thenation--2020-12-30--Increasing Pentagon Spending When People Are Going Hungry Is Madness

When Data for Progress surveyed Americans on Pentagon spending earlier this year , the polling group asked a simple question : “ Over the past four years during a time of relative peace , America has increased its defense spending by 20 percent .
Would you support or oppose cutting 10 percent of the $ 738 federal defense budget—with the guarantee that none of the cuts would affect American military personnel ’ s pay or health care—to pay for other needs like fighting the coronavirus , education , health care and housing ?
” Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut Pentagon spending and fund human needs at a time when hunger and homelessness are at crisis levels , while just 27 percent opposed the idea .
Among Democrats , 69 percent favored the proposal , while just 19 percent opposed it .
Strikingly , 50 percent of Republicans supported cutting funds for the military-industrial complex that former President Dwight Eisenhower warned 60 years ago had already created “ the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.
” Yet , on Monday , the vast majority of House Democrats put their stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Defense Authorization Act , a pork-laden $ 741 billion spending package that pours even more money into that military-industrial complex .
Passed with relative ease by the House and Senate before Christmas , the NDAA was vetoed by President Trump , in a tantrum that had more to do with the president ’ s need for attention—and his anger over the failure of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and congressional GOP leaders to fully embrace his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results—than the actual contents of the bill .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that ’ s beside the point .
The president ’ s veto , and the pressure to override it , created an opening for a renewed debate over spending priorities at a point when Congress has yet to resolve questions about how to provide relief for Americans and to rescue struggling state and local governments .
Instead , House Democratic leaders rallied a bipartisan coalition to override the president ’ s veto with a 322-87 vote .
The vast majority of Democrats joined most Republicans in voting to give the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense had requested .
The 87 “ no ” votes came primarily from Republicans who were simply doing Trump ’ s bidding .
But a score of House Democrats also objected to the override vote , as California Representative Ro Khanna pointed out .
Khanna , an ardent advocate for new priorities , noted that “ 20 Democrats had the courage tonight to vote ‘ no ’ on the bloated defense budget , ” and asserted , with his characteristic optimism , “ They are changing the culture of endless war and calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people.
” The Democrats who objected were also laying down a marker for the debates to come over federal spending , as so-called “ deficit hawks ” in both parties demand austerity at home—even as the hawks approve tax cuts for the rich and , as always , blank checks for defense contractors .
In addition to Khanna , the Democrats who cast “ no ” votes were : California ’ s Mark DeSaulnier , Jimmy Gomez , Jared Huffman , and Barbara Lee ; Hawaii ’ s Tulsi Gabbard ; Illinois ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici ; Massachusetts ’ s Joe Kennedy , Jim McGovern , and Ayanna Pressley ; Michigan ’ s Rashida Tlaib ; Minnesota ’ s Ilhan Omar ; New York ’ s Yvette Clarke , Adriano Espaillat , Grace Meng , and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ; Washington ’ s Pramila Jayapal ; and Wisconsin ’ s Mark Pocan .
The 20 Democrats who cast the courageous , and correct , vote on Monday included all the members of “ the Squad , ” as well as longtime Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former cochair Mark Pocan , and the steadiest critic of bloated Department of Defense budgets , Barbara Lee , who has proposed a $ 350 billion cut in funding for the Pentagon .
“ While the U.S. continues to spend billions on endless wars , millions are hungry and facing the threat of eviction , ” Lee says .
She calls out-of-control spending to fund the military-industrial complex “ a disgrace.
” Lee and Pocan recently formed a Defense Spending Reduction Caucus in the House , with Pocan saying , “ For too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defense contractors above the needs of the American people.
” “ From unnecessary new nuclear weapons to the Space Force to the ballooning use of outside contractors—our Pentagon spending is growing more rapidly than needed with abundant waste and endless wars , ” the Wisconsinite argues .
“ With this new caucus , we hope to lead Congress in decreasing and redirecting the defense budget.
” To do that , however , Democrats—and the handful of libertarian-leaning Republicans who see the need for cuts—are going to have to get better at playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders did this week , when he announced that he plans to filibuster the Senate NDAA override vote in an effort to force McConnell allow a vote on providing Americans with $ 2,000 relief checks .
( To their credit , House Democrats gave almost unanimous support on Monday to direct-payment legislation . )
“ McConnell and the Senate want to expedite the override vote and I understand that , ” Sanders said on Monday .
“ But I ’ m not going to allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , no matter how long that takes , on the $ 2,000 direct payment.
” That ’ s a bold move by Sanders , who says , “ If McConnell doesn ’ t agree to an up or down vote to provide the working people of our country a $ 2,000 direct payment , Congress will not be going home for New Year ’ s Eve .
Let ’ s do our job.
” Upending the process by which ever increasing cash flows are directed into the military-industrial complex may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he represents .
But it most definitely is popular in a country where the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters and more than half of Republicans voters are ready to take money out of the Pentagon budget and move it into the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and the economic pain that extends from it .

