thenation--2020-07-24--How Covid-19 Is Changing the Way We Work

In two weeks , my partner and I were supposed to leave San Francisco for Reno , Nev. , where we ’ d be spending the next three months focused on the 2020 presidential election .
As we did in 2018 , we ’ d be working with UNITE-HERE , the hospitality industry union , only this time on the campaign to drive Donald Trump from office .
Now , however , we ’ re not so sure we ought to go .
According to information prepared for the White House Coronavirus Task Force , Nevada is among the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it comes to both confirmed cases of , and positive tests for , Covid-19 .
I ’ m 68 .
My partner ’ s five years older , with a history of pneumonia .
We ’ re both active and fit ( when I ’ m not tripping over curbs ) , but our ages make us more likely , if we catch the coronavirus , to get seriously ill or even die .
That gives a person pause .
Then there ’ s the fact that Joe Biden seems to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least an eight-point lead in Nevada , according to the latest polls .
If things looked closer , I would cheerfully take some serious risks to dislodge that man in the White House .
But does it make sense to do so if Biden is already likely to win there ?
Or , to put it in coronavirus-speak , would our work be essential to dumping Trump ?
This minor personal conundrum got me thinking about how the pandemic has exposed certain deep and unexamined assumptions about the nature and value of work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics classes I teach undergraduates at a college here in San Francisco , we often talk about work .
Ethics is , after all , about how we ought to live our lives—and work , paid or unpaid , constitutes a big part of most of those lives .
Inevitably , the conversation comes around to compensation : How much do people deserve for different kinds of work ?
Students tend to measure fair compensation on two scales .
How many years of training and/or dollars of tuition did a worker have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the job ?
And how important is that worker ’ s labor to the rest of society ?
Even before the coronavirus hit , students would often settle on medical doctors as belonging at the top of either scale .
Physicians ’ work is the most important , they ’ d argue , because they keep us alive .
“ Hmm… , ” I ’ d say .
“ How many of you went to the doctor today ?
” Usually not a hand would be raised .
“ How many of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go up , as students looked around the room at one another .
“ Maybe , ” I ’ d suggest , “ a functioning society depends more on the farmworkers who plant and harvest food than on the doctors you normally might see for a checkup once a year .
Not to mention the people who process and pack what we eat.
” I ’ d also point out that the workers who pick or process our food are not really unskilled .
Their work , like a surgeon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements , honed through years of practice .
Sometimes , in these discussions , I ’ d propose a different metric for compensation : maybe we should reserve the highest pay for people whose jobs are both essential and dangerous .
Before the pandemic , that category would not have included many health care workers and certainly not most doctors .
Even then , however , it would have encompassed farmworkers and people laboring in meat processing plants .
As we ’ ve seen , in these months it is precisely such people—often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borne some of the worst risks of virus exposure at work .
By the end of April , when it was already clear that meatpacking plants were major sites of Covid-19 infection , the president invoked the Defense Production Act to keep them open anyway .
This not only meant that workers afraid to enter them could not file for unemployment payments , but that even if the owners of such dangerous workplaces wanted to shut them down , they were forbidden to do so .
By mid-June , more than 24,000 meat-packers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And just how much do these essential and deeply endangered workers earn ?
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics , about $ 28,450 a year—better than minimum wage , that is , but hardly living high on the hog ( even when that ’ s what they ’ re handling ) .
You might think that farmworkers would be more protected from the virus than meat-packers , perhaps because they work outdoors .
But as The New York Times has reported : “ Fruit and vegetable pickers toil close to each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and sleep in cramped apartments or trailers with other laborers or several generations of their families.
” Not surprisingly , then , the coronavirus has , as the Times report puts it , “ ravaged ” migrant farm worker communities in Florida and is starting to do the same across the country all the way to eastern Oregon .
Those workers , who risk their lives through exposure not only to a pandemic but to more ordinary dangers like herbicides and pesticides so we can eat , make even less than meatpackers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year .
When the president uses the Defense Production Act to ensure that food workers remain in their jobs , it reveals just how important their labor truly is to the rest of us .
Similarly , as shutdown orders have kept home those who can afford to stay in , or who have no choice because they no longer have jobs to go to , the pandemic has revealed the crucial nature of the labor of a large group of workers already at home ( or in other people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who care for children and those who look after older people and people with disabilities who need the assistance of health aides .
This work , historically done by women , has generally been unpaid when the worker is a family member and poorly paid when done by a professional .
Childcare workers , for example , earn less than $ 24,000 a year on average ; home health care aides , just over that amount .
Speaking of women ’ s work , I suspect that the coronavirus and the attendant economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lives in ways that will last at least a generation , if not beyond .
Middle-class feminists of the 1970s came of age in a United States where it was expected that they would marry and spend their days caring for a house , a husband , and their children .
Men were the makers .
Women were the “ homemakers.
” Their work was considered—even by Marxist economists— “ non-productive , ” because it did not seem to contribute to the real economy , the place where myriad widgets are produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seldom recognized how essential this unpaid labor in the realm of social reproduction was to a functioning economy .
Without it , paid workers would not have been fed , cared for , and emotionally repaired so that they could return to another day of widget-making .
Future workers would not be socialized for a life of production or reproduction , as their gender dictated .
Today , with so many women in the paid workforce , much of this work of social reproduction has been outsourced by those who can afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care aides , house cleaners , or the workers who measure and pack the ingredients for meal kits to be prepared by other working women when they get home .
We didn ’ t know it at the time , but the post–World War II period , when boomers like me grew up , was unique in US history .
For a brief quarter-century , even working-class families could aspire to an arrangement in which men went to work and women kept house .
A combination of strong unions , a post-war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum wage kept salaries high enough to support families with only one adult in the paid labor force .
Returning soldiers went to college and bought houses through the 1944 Servicemen ’ s Readjustment Act , also known as the GI Bill .
New Deal programs like social security and unemployment insurance helped pad out home economies .
By the mid-1970s , however , this golden age for men , if not women , was fading .
( Of course , for many African Americans and other marginalized groups , it had always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gold . )
Real wages stagnated and began their long , steady decline .
Today ’ s federal minimum wage , at $ 7.25 per hour , has remained unchanged since 2009 ( something that can hardly be said about the wealth of the 1 percent ) .
Far from supporting a family of four , in most parts of the country , it won ’ t even keep a single person afloat .
Elected president in 1980 , Ronald Reagan announced in his first inaugural address , “ Government is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the problem.
” He then set about dismantling President Lyndon Johnson ’ s War on Poverty programs , attacking the unions that had been the underpinning for white working-class prosperity , and generally starving the beast of government .
We ’ re still living with the legacies of that credo in , for example , the housing crisis he first touched off by deregulating savings and loan institutions and disempowering the Department of Housing and Urban Development .
It ’ s no accident that , just as real wages were falling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virtues of paid work for women—at least if those women had children and no husband .
Aid to Families with Dependent Children ( “ welfare ” ) was another New Deal program , originally designed to provide cash assistance to widowed women raising kids on their own at a time when little paid employment was available to white women .
In the 1960s , groups like the National Welfare Rights Organization began advocating that similar benefits be extended to Black women raising children .
( As a welfare rights advocate once asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a woman to look to a man to help her children , but not to The Man ?
” ) Not surprisingly , it wasn ’ t until Black and Latina women began receiving the same entitlements as their white sisters that welfare became a “ problem ” in need of “ reform.
” By the mid-1990s , the fact that some Black women were receiving money from the government while not doing paid labor for an employer had been successfully reframed as a national crisis .
Under Democratic President Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 , a bill that then was called “ welfare reform.
” After that , if women wanted help from The Man , they had to work for it—not by taking care of their own children , but by taking care of their children and holding down minimum-wage jobs .
Are the Kids All Right ?
It ’ s more than a little ironic , then , that the granddaughters of feminists who argued that women should have a choice about whether or not to pursue a career came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least ones not from wealthy families , had little choice about working for pay .
The pandemic may change that , however—and not in a good way .
One of the unfulfilled demands of liberal 1970s feminism was universal free child care .
An impossible dream , right ?
How could any country afford such a thing ?
Wait a minute , though .
What about Sweden ?
