thenation--2020-08-13--Who Gets to Tell the Story of Wuhan’s Lockdown?

The quarantine diary emerged in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic as the genre de rigueur in response to the crisis and trauma , both personal and global , brought on by the coronavirus .
As a literary form , the diary is perfect for capturing the immediacy of emotional experiences and ongoing uncertainties .
It is kind to fragments and negative space and does not require perfection .
The public diary shares many strengths with the traditional private diary but has a social aspect closer to blogging and letter writing ; it seeks connection with others who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus , as the coronavirus pushed us further and further away from any sense of normalcy or a predictable future , diary writing—both public and private—became one way for people to hold on to small certainties .
By By Fang Fang ; Translated by Michael Berry Writing from Wuhan , the city in China ’ s Hubei province that was ground zero for the pandemic , Fang Fang became one of the most prominent voices on Chinese social media .
A prolific , award-winning new realist novelist whose work has been translated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began her “ Wuhan lockdown diary ” on the microblogging platform Weibo on January 25 , the day a citywide lockdown went into effect , when most of the world was still in the dark about the coronavirus .
Her daily writings commanded the attention of more than 50 million people in China .
At a time when rumors , misinformation , and misguided folk wisdom ran rampant and official channels of information were increasingly restricted , readers found solace in her lucid recap of the day ’ s news .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grew stern in her unrelenting demands for accountability regarding the government ’ s mishandling of the crisis , which contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people , as well as innumerable post-traumatic consequences that people in China have yet to reckon with .
With the help of her fiction translator Michael Berry , Fang ’ s entries from January 25 to March 24 have been published in English by HarperCollins as Wuhan Diary : Dispatches From a Quarantined City , the first such diary from China to reach a mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online for criticizing the government and allowing her dispatches to be weaponized by the United States , particularly in this moment of high tension between the two countries .
If there was briefly the faint hope that the looming catastrophe would awaken the country ’ s population to the point of possible radicalization , that hope has flattened along with the infection curve .
After a momentary bloom in investigative and citizen journalism , the state has regained control of the narrative of events , most emblematically by refashioning the tragic deaths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor who was reprimanded for warning his colleagues about the novel coronavirus and soon after died from Covid-19 , into simplistic narratives of patriotic heroism rather than a painful lesson in the Chinese government ’ s disastrous early response .
In this light , Fang ’ s anger and frustration speak more to the limits of citizenry under the system , in addition to the substance of her criticism .
Fang conceived her writerly mission as one of bearing witness to the unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan , the most populous city in central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people outside the city have no way to truly understand what we are going through .
There are no words strong enough to capture the sacrifices that the people of Wuhan have had to make during this outbreak , ” she wrote on February 29 .
While she stipulates that her diary is not “ intended as a vessel for grand narratives , ” it is not just a window into the quotidian , either .
Fang is more concerned with social commentary and public events than the details or emotional nuances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her updates are based on articles she read , videos she watched , or messages from friends who are medical experts or sources connected to the government .
And she acknowledges these limitations , writing , “ For a literary person like me , all I can do is keep a record of the things I see and hear.
” I read her diary on Weibo during the first month of the lockdown , while I was stuck in Hong Kong after travel to the mainland became restricted , and it started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beloved .
During a public crisis , people seek a relatable , trustworthy voice , and Fang takes on that role here—amiable , chatty , eager to share the insights of her various connections while adding her observations on the mysterious virus and the lack of conscientiousness and common sense in the response by the government .
As a member of the establishment watching out for her fellow Wuhanese , she even called for the resignation of top provincial officials .
Her stance on contemporary debates appears unexamined at times ( “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a human life ?
” ) , but she maintains a rational , even-keeled tone .
She is not a Debbie Downer , even though her diabetes meant that she was mostly confined to her home , except to pick up groceries and packages , and do chores in her apartment building ’ s courtyard .
Her diary created a common platform for conversation , not unlike a nightly news show .
But a month and a half into the lockdown , when Fang opined , “ Online shopping , binge-watching , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she began to sound like what teens would describe as “ boomer ” rather than a force for inspired change .
Part of the tonal distance is a result of language ; she sounds , even in English , like a slightly out-of-touch older family member , using terms like “ family chat group ” instead of the more common “ group chat ” or “ Old Godmother hot chili sauce ” instead of the brand name of the popular condiment Lao Gan Ma .
But more crucially , I began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diary like Fang ’ s when there is no shortage of alternative accounts of the lockdown by Wuhan residents , citizen journalists , and writers .
If , under the best-case scenario , the pandemic has presented us with an opportunity to reset our lives and our societies , is screen time , shopping , and ennui the best we can do ?
Long after the initial viral outbreak , Fang ’ s diary no longer serves the immediate need for real-time analysis or emotional support .
If the appeal of her legacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up against an oppressive government , it is more of an effect of the political conditions than within the realm of what a diary can offer , even in the public form she has adopted here .
But Fang doesn ’ t always see herself at eye level with the audience she claims an affection for ; her diary reflects the privilege and limitations of writing about the public health crisis and its corresponding gaps in translation .
Despite the personal disclaimers of her diary format , Fang seems comfortable speaking for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when she writes that “ people are more bored than scared ” or that “ the people of Wuhan seem to be quite calm these days.
” For someone who rarely left her residential compound , such generalizations have a presumptuous ring .
The perch from which she writes shows up again when she “ noticed [ the sanitation workers ’ ] consistently calm attitude .
They are the group that always gets overlooked as they quietly carry out their jobs , but somehow they are always there to set the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this can read as patronizing at best and othering at worst .
It should , in any case , inspire curiosity about chronicles of the lockdown told from a different vantage point .
For example , in her Wuhan Lockdown Diary ( Linking Publishing , 2020 ) , the 29-year-old feminist activist Guo Jing offers this account of sanitation workers ( translation by professor Hongwei Bao ) : In 2014 , Guo was the plaintiff in China ’ s first lawsuit over gender discrimination in employment .
( She won the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal hotline for women experiencing workplace issues .
She moved to Wuhan in November 2019 , less than three months before the quarantine began .
When a friend suggested that she write about her experiences there , she initially hesitated , partly because she didn ’ t want to be seen as a victim or give the impression that she must be miserable under the lockdown .
Guo ’ s diary was originally serialized online before being targeted by Chinese internet censors , and the book was published by a Taiwanese publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China and is not yet fully available in other languages .
When quarantine rules still allowed , Guo made a point of taking walks around the city every day and talking to as many people as she could .
Her quarantine diary was a mix of her everyday routine , her reflections as an activist , and a citizen journalist ’ s notebook on the material conditions of Wuhan at the time .
In February , in response to a highly publicized hair-shaving directive for female nurses to prepare them for duty—something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : In Fang ’ s diary , the event is remembered this way : “ Medical professionals have been lining up to volunteer ; they are cutting their hair , some even shaving their heads completely , and saying goodbye to their friends and family to come here to help.
” A contemporary of Fang ’ s , the 67-year-old documentary filmmaker and political activist Ai Xiaoming , discussed in her own popular lockdown journal how the political environment had given rise to the diary as a form of agency .
She wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it fills the gap at a time when citizen journalism is being suppressed .
