thenation--2020-10-29--What We Call Freedom Has Never Been About Being Free

The political right today is marked by a deep conviction that its freedom stands imperiled everywhere .
Social distancing measures and face mask requirements , conservatives argue , impinge upon their personal freedom ; baking cakes for gay marriages or providing contraception insurance for employees violates their religious freedom ; university safe spaces and political correctness censor their freedom of speech in the classroom ; expanding health care undermines their liberty .
Each of these ways of thinking about freedom is connected to the idea that the state must be curtailed in order to safeguard individual rights .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political historian Annelien de Dijn in her new book Freedom : An Unruly History , is not only a relatively recent invention but must be seen as an antidemocratic reaction to the American and French revolutions , which replaced rule by traditional elites with broadly popular governments .
Seeing in popular control a threat to their class interests and property rights , conservative critics launched an ideological campaign against this democratic conception of freedom .
As an alternative , they invented the idea that political freedom was to be found in protecting individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hence the origins , de Dijn concludes , of how we conceive of freedom today and why it means something different for conservatives and liberals .
I recently spoke with de Dijn about her new book .
Along the way , we discussed the relationship between democratic socialism and political freedom , the relationship between freedom and today ’ s populist movements , and how to make sense of the right ’ s appeal to political freedom .
This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity .
aniel teinmetz- enkins : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very ambitious book .
In roughly 400 pages , you set out to provide a history of political freedom in the West that covers well over 2,000 years , from the ancient Greeks until the present .
I am intrigued by what motivated you to write this book .
You said the idea came to you because of Barack Obama ’ s presidency and not Donald Trump ’ s .
That ’ s interesting , since there is a cottage industry devoted to the crisis of liberalism and democracy on account of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ?
nnelien de ijn : My interest in the history of freedom was sparked about a decade ago , when the Obama administration attempted to reform the health care system , which sparked a fierce backlash .
Thousands of Americans took to the streets to march against Obamacare , claiming that it posed a mortal danger to freedom .
I found that very puzzling .
How can you say that expanding health care—a measure supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans—is something that undermines your liberty ?
More generally , why insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve the lives of its citizens diminishes their freedom ?
Where did this individualistic or even nihilistic conception of freedom come from ?
When looking for answers to these questions , I discovered that there was no good recent overview of the history of freedom in Western political thought , so I decided to write one myself .
That said , I think that the questions that originally spurred my research remain just as relevant today as they were a decade ago , when I started writing the book .
If the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s that this anti-government way of thinking about freedom is still quite prevalent—which makes it very difficult to implement any meaningful progressive change .
In that sense , there ’ s much more continuity between the Obama and Trump eras than it might seem at first sight .
DSJ : The bulk of your book is devoted to showing that , until the early 19th century , men and women—including ancient Athenian democrats and Roman plebeians , early modern Florentine humanists , and American and French revolutionaries—associated political freedom with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is that until relatively recently , political thinkers in the West identified freedom with a people ’ s ability to exercise control over the way they are ruled .
What can contemporary readers glean from “ the liberty of the ancients , ” specifically regarding what plebeians saw as the political danger posed by patricians ?
AD : If you take the long view , it becomes clear that our current way of thinking about freedom—being able to do what you want without state interference—is actually a fairly recent invention .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of as “ the West ” identified being free with exercising collective control over government .
They had what I call a democratic conception of freedom : A free state was one in which the people ruled itself .
To them , the key to preserving political freedom was staving off elite domination , not establishing mechanisms to patrol the boundaries of state power .
In ancient Athens , most public officials were chosen by lot , and they were in office for only short periods of time .
This meant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscure their birth or how lowly their station in life , had an equal chance of attaining high office .
In addition , Athenians received a stipend to attend the popular assembly , where all important political decisions were made .
This way , even poor citizens were able to participate in the often day-long meetings , as they were compensated for their loss of income .
These and similar measures ensured that political power remained in the hands of ordinary citizens , as is illustrated by the fact that rich Athenians often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poor and for the poor .
Indeed , Athenian elites were so hostile to the political regime under which they lived that twice they tried to overthrow their own democracy , although both times they were beaten back .
By contrast , today we tend to put more faith in countermajoritarian institutions as a way to preserve liberty .
We tend to think that our freedoms are best protected by institutions such as the Supreme Court—a council of elders supposedly above politics .
That ’ s because we have come to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are the real threat to liberty .
This would have been very strange to the ancient Greeks and Romans .
They believed that individual rights and liberties were mainly threatened by autocratic kings or arrogant elites .
DSJ : The major argument of your book is that the liberty of the ancients was eclipsed in the early 19th century by a new modern conception of freedom .
What is this new understanding of freedom , and how did it come to pass ?
AD : In the 19th century , political thinkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reject this ancient democratic conception of freedom in favor of a different way of thinking .
Freedom , many came to argue , was not a matter of who governed .
Instead , what determined whether you were free or not was the extent to which you were governed .
The smaller the government , the freer you were—regardless of who was in control .
This new way of thinking was triggered by a conservative backlash .
In the late 18th and 19th centuries , the democratizing movement booked increasing successes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more broadly popular governments in both Europe and North America .
In the longer run , the promise of democracy also came to be extended to hitherto marginalized groups , such as women and Black men .
Martha Nussbaum Thinks the So-Called Retreat of Liberalism Is an Academic Fad But the victories of these democratizing movements also created a powerful counterreaction that would lead to a major shift in thinking about freedom .
Democracy , conservatives argued again and again , would not bring freedom for all .
After all , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was never exercised by common consent .
Rather , in a democracy , the majority of the community ruled over everyone else .
If you really cared about freedom , conservatives continued to argue , extending popular control over government was therefore superfluous and even counterproductive—it would lead to majority tyranny .
Hence , the only way to preserve freedom was by limiting the sphere of government as much as possible and by empowering countermajoritarian institutions , such as an independent judiciary , to protect individuals against majoritarian overreach .
When they talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is important to note , conservatives were not primarily thinking about the oppression of vulnerable minorities , such as religious or ethnic minorities .
Rather , the majoritarian tyranny they feared above all was that of the poor over the rich ; they dreaded democracy ’ s redistributive potential .
Writing in the wake of 1848—when revolutionaries attempted to introduce manhood suffrage in continental Europe—the British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay spoke for many conservatives when he warned that democracy was incompatible with liberty , as “ the poor would plunder the rich.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ destroy liberty , or civilization , or both.
” Similarly , the countermajoritarian institutions that conservatives put so much stock in were primarily meant to protect property rights against popular politics .
William Howard Taft , for instance , the Supreme Court ’ s chief justice from 1921 to 1930 , spoke for many of his colleagues when he explained that it was up to the federal judiciary , the “ bulwark of the liberty of the individual , ” to protect individuals against “ the aggression of a majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property rights .
In short , the idea that freedom depends on the limitation of state power was invented by conservatives to defend elite interests against the rise of democracy .
And liberals in the US today tend to be in favor of measures that would enhance ordinary people ’ s control over their political and economic lives—but they rarely talk about that in terms of freedom .
That ’ s because they have bought into the conservative definition of freedom as an absence of state intervention .
Yet this has been obscured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in thinking is often attributed to long-standing trends in European history .
Thus , it is often claimed that the growth of religious tolerance in the West—itself an unintended consequence of the Reformation—sparked the emergence of a new way of thinking about liberty as identical with private independence .
Another popular narrative attributes the shift in thinking to the emergence of a market economy in the 17th and 18th centuries .
This supposedly led to a more enlightened conception of liberty centered on the notion of individual rights that needed protection against state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Reformation nor the transition to a market economy had much impact on the debate about freedom .
DSJ : How would you respond to the concern that writing a history of political freedom solely from the perspective of the West is to partake in a long scholarly tradition in Europe and the United States that ignores or trivializes conceptions of freedom outside of that sphere ?
AD : There ’ s a growing body of scholarship on non-Western political traditions , which clearly shows that freedom was not just a Western concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Wajo ’ , an Indonesian seafaring people , attached a lot of importance to political freedom , as Anthony Reid has shown .
According to their 18th century chronicles , the Wajo ’ thought of themselves as free by birth .
They were also quite clear about what that meant : In the Wajo ’ community , no one should interfere with people ’ s wishes , there should be freedom of opinion , and people should be able to go hither and thither as they wanted .
So by focusing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means want to suggest that European and American thinkers were the only ones to talk about freedom .
But at the same time , I think it ’ s also really important to critically investigate our own tradition .
Freedom is not just a lofty ideal ; it ’ s also a powerful political weapon , a weapon that can be wielded to destroy political opponents and block legislative change .