They have universal free child care .
That ’ s why a Swedish friend of mine , a human rights lawyer , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tenure track university job in San Francisco , chose to take their two children back to Sweden .
Raising children is so much easier there .
In the early days of second-wave feminism , some big employers even built daycare centers for their employees with children .
Those days , sadly , are long gone .
Now , in the Covid-19 moment , employers are beginning to recognize the non-pandemic benefits of having employees work at home .
( Why not make workers provide their own office furniture ?
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re working at home .
And why pay rent on all that real estate when so many fewer people are in the office ? )
While companies will profit from reduced infrastructure costs and in some cases possibly even reduced pay for employees who relocate to cheaper areas , workers with children are going to face a dilemma .
With no child care available in the foreseeable future and school reopenings dicey propositions ( no matter what the president threatens ) , someone is going to have to watch the kids .
Someone—probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person who is already earning less—is going to be under pressure to reduce or give up paid labor to do the age-old unpaid ( but essential ) work of raising the next generation .
I wonder who that someone is going to be and , without those paychecks , I also wonder how much families are going to suffer economically in increasingly tough times .
Recently , in yet another Zoom meeting , a fellow university instructor ( who ’ d just been interrupted to help a child find a crucial toy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to squeeze concessions out of faculty and staff .
I was startled to hear her add , “ Of course , I ’ m grateful they gave me the job.
” This got me thinking about jobs and gratitude—and which direction thankfulness ought to flow .
It seems to me that the pandemic and the epidemic of unemployment following in its wake have reinforced a common but false belief shared by many workers : the idea that we should be grateful to our employers for giving us jobs .
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great men behind them are Job Creators .
From the fountain of their beneficence flows the dignity of work and all the benefits a job confers .
Indeed , as this fairy tale goes , businesses don ’ t primarily produce widgets or apps or even returns for shareholders .
Their real product is jobs .
Like many of capitalism ’ s lies , the idea that workers should thank their employers reverses the real story : Without workers , there would be no apps , no widgets , no shareholder returns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ skill , our diligence that gives work its dignity .
It may be an old saying , but no less true for that : Labor creates all wealth .
Wealth does not create anything—neither widgets , nor jobs .
I ’ m grateful to the universe that I have work that allows me to talk with young people about their deepest values at a moment in their lives when they ’ re just figuring out what they value , but I am not grateful to my university employer for my underpaid , undervalued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other direction .
Without faculty , staff , and students there would be no university .
It ’ s our labor that creates wealth , in this case a ( minor ) wealth of knowledge .
As of July 16th , in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis , 32 million Americans are receiving some kind of unemployment benefit .
That number doesn ’ t even reflect the people involuntarily working reduced hours , or those who haven ’ t been able to apply for benefits .
One thing is easy enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people ’ s desperate need for money to demand ever more labor for ever less pay .
Until an effective vaccine for the coronavirus becomes available , expect to see the emergence of a three-tier system of worker immiseration : low-paid essential workers who must leave home to do their jobs , putting themselves in significant danger in the process , while we all depend on them for sustenance ; better paid people who toil at home , but whose employers will expect their hours of availability to expand to fill the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic laborers , most of them women , who keep everyone else fed , clothed , and comforted .
Even when the pandemic finally ends , there ’ s a danger that some modified version of this new system of labor exploitation might prove too profitable for employers to abandon .
On the other hand , hitting the national pause button , however painfully , could give the rest of us a chance to rethink a lot of things , including the place of work , paid and unpaid , in our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I head for Reno in a couple of weeks ?
Certainly , the job of ousting Donald Trump is essential .
I ’ m just not sure that a couple of old white ladies are essential workers in the time of Covid-19 .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy. This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
In two weeks, my partner and I were supposed to leave San Francisco for Reno, Nev., where we’d be spending the next three months focused on the 2020 presidential election. As we did in 2018, we’d be working with UNITE-HERE, the hospitality industry union, only this time on the campaign to drive Donald Trump from office.
Now, however, we’re not so sure we ought to go. According to information prepared for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Nevada is among the states in the “red zone” when it comes to both confirmed cases of, and positive tests for, Covid-19. I’m 68. My partner’s five years older, with a history of pneumonia. We’re both active and fit (when I’m not tripping over curbs), but our ages make us more likely, if we catch the coronavirus, to get seriously ill or even die. That gives a person pause.
Then there’s the fact that Joe Biden seems to have a double-digit lead over Trump nationally and at least an eight-point lead in Nevada, according to the latest polls. If things looked closer, I would cheerfully take some serious risks to dislodge that man in the White House. But does it make sense to do so if Biden is already likely to win there? Or, to put it in coronavirus-speak, would our work be essential to dumping Trump?
Essential Work?
This minor personal conundrum got me thinking about how the pandemic has exposed certain deep and unexamined assumptions about the nature and value of work in the United States.
In the ethics classes I teach undergraduates at a college here in San Francisco, we often talk about work. Ethics is, after all, about how we ought to live our lives—and work, paid or unpaid, constitutes a big part of most of those lives. Inevitably, the conversation comes around to compensation: How much do people deserve for different kinds of work? Students tend to measure fair compensation on two scales. How many years of training and/or dollars of tuition did a worker have to invest to become “qualified” for the job? And how important is that worker’s labor to the rest of society?
Even before the coronavirus hit, students would often settle on medical doctors as belonging at the top of either scale. Physicians’ work is the most important, they’d argue, because they keep us alive. “Hmm…,” I’d say. “How many of you went to the doctor today?” Usually not a hand would be raised. “How many of you ate something today?” All hands would go up, as students looked around the room at one another. “Maybe,” I’d suggest, “a functioning society depends more on the farmworkers who plant and harvest food than on the doctors you normally might see for a checkup once a year. Not to mention the people who process and pack what we eat.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
I’d also point out that the workers who pick or process our food are not really unskilled. Their work, like a surgeon’s, depends on deft, quick hand movements, honed through years of practice. Current Issue View our current issue
Sometimes, in these discussions, I’d propose a different metric for compensation: maybe we should reserve the highest pay for people whose jobs are both essential and dangerous. Before the pandemic, that category would not have included many health care workers and certainly not most doctors. Even then, however, it would have encompassed farmworkers and people laboring in meat processing plants. As we’ve seen, in these months it is precisely such people—often immigrants, documented or otherwise—who have also borne some of the worst risks of virus exposure at work.
By the end of April, when it was already clear that meatpacking plants were major sites of Covid-19 infection, the president invoked the Defense Production Act to keep them open anyway. This not only meant that workers afraid to enter them could not file for unemployment payments, but that even if the owners of such dangerous workplaces wanted to shut them down, they were forbidden to do so. By mid-June, more than 24,000 meat-packers had tested positive for the virus. And just how much do these essential and deeply endangered workers earn? According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, about $28,450 a year—better than minimum wage, that is, but hardly living high on the hog (even when that’s what they’re handling).
You might think that farmworkers would be more protected from the virus than meat-packers, perhaps because they work outdoors. But as The New York Times has reported: “Fruit and vegetable pickers toil close to each other in fields, ride buses shoulder-to-shoulder, and sleep in cramped apartments or trailers with other laborers or several generations of their families.”
Not surprisingly, then, the coronavirus has, as the Times report puts it, “ravaged” migrant farm worker communities in Florida and is starting to do the same across the country all the way to eastern Oregon. Those workers, who risk their lives through exposure not only to a pandemic but to more ordinary dangers like herbicides and pesticides so we can eat, make even less than meatpackers: on average, under $26,000 a year.
When the president uses the Defense Production Act to ensure that food workers remain in their jobs, it reveals just how important their labor truly is to the rest of us. Similarly, as shutdown orders have kept home those who can afford to stay in, or who have no choice because they no longer have jobs to go to, the pandemic has revealed the crucial nature of the labor of a large group of workers already at home (or in other people’s homes or eldercare facilities): those who care for children and those who look after older people and people with disabilities who need the assistance of health aides.
This work, historically done by women, has generally been unpaid when the worker is a family member and poorly paid when done by a professional. Childcare workers, for example, earn less than $24,000 a year on average; home health care aides, just over that amount.
