thenation--2020-07-24--Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds?

Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds?

A series of leaked documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW ) raise the possibility that the Trump administration bombed Syria on false grounds and pressured officials at the world ’ s top chemical weapons watchdog to cover it up .
Two OPCW officials , highly regarded scientists with more than 25 years of combined experience at the organization , challenged the whitewash from inside .
Yet unlike many whistle-blowers of the Trump era , they have found no champion , or even an audience , within establishment circles in the United States .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , bombing of Syria came days after it accused Syrian forces of killing nearly 50 people in a chemical weapons attack on Douma , a Damascus suburb .
Widely circulated video footage showed scores of dead bodies inside an apartment complex and another group of alleged gas attack victims treated at a hospital .
Although the White House did not provide evidence for its allegations against Syria , the harrowing images convinced Congress and the media to cheer on military strikes ( as they did under similar circumstances the year prior ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skepticism .
The Syrian government was on the verge of retaking the last Douma holdouts of Jaysh-al-Islam , a Saudi-backed militia that was relentlessly shelling the Syrian capital .
To suddenly deploy chemical weapons would mean that Syrian forces knowingly crossed the “ red line ” that would trigger US military intervention .
Subsequent reporting from British journalists Robert Fisk of The Independent , BBC producer Riam Dalati , and James Harkin ’ s investigation for The Intercept found evidence that the civilians filmed in the hospital were not exposed to toxic gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost in March 2019 when the OPCW issued a long-awaited final report .
It concluded that there are “ reasonable grounds ” to believe that a chemical weapons attack occurred in Douma and that “ the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
” The report , however , was not the OPCW ’ s last word .
Since May 2019 , internal OPCW documents , including a trove published by WikiLeaks , reveal that the Douma investigators ’ initial report reached different conclusions than their organization ’ s published version .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the public .
• Senior OPCW officials reedited the Douma investigators ’ initial report to produce a version that sharply deviated from the original .
Key facts were removed or misrepresented and conclusions were rewritten to support the allegation that a chlorine gas attack had occurred in Douma .
Yet the team ’ s initial report did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred , and left open the possibility that victims were killed in a “ non-chemical related ” incident .
• Four experts from a OPCW and NATO-member state conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request .
They concluded that observed symptoms of the civilians in Douma , particularly the rapid onset of excessive frothing , as well as the concentration of victims filmed in the apartment building so close to fresh air , “ were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine , and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified.
” • Chemical tests of the samples collected in Douma showed that chlorine compounds were , in most cases , detected at what amounted to trace quantities in the parts-per-billion range .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , it later emerged that the chemicals themselves did not stand out as unique : According to the author of the initial report , the OPCW ’ s top expert in chemical weapons chemistry , they could have resulted from contact with household products such as bleach or come from chlorinated water or wood preservatives .
• The author of the initial report protested the revisions in an e-mail expressing his “ gravest concern.
” The altered version “ misrepresents the facts , ” he wrote , thereby “ undermining its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest over the manipulation of the team ’ s findings , the OPCW published a watered-down interim report in July 2018 .
Around that time , OPCW executives decreed that the probe would be handled by a so-called “ core team , ” which excluded all of the Douma investigators who had traveled to Syria , except for one paramedic .
It was this core team—not the inspectors who had been deployed to Douma and signed off on the original document—that produced the final report of March 2019 .
• After the e-mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interim report was published on July 6 , a US government delegation met with members of the investigation team to try to convince them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical attack with chlorine .
According to veteran reporter Jonathan Steele , who interviewed one of the whistle-blowers , the Douma team saw the meeting as “ unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW ’ s declared principles of independence and impartiality.
” Interference by state parties is explicitly prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention .
• The inference drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disseminated , including by the Trump administration—was that gas cylinders found in Douma likely came from Syrian military aircraft .
An unpublished engineering study reached the opposite conclusion .
The study evaluated competing hypotheses : Either the cylinders were dropped from the sky or they were manually placed .
There is “ a higher probability , ” it concluded , “ that both cylinders were manually placed…rather than being delivered from aircraft.
” At “ Location 4 , ” where a cylinder was found on a bed , the study determined that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hole in the roof above ; at the other site , “ Location 2 , ” the observed damage to the cylinder and to the roof it allegedly penetrated were incompatible with an aircraft bombing .
Ballistics experts also said it was more likely that the crater had been made by an explosion , probably from an artillery round , a rocket , or a mortar .
With both cylinders , the study concluded , “ the alternative hypothesis ” —that the cylinders were manually placed and that the craters were caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plausible explanation for observations at the scene.
” The OPCW leadership has yet to offer a substantive explanation for why they excluded critical findings and radically altered the original report .
Instead , it has denigrated the two members of the Douma fact-finding mission team who challenged the manipulation of their investigation .
The first dissenting inspector is known only as Inspector B ( his identity is publicly unconfirmed ) .
B was the Douma mission ’ s scientific coordinator , the primary author of the draft report , and subsequent author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editing .
The second inspector , described by the OPCW as Inspector A , is Ian Henderson , a chemical engineering and ballistics expert who authored the study that concluded that the cylinders were likely manually placed .
Henderson went to Douma and took detailed measurements at one of the cylinder locations .
In public comments , OPCW Director General Fernando Arias has claimed that the pair committed “ deliberate and premeditated breaches of confidentiality , ” but has not accused them of leaking the OPCW material .
Arias maintains that Inspector B @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” without meaningfully accounting for why findings in B ’ s original report were left out of the final version .
He has also dismissed the pair as minor players who refused to accept that their conclusions were “ erroneous , uninformed , and wrong.
” Yet the two inspectors are unlikely candidates to go rogue .
Henderson and Inspector B had served with the OPCW for 11 and 16 years , respectively .
Internal OPCW appraisals of their job performance offer effusive praise .
In 2005 , a senior OPCW official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest rating possible.… I consider [ him ] one of the best of our Inspection Team Leaders.
” Inspector B , an OPCW superior wrote in 2018 , “ has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of CW [ Chemical Weapons ] chemistry applied to inspections.
” In a different evaluation , another manager described B as “ one of the most well regarded ” team leaders , whose “ experience of the organisation , its verification regime , and judgment are unmatched.
” The internal praise for the inspectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says about them in public .
This includes making untrue statements .
Arias has said that Henderson “ was not a member of the FFM [ fact-finding mission ] ” in Douma , but leaks that I obtained show that claim to be false .
Contemporaneous OPCW documents describe Henderson as an FFM member and list him among the “ Mission Personnel ” and the group of inspectors on the Douma mission .
The two inspectors are also not the only ones to raise concerns .
Earlier this year , another OPCW official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymity , that they were “ horrified ” by the “ abhorrent…mistreatment ” of the pair .
“ I fully support their endeavours , ” the official wrote .