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?
When Data for Progress surveyed Americans on Pentagon spending earlier this year, the polling group asked a simple question: “Over the past four years during a time of relative peace, America has increased its defense spending by 20 percent. Would you support or oppose cutting 10 percent of the $738 federal defense budget—with the guarantee that none of the cuts would affect American military personnel’s pay or health care—to pay for other needs like fighting the coronavirus, education, health care and housing?”
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they favored a reordering of priorities to cut Pentagon spending and fund human needs at a time when hunger and homelessness are at crisis levels, while just 27 percent opposed the idea. Among Democrats, 69 percent favored the proposal, while just 19 percent opposed it. Strikingly, 50 percent of Republicans supported cutting funds for the military-industrial complex that former President Dwight Eisenhower warned 60 years ago had already created “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
Yet, on Monday, the vast majority of House Democrats put their stamp of approval on the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, a pork-laden $741 billion spending package that pours even more money into that military-industrial complex.
Passed with relative ease by the House and Senate before Christmas, the NDAA was vetoed by President Trump, in a tantrum that had more to do with the president’s need for attention—and his anger over the failure of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and congressional GOP leaders to fully embrace his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results—than the actual contents of the bill.
Trump rarely does anything for the right reason, but that’s beside the point. The president’s veto, and the pressure to override it, created an opening for a renewed debate over spending priorities at a point when Congress has yet to resolve questions about how to provide relief for Americans and to rescue struggling state and local governments.
Instead, House Democratic leaders rallied a bipartisan coalition to override the president’s veto with a 322-87 vote. The vast majority of Democrats joined most Republicans in voting to give the Pentagon even more money than the Department of Defense had requested.
The 87 “no” votes came primarily from Republicans who were simply doing Trump’s bidding. But a score of House Democrats also objected to the override vote, as California Representative Ro Khanna pointed out. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung Current Issue View our current issue
Khanna, an ardent advocate for new priorities, noted that “20 Democrats had the courage tonight to vote ‘no’ on the bloated defense budget,” and asserted, with his characteristic optimism, “They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people.”
The Democrats who objected were also laying down a marker for the debates to come over federal spending, as so-called “deficit hawks” in both parties demand austerity at home—even as the hawks approve tax cuts for the rich and, as always, blank checks for defense contractors.
In addition to Khanna, the Democrats who cast “no” votes were: California’s Mark DeSaulnier, Jimmy Gomez, Jared Huffman, and Barbara Lee; Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard; Illinois’s Chuy Garcia; Oregon’s Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici; Massachusetts’s Joe Kennedy, Jim McGovern, and Ayanna Pressley; Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib; Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar; New York’s Yvette Clarke, Adriano Espaillat, Grace Meng, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Washington’s Pramila Jayapal; and Wisconsin’s Mark Pocan.
The 20 Democrats who cast the courageous, and correct, vote on Monday included all the members of “the Squad,” as well as longtime Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders such as current chair Pramila Jayapal and former cochair Mark Pocan. They were joined by the steadiest critic of bloated Department of Defense budgets, Barbara Lee, who has proposed a $350 billion cut in funding for the Pentagon.
“While the U.S. continues to spend billions on endless wars, millions are hungry and facing the threat of eviction,” Lee says. She calls out-of-control spending to fund the military-industrial complex “a disgrace.”
Lee and Pocan recently formed a Defense Spending Reduction Caucus in the House, with Pocan saying, “For too long, Congress has put the profits of defense contractors above the needs of the American people.”
“From unnecessary new nuclear weapons to the Space Force to the ballooning use of outside contractors—our Pentagon spending is growing more rapidly than needed with abundant waste and endless wars,” the Wisconsinite argues. “With this new caucus, we hope to lead Congress in decreasing and redirecting the defense budget.”
To do that, however, Democrats—and the handful of libertarian-leaning Republicans who see the need for cuts—are going to have to get better at playing hardball when it comes to budget priorities. That’s what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders did this week, when he announced that he plans to filibuster the Senate NDAA override vote in an effort to force McConnell allow a vote on providing Americans with $2,000 relief checks. (To their credit, House Democrats gave almost unanimous support on Monday to direct-payment legislation.)
“McConnell and the Senate want to expedite the override vote and I understand that,” Sanders said on Monday. “But I’m not going to allow that to happen unless there is a vote, no matter how long that takes, on the $2,000 direct payment.”
That’s a bold move by Sanders, who says, “If McConnell doesn’t agree to an up or down vote to provide the working people of our country a $2,000 direct payment, Congress will not be going home for New Year’s Eve. Let’s do our job.”
Upending the process by which ever increasing cash flows are directed into the military-industrial complex may not be popular with McConnell and the defense contractors he represents. But it most definitely is popular in a country where the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters and more than half of Republicans voters are ready to take money out of the Pentagon budget and move it into the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and the economic pain that extends from it.


thenation--2020-12-30--Blame Mitch for the Lack of Federal Relief

We ’ ve been living with a pandemic for almost a year , yet most of the supports Congress enacted to help us get through it have either withered , expired , or are about to be wiped out .
The House of Representatives passed another relief package back in May , but Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to take it up .
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently took some flak , even from within her own party , when she refused to budge on her key demands .
And yet not nearly enough ire has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hill he appears willing to die on : ensuring that any relief package contains a corporate liability shield .
Hundreds of frontline workers have gotten sick or died after contracting Covid-19 , with scant avenues for compensation or justice .
McConnell is determined to deny them one of the few they have left .
A liability shield would essentially provide a get-out-of-jail-free card to businesses , offering them nearly blanket protection against Covid-19–related lawsuits , including those claiming that an employer ’ s reckless behavior led to an employee ’ s illness or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a policy goal of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council since the early 2000s .
The US Chamber of Commerce has also gotten on board , lobbying Congress to grant corporations immunity , saying that worker lawsuits are “ perhaps the largest area of concern for the overall business community.
” But it ’ s not like employers are currently being held accountable .
Under President Trump , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—the agency tasked with keeping Americans safe at work—has more or less sat out the pandemic .
Nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to issue binding rules that would require employers to take steps to keep employees safe .
OSHA leadership has even made it clear that the guidelines it has released are suggestions that can be ignored .
Despite receiving more than 13,000 complaints related to Covid-19 workplace safety , OSHA has followed up on just 309 cases , or about 2 percent , and closed more than 11,000 without action .
How Monopolies Have Taken Over Our Everyday Lives Despite the CDC ’ s Eviction Ban , Thousands of Tenants Are Losing Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economy So Fragile : A Q & A With Heather Boushey For the first six months of the pandemic , OSHA didn ’ t issue a single violation , despite hundreds of worker deaths .
It has since issued citations to 62 businesses , including two in early September to meatpacking giants Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation and JBS Foods , Inc .
When the citations were issued , a total of 1,584 workers at the two plants had tested positive , and 10 had died .
OSHA proposed fining Smithfield $ 13,494 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions in profits .
As OSHA twiddled its thumbs , workers paid the price .
As of mid-December , at least 262 meatpacking employees had died from Covid-19 , according to tracking by the Food & Environment Reporting Network , while nearly 50,000 had tested positive .
There have been at least 1,445 deaths among health care workers , according to The Guardian and Kaiser Health News .
Among grocery store workers represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers union , 109 had died by late November , and 17,400 had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon warehouse employees have died , and the company has reported that 19,816 of its workers , including at Whole Foods , had been infected as of October .
Another avenue of redress for people who contracted Covid-19 at work could be the workers ’ compensation system .
But lawmakers have gutted it .
Insurance companies , arguing that workers can ’ t prove they contracted Covid-19 on the job , have rejected thousands of claims , even from health care workers and prison guards .
So one of the few avenues for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employers .
Some lawsuits are already pending .
The family of a Publix grocery store employee who died has sued the company , alleging the store barred workers from wearing face masks .
A lawsuit against Tyson Foods over the death of a man who contracted the virus while employed at its Waterloo , Iowa , facility alleges that managers took bets on how many workers would catch Covid .
A suit against Walmart alleges that one of its stores failed to protect workers with masks and social distancing .
After suffering symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally sent home on March 23 ; he was found dead two days later .
McConnell ’ s insistence on the liability shield was an atrocious position to begin negotiations with .
That he has been willing to risk the country ’ s economy and health for months to get what he wants is heinous .