Women’s Work
Speaking of women’s work, I suspect that the coronavirus and the attendant economic crisis are likely to affect women’s lives in ways that will last at least a generation, if not beyond.
Middle-class feminists of the 1970s came of age in a United States where it was expected that they would marry and spend their days caring for a house, a husband, and their children. Men were the makers. Women were the “homemakers.” Their work was considered—even by Marxist economists—“non-productive,” because it did not seem to contribute to the real economy, the place where myriad widgets are produced, transported, and sold. It was seldom recognized how essential this unpaid labor in the realm of social reproduction was to a functioning economy. Without it, paid workers would not have been fed, cared for, and emotionally repaired so that they could return to another day of widget-making. Future workers would not be socialized for a life of production or reproduction, as their gender dictated.
Today, with so many women in the paid workforce, much of this work of social reproduction has been outsourced by those who can afford it to nannies, day-care workers, health care aides, house cleaners, or the workers who measure and pack the ingredients for meal kits to be prepared by other working women when they get home.
We didn’t know it at the time, but the post–World War II period, when boomers like me grew up, was unique in US history. For a brief quarter-century, even working-class families could aspire to an arrangement in which men went to work and women kept house. A combination of strong unions, a post-war economic boom, and a so-called breadwinner minimum wage kept salaries high enough to support families with only one adult in the paid labor force. Returning soldiers went to college and bought houses through the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, also known as the GI Bill. New Deal programs like social security and unemployment insurance helped pad out home economies.
By the mid-1970s, however, this golden age for men, if not women, was fading. (Of course, for many African Americans and other marginalized groups, it had always only been an age of fool’s gold.) Real wages stagnated and began their long, steady decline. Today’s federal minimum wage, at $7.25 per hour, has remained unchanged since 2009 (something that can hardly be said about the wealth of the 1 percent). Far from supporting a family of four, in most parts of the country, it won’t even keep a single person afloat.
Elected president in 1980, Ronald Reagan announced in his first inaugural address, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” He then set about dismantling President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty programs, attacking the unions that had been the underpinning for white working-class prosperity, and generally starving the beast of government. We’re still living with the legacies of that credo in, for example, the housing crisis he first touched off by deregulating savings and loan institutions and disempowering the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
It’s no accident that, just as real wages were falling, presidential administrations of both parties began touting the virtues of paid work for women—at least if those women had children and no husband. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“welfare”) was another New Deal program, originally designed to provide cash assistance to widowed women raising kids on their own at a time when little paid employment was available to white women.
In the 1960s, groups like the National Welfare Rights Organization began advocating that similar benefits be extended to Black women raising children. (As a welfare rights advocate once asked me, “Why is it fine for a woman to look to a man to help her children, but not to The Man?”) Not surprisingly, it wasn’t until Black and Latina women began receiving the same entitlements as their white sisters that welfare became a “problem” in need of “reform.”
By the mid-1990s, the fact that some Black women were receiving money from the government while not doing paid labor for an employer had been successfully reframed as a national crisis. Under Democratic President Bill Clinton, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, a bill that then was called “welfare reform.” After that, if women wanted help from The Man, they had to work for it—not by taking care of their own children, but by taking care of their children and holding down minimum-wage jobs.
Are the Kids All Right?
It’s more than a little ironic, then, that the granddaughters of feminists who argued that women should have a choice about whether or not to pursue a career came to confront an economy in which women, at least ones not from wealthy families, had little choice about working for pay.
The pandemic may change that, however—and not in a good way. One of the unfulfilled demands of liberal 1970s feminism was universal free child care. An impossible dream, right? How could any country afford such a thing?
Wait a minute, though. What about Sweden? They have universal free child care. That’s why a Swedish friend of mine, a human rights lawyer, and her American husband who had a rare tenure track university job in San Francisco, chose to take their two children back to Sweden. Raising children is so much easier there. In the early days of second-wave feminism, some big employers even built daycare centers for their employees with children. Those days, sadly, are long gone.
Now, in the Covid-19 moment, employers are beginning to recognize the non-pandemic benefits of having employees work at home. (Why not make workers provide their own office furniture? It’s a lot easier to justify if they’re working at home. And why pay rent on all that real estate when so many fewer people are in the office?) While companies will profit from reduced infrastructure costs and in some cases possibly even reduced pay for employees who relocate to cheaper areas, workers with children are going to face a dilemma. With no child care available in the foreseeable future and school reopenings dicey propositions (no matter what the president threatens), someone is going to have to watch the kids. Someone—probably in the case of heterosexual couples, the person who is already earning less—is going to be under pressure to reduce or give up paid labor to do the age-old unpaid (but essential) work of raising the next generation. I wonder who that someone is going to be and, without those paychecks, I also wonder how much families are going to suffer economically in increasingly tough times.
Grateful to Have a Job?
Recently, in yet another Zoom meeting, a fellow university instructor (who’d just been interrupted to help a child find a crucial toy) was discussing the administration’s efforts to squeeze concessions out of faculty and staff. I was startled to hear her add, “Of course, I’m grateful they gave me the job.” This got me thinking about jobs and gratitude—and which direction thankfulness ought to flow. It seems to me that the pandemic and the epidemic of unemployment following in its wake have reinforced a common but false belief shared by many workers: the idea that we should be grateful to our employers for giving us jobs.
We’re so often told that corporations and the great men behind them are Job Creators. From the fountain of their beneficence flows the dignity of work and all the benefits a job confers. Indeed, as this fairy tale goes, businesses don’t primarily produce widgets or apps or even returns for shareholders. Their real product is jobs. Like many of capitalism’s lies, the idea that workers should thank their employers reverses the real story: Without workers, there would be no apps, no widgets, no shareholder returns. It’s our effort, our skill, our diligence that gives work its dignity. It may be an old saying, but no less true for that: Labor creates all wealth. Wealth does not create anything—neither widgets, nor jobs.
I’m grateful to the universe that I have work that allows me to talk with young people about their deepest values at a moment in their lives when they’re just figuring out what they value, but I am not grateful to my university employer for my underpaid, undervalued job. The gratitude should run in the other direction. Without faculty, staff, and students there would be no university. It’s our labor that creates wealth, in this case a (minor) wealth of knowledge.
As of July 16th, in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis, 32 million Americans are receiving some kind of unemployment benefit. That number doesn’t even reflect the people involuntarily working reduced hours, or those who haven’t been able to apply for benefits. One thing is easy enough to predict: Employers will take advantage of people’s desperate need for money to demand ever more labor for ever less pay. Until an effective vaccine for the coronavirus becomes available, expect to see the emergence of a three-tier system of worker immiseration: low-paid essential workers who must leave home to do their jobs, putting themselves in significant danger in the process, while we all depend on them for sustenance; better paid people who toil at home, but whose employers will expect their hours of availability to expand to fill the waking day; and low-paid or unpaid domestic laborers, most of them women, who keep everyone else fed, clothed, and comforted.
Even when the pandemic finally ends, there’s a danger that some modified version of this new system of labor exploitation might prove too profitable for employers to abandon. On the other hand, hitting the national pause button, however painfully, could give the rest of us a chance to rethink a lot of things, including the place of work, paid and unpaid, in our lives.
So, will my partner and I head for Reno in a couple of weeks? Certainly, the job of ousting Donald Trump is essential. I’m just not sure that a couple of old white ladies are essential workers in the time of Covid-19.


thenation--2020-07-24--Donald Trump Wants a Fight on the Green New Deal. So Do We.

At the 2019 Republican Retreat , Donald Trump promised his allies that he would make this election about climate change : “ I want to bring them way down the pike , ” he said , “ before we start criticizing the Green New Deal.
” At his Tulsa rally in June , and in many of the campaign “ speeches ” he ’ s given since then , the president ’ s long riff on the climate proved he hasn ’ t forgotten the promise he made to Republicans .
Trump ’ s obsession with the Green New Deal—from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that windmills cause cancer , to his nonsense about cows and hamburgers , to his racist and misogynistic ramblings about Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who introduced the Green New Deal Resolution—is much more central to his reelection effort than it appears at first glance .
For whatever reason , Trump has decided that the Green New Deal—a proposal to save our country from environmental and economic disaster—is going to be his main electoral punching bag in the 2020 campaign .
