thenation--2020-10-07--The NFL Season Could Be Facing a Covid Collapse

This isn ’ t just about hindsight .
It ’ s about wondering why people in positions of great power still act as if they haven ’ t learned anything about the coronavirus and how it spreads .
No , I ’ m not talking about that belching gas ball of typhus otherwise known as the GOP .
I ’ m talking about Commissioner Roger Goodell , who with one awful decision may have cracked the delicate eggshell surrounding the 2020 NFL season .
Gregarious New England Patriots quarterback Cam Newton was diagnosed with Covid last week .
For reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided that since the rest of the team tested negative , the Patriots could still play Monday night against the defending Super Bowl champions , the Kansas City Chiefs .
Just one precaution was taken following Newton ’ s positive diagnosis : The Patriots took two planes to Kansas City , one carrying the 20 players who had “ close contact ” with Newton during the previous week and another with the rest of the team .
This is contact tracing , NFL-style .
Goodell signed off on this plan even though we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for days and a negative test one day could easily become a positive test the next .
Even as this very nightmare scenario was playing out for all to see at the White House , Goodell wasn ’ t concerned .
Now we find out on Wednesday that Patriots cornerback—and reigning defensive player of the year—Stephen Gilmore has tested positive .
Gilmore played every single snap against Kansas City .
Even more alarming , there are multiple photos of Gilmore face to face and within spittle distance of the galactically talented Chiefs quarterback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mahomes .
Now everyone connected to the league—the hundreds of players , the thousands of employees—must figuratively hold their breath and wait to see just how deep the damage will be .
Everyone must wonder how Roger Goodell could have made such an egregiously negligent decision .
It ’ s not as if the league wasn ’ t ready for this .
It had already canceled a game between the Tennessee Titans and Pittsburgh Steelers last Sunday after an outbreak on the Titans team .
In a disturbing demonstration of just how quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarters of a full-contact team sport , the Titans can now identify 22 players and staff who have tested positive since September 24 , with two more positive tests announced on Wednesday .
As football writer Michael Freeman , author of the new book Football ’ s Fearless Activists , tweeted , “ Text from Titans player : ‘ I ’ m more concerned about some of the coaches , and all of our families , than anything else .
We ’ re all on pins and needles here.
’ ” The Patriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they have no other positive tests , and the Chiefs have proclaimed that they are Covid-free as well , but how long that precarious good news will last is unknown .
Meanwhile , a player for the Las Vegas Raiders has also tested positive .
Their head coach , Jon Gruden , has been flouting the requirement that coaches wear masks since game one .
If the Raiders face an outbreak , this rickety season faces the prospect of collapse .
For years , Roger Goodell has faced challenges in his $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scandals about his handling of issues from violence against women to head injuries to players like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee for racial justice have seemed to put him on the precipice of dismissal time and again .
He has always been saved by the simple fact that his employers , the franchise owners of NFL teams , have been making money hand over fist .
Goodell is brilliant at being a flak-catcher .
For every off-field scandal or mishap , every exile of a worthy player , franchise owners have gotten to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while he absorbs the slings and arrows from pundits and fans alike .
But the decision about whether to go ahead with this now infamous Patriots-Chiefs game was Goodell ’ s and Goodell ’ s alone .
This is entirely on him , and now the season is potentially at risk if the pandemic takes out two of the highest-profile teams in the sport .
For the first time after years of scandal and public relations disasters , Goodell is messing with the league ’ s money .
The NFL doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flows come from its multibillion-dollar TV deals .
If there are no games , that means no broadcasting , and that means no dough .
That scenario for the NFL bosses might very well be a bridge too far .

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?
This isn’t just about hindsight. It’s about wondering why people in positions of great power still act as if they haven’t learned anything about the coronavirus and how it spreads. No, I’m not talking about that belching gas ball of typhus otherwise known as the GOP. I’m talking about Commissioner Roger Goodell, who with one awful decision may have cracked the delicate eggshell surrounding the 2020 NFL season.
Gregarious New England Patriots quarterback Cam Newton was diagnosed with Covid last week. For reasons that boggle the mind, the NFL decided that since the rest of the team tested negative, the Patriots could still play Monday night against the defending Super Bowl champions, the Kansas City Chiefs. Just one precaution was taken following Newton’s positive diagnosis: The Patriots took two planes to Kansas City, one carrying the 20 players who had “close contact” with Newton during the previous week and another with the rest of the team. This is contact tracing, NFL-style.
Goodell signed off on this plan even though we all know that the virus can incubate for days and a negative test one day could easily become a positive test the next. Even as this very nightmare scenario was playing out for all to see at the White House, Goodell wasn’t concerned. Now we find out on Wednesday that Patriots cornerback—and reigning defensive player of the year—Stephen Gilmore has tested positive. Gilmore played every single snap against Kansas City. Even more alarming, there are multiple photos of Gilmore face to face and within spittle distance of the galactically talented Chiefs quarterback, and TV ratings magnet, Patrick Mahomes. Now everyone connected to the league—the hundreds of players, the thousands of employees—must figuratively hold their breath and wait to see just how deep the damage will be.
Everyone must wonder how Roger Goodell could have made such an egregiously negligent decision. It’s not as if the league wasn’t ready for this. It had already canceled a game between the Tennessee Titans and Pittsburgh Steelers last Sunday after an outbreak on the Titans team. In a disturbing demonstration of just how quickly the virus can spread in the close quarters of a full-contact team sport, the Titans can now identify 22 players and staff who have tested positive since September 24, with two more positive tests announced on Wednesday. As football writer Michael Freeman, author of the new book Football’s Fearless Activists, tweeted, “Text from Titans player: ‘I’m more concerned about some of the coaches, and all of our families, than anything else. We’re all on pins and needles here.’”
The Patriots have announced that, as of now, they have no other positive tests, and the Chiefs have proclaimed that they are Covid-free as well, but how long that precarious good news will last is unknown. Meanwhile, a player for the Las Vegas Raiders has also tested positive. Their head coach, Jon Gruden, has been flouting the requirement that coaches wear masks since game one. If the Raiders face an outbreak, this rickety season faces the prospect of collapse.
For years, Roger Goodell has faced challenges in his $40 million job running the NFL. Scandals about his handling of issues from violence against women to head injuries to players like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee for racial justice have seemed to put him on the precipice of dismissal time and again. He has always been saved by the simple fact that his employers, the franchise owners of NFL teams, have been making money hand over fist.
Goodell is brilliant at being a flak-catcher. For every off-field scandal or mishap, every exile of a worthy player, franchise owners have gotten to hide behind Goodell, taking no responsibility while he absorbs the slings and arrows from pundits and fans alike. But the decision about whether to go ahead with this now infamous Patriots-Chiefs game was Goodell’s and Goodell’s alone. This is entirely on him, and now the season is potentially at risk if the pandemic takes out two of the highest-profile teams in the sport.
For the first time after years of scandal and public relations disasters, Goodell is messing with the league’s money. The NFL doesn’t need fans for mega-profits. Its cash flows come from its multibillion-dollar TV deals. If there are no games, that means no broadcasting, and that means no dough. That scenario for the NFL bosses might very well be a bridge too far.


thenation--2020-10-07--The Democrats Need to Prepare for the Supreme Court to Overturn ‘Roe v. Wade’