This article appears in the January 11/18, 2021 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?
We’ve been living with a pandemic for almost a year, yet most of the supports Congress enacted to help us get through it have either withered, expired, or are about to be wiped out. The House of Representatives passed another relief package back in May, but Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to take it up.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently took some flak, even from within her own party, when she refused to budge on her key demands. And yet not nearly enough ire has been directed at McConnell for a very specific hill he appears willing to die on: ensuring that any relief package contains a corporate liability shield. Hundreds of frontline workers have gotten sick or died after contracting Covid-19, with scant avenues for compensation or justice. McConnell is determined to deny them one of the few they have left.
A liability shield would essentially provide a get-out-of-jail-free card to businesses, offering them nearly blanket protection against Covid-19–related lawsuits, including those claiming that an employer’s reckless behavior led to an employee’s illness or death from the disease. Corporate immunity has been a policy goal of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council since the early 2000s. The US Chamber of Commerce has also gotten on board, lobbying Congress to grant corporations immunity, saying that worker lawsuits are “perhaps the largest area of concern for the overall business community.”
But it’s not like employers are currently being held accountable. Under President Trump, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—the agency tasked with keeping Americans safe at work—has more or less sat out the pandemic. Nine months into the crisis, it has yet to issue binding rules that would require employers to take steps to keep employees safe. OSHA leadership has even made it clear that the guidelines it has released are suggestions that can be ignored. Despite receiving more than 13,000 complaints related to Covid-19 workplace safety, OSHA has followed up on just 309 cases, or about 2 percent, and closed more than 11,000 without action. More From Bryce Covert The New Law to Protect Pregnant Workers Is Already Changing Lives August 14, 2023 Finally, the Biden Administration Will Offer Some Relief for Childcare Costs July 11, 2023 One of #MeToo’s Biggest Wins Is About to Be Tested in Court June 13, 2023
For the first six months of the pandemic, OSHA didn’t issue a single violation, despite hundreds of worker deaths. It has since issued citations to 62 businesses, including two in early September to meatpacking giants Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation and JBS Foods, Inc. When the citations were issued, a total of 1,584 workers at the two plants had tested positive, and 10 had died. OSHA proposed fining Smithfield $13,494 and JBS $15,615—a pittance for companies with millions in profits.
As OSHA twiddled its thumbs, workers paid the price. As of mid-December, at least 262 meatpacking employees had died from Covid-19, according to tracking by the Food & Environment Reporting Network, while nearly 50,000 had tested positive. There have been at least 1,445 deaths among health care workers, according to The Guardian and Kaiser Health News. Among grocery store workers represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, 109 had died by late November, and 17,400 had been infected or exposed. At least eight Amazon warehouse employees have died, and the company has reported that 19,816 of its workers, including at Whole Foods, had been infected as of October.
Another avenue of redress for people who contracted Covid-19 at work could be the workers’ compensation system. But lawmakers have gutted it. Insurance companies, arguing that workers can’t prove they contracted Covid-19 on the job, have rejected thousands of claims, even from health care workers and prison guards.
So one of the few avenues for justice left is suing the most negligent employers. Some lawsuits are already pending. The family of a Publix grocery store employee who died has sued the company, alleging the store barred workers from wearing face masks. A lawsuit against Tyson Foods over the death of a man who contracted the virus while employed at its Waterloo, Iowa, facility alleges that managers took bets on how many workers would catch Covid. A suit against Walmart alleges that one of its stores failed to protect workers with masks and social distancing. After suffering symptoms for two weeks, Wando Evans was finally sent home on March 23; he was found dead two days later.
McConnell’s insistence on the liability shield was an atrocious position to begin negotiations with. That he has been willing to risk the country’s economy and health for months to get what he wants is heinous.


thenation--2020-12-30--Look Beyond the Media Frenzy and Focus on the Fundamentals

I ’ ve been writing a version of this column in just about every other issue of The Nation for nearly 25 years .
This will be my last .
Obviously , much has changed since I began .
There was no Fox News or MSNBC , and the “ news ” on the Internet barely justified the trouble it took to dial it up .
But a few things have remained relatively constant , and so , too , have my attempts to explain them .
The one thought I ’ d like to leave readers with is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get lost in the never-ending frenzy that defines our current media ecosystem .
Many in the media have recently awoken to the myriad ways in which the Trump presidency has sought to murder our democracy .
In truth , it was barely breathing when the orange monster stepped into the Oval Office .
Here again , thanks to the obedience of so many Republicans to Donald Trump ’ s nonsensical whims , journalists have also discovered the desiccated state of the GOP ’ s commitment to the traditional norms of democratic politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even so , this welcome new focus fails to capture the structural failings that underlie our politics and therefore continue to escape the attention of even the most attentive citizens .
Here are a few of my concerns : § Voters rarely matter much .
In a study back in 2014 , political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page demonstrated that “ economic elites and organized interest groups ( including corporations , largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites ) play a substantial part in affecting public policy , but the general public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ § Voters rarely matter much ( II ) .
In their 2018 study , political scientists Alexander Hertel-Fernandez , Matto Mildenberger , and Leah C. Stokes found that congressional staffers—and by extension , the people who cover them in the media—believe that their constituents are far more conservative than they really are and act accordingly .
That ’ s because the people they hear from , and respond to , are the people identified in the Gilens-Page report mentioned above .
§ Voters rarely matter much ( III ) .
Thanks largely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted by political scientist Stan Oklobdzija , dark money groups have grown far more influential in shaping the ideological agenda of the political parties .
Given the fact that the vast majority of this funding is directed by extremely conservative sources—most famously , but hardly exclusively , the Koch network—this phenomenon , rather than the preferences of GOP members , is responsible for the takeover of the Republican Party by the lunatic fringe .
The Last Few Years Have Spelled a Resounding End to the ‘ Jewish Vote ’ § When voters do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media misinformation .
I ’ ve written two books about presidential lies .
( The most recent one , Lying in State : Why Presidents Lie and Why Trump Is Worse , was published this past August . )
What has always been hard to measure , however , is the degree to which any given politician ’ s lies are acted upon by voters .
I still can ’ t fully answer that question , but thanks to a 2018 examination of the political “ knowledge ” of more than 3,000 Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Richard Fording , we know that “ relying on Fox News as a major news source significantly decreased a person ’ s score more than relying on any other news source.
” Not surprisingly , people also vote on the basis of these lies .
A 2017 study by political scientist Gregory Martin and economist Ali Yurukoglu found that the effect of watching Fox News was powerful enough to change the results of almost any close election and even some that would never have been close without it .
As Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murdoch family , it effected a gravitational pull on the other news networks , which sought to attract viewers with similar bullshit .
Fox News also spawned an army of imitators peddling even more outlandish lies and conspiracy theories , multiplied by the millions thanks to the conscienceless algorithms that power Facebook , YouTube , and the like .
These forces continue to exploit marketplaces in which truth has no particular instrumental value .
What the columnist and political philosopher Walter Lippmann defined in 1922 as the conflict between “ the world outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads ” has now grown so vast as to overwhelm what remains of the journalistic commitment to logic , fairness , and the hope that so many once held of “ speaking truth to power.
” It is often said that liberals tend to come to a gunfight with butter knives .
But what I have been attempting to show in this media column is that if we look beneath the surface of our elections , we see a culture of plutocracy that has enabled the creation of an autocracy based on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s minions aside , most of our mainstream institutions have implicated themselves in this transformation thanks to a collective commitment to treating political conflict as mere theater—a “ he said/she said ” battle in which “ both sides do it.
” Truth in these reports is an afterthought , if it is thought of at all .
The quote I have found most apt for the Trump era comes from an interview the German-born philosopher Hannah Arendt gave during what , in retrospect , now appear as the relatively halcyon days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ if everybody always lies to you , the consequence is not that you believe the lies , but rather that nobody believes anything any longer… .
And a people that no longer can believe anything can not make up its mind .
It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge.
” This is exactly the point to which the conservative conquest of our media culture has brought us .
While we were watching them work the refs , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before we liberals can fairly contest in politics , we must first reclaim our culture .