One of the reasons why freedom is such a powerful political weapon is because of widespread assumptions about who we are and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , and to a lesser extent in Europe as well , people still tend to be raised on triumphalist narratives about the age-old Western tradition of freedom .
One of the major goals of my book is to challenge such narratives by showing that there is far less continuity in our way of thinking about freedom than it might seem at first sight .
DSJ : Let ’ s turn to contemporary politics .
There is a growing democratic socialist movement in this country .
What lessons can be drawn from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic socialism and the modern conception of freedom , especially since they emerged around the same time in the early 19th century ?
AD : Socialist parties emerged in Europe at the end of the 19th century in response to growing economic inequality , while new political movements with similar goals , notably populism and progressivism , came into being in the United States .
These movements were very critical of conservatives ’ claims that freedom can only be achieved by minimal government .
They dismissed this as a false freedom ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppress the poor .
As Marx and Engels put it , laissez faire thinking allowed only “ the exploitation of the many by the few.
” This was not freedom but “ bourgeois freedom ” —the freedom of a single class .
But that doesn ’ t mean that socialists or populists were anti-freedom .
Quite the contrary—they aimed to revive and radicalize the older democratic conception of freedom .
They argued that freedom required collective control over government , and hence they consistently pushed for measures that would democratize the political systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Socialist Party , for instance , was the first major political party in Europe to call for universal suffrage , including women ’ s right to vote .
But socialists , populists , and progressives also agreed that popular control over government wasn ’ t enough .
In order to preserve freedom for all , democracy should be extended from the political to the economic sphere ; otherwise people would remain dependent on the goodwill of the rich .
That brings me to a more general point .
There ’ s a widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads to unfreedom , that it is a totalitarian ideology , “ alien to our culture and values , ” as Donald Trump expressed it .
But in fact , socialists , populists , and progressives saw themselves as the heirs of the American and French revolutionaries , who in turn had echoed the ancients .
To them , freedom was about collective control over government , and the danger was minority tyranny .
The socialist politician Jean Jaurès , who was also a respected historian , proudly declared , “ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Similarly , across the pond , Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued that the goal of the New Deal was to “ restore to the people a wider freedom ” by destroying economic tyranny and “ to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776.
” Bernie Sanders , in other words , is 100 percent correct when he reminds us that freedom is a socialist value , as long as we keep in mind that he ’ s referring to the older democratic conception of freedom .
DSJ : You take aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s book , The People vs. Democracy , which you argue claims that freedom today is being threatened by the illiberal views of “ the people.
” Mounk ’ s book , along with dozens of others , make up what the scholar Jan-Werner Muller describes as the “ democracy defense industry.
” What do you make of this literature , specifically given the long-standing anti-populist tendencies that reduce freedom to the concerns that elites have about security ?
AD : Ever since Trump ’ s election , political commentators like Mounk have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracies are in trouble because of the rise of something they call “ populism.
” According to Mounk , 2016 shows that our freedom is threatened by the illiberal views of “ the people , ” but that analysis seems profoundly mistaken to me .
Trump lost the popular vote , by a lot , and he is one of the most unpopular presidents ever .
To characterize him as a populist just seems bizarre .
Also , US democracy was arguably in crisis long before 2016 .
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy elites , through their capture of the Republican Party , had managed to rig the political system .
This has enabled them to push through policies that benefit the ultra-wealthy , despite being widely unpopular among the public at large .
In other words , it seems pretty clear that the main problem of US democracy is minority rule , not anything like populism .
So the interesting question here is : Why do so many centrists deny that reality ?
Why do they feel the need to attribute democracy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its supposedly illiberal tendencies ?
I think the answer to that question must be sought in long-standing trends in Western political thought , notably in a deep-rooted tendency to depict majoritarian tyranny as the primary threat to freedom .
It ’ s time we start seeing that for what it is : a specter raised by privileged elites afraid to lose their position .
If history teaches anything at all , it ’ s that individual rights and liberties are far more likely to be threatened by elite rule than by popular government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impression that you side with the premodern conception of freedom , given its anti-elitist , democratic tenets .
And yet the book repeatedly shows that women , slaves , and others were excluded from those plebiscite movements attempting to check the power of the hereditary elite .
There is an analogue with today ’ s right-wing populist movements , which are pursuing a political program that appeals to the discourse of democracy against D.C. politicians , Wall Street interests , and Davos elites , while promoting nativism , xenophobia , and racism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ light on this ?
AD : It is indeed true that throughout the centuries , self-proclaimed freedom fighters often ended up replacing old power structures with new hierarchies , notably of race and gender .
Today , we remember the Atlantic Revolutions of the late 18th century because they introduced new and more broadly popular governments , thus heralding the age of democracy .
Yet many of the revolutionaries who protested most loudly against the metaphorical slavery to which they were subjected by haughty kings and arrogant elites either owned slaves or were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , it ’ s important to note that such hypocrisies were consistently challenged by marginalized groups , who were able to turn the revolutionaries ’ own words against them .
As the abolitionist and civil rights activist Frederick Douglass put it , “ Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty ?
That he is the rightful owner of his own body ?
You have already declared it.
” What I think this shows is that words and ideas matter , even though they are by no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can turn your opponents ’ words against them , that helps to bolster your case .
Of course , it would be naive to think that pointing out moral hypocrisy suffices .
A war was required to put an end to chattel slavery in the US , not simply Douglass ’ s moral appeal .
At the same time , wars aren ’ t just fought with weapons but also with words .
Yet what we ’ re witnessing nowadays is something different altogether .
Today , those complaining most loudly about oppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White people complain that they are being disadvantaged vis-à-vis Blacks and immigrants , straight men believe they are being discriminated against in the workplace because of their gender , and religious groups grumble that they are victimized by secular culture .
These privileged groups mimic the discourse of the marginalized , but the grievances they complain about aren ’ t real .
It ’ s ludicrous , for instance , to carp about affirmative action in higher education when legacy admissions continue to mostly benefit white students .
DSJ : Your book spends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relationship between the history of Christianity and political freedom .
Today , conservative evangelical and Catholic-owned businesses regularly appeal to freedom of religion in the attempt to refuse their employees insurance coverage for contraception , such as with the Hobby Lobby case , or to refuse creative services for gay marriage ceremonies , such as with the Masterpiece Bakeshop case .
Historically speaking , how do you understand this paradoxical appeal to freedom for the purpose of exclusion ?
AD : Throughout the ages , Christian thinkers spent quite a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be free .
To many of them , freedom was primarily an inner condition ; it was the freedom to subject oneself to God ’ s will instead of to sin .
But I think that appeals to religious freedom today , as in the Hobby Lobby case , are primarily inspired by another and more modern tradition : the conservative tradition identifying freedom not with an inner condition of spiritual freedom from sin but with an absence of state intervention .
As such , the Hobby Lobby case provides yet another example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are used today to thwart any progressive change .
The Affordable Care Act is a law with broad democratic support that makes coverage of contraceptives mandatory .
When the Supreme Court decided to give corporations an exemption to this mandatory provision of contraceptives on religious grounds , it basically said that corporations can ignore democratic majorities and do whatever they deem fit .
In other words , notions such as religious freedom today are invoked not to protect vulnerable minorities but to allow powerful private actors to ignore democratic rules .

The political right today is marked by a deep conviction that its freedom stands imperiled everywhere. Social distancing measures and face mask requirements, conservatives argue, impinge upon their personal freedom; baking cakes for gay marriages or providing contraception insurance for employees violates their religious freedom; university safe spaces and political correctness censor their freedom of speech in the classroom; expanding health care undermines their liberty. Each of these ways of thinking about freedom is connected to the idea that the state must be curtailed in order to safeguard individual rights.
However, this idea of freedom, argues the political historian Annelien de Dijn in her new book Freedom: An Unruly History, is not only a relatively recent invention but must be seen as an antidemocratic reaction to the American and French revolutions, which replaced rule by traditional elites with broadly popular governments. Seeing in popular control a threat to their class interests and property rights, conservative critics launched an ideological campaign against this democratic conception of freedom. As an alternative, they invented the idea that political freedom was to be found in protecting individuals by limiting the sphere of government. Hence the origins, de Dijn concludes, of how we conceive of freedom today and why it means something different for conservatives and liberals.
