaccine is so intense, it’s almost inconceivable that the White House won’t roll out something in October as a boost to its fortunes at the voting booths the next month. In fact, leading scientists have warned of an October surprise, in which, despite insufficient data, the president could instruct Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn to issue an Emergency Use Authorization, circumventing the normal approval process for vaccines for the sake of political expediency. Right now, we have preliminary data on safety and immunogenicity (i.e., whether a vaccine can produce an immune response of some kind—not necessarily protective against the disease) for several of the vaccine candidates. But the larger trials needed to determine whether these agents actually are effective against SARS-Cov-2 are just beginning. They will enroll tens of thousands of patients each and will provide the needed critical information to guide the FDA in evaluating these vaccines.
Will we have this information by October? Well, that all depends on how fast the trials enroll, and how quickly the measures by which these vaccines will be evaluated—new infections—accumulate in each study to allow a comparison between the number of infections among vaccine and placebo recipients. It is also very possible that this first generation of vaccines either do not perform at all, or only perform well enough that the difference in new infections between them and placebos is hard to discern. With so much riding on the success of a vaccine, the temptation for some—including new companies like Moderna and ancient universities like Oxford, which are new to this game—to overstate their findings will be almost irresistible.
News reports on many of the vaccine candidates this spring and summer have hyped them as promising breakthroughs, although this is obviously misleading without efficacy data from larger trials. At this point, all we know about the candidates that are progressing to this new phase of study are that they produced no ill effects and can raise some degree of immune response—none of which means that these vaccines are going to be protective against SARS-Cov-2. If the financial temptation for companies to overstate their results is strong, the political incentive for Trump’s people to torture the data until it confesses and tells them what they want to hear is even more powerful. The president desperately needs good news among all the bad Covid-19 news he has generated for the past six months. 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 More From Gregg Gonsalves These New Alzheimer’s Drugs Are a Travesty July 27, 2023 It's Not “Unreasonable” to Want to Change Our Rotten Health Care System June 1, 2023 Now More Than Ever, We Need to Fight, Not Despair May 11, 2023
It is crucial that the data from these studies be evaluated properly. In fact, that data should be held to an even higher standard today, given the multiple motives for manipulation. The FDA should empanel a group of outside experts to review each of the studies, drawn from the best scientists in the country working on immunology, virology, vaccine development, and statistical sciences. We should demand a commitment from FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn that he will not circumvent proper scrutiny of trial results to please the White House, and explicit assurance that the approval process will proceed by the book and in the open, not via an Emergency Use Authorization decided in-house at the agency. Each company should be required to share its data with outside scientists to verify any in-house analyses they may do. There are precedents for this kind of data sharing in the industry—and this is a prime case for sharing data for reanalysis by others.
What do we have to lose this fall? We could put a vaccine on the market without rigorous evaluation, with open questions about its safety and efficacy. Beyond proving that a vaccine works in clinical trials, we need wide uptake in order to achieve that vaunted herd or community immunity we’ve all come to know about, in which enough people are vaccinated and protected against the virus that it finds only dead ends when it seeks to spread among us. Skepticism and outright denialism about vaccine safety and efficacy existed way before Covid-19, resulting in poor coverage by vaccines for some diseases and among some communities. Uncertainty about the data or the specter of political manipulation of results will only undermine public confidence, just when we need it most.
In addition, the logistical and resource requirements to scale up production of a new vaccine, and then deliver it widely and equitably across the United States and the world, will be monumental. Even with a vaccine that is rigorously evaluated and shows some real efficacy, the challenges will be acute. But imagine all this effort going into a vaccine with dubious effects. Not only would that be a colossal waste of time and money; with little protection against the virus, people may decide they are safe and can stop practicing social distancing or wearing masks. When the truth comes out, the reputation of all vaccines will suffer a tremendous hit, as will the scientific community and the industry that went along with the scheme. If people get infected because they thought they were protected—if we don’t stop the Trump administration from juking the stats to give them a political victory this fall—we should all hang our heads in shame.