This article appears in the January 11/18, 2021 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?
I’ve been writing a version of this column in just about every other issue of The Nation for nearly 25 years. This will be my last. Obviously, much has changed since I began. There was no Fox News or MSNBC, and the “news” on the Internet barely justified the trouble it took to dial it up. But a few things have remained relatively constant, and so, too, have my attempts to explain them. The one thought I’d like to leave readers with is this: Remember the fundamentals—the things that inevitably get lost in the never-ending frenzy that defines our current media ecosystem.
Many in the media have recently awoken to the myriad ways in which the Trump presidency has sought to murder our democracy. In truth, it was barely breathing when the orange monster stepped into the Oval Office. Here again, thanks to the obedience of so many Republicans to Donald Trump’s nonsensical whims, journalists have also discovered the desiccated state of the GOP’s commitment to the traditional norms of democratic politics, to say nothing of common sense. Even so, this welcome new focus fails to capture the structural failings that underlie our politics and therefore continue to escape the attention of even the most attentive citizens. Here are a few of my concerns:
§ Voters rarely matter much. In a study back in 2014, political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page demonstrated that “economic elites and organized interest groups (including corporations, largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites) play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.”
§ Voters rarely matter much (II). In their 2018 study, political scientists Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger, and Leah C. Stokes found that congressional staffers—and by extension, the people who cover them in the media—believe that their constituents are far more conservative than they really are and act accordingly. That’s because the people they hear from, and respond to, are the people identified in the Gilens-Page report mentioned above.
§ Voters rarely matter much (III). Thanks largely to Citizens United, according to the research conducted by political scientist Stan Oklobdzija, dark money groups have grown far more influential in shaping the ideological agenda of the political parties. Given the fact that the vast majority of this funding is directed by extremely conservative sources—most famously, but hardly exclusively, the Koch network—this phenomenon, rather than the preferences of GOP members, is responsible for the takeover of the Republican Party by the lunatic fringe. More From Eric Alterman Conservative Jews Made a Terrible Bargain With Trump and the Right Over Israel December 21, 2022 Todd Gitlin Told His Truth Everywhere He Went February 8, 2022 Why the Media No Longer Cares About Nicaragua September 28, 2021
§ When voters do matter, they are often motivated by media misinformation. I’ve written two books about presidential lies. (The most recent one, Lying in State: Why Presidents Lie and Why Trump Is Worse, was published this past August.) What has always been hard to measure, however, is the degree to which any given politician’s lies are acted upon by voters. I still can’t fully answer that question, but thanks to a 2018 examination of the political “knowledge” of more than 3,000 Fox News viewers by political scientists Sanford Schram and Richard Fording, we know that “relying on Fox News as a major news source significantly decreased a person’s score more than relying on any other news source.” Not surprisingly, people also vote on the basis of these lies. A 2017 study by political scientist Gregory Martin and economist Ali Yurukoglu found that the effect of watching Fox News was powerful enough to change the results of almost any close election and even some that would never have been close without it.
As Fox News became a veritable moneyprinting machine for the Murdoch family, it effected a gravitational pull on the other news networks, which sought to attract viewers with similar bullshit. Fox News also spawned an army of imitators peddling even more outlandish lies and conspiracy theories, multiplied by the millions thanks to the conscienceless algorithms that power Facebook, YouTube, and the like. These forces continue to exploit marketplaces in which truth has no particular instrumental value. What the columnist and political philosopher Walter Lippmann defined in 1922 as the conflict between “the world outside” and “the pictures in our heads” has now grown so vast as to overwhelm what remains of the journalistic commitment to logic, fairness, and the hope that so many once held of “speaking truth to power.” Current Issue View our current issue
It is often said that liberals tend to come to a gunfight with butter knives. But what I have been attempting to show in this media column is that if we look beneath the surface of our elections, we see a culture of plutocracy that has enabled the creation of an autocracy based on a foundation of purposeful dishonesty. Rupert Murdoch’s minions aside, most of our mainstream institutions have implicated themselves in this transformation thanks to a collective commitment to treating political conflict as mere theater—a “he said/she said” battle in which “both sides do it.” Truth in these reports is an afterthought, if it is thought of at all. The quote I have found most apt for the Trump era comes from an interview the German-born philosopher Hannah Arendt gave during what, in retrospect, now appear as the relatively halcyon days of Watergate. She noted back in 1974 that “if everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer…. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge.”
This is exactly the point to which the conservative conquest of our media culture has brought us. While we were watching them work the refs, they were actually purchasing the entire playing field. Before we liberals can fairly contest in politics, we must first reclaim our culture.
Good night and good luck.