“ They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.
” The treatment of the whistle-blowers by Western media is also due for criticism .
Despite the story ’ s explosive nature , it has elicited a collective yawn .
Whereas previous WikiLeaks disclosures fueled entire news cycles , no major US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Douma archive .
CNN and MSNBC , which both supported Trump ’ s decision to bomb Syria , have ignored the OPCW story .
The only time a New York Times reporter has mentioned the Douma scandal was in passing .
The Times downgraded the extensive OPCW leaks into a mere “ email from an investigator.
” ( It also deferred to assurances of Syria ’ s culpability from Bellingcat , an open source investigative outlet , without mentioning its Western government funding , including from the United States via the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive , adversarial outlets that have traditionally defended whistle-blowers and challenged US wars have shunned this story .
The Guardian described the whistle-blowers ’ claims as “ a Russia-led campaign , ” rather than as an effort by two veteran inspectors to defend their investigation .
What explains the prevailing silence ?
It is certainly true that the Syrian government and its Russian ally have vigorously denied allegations of chemical weapons use , including in Douma .
But just as was the case when Iraq was falsely accused of possessing weapons of mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be equated with support for the targeted regime .
If anything , the Iraq case reminds us that such allegations should not be politicized and are worthy of scrutiny , especially if used to justify military action and other aggressive measures , including crippling sanctions .
The possibility that the United States may have bombed Syria based on falsehoods—and pressured a global investigative body to grant that intervention legitimacy after the fact—should break the media blockade .
So too should the fact that it was exposed by whistle-blowers who face risk for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s own recent past with the OPCW offers a stark reminder .
In 2002 , the Bush administration forced out the organization ’ s first director general , José Bustani .
The veteran Brazilian diplomat was negotiating weapons inspections with Baghdad that potentially impeded the Bush administration ’ s drive to launch a war .
Bustani has since revealed that John Bolton , then serving as an undersecretary of state , personally threatened him and his family to force him to resign .
Bustani once again finds himself on Bolton ’ s opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tenure as Trump ’ s national security adviser , Bolton recounts that he oversaw the US strikes on Syria over the Douma allegations , lamenting only that Trump did not authorize a larger attack .
Bustani , meanwhile , took part in an October 2019 panel that heard an extensive presentation from one of the Douma whistle-blowers .
“ The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had , ” Bustani wrote .
“ The picture is certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His hope , he added , is that the outcry over the Douma leaks “ will catalyse a process by which the [ OPCW ] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.
” Bustani is among the prominent signatories of a letter urging the OPCW to let the Douma inspectors discuss their investigation freely .
Henderson delivered a statement at a UN session in January , but the United States has thwarted other attempts .
( According to Russia ’ s envoy to the OPCW , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a Douma hearing “ would encourage the Russian [ side ] to replicate Stalinist trials , with cross-examinations and intimidations of witnesses.
” ) The inspectors just want to be heard .
In statements this year to Arias , both whistle-blowers requested an opportunity to air the Douma evidence in a transparent , scientific manner .
“ Our sole duty is to be true to the facts and the science , and once that has been achieved , we will gladly accept the proven and agreed scientific outcomes , ” Henderson wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the OPCW sir , ” B told Arias .
“ And we wanted you to know .
It ’ s that simple .
”

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?
A series of leaked documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) raise the possibility that the Trump administration bombed Syria on false grounds and pressured officials at the world’s top chemical weapons watchdog to cover it up. Two OPCW officials, highly regarded scientists with more than 25 years of combined experience at the organization, challenged the whitewash from inside. Yet unlike many whistle-blowers of the Trump era, they have found no champion, or even an audience, within establishment circles in the United States.
The Trump administration’s April 13, 2018, bombing of Syria came days after it accused Syrian forces of killing nearly 50 people in a chemical weapons attack on Douma, a Damascus suburb. Widely circulated video footage showed scores of dead bodies inside an apartment complex and another group of alleged gas attack victims treated at a hospital. Although the White House did not provide evidence for its allegations against Syria, the harrowing images convinced Congress and the media to cheer on military strikes (as they did under similar circumstances the year prior).
Yet there were early grounds for skepticism. The Syrian government was on the verge of retaking the last Douma holdouts of Jaysh-al-Islam, a Saudi-backed militia that was relentlessly shelling the Syrian capital. To suddenly deploy chemical weapons would mean that Syrian forces knowingly crossed the “red line” that would trigger US military intervention. Subsequent reporting from British journalists Robert Fisk of The Independent, BBC producer Riam Dalati, and James Harkin’s investigation for The Intercept found evidence that the civilians filmed in the hospital were not exposed to toxic gas.
The US government narrative received a boost in March 2019 when the OPCW issued a long-awaited final report. It concluded that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that a chemical weapons attack occurred in Douma and that “the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.”
The report, however, was not the OPCW’s last word. Since May 2019, internal OPCW documents, including a trove published by WikiLeaks, reveal that the Douma investigators’ initial report reached different conclusions than their organization’s published version. They were overruled by senior officials who kept evidence from the public. 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
The leaks’ key revelations include:
Senior OPCW officials reedited the Douma investigators’ initial report to produce a version that sharply deviated from the original. Key facts were removed or misrepresented and conclusions were rewritten to support the allegation that a chlorine gas attack had occurred in Douma. Yet the team’s initial report did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred, and left open the possibility that victims were killed in a “non-chemical related” incident.
conclude that a chemical attack occurred, and left open the possibility that victims were killed in a “non-chemical related” incident. Four experts from a OPCW and NATO-member state conducted a toxicology review at the OPCW team’s request. They concluded that observed symptoms of the civilians in Douma, particularly the rapid onset of excessive frothing, as well as the concentration of victims filmed in the apartment building so close to fresh air, “were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine, and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified.”
Chemical tests of the samples collected in Douma showed that chlorine compounds were, in most cases, detected at what amounted to trace quantities in the parts-per-billion range. Yet this finding was not disclosed publicly. Furthermore, it later emerged that the chemicals themselves did not stand out as unique: According to the author of the initial report, the OPCW’s top expert in chemical weapons chemistry, they could have resulted from contact with household products such as bleach or come from chlorinated water or wood preservatives.
The author of the initial report protested the revisions in an e-mail expressing his “gravest concern.” The altered version “misrepresents the facts,” he wrote, thereby “undermining its credibility.”
Following the e-mail of protest over the manipulation of the team’s findings, the OPCW published a watered-down interim report in July 2018. Around that time, OPCW executives decreed that the probe would be handled by a so-called “core team,” which excluded all of the Douma investigators who had traveled to Syria, except for one paramedic. It was this core team—not the inspectors who had been deployed to Douma and signed off on the original document—that produced the final report of March 2019.