At a town hall meeting on Monday , Vice President Joe Biden addressed the possibility that a Republican-controlled Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade .
Biden said , “ The only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land ; that ’ s what I would do.
” This sounds like a good answer—but it ’ s not .
It ’ s an answer that reflects an establishment that is unwilling to come to grips with what a 6-3 conservative court will do to women ’ s rights .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who thinks passing legislation is the end of the political fight as opposed to the beginning of the legal one .
It ’ s an answer designed to virtue-signal that abortion rights are important but not to commit to the two things that could actually secure those important rights : court expansion or a constitutional amendment .
Biden is hardly alone .
Most of the Democrats who ran in the primary , including vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris , supported the idea of “ codifying Roe v. Wade.
” The Democratic Party seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law protecting the right to an abortion will overcome an adverse Supreme Court from going back and overturning that law .
A federal law would be futile .
It would be like telling the bully , “ It ’ s against the rules to stuff me in a locker , ” as he stuffs you into a locker .
Let me tell you how this is actually going to play out .
First of all , a decision “ overturning ” Roe v. Wade will not be the same as a decision making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how conservatives plan to do this .
Their plan is simply to overturn the constitutional “ right ” to an abortion and let the states do the rest of the work .
Abortion will neither be constitutionally protected nor constitutionally prohibited .
It will be up to the states to decide whether pregnancy turns women into incubators with no rights or some rights .
Let ’ s say that the Biden administration responds to that likely decision with federal legislation .
What would that law actually look like ?
The law would probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to seek an abortion prior to fetal viability , and that doctors have a right to offer such services .
That sounds great , except it ’ s not the federal government that runs hospitals .
It ’ s not the federal government that determines who is allowed to have a medical license .
The states do that work .
So while the president and Congress could pass a law protecting all manner of broadly popular reproductive rights , when Texas says that abortion doctors have to have admitting privileges at nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or Alabama mandates psychological fitness exams for women seeking an abortion , or Ohio determines that fetal viability starts at conception , there ’ s not a lot the federal government can do to stop them .
States ’ rights arguments almost always mean “ white cis-hetero men get to have rights ; everybody else ’ s are optional.
” States will not provide abortion services or make it possible for women to access those services from private providers .
That ’ s pretty much how it is now , even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .
If that right is taken away , federal legislation will have a hard time forcing the states to do things the Constitution no longer requires them to do .
In order for federal legislation protecting abortion rights to actually , you know , protect abortion rights , the federal government would have to get into the business of providing abortions directly .
The federal government would have to send in its own federally authorized doctors to states restricting reproductive rights to provide the services it promised .
Even putting aside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment a Republican won the White House again , what on Earth makes anyone think the Democratic Party has the stomach to use the federal government ( and taxpayer dollars ) to provide abortion services directly ?
Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment ( which restricted the use of federal funding , like Medicaid , to pay for an abortion ) until two seconds ago .
There is no universe in which Biden “ codifies Roe v. Wade ” and then sends an abortion truck into Georgia to provide the service .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal law protecting abortion would be immediately countermanded or significantly undermined by a state law that refused to provide the services .
There would be a conflict between state and federal law , which would lead to lawsuits , which would end up ( wait for it ) right back in front of the 6-3 Republican-controlled Supreme Court .
In the absence of a constitutional right to abortion , the federal government would have to argue that it has some other constitutional power to make the states provide or all allow access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t many powers available to the government to force the states to provide services , other than the interstate commerce clause .
The interstate commerce clause is the legal hook that allows the government to do things like make the South serve Black people lunch .
Which is why conservative justices hate the interstate commerce clause .
One of the reasons conservatives want to take over the courts is to limit regulations authorized under the interstate commerce clause .
The very reason the Affordable Care Act is constantly under legal threat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans on the Supreme Court rejected the ACA as a regulation authorized by the interstate commerce clause .
A 6-3 court would reject federal abortion protections .
It would call Biden ’ s new law an unconstitutional use of the interstate commerce clause .
And it would reject any other constitutional basis for the law : Conservatives do not believe women are entitled to equal protection when it comes to their reproductive system , and we have not yet passed an Equal Rights Amendment to stop them .
Republican-controlled states would defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily .
This is usually the point where coastal elites think , “ Wow , stinks to live in flyover country .
I ’ m going to tell all my friends at our pumpkin-spiced brunch.
” There ’ s an assumption that even if abortion rights are stripped away in Republican-controlled states , blue states will still protect a woman ’ s right to choose .
But conservatives have a plan to take away abortion rights in states that vote Democratic .
Their argument is called “ fetal personhood , ” and Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is the next wave of the abortion wars .
Fetal personhood arguments are just what they sound like : They seek to elevate a fetus , still literally tied to the womb of a woman , to the status of a being with constitutional protections .
A federal law protecting abortion rights will likely be challenged in federal court by conservatives arguing that the law fails to protect the constitutional rights of such fetuses .
They ’ ll argue that abortion deprives these fetuses of due process .
Justice Clarence Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to consider abortions as discriminatory procedures that disparately impact Black and brown “ babies.
” Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Today Marks the Start of a Truly Terrifying Supreme Court Term Republicans Are Using the Covid-19 Crisis to Kill Abortion Rights Believe me when I tell you that conservatives are fully prepared to argue that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it .
Believe me when I tell you they have no shame .
Believe me when I tell you that fetal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Amy Coney Barrett , who wrote that one problem with Roe v. Wade is that it recognized “ no state interest in the life of the fetus.
” That ’ s how they ’ re going to get a national ban on abortion that overcomes any blue-state law to the contrary .
This is why Biden ’ s proposed federal legislation is useless .
It doesn ’ t protect abortion rights ; it only protects the Democrats from having to do what is necessary to protect abortion rights .
A constitutional amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A constitutional amendment establishing that women are entitled to equal rights and that they—not Republican men—hold the rights to their own bodies would also do some good .
If that is politically impossible , then court expansion—by which I mean zealous , robust expansion that overwhelms the conservatives with a raft of pro-precedent justices—would protect women ’ s rights as much as they have been over these past 50 years .
Everything else is failure .
Everything else allows a Republican-stacked Supreme Court to hack away at any legislation that purports to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s proposed legislation is the proverbial knife in a gun fight .
And let ’ s not forget : Biden is proposing to take this wholly ineffectual measure only “ if ” the Republican-controlled court blows up Roe .
He ’ s not even offering this wet noodle as a preemptive strike but as some kind of retaliation of last resort .
Biden is still willing to let Republican-controlled courts whittle abortion rights down to the point where they ’ re available to women only in the first commercial break after conception—just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear “ Roe v. Wade has been overruled ” on the nightly news .
The Democrats are so far behind on this issue that they ’ ve lost contact with reality .
It might have been useful to codify abortion rights 30 years ago ; that might have encouraged Republicans to respond legislatively instead of legally .
But the “ safe , legal , and rare ” Democrats didn ’ t do what they could then .
If Biden wins , we ’ ll see if the Democratic Party is finally ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , or if they just want to look pretty while losing the war .