thenation--2020-12-30--Open Mike Eagle’s Songs of Redemption

Open Mike Eagle’s Songs of Redemption

After his slow , decade-long ascent from laid-off schoolteacher to buzzing indie star , Los Angeles rapper Open Mike Eagle suffered a series of setbacks .
In 2019 he and his wife divorced , a reunion with his old rap crew Hellfyre Club fell apart , and his Comedy Central variety show , The New Negroes , was canceled after one season .
Those upsets form the backdrop to Anime , Trauma and Divorce , the rapper ’ s whimsical and introspective take on an old trope : the breakup album .
By turns goofy and pensive , the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-examination and restoration .
The album ’ s titular subjects are linked by Open Mike Eagle ’ s relentless hunt for relief—from anxiety , from awkward situations , from the financial strain of making music independently ( a long-running theme in his work ) .
His signature mode is a kind of sharp-eyed repose , an outlook bolstered by his easygoing delivery .
No matter the topic he ’ s addressing , be it police violence or living paycheck to paycheck , he speaks leisurely , as if overcoming difficult situations always begins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your own pace .
Anime , in this sense , is Eagle ’ s ideal speed .
Beloved for its expansive tonal range , which can accommodate scenarios as surreal as robot warfare or monster invasions and as mundane as high school romance—and sometimes all of these things at once—anime normalizes whiplash .
Eagle taps into this quality throughout the record , indulging his fantasies and admitting his powerlessness outside of them .
As he bounces nimbly between confessing his burdens and wishing them away , he binds the two modes together .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ” nods to the protagonist of Neon Genesis Evangelion , a depressed boy who grudgingly finds himself at the center of a war between robots and monsters in postapocalyptic Tokyo .
“ Ass , on my head / Headass , I ’ m a head , ” Eagle chants in self-mockery .
The track is less about identifying as Shinji , whose fear and loneliness distance him from the other characters , and more about giving those insecurities shape .
Through Shinji ’ s struggles Eagle understands himself , a recognition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joestar ( Black Power Fantasy ) , ” his enthusiastic ode to the anthology series JoJo ’ s Bizarre Adventure .
“ It ’ s my turn , it ’ s my season !
” he declares over springy percussion and bright synths .
His excitement is absolutely sincere .
He needs a win .
Sometimes Eagle ’ s pop culture totems speak back to him .
On “ The Black Mirror Episode , ” he half-jokingly credits the dystopian show with ruining his marriage .
“ Saw a black mirror and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a menacing bass line and metallic drone .
On “ Sweatpants Spiderman , ” a nod to a version of the superhero who ’ s single and deflated , he sighs at the emptiness of retail therapy .
“ Tattoos , haircuts , gold chains , anime / Tattoos , tattoos , tattoos , tattoos , ” he laments , knowing he can ’ t simply buy a fresh start .
Pop culture has been a refuge and a muse for every generation of rappers , from Run DMC ’ s anointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s passion for martial arts flicks and Kendrick Lamar ’ s love of the 1990s sitcom Martin .
Anime in particular is adored across eras , with rappers of all stripes smitten by the genre ’ s colorful action and high-stakes drama .
There ’ s an element of exoticization to this fascination : Anime ’ s coolness , as critic Sheldon Pearce notes in a survey of hip-hop ’ s love of Naruto , is tied to its otherness .
But the Japanese art form is also a pillar of storytelling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition and makes it his own ; the daydreams and fantasies that litter his verses bring the darker dimensions of normal life into sharper focus .
What ’ s truly fantastical , he implies throughout the album , is his rap career .
“ Asa ’ s Bop , ” a breezy track anchored by a lovely , gibberish chorus performed by Eagle ’ s adolescent son , pokes fun at the precarity of his chosen profession .
“ We belong / We pretend we legitimate / Half Joestar / Half Shinji the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment , particularly of his fellow wayward rappers , stings because there ’ s no bitterness to it .
He and his peers , especially those who choose to be independent from the major labels , are living their dream ; it just happens to be unglamorous and Pyrrhic .
“ Everything Ends Last Year , ” the album ’ s fulcrum , addresses Eagle ’ s failures head-on .
Rapping in a weary sigh , he describes his marriage , his canceled show , and his defunct rap crew with a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The album ’ s lithe , spectral production is as varied as Eagle ’ s writing .
Produced by a corps of rap and electronic producers and mixed by Jacknife Lee , a veteran rock engineer and producer , the beats alternately smolder , coating Eagle ’ s verses in darkness and shadow , or shimmer , imbuing his rhymes with warmth and light .
These colorful yet weightless arrangements never overshadow Eagle ’ s racing thoughts , fitting the album ’ s theme of presence and candor .
“ Death Parade ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound like they were recorded live from his brain .
Eagle has described this record as a meaningful departure from his past work , which tended to center his observations rather than his feelings .
Emotions are certainly more pronounced here than in his previous music , but he remains guarded , as on “ Bucciarati , ” another nod to JoJo ’ s Bizarre Adventure .
“ Part of me struck an original trauma / Part of me wears an invisible armor , ” he raps , his words coded yet weighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind of mood board of dread , with Eagle mapping out his distress rather than confessing it outright .
What prevents the song from feeling withdrawn is his audible discomfort , manifest in both his frantic delivery and a vocal filter that lowers his voice to a despondent garble .
Though he ’ s not inclined to name his woes , they shape his performances .
The album ’ s emotional journey ends with Eagle asserting his vulnerability in a similar fashion .
“ I was okay wherever we went , now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armor , ” he sings on the outro of “ Airplane Boneyard , ” the space between “ I ” and “ we ” vast and final .
Anime , Trauma and Divorce doesn ’ t offer a neat kiss-off or heroic rebound .
Eagle ’ s flights of fancy lead him back to his starting point as a divorced dad and indie rapper recovering from a rough year .
He can ’ t change the past , but he can take solace in the tiny delights that help him push forward .
@ @ @ @

This article appears in the January 11/18, 2021 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?
After his slow, decade-long ascent from laid-off schoolteacher to buzzing indie star, Los Angeles rapper Open Mike Eagle suffered a series of setbacks. In 2019 he and his wife divorced, a reunion with his old rap crew Hellfyre Club fell apart, and his Comedy Central variety show, The New Negroes, was canceled after one season. Those upsets form the backdrop to Anime, Trauma and Divorce, the rapper’s whimsical and introspective take on an old trope: the breakup album. By turns goofy and pensive, the record uses pop culture as a vehicle for self-examination and restoration.
The album’s titular subjects are linked by Open Mike Eagle’s relentless hunt for relief—from anxiety, from awkward situations, from the financial strain of making music independently (a long-running theme in his work). His signature mode is a kind of sharp-eyed repose, an outlook bolstered by his easygoing delivery. No matter the topic he’s addressing, be it police violence or living paycheck to paycheck, he speaks leisurely, as if overcoming difficult situations always begins with reframing them, taking them at your own pace.
Anime, in this sense, is Eagle’s ideal speed. Beloved for its expansive tonal range, which can accommodate scenarios as surreal as robot warfare or monster invasions and as mundane as high school romance—and sometimes all of these things at once—anime normalizes whiplash. Eagle taps into this quality throughout the record, indulging his fantasies and admitting his powerlessness outside of them. As he bounces nimbly between confessing his burdens and wishing them away, he binds the two modes together.
The singsongy “Headass (Idiot Shinji)” nods to the protagonist of Neon Genesis Evangelion, a depressed boy who grudgingly finds himself at the center of a war between robots and monsters in postapocalyptic Tokyo. “Ass, on my head / Headass, I’m a head,” Eagle chants in self-mockery. The track is less about identifying as Shinji, whose fear and loneliness distance him from the other characters, and more about giving those insecurities shape. Through Shinji’s struggles Eagle understands himself, a recognition that also characterizes “I’m a Joestar (Black Power Fantasy),” his enthusiastic ode to the anthology series JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. “It’s my turn, it’s my season!” he declares over springy percussion and bright synths. His excitement is absolutely sincere. He needs a win.
Sometimes Eagle’s pop culture totems speak back to him. On “The Black Mirror Episode,” he half-jokingly credits the dystopian show with ruining his marriage. “Saw a black mirror and it looked like us,” he shouts over a menacing bass line and metallic drone. On “Sweatpants Spiderman,” a nod to a version of the superhero who’s single and deflated, he sighs at the emptiness of retail therapy. “Tattoos, haircuts, gold chains, anime / Tattoos, tattoos, tattoos, tattoos,” he laments, knowing he can’t simply buy a fresh start.
Pop culture has been a refuge and a muse for every generation of rappers, from Run DMC’s anointing of Adidas to the Wu-Tang Clan’s passion for martial arts flicks and Kendrick Lamar’s love of the 1990s sitcom Martin. Anime in particular is adored across eras, with rappers of all stripes smitten by the genre’s colorful action and high-stakes drama. There’s an element of exoticization to this fascination: Anime’s coolness, as critic Sheldon Pearce notes in a survey of hip-hop’s love of Naruto, is tied to its otherness. But the Japanese art form is also a pillar of storytelling, as is rap. Eagle continues this tradition and makes it his own; the daydreams and fantasies that litter his verses bring the darker dimensions of normal life into sharper focus. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
What’s truly fantastical, he implies throughout the album, is his rap career. “Asa’s Bop,” a breezy track anchored by a lovely, gibberish chorus performed by Eagle’s adolescent son, pokes fun at the precarity of his chosen profession. “We belong / We pretend we legitimate / Half Joestar / Half Shinji the idiot,” he jokes. His assessment, particularly of his fellow wayward rappers, stings because there’s no bitterness to it. He and his peers, especially those who choose to be independent from the major labels, are living their dream; it just happens to be unglamorous and Pyrrhic. “Everything Ends Last Year,” the album’s fulcrum, addresses Eagle’s failures head-on. Rapping in a weary sigh, he describes his marriage, his canceled show, and his defunct rap crew with a single, defeated descriptor: “ended.” Current Issue View our current issue
The album’s lithe, spectral production is as varied as Eagle’s writing. Produced by a corps of rap and electronic producers and mixed by Jacknife Lee, a veteran rock engineer and producer, the beats alternately smolder, coating Eagle’s verses in darkness and shadow, or shimmer, imbuing his rhymes with warmth and light. These colorful yet weightless arrangements never overshadow Eagle’s racing thoughts, fitting the album’s theme of presence and candor. “Death Parade” and “WTF Is Self Care” sound like they were recorded live from his brain.
Eagle has described this record as a meaningful departure from his past work, which tended to center his observations rather than his feelings. Emotions are certainly more pronounced here than in his previous music, but he remains guarded, as on “Bucciarati,” another nod to JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. “Part of me struck an original trauma / Part of me wears an invisible armor,” he raps, his words coded yet weighted. The song as a whole is a kind of mood board of dread, with Eagle mapping out his distress rather than confessing it outright. What prevents the song from feeling withdrawn is his audible discomfort, manifest in both his frantic delivery and a vocal filter that lowers his voice to a despondent garble. Though he’s not inclined to name his woes, they shape his performances.
The album’s emotional journey ends with Eagle asserting his vulnerability in a similar fashion. “I was okay wherever we went, now I ain’t got no more armor,” he sings on the outro of “Airplane Boneyard,” the space between “I” and “we” vast and final. Anime, Trauma and Divorce doesn’t offer a neat kiss-off or heroic rebound. Eagle’s flights of fancy lead him back to his starting point as a divorced dad and indie rapper recovering from a rough year. He can’t change the past, but he can take solace in the tiny delights that help him push forward. He sounds relieved.