After the e-mail of protest, and just days before the interim report was published on July 6, a US government delegation met with members of the investigation team to try to convince them that the Syrian government had committed a chemical attack with chlorine. According to veteran reporter Jonathan Steele, who interviewed one of the whistle-blowers, the Douma team saw the meeting as “unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.” Interference by state parties is explicitly prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The inference drawn from the OPCW’s final report—widely disseminated, including by the Trump administration—was that gas cylinders found in Douma likely came from Syrian military aircraft. An unpublished engineering study reached the opposite conclusion. The study evaluated competing hypotheses: Either the cylinders were dropped from the sky or they were manually placed. There is “a higher probability,” it concluded, “that both cylinders were manually placed…rather than being delivered from aircraft.” At “Location 4,” where a cylinder was found on a bed, the study determined that the cylinder was too large to have penetrated the hole in the roof above; at the other site, “Location 2,” the observed damage to the cylinder and to the roof it allegedly penetrated were incompatible with an aircraft bombing. Ballistics experts also said it was more likely that the crater had been made by an explosion, probably from an artillery round, a rocket, or a mortar. With both cylinders, the study concluded, “the alternative hypothesis”—that the cylinders were manually placed and that the craters were caused by other means—”produced the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.”
The OPCW leadership has yet to offer a substantive explanation for why they excluded critical findings and radically altered the original report. Instead, it has denigrated the two members of the Douma fact-finding mission team who challenged the manipulation of their investigation. Current Issue View our current issue
The first dissenting inspector is known only as Inspector B (his identity is publicly unconfirmed). B was the Douma mission’s scientific coordinator, the primary author of the draft report, and subsequent author of the e-mail of protest about the unwelcome editing.
The second inspector, described by the OPCW as Inspector A, is Ian Henderson, a chemical engineering and ballistics expert who authored the study that concluded that the cylinders were likely manually placed. Henderson went to Douma and took detailed measurements at one of the cylinder locations.
In public comments, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias has claimed that the pair committed “deliberate and premeditated breaches of confidentiality,” but has not accused them of leaking the OPCW material. Arias maintains that Inspector B’s “concerns were taken seriously,” without meaningfully accounting for why findings in B’s original report were left out of the final version. He has also dismissed the pair as minor players who refused to accept that their conclusions were “erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.”
Yet the two inspectors are unlikely candidates to go rogue. Henderson and Inspector B had served with the OPCW for 11 and 16 years, respectively. Internal OPCW appraisals of their job performance offer effusive praise. In 2005, a senior OPCW official wrote that Henderson has consistently received “the highest rating possible.… I consider [him] one of the best of our Inspection Team Leaders.” Inspector B, an OPCW superior wrote in 2018, “has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of CW [Chemical Weapons] chemistry applied to inspections.” In a different evaluation, another manager described B as “one of the most well regarded” team leaders, whose “experience of the organisation, its verification regime, and judgment are unmatched.”
The internal praise for the inspectors contrasts with what the OPCW leadership now says about them in public. This includes making untrue statements. Arias has said that Henderson “was not a member of the FFM [fact-finding mission]” in Douma, but leaks that I obtained show that claim to be false. Contemporaneous OPCW documents describe Henderson as an FFM member and list him among the “Mission Personnel” and the group of inspectors on the Douma mission.
The two inspectors are also not the only ones to raise concerns. Earlier this year, another OPCW official told me, on the condition of anonymity, that they were “horrified” by the “abhorrent…mistreatment” of the pair. “I fully support their endeavours,” the official wrote. “They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.”
The treatment of the whistle-blowers by Western media is also due for criticism. Despite the story’s explosive nature, it has elicited a collective yawn. Whereas previous WikiLeaks disclosures fueled entire news cycles, no major US media outlets have reported on the organization’s Douma archive. CNN and MSNBC, which both supported Trump’s decision to bomb Syria, have ignored the OPCW story. The only time a New York Times reporter has mentioned the Douma scandal was in passing. The Times downgraded the extensive OPCW leaks into a mere “email from an investigator.” (It also deferred to assurances of Syria’s culpability from Bellingcat, an open source investigative outlet, without mentioning its Western government funding, including from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy.) Even progressive, adversarial outlets that have traditionally defended whistle-blowers and challenged US wars have shunned this story. The Guardian described the whistle-blowers’ claims as “a Russia-led campaign,” rather than as an effort by two veteran inspectors to defend their investigation.
What explains the prevailing silence? It is certainly true that the Syrian government and its Russian ally have vigorously denied allegations of chemical weapons use, including in Douma. But just as was the case when Iraq was falsely accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction, skepticism of Western claims should not be equated with support for the targeted regime. If anything, the Iraq case reminds us that such allegations should not be politicized and are worthy of scrutiny, especially if used to justify military action and other aggressive measures, including crippling sanctions.
The possibility that the United States may have bombed Syria based on falsehoods—and pressured a global investigative body to grant that intervention legitimacy after the fact—should break the media blockade. So too should the fact that it was exposed by whistle-blowers who face risk for speaking out.
The US government’s own recent past with the OPCW offers a stark reminder. In 2002, the Bush administration forced out the organization’s first director general, José Bustani. The veteran Brazilian diplomat was negotiating weapons inspections with Baghdad that potentially impeded the Bush administration’s drive to launch a war. Bustani has since revealed that John Bolton, then serving as an undersecretary of state, personally threatened him and his family to force him to resign.
Bustani once again finds himself on Bolton’s opposing side. In his new memoir about his tenure as Trump’s national security adviser, Bolton recounts that he oversaw the US strikes on Syria over the Douma allegations, lamenting only that Trump did not authorize a larger attack. Bustani, meanwhile, took part in an October 2019 panel that heard an extensive presentation from one of the Douma whistle-blowers. Related Article Trump’s Erratic Syria Policy Deserves No Anti-Imperialist’s Cheers Jeet Heer
“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani wrote. “The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” His hope, he added, is that the outcry over the Douma leaks “will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”
Bustani is among the prominent signatories of a letter urging the OPCW to let the Douma inspectors discuss their investigation freely. Henderson delivered a statement at a UN session in January, but the United States has thwarted other attempts. (According to Russia’s envoy to the OPCW, a US representative objected on the grounds that a Douma hearing “would encourage the Russian [side] to replicate Stalinist trials, with cross-examinations and intimidations of witnesses.”)
The inspectors just want to be heard. In statements this year to Arias, both whistle-blowers requested an opportunity to air the Douma evidence in a transparent, scientific manner. “Our sole duty is to be true to the facts and the science, and once that has been achieved, we will gladly accept the proven and agreed scientific outcomes,” Henderson wrote.
“Something had gone wrong inside the OPCW sir,” B told Arias. “And we wanted you to know. It’s that simple.”


