thenation--2020-08-20--Elizabeth Warren Is Prepared to Prosecute Trump in 2020, and 2021

Elizabeth Warren is on a mission , and she will not fail .
The senator from Massachusetts is preparing to prosecute Donald Trump on the 2020 campaign trail .
And if the Democratic ticket prevails , she will continue that prosecution in 2021 and beyond .
Speaking to a country that has “ taken one gut punch after another ” since Covid-19 hit , Warren pointed a finger of blame at the president of the United States , and then she indicted him .
“ Donald Trump ’ s ignorance and incompetence have always been a danger to our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test .
He failed miserably , ” said the senator who ran to challenge Trump this year but now supports the campaign mounted by the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
That support will be essential on the trail , along with the support of other speakers from a convention night when former president Barack Obama led the charge with a condemnation of Trump as a damaged man who has shown “ no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Has a Lot to Teach Joe Biden and the Democrats Dissenting Delegates Send a Medicare for All Message to Joe Biden Whatever This Is Is Not the Future of the Democratic Party What will distinguish Warren ’ s support is her absolute determination to indict Donald John Trump for the deadly failures that have created a crisis in which “ the devastation is enormous.
” “ Today , America has the most Covid deaths in the world and an economic collapse—and both crises are falling hardest on Black and brown families , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Millions more trapped in cycles of poverty .
Millions on the brink of losing their homes .
Millions of restaurants and stores hanging by a thread.
” “ This crisis is bad—and didn ’ t have to be this way .
This crisis is on Donald Trump and the Republicans who enable him , ” she concluded .
“ On November 3 , we hold them all accountable.
” The 2020 election has to be about accountability .
Harris knows that .
The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vice presidential nominee proclaiming that “ as somebody who has presented my fair share of arguments in court , the case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut.
” But the 2020 campaign can ’ t be the end of it .
If Biden and Harris beat Trump and his hapless running mate , Vice President Mike Pence , the new administration and its allies in the Senate will have a duty to examine the wrongs done by the Trump-Pence administration and to hold the wrongdoers to account—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the court of history .
That ’ s what Franklin Roosevelt did after winning the presidency in 1932 .
Kamala Harris Does Her Best to Redeem Our Sexist , Racist Past During the Conventions , the Media Needs to Be Treating Climate Like the Emergency It Is More in this series FDR never let anyone forget the damage that had been by done his predecessor , Herbert Hoover , and the Wall Street–aligned Republicans who failed the American people during the first years of the Great Depression .
Roosevelt supported congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation and reforms that were designed to end the systemic corruption of politics and governance by elected officials who had squandered the public trust and made themselves the feudal serfs of corporate power .
He knew that a consistent focus on accountability was necessary to clear the way for the fundamental changes that the times required .
At the 1936 Democratic National Convention , FDR accepted a nomination for a second term by offering the delegates and millions of Americans who were listening via radio a lesson in economic and political history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ royalists carved new dynasties .
New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things .
Through new uses of corporations , banks , and securities , new machinery of industry and agriculture , of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service .
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit .
They were no more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth , aware of their obligation to their generation , could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things .
The 32nd president leveled with the American people , telling them that they had lost not just their economic liberty but their political liberty as well .
Roosevelt portrayed the 1932 election as nothing less than a revolution .
“ Against economic tyranny such as this , the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed up the despotism for what it was .
The election of 1932 was the people ’ s mandate to end it .
Under that mandate it is being ended.
” Biden and Harris must promise a parallel end to the corruption not just of Trump but also the corruption that gave rise to Trump .
Biden will be cautious , but Harris will be bolder .
And Warren will encourage that boldness .
The pandemic has , indeed , been devastating .
Warren recognized the whole of that devastation , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to support families , with a bold new program for early childhood education .
She acknowledged , as she did during her own campaign , that “ big problems demand big solutions.
” And she pointed to Biden ’ s plans : “ plans to bring back union jobs in manufacturing and create new union jobs in clean energy .
Plans to increase Social Security benefits , cancel billions in student loan debt , and make our bankruptcy laws work for families instead of the creditors who cheat them.
” Then she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These plans reflect a central truth : Our economic system has been rigged to give bailouts to billionaires and kick dirt in the face of everyone else .
But we can build a thriving economy by investing in families and fixing what ’ s broken .
Joe ’ s plan to ‘ build back better ’ includes making the wealthy pay their fair share , holding corporations accountable , repairing racial inequities , and fighting corruption in Washington.
” That fight extends beyond elections—beyond election results .
It is about what is done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
“ We all need to be in the fight to get Joe and Kamala elected , ” explained the senator .
“ And after November , we all need to stay in the fight to get big things done.
” Warren knows the great secret of American politics and governance : that the work of making the change always involves more than policy .
It involves fearlessly and consistently identifying and indicting those who have corrupted our governance .
And the work can not end until the guilty men have been @ @ @ @

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?
Elizabeth Warren is on a mission, and she will not fail.
The senator from Massachusetts is preparing to prosecute Donald Trump on the 2020 campaign trail. And if the Democratic ticket prevails, she will continue that prosecution in 2021 and beyond.
Speaking to a country that has “taken one gut punch after another” since Covid-19 hit, Warren pointed a finger of blame at the president of the United States, and then she indicted him. “Donald Trump’s ignorance and incompetence have always been a danger to our country. Covid-19 was Trump’s biggest test. He failed miserably,” said the senator who ran to challenge Trump this year but now supports the campaign mounted by the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
That support will be essential on the trail, along with the support of other speakers from a convention night when former president Barack Obama led the charge with a condemnation of Trump as a damaged man who has shown “no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.” 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
What will distinguish Warren’s support is her absolute determination to indict Donald John Trump for the deadly failures that have created a crisis in which “the devastation is enormous.”
“Today, America has the most Covid deaths in the world and an economic collapse—and both crises are falling hardest on Black and brown families,” Warren declared. “Millions out of work. Millions more trapped in cycles of poverty. Millions on the brink of losing their homes. Millions of restaurants and stores hanging by a thread.”
“This crisis is bad—and didn’t have to be this way. This crisis is on Donald Trump and the Republicans who enable him,” she concluded. “On November 3, we hold them all accountable.”
The 2020 election has to be about accountability. Harris knows that. The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general accepted her designation as the party’s vice presidential nominee proclaiming that “as somebody who has presented my fair share of arguments in court, the case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut.”
But the 2020 campaign can’t be the end of it.
If Biden and Harris beat Trump and his hapless running mate, Vice President Mike Pence, the new administration and its allies in the Senate will have a duty to examine the wrongs done by the Trump-Pence administration and to hold the wrongdoers to account—in courts of law, where possible, and in the court of history. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did after winning the presidency in 1932. 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 2020 DNC Biden Republicans Are a Political Illusion Jeet Heer Our Stutter: Joe Biden, Brayden Harrington—and Me Barry Yeoman A Democratic Convention for Acknowledging Pain, and for Healing Joan Walsh
FDR never let anyone forget the damage that had been by done his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, and the Wall Street–aligned Republicans who failed the American people during the first years of the Great Depression.
Roosevelt supported congressional investigations and legal inquiries. He championed regulation and reforms that were designed to end the systemic corruption of politics and governance by elected officials who had squandered the public trust and made themselves the feudal serfs of corporate power. He knew that a consistent focus on accountability was necessary to clear the way for the fundamental changes that the times required.
At the 1936 Democratic National Convention, FDR accepted a nomination for a second term by offering the delegates and millions of Americans who were listening via radio a lesson in economic and political history.
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks, and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
The 32nd president leveled with the American people, telling them that they had lost not just their economic liberty but their political liberty as well.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man. Current Issue View our current issue
Roosevelt portrayed the 1932 election as nothing less than a revolution. “Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government,” he concluded. “The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people’s mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.”
Biden and Harris must promise a parallel end to the corruption not just of Trump but also the corruption that gave rise to Trump. Biden will be cautious, but Harris will be bolder. And Warren will encourage that boldness.
The pandemic has, indeed, been devastating. Warren recognized the whole of that devastation, with a speech that gave necessary attention to the need to support families, with a bold new program for early childhood education. She acknowledged, as she did during her own campaign, that “big problems demand big solutions.” And she pointed to Biden’s plans: “plans to bring back union jobs in manufacturing and create new union jobs in clean energy. Plans to increase Social Security benefits, cancel billions in student loan debt, and make our bankruptcy laws work for families instead of the creditors who cheat them.”
Then she put it all in perspective. “These plans reflect a central truth: Our economic system has been rigged to give bailouts to billionaires and kick dirt in the face of everyone else. But we can build a thriving economy by investing in families and fixing what’s broken. Joe’s plan to ‘build back better’ includes making the wealthy pay their fair share, holding corporations accountable, repairing racial inequities, and fighting corruption in Washington.”
That fight extends beyond elections—beyond election results. It is about what is done with the power that extends from those results. “We all need to be in the fight to get Joe and Kamala elected,” explained the senator. “And after November, we all need to stay in the fight to get big things done.”
Warren knows the great secret of American politics and governance: that the work of making the change always involves more than policy. It involves fearlessly and consistently identifying and indicting those who have corrupted our governance. And the work cannot end until the guilty men have been held to account.