If that ’ s the fight he wants to pick , we say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling shows the Democratic Party should welcome the fight , too .
Trump and the GOP appear poised to spend the election attacking Joe Biden ’ s plan to create millions of high-paying jobs by falsely arguing that it will cost $ 100 trillion , and destroy all the cows , cars , and airplanes .
The goal of these absurd lies is to distract us from the truth : He and his party have no plan to address the climate crisis aside from further lining the pockets of oil and gas executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action .
New polling from Climate Power 2020 finds 71 percent favor bold government action on climate change , while only 18 percent oppose it .
And talking about climate moves votes for Democrats .
When presented as a choice between a Democratic congressional candidate in favor of bold climate action and an anti-action Republican , the vote moves 14 points in the Democrat ’ s favor .
This jump is even bigger—21 points—for centrist Republican and Democratic voters .
These numbers are astronomical , and they make clear that running aggressively on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest political opportunity this election .
Trump ’ s record on climate is damning .
He put oil and coal lobbyists in charge of protecting our environment—and they immediately went to work rolling back over 100 environmental safeguards , allowing corporate polluters to pump more toxic pollution and chemicals into our air and water .
So that companies like Chevron can keep making billions in profits and pay zero in federal taxes , he ’ s waged a war on our clean energy industry that ’ s cost our economy over 1.1 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health impacts and extreme weather disasters , all because Trump spent four years allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to dictate his every move on the climate , clean energy , and the environment .
Trump is picking this fight because he thinks he can convince voters that bold climate action is a threat , not a necessity .
But hyperbolic attacks don ’ t work .
Polling shows the American people see it for what it is : another distraction from the same guy who ’ s called both climate change and the novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audacity to claim that thousands of Americans did not die under his watch in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria , and who never listens to scientists , experts—or even his own military leaders at the Pentagon , which have recognized climate change as a national security threat for years .
But here ’ s the deal : Running boldly on tackling the climate crisis , running on a Green New Deal , these are policies that can be popular in all 50 states .
Democrats should run toward , not away from these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we loudly make the case for bold climate action , we will win .
John ’ s gray hair is a testament to our 44-year difference in age .
Those familiar with each of us may not think we have a lot in common .
One of us chaired Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign , and one of us was Bernie Sanders ’ s leading climate surrogate in 2020 .
But we ’ re both clear : We ’ ve never seen our country so eager to elect leaders who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
Neither have we ever known a country in such dire need of such bold action .
In a moment of historic unemployment , Democrats want to put millions of people back to work now by investing in bold climate action that would create millions of clean energy jobs and begin to repair decades of environmental injustice .
That ’ s what the American people want too .
By 23 points , voters support investing trillions of dollars in clean energy infrastructure .
We have paid an inconceivable price for Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a crisis .
But as Americans claw out of unemployment , as folks scrape together the money to properly honor the lives they have lost , we have become unified by our acute fear of living through another crisis of this scale .
The climate crisis is the crisis we fear .
Trump wants to fight about it .
That ’ s good .
So do we .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
At the 2019 Republican Retreat, Donald Trump promised his allies that he would make this election about climate change: “I want to bring them way down the pike,” he said, “before we start criticizing the Green New Deal.”
At his Tulsa rally in June, and in many of the campaign “speeches” he’s given since then, the president’s long riff on the climate proved he hasn’t forgotten the promise he made to Republicans. Trump’s obsession with the Green New Deal—from his fixation on the completely debunked notion that windmills cause cancer, to his nonsense about cows and hamburgers, to his racist and misogynistic ramblings about Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced the Green New Deal Resolution—is much more central to his reelection effort than it appears at first glance.
For whatever reason, Trump has decided that the Green New Deal—a proposal to save our country from environmental and economic disaster—is going to be his main electoral punching bag in the 2020 campaign.
If that’s the fight he wants to pick, we say: Bring it on. And new polling shows the Democratic Party should welcome the fight, too. Climate Action Climate Change Is a Political—Not Partisan—Story Andrew McCormick
Trump and the GOP appear poised to spend the election attacking Joe Biden’s plan to create millions of high-paying jobs by falsely arguing that it will cost $100 trillion, and destroy all the cows, cars, and airplanes. The goal of these absurd lies is to distract us from the truth: He and his party have no plan to address the climate crisis aside from further lining the pockets of oil and gas executives. But the American people want climate action.
New polling from Climate Power 2020 finds 71 percent favor bold government action on climate change, while only 18 percent oppose it. And talking about climate moves votes for Democrats. When presented as a choice between a Democratic congressional candidate in favor of bold climate action and an anti-action Republican, the vote moves 14 points in the Democrat’s favor. This jump is even bigger—21 points—for centrist Republican and Democratic voters. These numbers are astronomical, and they make clear that running aggressively on climate is the Democratic Party’s biggest political opportunity this election.
Trump’s record on climate is damning. He put oil and coal lobbyists in charge of protecting our environment—and they immediately went to work rolling back over 100 environmental safeguards, allowing corporate polluters to pump more toxic pollution and chemicals into our air and water. So that companies like Chevron can keep making billions in profits and pay zero in federal taxes, he’s waged a war on our clean energy industry that’s cost our economy over 1.1 million jobs. Future generations will face devastating health impacts and extreme weather disasters, all because Trump spent four years allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to dictate his every move on the climate, clean energy, and the environment. Current Issue View our current issue
Trump is picking this fight because he thinks he can convince voters that bold climate action is a threat, not a necessity. But hyperbolic attacks don’t work. Polling shows the American people see it for what it is: another distraction from the same guy who’s called both climate change and the novel coronavirus a hoax, who had the audacity to claim that thousands of Americans did not die under his watch in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, and who never listens to scientists, experts—or even his own military leaders at the Pentagon, which have recognized climate change as a national security threat for years.
But here’s the deal: Running boldly on tackling the climate crisis, running on a Green New Deal, these are policies that can be popular in all 50 states. Democrats should run toward, not away from these fights. The evidence is clear: If we loudly make the case for bold climate action, we will win.
John’s gray hair is a testament to our 44-year difference in age. Those familiar with each of us may not think we have a lot in common. One of us chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and one of us was Bernie Sanders’s leading climate surrogate in 2020. But we’re both clear: We’ve never seen our country so eager to elect leaders who will take bold action to stop the climate crisis.
Neither have we ever known a country in such dire need of such bold action. In a moment of historic unemployment, Democrats want to put millions of people back to work now by investing in bold climate action that would create millions of clean energy jobs and begin to repair decades of environmental injustice. That’s what the American people want too. By 23 points, voters support investing trillions of dollars in clean energy infrastructure.
We have paid an inconceivable price for Trump’s refusal to heed experts and science in a crisis. But as Americans claw out of unemployment, as folks scrape together the money to properly honor the lives they have lost, we have become unified by our acute fear of living through another crisis of this scale.
The climate crisis is the crisis we fear. Trump wants to fight about it. That’s good. So do we.


thenation--2020-07-24--Why Are Mayors Inviting Trump’s Federal Agents Into Their Cities?

There has been significant outcry over Donald Trump ’ s decision to deploy federal law enforcement to Portland to quell protests there .
Now , Trump has announced that he is ramping up Operation Legend , which will send hundreds of federal law enforcement officers to Chicago , Kansas City , Albuquerque , and possibly other major cities , including New York and Philadelphia , to deal with increases in shootings .
These initiatives have spurred some protest from officials in Portland and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner , as well as calls from members of Congress to significantly curtail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of these conversations is the Trump administration ’ s existing plan to flood seven cities with additional federal and local police as part of Operation Relentless Pursuit ( ORP ) .
On May 12 , the Justice Department began releasing funds to support ORP .
Cooked up by Attorney General William Barr in 2019 , OPR is intended to be the Trump administration ’ s signature crime initiative going into the November election .
It calls for the creation of federal-local task forces to combat violence and drugs .
The focus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and violent gangs .
It has already distributed $ 61 million in funding for local police in Baltimore , Albuquerque , Detroit , Cleveland , Kansas City , Memphis , and Milwaukee .