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?
At a town hall meeting on Monday, Vice President Joe Biden addressed the possibility that a Republican-controlled Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. Biden said, “The only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land; that’s what I would do.”
This sounds like a good answer—but it’s not. It’s an answer that reflects an establishment that is unwilling to come to grips with what a 6-3 conservative court will do to women’s rights. It’s an answer from a former senator who thinks passing legislation is the end of the political fight as opposed to the beginning of the legal one. It’s an answer designed to virtue-signal that abortion rights are important but not to commit to the two things that could actually secure those important rights: court expansion or a constitutional amendment.
Biden is hardly alone. Most of the Democrats who ran in the primary, including vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, supported the idea of “codifying Roe v. Wade.” The Democratic Party seems to have convinced itself that a federal law protecting the right to an abortion will overcome an adverse Supreme Court from going back and overturning that law.
A federal law would be futile. It would be like telling the bully, “It’s against the rules to stuff me in a locker,” as he stuffs you into a locker.
Let me tell you how this is actually going to play out. First of all, a decision “overturning” Roe v. Wade will not be the same as a decision making abortion illegal. That’s not how conservatives plan to do this. Their plan is simply to overturn the constitutional “right” to an abortion and let the states do the rest of the work. Abortion will neither be constitutionally protected nor constitutionally prohibited. It will be up to the states to decide whether pregnancy turns women into incubators with no rights or some rights.
Let’s say that the Biden administration responds to that likely decision with federal legislation. What would that law actually look like? The law would probably say that women have a federally protected right to seek an abortion prior to fetal viability, and that doctors have a right to offer such services.
That sounds great, except it’s not the federal government that runs hospitals. It’s not the federal government that determines who is allowed to have a medical license. The states do that work. So while the president and Congress could pass a law protecting all manner of broadly popular reproductive rights, when Texas says that abortion doctors have to have admitting privileges at nearby (state or privately run) hospitals, or Alabama mandates psychological fitness exams for women seeking an abortion, or Ohio determines that fetal viability starts at conception, there’s not a lot the federal government can do to stop them. States’ rights arguments almost always mean “white cis-hetero men get to have rights; everybody else’s are optional.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
States will not provide abortion services or make it possible for women to access those services from private providers. That’s pretty much how it is now, even when there is a constitutional right to reproductive choice. If that right is taken away, federal legislation will have a hard time forcing the states to do things the Constitution no longer requires them to do.
In order for federal legislation protecting abortion rights to actually, you know, protect abortion rights, the federal government would have to get into the business of providing abortions directly. The federal government would have to send in its own federally authorized doctors to states restricting reproductive rights to provide the services it promised.
Even putting aside the reality that these services would stop the moment a Republican won the White House again, what on Earth makes anyone think the Democratic Party has the stomach to use the federal government (and taxpayer dollars) to provide abortion services directly? Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment (which restricted the use of federal funding, like Medicaid, to pay for an abortion) until two seconds ago. There is no universe in which Biden “codifies Roe v. Wade” and then sends an abortion truck into Georgia to provide the service.
Instead, the most likely scenario is that a federal law protecting abortion would be immediately countermanded or significantly undermined by a state law that refused to provide the services. There would be a conflict between state and federal law, which would lead to lawsuits, which would end up (wait for it) right back in front of the 6-3 Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
In the absence of a constitutional right to abortion, the federal government would have to argue that it has some other constitutional power to make the states provide or all allow access to family planning services. There aren’t many powers available to the government to force the states to provide services, other than the interstate commerce clause. The interstate commerce clause is the legal hook that allows the government to do things like make the South serve Black people lunch.
Which is why conservative justices hate the interstate commerce clause. One of the reasons conservatives want to take over the courts is to limit regulations authorized under the interstate commerce clause. The very reason the Affordable Care Act is constantly under legal threat is because John Roberts and the rest of the Republicans on the Supreme Court rejected the ACA as a regulation authorized by the interstate commerce clause.
A 6-3 court would reject federal abortion protections. It would call Biden’s new law an unconstitutional use of the interstate commerce clause. And it would reject any other constitutional basis for the law: Conservatives do not believe women are entitled to equal protection when it comes to their reproductive system, and we have not yet passed an Equal Rights Amendment to stop them. Republican-controlled states would defeat a federal abortion law in court, easily.
This is usually the point where coastal elites think, “Wow, stinks to live in flyover country. I’m going to tell all my friends at our pumpkin-spiced brunch.” There’s an assumption that even if abortion rights are stripped away in Republican-controlled states, blue states will still protect a woman’s right to choose.
But conservatives have a plan to take away abortion rights in states that vote Democratic. Their argument is called “fetal personhood,” and Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has written that it is the next wave of the abortion wars.
Fetal personhood arguments are just what they sound like: They seek to elevate a fetus, still literally tied to the womb of a woman, to the status of a being with constitutional protections. A federal law protecting abortion rights will likely be challenged in federal court by conservatives arguing that the law fails to protect the constitutional rights of such fetuses. They’ll argue that abortion deprives these fetuses of due process. Justice Clarence Thomas has already hinted that he’d be willing to consider abortions as discriminatory procedures that disparately impact Black and brown “babies.” More from Mystal Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal Today Marks the Start of a Truly Terrifying Supreme Court Term Elie Mystal Republicans Are Using the Covid-19 Crisis to Kill Abortion Rights Elie Mystal
Believe me when I tell you that conservatives are fully prepared to argue that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it. Believe me when I tell you they have no shame. Believe me when I tell you that fetal personhood is the true goal of conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote that one problem with Roe v. Wade is that it recognized “no state interest in the life of the fetus.”
That’s how they’re going to get a national ban on abortion that overcomes any blue-state law to the contrary. This is why Biden’s proposed federal legislation is useless. It doesn’t protect abortion rights; it only protects the Democrats from having to do what is necessary to protect abortion rights.
A constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights would stop the conservatives. A constitutional amendment establishing that women are entitled to equal rights and that they—not Republican men—hold the rights to their own bodies would also do some good.
If that is politically impossible, then court expansion—by which I mean zealous, robust expansion that overwhelms the conservatives with a raft of pro-precedent justices—would protect women’s rights as much as they have been over these past 50 years.
Everything else is failure. Everything else allows a Republican-stacked Supreme Court to hack away at any legislation that purports to protect women’s rights. Biden’s proposed legislation is the proverbial knife in a gun fight.
And let’s not forget: Biden is proposing to take this wholly ineffectual measure only “if” the Republican-controlled court blows up Roe. He’s not even offering this wet noodle as a preemptive strike but as some kind of retaliation of last resort. Biden is still willing to let Republican-controlled courts whittle abortion rights down to the point where they’re available to women only in the first commercial break after conception—just so long as he doesn’t hear “Roe v. Wade has been overruled” on the nightly news.
The Democrats are so far behind on this issue that they’ve lost contact with reality. It might have been useful to codify abortion rights 30 years ago; that might have encouraged Republicans to respond legislatively instead of legally. But the “safe, legal, and rare” Democrats didn’t do what they could then.
If Biden wins, we’ll see if the Democratic Party is finally ready to get dirty fighting for women’s rights, or if they just want to look pretty while losing the war.


thenation--2020-10-07--The Man Protected by ‘Mother’ Has Rarely Dealt With a Woman Like Kamala