thenation--2020-08-20--Obama’s High-Minded Civics Lesson Asks Too Much of Us

If the United States of America survives another century , currently an uncertain prospect , then the current living politician whose words are most likely to continue to be studied is Barack Obama .
He and Bill Clinton are often rated together as orators , but they are in fact very different in scope .
Bill Clinton is a master at giving wonky barn burners , speeches that make easily understandable in an almost folksy vernacular complex matters of social debate .
Obama is a more classic speaker in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of politics : national unity and citizenship .
Milwaukee Has a Lot to Teach Joe Biden and the Democrats Obama ’ s five convention speeches from 2004 until 2020 have a literary cohesiveness that is unusual in American politics .
They echo each other in theme and sometimes phrases , calling back earlier promises and reevaluating them in the light of changing circumstances .
Grappling with the problem of how a divided nation stays together , they suggest that Obama has become increasingly pessimistic about the prospects of American democracy .
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Convention , Obama made as forceful and damning an indictment of Donald Trump as possible , and connected the case against his successor with deeper problems in American democracy : I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies .
I did hope , for the sake of our country , that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously ; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For close to four years now , he ’ s shown no interest in putting in the work ; no interest in finding common ground ; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends ; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves .
Donald Trump hasn ’ t grown into the job because he can ’ t .
And the consequences of that failure are severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever .
Our worst impulses unleashed , our proud reputation around the world badly diminished , and our democratic institutions threatened like never before .
These words are as true and blunt as one could hope for .
And yet Obama ’ s vision of democracy might not be motivating enough .
He is making a case based on civic obligation , which presupposes a level of democratic engagement that is desirable but doesn ’ t exist .
At one point Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be transactional—you give me your vote ; I make everything better .
It requires an active and informed citizenry .
So I am also asking you to believe in your own ability—to embrace your own responsibility as citizens—to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure.
” But is it really true that democracy isn ’ t transactional ?
Don ’ t most people vote for politicians because they expect their lives to be materially improved in some way—not to have all their problems solved , certainly , but at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is a consummately transactional figure .
He has managed to hold the Republican coalition to his side despite his personal corruption and low moral character .
He ’ s done so by giving every component of his coalition some benefit : for evangelicals , judges and anti-LGBTQ policy ; for the rich , tax cuts ; for the national security state , much more money ; for racists , an immigration crackdown .
One could argue that Trump is a bad example to follow .
But he ’ s doing what all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents like Franklin Roosevelt , Harry Truman , Lyndon Johnson , and , yes , Barack Obama .
If Joe Biden is to succeed , he might have to put aside the high-minded rhetoric of his former running mate and concentrate on bread-and-butter transactional politics .

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?
If the United States of America survives another century, currently an uncertain prospect, then the current living politician whose words are most likely to continue to be studied is Barack Obama. He and Bill Clinton are often rated together as orators, but they are in fact very different in scope. Bill Clinton is a master at giving wonky barn burners, speeches that make easily understandable in an almost folksy vernacular complex matters of social debate. Obama is a more classic speaker in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., one who speaks to the highest issues of politics: national unity and citizenship. Related Article Milwaukee Has a Lot to Teach Joe Biden and the Democrats John Nichols
Obama’s five convention speeches from 2004 until 2020 have a literary cohesiveness that is unusual in American politics. They echo each other in theme and sometimes phrases, calling back earlier promises and reevaluating them in the light of changing circumstances. Grappling with the problem of how a divided nation stays together, they suggest that Obama has become increasingly pessimistic about the prospects of American democracy.
In his speech on Wednesday night’s Democratic National Convention, Obama made as forceful and damning an indictment of Donald Trump as possible, and connected the case against his successor with deeper problems in American democracy:
I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care. But he never did. For close to four years now, he’s shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves. Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.
These words are as true and blunt as one could hope for. And yet Obama’s vision of democracy might not be motivating enough. He is making a case based on civic obligation, which presupposes a level of democratic engagement that is desirable but doesn’t exist. Current Issue View our current issue
At one point Obama said, “Democracy was never meant to be transactional—you give me your vote; I make everything better. It requires an active and informed citizenry. So I am also asking you to believe in your own ability—to embrace your own responsibility as citizens—to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure.”
But is it really true that democracy isn’t transactional? Don’t most people vote for politicians because they expect their lives to be materially improved in some way—not to have all their problems solved, certainly, but at least to have major issues addressed?
Trump is a consummately transactional figure. He has managed to hold the Republican coalition to his side despite his personal corruption and low moral character. He’s done so by giving every component of his coalition some benefit: for evangelicals, judges and anti-LGBTQ policy; for the rich, tax cuts; for the national security state, much more money; for racists, an immigration crackdown.
One could argue that Trump is a bad example to follow. But he’s doing what all politicians have done, including successful Democratic presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and, yes, Barack Obama.
If Joe Biden is to succeed, he might have to put aside the high-minded rhetoric of his former running mate and concentrate on bread-and-butter transactional politics.