Diaries became sought after because people lack other channels for direct , on-the-ground reporting from the grassroots.
” Reporting that enables bearing witness enables change .
In Guo ’ s case , her diary , while more intimate in tone and scope , liberated its writer from centering herself ; she speaks not as Guo but as a feminist social worker in Wuhan .
Through the volunteer legal hotline she ran as well as a group chat she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she learned that domestic violence was a threat for many women under the lockdown .
She subsequently led a work group that co-launched an anti-domestic-violence campaign in Wuhan in early March .
In contrast , despite drawing connections between government policies and its impact on people , Fang ’ s backseat-driving narrator becomes its own literary limit .
Ultimately more concerned with preserving a picture of life in Wuhan by filling in the gaps she saw in the mainstream media ’ s coverage rather than with advocating for change at the grassroots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diary to become a barometer for public discourse in contemporary Chinese society .
While Ai uses a higher level of sarcasm and metaphor in her social commentary ( as opposed to Fang ’ s more accessible , plain , and colloquial style ) , she nonetheless labors to provide historical context for the controversies surrounding Fang and her diary .
“ In an authoritarian society , it is inevitable that diary-writing becomes endangered , ” Ai wrote in an entry on April 4 .
“ If we look to the memoirs of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-rightist campaign in 1957 , many of their diaries didn ’ t even mention anything politically adversarial .
They were simply personal reflections or perhaps diaries kept out of habit .
But in the end , their words became distorted and even got [ their writers ] killed.
” There is a human instinct to look for heroes and villains—catalysts , really—in a narrative of catastrophe , if for no other reason than to cling to the hope that change is possible .
As China recalibrates in the aftermath of the initial Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most disastrous floods in decades in the southern part of the country , including Hubei , in early July became censored as soon as it was published .
Journalists could only speculate , as one had The New York Times : “ Perhaps people had grown numb to hardship .
Or perhaps China ’ s government and its censors did not want to draw more attention to people ’ s suffering.
” As Guo observes in her diary , “ It is so hard to get rid of the feeling of helplessness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of it , we should find a way to co-exist with it.
” As sympathetic but helpless outsiders beholding materially distant suffering , perhaps our first ethical duty is to seek out as many witnesses as possible .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
The quarantine diary emerged in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic as the genre de rigueur in response to the crisis and trauma, both personal and global, brought on by the coronavirus. As a literary form, the diary is perfect for capturing the immediacy of emotional experiences and ongoing uncertainties. It is kind to fragments and negative space and does not require perfection. The public diary shares many strengths with the traditional private diary but has a social aspect closer to blogging and letter writing; it seeks connection with others who are (or have become) physically distant. Thus, as the coronavirus pushed us further and further away from any sense of normalcy or a predictable future, diary writing—both public and private—became one way for people to hold on to small certainties. Books in Review Wuhan Diary: Dispatches from a Quarantined City By Fang Fang; Translated by Michael Berry Buy this book
Writing from Wuhan, the city in China’s Hubei province that was ground zero for the pandemic, Fang Fang became one of the most prominent voices on Chinese social media. A prolific, award-winning new realist novelist whose work has been translated and published internationally, the 65-year-old Fang began her “Wuhan lockdown diary” on the microblogging platform Weibo on January 25, the day a citywide lockdown went into effect, when most of the world was still in the dark about the coronavirus. Her daily writings commanded the attention of more than 50 million people in China. At a time when rumors, misinformation, and misguided folk wisdom ran rampant and official channels of information were increasingly restricted, readers found solace in her lucid recap of the day’s news. As the viral outbreak peaked in Wuhan, Fang grew stern in her unrelenting demands for accountability regarding the government’s mishandling of the crisis, which contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, as well as innumerable post-traumatic consequences that people in China have yet to reckon with.
With the help of her fiction translator Michael Berry, Fang’s entries from January 25 to March 24 have been published in English by HarperCollins as Wuhan Diary: Dispatches From a Quarantined City, the first such diary from China to reach a mainstream global audience. Chinese nationalists attacked Fang online for criticizing the government and allowing her dispatches to be weaponized by the United States, particularly in this moment of high tension between the two countries. If there was briefly the faint hope that the looming catastrophe would awaken the country’s population to the point of possible radicalization, that hope has flattened along with the infection curve. After a momentary bloom in investigative and citizen journalism, the state has regained control of the narrative of events, most emblematically by refashioning the tragic deaths of people like Li Wenliang, the 34-year-old doctor who was reprimanded for warning his colleagues about the novel coronavirus and soon after died from Covid-19, into simplistic narratives of patriotic heroism rather than a painful lesson in the Chinese government’s disastrous early response. In this light, Fang’s anger and frustration speak more to the limits of citizenry under the system, in addition to the substance of her criticism.
Fang conceived her writerly mission as one of bearing witness to the unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan, the most populous city in central China. “I’m afraid people outside the city have no way to truly understand what we are going through. There are no words strong enough to capture the sacrifices that the people of Wuhan have had to make during this outbreak,” she wrote on February 29. While she stipulates that her diary is not “intended as a vessel for grand narratives,” it is not just a window into the quotidian, either. Fang is more concerned with social commentary and public events than the details or emotional nuances of daily life under the lockdown. Many of her updates are based on articles she read, videos she watched, or messages from friends who are medical experts or sources connected to the government. And she acknowledges these limitations, writing, “For a literary person like me, all I can do is keep a record of the things I see and hear.” 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
I read her diary on Weibo during the first month of the lockdown, while I was stuck in Hong Kong after travel to the mainland became restricted, and it started to make sense why it was so beloved. During a public crisis, people seek a relatable, trustworthy voice, and Fang takes on that role here—amiable, chatty, eager to share the insights of her various connections while adding her observations on the mysterious virus and the lack of conscientiousness and common sense in the response by the government. As a member of the establishment watching out for her fellow Wuhanese, she even called for the resignation of top provincial officials. Her stance on contemporary debates appears unexamined at times (“What is privacy when compared with the cost of a human life?”), but she maintains a rational, even-keeled tone. She is not a Debbie Downer, even though her diabetes meant that she was mostly confined to her home, except to pick up groceries and packages, and do chores in her apartment building’s courtyard. Her diary created a common platform for conversation, not unlike a nightly news show.
But a month and a half into the lockdown, when Fang opined, “Online shopping, binge-watching, sleeping: This is our life now,” she began to sound like what teens would describe as “boomer” rather than a force for inspired change. Part of the tonal distance is a result of language; she sounds, even in English, like a slightly out-of-touch older family member, using terms like “family chat group” instead of the more common “group chat” or “Old Godmother hot chili sauce” instead of the brand name of the popular condiment Lao Gan Ma. But more crucially, I began to question the value of privileging a diary like Fang’s when there is no shortage of alternative accounts of the lockdown by Wuhan residents, citizen journalists, and writers. If, under the best-case scenario, the pandemic has presented us with an opportunity to reset our lives and our societies, is screen time, shopping, and ennui the best we can do?
Long after the initial viral outbreak, Fang’s diary no longer serves the immediate need for real-time analysis or emotional support. If the appeal of her legacy now rests on her audacity in speaking up against an oppressive government, it is more of an effect of the political conditions than within the realm of what a diary can offer, even in the public form she has adopted here. But Fang doesn’t always see herself at eye level with the audience she claims an affection for; her diary reflects the privilege and limitations of writing about the public health crisis and its corresponding gaps in translation.