Vice President Mike Pence has a huge challenge Wednesday night .
As always in debates , he ’ s auditioning for a job , but in this election cycle , he doesn ’ t know which one : Is it the top one , or just Number Two ?
With Donald Trump still suffering from Covid-19—no matter what his doctors say—Pence has never faced a job interview this complicated .
But unless Trump gets too ill—God forbid—to watch the debate , Pence has an audience of one .
So he better remember he ’ s still Number Two .
Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course .
Joe Biden ’ s vice presidential selection was especially fraught given that the 77-year-old very well might not run again in 2024 .
If he doesn ’ t , she will be the front-runner .
But Harris ’ s path to debate victory is clearer than Pence ’ s : She ’ s got to be Biden ’ s biggest cheerleader , while taking principled shots at the Trump-Pence record of shame .
She will be fine .
Sure , there were concerns inside Camp Biden , almost until he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ d brandished her ambition alarmingly in a debate stunner last year , when she ( temporarily ) brought him low by criticizing his early-career opposition to busing .
She came out as a child of busing , with the flourish , “ That little girl was me.
” Now , that grown woman is in Biden ’ s corner—and he couldn ’ t ask for a better ally .
Yes , That Debate Was a Shit Show Let ’ s face it : Both Pence and Harris are auditioning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back their boss ( at least in public ) .
What ’ s the best way to preview that ?
In 2016 , Pence got by assiduously backing Trump ’ s positions in debating VP nominee Tim Kaine—except when he couldn ’ t .
Even back then , the two men sparred over a growing epidemic of police violence , with Pence accusing Clinton of using “ a broad brush to accuse cops of institutional racism.
” Kaine shot back , “ I can ’ t believe you ’ re defending the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s see that again tonight .
Kaine also tried to hit Pence , more than once , with Trump ’ s claim that undocumented Mexican immigrants tend to be rapists and criminals .
At one point , Pence was flummoxed .
“ You whipped out that Mexican thing again !
” he declared .
Yet Pence was slippery , as Kaine tried to hammer home at the end ( the Democrat was widely judged the loser , though I thought he did fine ) .
“ Six times tonight I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t imagine how you can defend your running mate ’ s position .
And he has not , ” Kaine declared .
Sadly , the media let Pence get away with it .
But Kaine had another charge , as he told me in 2016 : He wanted to normalize that a man could be led by—even take orders from—a woman .
Harris has a different and more complicated task : to defer to the white man at the top of the ticket , and yet display the talent , ambition , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ’ s grit and brilliance in this country—that got her here .
She ’ s already gotten plenty of advice .
“ The key thing with Pence is that you have to separate out style from substance , ” Bob Barnett , who played Kaine ’ s stand-in for Pence in 2016 , told Politico .
“ He will come across as very measured , very thoughtful and very smooth—very unlike President Trump .
But out of his mouth will come these wild Trumpisms.
” There is so much substance on which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ champion of marriage equality in California , she can pummel him on his opposition to it ( especially in light of the recent conservative Supreme Court side-eye on Obergefell ) .
She ought to take him apart on the Trump administration ’ s efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act during a pandemic that ’ s now torn through the White House—especially since he ( nominally ) chairs the pandemic task force under Trump .
She might ask why , as task force head , he failed to keep his boss safe from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and maybe over-prepare , for debates and everything else .
But over-preparing seems impossible at this point .
In this news environment , the two wannabe VPs could learn mid-debate that the president is back in the hospital , that Covid-19 is super-spreading in Washington ( D.C. ) , New York City , and San Francisco , and that Vladimir Putin just purchased 17 floors in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue .
Harris needs to channel her inner Maya Rudolph and just roll with the insanity .
She will be fine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepare for is Pence ’ s intrinsic disrespect and discomfort with her , which I predict will corrode whatever pretense of esteem he shows her .
Hillary Clinton put it perfectly the other day .
“ I think that what Mike Pence will try to do is somehow subtly undercut Kamala , ” she said during a fundraiser with Harris .
She advised the nominee to “ modulate her responses because we know there still is a double standard alive and well when it comes to women in politics.
” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Harris—subtly or blatantly signal that she is an outlier who doesn ’ t quite belong on that stage with him .
I don ’ t like to second-guess Clinton , who should have been our first woman president ( imagine one-tenth the Covid infections and deaths , or less , and a thriving economy ) .
She has lived this .
But I still hope to see a flash of the unmodulated Kamala Harris tonight .
This country deserves—in fact , needs to see—someone bring the anger and anguish we all feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought upon us mostly by this inept , mostly evil team in charge .
Especially given the racial strife of 2020 , many of us would like to see a Black woman express it .
I trust Harris to find a way to do that .
And I can ’ t wait .

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?
Vice President Mike Pence has a huge challenge Wednesday night. As always in debates, he’s auditioning for a job, but in this election cycle, he doesn’t know which one: Is it the top one, or just Number Two? With Donald Trump still suffering from Covid-19—no matter what his doctors say—Pence has never faced a job interview this complicated. But unless Trump gets too ill—God forbid—to watch the debate, Pence has an audience of one. So he better remember he’s still Number Two.
Kamala Harris is also auditioning for both, of course. Joe Biden’s vice presidential selection was especially fraught given that the 77-year-old very well might not run again in 2024. If he doesn’t, she will be the front-runner. But Harris’s path to debate victory is clearer than Pence’s: She’s got to be Biden’s biggest cheerleader, while taking principled shots at the Trump-Pence record of shame.
She will be fine.
Sure, there were concerns inside Camp Biden, almost until he chose her as a running mate, that she’d brandished her ambition alarmingly in a debate stunner last year, when she (temporarily) brought him low by criticizing his early-career opposition to busing. She came out as a child of busing, with the flourish, “That little girl was me.” Now, that grown woman is in Biden’s corner—and he couldn’t ask for a better ally. More From Joan Walsh The Promise of Justice in Fani Willis’s Indictment August 15, 2023 Please, Please Stop Blaming “Progressives” for Donald Trump’s Fascism August 11, 2023 The Ron-mentum Continues… Circling the Drain August 9, 2023
Let’s face it: Both Pence and Harris are auditioning for jobs that require them to pretty unflinchingly back their boss (at least in public). What’s the best way to preview that?
In 2016, Pence got by assiduously backing Trump’s positions in debating VP nominee Tim Kaine—except when he couldn’t. Even back then, the two men sparred over a growing epidemic of police violence, with Pence accusing Clinton of using “a broad brush to accuse cops of institutional racism.” Kaine shot back, “I can’t believe you’re defending the position that there’s no bias.” Let’s see that again tonight.
Kaine also tried to hit Pence, more than once, with Trump’s claim that undocumented Mexican immigrants tend to be rapists and criminals. At one point, Pence was flummoxed. “You whipped out that Mexican thing again!” he declared. Current Issue View our current issue
Yet Pence was slippery, as Kaine tried to hammer home at the end (the Democrat was widely judged the loser, though I thought he did fine). “Six times tonight I have said to Governor Pence I can’t imagine how you can defend your running mate’s position. And he has not,” Kaine declared. Sadly, the media let Pence get away with it.
But Kaine had another charge, as he told me in 2016: He wanted to normalize that a man could be led by—even take orders from—a woman. Harris has a different and more complicated task: to defer to the white man at the top of the ticket, and yet display the talent, ambition, and smarts—frankly, the 400 years of Black women’s grit and brilliance in this country—that got her here. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
She’s already gotten plenty of advice. “The key thing with Pence is that you have to separate out style from substance,” Bob Barnett, who played Kaine’s stand-in for Pence in 2016, told Politico. “He will come across as very measured, very thoughtful and very smooth—very unlike President Trump. But out of his mouth will come these wild Trumpisms.”
Indeed.
There is so much substance on which Harris can hit Pence. As a champion of marriage equality in California, she can pummel him on his opposition to it (especially in light of the recent conservative Supreme Court side-eye on Obergefell). She ought to take him apart on the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act during a pandemic that’s now torn through the White House—especially since he (nominally) chairs the pandemic task force under Trump. She might ask why, as task force head, he failed to keep his boss safe from Covid.
Harris is known to prepare, and maybe over-prepare, for debates and everything else. But over-preparing seems impossible at this point. In this news environment, the two wannabe VPs could learn mid-debate that the president is back in the hospital, that Covid-19 is super-spreading in Washington (D.C.), New York City, and San Francisco, and that Vladimir Putin just purchased 17 floors in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. Harris needs to channel her inner Maya Rudolph and just roll with the insanity.
She will be fine.
One thing she can’t entirely prepare for is Pence’s intrinsic disrespect and discomfort with her, which I predict will corrode whatever pretense of esteem he shows her. Hillary Clinton put it perfectly the other day. “I think that what Mike Pence will try to do is somehow subtly undercut Kamala,” she said during a fundraiser with Harris. She advised the nominee to “modulate her responses because we know there still is a double standard alive and well when it comes to women in politics.” In other words, Pence will try to “other” Harris—subtly or blatantly signal that she is an outlier who doesn’t quite belong on that stage with him.
I don’t like to second-guess Clinton, who should have been our first woman president (imagine one-tenth the Covid infections and deaths, or less, and a thriving economy). She has lived this. But I still hope to see a flash of the unmodulated Kamala Harris tonight. This country deserves—in fact, needs to see—someone bring the anger and anguish we all feel, suffering through this awful year, brought upon us mostly by this inept, mostly evil team in charge. Especially given the racial strife of 2020, many of us would like to see a Black woman express it.
I trust Harris to find a way to do that. And I can’t wait.