thenation--2020-08-20--What Belarus Stands to Lose

What Belarus Stands to Lose

As the political crisis in Belarus smolders on , one thing is clear : Responsibility for the breakdown rests entirely with President Alexander Lukashenko , who has held on to power since 1994 .
It was he who presided over the evident falsification of the August 9 election , condemned as fraudulent by the West and which even Russia ’ s foreign minister called “ not ideal.
” Lukashenko also ultimately commands the security services that have brutalized thousands of peaceful demonstrators over the past fortnight .
But recognition of these facts , and of Lukashenko ’ s record of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about the potentially disastrous consequences of any poorly managed regime change .
The inspiring scenes of people power in Minsk vividly recall the pro-democracy rallies that foiled an attempted coup by Soviet hard-liners to depose then–Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev exactly 29 years ago , in August 1991 .
Yet neither those demonstrations nor any other major mass uprisings since have resulted in the creation of stable , democratic governments in the former Soviet Union .
With the exception of Latvia , Lithuania , and Estonia , which never fully accepted that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chaotic fall of the USSR created a dozen more or less dysfunctional states .
Three decades on , none has been able to liberate itself of corruption , authoritarianism , or Russian meddling .
Sizable numbers of citizens of all these countries—a third of Ukrainians , more than half of Belarusians , nearly 70 percent of Russians , and up to 80 percent of Armenians , according to a 2017 Pew Research Center poll—have come to lament the passing of the old order , the benefits of which became fully apparent only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like their Soviet forebears , Belarusians have a lot more to lose from a poorly managed transition than it may at first appear .
Lukashenko ’ s pathological phobia of reform helped create the current impasse .
But it also spared Belarus the economic shock therapy and mass privatization that saw Soviet industrial assets taken over by political insiders and organized criminals in neighboring Russia and Ukraine .
Today , Belarus has a lower unemployment rate than the eurozone average and remains one of the least unequal societies in the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Room For all the palpable sense of stagnation , since 1995 Belarusians have seen a threefold rise in their per capita GDP .
While the country ’ s GDP remains much lower than that of Poland or the Baltics—established EU members that even at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union had much more developed economies—it remains double that of nearby former Soviet republics Ukraine and Moldova .
During the past quarter-century , Belarus also recorded a 24 percent increase in the Human Development Index , the measure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , and living standards compiled by the United Nations Development Programme .
This is a significantly bigger improvement than in neighboring Poland ( 18 percent ) , Russia ( 17 percent ) , or Ukraine ( 11 percent ) .
And while it has long been the butt of jokes for its old-school reliance on potash mining and heavy industry , Belarus ’ s economy has produced some unexpected success stories .
Aside from tractors and heavy-duty vehicles used in mining , the country has also developed a significant regional expertise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business incubator founded by Valery Tsepkalo , a former diplomat who later became one of the leaders of the opposition and was forced to flee Belarus earlier this month .
His wife , Veronika , is one of three women—including presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and Maria Kolesnikova , the campaign manager of Viktor Babariko , a former banker who was barred from running—who have helmed the opposition movement .
Nor does Belarus share the rampant corruption that plagues other post-Soviet states .
According to Transparency International ’ s Corruption Perceptions Index , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption , Belarus ranks better than not only Russia and Ukraine but also EU members Hungary , Bulgaria , and Romania .
These statistics do not exonerate Lukashenko ’ s rule , which through its contempt for democracy has earned the resentment of the thousands of people now risking violence to gather across the country .
Rather , they demonstrate the hard-won gains that any democratic successor must defend even as they attempt to pass necessary reforms .
Voters must be told clearly how a legitimately elected government would protect Belarus ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asset stripping , and crony privatizations that plagued the so-called democratic transitions of its neighbors .
So far , none of the opposition leaders have demonstrated a vocal commitment to preserving Belarus ’ s key asset : its social and economic equality .
Worryingly , two key opposition leaders , Tsepkalo and Viktor Babariko , a career banker , are known for their staunchly pro-business views and vocal support for privatization .
On August 14 , presidential candidate Tikhanovskaya announced the formation of the Coordination Council , a group tasked with transferring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transitional government .
Of its 33 initially announced members , six were IT business leaders from a sector that accounted for just 5.5 percent of GDP in 2018 .
Only one , Sergey Dylevsky , a worker at the Minsk Tractor Works , is a voice for the blue-collar workers that form the backbone of the country ’ s economy .
In recent days , the council has moved to rebalance , appointing Gleb Sandras from the Belaruskali Potash Plant and creating seven additional posts to be filled by worker representatives from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anthropologist and professor Serguei Oushakine , an expert on post-communist transitions who is writing a book about Belarus , the vocal influence on the protests of the younger , more outward-looking tech sector can obscure the fact that “ the current system of state capitalism continues to maintain a relatively broad base of support.
” The country ’ s IT workers “ live in a kind of economic bubble , ” he told me .
The sector is foreign-oriented and contributes little to the country ’ s tax base , which remains sustained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And for the bulk of the country ’ s labor market , any economic changes may bring serious risks .
“ Deindustrialisation has been a feature of most political transitions in Eastern Europe , ” said Oushakine .
“ Those who are striking , what will they do later once their factories close ?
Yet this fear has not prevented them from standing up for their personal dignity.
” A flyer found at the Minsk Automobile Plant by a journalist from Russia ’ s leading independent newspaper , Novaya Gazeta , reads : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do not be afraid to lose your jobs , your country needs you .
Do you want to live with dignity ?
Then come out into the streets.
” For now , most of the citizens of Belarus appear to have put aside material considerations in favor of moral ones .
“ People are just tired of the lies , the propaganda , the lack of hope , ” veteran opposition activist and former presidential candidate Alec Lahviniec told me .
But how long before bread and butter issues come to the fore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs that the opposition movement has arrived at any broad political or economic program .
Its current aims remain focused and immediate : an end to state violence , the release of all political prisoners , and fresh elections in accordance with international standards .
That was the extent of the three demands issued on August 19 by the Coordination Council .
Its official statement also reiterated the constitutionality of the protests , referring to existing articles that protect free expression and guarantee the right to strike and to peacefully protest .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coordination Council is the Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich .
Long persecuted by Lukashenko ’ s government , she spent a decade in exile before returning to Belarus in 2011 .
She urged Lukashenko to “ leave before it ’ s too late ” in a recent interview with Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe .
Yet Alexievich ’ s magnum opus , Second Hand Time , an oral history of the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath , is a testament to the trauma and disillusionment of hasty transitions .
Over and over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their idealistic yearning for change was dashed by the realities of corrupt politics and untrammeled capitalism .
“ We thought that any minute now…there were buses idling outside waiting to take us away to democracy , ” one person tells Alexievich in the book .
As another recounts , when people went out into the streets in 1991 , it was “ to die for freedom , not capitalism , ” adding , “ I consider myself a person who ’ s been deceived.
” Time is running out for the opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentions regarding economic reforms , including privatization , and other controversial positions such as relations with NATO and Moscow .
Until this happens , the replacement of Lukashenko ’ s stolid authoritarianism with yet another incarnation of a post-Soviet kleptocracy remains an all-too-real threat .
As Alexievich ’ s writing has shown , post-Soviet history has rarely sided with the optimists .