Despite the personal disclaimers of her diary format, Fang seems comfortable speaking for “the people of Wuhan”—for example, when she writes that “people are more bored than scared” or that “the people of Wuhan seem to be quite calm these days.” For someone who rarely left her residential compound, such generalizations have a presumptuous ring. The perch from which she writes shows up again when she “noticed [the sanitation workers’] consistently calm attitude. They are the group that always gets overlooked as they quietly carry out their jobs, but somehow they are always there to set the heart of this city at ease.” Observations like this can read as patronizing at best and othering at worst. It should, in any case, inspire curiosity about chronicles of the lockdown told from a different vantage point. For example, in her Wuhan Lockdown Diary (Linking Publishing, 2020), the 29-year-old feminist activist Guo Jing offers this account of sanitation workers (translation by professor Hongwei Bao):
I interviewed eight sanitary workers: six women and two men. They work seven to eight hours every day. Their monthly income averages 2,300 (or 2,400) RMB [renminbi, or about $330 to $340]. After tax, they only get less than 2,000…. If they are lucky, they can get twenty face masks at a time. One worker has only received two face masks since the start of the lockdown…. They earn meager wages and are not protected from the virus. But they kept on working. Do we really deserve their hard work?
In 2014, Guo was the plaintiff in China’s first lawsuit over gender discrimination in employment. (She won the case.) Afterward, she helped start a legal hotline for women experiencing workplace issues. She moved to Wuhan in November 2019, less than three months before the quarantine began. When a friend suggested that she write about her experiences there, she initially hesitated, partly because she didn’t want to be seen as a victim or give the impression that she must be miserable under the lockdown. Related Article The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong Wilfred Chan
Guo’s diary was originally serialized online before being targeted by Chinese internet censors, and the book was published by a Taiwanese publisher in April. It has been censored in China and is not yet fully available in other languages. When quarantine rules still allowed, Guo made a point of taking walks around the city every day and talking to as many people as she could. Her quarantine diary was a mix of her everyday routine, her reflections as an activist, and a citizen journalist’s notebook on the material conditions of Wuhan at the time. In February, in response to a highly publicized hair-shaving directive for female nurses to prepare them for duty—something that caused a feminist outcry online—Guo wrote:
We talked about the female nurses from Gansu Province who were forced to have their hair cut; we also noticed that there was only one male nurse with short hair in the photo. Many female nurses were very unhappy when they had their hair cut; some even cried. Hair is not simply about looks; it also symbolizes one’s dignity. Is it necessary to cut off all their hair? Have all these women given their consent? Women’s bodies never truly belong to themselves. There are always people who feel more entitled to putting women’s bodies at their disposal.
In Fang’s diary, the event is remembered this way: “Medical professionals have been lining up to volunteer; they are cutting their hair, some even shaving their heads completely, and saying goodbye to their friends and family to come here to help.”
A contemporary of Fang’s, the 67-year-old documentary filmmaker and political activist Ai Xiaoming, discussed in her own popular lockdown journal how the political environment had given rise to the diary as a form of agency. She wrote, “The diary form became popular because it fills the gap at a time when citizen journalism is being suppressed. Diaries became sought after because people lack other channels for direct, on-the-ground reporting from the grassroots.”
Reporting that enables bearing witness enables change. In Guo’s case, her diary, while more intimate in tone and scope, liberated its writer from centering herself; she speaks not as Guo but as a feminist social worker in Wuhan. Through the volunteer legal hotline she ran as well as a group chat she started with feminist friends in the city, she learned that domestic violence was a threat for many women under the lockdown. She subsequently led a work group that co-launched an anti-domestic-violence campaign in Wuhan in early March. In contrast, despite drawing connections between government policies and its impact on people, Fang’s backseat-driving narrator becomes its own literary limit.
Ultimately more concerned with preserving a picture of life in Wuhan by filling in the gaps she saw in the mainstream media’s coverage rather than with advocating for change at the grassroots level, Fang did not expect her diary to become a barometer for public discourse in contemporary Chinese society. While Ai uses a higher level of sarcasm and metaphor in her social commentary (as opposed to Fang’s more accessible, plain, and colloquial style), she nonetheless labors to provide historical context for the controversies surrounding Fang and her diary. “In an authoritarian society, it is inevitable that diary-writing becomes endangered,” Ai wrote in an entry on April 4. “If we look to the memoirs of those who were at the scene of the anti-rightist campaign in 1957, many of their diaries didn’t even mention anything politically adversarial. They were simply personal reflections or perhaps diaries kept out of habit. But in the end, their words became distorted and even got [their writers] killed.”
There is a human instinct to look for heroes and villains—catalysts, really—in a narrative of catastrophe, if for no other reason than to cling to the hope that change is possible. As China recalibrates in the aftermath of the initial Covid outbreak, news of one of the most disastrous floods in decades in the southern part of the country, including Hubei, in early July became censored as soon as it was published. Journalists could only speculate, as one had The New York Times: “Perhaps people had grown numb to hardship. Or perhaps China’s government and its censors did not want to draw more attention to people’s suffering.” As Guo observes in her diary, “It is so hard to get rid of the feeling of helplessness. But maybe rather than trying to get rid of it, we should find a way to co-exist with it.” As sympathetic but helpless outsiders beholding materially distant suffering, perhaps our first ethical duty is to seek out as many witnesses as possible.


thenation--2020-08-13--The Democratic Convention Is Shaping Up to Be a Centrist Hoedown

Now that Joe Biden has announced that he ’ s tapped Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate , we know the full lineup of speakers for the Democratic National Convention next week .
From where I sit , the choice of Harris was inspired .
It ’ s the rest of the convention that leaves much to be desired .
To the extent that a convention speaker list is a way for a party to highlight its priorities , the Democratic National Committee list , which was released Tuesday , shows that the Democratic Party ’ s priorities include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white men , knowing full well that nobody can hear progressives boo while locked on the other side of a Zoom presentation .
The DNC announced 34 speakers who will address the country over four nights in the lead-up to the formal nomination of Biden and Harris .
On the surface , the convention contains something for everybody .
Bernie Sanders leads off the speeches on Monday , and Republican John Kasich also speaks that same night .
I can imagine a bunch of people at Democratic Party headquarters slapping themselves on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coup of having Sanders and Kasich speak on the same night .
I can imagine the Political Optics 101 class that led them to give Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms a spot right ahead of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg on Thursday night .
I can imagine the rejected tagline for this convention : “ Democrats !
We Don ’ t Really Know What We Stand For !
” When you look at the speakers list , you ’ ll see that the Democrats largely got the optics right .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States : It ’ s multiracial , features more women than men , and highlights the diversity of the party .
But when you delve deeper , when you peer beyond the optics , what you ’ ll see is a party that is afraid to make an argument based on policy .
It doesn ’ t want to fight Republicans in the trenches over the decades-long evisceration of the social safety net or the Republicans ’ unwashed bigotry toward people of color and the LGBTQ community .
It just wants to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s general disgust with Donald Trump will do the rest .