thenation--2020-07-27--WNBA Players—Again—Show the Meaning of Radical Dissent

As the sports world limps toward a reopening , complete with bubbles , fake crowds , and Covid nursing stations with the kind of round-the-clock testing the rest of us couldn ’ t hope to access , we are also seeing more athlete protest than ever before .
Part of the spectacle now is seeing who takes a knee before or during the anthem , wears a Nike/NBA-approved racial justice slogan on their uniforms , or raises a fist as the anthem plays .
These gestures , which would have been absolutely electric a year ago , are now commonplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testament to the kind of “ woke capitalism ” that the sports world seems desperate to embrace .
On the one hand , this is a recognition among the forces of capital that the younger generation they want to attract is more diverse , more left-wing , and less tolerant of intolerance .
The word has gone out : Racist brands , racist statues , and even racist franchise owners are in peril .
Yet , on the other hand , we need to see this for what it is : a commodification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monetizing of the bravery of those still in the streets getting teargassed in protest of both racist policing and Trump ’ s secret federal army of extra-legal goons .
There ’ s no money in being pepper-sprayed , but there is a great deal to be made by cashing in on the valor of those who are .
In this atmosphere of cooptation , leave it to the WNBA to raise the bar .
As usual , its players are doing what the rest of the sports world , for all their panicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people—particularly white people—uncomfortable .
As basketball legend Bill Russell said 50 years ago , “ We have got to make the white population uncomfortable , because that is the only way to get their attention.
” WNBA athletes almost alone right now are willing to live by that credo .
Before their opening-night contest between the Seattle Storm and New York Liberty , Layshia Clarendon and Breanna Stewart addressed those watching .
Clarendon said , “ We are dedicating this season to Breonna Taylor—an outstanding EMT who was murdered over 130 days ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t all .
Clarendon also announced that the entire season would be dedicated to Black women who had been killed because of racist , misogynistic violence .
She said that it would be dedicated to the “ Say Her Name Campaign : a campaign committed to saying the names and fighting for justice for Black women… .
so often forgotten in this fight for justice… .
We will say her name : Sandra Bland , Atatiana Jefferson , Dominique ‘ Rem ’ mie ’ Fells and Breonna Taylor .
We will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after 26 seconds of silence for Breonna Taylor ( Taylor was 26 when she was killed ) , the teams walked off the court just prior to the anthem .
( Most news reports have said that the walk-off was during the anthem .
This is false . )
As Clarendon told ESPN , “ Kneeling doesn ’ t even feel like enough to protest .
I don ’ t want to hear the anthem , I don ’ t want to stand out there .
I don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ridiculous that justice and freedom are just not offered to everybody equally.
” Michael Bennett Thinks the NFL Is Starting to Wake Up Is Dan Snyder Really Changing the Washington Team ’ s Name ?
This is , naturally , garnering outrage .
Republican Trumpist Senator Kelly Loeffler , a WNBA franchise owner , has been rage-tweeting at the league like a warped version of Donald Sterling , one who doesn ’ t need to be recorded surreptitiously to let their racist freak flag fly .
Yet , no matter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be expressed amid the rush to grab woke capitalism ’ s golden ring .
These are the sentiments that Colin Kaepernick sacrificed his football career to raise .
In 2020 , taking a knee or raising a fist while wearing corporate-safe slogans , living in a Covid bubble with round-the-clock health care doesn ’ t do much .
( If a player tried wearing a slogan decrying Nike ’ s use of sweatshop labor , we would see the limits of corporate enlightenment . )
But WNBA players like Clarendon are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a set of bizarre playing circumstances that seem almost fictional , more out of the mind of Kurt Vonnegut than of Adam Silver .
Just as Black women have created , led , and pushed the envelope in the fight for Black lives since the movement ’ s beginnings , they are reminding us of what radical dissent looks like on the court—and why it is so critical to break the chains of commodification and continue to make onlookers uncomfortable .

As the sports world limps toward a reopening, complete with bubbles, fake crowds, and Covid nursing stations with the kind of round-the-clock testing the rest of us couldn’t hope to access, we are also seeing more athlete protest than ever before. Part of the spectacle now is seeing who takes a knee before or during the anthem, wears a Nike/NBA-approved racial justice slogan on their uniforms, or raises a fist as the anthem plays. These gestures, which would have been absolutely electric a year ago, are now commonplace and acceptable. It’s a testament to the kind of “woke capitalism” that the sports world seems desperate to embrace.
On the one hand, this is a recognition among the forces of capital that the younger generation they want to attract is more diverse, more left-wing, and less tolerant of intolerance. The word has gone out: Racist brands, racist statues, and even racist franchise owners are in peril. Yet, on the other hand, we need to see this for what it is: a commodification of dissent. It’s the monetizing of the bravery of those still in the streets getting teargassed in protest of both racist policing and Trump’s secret federal army of extra-legal goons. There’s no money in being pepper-sprayed, but there is a great deal to be made by cashing in on the valor of those who are.
In this atmosphere of cooptation, leave it to the WNBA to raise the bar. As usual, its players are doing what the rest of the sports world, for all their panicked gesturing, won’t: make people—particularly white people—uncomfortable. As basketball legend Bill Russell said 50 years ago, “We have got to make the white population uncomfortable, because that is the only way to get their attention.” WNBA athletes almost alone right now are willing to live by that credo. Before their opening-night contest between the Seattle Storm and New York Liberty, Layshia Clarendon and Breanna Stewart addressed those watching.
Clarendon said, “We are dedicating this season to Breonna Taylor—an outstanding EMT who was murdered over 130 days ago in her home.” But that wasn’t all. Clarendon also announced that the entire season would be dedicated to Black women who had been killed because of racist, misogynistic violence. She said that it would be dedicated to the “Say Her Name Campaign: a campaign committed to saying the names and fighting for justice for Black women…. so often forgotten in this fight for justice…. We will say her name: Sandra Bland, Atatiana Jefferson, Dominique ‘Rem’mie’ Fells and Breonna Taylor. We will be a voice for the voiceless.”
Then, after 26 seconds of silence for Breonna Taylor (Taylor was 26 when she was killed), the teams walked off the court just prior to the anthem. (Most news reports have said that the walk-off was during the anthem. This is false.)
As Clarendon told ESPN, “Kneeling doesn’t even feel like enough to protest. I don’t want to hear the anthem, I don’t want to stand out there. I don’t want to be anywhere near it, because it’s ridiculous that justice and freedom are just not offered to everybody equally.” More From Dave Zirin “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash August 15, 2023 Why the Right Wanted the USWNT to Lose August 10, 2023 Carli Lloyd’s Attacks on the USWNT Are Personal—and Political August 1, 2023
This is, naturally, garnering outrage. Republican Trumpist Senator Kelly Loeffler, a WNBA franchise owner, has been rage-tweeting at the league like a warped version of Donald Sterling, one who doesn’t need to be recorded surreptitiously to let their racist freak flag fly.