But by maintaining their vigilance and solidarity , Belarusians may finally open a promising new chapter .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As the political crisis in Belarus smolders on, one thing is clear: Responsibility for the breakdown rests entirely with President Alexander Lukashenko, who has held on to power since 1994. It was he who presided over the evident falsification of the August 9 election, condemned as fraudulent by the West and which even Russia’s foreign minister called “not ideal.” Lukashenko also ultimately commands the security services that have brutalized thousands of peaceful demonstrators over the past fortnight. But recognition of these facts, and of Lukashenko’s record of authoritarianism and cruelty, should not mask concerns about the potentially disastrous consequences of any poorly managed regime change.
The inspiring scenes of people power in Minsk vividly recall the pro-democracy rallies that foiled an attempted coup by Soviet hard-liners to depose then–Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev exactly 29 years ago, in August 1991. Yet neither those demonstrations nor any other major mass uprisings since have resulted in the creation of stable, democratic governments in the former Soviet Union.
With the exception of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which never fully accepted that they were part of the Soviet Union, the chaotic fall of the USSR created a dozen more or less dysfunctional states. Three decades on, none has been able to liberate itself of corruption, authoritarianism, or Russian meddling. Sizable numbers of citizens of all these countries—a third of Ukrainians, more than half of Belarusians, nearly 70 percent of Russians, and up to 80 percent of Armenians, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center poll—have come to lament the passing of the old order, the benefits of which became fully apparent only with hindsight amid social and economic upheaval.
Like their Soviet forebears, Belarusians have a lot more to lose from a poorly managed transition than it may at first appear. Lukashenko’s pathological phobia of reform helped create the current impasse. But it also spared Belarus the economic shock therapy and mass privatization that saw Soviet industrial assets taken over by political insiders and organized criminals in neighboring Russia and Ukraine. Today, Belarus has a lower unemployment rate than the eurozone average and remains one of the least unequal societies in the world. Related Article The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room Elie Mystal
For all the palpable sense of stagnation, since 1995 Belarusians have seen a threefold rise in their per capita GDP. While the country’s GDP remains much lower than that of Poland or the Baltics—established EU members that even at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union had much more developed economies—it remains double that of nearby former Soviet republics Ukraine and Moldova. During the past quarter-century, Belarus also recorded a 24 percent increase in the Human Development Index, the measure of long-term progress in longevity, access to education, and living standards compiled by the United Nations Development Programme. This is a significantly bigger improvement than in neighboring Poland (18 percent), Russia (17 percent), or Ukraine (11 percent). 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
And while it has long been the butt of jokes for its old-school reliance on potash mining and heavy industry, Belarus’s economy has produced some unexpected success stories. Aside from tractors and heavy-duty vehicles used in mining, the country has also developed a significant regional expertise in IT through Hi-Tech Park, a low-tax business incubator founded by Valery Tsepkalo, a former diplomat who later became one of the leaders of the opposition and was forced to flee Belarus earlier this month. His wife, Veronika, is one of three women—including presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and Maria Kolesnikova, the campaign manager of Viktor Babariko, a former banker who was barred from running—who have helmed the opposition movement.
Nor does Belarus share the rampant corruption that plagues other post-Soviet states. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures self-reported incidents of bribery and other corruption, Belarus ranks better than not only Russia and Ukraine but also EU members Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Current Issue View our current issue
These statistics do not exonerate Lukashenko’s rule, which through its contempt for democracy has earned the resentment of the thousands of people now risking violence to gather across the country. Rather, they demonstrate the hard-won gains that any democratic successor must defend even as they attempt to pass necessary reforms. Voters must be told clearly how a legitimately elected government would protect Belarus’s highly regulated economy from the mass layoffs, asset stripping, and crony privatizations that plagued the so-called democratic transitions of its neighbors.
So far, none of the opposition leaders have demonstrated a vocal commitment to preserving Belarus’s key asset: its social and economic equality. Worryingly, two key opposition leaders, Tsepkalo and Viktor Babariko, a career banker, are known for their staunchly pro-business views and vocal support for privatization.
On August 14, presidential candidate Tikhanovskaya announced the formation of the Coordination Council, a group tasked with transferring power away from Lukashenko and forming a transitional government. Of its 33 initially announced members, six were IT business leaders from a sector that accounted for just 5.5 percent of GDP in 2018. Only one, Sergey Dylevsky, a worker at the Minsk Tractor Works, is a voice for the blue-collar workers that form the backbone of the country’s economy. In recent days, the council has moved to rebalance, appointing Gleb Sandras from the Belaruskali Potash Plant and creating seven additional posts to be filled by worker representatives from the major industrial companies.
For the Princeton anthropologist and professor Serguei Oushakine, an expert on post-communist transitions who is writing a book about Belarus, the vocal influence on the protests of the younger, more outward-looking tech sector can obscure the fact that “the current system of state capitalism continues to maintain a relatively broad base of support.” The country’s IT workers “live in a kind of economic bubble,” he told me. The sector is foreign-oriented and contributes little to the country’s tax base, which remains sustained by heavy-machine building and potash mining. And for the bulk of the country’s labor market, any economic changes may bring serious risks. “Deindustrialisation has been a feature of most political transitions in Eastern Europe,” said Oushakine. “Those who are striking, what will they do later once their factories close? Yet this fear has not prevented them from standing up for their personal dignity.”
A flyer found at the Minsk Automobile Plant by a journalist from Russia’s leading independent newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, reads: “Dear fellow citizens, friends! Do not be afraid to lose your jobs, your country needs you. Do you want to live with dignity? Then come out into the streets.” For now, most of the citizens of Belarus appear to have put aside material considerations in favor of moral ones. “People are just tired of the lies, the propaganda, the lack of hope,” veteran opposition activist and former presidential candidate Alec Lahviniec told me. But how long before bread and butter issues come to the fore?
To date, there are no signs that the opposition movement has arrived at any broad political or economic program. Its current aims remain focused and immediate: an end to state violence, the release of all political prisoners, and fresh elections in accordance with international standards. That was the extent of the three demands issued on August 19 by the Coordination Council. Its official statement also reiterated the constitutionality of the protests, referring to existing articles that protect free expression and guarantee the right to strike and to peacefully protest.
One of the most famous members of the Coordination Council is the Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich. Long persecuted by Lukashenko’s government, she spent a decade in exile before returning to Belarus in 2011. She urged Lukashenko to “leave before it’s too late” in a recent interview with Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. Yet Alexievich’s magnum opus, Second Hand Time, an oral history of the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath, is a testament to the trauma and disillusionment of hasty transitions. Over and over, her interview subjects speak of how their idealistic yearning for change was dashed by the realities of corrupt politics and untrammeled capitalism. “We thought that any minute now…there were buses idling outside waiting to take us away to democracy,” one person tells Alexievich in the book. As another recounts, when people went out into the streets in 1991, it was “to die for freedom, not capitalism,” adding, “I consider myself a person who’s been deceived.”
Time is running out for the opposition to stake out a concrete manifesto of its intentions regarding economic reforms, including privatization, and other controversial positions such as relations with NATO and Moscow. Until this happens, the replacement of Lukashenko’s stolid authoritarianism with yet another incarnation of a post-Soviet kleptocracy remains an all-too-real threat. As Alexievich’s writing has shown, post-Soviet history has rarely sided with the optimists. But by maintaining their vigilance and solidarity, Belarusians may finally open a promising new chapter.