To understand why the DNC chose this list of speakers , you have to appreciate just how many people were destined to get prime speaking gigs even before any decisions were made .
Fully nine of the speakers were contenders for the Democratic nomination this cycle or actual former presidents and presidential nominees .
They had to speak .
It ’ s more telling when a presidential candidate doesn ’ t get a slot than when one does .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to snub Julián Castro and Andrew Yang says more about the DNC than the invitations to Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar .
The speaker of the House , the Senate minority leader , vice presidential nominee Harris , the convention chairman Bennie Thompson , former first lady Michelle Obama , and Dr. Jill Biden were also locks to speak .
And I would have been shocked white if South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn , who basically won the primary for Biden , didn ’ t get a speaking slot .
And of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means that of the 34 speakers announced , only 17 slots were up for grabs in any real way .
Of those 17 discretionary slots , you can only really call Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and , possibly , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms “ progressive ” —and they ’ re giving AOC only 60 seconds .
I don ’ t know how many curse words about Tom Perez you can fit into 60 seconds , but I hope she tries to find out .
Wisconsin Representative and Congressional Black Caucus whip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .
But Biden and the DNC went very centrist and safe with the rest of their choices .
Biden ’ s Delaware fam ( Senator Chris Coons and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester ) are not in the liberal vanguard of the party .
Veepstakes runners-up Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Senator Tammy Duckworth represent smart , tough , left-of-center voices , but they don ’ t bring progressive domestic or foreign policies that inspire the base .
And the only reason for both Kasich and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers even to be at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Midwestern strategy that seeks to flip white Trump voters in Green Bay instead of turning out nonwhite Obama voters in Milwaukee .
The Democrats could have opted to make a different policy case—which is to say , any policy case at all—at this convention .
Instead of promoting Kasich , the DNC could have given Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown a prime-time speaking slot .
Brown has the kind of policies that win over Midwestern voters , with none of the anti-woman stench that John Kasich brings .
Instead of promoting centrist senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin ’ s Tammy Baldwin , the DNC might have highlighted some of the party ’ s senatorial candidates whose victories are crucial to getting actual Democratic policies through the Senate .
Why aren ’ t we hearing from Jamie Harrison , who is fighting Lindsey Graham in South Carolina ?
Why aren ’ t we hearing from Sara Gideon , who is trying to beat Susan Collins in Maine ?
If we simply must hear from a Democrat with a military background and an aggressive foreign policy stance , why go with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat Mitch McConnell and end an entire era of Senate obstructionism ?
Instead of Harrison or Gideon or any of the others , the DNC gave a slot to sitting Alabama Senator Doug Jones .
I assume Goose from Top Gun was not available .
Even if “ policy ” is not your thing , even if , for some reason , you don ’ t think winning back the Senate is absolutely crucial to the Democratic Party , this DNC speaker slate all but ignores the two massive issues roiling our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have noticed , we are still in the middle of a pandemic .
The president ’ s incompetence in handling the crisis is a major concern for voters in this election .
But where is “ Covid Night ” ?
Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsome of California , who ’ ve both been busy dealing with the coronavirus crisis these past five months , have been invited to speak .
Newsome is probably there primarily to serve as a Harris validator ; the California governor and California senator are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo will have something to say about the response to the coronavirus and the lack of federal support .
But why isn ’ t the DNC putting up an actual public health expert to counter the daily misinformation briefings from Donald Trump ?
Why isn ’ t Ron Klain , Obama ’ s Ebola czar , speaking to this convention ?
Why isn ’ t Randi Weingarten , head of the American Federation of Teachers , speaking ?
Don ’ t you think she might have a useful counter to Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to Covid-19 ?
Seriously ?
John Kasich ?
What Is the Biden Camp Thinking ?
Could Wonder Woman Save Us From Covid-19 ?
The Deaths of 150,000 Americans Are on Trump ’ s Hands Oh , but we shouldn ’ t “ politicize ” the pandemic response ?
Fine .
But then what is the DNC ’ s excuse for not giving the Black Lives Matter protests as much airtime as possible ?
People have risked brutality and death to protest in the streets over these past few months .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC speakers have been all that close to what ’ s happening on the ground .
Missouri congressional candidate Cori Bush couldn ’ t get a spot ?
What about Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler—wouldn ’ t he have been a more interesting moderate white man to hear from in this moment ?
Out of all of this prime-time coverage , the DNC couldn ’ t find 30 minutes to give to an activist like Alicia Garza or a moral voice like the Rev .
William Barber II , but did find time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
When you look at what the Democrats could have done , versus what they actually did , it ’ s almost surprising the DNC decided to hold a convention at all .
Clearly , the DNC doesn ’ t want to do anything or say anything other than “ Joe Biden is not a corrupt , incompetent bigot like the other guy.
” They don ’ t need a “ convention ” to say that .
Just throw up some Lincoln Project ads and go home , if that ’ s all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this thing .
Who knows ?
Maybe that ’ s enough to win this election .
Maybe the strategy of cajoling the aggrieved white man while trusting nonwhite voters and women to do their duty will pay off in the end .
This is a slate of Democratic convention speakers that Jonathan Chait and S.E .
Cupp will be thrilled with .
The DNC wants to fight this election in the head space of three white guys whose autumn has been ruined because Big Ten football was canceled .
This convention reflects those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself the trouble of watching it and put myself in a medically induced coma until November 3 .
All the DNC wants from people like me is to shut up and vote without spooking the John Kasich stans .

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?
Now that Joe Biden has announced that he’s tapped Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, we know the full lineup of speakers for the Democratic National Convention next week. From where I sit, the choice of Harris was inspired. It’s the rest of the convention that leaves much to be desired.
To the extent that a convention speaker list is a way for a party to highlight its priorities, the Democratic National Committee list, which was released Tuesday, shows that the Democratic Party’s priorities include shamelessly begging for the approval of moderate-Republican white men, knowing full well that nobody can hear progressives boo while locked on the other side of a Zoom presentation.
The DNC announced 34 speakers who will address the country over four nights in the lead-up to the formal nomination of Biden and Harris. On the surface, the convention contains something for everybody. Bernie Sanders leads off the speeches on Monday, and Republican John Kasich also speaks that same night. I can imagine a bunch of people at Democratic Party headquarters slapping themselves on the back about their “big tent” coup of having Sanders and Kasich speak on the same night. I can imagine the Political Optics 101 class that led them to give Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms a spot right ahead of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg on Thursday night. I can imagine the rejected tagline for this convention: “Democrats! We Don’t Really Know What We Stand For!”
When you look at the speakers list, you’ll see that the Democrats largely got the optics right. This is a list that looks like the United States: It’s multiracial, features more women than men, and highlights the diversity of the party. But when you delve deeper, when you peer beyond the optics, what you’ll see is a party that is afraid to make an argument based on policy. It doesn’t want to fight Republicans in the trenches over the decades-long evisceration of the social safety net or the Republicans’ unwashed bigotry toward people of color and the LGBTQ community. It just wants to offer character paeans to Joe Biden and hope the country’s general disgust with Donald Trump will do the rest.