I’ve seen this before on a smaller scale, in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, with investigators using after-the-fact subgroup analyses to find some subset of people for whom an ineffective drug worked—not out of malice or desire to deceive, but because they were swept up in the need for hope in a time of desperation. This fall, we need to remain vigilant to ensure that Trump’s desperate need to win in November doesn’t produce the sound and fury of an announcement of a new vaccine for SARS-Cov-2—but signifying nothing for the public health.


thenation--2020-07-30--What Would It Take to Avert Military Escalation With China in the South China Sea?

One after another , the Department of Defense has been sending its most advanced and threatening weapons into the South China Sea as part of a concerted drive to remind China of America ’ s superior combat power .
On July 4 , it deployed two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers— the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan—along with their accompanying squadrons of cruisers , destroyers , and submarines ; joining them was a nuclear-capable B-52 Stratofortress , flown in all the way from Barksdale Air Force Base , La .
On July 15 , the guided missile destroyer USS Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef , two tiny islands converted by the Chinese into military bases .
And on July 21 , two B-1B supersonic bombers , originally designed to carry nuclear weapons , flew over the South China Sea in yet another demonstration of America ’ s military prowess .
These moves have been accompanied by unusually boastful and menacing language on the part of US military leaders .
Speaking of the dual-carrier deployment in early July , for example , the commander to the Nimitz strike group , Radm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations…are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect critically important rights , freedoms , and lawful uses of the sea.
” Similarly , when announcing the dispatch of those B-1B bombers , the commander of the 37th Expeditionary Bomber Wing , Lieutenant Colonel Lincoln Coleman , asserted that such long-distance missions provide “ the flexibility for our bombers to operate in any area of responsibility ” and “ gives us the ability to project air power across the globe.
” All these military moves ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weeks and months ahead ) have coincided with the adoption of an alarming new US position on China ’ s maritime claims in the South China Sea , announced by Mike Pompeo on July 13 .
Until now , Washington has called for a peaceful resolution of the disputes between China and its southern neighbors—notably Malaysia , Vietnam , and the Philippines—over possession of the tiny reefs and atolls that populate the South China Sea , and over rights to fish and drill for oil in the surrounding waters .
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hinted that Washington is now prepared to use force in defending those neighbors against any hostile moves on China ’ s part .
How Will US Warfare Survive the Pandemic ?
A New Tonkin Gulf Incident in the Making ?
A Full-Blown Cold War With China Could Be Disastrous Positing that China ’ s claims to most of the islands was “ unlawful ” and that it was guilty of “ bullying ” the other countries when they sought to exploit offshore resources that are rightfully theirs , Pompeo asserted that the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting such egregious behavior .
“ In the South China Sea , ” his statement reads , “ we seek to preserve peace and stability , uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law , maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce , and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.
” Given that hostile encounters between Chinese coast guard vessels and the fishing or oil-survey boats of the other countries occur on an almost weekly basis , some incident Pompeo might characterize as Chinese “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ally—thereby justifying a US military response—could arise at almost any time .
In fact , such an incident almost occurred in May , when the Navy dispatched three of its warships to nudge away some Chinese vessels that were said to be harassing a Malaysian oil-drill ship .
In orchestrating all these military and diplomatic moves , US officials seem to be proceeding with a sense of magisterial self-assurance—as if China were able to gain a foothold in the South China Sea because of American inattention during the “ forever wars ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the United States again asserting its authority there , the Chinese are certain to retire in trepidation .
This is evident in the Pentagon statements cited above and the harsh and disrespectful tone of Pompeo ’ s July 13 statement .
For anyone with any sense of history , this all has a troubling resemblance to the events in Sarajevo in June 1914 , on the eve of World War I .
At that time , as now , a rising power ( Germany then , China now ) was confronted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , Britain , and France then , the United States , Britain , Australia , and Japan now ) determined to retain their dominant position .