thenation--2020-08-20--The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room

If you want to know why Republicans have come to dominate the judicial branch of government , while Democrats are reduced to offering thoughts and prayers to an 87-year-old woman battling cancer , look no further than the third night of the Democratic National Convention .
If you want to understand how Mitch McConnell was able to steal a Supreme Court appointment from a Democratic president without sparking half the country into civil unrest , listen to what the Democrats told their own voters last night .
If you want to know why a woman ’ s right to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brink of collapse , why the right to vote is being suppressed , why people will be forced to risk their lives to vote during a pandemic this fall , or why our children will be shot at whenever it ’ s “ safe ” enough to open schools again , behold the ongoing failure of the Democratic Party to make the courts matter to their own voters .
Last night , ahead of the nomination of Kamala Harris , the first woman of color on a major party ticket , the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance to young voters in the upcoming election : gun reform , climate change , immigration , and women ’ s rights .
On paper , it ’ s nearly impossible to talk seriously about any one of those issues without acknowledging the critical role the courts have to play , much less all of them .
But , somehow , the Democrats found a way to ignore the 5-4 elephant in the room .
There is no gun regulation or weapons ban that survives the Republican Supreme Court .
None .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Democrats did last night , without talking about the five pro-gun absolutists currently patrolling the Supreme Court is to talk about flying without acknowledging the limitations imposed by gravity .
There is no climate legislation that survives what can be called the most “ pro-business ” Supreme Court in American history .
None .
And while we ’ re here , it ’ s worth mentioning that there ’ s no federal program that addresses police brutality , no expansion of health care , and no voting rights protection that survives this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making this up : The five conservatives on the Supreme Court have struck down legislation regarding each of these issues , or refused to defend this kind of legislation when lower courts have struck down the laws , over and over again .
I literally do not know how the Democrats got through an entire section on immigration last night without mentioning the Muslim ban , or the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold it .
I do not know how they talked about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program , and yet did not mention that the court ’ s decision to allow the program to continue hangs by a thread or that the Trump administration has indicated that it will violate court orders anyway .
The omissions are insulting , not just to the Muslims who have been banned or the Dreamers who have been terrorized , but also to the thousands of lawyers and good people who fight the administration and descend on airports and border crossings to defend what rights immigrants still have left .
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Hillary Clinton , Nancy Pelosi , and Elizabeth Warren all spoke .
But only Pelosi mentioned women ’ s reproductive rights , and none of them talked about how courts , right now , are rolling back the right to choose all over the country .
It ’ s not like Democrats don ’ t know what ’ s happening with the courts .
They know .
The people running this convention and this party know full well the perilous state of many of our fundamental rights .
Their failure to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a strategic decision to ignore the “ boring ” or “ confusing ” law-talking stuff in favor of political platitudes about the right side of history and the awesomesauce of Joe Biden ’ s beliefs .
That decision is malpractice .
Don ’ t believe me ?
Watch the Republican National Convention next week .
In between various white-power hours and displays of authoritarian bootlicking disguised as politics , you will hear Republicans hammer the point home that Trump has “ delivered ” judges and justices .
Everything they talk about , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment rights ” or “ protecting traditional values , ” will have an explicit tie-in to the Supreme Court .
Some person reading this is about to send me an e-mail telling me that “ Republican voters care more about the Supreme Court than Democrats.
” But that person is wrong .
The closest we saw this country come to open revolt against the Trump administration , before we all saw George Floyd being choked to death over eight minutes and 46 seconds , came when Trump nominated and Republicans then confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
If Susan Collins loses her seat to Sara Gideon in Maine , it will be because of her decision to support Brett Kavanaugh , more than her shameful and cowardly refusal to convict the president on impeachment .
There are women in this country , some of them suburban women living in swing states , who would walk through fire if you promised them the opportunity to kick Kavanaugh in the balls on the other side .
And yet we ’ ve heard Kavanaugh ’ s name precisely zero times during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been no promises to conduct an investigation into the suspected crimes Trump ’ s FBI failed to take seriously .
There has been no commitment to reinstate the 83 ethics complaints against him and see about impeaching him for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings .
For the purposes of the Democrats at this convention , Kavanaugh , the least popular Supreme Court justice in modern times , does not exist .
He will be a star next week during the GOP convention .
Republicans are proud of the way they helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his way into a lifetime appointment .
Republicans have legions of single-issue voters who cast their ballots purely because of the Supreme Court , because that ’ s what those voters have been told to do .
They have been told for a generation that the way to get the things they want—whether those things are homophobia , sexism , white-minority rule in a soon-to-be majority-minority country , or the simple joys of shooting black people who run past your house—is to gain absolute control of the courts .
To the extent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold their noses and vote because of the courts , it is because Democrats never put in the work of explaining how their policy goals require liberal judges to uphold them .
With the infusion of young energy into the Democratic Party , now is exactly the time when the work should be done to explain how control of all three branches is necessary to achieve progressive aims .
When I talk to young people , a lot of times the only cases they ’ ve heard of are Roe v. Wade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know that D.C. v. Heller created , for the first time , a personal right to gun ownership for self-defense and must be overturned to have any meaningful weapons ban .
Too many people don ’ t know that the conservatives ’ attempt to rewrite “ Chevron Deference ” is their way to attack any environmental regulation ever passed again .
Too many people don ’ t know that “ codifying Roe v. Wade ” is useless when the name of the game is reimagining Planned Parenthood v. Casey to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to have one still technically exists .
More on the DNC 2020 Obama ’ s High-Minded Civics Lesson Asks Too Much of Us The Democratic Convention Is Shaping Up to Be a Centrist Hoedown Young people don ’ t know all the reasons we ’ re losing—because the Democrats never tell them .
So they think our problems stem merely from insufficiently woke politicians who are too beholden to corporate interests to make “ real ” change .
That ’ s part of it , but any young Republican with a tiki @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t let them beat the snot out of a person for being different .
Many young Democrats don ’ t know that conservative judges are the reason they can ’ t use their college ID to vote like they should be able to .
A Democratic convention like this is one of the reasons we suffer from asymmetrical ignorance about an entire branch of government .
Any judge Biden appoints to any court will be better for a pluralistic society than every judge Trump has appointed or will appoint in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason enough to vote for Biden .
That , alone , is reason enough to swallow whatever misgiving one may have about Biden , or any Senate candidate , and vote for Democrats straight up and down the ticket .
Not a single progressive policy agenda will even be available to Democrats in 2024 should Trump get four more years to appoint conservative judges .
This is not a policy debate ; it ’ s a civics test .
And it ’ s one the Democrats keep failing .

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?
If you want to know why Republicans have come to dominate the judicial branch of government, while Democrats are reduced to offering thoughts and prayers to an 87-year-old woman battling cancer, look no further than the third night of the Democratic National Convention. If you want to understand how Mitch McConnell was able to steal a Supreme Court appointment from a Democratic president without sparking half the country into civil unrest, listen to what the Democrats told their own voters last night. If you want to know why a woman’s right to choose is overwhelmingly popular yet teetering on the brink of collapse, why the right to vote is being suppressed, why people will be forced to risk their lives to vote during a pandemic this fall, or why our children will be shot at whenever it’s “safe” enough to open schools again, behold the ongoing failure of the Democratic Party to make the courts matter to their own voters.
Last night, ahead of the nomination of Kamala Harris, the first woman of color on a major party ticket, the Democrats tackled four issues that are of critical importance to young voters in the upcoming election: gun reform, climate change, immigration, and women’s rights. On paper, it’s nearly impossible to talk seriously about any one of those issues without acknowledging the critical role the courts have to play, much less all of them. But, somehow, the Democrats found a way to ignore the 5-4 elephant in the room.
There is no gun regulation or weapons ban that survives the Republican Supreme Court. None. To talk about an assault weapons ban, as Democrats did last night, without talking about the five pro-gun absolutists currently patrolling the Supreme Court is to talk about flying without acknowledging the limitations imposed by gravity. There is no climate legislation that survives what can be called the most “pro-business” Supreme Court in American history. None. And while we’re here, it’s worth mentioning that there’s no federal program that addresses police brutality, no expansion of health care, and no voting rights protection that survives this court either. I’m not making this up: The five conservatives on the Supreme Court have struck down legislation regarding each of these issues, or refused to defend this kind of legislation when lower courts have struck down the laws, over and over again.
I literally do not know how the Democrats got through an entire section on immigration last night without mentioning the Muslim ban, or the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold it. I do not know how they talked about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, highlighted people who have been denied access to the program, and yet did not mention that the court’s decision to allow the program to continue hangs by a thread or that the Trump administration has indicated that it will violate court orders anyway. The omissions are insulting, not just to the Muslims who have been banned or the Dreamers who have been terrorized, but also to the thousands of lawyers and good people who fight the administration and descend on airports and border crossings to defend what rights immigrants still have left.
The Democrats put forward their A-team of powerhouse women: Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren all spoke. But only Pelosi mentioned women’s reproductive rights, and none of them talked about how courts, right now, are rolling back the right to choose all over the country. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
It’s not like Democrats don’t know what’s happening with the courts. They know. The people running this convention and this party know full well the perilous state of many of our fundamental rights. Their failure to talk about the courts represents not an oversight but a strategic decision to ignore the “boring” or “confusing” law-talking stuff in favor of political platitudes about the right side of history and the awesomesauce of Joe Biden’s beliefs.
That decision is malpractice. Don’t believe me? Watch the Republican National Convention next week. In between various white-power hours and displays of authoritarian bootlicking disguised as politics, you will hear Republicans hammer the point home that Trump has “delivered” judges and justices. Everything they talk about, whether it’s “protecting your Second Amendment rights” or “protecting traditional values,” will have an explicit tie-in to the Supreme Court.
Some person reading this is about to send me an e-mail telling me that “Republican voters care more about the Supreme Court than Democrats.” But that person is wrong. The closest we saw this country come to open revolt against the Trump administration, before we all saw George Floyd being choked to death over eight minutes and 46 seconds, came when Trump nominated and Republicans then confirmed an alleged attempted rapist to the Supreme Court. If Susan Collins loses her seat to Sara Gideon in Maine, it will be because of her decision to support Brett Kavanaugh, more than her shameful and cowardly refusal to convict the president on impeachment. There are women in this country, some of them suburban women living in swing states, who would walk through fire if you promised them the opportunity to kick Kavanaugh in the balls on the other side.
And yet we’ve heard Kavanaugh’s name precisely zero times during the Democratic National Convention. There have been no promises to conduct an investigation into the suspected crimes Trump’s FBI failed to take seriously. There has been no commitment to reinstate the 83 ethics complaints against him and see about impeaching him for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings. For the purposes of the Democrats at this convention, Kavanaugh, the least popular Supreme Court justice in modern times, does not exist.
He will be a star next week during the GOP convention. Republicans are proud of the way they helped Kavanaugh scream, lie, and bully his way into a lifetime appointment.
Republicans have legions of single-issue voters who cast their ballots purely because of the Supreme Court, because that’s what those voters have been told to do. They have been told for a generation that the way to get the things they want—whether those things are homophobia, sexism, white-minority rule in a soon-to-be majority-minority country, or the simple joys of shooting black people who run past your house—is to gain absolute control of the courts. To the extent that Democrats have fewer voters who are willing to hold their noses and vote because of the courts, it is because Democrats never put in the work of explaining how their policy goals require liberal judges to uphold them.
With the infusion of young energy into the Democratic Party, now is exactly the time when the work should be done to explain how control of all three branches is necessary to achieve progressive aims. When I talk to young people, a lot of times the only cases they’ve heard of are Roe v. Wade and Citizens United. Too many people don’t know that D.C. v. Heller created, for the first time, a personal right to gun ownership for self-defense and must be overturned to have any meaningful weapons ban. Too many people don’t know that the conservatives’ attempt to rewrite “Chevron Deference” is their way to attack any environmental regulation ever passed again. Too many people don’t know that “codifying Roe v. Wade” is useless when the name of the game is reimagining Planned Parenthood v. Casey to make abortions functionally unobtainable even if the right to have one still technically exists. More on the DNC 2020 Obama’s High-Minded Civics Lesson Asks Too Much of Us Jeet Heer The Democratic Convention Is Shaping Up to Be a Centrist Hoedown Elie Mystal
Young people don’t know all the reasons we’re losing—because the Democrats never tell them. So they think our problems stem merely from insufficiently woke politicians who are too beholden to corporate interests to make “real” change. That’s part of it, but any young Republican with a tiki torch knows that “liberal judges” won’t let them beat the snot out of a person for being different. Many young Democrats don’t know that conservative judges are the reason they can’t use their college ID to vote like they should be able to.
A Democratic convention like this is one of the reasons we suffer from asymmetrical ignorance about an entire branch of government.
Any judge Biden appoints to any court will be better for a pluralistic society than every judge Trump has appointed or will appoint in the future. That, alone, is reason enough to vote for Biden. That, alone, is reason enough to swallow whatever misgiving one may have about Biden, or any Senate candidate, and vote for Democrats straight up and down the ticket. Not a single progressive policy agenda will even be available to Democrats in 2024 should Trump get four more years to appoint conservative judges.
This is not a policy debate; it’s a civics test. And it’s one the Democrats keep failing.