To understand why the DNC chose this list of speakers, you have to appreciate just how many people were destined to get prime speaking gigs even before any decisions were made. Fully nine of the speakers were contenders for the Democratic nomination this cycle or actual former presidents and presidential nominees. They had to speak. It’s more telling when a presidential candidate doesn’t get a slot than when one does. So I’d argue that the decision to snub Julián Castro and Andrew Yang says more about the DNC than the invitations to Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. (After publication, and after Yang and his whole gang complained, the DNC announced it was adding Yang to their slate of speakers.) 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
The speaker of the House, the Senate minority leader, vice presidential nominee Harris, the convention chairman Bennie Thompson, former first lady Michelle Obama, and Dr. Jill Biden were also locks to speak. And I would have been shocked white if South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn, who basically won the primary for Biden, didn’t get a speaking slot. And of course, there’s Biden himself. That means that of the 34 speakers announced, only 17 slots were up for grabs in any real way.
Of those 17 discretionary slots, you can only really call Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and, possibly, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms “progressive”—and they’re giving AOC only 60 seconds. I don’t know how many curse words about Tom Perez you can fit into 60 seconds, but I hope she tries to find out. Wisconsin Representative and Congressional Black Caucus whip Gwen Moore was also a really good choice. But Biden and the DNC went very centrist and safe with the rest of their choices. Biden’s Delaware fam (Senator Chris Coons and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester) are not in the liberal vanguard of the party. Veepstakes runners-up Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Senator Tammy Duckworth represent smart, tough, left-of-center voices, but they don’t bring progressive domestic or foreign policies that inspire the base. And the only reason for both Kasich and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers even to be at the podium is to double down on a Midwestern strategy that seeks to flip white Trump voters in Green Bay instead of turning out nonwhite Obama voters in Milwaukee.
The Democrats could have opted to make a different policy case—which is to say, any policy case at all—at this convention. Instead of promoting Kasich, the DNC could have given Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown a prime-time speaking slot. Brown has the kind of policies that win over Midwestern voters, with none of the anti-woman stench that John Kasich brings. Instead of promoting centrist senators who are already in office, like Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, the DNC might have highlighted some of the party’s senatorial candidates whose victories are crucial to getting actual Democratic policies through the Senate. Why aren’t we hearing from Jamie Harrison, who is fighting Lindsey Graham in South Carolina? Why aren’t we hearing from Sara Gideon, who is trying to beat Susan Collins in Maine? If we simply must hear from a Democrat with a military background and an aggressive foreign policy stance, why go with Duckworth over Amy McGrath, who could defeat Mitch McConnell and end an entire era of Senate obstructionism?
Instead of Harrison or Gideon or any of the others, the DNC gave a slot to sitting Alabama Senator Doug Jones. I assume Goose from Top Gun was not available.
Even if “policy” is not your thing, even if, for some reason, you don’t think winning back the Senate is absolutely crucial to the Democratic Party, this DNC speaker slate all but ignores the two massive issues roiling our country at the moment.
As you might have noticed, we are still in the middle of a pandemic. The president’s incompetence in handling the crisis is a major concern for voters in this election. But where is “Covid Night”? Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsome of California, who’ve both been busy dealing with the coronavirus crisis these past five months, have been invited to speak. Newsome is probably there primarily to serve as a Harris validator; the California governor and California senator are thought to be close. I imagine Cuomo will have something to say about the response to the coronavirus and the lack of federal support. But why isn’t the DNC putting up an actual public health expert to counter the daily misinformation briefings from Donald Trump? Why isn’t Ron Klain, Obama’s Ebola czar, speaking to this convention? Why isn’t Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, speaking? Don’t you think she might have a useful counter to Donald Trump’s contention that “children are immune” to Covid-19? More from Mystal Seriously? John Kasich? What Is the Biden Camp Thinking? Elie Mystal Could Wonder Woman Save Us From Covid-19? Elie Mystal The Deaths of 150,000 Americans Are on Trump’s Hands Elie Mystal
Oh, but we shouldn’t “politicize” the pandemic response? Fine. But then what is the DNC’s excuse for not giving the Black Lives Matter protests as much airtime as possible? People have risked brutality and death to protest in the streets over these past few months. But, aside from Lance Bottoms, none of the DNC speakers have been all that close to what’s happening on the ground. Missouri congressional candidate Cori Bush couldn’t get a spot? What about Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler—wouldn’t he have been a more interesting moderate white man to hear from in this moment? Out of all of this prime-time coverage, the DNC couldn’t find 30 minutes to give to an activist like Alicia Garza or a moral voice like the Rev. William Barber II, but did find time for former acting attorney general Sally Yates?
When you look at what the Democrats could have done, versus what they actually did, it’s almost surprising the DNC decided to hold a convention at all. Clearly, the DNC doesn’t want to do anything or say anything other than “Joe Biden is not a corrupt, incompetent bigot like the other guy.” They don’t need a “convention” to say that. Just throw up some Lincoln Project ads and go home, if that’s all they’re going to do with this thing.
Who knows? Maybe that’s enough to win this election. Maybe the strategy of cajoling the aggrieved white man while trusting nonwhite voters and women to do their duty will pay off in the end. This is a slate of Democratic convention speakers that Jonathan Chait and S.E. Cupp will be thrilled with.
The DNC wants to fight this election in the head space of three white guys whose autumn has been ruined because Big Ten football was canceled. This convention reflects those priorities. Maybe I should just save myself the trouble of watching it and put myself in a medically induced coma until November 3. All the DNC wants from people like me is to shut up and vote without spooking the John Kasich stans.


thenation--2020-08-13--Donald Trump and His Postmaster General Are Sabotaging Democracy in Plain Sight

The post office has been , since before the founding of the United States , an essential service .
So essential that when it came time to write a Constitution , Article I , Section 8 , Clause 7 gave Congress the power and the responsibility to “ establish Post Offices and post Roads.
” Yet , at precisely the moment when the country has begun to recognize the vital role of essential workers , postal workers have been under attack and the United States Postal Service has been undermined at every turn .
The coronavirus pandemic should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally accorded the respect and support it deserves .
Instead , it is threatened by a White House wrecking crew that has coalesced , for reasons of short-term political strategy and long-term financial interest , to exploit a crisis .
This is Naomi Klein ’ s The Shock Doctrine with a brazen twist : Donald Trump is fessing up even as he commits the crime .
Desperate to secure a second term , the president now openly admits that he is messing with the Postal Service because mail handlers and letter carriers make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on absentee ballots and universal mail-in voting .
Voting by mail produces high-turnout elections in normal circumstances , and it provides a vital assurance for democracy in extraordinary circumstances—such as a pandemic moment when voters are encouraged to shelter in place rather than stand in long lines to cast ballots in crowded polling places .
Trump , an unpopular president even before he mangled the response to Covid-19 , recognizes the threat high turnout poses to his reelection bid .
On Thursday , he removed all doubt about his determination to undermine voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview that one of the reasons he is stalling coronavirus relief negotiations is because Democrats are trying to save the Postal Service .
“ They want 25 billion dollars—billion—for the Post Office , ” the president announced on the Fox Business Network .
“ Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots.
” Kamala Harris Will Shred Mike Pence in the Vice Presidential Debate Ilhan Omar Faces a Primary Tuesday Because She Speaks Truth to Power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address current challenges posed by the pandemic and longer-term challenges created by a congressional mandate that the Postal Service fund pension costs decades into the future .