Yet, no matter the backlash, these are the sentiments that need to be expressed amid the rush to grab woke capitalism’s golden ring. These are the sentiments that Colin Kaepernick sacrificed his football career to raise. In 2020, taking a knee or raising a fist while wearing corporate-safe slogans, living in a Covid bubble with round-the-clock health care doesn’t do much. (If a player tried wearing a slogan decrying Nike’s use of sweatshop labor, we would see the limits of corporate enlightenment.) But WNBA players like Clarendon are seeking out ways to practice real dissent in a set of bizarre playing circumstances that seem almost fictional, more out of the mind of Kurt Vonnegut than of Adam Silver.
Just as Black women have created, led, and pushed the envelope in the fight for Black lives since the movement’s beginnings, they are reminding us of what radical dissent looks like on the court—and why it is so critical to break the chains of commodification and continue to make onlookers uncomfortable.


thenation--2020-07-27--Trump’s Secret Police Have Never Been a Secret to Brown People

As I see white mothers and mayors being teargassed on the streets of Portland , Ore. , one word keeps bubbling up from my bleeding heart : “ Welcome.
” Welcome to the world of secret police and nighttime raids .
The world where you can be snatched by an unidentified officer in an unmarked van .
The world where you get to see an attorney , maybe , after the government is done beating you .
Welcome to the world as experienced by brown people with foreign-sounding names in this country since 9/11 .
Welcome , and let us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we all clearly have in common : the Department of Homeland Security .
Because , while Donald Trump is currently responsible for deploying this army disguised as an agency against peaceful white protesters , the DHS has been deployed against peaceful immigrants regardless of status , peaceful citizens who look like recent immigrants , and peaceful worshipers who pray while Muslim—or , simply , brown—since its inception .
White moms ( and dads , and now vets ) are being assaulted by the government , but we should have dismantled their attackers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Portland are merely the latest victims of a department that has been terrorizing innocent victims since it was formed .
The Department of Homeland Security has been a disaster from the very start .
It was created by the 2002 Homeland Security Act , a post-9/11 bill that is basically what a spooked herd of antelopes would write while running away from a lion .
The department was given a broad mandate : “ Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States , ” which is Congress-speak for “ apple pie good , everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t really a defined term , we end up with the situation in which we find ourselves today—with Trump people deploying DHS agents to defend statues in Portland while the department ignores white supremacists in Charlottesville .
To fulfill its mandate , the DHS absorbed a hodgepodge of other agencies , but ( as this Washington Post article from way back in 2005 explains ) the process of determining which agencies to place under the DHS umbrella was haphazard , resulting in an incoherent collection of powers .
This was predictable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , George W. Bush ’ s idea , and the department ’ s organization reflects his administration ’ s general incompetence .
There are examples of this chaos and inefficiency throughout the DHS , but I always come back to the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) .
Part of the DHS mandate is to “ assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that occur in the United States , ” and so the DHS took over FEMA .
That doesn ’ t make a lot of sense when you consider that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an angry planet is consistently buffeting our country with storms and fire .
From 1979 to 2003 , FEMA was a wholly independent agency , and if you don ’ t think that matters , I ’ d like to introduce you to some people in Puerto Rico who received thoughts , prayers , and a roll of Bounty , “ The Quicker Picker Upper , ” thanks to DHS-led recovery efforts after Hurricane Maria .
The DHS ’ s broad mandate is the reason Trump can turn whole sections of the department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be illegal , say , for commandos operating under a directive from the Central Intelligence Agency to be deployed under Trump ’ s “ Operation Legend ” to protect statues ; the CIA is not allowed to operate on domestic soil .
It would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act for Trump to deploy the Army , because the armed forces can not be used for domestic police actions .
And it would be illegal to deploy FBI agents on the streets to “ keep the peace ” against citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of committing federal crimes .
But with the DHS , Trump doesn ’ t have to worry about any of this .
The DHS isn ’ t hamstrung by any of the laws that normally prevent the government from using troops on domestic soil , because “ preventing terrorist attacks ” can mean pretty much whatever the president says it means , including teargassing protesters to protect federal buildings from meanies .
Still , the reason the DHS has teeth doesn ’ t actually have much to do with terrorism .
For much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been used to continue this country ’ s war on drugs .
Homeland Security was given control over Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to , get this , “ monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism , ” and that is why this Frankenstein ’ s monster of an organization has troops to deploy against citizens far from the border .
The “ Wall of Moms ” are , in many ways , just the latest victims of this country ’ s drug war against its own people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground in your town at the sole discretion of the president , without consent from state or local officials or oversight from Congress , is too dangerous for any president to have control over—not just this one .
Some weapons can not be used for good , even when they ’ re wielded by those with the best of intentions .
J.R.R .
Tolkien wrote three books you could consult for a more thorough examination of this point .
The DHS has been a Trojan Horse for state-sponsored violence since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s just that , up until now , brown people have borne the brunt of the violence .
It is Muslims who have been snatched out of line at the airport and questioned without an attorney .
It is Mexicans whose homes and places of business have been raided .
It is brown children who were denied toothbrushes in those cages at the direction of ( wait for it ) former director of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen .
The brutality and terror being visited upon Portland is just a taste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiencing for going on 20 years .
And moms in Portland know it .
These moms are out there putting their bodies on the line to protect protesters .
They know what the government is capable of doing .
Still , some pundits are more interested in saving the DHS from Trump than saving us from the DHS .
Writing in The Atlantic , former DHS official and author of Security Mom Juliette Kayyem came to this conclusion about the future of the agency : “ If progressives respond by demanding the abolition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanded an end to ICE , they will give Trump the fight he wants .
To blame the bureaucracy is to lose sight of the real problem : Trump himself.
” Frankly , I expect this view to hold sway with the next Democratic administration .
Instead of removing the power Trump has abused , moderate Democrats promise only to use the power more appropriately .
“ Don ’ t give unaccountable power to that guy .
Give it to me , because I ’ ll use it only against the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isn ’ t Whether Trump Will Go Full Authoritarian—It ’ s How We ’ ll Respond There Are Literally No Good Options for Educating Our Kids This Fall The Rule of Law Is Being Gutted Because ‘ Moderate ’ Republicans Stayed Silent For politicians who aren ’ t likely to be rounded up and sent back to “ where they came from , ” I ’ m sure Trump ’ s use of the DHS seems like an aberration .
But of all the aberrant things Trump does , his use of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The aberration is the people he ’ s using it against .
When Trump is gone , I hope our elected officials remember that .
I hope they remember that tear gas stings regardless of the color of your eyes .
I hope they remember that people who use leaf blowers for their livelihoods are just as deserving of rights and respect as dads who now use leaf blowers to thwart tear gas .