thenation--2020-10-07--This Is Your President on Drugs

This Is Your President on Drugs

Anyone who feared that Donald Trump would become subdued after testing positive for Covid-19 could take comfort in the more than 60 tweets the president issued on Tuesday , his first full day at the White House after a four-day hospital stay .
The tweets were frantic , angry , and often incoherent .
They showed that Trump ’ s personality has certainly not been tamed by his health problems .
In fact , he has become even more Trumpian than before .
They also highlight the chaos that is engulfing the executive branch of government in the last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump keeps changing his mind on Twitter about the stimulus deal he is negotiating with congressional Democrats .
On Sunday , he had pushed the idea that the stimulus was a high priority , tweeting , “ OUR GREAT USA WANTS & NEEDS STIMULUS .
WORK TOGETHER AND GET IT DONE .
Thank you !
” But on Tuesday , Trump abruptly changed his mind .
In a series of tweets he wrote : The suggestion that stimulus would only come after Trump wins the election carried the overtones of a threat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters support him .
Trump ’ s comments came as a shock to Wall Street and some Republicans .
As The Washington Post reported , “ Trump ’ s tweets sent the stock market lower , as many businesses , households and investors had been hoping for a jolt of fiscal stimulus amid signs the economy had lost momentum .
The Dow Jones industrial average ended down 376 points , or 1.3 percent .
The Nasdaq and S & P 500 also fell.
” According to Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and baffled by Trump ’ s sudden move to cut off stimulus negotiations.
” One Republican told Stein , “ It ’ s very strange , very strange .
Didn ’ t [ Trump ] just tell us all we should do this urgently ?
” Adding to the confusion was Trump contradicting himself on Twitter a few hours after these initial tweets , with statements suggesting he was open to a stimulus after all .
As Zach Carter of HuffPost summed up the day ’ s events , “ Trump boisterously pulls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and explicitly ties his decision to the election ( !
!
! )
, then calls for HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in economic aid , right now , plus stimulus checks for everyone.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the target of many of Trump ’ s insults , commented , “ Clearly , the White House is in complete disarray.
” Pelosi also raised the possibility that steroids , which have been prescribed to Trump to help strengthen his lungs , are clouding his judgment .
Nor was Pelosi alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times reports , “ Some White House staff members wondered whether Mr. Trump ’ s behavior was spurred by a cocktail of drugs he has been taking to treat the coronavirus , including dexamethasone , a steroid that can cause mood swings and can give a false level of energy and a sense of euphoria.
” The pharmacological explanation has to be considered alongside Trump ’ s known patterns of behavior .
The steroids might be making Trump shout louder , but he still has the same basic message .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his repertoire : complaints that the Russia investigation was a “ hoax ” and calls for the arrest of political enemies .
One retweet was a photoshopped image of the late actor Chris Farley ( playing the Saturday Night Live character Matt Foley ) yelling at Attorney General Bill Barr , “ For the love of God , arrest somebody !
” The rapid release of Trump ’ s tweets , their frequent incoherence , and their unwavering undercurrent of anger do suggest a president who is more frantic than before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with contradictory messages , one calling for the declassification of Russiagate material and the other claiming ( falsely ) that the material has long been declassified .
Huffman concluded that “ Trump is not well .
And there is no one around him who is able to question him at this point .
I am genuinely worried.
” Trump ’ s mental state is likely to be agitated by the circumstances around him .
His poll numbers continue to lag and the White House is now depleted because of the Covid-19 outbreak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing positive .
A New York Times report paints a grim picture of the impact of Covid-19 on working conditions in the administration : Trump ’ s current stress level could be coming from a variety of sources : his illness , the medicine he ’ s being prescribed , worries about the election , a demoralized staff , and a bleak working environment .
All of which suggests that Trump feels under siege and is using his Twitter account , even more than usual , to lash out and try to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominant .
The danger is that the more wounded Trump becomes , the more erratic and unstable he ’ ll be .
Even if he loses the election—or rather , especially if he loses the election—Trump is going to go down fighting .
He ’ s not afraid to take all of us down with him .

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?
Anyone who feared that Donald Trump would become subdued after testing positive for Covid-19 could take comfort in the more than 60 tweets the president issued on Tuesday, his first full day at the White House after a four-day hospital stay. The tweets were frantic, angry, and often incoherent. They showed that Trump’s personality has certainly not been tamed by his health problems. In fact, he has become even more Trumpian than before. They also highlight the chaos that is engulfing the executive branch of government in the last month before the presidential election.
Crucially, Trump keeps changing his mind on Twitter about the stimulus deal he is negotiating with congressional Democrats. On Sunday, he had pushed the idea that the stimulus was a high priority, tweeting, “OUR GREAT USA WANTS & NEEDS STIMULUS. WORK TOGETHER AND GET IT DONE. Thank you!”
But on Tuesday, Trump abruptly changed his mind. In a series of tweets he wrote:
The suggestion that stimulus would only come after Trump wins the election carried the overtones of a threat, with the president withholding economic relief unless voters support him.
Trump’s comments came as a shock to Wall Street and some Republicans. As The Washington Post reported, “Trump’s tweets sent the stock market lower, as many businesses, households and investors had been hoping for a jolt of fiscal stimulus amid signs the economy had lost momentum. The Dow Jones industrial average ended down 376 points, or 1.3 percent. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 also fell.” According to Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein, “Some GOP aides/officials [were] stunned and baffled by Trump’s sudden move to cut off stimulus negotiations.” One Republican told Stein, “It’s very strange, very strange. Didn’t [Trump] just tell us all we should do this urgently?”
Adding to the confusion was Trump contradicting himself on Twitter a few hours after these initial tweets, with statements suggesting he was open to a stimulus after all. As Zach Carter of HuffPost summed up the day’s events, “Trump boisterously pulls the plug on economic relief talks with Democrats and explicitly ties his decision to the election (!!!), then calls for HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in economic aid, right now, plus stimulus checks for everyone.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the target of many of Trump’s insults, commented, “Clearly, the White House is in complete disarray.” Pelosi also raised the possibility that steroids, which have been prescribed to Trump to help strengthen his lungs, are clouding his judgment.
Nor was Pelosi alone in these speculations. As The New York Times reports, “Some White House staff members wondered whether Mr. Trump’s behavior was spurred by a cocktail of drugs he has been taking to treat the coronavirus, including dexamethasone, a steroid that can cause mood swings and can give a false level of energy and a sense of euphoria.”
The pharmacological explanation has to be considered alongside Trump’s known patterns of behavior. The steroids might be making Trump shout louder, but he still has the same basic message. Many of his tweets are reiterations of standard parts of his repertoire: complaints that the Russia investigation was a “hoax” and calls for the arrest of political enemies. One retweet was a photoshopped image of the late actor Chris Farley (playing the Saturday Night Live character Matt Foley) yelling at Attorney General Bill Barr, “For the love of God, arrest somebody!”
The rapid release of Trump’s tweets, their frequent incoherence, and their unwavering undercurrent of anger do suggest a president who is more frantic than before. California Congressman Jared Huffman cited two tweets with contradictory messages, one calling for the declassification of Russiagate material and the other claiming (falsely) that the material has long been declassified. Huffman concluded that “Trump is not well. And there is no one around him who is able to question him at this point. I am genuinely worried.”
Trump’s mental state is likely to be agitated by the circumstances around him. His poll numbers continue to lag and the White House is now depleted because of the Covid-19 outbreak, with more than a dozen political staffers testing positive.
A New York Times report paints a grim picture of the impact of Covid-19 on working conditions in the administration:
The White House that President Trump woke up in on Tuesday morning was in full-blown chaos, even by the standards of the havoc of the Trump era. Aides said the president’s voice was stronger after his return from the hospital Monday night, but at times he still sounded as if he was trying to catch air. The West Wing was mostly empty, cleared of advisers who were out sick with the coronavirus themselves or told to work from home rather than in the capital’s most famous virus hot spot. Staff members in the White House residence were in full personal protective equipment, including yellow gowns, surgical masks and disposable protective eye covers.
Trump’s current stress level could be coming from a variety of sources: his illness, the medicine he’s being prescribed, worries about the election, a demoralized staff, and a bleak working environment. All of which suggests that Trump feels under siege and is using his Twitter account, even more than usual, to lash out and try to create the illusion that he’s still dominant. The danger is that the more wounded Trump becomes, the more erratic and unstable he’ll be. Even if he loses the election—or rather, especially if he loses the election—Trump is going to go down fighting. He’s not afraid to take all of us down with him.