thenation--2020-08-20--Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents

I admit I took it a bit personally when Planned Parenthood of Greater New York took the name of the organization ’ s founder , Margaret Sanger , off its flagship clinic in Manhattan in July .
It will now be called Manhattan Health Center .
What am I supposed to do now with the two Planned Parenthood Maggie Awards I ’ ve won for articles on reproductive rights ?
Life comes at you fast .
Some news reports made it sound as if the change was related to internal struggles over racism ; staffers of color have complained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotion , and around the time that Sanger ’ s name was removed , Laura McQuade , the CEO of the New York affiliate , was fired amid accusations of racism .
These were legitimate concerns .
Of the 22 members of the PPGNY board , according to The New York Times , only one is Black .
( Two are Asian , and two are Hispanic . )
Especially given that Black women make up a large proportion of Planned Parenthood patients , that ’ s pretty shocking .
Whether erasing Sanger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or part of a deeper self-investigation , there ’ s no question that the main winners here are abortion opponents .
For decades , they ’ ve claimed that Sanger was a racist bent on Black genocide and that Planned Parenthood is carrying out that mission today .
In 2016 , Planned Parenthood released a historically accurate , fair , and complex statement refuting that absurd claim , but why would anyone pay attention to that now ?
Never mind that the anti-choice movement has never done a thing for Black people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Catholic hierarchy , is closely allied with racist institutions like the Republican Party and white evangelical Protestantism .
The bogus anti-racism of the self-described pro-life movement was on full display in 2011 , when billboards appeared picturing an adorable Black child with the caption “ The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.
” In other words : The biggest danger to Black people is pregnant Black women .
It is truly painful that this canard about Sanger has now been given a stamp of approval by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , Margaret Sanger was not a racist , as PPGNY board chairman Karen Seltzer asserts .
As her biographer Ellen Chesler told me , she was a progressive who believed in racial integration .
She voted for Norman Thomas .
She worked with progressive Black people—W.E.B .
Du Bois , for example , who along with Mary McCleod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell Sr. served on the board of the Negro Project , a network of birth control and maternal health clinics Sanger established in Harlem and the South .
In 1966 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first Margaret Sanger Award , and in his statement offered a vigorous endorsement of voluntary birth control .
Although she did not single out Black people , Sanger was , yes , a eugenicist .
She thought people , especially poor people , often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled ( or in the language of the day , “ feeble-minded ” ) .
She did not oppose forced sterilization .
In these views , she had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early 20th century—left , right , and center—went even further .
That is , they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people , a calamity that modern society , through science and social control , could prevent .
Because of the Nazis , we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite , but it was more about ableism , based on the belief that poverty , crime , prostitution , and promiscuity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Avowed socialists like H.G .
Wells , George Bernard Shaw , and even Helen Keller were eugenicists .
So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill .
Gunnar and Alva Myrdal , the architects of the Swedish welfare state ( she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate , too ) , supported measures to help mothers and children , but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “ unfit.
” Buck v. Bell , the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wendell Holmes , and approved by another , Louis Brandeis .
As Chesler tartly observed , Sanger ’ s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it .
Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name .
But who knows ?
Maybe that will happen .
At least for now , we seem uninterested in context or history or in weighing the bad with the good .
The current wave of name changes and erasures and pulling down of statues doesn ’ t leave much room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s inevitable in this astonishing transformative moment .
Still , it ’ s one thing to get rid of Confederate monuments or for Yale to change the name of its Calhoun College .
Confederates were traitors .
Calhoun was a terrible person who did nothing but harm .
It ’ s another thing to read an entire heroic life through the lens of one fault .
There won ’ t be many heroes left if we do that .
I ’ ll just come right out and say it : Margaret Sanger did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other individual in the entire 20th century .
She is the person who connected birth control not just to women ’ s health—something the Catholic Church has yet to grasp , although it controls one in seven US hospital beds—but also to our self-determination and sexual freedom .
She was the key leader who really grasped the fact that without the ability to control our own bodies , women would never be free or equal or even just happy and well .
She was more than a writer , an activist , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though she was all those things .
She was a whirlwind of energy who changed our understanding of womanhood , sex , and marriage so fundamentally , we can barely picture what life was like before her .
There are so many ways of forgetting where we have been .
Planned Parenthood has just made doing so a little easier .