In each case , local Democratic mayors have authorized their police departments to work with federal law enforcement , including the DEA , ATF , FBI , and US Marshals , to conduct investigations and apprehend suspects in cooperation with the local US Attorney ’ s office .
These types of task forces are not new and have a track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more criminalization , with little to show in the way of reductions in crime .
In 2001 , a similar initiative , dubbed Operation Fly Trap , targeted gangs and drug dealers in Los Angeles .
After almost two years and the involvement of dozens of law enforcement entities , dozens of arrests were made utilizing wire taps and testimony coerced by the threat of decades-long prison sentences .
Criminologist Susan A. Philips found that the operation had mostly targeted low-level drug dealers , none of whom were actual gang members .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and did nothing to interrupt the availability of drugs in the community .
In April of 2016 , as part of Operation Crew Cut , the NYPD , in conjunction with numerous federal agencies , arrested 120 young people in the Bronx who were accused of being “ the worst of the worst ” criminals in the city .
US Attorney Preet Bharara oversaw the use of far-reaching RICO conspiracy charges against the defendants , claiming that they were all guilty of serious violence because they were members of gangs that functioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , any violence by anyone in the gang was in furtherance of the gang ’ s interests , making each member legally culpable .
An analysis of the cases by law professor Babe Howell found that in fact only half of the defendants were ever accused of being in a gang , over 90 percent were so poor they qualified for a public defender , and ultimately half the defendants were only charged with marijuana-related offenses .
Among the law enforcement entities to be included in ORP is the US Marshal ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct in the suppression of the protests in Portland .
Marshals clad in full camouflage combat gear fired a “ less than lethal ” munition directly at the face of a protester , causing serious injury ; have brandished firearms at demonstrators ; and have rounded up protesters without probable cause while refusing to identify themselves , state where people are being taken , or even what agency they work for .
This latter tactic of detain-and-release is clearly unconstitutional and smacks of the politically motivated “ disappearances ” seen in Latin American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration initiated ORP and Operation Legend .
It wants to use a tough-on-crime agenda to define the problems of urban America as stemming from “ drug cartels , ” “ gang bangers , ” and “ antifa , ” three of Trump ’ s favorite bogeymen .
By doing so , Trump deflects any federal responsibility for the conditions of these cities .
The failure of federal policies to provide basic housing , economic development , health care , family supports , or social services are irrelevant when the problem is portrayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will respond only to increasingly intensive and invasive policing and mass incarceration .
The bigger question is why big-city Democratic mayors are embracing Trump ’ s tough-on-crime reelection strategy .
Each of these cities applied to be part of ORP ; the Justice Department did not unilaterally impose it on them .
But by embracing this initiative , these mayors are buying into the rhetorical strategy that Trump is pushing , which is that only more policing can solve the problems these big cities face .
Too often , local mayors have given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with long-standing problems of chronic joblessness , failed schools , inadequate housing , and the absence of decent medical care in their poorest communities and have instead focused on the resulting disorder and violence as issues to be dealt with through criminalization .
And the federal government , which once provided significant resources to help address these issues , now targets most of its funding toward policing and , by extension , criminalization .
As a result , mayors too often turn to federal law enforcement as a possible savior .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their almost total lack of local or even federal accountability .
Cities like Albuquerque , Atlanta , St. Paul , San Francisco , and Portland have all pulled out of federal-local task forces in the past because federal agents have violated local rules regarding racial profiling , use-of-force policies , and requirements to wear body cameras .
The National Network for Justice has been coordinating local resistance to ORP .
It recently held a national webinar featuring local activists from the ORP-targeted cities of Baltimore , Cleveland , and Memphis .
Organizing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These local organizers want more federal resources for youth employment , community-based violence reduction programs , and better schools , not more money for local police and more federal agents rounding up young people in their communities .
“ Operation Relentless Pursuit will have a devastating effect in Detroit , ” local organizer Tawana Petty told me .
“ We do have a high-crime situation , but we also have an underserved population that has suffered severe disinvestment for decades .
Almost 50 percent of our workers have lost their jobs during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was under $ 29,000 before Covid-19 .
Our community is already over-policed , over-profiled , and over-surveilled .
We need to move resources into medical care , into jobs , into clean water and food for our families.
” The Only Solution Is to Defund the Police On July 15 , the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issued a letter signed by over 75 civil rights organizations calling on Congress to block funding for ORP .
The Breath Act drafted by Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib , in conjunction with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defunding of the Community Oriented Police Services ( COPS ) office , which administers ORP , and the People ’ s Coalition for Safety and Freedom has also initiated a national effort to defund the COPS office , pointing out its role in overseeing ORP as well as numerous other efforts to flood cities with more police .
The Trump administration , desperate to divert attention from its abject failure of urban policy , thinks the road to reelection is paved with more policing and mass incarceration .
The question remains , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
There has been significant outcry over Donald Trump’s decision to deploy federal law enforcement to Portland to quell protests there. Now, Trump has announced that he is ramping up Operation Legend, which will send hundreds of federal law enforcement officers to Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, and possibly other major cities, including New York and Philadelphia, to deal with increases in shootings. These initiatives have spurred some protest from officials in Portland and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, as well as calls from members of Congress to significantly curtail such interventions. What has been left out of these conversations is the Trump administration’s existing plan to flood seven cities with additional federal and local police as part of Operation Relentless Pursuit (ORP).
On May 12, the Justice Department began releasing funds to support ORP. Cooked up by Attorney General William Barr in 2019, OPR is intended to be the Trump administration’s signature crime initiative going into the November election. It calls for the creation of federal-local task forces to combat violence and drugs. The focus is on building federal cases against drug cartels and violent gangs. It has already distributed $61 million in funding for local police in Baltimore, Albuquerque, Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas City, Memphis, and Milwaukee. In each case, local Democratic mayors have authorized their police departments to work with federal law enforcement, including the DEA, ATF, FBI, and US Marshals, to conduct investigations and apprehend suspects in cooperation with the local US Attorney’s office.
These types of task forces are not new and have a track record of abusive tactics that lead to more criminalization, with little to show in the way of reductions in crime. In 2001, a similar initiative, dubbed Operation Fly Trap, targeted gangs and drug dealers in Los Angeles. After almost two years and the involvement of dozens of law enforcement entities, dozens of arrests were made utilizing wire taps and testimony coerced by the threat of decades-long prison sentences. Criminologist Susan A. Philips found that the operation had mostly targeted low-level drug dealers, none of whom were actual gang members. In the process, these arrests significantly destabilized families and did nothing to interrupt the availability of drugs in the community.
In April of 2016, as part of Operation Crew Cut, the NYPD, in conjunction with numerous federal agencies, arrested 120 young people in the Bronx who were accused of being “the worst of the worst” criminals in the city. US Attorney Preet Bharara oversaw the use of far-reaching RICO conspiracy charges against the defendants, claiming that they were all guilty of serious violence because they were members of gangs that functioned as a “criminal enterprise.” Therefore, any violence by anyone in the gang was in furtherance of the gang’s interests, making each member legally culpable. An analysis of the cases by law professor Babe Howell found that in fact only half of the defendants were ever accused of being in a gang, over 90 percent were so poor they qualified for a public defender, and ultimately half the defendants were only charged with marijuana-related offenses. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Among the law enforcement entities to be included in ORP is the US Marshal’s office, which has been implicated in misconduct in the suppression of the protests in Portland. Marshals clad in full camouflage combat gear fired a “less than lethal” munition directly at the face of a protester, causing serious injury; have brandished firearms at demonstrators; and have rounded up protesters without probable cause while refusing to identify themselves, state where people are being taken, or even what agency they work for. This latter tactic of detain-and-release is clearly unconstitutional and smacks of the politically motivated “disappearances” seen in Latin American dictatorships. Current Issue View our current issue
It is clear why the Trump administration initiated ORP and Operation Legend. It wants to use a tough-on-crime agenda to define the problems of urban America as stemming from “drug cartels,” “gang bangers,” and “antifa,” three of Trump’s favorite bogeymen. By doing so, Trump deflects any federal responsibility for the conditions of these cities. The failure of federal policies to provide basic housing, economic development, health care, family supports, or social services are irrelevant when the problem is portrayed as one of immorality and criminality that will respond only to increasingly intensive and invasive policing and mass incarceration.