thenation--2020-12-30--The Stimulus Battle Highlights McConnell’s Pernicious Politics

Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are a study in contrasts , striking emblems of two very different ways to do politics .
Trump is a showman and a narcissist , someone who hungers to always be at the center of attention even if his actions yield little results .
His mangled attempt to veto the recent stimulus package is prime evidence of how his ability to hold the spotlight is inversely related to success in shaping policy .
McConnell , on the other hand , is a creature of the back rooms .
He loves to slink in the shadows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among national politicians , he ’ s never shown any signs of wanting to run for president .
He ’ s become one of the most effective American politicians of his era by his cagey ability to game the rules of the Senate , mainly to obstruct Democratic policy and to stack the judiciary in favor of Republican nominees .
In the twilight days of 2020 , a political struggle over a $ 2,000 stimulus check highlights how extraordinarily pernicious McConnell is .
It also creates an opportunity , just as Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to elevate McConnell to being their primary foil—the politician who more than anyone else is holding America back .
The $ 2,000 stimulus check is a proposal that enjoys unusually widespread political support .
On Monday , the House passed a measure to increase stimulus checks to that amount by a vote of 275-134 .
All but two Democrats in the House voted for the bill , along with 44 Republicans .
Donald Trump has repeatedly indicated support for a $ 2,000 check .
In the Senate , five Republicans have come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler and David Perdue .
Loeffler and Perdue are trying to hold on to their seats in highly competitive runoff elections in Georgia .
Their support of the measure is motived in no small part by an awareness of how popular it is with voters .
According to a Data for Progress poll , fully 78 percent of Americans support the measure—including 74 percent of Republicans .
Given these numbers , it ’ s likely that if the measure were put to a vote on the Senate floor , it would get more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The main roadblock is McConnell , who is trying his hardest to make sure the measure never gets to a vote .
The New York Times reports that on Tuesday McConnell By linking the $ 2,000 check to Trump ’ s pet projects—investigation into baseless claims of electoral fraud and ending of legal immunity for social media outlets under a legislation known as Section 230—McConnell is cannily using the president as a shield for his own policy preferences .
“ This all but assures $ 2K checks fail , ” Sahil Kupar of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump didn ’ t demand these three be combined.
” Trump had initially tried to have the legal shield repeal linked to passage of National Defense Authorization Act—a move McConnell opposed .
By bringing up these old Trump hobbyhorses and tying them to the $ 2,000 checks , McConnell is reverting to the familiar obstructionist cynicism that characterized his actions in the Obama presidency .
The new package is a poison pill , designed not to be passed .
Although the Democrats might be advised to call McConnell ’ s bluff : Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wouldn ’ t be easy to rescind .
Further , an investigation into election fraud would yield no results , since it ’ s clear there was no fraud in the 2020 election .
As David Dayen of The American Prospect suggests , it would make sense to agree to McConnell ’ s absurd terms just to get the $ 2,000 checks out the door .
Writing in The New Republic in 2019 , Alex Pareene described McConnell as “ the great avatar of the decades-long enclosure of our public life by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that McConnell lacks any firm ideological commitments apart from a desire to bolster plutocracy and keep Republicans in power .
This indifference to ideology helps him when negotiating with those who actually care about policy outcomes .
“ McConnell , as a political nihilist , always has an advantage over people determined to prove things work : It ’ s much easier to simply make things not work , if the only outcome you care about is electoral , ” Pareene observed .
“ So Republicans in Congress painstakingly drew out the negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results as rank political perfidy.
” Over the past five years , Democrats have directed far more ire at Trump than at McConnell .
To be sure , there was a well-funded—but ultimately quixotic—effort to unseat the senator in 2020 .
But in terms of national party rhetoric , it is Trump who has been treated as the dangerous authoritarian determined to destroy democracy , while McConnell has been accorded the respect due a normal partisan foe .
Biden , in particular , has emphasized that “ there are things ” he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This normalization of McConnell was perhaps justified when Trump remained a serious threat .
But Trump is on the way out .
More than most lame-duck presidents , Trump has become the incredible shrinking commander in chief , diminishing more and more each day .
Now is the time for Democrats to start treating McConnell as what he really is : a ruthless partisan who games the system in a way that makes political negotiations impossible .
By turning the spotlight on McConnell ’ s underhanded tactics , Democrats will have a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both in the Georgia runoffs and in the 2022 midterms .
The Democrats need to make it clear that so long as the GOP is in thrall to McConnell , America is doomed to gridlock and weak governance .
The stimulus fight gives them the perfect chance to start making this case .