This article appears in the September 7/14, 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?
I admit I took it a bit personally when Planned Parenthood of Greater New York took the name of the organization’s founder, Margaret Sanger, off its flagship clinic in Manhattan in July. It will now be called Manhattan Health Center. What am I supposed to do now with the two Planned Parenthood Maggie Awards I’ve won for articles on reproductive rights? Life comes at you fast. Some news reports made it sound as if the change was related to internal struggles over racism; staffers of color have complained that they were disrespected and passed over for promotion, and around the time that Sanger’s name was removed, Laura McQuade, the CEO of the New York affiliate, was fired amid accusations of racism. These were legitimate concerns. Of the 22 members of the PPGNY board, according to The New York Times, only one is Black. (Two are Asian, and two are Hispanic.) Especially given that Black women make up a large proportion of Planned Parenthood patients, that’s pretty shocking.
Whether erasing Sanger was an olive branch to Black staffers or part of a deeper self-investigation, there’s no question that the main winners here are abortion opponents. For decades, they’ve claimed that Sanger was a racist bent on Black genocide and that Planned Parenthood is carrying out that mission today. In 2016, Planned Parenthood released a historically accurate, fair, and complex statement refuting that absurd claim, but why would anyone pay attention to that now?
Never mind that the anti-choice movement has never done a thing for Black people and, like Sanger’s old enemy the Catholic hierarchy, is closely allied with racist institutions like the Republican Party and white evangelical Protestantism. The bogus anti-racism of the self-described pro-life movement was on full display in 2011, when billboards appeared picturing an adorable Black child with the caption “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” In other words: The biggest danger to Black people is pregnant Black women. It is truly painful that this canard about Sanger has now been given a stamp of approval by the very organization she founded.
For the record, Margaret Sanger was not a racist, as PPGNY board chairman Karen Seltzer asserts. As her biographer Ellen Chesler told me, she was a progressive who believed in racial integration. She voted for Norman Thomas. She worked with progressive Black people—W.E.B. Du Bois, for example, who along with Mary McCleod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell Sr. served on the board of the Negro Project, a network of birth control and maternal health clinics Sanger established in Harlem and the South. In 1966, Martin Luther King accepted Planned Parenthood’s first Margaret Sanger Award, and in his statement offered a vigorous endorsement of voluntary birth control. the battle for choice A Small Victory for Reproductive Rights Katha Pollitt
Although she did not single out Black people, Sanger was, yes, a eugenicist. She thought people, especially poor people, often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled (or in the language of the day, “feeble-minded”). She did not oppose forced sterilization.
In these views, she had a lot of company. Many intellectuals in the early 20th century—left, right, and center—went even further. That is, they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people, a calamity that modern society, through science and social control, could prevent. Because of the Nazis, we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite, but it was more about ableism, based on the belief that poverty, crime, prostitution, and promiscuity were the result of inferior genes. 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
Avowed socialists like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and even Helen Keller were eugenicists. So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill. Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects of the Swedish welfare state (she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, too), supported measures to help mothers and children, but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “unfit.” Buck v. Bell, the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization, was written by one liberal hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and approved by another, Louis Brandeis. As Chesler tartly observed, Sanger’s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it. Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name. Current Issue View our current issue
But who knows? Maybe that will happen. At least for now, we seem uninterested in context or history or in weighing the bad with the good. The current wave of name changes and erasures and pulling down of statues doesn’t leave much room for nuance, and maybe that’s inevitable in this astonishing transformative moment. Still, it’s one thing to get rid of Confederate monuments or for Yale to change the name of its Calhoun College. Confederates were traitors. Calhoun was a terrible person who did nothing but harm. It’s another thing to read an entire heroic life through the lens of one fault. There won’t be many heroes left if we do that.
I’ll just come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger did more good for American women than any other individual in the entire 20th century. She is the person who connected birth control not just to women’s health—something the Catholic Church has yet to grasp, although it controls one in seven US hospital beds—but also to our self-determination and sexual freedom. She was the key leader who really grasped the fact that without the ability to control our own bodies, women would never be free or equal or even just happy and well. She was more than a writer, an activist, a health provider, and an organizer, though she was all those things. She was a whirlwind of energy who changed our understanding of womanhood, sex, and marriage so fundamentally, we can barely picture what life was like before her.
There are so many ways of forgetting where we have been. Planned Parenthood has just made doing so a little easier.


thenation--2020-08-20--LIVE CHAT: Join Us Now for the Democratic National Convention

Too much has happened since last we chatted .
The pace at which the crises facing our nation keep unfolding @ @ @ @ @ the pain of our collective and individual losses is too enormous to put into words @ @ @ @ @ .
We are , on this last night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention , @ @ @ @ @ November 3 general election in which Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate @ @ @ @ @ take on President Donald Trump and—unless something truly wild happens next week—his VP , Mike @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic convention , we ’ re joined by The Nation ’ s national affairs @ @ @ @ @ John Nichols , and Jeet Heer ; our justice correspondent , Elie Mystal , and @ @ @ @ @ ; columnist Katha Pollitt ; and our editor , D.D .
Guttenplan .
Log on @ @ @ @ @ commentary , quips , and analysis .
Just because we ’ re physically distanced doesn @ @ @ @ @ to be socially apart .

Too much has happened since last we chatted. The pace at which the crises facing our nation keep unfolding has been exhausting, and the pain of our collective and individual losses is too enormous to put into words. But there is hope. We are, on this last night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, just 75 days from the November 3 general election in which Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, will take on President Donald Trump and—unless something truly wild happens next week—his VP, Mike Pence.
To wrap up the Democratic convention, we’re joined by The Nation’s national affairs correspondents, Joan Walsh, John Nichols, and Jeet Heer; our justice correspondent, Elie Mystal, and strikes correspondent, Jane McAlevey; columnist Katha Pollitt; and our editor, D.D. Guttenplan. Log on at 8:45 ET tonight for commentary, quips, and analysis. Just because we’re physically distanced doesn’t mean we have to be socially apart.
—Anna Hiatt, executive digital editor


thenation--2020-08-20--Elizabeth Warren Is Prepared to Prosecute Trump

Elizabeth Warren is on a mission , and she will not fail .
The senator from Massachusetts is preparing to prosecute Donald Trump on the 2020 campaign trail .
And if the Democratic ticket prevails , she will continue that prosecution in 2021 and beyond .
Speaking to a country that has “ taken one gut punch after another ” since Covid-19 hit , Warren pointed a finger of blame at the president of the United States , and then she indicted him .
“ Donald Trump ’ s ignorance and incompetence have always been a danger to our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test .
He failed miserably , ” said the senator who ran to challenge Trump this year but now supports the campaign mounted by the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
That support will be essential on the trail , along with the support of other speakers from a convention night when former president Barack Obama led the charge with a condemnation of Trump as a damaged man who has shown “ no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Has a Lot to Teach Joe Biden and the Democrats Dissenting Delegates Send a Medicare for All Message to Joe Biden Whatever This Is Is Not the Future of the Democratic Party What will distinguish Warren ’ s support is her absolute determination to indict Donald John Trump for the deadly failures that have created a crisis in which “ the devastation is enormous.
” “ Today , America has the most Covid deaths in the world and an economic collapse—and both crises are falling hardest on Black and brown families , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Millions more trapped in cycles of poverty .
Millions on the brink of losing their homes .
Millions of restaurants and stores hanging by a thread.
” “ This crisis is bad—and didn ’ t have to be this way .
This crisis is on Donald Trump and the Republicans who enable him , ” she concluded .
“ On November 3 , we hold them all accountable.
” The 2020 election has to be about accountability .
Harris knows that .
The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vice presidential nominee proclaiming that “ as somebody who has presented my fair share of arguments in court , the case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut.
” But the 2020 campaign can ’ t be the end of it .
If Biden and Harris beat Trump and his hapless running mate , Vice President Mike Pence , the new administration and its allies in the Senate will have a duty to examine the wrongs done by the Trump-Pence administration and to hold the wrongdoers to account—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the court of history .
That ’ s what Franklin Roosevelt did after winning the presidency in 1932 .
The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room Kamala Harris Does Her Best to Redeem Our Sexist , Racist Past LIVE CHAT : Join Us Now for the Democratic National Convention More in this series FDR never let anyone forget the damage that had been by done his predecessor , Herbert Hoover , and the Wall Street–aligned Republicans who failed the American people during the first years of the Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal inquiries .
He championed regulation and reforms that were designed to end the systemic corruption of politics and governance by elected officials who had squandered the public trust and made themselves the feudal serfs of corporate power .
He knew that a consistent focus on accountability was necessary to clear the way for the fundamental changes that the times required .
At the 1936 Democratic National Convention , FDR accepted a nomination for a second term by offering the delegates and millions of Americans who were listening via radio a lesson in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties .
New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things .
Through new uses of corporations , banks , and securities , new machinery of industry and agriculture , of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service .
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worker or the farmer .
Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth , aware of their obligation to their generation , could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things .
The 32nd president leveled with the American people , telling them that they had lost not just their economic liberty but their political liberty as well .
Roosevelt portrayed the 1932 election as nothing less than a revolution .
“ Against economic tyranny such as this , the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was .
The election of 1932 was the people ’ s mandate to end it .
Under that mandate it is being ended.
” Biden and Harris must promise a parallel end to the corruption not just of Trump but also the corruption that gave rise to Trump .
Biden will be cautious , but Harris will be bolder .
And Warren will encourage that boldness .
The pandemic has , indeed , been devastating .
Warren recognized the whole of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave necessary attention to the need to support families , with a bold new program for early childhood education .
She acknowledged , as she did during her own campaign , that “ big problems demand big solutions.
” And she pointed to Biden ’ s plans : “ plans to bring back union jobs in manufacturing and create new union jobs in clean energy .
Plans to increase Social Security benefits , cancel billions in student loan debt , and make our bankruptcy laws work for families instead of the creditors who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all in perspective .
“ These plans reflect a central truth : Our economic system has been rigged to give bailouts to billionaires and kick dirt in the face of everyone else .
But we can build a thriving economy by investing in families and fixing what ’ s broken .
Joe ’ s plan to ‘ build back better ’ includes making the wealthy pay their fair share , holding corporations accountable , repairing racial inequities , and fighting corruption in Washington.
” That fight extends beyond elections—beyond election results .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power that extends from those results .
“ We all need to be in the fight to get Joe and Kamala elected , ” explained the senator .
“ And after November , we all need to stay in the fight to get big things done.
” Warren knows the great secret of American politics and governance : that the work of making the change always involves more than policy .
It involves fearlessly and consistently identifying and indicting those who have corrupted our governance .
And the work can not end until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account .


thenation--2020-08-21--Can Joe Biden Unrig the Economy?