I recently spoke with de Dijn about her new book. Along the way, we discussed the relationship between democratic socialism and political freedom, the relationship between freedom and today’s populist movements, and how to make sense of the right’s appeal to political freedom. This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
—Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins
D aniel S teinmetz- J enkins: Freedom: An Unruly History is a very ambitious book. In roughly 400 pages, you set out to provide a history of political freedom in the West that covers well over 2,000 years, from the ancient Greeks until the present. I am intrigued by what motivated you to write this book. You said the idea came to you because of Barack Obama’s presidency and not Donald Trump’s. That’s interesting, since there is a cottage industry devoted to the crisis of liberalism and democracy on account of the Trump presidency. Why then the Obama administration?
A nnelien de D ijn: My interest in the history of freedom was sparked about a decade ago, when the Obama administration attempted to reform the health care system, which sparked a fierce backlash. Thousands of Americans took to the streets to march against Obamacare, claiming that it posed a mortal danger to freedom. I found that very puzzling. How can you say that expanding health care—a measure supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans—is something that undermines your liberty? More generally, why insist that every attempt by the government to improve the lives of its citizens diminishes their freedom? Where did this individualistic or even nihilistic conception of freedom come from? When looking for answers to these questions, I discovered that there was no good recent overview of the history of freedom in Western political thought, so I decided to write one myself. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
That said, I think that the questions that originally spurred my research remain just as relevant today as they were a decade ago, when I started writing the book. If the US response to Covid-19 has made anything clear, it’s that this anti-government way of thinking about freedom is still quite prevalent—which makes it very difficult to implement any meaningful progressive change. In that sense, there’s much more continuity between the Obama and Trump eras than it might seem at first sight.
DSJ: The bulk of your book is devoted to showing that, until the early 19th century, men and women—including ancient Athenian democrats and Roman plebeians, early modern Florentine humanists, and American and French revolutionaries—associated political freedom with popular self-government. What you mean by this is that until relatively recently, political thinkers in the West identified freedom with a people’s ability to exercise control over the way they are ruled. What can contemporary readers glean from “the liberty of the ancients,” specifically regarding what plebeians saw as the political danger posed by patricians?
AD: If you take the long view, it becomes clear that our current way of thinking about freedom—being able to do what you want without state interference—is actually a fairly recent invention. For centuries, people in what we now think of as “the West” identified being free with exercising collective control over government. They had what I call a democratic conception of freedom: A free state was one in which the people ruled itself. To them, the key to preserving political freedom was staving off elite domination, not establishing mechanisms to patrol the boundaries of state power.
In ancient Athens, most public officials were chosen by lot, and they were in office for only short periods of time. This meant that any male citizen, no matter how obscure their birth or how lowly their station in life, had an equal chance of attaining high office. In addition, Athenians received a stipend to attend the popular assembly, where all important political decisions were made. This way, even poor citizens were able to participate in the often day-long meetings, as they were compensated for their loss of income. These and similar measures ensured that political power remained in the hands of ordinary citizens, as is illustrated by the fact that rich Athenians often grumbled that their city was ruled by the poor and for the poor. Indeed, Athenian elites were so hostile to the political regime under which they lived that twice they tried to overthrow their own democracy, although both times they were beaten back.
By contrast, today we tend to put more faith in countermajoritarian institutions as a way to preserve liberty. We tend to think that our freedoms are best protected by institutions such as the Supreme Court—a council of elders supposedly above politics. That’s because we have come to think that democratic majorities, not elite rule, are the real threat to liberty. This would have been very strange to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that individual rights and liberties were mainly threatened by autocratic kings or arrogant elites.
DSJ: The major argument of your book is that the liberty of the ancients was eclipsed in the early 19th century by a new modern conception of freedom. What is this new understanding of freedom, and how did it come to pass?
AD: In the 19th century, political thinkers in Europe and the United States began to reject this ancient democratic conception of freedom in favor of a different way of thinking. Freedom, many came to argue, was not a matter of who governed. Instead, what determined whether you were free or not was the extent to which you were governed. The smaller the government, the freer you were—regardless of who was in control.
This new way of thinking was triggered by a conservative backlash. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the democratizing movement booked increasing successes, as rule by traditional elites was replaced with more broadly popular governments in both Europe and North America. In the longer run, the promise of democracy also came to be extended to hitherto marginalized groups, such as women and Black men. More From Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins Common Sense Fiscal Policy or Austerity by Another Name? July 18, 2023 Another Side of W.E.B. Du Bois May 10, 2023 Christianity's Place in the Left and the Right March 29, 2023
But the victories of these democratizing movements also created a powerful counterreaction that would lead to a major shift in thinking about freedom. Democracy, conservatives argued again and again, would not bring freedom for all. After all, even in the most democratic states, power was never exercised by common consent. Rather, in a democracy, the majority of the community ruled over everyone else. If you really cared about freedom, conservatives continued to argue, extending popular control over government was therefore superfluous and even counterproductive—it would lead to majority tyranny. Hence, the only way to preserve freedom was by limiting the sphere of government as much as possible and by empowering countermajoritarian institutions, such as an independent judiciary, to protect individuals against majoritarian overreach.
When they talked about the tyranny of the majority, it is important to note, conservatives were not primarily thinking about the oppression of vulnerable minorities, such as religious or ethnic minorities. Rather, the majoritarian tyranny they feared above all was that of the poor over the rich; they dreaded democracy’s redistributive potential. Writing in the wake of 1848—when revolutionaries attempted to introduce manhood suffrage in continental Europe—the British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay spoke for many conservatives when he warned that democracy was incompatible with liberty, as “the poor would plunder the rich.” Democracy, he thought, would “destroy liberty, or civilization, or both.”
Similarly, the countermajoritarian institutions that conservatives put so much stock in were primarily meant to protect property rights against popular politics. William Howard Taft, for instance, the Supreme Court’s chief justice from 1921 to 1930, spoke for many of his colleagues when he explained that it was up to the federal judiciary, the “bulwark of the liberty of the individual,” to protect individuals against “the aggression of a majority of the electorate”—notably by zealously defending their property rights.
In short, the idea that freedom depends on the limitation of state power was invented by conservatives to defend elite interests against the rise of democracy. And liberals in the US today tend to be in favor of measures that would enhance ordinary people’s control over their political and economic lives—but they rarely talk about that in terms of freedom. That’s because they have bought into the conservative definition of freedom as an absence of state intervention.
Yet this has been obscured in textbook histories, where this shift in thinking is often attributed to long-standing trends in European history. Thus, it is often claimed that the growth of religious tolerance in the West—itself an unintended consequence of the Reformation—sparked the emergence of a new way of thinking about liberty as identical with private independence. Another popular narrative attributes the shift in thinking to the emergence of a market economy in the 17th and 18th centuries. This supposedly led to a more enlightened conception of liberty centered on the notion of individual rights that needed protection against state interference. But in fact, neither the Reformation nor the transition to a market economy had much impact on the debate about freedom.
DSJ: How would you respond to the concern that writing a history of political freedom solely from the perspective of the West is to partake in a long scholarly tradition in Europe and the United States that ignores or trivializes conceptions of freedom outside of that sphere?
AD: There’s a growing body of scholarship on non-Western political traditions, which clearly shows that freedom was not just a Western concept. To give but one example: The Wajo’, an Indonesian seafaring people, attached a lot of importance to political freedom, as Anthony Reid has shown. According to their 18th century chronicles, the Wajo’ thought of themselves as free by birth. They were also quite clear about what that meant: In the Wajo’ community, no one should interfere with people’s wishes, there should be freedom of opinion, and people should be able to go hither and thither as they wanted.
So by focusing on Western political thought, I by no means want to suggest that European and American thinkers were the only ones to talk about freedom. But at the same time, I think it’s also really important to critically investigate our own tradition. Freedom is not just a lofty ideal; it’s also a powerful political weapon, a weapon that can be wielded to destroy political opponents and block legislative change.
One of the reasons why freedom is such a powerful political weapon is because of widespread assumptions about who we are and where we come from. In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe as well, people still tend to be raised on triumphalist narratives about the age-old Western tradition of freedom. One of the major goals of my book is to challenge such narratives by showing that there is far less continuity in our way of thinking about freedom than it might seem at first sight.
DSJ: Let’s turn to contemporary politics. There is a growing democratic socialist movement in this country. What lessons can be drawn from your book on the historical relationship between democratic socialism and the modern conception of freedom, especially since they emerged around the same time in the early 19th century?
AD: Socialist parties emerged in Europe at the end of the 19th century in response to growing economic inequality, while new political movements with similar goals, notably populism and progressivism, came into being in the United States. These movements were very critical of conservatives’ claims that freedom can only be achieved by minimal government. They dismissed this as a false freedom; it was the freedom of the rich to suppress the poor. As Marx and Engels put it, laissez faire thinking allowed only “the exploitation of the many by the few.” This was not freedom but “bourgeois freedom”—the freedom of a single class.