When , on June 28 , 1914 , Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife , Sophie , were assassinated by Serbian nationalists in Sarajevo ( then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ) , the Austrians declared war on Serbia , believing a quick military strike would subdue the extremists .
But Russia , keen to support its ally Serbia and fearing the rise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its armed forces in a bid to deter Germany from entering the conflict on Vienna ’ s side ; Germany , in response , mobilized its own forces , prompting Britain and France to mobilize theirs .
Each of those actors confidently believed that a powerful demonstration of force would deter its rivals from commencing offensive military action—and every one of these assumptions proved false , with devastating consequences .
Today , it ’ s easy to detect a similar mood of nonchalance regarding the possible outcome of an armed clash between China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to claims in the Chinese media that the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) possesses missiles capable of sinking American carriers in the South China Sea , Secretary of Defense Mark Esper blithely responded , “ I don ’ t know what the Chinese meant by that hollow statement about American carriers being [ vulnerable ] , ” but American carriers have operated in the South China Sea since World War II “ and we ’ ll continue to be there , and we ’ re not going to be stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to imagine , given this degree of confidence , that top White House officials might be thinking that a small war with China in the South China Sea—intended to demolish Beijing ’ s bases there and demonstrate the overpowering superiority of American weapons—could be the perfect answer to Trump ’ s falling poll numbers .
Just think of it : Trump delivers a true American “ victory ” against our newest foe on the very eve of election day !
But it is not just military folk and Republicans who seem to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China Sea would result in an overwhelming American victory .
In a recent article in Foreign Affairs , for example , Michèle A. Flournoy , undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration—and a possible defense secretary in a Biden administration—wrote that China ’ s expansion into the South China Sea was largely due to American negligence and that any further adventurism on Beijing ’ s part could be prevented by a conspicuous display of American military strength .
“ If the U.S. military had the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours , ” she wrote , “ Chinese leaders would think twice before , say , launching a blockade or invasion of Taiwan.
” The US and China A New Tonkin Gulf Incident in the Making ?
However , as was true of all key actors in 1914 , all this rests on the assumption that a strong show of force will be enough to convince one ’ s opponent to accept its inferior status and back off .
This is delusional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calamity in Sarajevo in 1914 .
Whatever Pompeo and others might say about the legitimacy of China ’ s occupation of those contested islands in the South China Sea , Chinese officials have stated repeatedly that they are part of China ’ s sovereign territory and will be defended by the PLA as circumstances require .
“ China has several times experienced the threats posed by the US in the [ South China ] Sea with its deployment of multiple aircraft carriers , ” said Wang Yunfei , a retired PLA naval officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity , sovereignty , and maritime interests will not waver [ after ] the latest threat posed by the US .
The Chinese military is prepared and will deal with the [ threat ] with ease.
” Just exactly how capable the PLA is of repelling a US military strike is unclear , as the Pentagon possesses a large array of sophisticated weapons capable of neutralizing Chinese defenses ; nevertheless , China possesses many “ carrier-killing ” ballistic missiles , and , even if only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even one aircraft carrier on the US side with its crew of thousands would be a calamitous loss .
This , in turn , would undoubtedly provoke additional US attacks on China and equivalent retaliation on Beijing ’ s part , resulting in a regional war and global economic chaos .
It is the height of folly , then , to assume that a punitive US military strike in the South China Sea will result in Chinese capitulation with zero cost to the United States .
There are , no doubt , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US business community who recognize the extent of the danger .
Even during those dual-carrier operations in July , when China was also conducting naval maneuvers in the South China Sea , military officials on both sides adopted distancing measures to avoid an unintended mishap or clash between them .
At present , however , the voices of caution and reason are being drowned out by those advocating a tough stance toward China and a heedless inclination to employ force .
It is essential , then , that members of Congress and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the South China Sea and the initiation of high-level discussions among top American and Chinese political and military officials to adopt interim measures aimed at reducing the risk of armed hostilities in the region .