I hope they remember to remove the structure Trump used against us , as opposed to just removing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leopards are eating white faces , I hope Congress stops writing legislation calling for face-eating leopards .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As I see white mothers and mayors being teargassed on the streets of Portland, Ore., one word keeps bubbling up from my bleeding heart: “Welcome.” Welcome to the world of secret police and nighttime raids. The world where you can be snatched by an unidentified officer in an unmarked van. The world where you get to see an attorney, maybe, after the government is done beating you. Welcome to the world as experienced by brown people with foreign-sounding names in this country since 9/11.
Welcome, and let us now join together to battle the enemy we all clearly have in common: the Department of Homeland Security. Because, while Donald Trump is currently responsible for deploying this army disguised as an agency against peaceful white protesters, the DHS has been deployed against peaceful immigrants regardless of status, peaceful citizens who look like recent immigrants, and peaceful worshipers who pray while Muslim—or, simply, brown—since its inception.
White moms (and dads, and now vets) are being assaulted by the government, but we should have dismantled their attackers a long time ago. The people of Portland are merely the latest victims of a department that has been terrorizing innocent victims since it was formed.
The Department of Homeland Security has been a disaster from the very start. It was created by the 2002 Homeland Security Act, a post-9/11 bill that is basically what a spooked herd of antelopes would write while running away from a lion. The department was given a broad mandate: “Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States,” which is Congress-speak for “apple pie good, everybody else bad.” Because “terrorism” isn’t really a defined term, we end up with the situation in which we find ourselves today—with Trump people deploying DHS agents to defend statues in Portland while the department ignores white supremacists in Charlottesville.
To fulfill its mandate, the DHS absorbed a hodgepodge of other agencies, but (as this Washington Post article from way back in 2005 explains) the process of determining which agencies to place under the DHS umbrella was haphazard, resulting in an incoherent collection of powers. This was predictable. The DHS was, after all, George W. Bush’s idea, and the department’s organization reflects his administration’s general incompetence. There are examples of this chaos and inefficiency throughout the DHS, but I always come back to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Part of the DHS mandate is to “assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that occur in the United States,” and so the DHS took over FEMA. That doesn’t make a lot of sense when you consider that terror attacks are relatively rare, while an angry planet is consistently buffeting our country with storms and fire. From 1979 to 2003, FEMA was a wholly independent agency, and if you don’t think that matters, I’d like to introduce you to some people in Puerto Rico who received thoughts, prayers, and a roll of Bounty, “The Quicker Picker Upper,” thanks to DHS-led recovery efforts after Hurricane Maria. 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 DHS’s broad mandate is the reason Trump can turn whole sections of the department into his personal storm troopers. It would be illegal, say, for commandos operating under a directive from the Central Intelligence Agency to be deployed under Trump’s “Operation Legend” to protect statues; the CIA is not allowed to operate on domestic soil. It would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act for Trump to deploy the Army, because the armed forces cannot be used for domestic police actions. And it would be illegal to deploy FBI agents on the streets to “keep the peace” against citizens who are not charged with nor suspected of committing federal crimes.
But with the DHS, Trump doesn’t have to worry about any of this. The DHS isn’t hamstrung by any of the laws that normally prevent the government from using troops on domestic soil, because “preventing terrorist attacks” can mean pretty much whatever the president says it means, including teargassing protesters to protect federal buildings from meanies.
Still, the reason the DHS has teeth doesn’t actually have much to do with terrorism. For much of its existence, the department has been used to continue this country’s war on drugs. Homeland Security was given control over Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to, get this, “monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism,” and that is why this Frankenstein’s monster of an organization has troops to deploy against citizens far from the border. The “Wall of Moms” are, in many ways, just the latest victims of this country’s drug war against its own people.
An organization that can deploy troops on the ground in your town at the sole discretion of the president, without consent from state or local officials or oversight from Congress, is too dangerous for any president to have control over—not just this one. Some weapons cannot be used for good, even when they’re wielded by those with the best of intentions. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote three books you could consult for a more thorough examination of this point.
The DHS has been a Trojan Horse for state-sponsored violence since the day it was written into existence. It’s just that, up until now, brown people have borne the brunt of the violence. It is Muslims who have been snatched out of line at the airport and questioned without an attorney. It is Mexicans whose homes and places of business have been raided. It is brown children who were denied toothbrushes in those cages at the direction of (wait for it) former director of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen.
The brutality and terror being visited upon Portland is just a taste of what some communities of color have been experiencing for going on 20 years. And moms in Portland know it. These moms are out there putting their bodies on the line to protect protesters. They know what the government is capable of doing.
Still, some pundits are more interested in saving the DHS from Trump than saving us from the DHS. Writing in The Atlantic, former DHS official and author of Security Mom Juliette Kayyem came to this conclusion about the future of the agency: “If progressives respond by demanding the abolition of Homeland Security, much as many demanded an end to ICE, they will give Trump the fight he wants. To blame the bureaucracy is to lose sight of the real problem: Trump himself.”
Frankly, I expect this view to hold sway with the next Democratic administration. Instead of removing the power Trump has abused, moderate Democrats promise only to use the power more appropriately. “Don’t give unaccountable power to that guy. Give it to me, because I’ll use it only against the people who deserve it. Promise.” More from Mystal The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Will Go Full Authoritarian—It’s How We’ll Respond Elie Mystal There Are Literally No Good Options for Educating Our Kids This Fall Elie Mystal The Rule of Law Is Being Gutted Because ‘Moderate’ Republicans Stayed Silent Elie Mystal
For politicians who aren’t likely to be rounded up and sent back to “where they came from,” I’m sure Trump’s use of the DHS seems like an aberration. But of all the aberrant things Trump does, his use of the DHS is not one of them. The aberration is the people he’s using it against.
When Trump is gone, I hope our elected officials remember that. I hope they remember that tear gas stings regardless of the color of your eyes. I hope they remember that people who use leaf blowers for their livelihoods are just as deserving of rights and respect as dads who now use leaf blowers to thwart tear gas. I hope they remember to remove the structure Trump used against us, as opposed to just removing Trump from atop the structure.
Now that the leopards are eating white faces, I hope Congress stops writing legislation calling for face-eating leopards.


thenation--2020-07-27--One Cheer for John Kasich

One Cheer for John Kasich

Some Democrats and progressives , including Nation columnist Elie Mystal , are upset that former representative and Ohio governor John Kasich , a Republican , will be speaking at the Democratic convention in August .
For most of his political career , Kasich was anathema to Democrats and liberals .
It isn ’ t clear if he ’ ll officially endorse Joe Biden , but his presence at the convention is a very public repudiation of Trump .
Democrats should embrace Kasich ’ s support for Biden , in whatever form it takes .