But Trump is blocking even a down payment on that funding because , as he says , without those funds “ that means you can ’ t have universal mail-in voting.
” Even by Trump standards , that ’ s an astounding admission of why he ’ s so determined to deny the Postal Service a lifeline .
“ Trump ’ s brazen abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election is a shameful misuse of presidential power , ” said Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter , a Republican and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission .
He continued : Defunding the Postal Service and slowing its ability to deliver mail ballots to Americans will hurt Democratic and Republican voters alike .
Congress needs to stand up to President Trump ’ s attempt to make it harder for Americans to vote , and take action now to ensure that the Postal Service can perform at an optimal level , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting requests are at an all-time high .
Lawmakers must work urgently to come to an agreement that will provide adequate funding for the Postal Service so that we have a successful election in November .
Our democracy depends on it .
Congress had better act fast .
The system is crumbling , not only because of pandemic pressures but mainly because the man Trump just put in charge of the largest postal system in the world is an extremely motivated dismantler .
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , a Trump appointee who took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts , personnel changes , an overtime ban , a hiring freeze , schedule shifts , and routing changes that American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein says have already slowed down and “ degraded ” mail delivery .
“ Obviously if the postal management is putting in policies to slow down the mail , then that has an impact on everything , including ballots , ” explains Dimondstein .
“ The states run elections , not the Postal Service .
But the Postal Service is here to move those ballots .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes a concern everywhere.
” Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Mark Pocan says , “ Undermining the USPS is voter suppression—and it ’ s intentional.
” Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa is even blunter .
The president , she tells us , is “ sabotaging an election in broad daylight ( and admitting it on camera.
” But Trump has an accomplice .
DeJoy assumed the postmaster general position as a man with no background of work within the Postal Service .
Where he does have a background is as a major donor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million since 2016 .
In April 2017 , he was named as a deputy finance chair for the Republican National Committee—serving with now-jailed Trump attorney Michael Cohen and venture capitalist Elliott Broidy .
In May of last year , DeJoy took over as local finance chair for the 2020 Republican National Convention , which was then scheduled for Charlotte , N.C. That ’ s part of the motivation .
The other part appears to extend from the new postmaster general ’ s entanglement with Postal Service contractors and competitors .
“ Postmaster General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake in his former company XPO Logistics , a United States Postal Service contractor , likely creating a major conflict of interest , according to newly obtained financial disclosures and ethics experts , ” CNN reported on August 12 .
“ Outside experts who spoke to CNN were shocked that ethics officials at the Postal Service approved this arrangement , which allows DeJoy to keep at least $ 30 million in XPO holdings.… Raising further alarms , on the same day in June that DeJoy divested large amounts of Amazon shares , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy new shares of Amazon at a price much lower than their current market price , according to the disclosures.
” Trump Ramps Up His Assault on Democracy More in this series Concerns about DeJoy ’ s alleged conflicts of interest , and about the influence on Trump and DeJoy of advocates for privatization of the USPS , should be enough to inspire a sense of urgency about the need to protect a vital service for Americans .
As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and a group of her colleagues warned in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the inspector general of the USPS , DeJoy ’ s slowdown “ threatens the well-being of millions of Americans that rely on the Postal Service for delivery of Social Security checks , prescriptions , and everyday mail of all kinds.
” The urgency only increases because , as Trump has now made clear , he is prepared to ruin the Postal Service in order to thwart democracy .
The pattern is clear .
The threat is real .
“ First he wanted to delay the election—but even after push back from fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our elections by making it even more difficult to vote by mail , ” observes Susan Harley of Public Citizen ’ s Congress Watch Division .
“ Trump and his election saboteur aide Louis DeJoy must stop their demolition of the Postal Service .
Mail-in voting is an absolute necessity to ensure Americans can exercise their right to vote amid the worst pandemic in a century—which Trump has also made dramatically worse—just like everything else he touches .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The post office has been, since before the founding of the United States, an essential service. So essential that when it came time to write a Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gave Congress the power and the responsibility to “establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Yet, at precisely the moment when the country has begun to recognize the vital role of essential workers, postal workers have been under attack and the United States Postal Service has been undermined at every turn. The coronavirus pandemic should have been the moment when the Postal Service was finally accorded the respect and support it deserves. Instead, it is threatened by a White House wrecking crew that has coalesced, for reasons of short-term political strategy and long-term financial interest, to exploit a crisis.
This is Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine with a brazen twist: Donald Trump is fessing up even as he commits the crime.
Desperate to secure a second term, the president now openly admits that he is messing with the Postal Service because mail handlers and letter carriers make it possible to hold elections that rely on absentee ballots and universal mail-in voting. Voting by mail produces high-turnout elections in normal circumstances, and it provides a vital assurance for democracy in extraordinary circumstances—such as a pandemic moment when voters are encouraged to shelter in place rather than stand in long lines to cast ballots in crowded polling places. Trump, an unpopular president even before he mangled the response to Covid-19, recognizes the threat high turnout poses to his reelection bid.
On Thursday, he removed all doubt about his determination to undermine voting rights when he blurted out in an interview that one of the reasons he is stalling coronavirus relief negotiations is because Democrats are trying to save the Postal Service. “They want 25 billion dollars—billion—for the Post Office,” the president announced on the Fox Business Network. “Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots.” 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
The USPS actually needs $75 billion to address current challenges posed by the pandemic and longer-term challenges created by a congressional mandate that the Postal Service fund pension costs decades into the future. But Trump is blocking even a down payment on that funding because, as he says, without those funds “that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting.”
Even by Trump standards, that’s an astounding admission of why he’s so determined to deny the Postal Service a lifeline. “Trump’s brazen abuse of the post office to try and win an election is a shameful misuse of presidential power,” said Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter, a Republican and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He continued: 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
Defunding the Postal Service and slowing its ability to deliver mail ballots to Americans will hurt Democratic and Republican voters alike. Congress needs to stand up to President Trump’s attempt to make it harder for Americans to vote, and take action now to ensure that the Postal Service can perform at an optimal level, especially during the pandemic when vote-by-mail and absentee voting requests are at an all-time high. Lawmakers must work urgently to come to an agreement that will provide adequate funding for the Postal Service so that we have a successful election in November. Our democracy depends on it.
Congress had better act fast. The system is crumbling, not only because of pandemic pressures but mainly because the man Trump just put in charge of the largest postal system in the world is an extremely motivated dismantler. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump appointee who took charge in June, has imposed service cuts, personnel changes, an overtime ban, a hiring freeze, schedule shifts, and routing changes that American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein says have already slowed down and “degraded” mail delivery. Current Issue View our current issue
“Obviously if the postal management is putting in policies to slow down the mail, then that has an impact on everything, including ballots,” explains Dimondstein. “The states run elections, not the Postal Service. But the Postal Service is here to move those ballots. And when mail gets slowed down, it becomes a concern everywhere.”
Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Mark Pocan says, “Undermining the USPS is voter suppression—and it’s intentional.” Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa is even blunter. The president, she tells us, is “sabotaging an election in broad daylight (and admitting it on camera).”
But Trump has an accomplice.