But that doesn’t mean that socialists or populists were anti-freedom. Quite the contrary—they aimed to revive and radicalize the older democratic conception of freedom. They argued that freedom required collective control over government, and hence they consistently pushed for measures that would democratize the political systems under which they lived. The German Socialist Party, for instance, was the first major political party in Europe to call for universal suffrage, including women’s right to vote. But socialists, populists, and progressives also agreed that popular control over government wasn’t enough. In order to preserve freedom for all, democracy should be extended from the political to the economic sphere; otherwise people would remain dependent on the goodwill of the rich.
That brings me to a more general point. There’s a widespread idea in the United States that socialism leads to unfreedom, that it is a totalitarian ideology, “alien to our culture and values,” as Donald Trump expressed it. But in fact, socialists, populists, and progressives saw themselves as the heirs of the American and French revolutionaries, who in turn had echoed the ancients. To them, freedom was about collective control over government, and the danger was minority tyranny. The socialist politician Jean Jaurès, who was also a respected historian, proudly declared, “We are the party of democracy and the Revolution.” Similarly, across the pond, Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued that the goal of the New Deal was to “restore to the people a wider freedom” by destroying economic tyranny and “to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776.” Bernie Sanders, in other words, is 100 percent correct when he reminds us that freedom is a socialist value, as long as we keep in mind that he’s referring to the older democratic conception of freedom.
DSJ: You take aim at the political scientist Yascha Mounk’s book, The People vs. Democracy, which you argue claims that freedom today is being threatened by the illiberal views of “the people.” Mounk’s book, along with dozens of others, make up what the scholar Jan-Werner Muller describes as the “democracy defense industry.” What do you make of this literature, specifically given the long-standing anti-populist tendencies that reduce freedom to the concerns that elites have about security?
AD: Ever since Trump’s election, political commentators like Mounk have been trying to convince us that our democracies are in trouble because of the rise of something they call “populism.” According to Mounk, 2016 shows that our freedom is threatened by the illiberal views of “the people,” but that analysis seems profoundly mistaken to me. Trump lost the popular vote, by a lot, and he is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. To characterize him as a populist just seems bizarre. Also, US democracy was arguably in crisis long before 2016. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson warned us as early as 2005 that wealthy elites, through their capture of the Republican Party, had managed to rig the political system. This has enabled them to push through policies that benefit the ultra-wealthy, despite being widely unpopular among the public at large. In other words, it seems pretty clear that the main problem of US democracy is minority rule, not anything like populism.
So the interesting question here is: Why do so many centrists deny that reality? Why do they feel the need to attribute democracy’s crisis to “the people” and its supposedly illiberal tendencies? I think the answer to that question must be sought in long-standing trends in Western political thought, notably in a deep-rooted tendency to depict majoritarian tyranny as the primary threat to freedom. It’s time we start seeing that for what it is: a specter raised by privileged elites afraid to lose their position. If history teaches anything at all, it’s that individual rights and liberties are far more likely to be threatened by elite rule than by popular government.
DSJ: The book gives the impression that you side with the premodern conception of freedom, given its anti-elitist, democratic tenets. And yet the book repeatedly shows that women, slaves, and others were excluded from those plebiscite movements attempting to check the power of the hereditary elite. There is an analogue with today’s right-wing populist movements, which are pursuing a political program that appeals to the discourse of democracy against D.C. politicians, Wall Street interests, and Davos elites, while promoting nativism, xenophobia, and racism. Might freedom’s unruly history shed light on this?
AD: It is indeed true that throughout the centuries, self-proclaimed freedom fighters often ended up replacing old power structures with new hierarchies, notably of race and gender. Today, we remember the Atlantic Revolutions of the late 18th century because they introduced new and more broadly popular governments, thus heralding the age of democracy. Yet many of the revolutionaries who protested most loudly against the metaphorical slavery to which they were subjected by haughty kings and arrogant elites either owned slaves or were involved in the slave trade.
At the same time, it’s important to note that such hypocrisies were consistently challenged by marginalized groups, who were able to turn the revolutionaries’ own words against them. As the abolitionist and civil rights activist Frederick Douglass put it, “Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it.”
What I think this shows is that words and ideas matter, even though they are by no means all that matters. If you can turn your opponents’ words against them, that helps to bolster your case. Of course, it would be naive to think that pointing out moral hypocrisy suffices. A war was required to put an end to chattel slavery in the US, not simply Douglass’s moral appeal. At the same time, wars aren’t just fought with weapons but also with words.
Yet what we’re witnessing nowadays is something different altogether. Today, those complaining most loudly about oppression tend to be the relatively privileged. White people complain that they are being disadvantaged vis-à-vis Blacks and immigrants, straight men believe they are being discriminated against in the workplace because of their gender, and religious groups grumble that they are victimized by secular culture. These privileged groups mimic the discourse of the marginalized, but the grievances they complain about aren’t real. It’s ludicrous, for instance, to carp about affirmative action in higher education when legacy admissions continue to mostly benefit white students.
DSJ: Your book spends a good bit of time talking about the relationship between the history of Christianity and political freedom. Today, conservative evangelical and Catholic-owned businesses regularly appeal to freedom of religion in the attempt to refuse their employees insurance coverage for contraception, such as with the Hobby Lobby case, or to refuse creative services for gay marriage ceremonies, such as with the Masterpiece Bakeshop case. Historically speaking, how do you understand this paradoxical appeal to freedom for the purpose of exclusion?
AD: Throughout the ages, Christian thinkers spent quite a lot of time reflecting on what it meant to be free. To many of them, freedom was primarily an inner condition; it was the freedom to subject oneself to God’s will instead of to sin. But I think that appeals to religious freedom today, as in the Hobby Lobby case, are primarily inspired by another and more modern tradition: the conservative tradition identifying freedom not with an inner condition of spiritual freedom from sin but with an absence of state intervention.
As such, the Hobby Lobby case provides yet another example of how notions of liberty and rights are used today to thwart any progressive change. The Affordable Care Act is a law with broad democratic support that makes coverage of contraceptives mandatory. When the Supreme Court decided to give corporations an exemption to this mandatory provision of contraceptives on religious grounds, it basically said that corporations can ignore democratic majorities and do whatever they deem fit. In other words, notions such as religious freedom today are invoked not to protect vulnerable minorities but to allow powerful private actors to ignore democratic rules.


thenation--2020-10-29--To Stop Trump Stealing the Election, Democrats Must Do These 3 Things

The election is just days away , and it still seems likely that Trump will lose to Joe Biden .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Biden will be sworn in as our 46th president .
In a close election , it ’ s possible that Trump will launch an all-out attack on our electoral system designed to thwart the will of the people and usurp the presidency .
He ’ s already repeatedly said that he may refuse to accept the results of the election if he loses .
It might work .
Our electoral system runs on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law .
Trump and his Republican allies have neither .
The key point of vulnerability is the Electoral College .
If Trump tries to steal the election , his plan will focus on efforts to short-circuit the process by which Electoral College votes are cast and counted .
On election night , Trump will declare victory and assert baselessly that any ballots counted after Election Day are fraudulent .
He and his Republican allies will then attempt to disrupt the post-election ballot count by launching legal and administrative challenges against ballot-counting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disruption , Republican-controlled legislatures in pivotal swing states will attempt to appoint fraudulent Trump electors while arguing that the election has been corrupted by fraud , that an accurate ballot count is impossible , and that Trump is the rightful winner .
That will throw the election to Congress , where Trump can count on Republicans in Congress to violate any political and procedural norms—and even to break the law—to count Trump ’ s fraudulent Electoral College votes .
Let ’ s not mince words .
What we ’ re talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this plays out , it will be spun as a fair and legal process , but it ’ s still a coup .
The good news is that we can stop him—both by turning out to vote in such overwhelming numbers that Biden ’ s victory is inarguable , and by taking decisive action immediately after the election .
To stop a Trump coup , an unprecedented number of Americans will have to take to the streets and stay in the streets until he concedes the election and leaves the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To stop Trump ’ s coup , Democrats will have to be prepared to go as far as Republicans in casting aside political norms and playing political hardball .
If Democrats act like legal scholars while Republicans fight a guerrilla war to make Trump the president at any cost , Democrats risk losing the presidency despite winning the majority of electoral votes at the polls—again .
In a constitutional crisis , Joe Biden and elected Democrats at every level of government need to rally the American public to their side and declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure every vote is counted , that the Electoral College votes reflect the will of the people , and ultimately to thwart Trump ’ s coup .
We recently published a road map to stopping Trump from stealing the election .
Here are the three key things that we found that Democrats must do to stop Trump ’ s coup .