The bigger question is why big-city Democratic mayors are embracing Trump’s tough-on-crime reelection strategy. Each of these cities applied to be part of ORP; the Justice Department did not unilaterally impose it on them. But by embracing this initiative, these mayors are buying into the rhetorical strategy that Trump is pushing, which is that only more policing can solve the problems these big cities face.
Too often, local mayors have given up on the possibility of really dealing with long-standing problems of chronic joblessness, failed schools, inadequate housing, and the absence of decent medical care in their poorest communities and have instead focused on the resulting disorder and violence as issues to be dealt with through criminalization. And the federal government, which once provided significant resources to help address these issues, now targets most of its funding toward policing and, by extension, criminalization. As a result, mayors too often turn to federal law enforcement as a possible savior.
One of the problems with embracing federal police is their almost total lack of local or even federal accountability. Cities like Albuquerque, Atlanta, St. Paul, San Francisco, and Portland have all pulled out of federal-local task forces in the past because federal agents have violated local rules regarding racial profiling, use-of-force policies, and requirements to wear body cameras.
The National Network for Justice has been coordinating local resistance to ORP. It recently held a national webinar featuring local activists from the ORP-targeted cities of Baltimore, Cleveland, and Memphis. Organizing is also underway in Detroit and Albuquerque. These local organizers want more federal resources for youth employment, community-based violence reduction programs, and better schools, not more money for local police and more federal agents rounding up young people in their communities.
“Operation Relentless Pursuit will have a devastating effect in Detroit,” local organizer Tawana Petty told me. “We do have a high-crime situation, but we also have an underserved population that has suffered severe disinvestment for decades. Almost 50 percent of our workers have lost their jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic; people whose median income was under $29,000 before Covid-19. Our community is already over-policed, over-profiled, and over-surveilled. We need to move resources into medical care, into jobs, into clean water and food for our families.” More from Alex S. Vitale The Only Solution Is to Defund the Police Alex S. Vitale
On July 15, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issued a letter signed by over 75 civil rights organizations calling on Congress to block funding for ORP.
“For decades, the federal government has dumped resources into a criminal-legal system that has caused untold harm to Black and other communities,” said Thea Sebastian, Policy Counsel for Civil Rights Corps. “Now, even as people nationwide are protesting police violence and our misplaced priorities, the Department of Justice is making the same mistake that helped lead us here: investing heavily in police and prosecutors rather than the non-carceral, community-led programs that genuinely keep neighborhoods safe.”
The Breath Act drafted by Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, in conjunction with the Movement for Black Lives, calls for a defunding of the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) office, which administers ORP, and the People’s Coalition for Safety and Freedom has also initiated a national effort to defund the COPS office, pointing out its role in overseeing ORP as well as numerous other efforts to flood cities with more police.
The Trump administration, desperate to divert attention from its abject failure of urban policy, thinks the road to reelection is paved with more policing and mass incarceration. The question remains, why are local Democrats supporting their efforts?


thenation--2020-07-24--Can Trump Win in November by Reviving Willie Horton?

In the end , all Donald Trump has left is fear .
In running for reelection , there ’ s little else he can rely on .
His handling of the pandemic has been a disastrous mixture of denial and disinformation .
Prior to the pandemic , he might have made a plausible claim as a steward of the economy who presided over the first substantial wage growth in two decades .
But now Trump ’ s economy is in shambles and not likely to recover until Covid-19 is under control .
He ’ s kept America out of large-scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputation has sunk and there are ominous rumblings of a potential conflict with Iran .
Lacking alternative arguments , Trump has returned to a tried and true trick that has served him and the Republican Party well : racist fearmongering about crime .
Since the outbreak of continuous nationwide protests against police racism in the wake of the George Floyd killing , Trump has incessantly banged away at the theme of law and order .
After the Pentagon reportedly rebuffed the idea of sending in troops to quell protesters , Trump created an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal agents wearing unmarked camouflage , who were dispatched to Portland .
Further federal interventions have been announced for cities like Chicago and Albuquerque .
In recent weeks , Trump has repeatedly argued that Joe Biden is a threat to suburban voters , falsely claiming that Biden wants to defund the police .
On July 19 , Trump warned that Biden was advocating policies that would “ eliminate single-family zoning , bringing who knows [ sic ] into your suburbs , so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into your suburbs ” is closer to a foghorn than a dog whistle .
When Will the Media Stop Grading Trump on a Curve ?
A recent Trump ad vividly brought these fears to life with fearmongering worthy of the notorious Willie Horton ads that helped George H.W .
Bush defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988 .
The Trump ad shows an elderly woman watching the news of the defunding of police .
Then , a burglar starts breaking into her home .
She calls the police , but it turns out they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been defunded .
The ad ends with the woman mutely screaming and dropping her phone as the home invader lunges at her .
A message of fearmongering comes natural to Trump .
After all , he won the 2016 election by stoking panic about Mexican and Muslim immigrants .
He had less success in 2018 with his demagogic hyping of the caravan from Central America .
Yet even if fear didn ’ t work for Trump in 2018 , it remains too central to his political worldview to be easily abandoned .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Real power is—I don ’ t even want to use the word—fear.
” Nor is Trump the only Republican who has played the fear card .
Richard Nixon ’ s victory in 1968 owed much to his hammering of his Democratic opponent Hubert Humphrey on law and order .
Even more instructive is the 1988 election .
In that year , 103 days before the election , Michael Dukakis was leading by 15.3 percent .
The Willie Horton ads started airing on September 21 and were a major factor in George H.W .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well be looking at 1988 as an example of how an unpopular Republican can gain a lead by playing up racist fears of crime .
On July 23 , there were only 103 days to the election and Joe Biden ’ s lead in the FiveThirtyEight aggregation of the polls is 7.7 percent , which is healthy but far lower than the Dukakis lead that so quickly dissipated .
Can Trump imitate the success of the elder George Bush ?
Is Willie Horton redux the path to Trump ’ s reelection ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law-and-order strategy is failing .
One problem with the law and order pitch is that it ’ s likely to be drowned out by much bigger news about the pandemic and the economy .
Far more Americans are being killed by Covid-19 or losing economic security from the depression than are being murdered .
As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post points out , Americans trust Biden far more than Trump on Covid-19 , while on crime Biden either has a slight advantage or is about on par with Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a crucial demographic that Trump seems to be losing .
“ The most recent Post/ABC News poll found that Americans trust Biden over Trump to handle the coronavirus by 54 percent to 34 percent , and they even trust Biden over Trump to handle crime and safety by 50 percent to 41 percent , ” Sargent notes .
“ Remarkably , this is also true among voters age 65 and over : They trust Biden more on the coronavirus , 52 percent to 39 percent , and they trust Biden more on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 44 percent.
” If Trump ’ s law-and-order messaging isn ’ t resonating , one big factor is that he ’ s a poor messenger on this issue .
Unlike Nixon or George H.W .
Bush , Trump is not an establishment politician who can plausibly sell himself as an upholder of the status quo .
He won as a disruptive force who would shake things up .
This was an appealing message to many in 2016 when the nation was at relative peace and prosperity .
But amid the turmoil of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen , even by admirers , as someone who adds chaos to an already disorderly situation .
As Ross Douthat noted in The New York Times , Trump ’ s frantic overkill responding to protests “ have locked in an image of him as an instigator in his own right , an arsonist in the White House whose presence there can only make matters that much worse .
Maybe there is a threshold of violence where this image changes and his instigation starts to look like necessary toughness .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now extend to an inability to ever look like the law-and-order candidate , no matter how many times he tweets the phrase.
” Writing in Salon , Amanda Marcotte , a writer who rarely agrees with Douthat about anything , made a similar point , noting that “ everyone outside the Fox News bubble can see that the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful , and that the president who ’ s sending in poorly trained , amped-up federal cops is the one stoking violence and chaos .
Trump is doing all this to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but what he ’ s mostly getting is images of cops attacking a row of middle-aged women who are singing lullabies.
” The work of Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow , which shows that the riots of the 1960s contributed to erosion of the Democratic Party ’ s vote in 1968 , is often cited as reason for Democrats to worry .