thenation--2020-10-08--Focused Protection, Herd Immunity, and Other Deadly Delusions

Many readers of The Nation may also subscribe to Jacobin , as I do .
I am happy to have two progressive publications appear in my mailbox regularly , one a longtime favorite and the other a more recent pleasure .
A few weeks ago , as I was browsing online at Jacobin , I found an interview , headlined “ We Need a Radically Different Approach to the Pandemic and Our Economy as a Whole , ” with Harvard professors Katherine Yih and Martin Kulldorff .
I was excited to read it .
My Yale colleague Amy Kapczynski and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our approach to Covid-19 in a series of articles for another great lefty journal , Boston Review , where we have called for a new politics of care to confront the neoliberalism and white supremacy baked into health care and public health in America .
I was hoping to see a similar call emerge in Jacobin ’ s pages online .
However , after some acknowledgement of the impact the pandemic has had on the poor and vulnerable in the United States , the piece makes a sharp detour into a defense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by Scott Atlas , President Donald Trump ’ s most favored adviser at the moment—and roundly criticized by experts around the country , including more than 100 of Atlas ’ s own colleagues at Stanford .
Fast forward to this week , where one of the Harvard professors in question , Martin Kulldorff , along with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University and Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford , were in D.C. meeting with Scott Atlas and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to promote their new “ focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and universities should be open for in-person teaching .
Extracurricular activities , such as sports , should be resumed .
Young low-risk adults should work normally , rather than from home .
Restaurants and other businesses should open .
Arts , music , sport and other cultural activities should resume.
” In the words of Donald Trump , “ America will again and soon be open for business , ” across the board , if we follow the advice of these professors .
What has shocked and dismayed the vast majority of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this strategy is that it is heavy on the rationale for reopening or “ liberating ” states , cities , and towns and light on the “ focused protection ” part .
Kulldorff , Bhattacharya , and Gupta are confident that we can sequester and protect the elderly and vulnerable from the virus , while the young and fit go about their business as usual and their getting infected is seen as their contribution to the building of herd immunity , presenting little risk to them .
Let ’ s put this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , only a small proportion of older Americans live in nursing or care homes , where we have shown little ability to keep our elders safe over the past eight months .
The bulk of older Americans are integrated into our communities , living alone or with their spouses or their families .
Even if we could make nursing homes into impenetrable fortresses impervious to viral entry , it ’ s not at all clear how we ’ d keep the millions of elderly “ safe ” as they live around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , data from CDC suggests that we haven ’ t done a good job at all on this , and when virus cases surge in young people , the elderly are next in line for transmission .
You Think Things Couldn ’ t Get Any Worse With the Pandemic ?
So Far , 2020 Has Been Our Year of Magical Thinking Another group of people to whom these three august academics give short shrift are the chronically ill in America .
The CDC estimates that nearly half of all Americans ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predispose them to severe Covid-19 outcomes .
If it is a challenge to think of sequestering the elderly , what do we do with almost half of our fellow Americans who may be at similar enhanced risk of complications and death from Covid-19 ?
Then there are the young .
Kulldorff , Bhattacharya , and Gupta would have you believe that young people have little to fear from Covid-19 , urging them to resume their normal lives .
Yet if you look at hospitalizations for young adults with Covid-19 in a national study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percent required mechanical ventilation , and 2.7 percent died .
Many of these young people had chronic conditions , which enhanced their risk—and over half of the young people hospitalized in this cohort were Black or Latino .
The herd immunity strategy , whether you call it this or “ focused protection ” or “ age-targeted , ” has already been tried without success , notably in Kulldorff ’ s native country , Sweden , which with less strict measures in places—particularly among the young—ended up with more deaths than its neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of the pandemic , either .
Furthermore , Sweden ’ s robust welfare state and national health care system probably averted even more serious carnage from its approach .
In the United States , with our safety net in tatters , and where we don ’ t have such protections in place , pursuing a herd immunity approach could spell disaster .
There are other differences that would make the Swedish experiment an exercise in folly in America : Swedes have greater faith in their government and were willing to comply with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health system , they would not lose their homes or their livelihoods if they got sick ; many Swedes live alone ( not in multigenerational households as is common here ) ; Swedes also have lower rates of the comorbidities I described above that put millions and millions of Americans at high risk for complications of Covid-19 .
And that vaunted herd immunity ?
Even in Sweden , the proportion of the population exposed to the virus has been relatively low .
Swiss epidemiologist Christian Althaus put it succinctly in an interview last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sweden would reach herd immunity was “ always sort of ridiculous.… This idea that , basically 50 percent , 60 percent , 70 percent of people get infected and then the problem is solved , that was never really based on scientific foundation… .
It ’ s very unlikely that something like that can be achieved , and even if it could be achieved , it would come—at least in countries with a population demography like European countries or the US—with a huge cost.
” The epidemic has taken a toll on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 falling on the poor and vulnerable , as Yih and Kulldorff suggest .
But the answer isn ’ t to indulge in wishful thinking , shoddily conceived notions of herd immunity , proposals unmoored to the realities of where and how we live , and who we are .
We can do better .
We need more nuanced , targeted approaches using data on our local epidemics ( which will require , in part , massive investments in testing ) , crafting interventions to address what is happening in our communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social , and economic impact , adapting and changing them as the evidence changes , too .
Though we slowed the pandemic this spring , the scattershot strategies we employed came without any real support for ordinary Americans from Washington , leaving most of us alone against the virus .
But Kulldorff , Bhattacharya , and Gupta ’ s plan , enshrined as the Great Barrington Declaration unveiled at the American Institute for Economic Research this week , is not the way forward .
If we ’ re going to build toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be by relying on progressive principles of justice and equality—not some notion of the survival of the young and the fittest .
Nor by paying lip service to the hundreds of millions of elderly and chronically ill in this country , while having no plan to support them .
We certainly won ’ t get there by giving cover to the White House and governors like Ron DeSantis—which is what Kulldorff and Bhattacharya have done explicitly in meetings with them over the past few weeks—to conduct business as usual .
Business as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this precipice .
Are we really going to follow them over the edge ?