DeJoy assumed the postmaster general position as a man with no background of work within the Postal Service. Where he does have a background is as a major donor to the president’s campaign—$1.2 million since 2016. In April 2017, he was named as a deputy finance chair for the Republican National Committee—serving with now-jailed Trump attorney Michael Cohen and venture capitalist Elliott Broidy. In May of last year, DeJoy took over as local finance chair for the 2020 Republican National Convention, which was then scheduled for Charlotte, N.C.
That’s part of the motivation. The other part appears to extend from the new postmaster general’s entanglement with Postal Service contractors and competitors. “Postmaster General Louis DeJoy continues to hold a multimillion-dollar stake in his former company XPO Logistics, a United States Postal Service contractor, likely creating a major conflict of interest, according to newly obtained financial disclosures and ethics experts,” CNN reported on August 12. “Outside experts who spoke to CNN were shocked that ethics officials at the Postal Service approved this arrangement, which allows DeJoy to keep at least $30 million in XPO holdings.… Raising further alarms, on the same day in June that DeJoy divested large amounts of Amazon shares, he purchased stock options giving him the right to buy new shares of Amazon at a price much lower than their current market price, according to the disclosures.” USPS Do We Really Need a 24-Hour Economy? Rebecca Gordon ’Tis the Season for DeJoy’s Removal John Nichols Fire Louis DeJoy! John Nichols
Concerns about DeJoy’s alleged conflicts of interest, and about the influence on Trump and DeJoy of advocates for privatization of the USPS, should be enough to inspire a sense of urgency about the need to protect a vital service for Americans. As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and a group of her colleagues warned in an August 7 letter calling for an inquiry by the inspector general of the USPS, DeJoy’s slowdown “threatens the well-being of millions of Americans that rely on the Postal Service for delivery of Social Security checks, prescriptions, and everyday mail of all kinds.”
The urgency only increases because, as Trump has now made clear, he is prepared to ruin the Postal Service in order to thwart democracy. The pattern is clear. The threat is real.
“First he wanted to delay the election—but even after push back from fellow Republicans Trump is again attempting a coup on our elections by making it even more difficult to vote by mail,” observes Susan Harley of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division. “Trump and his election saboteur aide Louis DeJoy must stop their demolition of the Postal Service. Mail-in voting is an absolute necessity to ensure Americans can exercise their right to vote amid the worst pandemic in a century—which Trump has also made dramatically worse—just like everything else he touches.”


thenation--2020-08-13--Can This Crisis Be Used to Build a Better Future in Argentina?

uenos ires , rgentina—On a recent morning , Juana ran to the corner of Cobo Avenue and Curapaligüe to make the noon demonstration .
As a resident of Villa 1-11-14 , the most populous slum in Buenos Aires , Juana has seen firsthand the grave danger the coronavirus crisis poses to Argentina ’ s poor and disenfranchised : The cramped and crowded housing of the city ’ s poor has turned into a virus incubator ; the hand-to-mouth existence of the slum ’ s residents has forced people to continue working despite the threat of the pandemic ; and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that existed before the crisis is now exacerbating the deadly situation .
That ’ s why Juana turned out on May 26 along with her neighbors and a coalition of social organizations , doctors , and activists for a protest against the government ’ s response to the crisis .
This project has been supported by the Pulitzer Center and Revista Anfibia .
So far , Argentina hasn ’ t been hit as hard as some other countries in Latin America : Mexico , Peru , Colombia , Chile , and especially Brazil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are all facing worse outbreaks .
But already with nearly 250,000 cases and over 4,000 deaths , Argentina ’ s caseload continues to climb .
And according to Juana and the other women of Villa 1-11-14 I interviewed for this story , the government is not doing nearly enough to stop the virus ’ s spread .
Juana has lived in the Villa since she immigrated from Peru 20 years ago .
She ’ s now 51 , and serves as a health promoter for the organization Frente de Organizaciones en Lucha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of organizations in the struggle , ” or FOL ) .
When she joined FOL , four years ago , she says she discovered “ what it means to mobilize for a protest , to fight for others , not just for ourselves within the organization , ” an attitude that drives her work for the organization ’ s “ Berta Cáceres ” soup kitchen on Francisco Cruz Avenue , a stretch that marks the eastern boundary of the slum .
Every day at 11:30 since the quarantine began , people line up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred families are currently receiving rations from this kitchen , with another hundred on the waiting list .
For her part , Juana walks the line , handing out information , talking to neighbors , and trying to see who is at risk and how to help them .
Patricia stands at the kitchen ’ s door—she ’ s responsible for making sure everyone gets their rations in an orderly fashion .
Like Juana , she ’ s a migrant : She arrived from Bolivia four years ago and joined FOL because her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the organization represents her in its Migrar no es delito ( “ migration is not a crime ” ) campaign , which fights for the rights of migrants , securing papers and fighting deportations .
Every Tuesday she does volunteer work in the kitchen ’ s dining room , carrying out all the little tasks needed to keep this solidarity machine running : cooking , receiving produce , overseeing the line .
Since the coronavirus made inroads in the neighborhood earlier this year—Villa 1-11-14 has seen some of the highest infection rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice or three times as hard to cover for her companions who have been infected or who have had to isolate themselves .
There are families in the line who have never set foot in a soup kitchen before , but with savings exhausted they now have no other option .
The fund the government set up to help workers in the informal sector , the Ingreso Familiar de Emergencia , requires citizenship or naturalization papers , and many in this slum have been able to get any relief through the fund , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to a survey by Amnesty Internationa , the Center for Legal and Social Studies , and the Migrar no es delito campaign , among others , 58 percent of migrants surveyed were out of work and left with no source of income when the lockdown began in March of this year .
“ Before , they saw us as lazy , saying that we live off funds from the government , ” says Ana , an FOL representative in the Riestra section of the slum who immigrated from Peru 10 years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming from the government , it ’ s the people of these poor neighborhoods who are coming to their own rescue .
“ What the state doesn ’ t do , we do , ” Ana succinctly put it .
Before the lockdown , Ana and her comrades were set to open a new soup kitchen , but the pandemic made it impossible to cook and serve food in the cramped space in a safe manner .
But rather than give up , they opened the kitchen as a food distribution point : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the “ Berta Cáceres ” kitchen , load up their carts with food for 100 people , and walk the mile back to their kitchen , which they ’ ve named “ Las guerreras del FOL.
” This new method of distribution isn ’ t without risks : “ We avoid going through Perito Moreno Avenue .
It ’ s more dangerous , ” Andrea , one of the youngest members of FOL , told me .
“ One time some people robbed the convoy , taking the food and all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s worth it to get food to the many families that depend on them , and it ’ s a powerful feeling for these women to be providing for themselves .
“ I grew up with a macho mentality and I didn ’ t realize it , ” Ana told me .
“ To take care of the man like a king , to listen to him.
” In FOL , Ana has found her freedom , and in the eight years she ’ s been with the organization , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown as women as well—she remembers the shyness of the women when they joined the group , and the assertiveness they now adopt as they carry out orderly food distribution for their neighbors .
The pandemic is not Argentina ’ s first crisis , and FOL has been fighting for a more just country for years .
Susana migrated from Bolivia in 2002 into the midst of a political and economic crisis , when bank accounts were frozen and inflation spiraled out of control .