First : Joe Biden must not concede unless and until a complete and fair count of every ballot cast shows conclusively that he is the loser .
In 2000 , Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election by telling Democratic Party–aligned activists to stand down and ultimately conceding for the sake of national unity rather than taking the fight all the way to Congress .
If Joe Biden does the same , he will silence the voices of millions of voters by handing Trump an election he did not win .
Second : Democratic governors must appoint Biden electors if Republicans make it impossible to count every ballot before the Electoral College votes on December 14 , or if Republican state legislators appoint fraudulent Trump electors .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our electoral system should be held to at least the same standard as a game of cards .
If Trump and his allies try to prevent every vote from being counted or to overturn the results of the election , Trump effectively forfeits his right to win an Electoral College majority .
Third : Congressional Democrats must play hardball by using every political , procedural , and legal tool available to them to exclude Trump ’ s electors from states where he didn ’ t win the popular vote—or where Republicans attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress decides who wins the presidency when it counts Electoral College votes .
Whether Trump ’ s fraudulent electors are counted will likely come down to votes in Congress .
Once the fight moves to Congress , Democrats must put everything on the table , including refusing to seat incoming Republican senators in order to create a Democratic majority in the Senate when it counts Electoral College votes on January 6 , ordering the sergeant at arms to remove Mike Pence and the Republicans from the House chambers in order to indefinitely delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump concedes , and organizing protesters to physically shut down the Capitol with nonviolent civil disobedience in order to prevent fraudulent Electoral College votes from being counted .
These are extraordinary actions .
Nothing like them has ever happened in our country ’ s history .
But neither has a presidential candidate refused to accept the results of an election and tried to usurp the presidency .
An extraordinary crisis calls for extraordinary action .
We need elected Democrats in swing states and in Congress to use every legal , procedural , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Democrats control many of the key levers of power .
But we can ’ t take for granted that they will pull them .
Over the last 10 years , Republicans in Congress , in particular Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell , have effectively shut down the Legislative Branch .
While Democrats have attempted to negotiate bipartisan compromises , often by undercutting progressive priorities before negotiations even begin , Republicans have shut down the government , blocked virtually every piece of legislation Democrats have proposed , rammed through massive tax cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courts with ultra-conservative judges , and even denied President Obama the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court in 2016 .
In the most important political fights of the last 10 years , Democrats have over and over held themselves above the fray , put their faith in institutions and political norms , and told progressive activists to stand down rather than taking the fight to the streets .
This time can be different .
There ’ s little that Democratic elected officials can do to stop Trump from trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tries and succeeds , they ’ ll have no one to blame but themselves .

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 election is just days away, and it still seems likely that Trump will lose to Joe Biden. But that doesn’t mean that Biden will be sworn in as our 46th president.
In a close election, it’s possible that Trump will launch an all-out attack on our electoral system designed to thwart the will of the people and usurp the presidency. He’s already repeatedly said that he may refuse to accept the results of the election if he loses.
It might work. Our electoral system runs on good faith and a shared commitment to the law. Trump and his Republican allies have neither. The key point of vulnerability is the Electoral College. If Trump tries to steal the election, his plan will focus on efforts to short-circuit the process by which Electoral College votes are cast and counted.
On election night, Trump will declare victory and assert baselessly that any ballots counted after Election Day are fraudulent. He and his Republican allies will then attempt to disrupt the post-election ballot count by launching legal and administrative challenges against ballot-counting and inciting violence against election administrators. Related Article Is Trump Planning a Coup d’État? Sasha Abramsky
Amid the disruption, Republican-controlled legislatures in pivotal swing states will attempt to appoint fraudulent Trump electors while arguing that the election has been corrupted by fraud, that an accurate ballot count is impossible, and that Trump is the rightful winner.
That will throw the election to Congress, where Trump can count on Republicans in Congress to violate any political and procedural norms—and even to break the law—to count Trump’s fraudulent Electoral College votes.
Let’s not mince words. What we’re talking about is a coup. If all of this plays out, it will be spun as a fair and legal process, but it’s still a coup. The good news is that we can stop him—both by turning out to vote in such overwhelming numbers that Biden’s victory is inarguable, and by taking decisive action immediately after the election. Current Issue View our current issue
To stop a Trump coup, an unprecedented number of Americans will have to take to the streets and stay in the streets until he concedes the election and leaves the White House. But protest won’t be enough. To stop Trump’s coup, Democrats will have to be prepared to go as far as Republicans in casting aside political norms and playing political hardball. If Democrats act like legal scholars while Republicans fight a guerrilla war to make Trump the president at any cost, Democrats risk losing the presidency despite winning the majority of electoral votes at the polls—again. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In a constitutional crisis, Joe Biden and elected Democrats at every level of government need to rally the American public to their side and declare that they will do whatever it takes to ensure every vote is counted, that the Electoral College votes reflect the will of the people, and ultimately to thwart Trump’s coup. We recently published a road map to stopping Trump from stealing the election. Here are the three key things that we found that Democrats must do to stop Trump’s coup.
First: Joe Biden must not concede unless and until a complete and fair count of every ballot cast shows conclusively that he is the loser.
In 2000, Al Gore allowed George W. Bush to steal the election by telling Democratic Party–aligned activists to stand down and ultimately conceding for the sake of national unity rather than taking the fight all the way to Congress. If Joe Biden does the same, he will silence the voices of millions of voters by handing Trump an election he did not win.
Second: Democratic governors must appoint Biden electors if Republicans make it impossible to count every ballot before the Electoral College votes on December 14, or if Republican state legislators appoint fraudulent Trump electors.
In every game, cheaters are disqualified. Our electoral system should be held to at least the same standard as a game of cards. If Trump and his allies try to prevent every vote from being counted or to overturn the results of the election, Trump effectively forfeits his right to win an Electoral College majority.
Third: Congressional Democrats must play hardball by using every political, procedural, and legal tool available to them to exclude Trump’s electors from states where he didn’t win the popular vote—or where Republicans attempted to prevent a full count.
Ultimately, Congress decides who wins the presidency when it counts Electoral College votes. Whether Trump’s fraudulent electors are counted will likely come down to votes in Congress.
Once the fight moves to Congress, Democrats must put everything on the table, including refusing to seat incoming Republican senators in order to create a Democratic majority in the Senate when it counts Electoral College votes on January 6, ordering the sergeant at arms to remove Mike Pence and the Republicans from the House chambers in order to indefinitely delay the counting of Electoral College votes until Trump concedes, and organizing protesters to physically shut down the Capitol with nonviolent civil disobedience in order to prevent fraudulent Electoral College votes from being counted.
These are extraordinary actions. Nothing like them has ever happened in our country’s history. But neither has a presidential candidate refused to accept the results of an election and tried to usurp the presidency. An extraordinary crisis calls for extraordinary action.
We need elected Democrats in swing states and in Congress to use every legal, procedural, and political tool at their disposal to stop Trump. Democrats control many of the key levers of power. But we can’t take for granted that they will pull them.
Over the last 10 years, Republicans in Congress, in particular Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, have effectively shut down the Legislative Branch. While Democrats have attempted to negotiate bipartisan compromises, often by undercutting progressive priorities before negotiations even begin, Republicans have shut down the government, blocked virtually every piece of legislation Democrats have proposed, rammed through massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, packed the federal courts with ultra-conservative judges, and even denied President Obama the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court in 2016.
In the most important political fights of the last 10 years, Democrats have over and over held themselves above the fray, put their faith in institutions and political norms, and told progressive activists to stand down rather than taking the fight to the streets. This time can be different. There’s little that Democratic elected officials can do to stop Trump from trying to steal the election. But if he tries and succeeds, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.


thenation--2020-10-29--The GOP’s Education Extremism Is Alienating Moderate Voters

Julia Pulver , a 36-year-old nurse who is running to represent Oakland County in the Michigan state legislature , can pinpoint the moment that the momentum in her race against Republican incumbent Ryan Berman shifted decisively .
This spring , as Michigan was reeling from the pandemic and facing a collapse in revenue , Berman joined with a small group of Republicans to urge the state ’ s congressional delegation to reject federal funds meant to help Michigan recover .
The backlash in Berman ’ s district , northwest of Detroit , was swift and furious , recalls Pulver .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lie inside the 39th district were outraged at what they saw as a deliberate effort by their elected representative to torpedo their efforts to safely reopen .
“ That really did it .
People who ’ d been willing to give him a chance until then started saying , ‘ That ’ s it , ’ ” says Pulver .
“ He missed an opportunity to serve our community because he was more interested in punishing the governor and the state.