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?
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are a study in contrasts, striking emblems of two very different ways to do politics. Trump is a showman and a narcissist, someone who hungers to always be at the center of attention even if his actions yield little results. His mangled attempt to veto the recent stimulus package is prime evidence of how his ability to hold the spotlight is inversely related to success in shaping policy. McConnell, on the other hand, is a creature of the back rooms. He loves to slink in the shadows and cares little about publicity. Rare among national politicians, he’s never shown any signs of wanting to run for president. He’s become one of the most effective American politicians of his era by his cagey ability to game the rules of the Senate, mainly to obstruct Democratic policy and to stack the judiciary in favor of Republican nominees.
In the twilight days of 2020, a political struggle over a $2,000 stimulus check highlights how extraordinarily pernicious McConnell is. It also creates an opportunity, just as Trump is about to leave the presidency, for Democrats to elevate McConnell to being their primary foil—the politician who more than anyone else is holding America back.
The $2,000 stimulus check is a proposal that enjoys unusually widespread political support. On Monday, the House passed a measure to increase stimulus checks to that amount by a vote of 275-134. All but two Democrats in the House voted for the bill, along with 44 Republicans. Donald Trump has repeatedly indicated support for a $2,000 check. In the Senate, five Republicans have come out in favor, including both Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Loeffler and Perdue are trying to hold on to their seats in highly competitive runoff elections in Georgia. Their support of the measure is motived in no small part by an awareness of how popular it is with voters. According to a Data for Progress poll, fully 78 percent of Americans support the measure—including 74 percent of Republicans. Given these numbers, it’s likely that if the measure were put to a vote on the Senate floor, it would get more than 60 votes and pass easily.
The main roadblock is McConnell, who is trying his hardest to make sure the measure never gets to a vote. The New York Times reports that on Tuesday McConnell
By linking the $2,000 check to Trump’s pet projects—investigation into baseless claims of electoral fraud and ending of legal immunity for social media outlets under a legislation known as Section 230—McConnell is cannily using the president as a shield for his own policy preferences. “This all but assures $2K checks fail,” Sahil Kupar of NBC News noted. “Notably, Trump didn’t demand these three be combined.” Trump had initially tried to have the legal shield repeal linked to passage of National Defense Authorization Act—a move McConnell opposed.
By bringing up these old Trump hobbyhorses and tying them to the $2,000 checks, McConnell is reverting to the familiar obstructionist cynicism that characterized his actions in the Obama presidency. The new package is a poison pill, designed not to be passed. Although the Democrats might be advised to call McConnell’s bluff: Section 230 is enshrined in NAFTA, so it wouldn’t be easy to rescind. Further, an investigation into election fraud would yield no results, since it’s clear there was no fraud in the 2020 election. As David Dayen of The American Prospect suggests, it would make sense to agree to McConnell’s absurd terms just to get the $2,000 checks out the door.
Writing in The New Republic in 2019, Alex Pareene described McConnell as “the great avatar of the decades-long enclosure of our public life by money.” Pareene went on to argue that McConnell lacks any firm ideological commitments apart from a desire to bolster plutocracy and keep Republicans in power. This indifference to ideology helps him when negotiating with those who actually care about policy outcomes. Current Issue View our current issue
“McConnell, as a political nihilist, always has an advantage over people determined to prove things work: It’s much easier to simply make things not work, if the only outcome you care about is electoral,” Pareene observed. “So Republicans in Congress painstakingly drew out the negotiations over the Obama agenda while stigmatizing the results as rank political perfidy.”
Over the past five years, Democrats have directed far more ire at Trump than at McConnell. To be sure, there was a well-funded—but ultimately quixotic—effort to unseat the senator in 2020. But in terms of national party rhetoric, it is Trump who has been treated as the dangerous authoritarian determined to destroy democracy, while McConnell has been accorded the respect due a normal partisan foe. Biden, in particular, has emphasized that “there are things” he and McConnell “can work together on.”
This normalization of McConnell was perhaps justified when Trump remained a serious threat. But Trump is on the way out. More than most lame-duck presidents, Trump has become the incredible shrinking commander in chief, diminishing more and more each day.
Now is the time for Democrats to start treating McConnell as what he really is: a ruthless partisan who games the system in a way that makes political negotiations impossible. By turning the spotlight on McConnell’s underhanded tactics, Democrats will have a better argument for their own senatorial candidates, both in the Georgia runoffs and in the 2022 midterms.
The Democrats need to make it clear that so long as the GOP is in thrall to McConnell, America is doomed to gridlock and weak governance. The stimulus fight gives them the perfect chance to start making this case.


thenation--2020-12-30--Can We Finally Stop Marching to Disaster?