Eventually , China will have to address the claims of its neighbors to certain maritime areas now claimed exclusively by Beijing .
The United States can serve as a “ friend of the court ” ( as it were ) , advising those countries and supporting them in international venues like the United Nations .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paternalistic effort to teach China a lesson about who is top dog in that distant body of water .

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?
One after another, the Department of Defense has been sending its most advanced and threatening weapons into the South China Sea as part of a concerted drive to remind China of America’s superior combat power.
On July 4, it deployed two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers— the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan—along with their accompanying squadrons of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines; joining them was a nuclear-capable B-52 Stratofortress, flown in all the way from Barksdale Air Force Base, La. On July 15, the guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed within 12 nautical miles of Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef, two tiny islands converted by the Chinese into military bases. And on July 21, two B-1B supersonic bombers, originally designed to carry nuclear weapons, flew over the South China Sea in yet another demonstration of America’s military prowess.
These moves have been accompanied by unusually boastful and menacing language on the part of US military leaders. Speaking of the dual-carrier deployment in early July, for example, the commander to the Nimitz strike group, Radm. James Kirk, stated, “Our operations…are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect critically important rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea.” Similarly, when announcing the dispatch of those B-1B bombers, the commander of the 37th Expeditionary Bomber Wing, Lieutenant Colonel Lincoln Coleman, asserted that such long-distance missions provide “the flexibility for our bombers to operate in any area of responsibility” and “gives us the ability to project air power across the globe.”
All these military moves (and others like them we can expect in the weeks and months ahead) have coincided with the adoption of an alarming new US position on China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea, announced by Mike Pompeo on July 13. Until now, Washington has called for a peaceful resolution of the disputes between China and its southern neighbors—notably Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines—over possession of the tiny reefs and atolls that populate the South China Sea, and over rights to fish and drill for oil in the surrounding waters. In his July 13 statement, however, Pompeo hinted that Washington is now prepared to use force in defending those neighbors against any hostile moves on China’s part. 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 More From Michael T. Klare When AI and Robotics Combine August 9, 2023 The Future of AI Is War July 17, 2023 The US Versus China June 14, 2023
Positing that China’s claims to most of the islands was “unlawful” and that it was guilty of “bullying” the other countries when they sought to exploit offshore resources that are rightfully theirs, Pompeo asserted that the United States was prepared to assist them in resisting such egregious behavior. “In the South China Sea,” his statement reads, “we seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.”
Given that hostile encounters between Chinese coast guard vessels and the fishing or oil-survey boats of the other countries occur on an almost weekly basis, some incident Pompeo might characterize as Chinese “bullying” of an American friend or ally—thereby justifying a US military response—could arise at almost any time. In fact, such an incident almost occurred in May, when the Navy dispatched three of its warships to nudge away some Chinese vessels that were said to be harassing a Malaysian oil-drill ship.
In orchestrating all these military and diplomatic moves, US officials seem to be proceeding with a sense of magisterial self-assurance—as if China were able to gain a foothold in the South China Sea because of American inattention during the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan and that now, with the United States again asserting its authority there, the Chinese are certain to retire in trepidation. This is evident in the Pentagon statements cited above and the harsh and disrespectful tone of Pompeo’s July 13 statement. Current Issue View our current issue
For anyone with any sense of history, this all has a troubling resemblance to the events in Sarajevo in June 1914, on the eve of World War I. At that time, as now, a rising power (Germany then, China now) was confronted by a coalition of prevailing powers (Czarist Russia, Britain, and France then, the United States, Britain, Australia, and Japan now) determined to retain their dominant position.
When, on June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated by Serbian nationalists in Sarajevo (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), the Austrians declared war on Serbia, believing a quick military strike would subdue the extremists. But Russia, keen to support its ally Serbia and fearing the rise of Austria’s ally Germany, mobilized its armed forces in a bid to deter Germany from entering the conflict on Vienna’s side; Germany, in response, mobilized its own forces, prompting Britain and France to mobilize theirs. Each of those actors confidently believed that a powerful demonstration of force would deter its rivals from commencing offensive military action—and every one of these assumptions proved false, with devastating consequences.