But that is only one half of Wasow ’ s argument .
He also demonstrates that the politically unifying protests of 1964 helped the Democrats .
Writing in The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The same dynamic is currently being replicated in Portland .
By sending in federal agents , Trump has provoked a counterreaction : The protests are becoming much larger , drawing in a wider swath of the political spectrum ( liberals like mayor Ted Wheeler in addition to the original anarchists ) .
Notably , middle-class women are now the most visible feature of the protests , leading the lullabies Marcotte mentioned .
Trump ’ s ham-fistedness has helped reenergize the coalition that led to Democrats taking over the House of Representatives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , then law and order will be a major factor in 2020—but in a way that benefits Joe Biden .
The former vice president can easily point to the violence on the streets and ask whether America wants four more years of this .
The paradox of Trump is that he allows Biden to run as both a liberal and also the safest and most prudent choice .

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?
In the end, all Donald Trump has left is fear. In running for reelection, there’s little else he can rely on. His handling of the pandemic has been a disastrous mixture of denial and disinformation. Prior to the pandemic, he might have made a plausible claim as a steward of the economy who presided over the first substantial wage growth in two decades. But now Trump’s economy is in shambles and not likely to recover until Covid-19 is under control. He’s kept America out of large-scale wars, but America’s international reputation has sunk and there are ominous rumblings of a potential conflict with Iran.
Lacking alternative arguments, Trump has returned to a tried and true trick that has served him and the Republican Party well: racist fearmongering about crime. Since the outbreak of continuous nationwide protests against police racism in the wake of the George Floyd killing, Trump has incessantly banged away at the theme of law and order.
After the Pentagon reportedly rebuffed the idea of sending in troops to quell protesters, Trump created an ad hoc paramilitary group, staffed by federal agents wearing unmarked camouflage, who were dispatched to Portland. Further federal interventions have been announced for cities like Chicago and Albuquerque.
In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly argued that Joe Biden is a threat to suburban voters, falsely claiming that Biden wants to defund the police. On July 19, Trump warned that Biden was advocating policies that would “eliminate single-family zoning, bringing who knows [sic] into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down.” The phrase “who knows into your suburbs” is closer to a foghorn than a dog whistle. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
A recent Trump ad vividly brought these fears to life with fearmongering worthy of the notorious Willie Horton ads that helped George H.W. Bush defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Trump ad shows an elderly woman watching the news of the defunding of police. Then, a burglar starts breaking into her home. She calls the police, but it turns out they can’t serve her because they had been defunded. The ad ends with the woman mutely screaming and dropping her phone as the home invader lunges at her.
A message of fearmongering comes natural to Trump. After all, he won the 2016 election by stoking panic about Mexican and Muslim immigrants. He had less success in 2018 with his demagogic hyping of the caravan from Central America.
Yet even if fear didn’t work for Trump in 2018, it remains too central to his political worldview to be easily abandoned. In 2016, Trump told interviewers, “Real power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear.” Current Issue View our current issue
Nor is Trump the only Republican who has played the fear card. Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968 owed much to his hammering of his Democratic opponent Hubert Humphrey on law and order. Even more instructive is the 1988 election. In that year, 103 days before the election, Michael Dukakis was leading by 15.3 percent. The Willie Horton ads started airing on September 21 and were a major factor in George H.W. Bush’s victory. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Trump might well be looking at 1988 as an example of how an unpopular Republican can gain a lead by playing up racist fears of crime. On July 23, there were only 103 days to the election and Joe Biden’s lead in the FiveThirtyEight aggregation of the polls is 7.7 percent, which is healthy but far lower than the Dukakis lead that so quickly dissipated.
Can Trump imitate the success of the elder George Bush? Is Willie Horton redux the path to Trump’s reelection?
There’s reason to think that Trump’s law-and-order strategy is failing. One problem with the law and order pitch is that it’s likely to be drowned out by much bigger news about the pandemic and the economy. Far more Americans are being killed by Covid-19 or losing economic security from the depression than are being murdered.
As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post points out, Americans trust Biden far more than Trump on Covid-19, while on crime Biden either has a slight advantage or is about on par with Trump. This is true even among older Americans, a crucial demographic that Trump seems to be losing.
“The most recent Post/ABC News poll found that Americans trust Biden over Trump to handle the coronavirus by 54 percent to 34 percent, and they even trust Biden over Trump to handle crime and safety by 50 percent to 41 percent,” Sargent notes. “Remarkably, this is also true among voters age 65 and over: They trust Biden more on the coronavirus, 52 percent to 39 percent, and they trust Biden more on crime and safety, by 51 percent to 44 percent.”
If Trump’s law-and-order messaging isn’t resonating, one big factor is that he’s a poor messenger on this issue. Unlike Nixon or George H.W. Bush, Trump is not an establishment politician who can plausibly sell himself as an upholder of the status quo. He won as a disruptive force who would shake things up. This was an appealing message to many in 2016 when the nation was at relative peace and prosperity. But amid the turmoil of 2020, Trump can more easily be seen, even by admirers, as someone who adds chaos to an already disorderly situation.
As Ross Douthat noted in The New York Times, Trump’s frantic overkill responding to protests “have locked in an image of him as an instigator in his own right, an arsonist in the White House whose presence there can only make matters that much worse. Maybe there is a threshold of violence where this image changes and his instigation starts to look like necessary toughness. But it’s also possible that Trump’s incapacities now extend to an inability to ever look like the law-and-order candidate, no matter how many times he tweets the phrase.”
Writing in Salon, Amanda Marcotte, a writer who rarely agrees with Douthat about anything, made a similar point, noting that “everyone outside the Fox News bubble can see that the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and that the president who’s sending in poorly trained, amped-up federal cops is the one stoking violence and chaos. Trump is doing all this to get images of ‘violent’ protests, but what he’s mostly getting is images of cops attacking a row of middle-aged women who are singing lullabies.”
The work of Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, which shows that the riots of the 1960s contributed to erosion of the Democratic Party’s vote in 1968, is often cited as reason for Democrats to worry. But that is only one half of Wasow’s argument. He also demonstrates that the politically unifying protests of 1964 helped the Democrats. Writing in The Washington Post in early June, Wasow noted:
Over the past week, however, as the protests grew larger and more organized—as they remained largely peaceful and as hundreds of videos of police violence against demonstrators circulated—it became clearer that 1964 was probably the stronger historical analogue. In that year, nonviolent civil rights protests led not only to the passage of the Civil Rights Act but contributed to the landslide reelection of President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The same dynamic is currently being replicated in Portland. By sending in federal agents, Trump has provoked a counterreaction: The protests are becoming much larger, drawing in a wider swath of the political spectrum (liberals like mayor Ted Wheeler in addition to the original anarchists). Notably, middle-class women are now the most visible feature of the protests, leading the lullabies Marcotte mentioned. Trump’s ham-fistedness has helped reenergize the coalition that led to Democrats taking over the House of Representatives in 2018.
If Douthat and Marcotte are right, then law and order will be a major factor in 2020—but in a way that benefits Joe Biden. The former vice president can easily point to the violence on the streets and ask whether America wants four more years of this. The paradox of Trump is that he allows Biden to run as both a liberal and also the safest and most prudent choice.


thenation--2020-07-24--Can We Attend a Big Fat Covid Wedding?

Can We Attend a Big Fat Covid Wedding?

My fiancé and I are doctors in medical specialties affected by the coronavirus in a midsize US city .
Like so many in health care and in the world beyond , we ’ ve spent the past few months horrified by this disease and shocked that some people don ’ t seem to be taking it seriously .
Given that we regularly care for Covid-positive people at work , we recognize that we could be vectors , and we ’ ve been as vigilant as possible in our own lives .
My fiancé ’ s sister is getting married this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the current plan is for a 95-person wedding—grandparents and all !
—with absolutely no Covid-19 precautions in the groom ’ s parents ’ backyard ( outside , at least , but their home will be open to everyone ) .
The engaged couple get their news from far more conservative sources than we do , don ’ t know people who have been sick , and don ’ t think it can happen to them .