” Michigan Democrats are hoping that this will be the year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state House .
They made significant inroads in 2018 and must flip just four additional seats to reach their goal .
Despite an election cycle consumed by President Donald Trump and the state ’ s bitter partisan battles over masks and lockdowns , education remains a potent political issue here .
And it ’ s not just in Michigan that the GOP ’ s perceived hostility to public schools has created an opening for Democrats .
The extreme discourse of the Trump/DeVos era that paints “ government schools ” as centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties .
If Democrats manage to take control of the Arizona House for the first time since 1966 , it will be thanks to candidates like Eric Kurland .
Kurland , a former Scottsdale language arts teacher , ran in a solidly red district in Maricopa County in 2018 and came up short by just three points .
But much has changed since his last election .
His suburban district has grown more diverse , while Republicans seem more determined to alienate the moderates who ’ ve long been key to their dominance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicts that he ’ ll be victorious , in part because his focus on Arizona ’ s abysmal school funding resonates with voters .
“ Voters in this district really care about their schools , and they believe that our kids deserve better , ” says Kurland .
“ For two decades , the majority party has underfunded our schools , and people have had enough.
” MORE FROM Jennifer C. Berkshire Trump ’ s Education Policy Is an Opportunity for Democrats In 2018 Kurland was part of a wave of teachers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ran for office , fueled by the # RedforEd protests that saw teachers shut down schools to demand higher pay and more education funding .
While there may be less fanfare around teacher candidates in Arizona this time around , they ’ re now poised to help tip the balance in favor of Democrats in Phoenix .
Christine Porter Marsh , the 2012 Arizona teacher of the year , came within just 267 votes of unseating an incumbent GOP state senator in a district north of Phoenix .
But while Marsh is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senator Kate Brophy McGee , Marsh ’ s odds are viewed as substantially better than in 2018 .
Voter rolls in this part of Maricopa county have swelled by 17,000—three-quarters of them Democrats .
And the state GOP ’ s embrace of extremism in the Trump era isn ’ t helping McGee , one of the few remaining moderates in the party .
Take the issue of private school vouchers .
Arizona voters crushed a ballot measure that would have made every student in the state eligible for a taxpayer-funded school voucher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers have remained laser-focused on expanding the voucher program , including enacting a controversial measure that would allow Native American students to attend private religious schools across state lines .
The bill passed with the support of McGee , who had previously been an opponent of voucher expansion .
Marsh says that the disconnect between what voters in her district care about and the priorities of the GOP on a key issue like education is enabling her to attract voters who would formerly have voted Republican .
“ I think that voters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Marsh , who teaches middle school English in Scottsdale .
“ There ’ s been a complete abdication of funding education in this state and Republicans are going to pay a price for that in 2020.
” Pollster Charles Siler says that an increasingly vocal right wing in the Arizona Republican party that paints public schools as socialist indoctrination camps is pushing away more moderate constituents , a shift that he argues will likely have long-term implications .
“ Republican voters like public schools and this extreme rhetoric just doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Siler , a former lobbyist for the conservative Goldwater Institute who now advises pro–public education candidates , including Eric Kurland .
A similar shift has been underway in North Texas in recent years .
Signs proclaiming “ I support public education and I vote ” now dot lawns around Plano and north Dallas , site of a hotly contested race in House District 66 .
Democrat Sharon Hirsch , a former school administrator , came within 400 votes of ousting Republican Matt Shaheen , a founder of the hard-right Freedom Caucus .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the money race and is viewed as having a good shot at tipping the seat into the “ D ” column , one of nine seats the Democrats will need to flip in order to gain control of the 150-seat Texas House .
“ She ’ s attracting Republicans who might not have voted for a Democrat in the past , ” says Missy Bender , the regional advocacy director in Colin and Denton counties for the pro–public education nonprofit Raise Your Hand Texas .
The sharp partisan divide over education that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to see in Texas during this election cycle .
That ’ s because Republican candidates who were perceived as hostile to public education already paid a price at the polls in 2018 , a message lawmakers like Shaheen seem to have gotten loud and clear .
At a recent candidate forum on public education , the GOP incumbent painted himself as an ardent supporter of local schools .
But Bender says that voters still haven ’ t forgotten the party ’ s hard-right pivot in 2017 , led by Shaheen and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus pushed culture war causes , including private school vouchers , anti-abortion measures , and a “ bathroom bill , ” restricting bathroom access by transgender Texans , even as a school funding crisis loomed .
“ Those struggles over public education tilled the soil for GOP voters to begin supporting moderate Democrats , ” says Bender .
And with no straight-ticket voting allowed in 2020 , she ’ s anticipating more defections .
In the waning days of the 2020 campaign season , Betsy DeVos returned to her home state of Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speeches of her tenure as secretary of education .
Participating in a forum on education at conservative Hillsdale College , DeVos painted a dark picture of public schools inducting children into socialism , teaching them “ to believe not in themselves , but in government.
” Public education , she warned , seeks to replace the home with the school building , the family with the state .
It was a message that Winnie Brinks , a Democratic Michigan state senator representing DeVos ’ s home turf of Grand Rapids , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected to the state House in 2012 , winning in a district that had been gerrymandered to favor Republicans .
She ran for Senate in 2018 , flipping what had been a GOP seat in a decisive victory .
Education has been her signature issue throughout her time in Lansing .
“ The intense dislike of government , the hostility towards public schools , it ’ s nothing new , and a lot of it can be traced back to DeVos , ” says Brinks .
But if the message has been constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rapids and Kent County are in the midst of a demographic transformation as young professionals—educated and Democratic leaning—move in .
“ Things are changing , and I ’ m really optimistic , ” says Brinks .
On the other side of the state , Julia Pulver is feeling increasingly upbeat about her chances , despite running in a district that was drawn to favor the GOP .
Back in 2010 , blue-leaning West Bloomfield Township was sliced and diced , paired with the more conservative community of Commerce in an effort to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the rare parts of Michigan that ’ s growing , and new residents are younger and more diverse .
“ This community has changed and so have its values , ” says Pulver .
“ People look at who has been representing them and they want to know ‘ where are the solutions ?
’ ” In states across the country , the GOP ’ s hard-right turn on public education is turning off voters .
If Democrats succeed in taking back statehouses on November 3 , education will be @ @ @ @ @

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?
Julia Pulver, a 36-year-old nurse who is running to represent Oakland County in the Michigan state legislature, can pinpoint the moment that the momentum in her race against Republican incumbent Ryan Berman shifted decisively. This spring, as Michigan was reeling from the pandemic and facing a collapse in revenue, Berman joined with a small group of Republicans to urge the state’s congressional delegation to reject federal funds meant to help Michigan recover. The backlash in Berman’s district, northwest of Detroit, was swift and furious, recalls Pulver. School leaders from the five school districts that lie inside the 39th district were outraged at what they saw as a deliberate effort by their elected representative to torpedo their efforts to safely reopen.
“That really did it. People who’d been willing to give him a chance until then started saying, ‘That’s it,’” says Pulver. “He missed an opportunity to serve our community because he was more interested in punishing the governor and the state.”
Michigan Democrats are hoping that this will be the year that they finally succeed in taking control of the state House. They made significant inroads in 2018 and must flip just four additional seats to reach their goal. Despite an election cycle consumed by President Donald Trump and the state’s bitter partisan battles over masks and lockdowns, education remains a potent political issue here. And it’s not just in Michigan that the GOP’s perceived hostility to public schools has created an opening for Democrats. The extreme discourse of the Trump/DeVos era that paints “government schools” as centers of indoctrination is alienating voters in both parties.
Seeing red
If Democrats manage to take control of the Arizona House for the first time since 1966, it will be thanks to candidates like Eric Kurland. Kurland, a former Scottsdale language arts teacher, ran in a solidly red district in Maricopa County in 2018 and came up short by just three points. But much has changed since his last election. His suburban district has grown more diverse, while Republicans seem more determined to alienate the moderates who’ve long been key to their dominance here. This time around, Kurland predicts that he’ll be victorious, in part because his focus on Arizona’s abysmal school funding resonates with voters.
“Voters in this district really care about their schools, and they believe that our kids deserve better,” says Kurland. “For two decades, the majority party has underfunded our schools, and people have had enough.” More From Jennifer C. Berkshire How to Fight the Right's Moral Panic Over Parental Rights May 23, 2023 The West Coast Think Tank Helping to Orchestrate DeSantis’s War on the Woke March 30, 2023 Good News Alert: Democrats Might Actually Flip the Michigan Legislature October 28, 2022
In 2018 Kurland was part of a wave of teachers in Arizona, and across the country, who ran for office, fueled by the #RedforEd protests that saw teachers shut down schools to demand higher pay and more education funding. While there may be less fanfare around teacher candidates in Arizona this time around, they’re now poised to help tip the balance in favor of Democrats in Phoenix.