Today, it’s easy to detect a similar mood of nonchalance regarding the possible outcome of an armed clash between China and the United States. In response to claims in the Chinese media that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) possesses missiles capable of sinking American carriers in the South China Sea, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper blithely responded, “I don’t know what the Chinese meant by that hollow statement about American carriers being [vulnerable],” but American carriers have operated in the South China Sea since World War II “and we’ll continue to be there, and we’re not going to be stopped by anybody.”
It is not hard to imagine, given this degree of confidence, that top White House officials might be thinking that a small war with China in the South China Sea—intended to demolish Beijing’s bases there and demonstrate the overpowering superiority of American weapons—could be the perfect answer to Trump’s falling poll numbers. Just think of it: Trump delivers a true American “victory” against our newest foe on the very eve of election day!
But it is not just military folk and Republicans who seem to believe that a little war in the South China Sea would result in an overwhelming American victory. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, for example, Michèle A. Flournoy, undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration—and a possible defense secretary in a Biden administration—wrote that China’s expansion into the South China Sea was largely due to American negligence and that any further adventurism on Beijing’s part could be prevented by a conspicuous display of American military strength. “If the U.S. military had the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours,” she wrote, “Chinese leaders would think twice before, say, launching a blockade or invasion of Taiwan.” The US and China A New Tonkin Gulf Incident in the Making? Michael T. Klare
However, as was true of all key actors in 1914, all this rests on the assumption that a strong show of force will be enough to convince one’s opponent to accept its inferior status and back off. This is delusional thinking of the sort that led to calamity in Sarajevo in 1914.
Whatever Pompeo and others might say about the legitimacy of China’s occupation of those contested islands in the South China Sea, Chinese officials have stated repeatedly that they are part of China’s sovereign territory and will be defended by the PLA as circumstances require. “China has several times experienced the threats posed by the US in the [South China] Sea with its deployment of multiple aircraft carriers,” said Wang Yunfei, a retired PLA naval officer, on Chinese media. “China’s resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity, sovereignty, and maritime interests will not waver [after] the latest threat posed by the US. The Chinese military is prepared and will deal with the [threat] with ease.”
Just exactly how capable the PLA is of repelling a US military strike is unclear, as the Pentagon possesses a large array of sophisticated weapons capable of neutralizing Chinese defenses; nevertheless, China possesses many “carrier-killing” ballistic missiles, and, even if only a few succeed in their intended mission, even one aircraft carrier on the US side with its crew of thousands would be a calamitous loss. This, in turn, would undoubtedly provoke additional US attacks on China and equivalent retaliation on Beijing’s part, resulting in a regional war and global economic chaos. It is the height of folly, then, to assume that a punitive US military strike in the South China Sea will result in Chinese capitulation with zero cost to the United States.
There are, no doubt, many in the Department of Defense and the US business community who recognize the extent of the danger. Even during those dual-carrier operations in July, when China was also conducting naval maneuvers in the South China Sea, military officials on both sides adopted distancing measures to avoid an unintended mishap or clash between them. At present, however, the voices of caution and reason are being drowned out by those advocating a tough stance toward China and a heedless inclination to employ force. It is essential, then, that members of Congress and the public call for a de-escalation of tensions in the South China Sea and the initiation of high-level discussions among top American and Chinese political and military officials to adopt interim measures aimed at reducing the risk of armed hostilities in the region.
Eventually, China will have to address the claims of its neighbors to certain maritime areas now claimed exclusively by Beijing. The United States can serve as a “friend of the court” (as it were), advising those countries and supporting them in international venues like the United Nations. But it must not risk World War III in a paternalistic effort to teach China a lesson about who is top dog in that distant body of water.