Now , at 49 , Susana makes up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As she winds her way through the alleyways of the slum , she calls out “ Collection !
Garbage collection !
” Since the pandemic hit , this crew is also disinfecting the neighborhood , armed with work pants , protective gloves , masks , and glasses .
After her shift , she also works on the group ’ s publicity , writing up the day ’ s activities and taking pictures to be distributed over WhatsApp , keeping her neighbors informed .
On the day I followed Susanna , she got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker , she had come into contact with someone who had contracted the virus .
She isolated herself for several weeks in a hotel room made available by the state for patients with mild cases .
Thankfully , she didn ’ t have to go to Piñero Hospital , an underfunded and overstretched institution that most 1-11-14 residents fear entering .
As the day winds down , the women of FOL clean up the soup kitchens , disinfect the surfaces they ’ ll use the next day , and talk about the promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver on .
The 10,000 pesos promised to everyone with at least two years ’ residence ?
Many people in this slum have had their requests rejected for no clear reason .
The cleaning kits touted by Buenos Aires Mayor Horacio Rodriguez Larreta ?
No one here in 1-11-14 has seen them .
Instead , the women migrants of this section of Buenos Aires are making do themselves , as best they can , together .

B uenos A ires, A rgentina—On a recent morning, Juana ran to the corner of Cobo Avenue and Curapaligüe to make the noon demonstration. As a resident of Villa 1-11-14, the second most populous slum in Buenos Aires, Juana has seen firsthand the grave danger the coronavirus crisis poses to Argentina’s poor and disenfranchised: The cramped and crowded housing of the city’s poor has turned into a virus incubator; the hand-to-mouth existence of the slum’s residents has forced people to continue working despite the threat of the pandemic; and the lack of access to adequate health care that existed before the crisis is now exacerbating the deadly situation. That’s why Juana turned out on May 26 along with her neighbors and a coalition of social organizations, doctors, and activists for a protest against the government’s response to the crisis. This project has been supported by the Pulitzer Center and Revista Anfibia.
So far, Argentina hasn’t been hit as hard as some other countries in Latin America: Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Chile, and especially Brazil, with its over 3 million cases, are all facing worse outbreaks. But already with nearly 250,000 cases and over 4,000 deaths, Argentina’s caseload continues to climb. And according to Juana and the other women of Villa 1-11-14 I interviewed for this story, the government is not doing nearly enough to stop the virus’s spread.
Juana has lived in the Villa since she immigrated from Peru 20 years ago. She’s now 51, and serves as a health promoter for the organization Frente de Organizaciones en Lucha (roughly, “The united front of organizations in the struggle,” or FOL). When she joined FOL, four years ago, she says she discovered “what it means to mobilize for a protest, to fight for others, not just for ourselves within the organization,” an attitude that drives her work for the organization’s “Berta Cáceres” soup kitchen on Francisco Cruz Avenue, a stretch that marks the eastern boundary of the slum. Every day at 11:30 since the quarantine began, people line up around the block to receive food rations—one hundred families are currently receiving rations from this kitchen, with another hundred on the waiting list. For her part, Juana walks the line, handing out information, talking to neighbors, and trying to see who is at risk and how to help them.
Patricia stands at the kitchen’s door—she’s responsible for making sure everyone gets their rations in an orderly fashion. Like Juana, she’s a migrant: She arrived from Bolivia four years ago and joined FOL because her sister was already a member. Now, the organization represents her in its Migrar no es delito (“migration is not a crime”) campaign, which fights for the rights of migrants, securing papers and fighting deportations. Every Tuesday she does volunteer work in the kitchen’s dining room, carrying out all the little tasks needed to keep this solidarity machine running: cooking, receiving produce, overseeing the line. Since the coronavirus made inroads in the neighborhood earlier this year—Villa 1-11-14 has seen some of the highest infection rates in the country—she’s been working twice or three times as hard to cover for her companions who have been infected or who have had to isolate themselves.
There are families in the line who have never set foot in a soup kitchen before, but with savings exhausted they now have no other option. The fund the government set up to help workers in the informal sector, the Ingreso Familiar de Emergencia, requires citizenship or naturalization papers, and many in this slum have been able to get any relief through the fund, even with all the right papers. According to a survey by Amnesty Internationa, the Center for Legal and Social Studies, and the Migrar no es delito campaign, among others, 58 percent of migrants surveyed were out of work and left with no source of income when the lockdown began in March of this year.
“Before, they saw us as lazy, saying that we live off funds from the government,” says Ana, an FOL representative in the Riestra section of the slum who immigrated from Peru 10 years ago. But now, with little help coming from the government, it’s the people of these poor neighborhoods who are coming to their own rescue.
“What the state doesn’t do, we do,” Ana succinctly put it.
Before the lockdown, Ana and her comrades were set to open a new soup kitchen, but the pandemic made it impossible to cook and serve food in the cramped space in a safe manner. But rather than give up, they opened the kitchen as a food distribution point: Each weekday, they walk a mile to the “Berta Cáceres” kitchen, load up their carts with food for 100 people, and walk the mile back to their kitchen, which they’ve named “Las guerreras del FOL.”
This new method of distribution isn’t without risks: “We avoid going through Perito Moreno Avenue. It’s more dangerous,” Andrea, one of the youngest members of FOL, told me. “One time some people robbed the convoy, taking the food and all the personal belongings from the compañeras.”
But it’s worth it to get food to the many families that depend on them, and it’s a powerful feeling for these women to be providing for themselves. “I grew up with a macho mentality and I didn’t realize it,” Ana told me. “To take care of the man like a king, to listen to him.” In FOL, Ana has found her freedom, and in the eight years she’s been with the organization, she’s seen how her compañeras have grown as women as well—she remembers the shyness of the women when they joined the group, and the assertiveness they now adopt as they carry out orderly food distribution for their neighbors.
The pandemic is not Argentina’s first crisis, and FOL has been fighting for a more just country for years. Susana migrated from Bolivia in 2002 into the midst of a political and economic crisis, when bank accounts were frozen and inflation spiraled out of control. Now, at 49, Susana makes up part of FOL’s cleaning crew. As she winds her way through the alleyways of the slum, she calls out “Collection! Garbage collection!” Since the pandemic hit, this crew is also disinfecting the neighborhood, armed with work pants, protective gloves, masks, and glasses. After her shift, she also works on the group’s publicity, writing up the day’s activities and taking pictures to be distributed over WhatsApp, keeping her neighbors informed.
On the day I followed Susanna, she got some bad news: As a frontline worker, she had come into contact with someone who had contracted the virus. She isolated herself for several weeks in a hotel room made available by the state for patients with mild cases. Thankfully, she didn’t have to go to Piñero Hospital, an underfunded and overstretched institution that most 1-11-14 residents fear entering.
As the day winds down, the women of FOL clean up the soup kitchens, disinfect the surfaces they’ll use the next day, and talk about the promises the government has made but has failed to deliver on. The 10,000 pesos promised to everyone with at least two years’ residence? Many people in this slum have had their requests rejected for no clear reason. The cleaning kits touted by Buenos Aires Mayor Horacio Rodriguez Larreta? No one here in 1-11-14 has seen them. Instead, the women migrants of this section of Buenos Aires are making do themselves, as best they can, together.