Can Joe Biden Unrig the Economy?

The Democrats ’ 2020 presidential primary race was obsessed with taxes .
There was the public debate over how to pay for Medicare for All .
There was also the insider dispute among experts , no less contentious , over the feasibility and desirability of a wealth tax .
Yet , as was often the case during the primaries , these discussions rarely included the person who was leading in the polls for almost the entire race : Joe Biden , whose tax plan is a serious proposal to reduce the power and income of the 1 percent .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides a useful reference for where the tax discourse among progressives should go next .
The Coronavirus Pushes State Budgets to the Brink We Can ’ t Save the Economy Without Universal Child Care According to the Tax Policy Center , Biden ’ s plan would raise upwards of $ 3.7 trillion over 10 years , similar to the amounts that would be raised by a wealth tax .
And like the wealth tax supported by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , the money would come entirely from those at the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan would do this by increasing the corporate income tax from 21 to 28 percent and the top marginal rate for those making over $ 400,000 a year from 37 to 39.6 percent , reversing most of Donald Trump ’ s tax cuts .
It would also remove the cap on Social Security payroll taxes for those making above $ 400,000 , generating revenue for this vital program for low-income retirees .
But the biggest difference from the status quo is that the plan would increase taxes on capital income .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who make their income from owning wealth rather than working , Biden ’ s plan would tax the capital gains and dividend income of those earning more than $ 1 million as regular income at the increased 39.6 percent rate .
It would also close inheritance loopholes , including one known as step-up in basis , which allows elites to shelter increases in wealth from taxation at death .
Such tax rules drive the intergenerational transfer of wealth among the ultrarich .
All told , Biden ’ s tax plan would reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by around 17 percent .
The results would be concentrated among the top 0.1 percent , whose after-tax income would fall an estimated 23.4 percent .
For the left , there are three important questions that follow if this becomes the new baseline of the Democratic Party ’ s tax agenda .
The first is whether it is necessary to tax wealth directly rather than tax income from wealth .
One advantage of Biden ’ s proposal is that it would be easier to execute and would more easily survive a challenge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that as income taxes become more aggressive , they start to do the work of a wealth tax .
As Greg Leiserson of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth explained to me , the line between wealth and income from wealth blurs if that income is vigorously taxed .
If Biden ’ s plan is fully implemented , it could significantly reduce wealth inequality .
On the other hand , if executed poorly or with weak enforcement , it would make the case for a wealth tax better than any proponent could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether we should be focused on taxing people broadly or concentrating taxation on those at the very top .
Biden ’ s plan forgoes the first option and aims its taxes at the very rich .
For the time being , there is significant revenue to be raised with this approach , which would deliver more than enough to pay for free public college , universal day care , and a child allowance and to liberate many other aspects of our lives from the market .
Given low interest rates and a severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the left to make the case for broad-based taxation .
To the extent that taxing the rich comes up in the context of austerity or a bipartisan bargain to balance the budget , it should be rejected .
Interest rates have been low for decades , and with pressing political issues to address , the main focus should be on how to spend .
The prospect of raising taxes on the rich , however , should remain .
Taxes don ’ t just raise revenues ; they also structure the income distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would help stop the economy from simply channeling income to executives and owners .
Taxes are about determining who benefits from the economy , and for too long , that has been only the rich .
A sharp increase in taxes , as the Biden campaign has proposed , would push back significantly against that .

This article appears in the September 7/14, 2020 issue.
The Democrats’ 2020 presidential primary race was obsessed with taxes. There was the public debate over how to pay for Medicare for All. There was also the insider dispute among experts, no less contentious, over the feasibility and desirability of a wealth tax. Yet, as was often the case during the primaries, these discussions rarely included the person who was leading in the polls for almost the entire race: Joe Biden, whose tax plan is a serious proposal to reduce the power and income of the 1 percent. The former vice president’s bold scheme provides a useful reference for where the tax discourse among progressives should go next. The Score The Coronavirus Pushes State Budgets to the Brink Bryce Covert Unemployment Insurance Is a Vital Part of Economic Freedom Mike Konczal We Can’t Save the Economy Without Universal Child Care Bryce Covert
According to the Tax Policy Center, Biden’s plan would raise upwards of $4 trillion over 10 years, similar to the amounts that would be raised by a wealth tax. And like the wealth tax supported by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the money would come entirely from those at the very top of the income distribution. The plan would do this by increasing the corporate income tax from 21 to 28 percent and the top marginal rate for those making over $400,000 a year from 37 to 39.6 percent, reversing most of Donald Trump’s tax cuts. It would also remove the cap on Social Security payroll taxes for those making above $400,000, generating revenue for this vital program for low-income retirees.
But the biggest difference from the status quo is that the plan would increase taxes on capital income. Instead of giving a preferential lower rate to those who make their income from owning wealth rather than working, Biden’s plan would tax the capital gains and dividend income of those earning more than $1 million as regular income at the increased 39.6 percent rate. It would also close inheritance loopholes, including one known as step-up in basis, which allows elites to shelter increases in wealth from taxation at death. Such tax rules drive the intergenerational transfer of wealth among the ultrarich. All told, Biden’s tax plan would reduce the after-tax income of the top 1 percent by around 17 percent. The results would be concentrated among the top 0.1 percent, whose after-tax income would fall an estimated 23.4 percent.
For the left, there are three important questions that follow if this becomes the new baseline of the Democratic Party’s tax agenda. The first is whether it is necessary to tax wealth directly rather than tax income from wealth. One advantage of Biden’s proposal is that it would be easier to execute and would more easily survive a challenge in courts stacked with Trump-appointed judges. Another is that as income taxes become more aggressive, they start to do the work of a wealth tax. As Greg Leiserson of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth explained to me, the line between wealth and income from wealth blurs if that income is vigorously taxed. If Biden’s plan is fully implemented, it could significantly reduce wealth inequality. On the other hand, if executed poorly or with weak enforcement, it would make the case for a wealth tax better than any proponent could.
There is also the question of whether we should be focused on taxing people broadly or concentrating taxation on those at the very top. Biden’s plan forgoes the first option and aims its taxes at the very rich. For the time being, there is significant revenue to be raised with this approach, which would deliver more than enough to pay for free public college, universal day care, and a child allowance and to liberate many other aspects of our lives from the market.
Given low interest rates and a severe recession, there’s no pressure on the left to make the case for broad-based taxation. To the extent that taxing the rich comes up in the context of austerity or a bipartisan bargain to balance the budget, it should be rejected. Interest rates have been low for decades, and with pressing political issues to address, the main focus should be on how to spend. The prospect of raising taxes on the rich, however, should remain. Taxes don’t just raise revenues; they also structure the income distribution. And raising taxes on the rich would help stop the economy from simply channeling income to executives and owners. Taxes are about determining who benefits from the economy, and for too long, that has been only the rich. A sharp increase in taxes, as the Biden campaign has proposed, would push back significantly against that.