Christine Porter Marsh, the 2012 Arizona teacher of the year, came within just 267 votes of unseating an incumbent GOP state senator in a district north of Phoenix. But while Marsh is facing the same opponent this time around, Senator Kate Brophy McGee, Marsh’s odds are viewed as substantially better than in 2018. Voter rolls in this part of Maricopa county have swelled by 17,000—three-quarters of them Democrats. And the state GOP’s embrace of extremism in the Trump era isn’t helping McGee, one of the few remaining moderates in the party. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Take the issue of private school vouchers. Arizona voters crushed a ballot measure that would have made every student in the state eligible for a taxpayer-funded school voucher. Despite that resounding defeat, GOP lawmakers have remained laser-focused on expanding the voucher program, including enacting a controversial measure that would allow Native American students to attend private religious schools across state lines. The bill passed with the support of McGee, who had previously been an opponent of voucher expansion. Current Issue View our current issue
Marsh says that the disconnect between what voters in her district care about and the priorities of the GOP on a key issue like education is enabling her to attract voters who would formerly have voted Republican.
“I think that voters and citizens in general are fed up,” says Marsh, who teaches middle school English in Scottsdale. “There’s been a complete abdication of funding education in this state and Republicans are going to pay a price for that in 2020.”
A big shift
Pollster Charles Siler says that an increasingly vocal right wing in the Arizona Republican party that paints public schools as socialist indoctrination camps is pushing away more moderate constituents, a shift that he argues will likely have long-term implications. “Republican voters like public schools and this extreme rhetoric just doesn’t speak to them,” says Siler, a former lobbyist for the conservative Goldwater Institute who now advises pro–public education candidates, including Eric Kurland.
A similar shift has been underway in North Texas in recent years. Signs proclaiming “I support public education and I vote” now dot lawns around Plano and north Dallas, site of a hotly contested race in House District 66. Democrat Sharon Hirsch, a former school administrator, came within 400 votes of ousting Republican Matt Shaheen, a founder of the hard-right Freedom Caucus. This time around Hirsch has far outpaced Shaheen in the money race and is viewed as having a good shot at tipping the seat into the “D” column, one of nine seats the Democrats will need to flip in order to gain control of the 150-seat Texas House.
“She’s attracting Republicans who might not have voted for a Democrat in the past,” says Missy Bender, the regional advocacy director in Colin and Denton counties for the pro–public education nonprofit Raise Your Hand Texas.
The sharp partisan divide over education that’s playing out in Arizona is harder to see in Texas during this election cycle. That’s because Republican candidates who were perceived as hostile to public education already paid a price at the polls in 2018, a message lawmakers like Shaheen seem to have gotten loud and clear. At a recent candidate forum on public education, the GOP incumbent painted himself as an ardent supporter of local schools.
But Bender says that voters still haven’t forgotten the party’s hard-right pivot in 2017, led by Shaheen and his fellow Texas Freedom Caucus members. The caucus pushed culture war causes, including private school vouchers, anti-abortion measures, and a “bathroom bill,” restricting bathroom access by transgender Texans, even as a school funding crisis loomed.
“Those struggles over public education tilled the soil for GOP voters to begin supporting moderate Democrats,” says Bender. And with no straight-ticket voting allowed in 2020, she’s anticipating more defections.
Battle lines
In the waning days of the 2020 campaign season, Betsy DeVos returned to her home state of Michigan to deliver one of the most partisan speeches of her tenure as secretary of education. Participating in a forum on education at conservative Hillsdale College, DeVos painted a dark picture of public schools inducting children into socialism, teaching them “to believe not in themselves, but in government.” Public education, she warned, seeks to replace the home with the school building, the family with the state.
It was a message that Winnie Brinks, a Democratic Michigan state senator representing DeVos’s home turf of Grand Rapids, has been hearing for years. Brinks was first elected to the state House in 2012, winning in a district that had been gerrymandered to favor Republicans. She ran for Senate in 2018, flipping what had been a GOP seat in a decisive victory. Education has been her signature issue throughout her time in Lansing.
“The intense dislike of government, the hostility towards public schools, it’s nothing new, and a lot of it can be traced back to DeVos,” says Brinks.
But if the message has been constant, the audience has eroded. Grand Rapids and Kent County are in the midst of a demographic transformation as young professionals—educated and Democratic leaning—move in.
“Things are changing, and I’m really optimistic,” says Brinks.
On the other side of the state, Julia Pulver is feeling increasingly upbeat about her chances, despite running in a district that was drawn to favor the GOP. Back in 2010, blue-leaning West Bloomfield Township was sliced and diced, paired with the more conservative community of Commerce in an effort to create a safe Republican seat. But this is one of the rare parts of Michigan that’s growing, and new residents are younger and more diverse. “This community has changed and so have its values,” says Pulver. “People look at who has been representing them and they want to know ‘where are the solutions?’”
In states across the country, the GOP’s hard-right turn on public education is turning off voters. If Democrats succeed in taking back statehouses on November 3, education will be a major reason why.


thenation--2020-10-29--The World Is Burning, but the Political Press Insists It’s a Horse Race

This article is adapted from “ The Climate Beat , ” the weekly newsletter of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism initiative strengthening coverage of the climate story .
Last week , audiences watched the most substantive conversation on climate change to ever feature in a US presidential debate .
Moderator Kristen Welker , of NBC News , first asked the candidates what each would do to combat climate change while also supporting job growth—a welcome improvement on questions in the first presidential debate and vice presidential debate , which absurdly framed climate change as a matter of opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question about the disproportionate levels of pollution experienced by communities of color , the first environmental justice question to ever appear in a general election debate .
In response , Trump repeated falsehoods he ’ s deployed in the past—asserting , for example , that wind power is “ extremely expensive ” and inflating the cost of Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion climate plan by a factor of 50—while Biden called climate change an “ existential threat to humanity ” and detailed how he would invest public money to build a clean-energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pollution question , Trump rejected the premise , saying incorrectly that the communities she mentioned are paid for their trouble ; Biden , meanwhile , gave an informed description of the negative health outcomes that “ fenceline ” communities routinely face .
Despite the uneven back-and-forth , it was a refreshing , all-too-rare moment in US media coverage of the climate story : nearly 12 minutes , in prime time , during which journalism treated climate change as a serious , multidimensional subject worthy of public discourse .
And then what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material in its follow-up coverage ?
Fumbled it , mostly .
What Amy Coney Barrett Means For the Climate Journalists Must Demystify the Green New Deal More in this series Across the media , journalists fell back on horse-race framing that ignored science and made faulty assumptions , focusing especially on Biden ’ s pledge to “ transition from the oil industry ” to renewable energy .
Following Trump ’ s lead on stage , post-debate coverage portrayed Biden ’ s position as economically risky and a political liability .
Welker ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments “ could be costly in battleground states.
” The Washington Post wondered “ how politically damaging ” Biden ’ s comments were ; a second story called them “ a debate-night stumble.
” Even E & E News , an outlet that focuses exclusively on energy and the environment , asked , “ Will Biden ’ s end-oil pledge work magic for Trump ?
” Let ’ s get one thing straight : If humanity is to have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change , America , like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from fossil fuels .
That ’ s not politics—it ’ s science .
The United Nations climate science panel says humanity needs to cut emissions in half by 2030 , and reach net-zero emissions by 2050 , to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown .
Accordingly , a speedy transition away from fossil fuels has been central to all serious climate advocacy for years .
Such a transition , via heavy investments in clean energy , is central to the climate plan Biden put forward in July .
And yet—science be damned—most news outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make of the former vice president ’ s remarks .
Journalists quoted liberally from dubious sources echoing Trump ’ s claim that Biden ’ s plan would tank the economy , when the plan in fact promises to create millions of jobs .
At times , outlets lent further credibility to the attacks by dressing them up in their own strong language .
( Conservatives , Politico wrote , were “ accusing the Democratic nominee of being callous with the economy in his proposals for tackling climate change ” [ emphasis added ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emily Atkin observed in her newsletter Heated , the vast majority of coverage “ [ ignored ] the fact that Trump doesn ’ t have a climate plan at all.
” Of 30 stories that Atkin analyzed from mainstream outlets , all mentioned the potential consequences of strong climate action , but “ only five discussed the cost of doing nothing.
” The coverage ’ s negative framing was also remarkably ill-informed about public opinion .