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?
Many readers of The Nation may also subscribe to Jacobin, as I do. I am happy to have two progressive publications appear in my mailbox regularly, one a longtime favorite and the other a more recent pleasure. A few weeks ago, as I was browsing online at Jacobin, I found an interview, headlined “We Need a Radically Different Approach to the Pandemic and Our Economy as a Whole,” with Harvard professors Katherine Yih and Martin Kulldorff. I was excited to read it. My Yale colleague Amy Kapczynski and I have written about how to rethink our approach to Covid-19 in a series of articles for another great lefty journal, Boston Review, where we have called for a new politics of care to confront the neoliberalism and white supremacy baked into health care and public health in America. I was hoping to see a similar call emerge in Jacobin’s pages online.
However, after some acknowledgement of the impact the pandemic has had on the poor and vulnerable in the United States, the piece makes a sharp detour into a defense of herd immunity, the very same strategy supported by Scott Atlas, President Donald Trump’s most favored adviser at the moment—and roundly criticized by experts around the country, including more than 100 of Atlas’s own colleagues at Stanford. Fast forward to this week, where one of the Harvard professors in question, Martin Kulldorff, along with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University and Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford, were in D.C. meeting with Scott Atlas and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to promote their new “focused protection” strategy in which “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume.” In the words of Donald Trump, “America will again and soon be open for business,” across the board, if we follow the advice of these professors.
What has shocked and dismayed the vast majority of people working in public health and clinical medicine about this strategy is that it is heavy on the rationale for reopening or “liberating” states, cities, and towns and light on the “focused protection” part. Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta are confident that we can sequester and protect the elderly and vulnerable from the virus, while the young and fit go about their business as usual and their getting infected is seen as their contribution to the building of herd immunity, presenting little risk to them.
Let’s put this into some real-world context. In the United States, only a small proportion of older Americans live in nursing or care homes, where we have shown little ability to keep our elders safe over the past eight months. The bulk of older Americans are integrated into our communities, living alone or with their spouses or their families. Even if we could make nursing homes into impenetrable fortresses impervious to viral entry, it’s not at all clear how we’d keep the millions of elderly “safe” as they live around, among, and with us. In fact, data from CDC suggests that we haven’t done a good job at all on this, and when virus cases surge in young people, the elderly are next in line for transmission. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From Gregg Gonsalves These New Alzheimer’s Drugs Are a Travesty July 27, 2023 It's Not “Unreasonable” to Want to Change Our Rotten Health Care System June 1, 2023 Now More Than Ever, We Need to Fight, Not Despair May 11, 2023
Another group of people to whom these three august academics give short shrift are the chronically ill in America. The CDC estimates that nearly half of all Americans (47.5 percent) have underlying conditions that predispose them to severe Covid-19 outcomes. If it is a challenge to think of sequestering the elderly, what do we do with almost half of our fellow Americans who may be at similar enhanced risk of complications and death from Covid-19? Then there are the young. Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta would have you believe that young people have little to fear from Covid-19, urging them to resume their normal lives. Yet if you look at hospitalizations for young adults with Covid-19 in a national study, 21 percent required intensive care, 10 percent required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7 percent died. Many of these young people had chronic conditions, which enhanced their risk—and over half of the young people hospitalized in this cohort were Black or Latino.
The herd immunity strategy, whether you call it this or “focused protection” or “age-targeted,” has already been tried without success, notably in Kulldorff’s native country, Sweden, which with less strict measures in places—particularly among the young—ended up with more deaths than its neighbors and didn’t avoid the economic impact of the pandemic, either. Furthermore, Sweden’s robust welfare state and national health care system probably averted even more serious carnage from its approach. In the United States, with our safety net in tatters, and where we don’t have such protections in place, pursuing a herd immunity approach could spell disaster.
There are other differences that would make the Swedish experiment an exercise in folly in America: Swedes have greater faith in their government and were willing to comply with voluntary restrictions; because of their national health system, they would not lose their homes or their livelihoods if they got sick; many Swedes live alone (not in multigenerational households as is common here); Swedes also have lower rates of the comorbidities I described above that put millions and millions of Americans at high risk for complications of Covid-19. Current Issue View our current issue
And that vaunted herd immunity? Even in Sweden, the proportion of the population exposed to the virus has been relatively low. Swiss epidemiologist Christian Althaus put it succinctly in an interview last month when he said the idea that Sweden would reach herd immunity was “always sort of ridiculous.… This idea that, basically 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent of people get infected and then the problem is solved, that was never really based on scientific foundation…. It’s very unlikely that something like that can be achieved, and even if it could be achieved, it would come—at least in countries with a population demography like European countries or the US—with a huge cost.”
The epidemic has taken a toll on all of us, with the full force of Covid-19 falling on the poor and vulnerable, as Yih and Kulldorff suggest. But the answer isn’t to indulge in wishful thinking, shoddily conceived notions of herd immunity, proposals unmoored to the realities of where and how we live, and who we are. We can do better.
We need more nuanced, targeted approaches using data on our local epidemics (which will require, in part, massive investments in testing), crafting interventions to address what is happening in our communities, evaluating them for their epidemiological, and social, and economic impact, adapting and changing them as the evidence changes, too. Though we slowed the pandemic this spring, the scattershot strategies we employed came without any real support for ordinary Americans from Washington, leaving most of us alone against the virus.
But Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta’s plan, enshrined as the Great Barrington Declaration unveiled at the American Institute for Economic Research this week, is not the way forward. If we’re going to build toward a new politics of care, it will be by relying on progressive principles of justice and equality—not some notion of the survival of the young and the fittest. Nor by paying lip service to the hundreds of millions of elderly and chronically ill in this country, while having no plan to support them. We certainly won’t get there by giving cover to the White House and governors like Ron DeSantis—which is what Kulldorff and Bhattacharya have done explicitly in meetings with them over the past few weeks—to conduct business as usual. Business as usual for these men has led us to this precipice. Are we really going to follow them over the edge?


thenation--2020-10-08--Now More Than Ever: Fill in That WFP Bubble!