Despite polls showing Biden widening his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his victory is hardly assured , especially with Trump and the GOP doubling down on voter suppression .
If Kasich can help persuade some Republicans in swing states , including Ohio , to vote for Biden , that could help defeat Trump .
In the short term , Democrats should welcome the support of Kasich and other anti-Trump Republicans as part of a united front against fascism—a one-time tactical alliance to rid America of a white supremacist and authoritarian president .
Mystal worries that Kasich ’ s presence on Team Biden shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white voters than energizing voters of color .
“ One white guy in Cincinnati is worth more to some Democrats than 100 Black guys in Cleveland , ” he wrote .
Anyway , he claims , “ Joe Biden is not going to win white men in Ohio in 2020.
” Increasing turnout by Black and brown voters in swing states is indeed critical for a Biden victory .
But the two strategies aren ’ t mutually exclusive .
Seriously ?
John Kasich ?
What Is the Biden Camp Thinking ?
Mystal claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Biden win Ohio .
Instead , Mystal says , Biden should rely on Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown , who won reelection in 2018 in part by garnering wide margins among Black and female voters .
Of course , Brown is already beating the hustings for Biden , but why wouldn ’ t it help to add Kasich to the mix ?
In June 2018 , near the end of his second term as governor , he was more popular among Ohio Democrats ( 56 percent approval ) than among Republicans ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quinnipiac University poll .
Politics is about persuasion—persuading your party ’ s base to vote and persuading swing voters to vote for your candidate .
According to Mystal , there aren ’ t enough swing voters in Ohio and other battleground states to worry about .
He ’ s wrong .
Even a small erosion of Trump ’ s supporters can thwart his reelection bid .
In 2016 , Trump won 68 percent of Ohio ’ s white men and 56 percent of white women .
Kasich can help move some of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , Sherrod Brown , Barack and Michelle Obama , unions , and grassroots community groups—and perhaps LeBron James—can help increase turnout among black voters .
That combination could secure Ohio for Biden .
Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Ohio in 2016 by a 52-44 percent margin .
But now Ohio—with its 18 electoral votes—is a battleground state .
Recent polls show that Biden and Trump are now neck and neck .
Other states once considered solidly red—including Texas and Georgia—could also be up for grabs .
To tip battleground states that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs less than 5 or 10 percent of Trump voters to switch .
According to a recent New York Times/Sienna College poll , 14 percent of voters in six battleground states ( Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Florida , Arizona , and North Carolina ) who supported Trump in 2016 say they won ’ t likely support him again this year .
If Kasich can pull those potential defectors to Biden , why not ask for his help ?
Because , Mystal argues , Kasich and other anti-Trump Republicans are like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats , he believes , should practice social distancing from Republicans who , in different ways , laid the foundation for Trump ’ s ascent , even if they oppose him now .
Kasich is one of a growing wave of anti-Trump Republican operatives , pundits , and former officeholders—including Steve Schmidt , Charles Sykes , Rick Wilson , David Frum , George Will , Bill Kristol , Mona Charen , Jeff Flake , Jennifer Rubin , and George Conway ( Kellyanne ’ s spouse ) .
They dislike Trump for different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bromances with dictators , pathological lies , indecency , lack of compassion , and disloyalty to the Constitution .
They believe Trump and his Fox News and alt-right allies have undermined true conservatism and want to restore the GOP ’ s core principles .
Some of them recently formed the Lincoln Project , which has sponsored devastating anti-Trump ads designed to appeal to independent voters and wavering Republicans .
Most of them will vote for Biden .
But fortunately , after Biden wins , they ’ ll have no influence within the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many will oppose Biden ’ s initiatives on health care , climate change , the minimum wage , unions , infrastructure , abortion , Supreme Court picks , and other issues , but might urge congressional Republicans to compromise rather than stonewall .
Mystal ’ s dislike of Kasich is understandable .
He ’ s “ pro-life ” and anti-union .
In Congress , he proposed huge cuts in social spending , including reducing Medicare payments for seniors .
He was a foreign policy hawk who embraced the Iraq War and other misadventures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2001 , he hosted his own show on Fox News , served on several corporate boards , and worked as an investment banker for Lehman Brothers .
As Ohio governor ( 2011–19 ) , he privatized prisons , boosted charter schools and school vouchers for private schools , made it easier to buy and carry guns , and restricted collective bargaining rights of public employees .
He ’ s been on both sides of the climate denial debate , immigrant rights , and voting rights .
The Tea Party endorsed him during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he lost much of their support the next year when he embraced Obamacare ’ s expansion of Medicaid in order to cover about 275,000 low-income Ohioans .
As Trump sought to dismantle Obamacare , Kasich defended the program , recounting stories of Ohioans who benefited from the state ’ s expanded coverage .
Although he claimed that the additional $ 13 billion in federal Medicaid funds would help Ohio ’ s economy , he also argued that expanding coverage was the ethical thing to do .
He told Republicans who controlled the Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoes of a mother and a father of an adult child that is struggling… .
I had a conversation with one of the members of the legislature the other day .
I said , ’ I respect the fact that you believe in small government .
I do , too .
I also know that you ’ re a person of faith .
Now , when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter , he ’ s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask you what you did for the poor .
You better have a good answer.
’ ” For many voters , health care is the issue , especially as the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the fragility of a system that ties coverage to jobs .
If , in his convention address , and perhaps on the stump and in ads , Kasich attacks Trump ’ s efforts to dismantle federal health care and Medicaid , he could persuade swing voters to support Biden .
After he lost the GOP nomination in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He didn ’ t even attend the GOP convention , in his own state .
He announced he would write in Senator John McCain ’ s name for president .
He called Trump ’ s plan to build a wall on the Mexican border “ just crazy , ” opposed Trump ’ s ban on travel from Muslim countries , and , after the killing spree at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in 2018 , called for limits on the sale of AR-15 style rifles .
By embracing Biden , Kasich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination for president in 2024 .
Most liberals and progressives obviously do not want Biden to appoint Kasich to a cabinet position or to head a federal agency .
But he could be helpful as Biden ’ s “ special adviser ” with the narrow goal of persuading Republican governors to expand Medicaid .
If he can pull that off , he ’ d be improving the lives of many low-income Americans .
Or , if the trade-off for helping Biden defeat Trump is an appointment as US ambassador to some country where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats should be OK with that .
Perhaps all Kasich wants is a ticket to heaven when he dies .
He knows that his track record so far won ’ t get him past the pearly gates .
St. Peter will look at Kasich and say , “ Normally , you ’ d go to hell , but I ’ ll make an exception because of that Medicaid thing and your support for Biden .
Plus , you were a good dad .
”

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?
Some Democrats and progressives, including Nation columnist Elie Mystal, are upset that former representative and Ohio governor John Kasich, a Republican, will be speaking at the Democratic convention in August. For most of his political career, Kasich was anathema to Democrats and liberals. It isn’t clear if he’ll officially endorse Joe Biden, but his presence at the convention is a very public repudiation of Trump.