Nearly 80 percent of Americans favor investments in alternative energy over fossil fuels , according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-thirds saying the government should do more to fight climate change .
In Pennsylvania specifically , where pundits have centered the “ post-debate political fallout ” narrative , perspectives have shifted against fossil fuels .
Recent polling shows residents overwhelmingly favor strong climate action ; moreover , a slight majority opposes fracking , which Trump and many in the media have framed as a wedge issue in this election , despite Biden ’ s repeated insistence that he does not intend to end the practice .
Tellingly , it was climate reporters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their audiences on these matters .
Referencing this year ’ s cascade of extreme weather events , Bill Weir , CNN ’ s chief climate correspondent , called out Trump ’ s “ insistence that the US remain reliant on fossil fuels , despite the overwhelming evidence that the hell and high water of 2020 is just the beginning.
” Alex Kaufman , at HuffPost , observed that “ Trump ’ s ongoing push to deregulate the oil and gas industry has actually cost jobs in regions badly hit by the sudden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic.
” By overlooking facts like these , the political press instead gave the climate discussion over almost entirely to right-wing talking points .
For decades , the press ’ s greatest failure when it came to climate change—beyond its indefensible silence—was casting the story primarily as a matter of partisan politics , when in fact climate change is a science story with political implications .
It ’ s clear many journalists have yet to kick the bad habit .
That ’ s a shame , because , broadly speaking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improved by leaps and bounds in recent years .
Major outlets including The Washington Post , CNN , and Time have issued truly landmark pieces of climate reporting ; The New York Times , Bloomberg , and , as of this month , The Atlantic , Der Spiegel , and El País have launched impressive new brands and climate sections ; and we at Covering Climate Now , a global collaboration led by The Guardian , The Nation , and Columbia Journalism Review , have worked with hundreds of news organizations at every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage .
Time is short , however .
This election , regardless of who wins , marks an opportunity for news outlets to recommit to the climate story , which will only become more important and all-encompassing in the years ahead .
To get the story right , newsroom leaders must encourage their journalists—not just climate reporters but reporters on every beat , as well as assignment editors , headline writers , copy staffs , and social media teams—to deepen their understanding of the climate crisis and its solutions and incorporate that knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the few days that remain before the election and in the months that will follow , journalists must ask themselves if they ’ re truly conveying the gravity of the climate crisis to their audiences , as well as all the challenges and opportunities it entails .
To do so means ditching the horse-race obsession and catching up with the facts .
It also means resisting partisan narratives and assumptions and insisting on the climate story as the matter of life and death .
It ’ s increasingly evident what makes good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , is whether journalists will deliver it .

This article is adapted from “The Climate Beat,” the weekly newsletter of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Last week, audiences watched the most substantive conversation on climate change to ever feature in a US presidential debate. Moderator Kristen Welker, of NBC News, first asked the candidates what each would do to combat climate change while also supporting job growth—a welcome improvement on questions in the first presidential debate and vice presidential debate, which absurdly framed climate change as a matter of opinion. Welker followed up with a sharp question about the disproportionate levels of pollution experienced by communities of color, the first environmental justice question to ever appear in a general election debate.
In response, Trump repeated falsehoods he’s deployed in the past—asserting, for example, that wind power is “extremely expensive” and inflating the cost of Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan by a factor of 50—while Biden called climate change an “existential threat to humanity” and detailed how he would invest public money to build a clean-energy economy and create jobs. On Welker’s pollution question, Trump rejected the premise, saying incorrectly that the communities she mentioned are paid for their trouble; Biden, meanwhile, gave an informed description of the negative health outcomes that “fenceline” communities routinely face. Despite the uneven back-and-forth, it was a refreshing, all-too-rare moment in US media coverage of the climate story: nearly 12 minutes, in prime time, during which journalism treated climate change as a serious, multidimensional subject worthy of public discourse.
And then what did the political press do with this material in its follow-up coverage? Fumbled it, mostly. Covering Climate Now How to Stop the Spread of Climate Disinformation Erika Seiber and Michael Khoo A Soundtrack for the Climate Emergency Mark Hertsgaard Can Gen Z Save the Midterms for Democrats? Mark Hertsgaard
Across the media, journalists fell back on horse-race framing that ignored science and made faulty assumptions, focusing especially on Biden’s pledge to “transition from the oil industry” to renewable energy. Following Trump’s lead on stage, post-debate coverage portrayed Biden’s position as economically risky and a political liability. Welker’s own NBC News suggested Biden’s comments “could be costly in battleground states.” The Washington Post wondered “how politically damaging” Biden’s comments were; a second story called them “a debate-night stumble.” Even E&E News, an outlet that focuses exclusively on energy and the environment, asked, “Will Biden’s end-oil pledge work magic for Trump?” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Let’s get one thing straight: If humanity is to have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change, America, like the rest of the world, must transition away from fossil fuels. That’s not politics—it’s science. The United Nations climate science panel says humanity needs to cut emissions in half by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions by 2050, to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Accordingly, a speedy transition away from fossil fuels has been central to all serious climate advocacy for years. Such a transition, via heavy investments in clean energy, is central to the climate plan Biden put forward in July.
And yet—science be damned—most news outlets fixated on the hay Republicans sought to make of the former vice president’s remarks. Journalists quoted liberally from dubious sources echoing Trump’s claim that Biden’s plan would tank the economy, when the plan in fact promises to create millions of jobs. At times, outlets lent further credibility to the attacks by dressing them up in their own strong language. (Conservatives, Politico wrote, were “accusing the Democratic nominee of being callous with the economy in his proposals for tackling climate change” [emphasis added].) Meanwhile, as climate journalist Emily Atkin observed in her newsletter Heated, the vast majority of coverage “[ignored] the fact that Trump doesn’t have a climate plan at all.” Of 30 stories that Atkin analyzed from mainstream outlets, all mentioned the potential consequences of strong climate action, but “only five discussed the cost of doing nothing.” Current Issue View our current issue
The coverage’s negative framing was also remarkably ill-informed about public opinion. Nearly 80 percent of Americans favor investments in alternative energy over fossil fuels, according to a 2020 poll by Pew Research, with two-thirds saying the government should do more to fight climate change. In Pennsylvania specifically, where pundits have centered the “post-debate political fallout” narrative, perspectives have shifted against fossil fuels. Recent polling shows residents overwhelmingly favor strong climate action; moreover, a slight majority opposes fracking, which Trump and many in the media have framed as a wedge issue in this election, despite Biden’s repeated insistence that he does not intend to end the practice.
Tellingly, it was climate reporters who cut through the political noise and leveled with their audiences on these matters. Referencing this year’s cascade of extreme weather events, Bill Weir, CNN’s chief climate correspondent, called out Trump’s “insistence that the US remain reliant on fossil fuels, despite the overwhelming evidence that the hell and high water of 2020 is just the beginning.” Alex Kaufman, at HuffPost, observed that “Trump’s ongoing push to deregulate the oil and gas industry has actually cost jobs in regions badly hit by the sudden plunge in oil prices at the start of the pandemic.” By overlooking facts like these, the political press instead gave the climate discussion over almost entirely to right-wing talking points.
For decades, the press’s greatest failure when it came to climate change—beyond its indefensible silence—was casting the story primarily as a matter of partisan politics, when in fact climate change is a science story with political implications. It’s clear many journalists have yet to kick the bad habit.
That’s a shame, because, broadly speaking, mainstream coverage of the climate story has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years. Major outlets including The Washington Post, CNN, and Time have issued truly landmark pieces of climate reporting; The New York Times, Bloomberg, and, as of this month, The Atlantic, Der Spiegel, and El País have launched impressive new brands and climate sections; and we at Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration led by The Guardian, The Nation, and Columbia Journalism Review, have worked with hundreds of news organizations at every level of the industry to strengthen their coverage.
Time is short, however. This election, regardless of who wins, marks an opportunity for news outlets to recommit to the climate story, which will only become more important and all-encompassing in the years ahead. To get the story right, newsroom leaders must encourage their journalists—not just climate reporters but reporters on every beat, as well as assignment editors, headline writers, copy staffs, and social media teams—to deepen their understanding of the climate crisis and its solutions and incorporate that knowledge into every facet of their work.
In the few days that remain before the election and in the months that will follow, journalists must ask themselves if they’re truly conveying the gravity of the climate crisis to their audiences, as well as all the challenges and opportunities it entails. To do so means ditching the horse-race obsession and catching up with the facts. It also means resisting partisan narratives and assumptions and insisting on the climate story as a matter of life and death. It’s increasingly evident what makes good climate coverage; the question, as ever, is whether journalists will deliver it.