There isn ’ t much suspense about which presidential candidate will carry New York state on Election Day .
New Yorkers , who ’ ve seen Donald Trump up close for decades , will reject him by a huge margin—just like they did the last time .
But there ’ s a lot more at stake here than the president ’ s ego .
New Yorkers who favor Joe Biden still have an important choice to make .
Here ’ s why .
When New Yorkers cast their ballots for president , they won ’ t just be picking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting on whether state government will continue on a progressive trajectory , or backslide into austerity , centrism , and political corruption .
That ’ s because the Working Families Party ’ s survival is on the ballot this year .
During the height of the pandemic in early April , Governor Andrew Cuomo rewrote the rules governing minor party access to the ballot .
He slipped a clause into the state ’ s new—and largely progressive—election law raising the threshold third parties need to reach to keep their place on the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( If that law had been in force in 2018 , only the state ’ s Conservative Party would have survived alongside the Democrats and Republicans ) By all accounts , the move was Cuomo ’ s payback for the WFP ’ s years of success in moving New York politics in a more progressive direction .
Our governor does not enjoy being challenged—and is always willing to use public power to punish private political enemies .
Cuomo ’ s revenge may be a less prominent abuse of power than some we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no less shameful .
Unless enough New Yorkers vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the Working Families Party line this November , the state ’ s leading engine for social progress and enlightened lawmaking could be forced out of business .
The WFP was founded in 1998 .
Democrats had moved decisively to the right since the 1980 Reagan victory .
The WFP viewed this as both a moral and strategic mistake .
The Nation agreed , helping the fledgling party secure just enough votes to make it over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become a legally recognized party .
From the start , the WFP took on the long-standing , seemingly indestructible political architecture of Albany , in which Democrats ruled the Assembly and Republicans ruled the Senate .
Every governor from Rockefeller through both Cuomos supported this bipartisan “ deal ” —largely because the real estate , finance , insurance , and advertising industries liked it that way .
The left might amass enough strength to force occasional concessions , but this arrangement acted as a firewall against more profound reforms .
Even within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notable victories , including the long-overdue reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and passage of the 2009 millionaires tax .
When , following Democratic gains in 2012 , “ the deal ” seemed to crumble , it was resuscitated by the rogue “ Independent Democratic Conference.
” The IDC caucused with Republicans and kept control of the Senate , with the tacit support of Cuomo .
But by 2018 , the winds of change were blowing too strongly .
The WFP successfully primaried members of the IDC and elected Working Families Democrats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The “ deal ” was finally dead .
That opened the gates in Albany to a flood of long-overdue progressive legislation on climate change , housing , voting rights , and much more .
Once the WFP had changed the architecture , the needs and hopes of ordinary people actually got a fair hearing .
The WFP understood from the start that real political change takes organization and patience .
“ Start small , think big , ” said the party ’ s first director , Daniel Cantor .
“ Make steady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Lipton .
Now New York ’ s WFP is led by its first woman director , Sochie Nnaemeka , who says : “ New Yorkers need to beat Trump , but we need so much more than that.
” Cuomo does not agree .
Millionaires have made major gains during the Covid-19 crisis , but Cuomo is fighting tooth and nail against any attempt to tax the rich in order to sustain public services and employment .
He clearly views the growing cadre of WFP Democrats as the biggest obstacle to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined to weaken or even destroy the party .
Of course , the governor denies any such aim .
Instead , Cuomo ’ s allies claim that minor parties pose a threat to the state ’ s new public campaign financing system .
Fortunately , the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Finance Institute each looked into this claim—and blew it out of the water .
In today ’ s Albany , the debate is no longer between Democrats and Republicans but between centrist Democrats and progressive , WFP-style Democrats—and the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This shift is an enormous accomplishment , because it means that the compromises inevitable in politics lean to the left .
A lot of actors played a role in making this happen over the last two decades , with Bernie Sanders leading the fight on a national level .
But here in New York state , most of the credit goes to the WFP .
The party has made mistakes—most egregiously by backing Cuomo himself over Zephyr Teachout in 2014 ( though given the scale of payback the governor is inflicting for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years later , the party ’ s anxiety appears well-founded ) .
It also supported Representative Joe Crowley over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
A more recent WFP endorsement wasn ’ t enough to save incumbent Brooklyn Assemblyman Walter Mosley , who was defeated in July by DSA-backed challenger Phara Soufrant Forrest .
And the party ’ s decision to endorse Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination remains controversial .
( The Nation preferred Sanders . )
But overall the WFP has been a breath of fresh air since it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown into a formidable force for justice nationwide .
This year , it is supporting candidates and mobilizing voters in more than 20 states .
Any New Yorker voting for the Biden/Harris ticket should vote for them on the WFP line .
Your vote counts the same as a vote on the Democratic line , but will also register as a vote for progressive principles—and progressive power .

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?
There isn’t much suspense about which presidential candidate will carry New York state on Election Day. New Yorkers, who’ve seen Donald Trump up close for decades, will reject him by a huge margin—just like they did the last time. But there’s a lot more at stake here than the president’s ego. New Yorkers who favor Joe Biden still have an important choice to make. Here’s why.
When New Yorkers cast their ballots for president, they won’t just be picking a candidate. They’ll also be voting on whether state government will continue on a progressive trajectory, or backslide into austerity, centrism, and political corruption.
That’s because the Working Families Party’s survival is on the ballot this year. During the height of the pandemic in early April, Governor Andrew Cuomo rewrote the rules governing minor party access to the ballot. He slipped a clause into the state’s new—and largely progressive—election law raising the threshold third parties need to reach to keep their place on the ballot from 50,000 votes statewide to 130,000. (If that law had been in force in 2018, only the state’s Conservative Party would have survived alongside the Democrats and Republicans)
By all accounts, the move was Cuomo’s payback for the WFP’s years of success in moving New York politics in a more progressive direction. Our governor does not enjoy being challenged—and is always willing to use public power to punish private political enemies. Cuomo’s revenge may be a less prominent abuse of power than some we’ve seen from Trump, but it’s no less shameful. Unless enough New Yorkers vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the Working Families Party line this November, the state’s leading engine for social progress and enlightened lawmaking could be forced out of business.
The WFP was founded in 1998. Democrats had moved decisively to the right since the 1980 Reagan victory. The WFP viewed this as both a moral and strategic mistake. The Nation agreed, helping the fledgling party secure just enough votes to make it over the (then) 50,000-vote threshold required to become a legally recognized party.
From the start, the WFP took on the long-standing, seemingly indestructible political architecture of Albany, in which Democrats ruled the Assembly and Republicans ruled the Senate. Every governor from Rockefeller through both Cuomos supported this bipartisan “deal”—largely because the real estate, finance, insurance, and advertising industries liked it that way. The left might amass enough strength to force occasional concessions, but this arrangement acted as a firewall against more profound reforms. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Even within these constraints, the WFP helped achieve notable victories, including the long-overdue reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and passage of the 2009 millionaires tax. When, following Democratic gains in 2012, “the deal” seemed to crumble, it was resuscitated by the rogue “Independent Democratic Conference.” The IDC caucused with Republicans and kept control of the Senate, with the tacit support of Cuomo. But by 2018, the winds of change were blowing too strongly. The WFP successfully primaried members of the IDC and elected Working Families Democrats in their place, ending the unholy arrangement. The “deal” was finally dead. Current Issue View our current issue
That opened the gates in Albany to a flood of long-overdue progressive legislation on climate change, housing, voting rights, and much more. Once the WFP had changed the architecture, the needs and hopes of ordinary people actually got a fair hearing.
The WFP understood from the start that real political change takes organization and patience. “Start small, think big,” said the party’s first director, Daniel Cantor. “Make steady progress,” said the second, Bill Lipton. Now New York’s WFP is led by its first woman director, Sochie Nnaemeka, who says: “New Yorkers need to beat Trump, but we need so much more than that.”
Cuomo does not agree. Millionaires have made major gains during the Covid-19 crisis, but Cuomo is fighting tooth and nail against any attempt to tax the rich in order to sustain public services and employment. He clearly views the growing cadre of WFP Democrats as the biggest obstacle to his corporate-friendly brand of politics, and is determined to weaken or even destroy the party.
Of course, the governor denies any such aim. Instead, Cuomo’s allies claim that minor parties pose a threat to the state’s new public campaign financing system. Fortunately, the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Finance Institute each looked into this claim—and blew it out of the water.
In today’s Albany, the debate is no longer between Democrats and Republicans but between centrist Democrats and progressive, WFP-style Democrats—and the broader social movements that support the left. This shift is an enormous accomplishment, because it means that the compromises inevitable in politics lean to the left. A lot of actors played a role in making this happen over the last two decades, with Bernie Sanders leading the fight on a national level. But here in New York state, most of the credit goes to the WFP.
The party has made mistakes—most egregiously by backing Cuomo himself over Zephyr Teachout in 2014 (though given the scale of payback the governor is inflicting for the WFP’s backing challenger Cynthia Nixon four years later, the party’s anxiety appears well-founded). It also supported Representative Joe Crowley over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A more recent WFP endorsement wasn’t enough to save incumbent Brooklyn Assemblyman Walter Mosley, who was defeated in July by DSA-backed challenger Phara Soufrant Forrest. And the party’s decision to endorse Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination remains controversial. (The Nation preferred Sanders.) Related Article Fire Donald Trump The Nation
But overall the WFP has been a breath of fresh air since it first formed 22 years ago and has grown into a formidable force for justice nationwide. This year, it is supporting candidates and mobilizing voters in more than 20 states. Any New Yorker voting for the Biden/Harris ticket should vote for them on the WFP line. Your vote counts the same as a vote on the Democratic line, but will also register as a vote for progressive principles—and progressive power.
New Yorkers: Vote Working Families Party—and spread the word!