Democrats should embrace Kasich’s support for Biden, in whatever form it takes. Despite polls showing Biden widening his lead against Trump in most swing states, his victory is hardly assured, especially with Trump and the GOP doubling down on voter suppression. If Kasich can help persuade some Republicans in swing states, including Ohio, to vote for Biden, that could help defeat Trump.
In the short term, Democrats should welcome the support of Kasich and other anti-Trump Republicans as part of a united front against fascism—a one-time tactical alliance to rid America of a white supremacist and authoritarian president.
Mystal worries that Kasich’s presence on Team Biden shows that Democrats are more concerned about attracting white voters than energizing voters of color. “One white guy in Cincinnati is worth more to some Democrats than 100 Black guys in Cleveland,” he wrote. Anyway, he claims, “Joe Biden is not going to win white men in Ohio in 2020.” Increasing turnout by Black and brown voters in swing states is indeed critical for a Biden victory. But the two strategies aren’t mutually exclusive. Kasich Seriously? John Kasich? What Is the Biden Camp Thinking? Elie Mystal
Mystal claims that Kasich isn’t the guy to help Biden win Ohio. Instead, Mystal says, Biden should rely on Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who won reelection in 2018 in part by garnering wide margins among Black and female voters. Of course, Brown is already beating the hustings for Biden, but why wouldn’t it help to add Kasich to the mix? In June 2018, near the end of his second term as governor, he was more popular among Ohio Democrats (56 percent approval) than among Republicans (46 percent), according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
Politics is about persuasion—persuading your party’s base to vote and persuading swing voters to vote for your candidate.
According to Mystal, there aren’t enough swing voters in Ohio and other battleground states to worry about. He’s wrong. Even a small erosion of Trump’s supporters can thwart his reelection bid. In 2016, Trump won 68 percent of Ohio’s white men and 56 percent of white women. Kasich can help move some of those white voters into the Biden column. Meanwhile, Sherrod Brown, Barack and Michelle Obama, unions, and grassroots community groups—and perhaps LeBron James—can help increase turnout among black voters. That combination could secure Ohio for Biden. Current Issue View our current issue
Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Ohio in 2016 by a 52-44 percent margin. But now Ohio—with its 18 electoral votes—is a battleground state. Recent polls show that Biden and Trump are now neck and neck. Other states once considered solidly red—including Texas and Georgia—could also be up for grabs. 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
To tip battleground states that Trump won by a small margin, Biden needs less than 5 or 10 percent of Trump voters to switch. According to a recent New York Times/Sienna College poll, 14 percent of voters in six battleground states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina) who supported Trump in 2016 say they won’t likely support him again this year. If Kasich can pull those potential defectors to Biden, why not ask for his help?
Because, Mystal argues, Kasich and other anti-Trump Republicans are like a virus that will infect the body politic. Democrats, he believes, should practice social distancing from Republicans who, in different ways, laid the foundation for Trump’s ascent, even if they oppose him now.
Kasich is one of a growing wave of anti-Trump Republican operatives, pundits, and former officeholders—including Steve Schmidt, Charles Sykes, Rick Wilson, David Frum, George Will, Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Jeff Flake, Jennifer Rubin, and George Conway (Kellyanne’s spouse). They dislike Trump for different reasons—his incompetence, racism, nativism, bromances with dictators, pathological lies, indecency, lack of compassion, and disloyalty to the Constitution. They believe Trump and his Fox News and alt-right allies have undermined true conservatism and want to restore the GOP’s core principles. Some of them recently formed the Lincoln Project, which has sponsored devastating anti-Trump ads designed to appeal to independent voters and wavering Republicans.
Most of them will vote for Biden. But fortunately, after Biden wins, they’ll have no influence within the Democratic Party and its steady leftward thrust. Many will oppose Biden’s initiatives on health care, climate change, the minimum wage, unions, infrastructure, abortion, Supreme Court picks, and other issues, but might urge congressional Republicans to compromise rather than stonewall.
Mystal’s dislike of Kasich is understandable. He’s “pro-life” and anti-union. In Congress, he proposed huge cuts in social spending, including reducing Medicare payments for seniors. He was a foreign policy hawk who embraced the Iraq War and other misadventures. After serving in Congress from 1983 to 2001, he hosted his own show on Fox News, served on several corporate boards, and worked as an investment banker for Lehman Brothers. As Ohio governor (2011–19), he privatized prisons, boosted charter schools and school vouchers for private schools, made it easier to buy and carry guns, and restricted collective bargaining rights of public employees. He’s been on both sides of the climate denial debate, immigrant rights, and voting rights.
The Tea Party endorsed him during his 2010 campaign for governor, but he lost much of their support the next year when he embraced Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid in order to cover about 275,000 low-income Ohioans. As Trump sought to dismantle Obamacare, Kasich defended the program, recounting stories of Ohioans who benefited from the state’s expanded coverage.
Although he claimed that the additional $13 billion in federal Medicaid funds would help Ohio’s economy, he also argued that expanding coverage was the ethical thing to do. He told Republicans who controlled the Ohio legislature:
“Put yourself in the shoes of a mother and a father of an adult child that is struggling…. I had a conversation with one of the members of the legislature the other day. I said, ’I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do, too. I also know that you’re a person of faith. Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.’”
For many voters, health care is the issue, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the fragility of a system that ties coverage to jobs. If, in his convention address, and perhaps on the stump and in ads, Kasich attacks Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal health care and Medicaid, he could persuade swing voters to support Biden.
After he lost the GOP nomination in 2016, Kasich refused to endorse Trump. He didn’t even attend the GOP convention, in his own state. He announced he would write in Senator John McCain’s name for president. He called Trump’s plan to build a wall on the Mexican border “just crazy,” opposed Trump’s ban on travel from Muslim countries, and, after the killing spree at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in 2018, called for limits on the sale of AR-15 style rifles.
By embracing Biden, Kasich has effectively ruled out winning the GOP nomination for president in 2024. Most liberals and progressives obviously do not want Biden to appoint Kasich to a cabinet position or to head a federal agency. But he could be helpful as Biden’s “special adviser” with the narrow goal of persuading Republican governors to expand Medicaid. If he can pull that off, he’d be improving the lives of many low-income Americans.
Or, if the trade-off for helping Biden defeat Trump is an appointment as US ambassador to some country where he can’t do much harm, Democrats should be OK with that.
Perhaps all Kasich wants is a ticket to heaven when he dies. He knows that his track record so far won’t get him past the pearly gates. St. Peter will look at Kasich and say, “Normally, you’d go to hell, but I’ll make an exception because of that Medicaid thing and your support for Biden. Plus, you were a good dad.”