Ideally , we could talk this out and end up with a wedding that , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would at least feel a little more responsible .
Unfortunately , it appears that will not happen , and their only concession has been to say that they will understand if we decide not to attend .
It feels as if any decision we make is wrong .
My fiancé desperately wants to be at his sister ’ s wedding , but it is hard to imagine spending 36 hours in a series of situations that are risky and socially negligent .
It ’ s also hard to imagine not being there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we do go , do we wear masks and attempt to physically distance despite the fact that this will be completely out of place and seen as a political statement ?
If we don ’ t go , how do we bow out gracefully while preserving what we can of our relationships ?
I sympathize ; decisions like this one are extremely stressful , especially when they involve people who don ’ t interpret the pandemic in the way that we do .
As painful as it will be for your fiancé @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I don ’ t think you should go .
It would be too stressful to enjoy and would put you and many others at risk .
I also suspect you ’ d resent it in the long run , since your fiancé ’ s family has made no effort to meet you even partway .
The only good news about their intransigence is that you now have nothing to feel guilty about .
You and your boyfriend should send an especially nice gift and write the couple a heartfelt letter .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constant exposure at work , you ’ re worried about infecting family members and other wedding guests .
Let the couple know you love them and that this has been a painful decision .
Don ’ t reproach them for their ignorance or for being jerks about this .
It ’ s their wedding , and you want a good relationship with the family in the long run .
Emphasize that you ’ d love to take them to dinner or on a weekend away to celebrate their marriage when this is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself any longer !
Let it go .
Dear Liza , One of my BFFs has a $ 3 million home in New York City and left it behind in March to ride out the pandemic with his family in a $ 7,000 per month house in the country , where he can work from home and live the life .
I ’ m feeling much class resentment toward this friend , as my family can barely afford to live in the city and I have to breathe Covid-19 air at work every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street job , which , in my eyes , is a job with no purpose other than to generate money for the rich .
All I keep thinking is that the $ 7,000 a month could have been used to pay rent for three or four of the many needy families who now face eviction .
But then I also think , “ What if I had that kind of money ?
Maybe I would only think of myself and flee the city too.
” What should I do with my feelings about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel resentful .
It ’ s enraging that people whose work exists solely to enrich their fellow one-percenters get to ride out the pandemic safely and luxuriously , while essential workers like you , for all the cheering and hero worship tossed your way , struggle , risk your lives , and even die .
The situation reveals the appalling logic of American-style capitalism .
To ease your resentment , you could demand that for every insensitive reference he makes to his garish lifestyle , whether on Instagram or in conversation , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an organization fighting evictions or to a union strike fund .
If you don ’ t want to be so confrontational—for most Americans , class differences aren ’ t fodder for comfortable banter , even among close friends—consider gently turning his wealth to your advantage .
Perhaps your family can use his fancy NYC home when he ’ s not there .
Some families are riding out the pandemic together in pods , or groups of people who spend time indoors only with one another .
Can you pod with his family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would enable you to get out of the city and enjoy their lovely country rental on the weekends you don ’ t need to be at work .
I love your effort to put yourself in his shoes , however , because it helps us get to the heart of the problem : Our system rewards selfishness .
Now that he ’ s made money , your friend should quit and use his privilege to contribute to society—or at least give tons of money away .
Suggesting that he do this might make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present world , the risks and penalties for not being wealthy are so high ( especially during a pandemic and an economic downturn ) that it ’ s unlikely he will sacrifice all that much .
Besides , capitalist men often morally justify their work by feeling good about how well they are providing for their families .
Try persuading him to join a socialist organization as a high-end donor .
That way he can contribute to the eventual elimination of his own parasitical class .
Have a question ?
Ask Liza here @

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
This article appears in the August 10/17, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Dear Liza,
My fiancé and I are doctors in medical specialties affected by the coronavirus in a midsize US city. Like so many in health care and in the world beyond, we’ve spent the past few months horrified by this disease and shocked that some people don’t seem to be taking it seriously. Given that we regularly care for Covid-positive people at work, we recognize that we could be vectors, and we’ve been as vigilant as possible in our own lives.
My fiancé’s sister is getting married this month. Despite our frequently voiced discomfort, the current plan is for a 95-person wedding—grandparents and all!—with absolutely no Covid-19 precautions in the groom’s parents’ backyard (outside, at least, but their home will be open to everyone). The engaged couple get their news from far more conservative sources than we do, don’t know people who have been sick, and don’t think it can happen to them. Ideally, we could talk this out and end up with a wedding that, though perhaps not exactly what we would do, would at least feel a little more responsible. Unfortunately, it appears that will not happen, and their only concession has been to say that they will understand if we decide not to attend.
It feels as if any decision we make is wrong. My fiancé desperately wants to be at his sister’s wedding, but it is hard to imagine spending 36 hours in a series of situations that are risky and socially negligent. It’s also hard to imagine not being there at all. Do we go? If we do go, do we wear masks and attempt to physically distance despite the fact that this will be completely out of place and seen as a political statement? If we don’t go, how do we bow out gracefully while preserving what we can of our relationships?
—Believer in Science
Dear Believer,
I sympathize; decisions like this one are extremely stressful, especially when they involve people who don’t interpret the pandemic in the way that we do. As painful as it will be for your fiancé to skip his sister’s wedding, I don’t think you should go. It would be too stressful to enjoy and would put you and many others at risk. I also suspect you’d resent it in the long run, since your fiancé’s family has made no effort to meet you even partway. The only good news about their intransigence is that you now have nothing to feel guilty about. You and your boyfriend should send an especially nice gift and write the couple a heartfelt letter. In the letter, note that given your constant exposure at work, you’re worried about infecting family members and other wedding guests. Let the couple know you love them and that this has been a painful decision. Don’t reproach them for their ignorance or for being jerks about this. It’s their wedding, and you want a good relationship with the family in the long run. Emphasize that you’d love to take them to dinner or on a weekend away to celebrate their marriage when this is all over. Then don’t torture yourself any longer! Let it go. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Dear Liza,
One of my BFFs has a $3 million home in New York City and left it behind in March to ride out the pandemic with his family in a $7,000 per month house in the country, where he can work from home and live the life. I’m feeling much class resentment toward this friend, as my family can barely afford to live in the city and I have to breathe Covid-19 air at work every day. Said friend has a Wall Street job, which, in my eyes, is a job with no purpose other than to generate money for the rich. All I keep thinking is that the $7,000 a month could have been used to pay rent for three or four of the many needy families who now face eviction. But then I also think, “What if I had that kind of money? Maybe I would only think of myself and flee the city too.” What should I do with my feelings about this? Current Issue View our current issue
—Essential Worker
Dear Essential,
You’re right to feel resentful. It’s enraging that people whose work exists solely to enrich their fellow one-percenters get to ride out the pandemic safely and luxuriously, while essential workers like you, for all the cheering and hero worship tossed your way, struggle, risk your lives, and even die. The situation reveals the appalling logic of American-style capitalism.
To ease your resentment, you could demand that for every insensitive reference he makes to his garish lifestyle, whether on Instagram or in conversation, he must make a $1,000 contribution to an organization fighting evictions or to a union strike fund. If you don’t want to be so confrontational—for most Americans, class differences aren’t fodder for comfortable banter, even among close friends—consider gently turning his wealth to your advantage. Perhaps your family can use his fancy NYC home when he’s not there. Some families are riding out the pandemic together in pods, or groups of people who spend time indoors only with one another. Can you pod with his family, at least for the summer? This would enable you to get out of the city and enjoy their lovely country rental on the weekends you don’t need to be at work.
I love your effort to put yourself in his shoes, however, because it helps us get to the heart of the problem: Our system rewards selfishness. Now that he’s made money, your friend should quit and use his privilege to contribute to society—or at least give tons of money away. Suggesting that he do this might make you feel better, but in our present world, the risks and penalties for not being wealthy are so high (especially during a pandemic and an economic downturn) that it’s unlikely he will sacrifice all that much. Besides, capitalist men often morally justify their work by feeling good about how well they are providing for their families. Try persuading him to join a socialist organization as a high-end donor. That way he can contribute to the eventual elimination of his own parasitical class.
Have a question? Ask Liza here.