It was the end of October 2001 .
Two friends , Max Elbaum and Bob Wing , had just dropped by .
( Yes , children , believe it or not , people used to drop in on each other , maskless , once upon a time . )
They had come to hang out with my partner Jan Adams and me .
Among other things , Max wanted to get some instructions from fellow-runner Jan about taping his foot to ease the pain of plantar fasciitis .
But it soon became clear that he and Bob had a bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eager to recruit us for a new project .
And so began War Times/Tiempo de Guerras , a free , bilingual , anti-war tabloid that , at its height , distributed 100,000 copies every six weeks to more than 700 anti-war organizations around the country .
It was already clear to the four of us that night—as it was to millions around the world—that the terrorist attacks of September 11th would provide the pretext for a major new projection of US military power globally , opening the way to a new era of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project of its moment ( although the name would still be apt today , given that those wars have never ended ) .
It would be superseded in a few years by the explosive growth of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle .
Still , it represented an early effort to fill the space where a peace movement would eventually develop .
All-War-All-the-Time—For Some of Us We were certainly right that the United States had entered a period of all-war-all-the-time .
It ’ s probably hard for people born since 9/11 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 2001 .
By the end of that month , this country had already launched a “ war ” on an enemy that then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us was “ not just in Afghanistan , ” but in “ 50 or 60 countries , and it simply has to be liquidated.
” Five years and two never-ending wars later , he characterized what was then called the war on terror as “ a generational conflict akin to the Cold War , the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world.
” A generation later , it looks like Rumsfeld was right , if not about the desires of the global enemy , then about the duration of the struggle .
Here in the United States , however , we quickly got used to being “ at war.
” In the first few months , interstate bus and train travelers often encountered ( and , in airports , still encounter ) a new and absurd kind of “ security theater.
” I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which people first learned to remove their belts and coats , later their hats and shoes , as ever newer articles of clothing were recognized as potential hiding places for explosives .
Fortunately , the arrest of the Underwear Bomber never led the Transportation Security Administration to the obvious conclusion about the clothing travelers should have to remove next .
We got used to putting our three-ounce containers of liquids ( No more ! )
into quart-sized baggies ( No bigger !
No smaller ! )
.
It was all-war-all-the-time , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting wars started dragging on , if you didn ’ t travel by airplane much or weren ’ t deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq , it was hard to remember that we were still in war time at all .
There were continuing clues for those who wanted to know , like the revelations of CIA torture practices at “ black sites ” around the world , the horrors of military prisons like the ones at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan , Abu Ghraib in Baghdad , and the still-functioning prison complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon enough , of course , there were the hundreds and then thousands of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars taking their places among the unhoused veterans of earlier wars in cities across the United States , almost unremarked upon , except by service organizations .
So , yes , the wars dragged on at great expense , but with little apparent effect in this country .
They even gained new names like “ the long war ” ( as Donald Trump ’ s Secretary of Defense James Mattis put it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a phrase now so common that it appears all over the place .
But apart from devouring at least $ 6.4 trillion dollars through September 2020 that might otherwise have been invested domestically in healthcare , education , infrastructure , or addressing poverty and inequality , apart from creating increasingly militarized domestic police forces armed ever more lethally by the Pentagon , those forever wars had little obvious effect on the lives of most Americans .
Of course , if you happened to live in one of the places where this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 years , things are a little different .
A conservative estimate by Iraq Body Count puts violent deaths among civilians in that country alone at 185,454 to 208,493 and Brown University ’ s Costs of War project points out that even the larger figure is bound to be a significant undercount : “ Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war , due to damage to the systems that provide food , health care , and clean drinking water , and as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.
” And that ’ s just Iraq .
Again , according to the Costs of War Project , “ At least 800,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria , Yemen , and Pakistan.
” Of course , many more people than that have been injured or disabled .
And America ’ s post-9/11 wars have driven an estimated 37 million people from their homes , creating the greatest human displacement since World War II .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the negative effects of online schooling on American children amid the ongoing Covid-19 crisis ( especially poor children and those in communities of color ) .
Imagine , then , the effects on a child ’ s education of losing her home and her country , as well as one or both parents , and then growing up constantly on the move or in an overcrowded , under-resourced refugee camp .
The war on terror has truly become a war of generations .
Every one of the 2,977 lives lost on 9/11 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response has been grotesquely disproportionate—and worse than we War Times founders could have imagined that October night so many years ago .
Those wars of ours have gone on for almost two decades now .
Each new metastasis has been justified by George W. Bush ’ s and then Barack Obama ’ s use of the now ancient 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) , which Congress passed in the days after 9/11 .
Its language actually limited presidential military action to a direct response to the 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the same actors .
It stated that the president “ is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations , organizations , or persons he determines planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons , in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations , organizations or persons.
” Despite that AUMF ’ s limited scope , successive presidents have used it to justify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( To be fair , President Obama realized the absurdity of his situation when he sent US troops to Syria and tried to wring a new authorization out of Congress , only to be stymied by a Republican majority that wouldn ’ t play along . )
In 2002 , in the run-up to the Iraq War , Congress passed a second AUMF , which permitted the president to use the armed forces as “ necessary and appropriate ” to “ defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ used that second authorization to justify the murder by drone of Qasem Soleimani , an Iranian general , along with nine other people .
In 2016 , peace activists were preparing to confront a Hillary Clinton administration that we expected would continue Obama ’ s version of the forever wars—the “ surge ” in Afghanistan , the drone assassination campaigns , the special ops in Africa .
But on Tuesday , November 8 , 2016 , something went “ Trump ” in the night and Donald J. Trump took over the presidency with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s forever wars , which he had criticized relentlessly during his campaign .
That , of course , didn ’ t mean we should have expected a peace dividend anytime soon .
He was also committed to rebuilding a supposedly “ depleted ” US military .
As he said at a 2019 press conference , It ’ s highly unlikely that the military couldn ’ t afford to buy enough bullets when Trump entered the Oval Office , given that publicly acknowledged defense funding was then running at $ 580 billion a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to push that figure to $ 713 billion by fiscal year 2020 .
That December , he threatened to veto an even larger appropriation for 2021— $ 740 billion—but only because he wanted the military to continue to honor Confederate generals by keeping their names on military bases .
Oh , and because he thought the bill should also change liability rules for social media companies , an issue you don ’ t normally expect to see addressed in a defense appropriations bill .
And , in any case , Congress passed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon expert Michael Klare pointed out recently , while it might seem contradictory that Trump would both want to end the forever wars and to increase military spending , his actions actually made a certain sense .
The president , suggested Klare , had been persuaded to support the part of the US military command that has favored a sharp pivot away from reigning post-9/11 Pentagon practices .
For 19 years , the military high command had hewed fairly closely to the strategy laid out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld early in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight ground wars against one or two regional powers ( think of that “ Axis of Evil ” of Iraq , North Korea , and Iran ) , while deploying agile , technologically advanced forces in low-intensity ( and a couple of higher-intensity ) counterterrorism conflicts .
Nineteen years later , whatever its objectives may have been—a more stable Middle East ?
Fewer and weaker terrorist organizations ?
—it ’ s clear that the Rumsfeld-Bush strategy has failed spectacularly .
Klare points out that the Pentagon , after almost two decades without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demote international terrorism from rampaging monster to annoying mosquito cloud .
Instead , the United States must now prepare to confront the rise of China and Russia , even if China has only one overseas military base and Russia , economically speaking , is a rickety petro-state with imperial aspirations .
In other words , the United States .
must prepare to fight short but devastating wars in multiple domains ( including space and cyberspace ) , perhaps even involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the Eurasian continent .
To this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major renovation of its nuclear arsenal and announced a new 30-year plan to beef up its naval capacity .
And President Trump rarely misses a chance to tout “ his ” creation of a new Space Force .
Meanwhile , did he actually keep his promise and at least end those forever wars ?
Not really .
He did promise to bring all US troops home from Afghanistan by Christmas , but acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller only recently said that we ’ d be leaving about 2,500 troops there and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that they ’ d all be out by May 2021 .
( In other words , he dumped those wars in the lap of the future Biden administration . )
In the meantime in these years of “ ending ” those wars , the Trump administration actually loosened the rules of engagement for air strikes in Afghanistan , leading to a “ massive increase in civilian casualties , ” according to a new report from the Costs of War Project .
“ From the last year of the Obama administration to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration , ” writes its author , Neta Crawford , “ the number of civilians killed by US-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent.
” In spite of his isolationist “ America First ” rhetoric , in other words , President Trump has presided over an enormous buildup of an institution , the military-industrial complex , that was hardly in need of major new investment .
And in spite of his anti-NATO rhetoric , his reduction by almost a third of US troop strength Germany , and all the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II foreign policy pact between the Republican and Democratic parties .
Regardless of how they might disagree about dividing the wealth domestically , they remain united in their commitment to using diplomacy when possible , but military force when necessary , to maintain and expand the imperial power that they believed to be the guarantor of that wealth .
And Now Comes Joe On January 20 , 2021 , Joe Biden will become the president of a country that spends as much on its armed forces , by some counts , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll inherit responsibility for a nation with a military presence in 150 countries and special-operations deployments in 22 African nations alone .
He ’ ll be left to oversee the still-unfinished , deeply unsuccessful , never-ending War on Terror in Iraq , Syria , Afghanistan , Yemen , and Somalia and , as publicly reported by the Department of Defense , 187,000 troops stationed outside the United States .
Nothing in Biden ’ s history suggests that he or any of the people he ’ s already appointed to his national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democratic-Republican imperial pact .
But empires are not sustained by inclination alone .
They don ’ t last forever .
They overextend themselves .
They rot from within .
If you ’ re old enough , you may remember stories about the long lines for food in the crumbling Soviet Union , that other superpower of the Cold War .
You can see the same thing in the United States today .
Once a week , my partner delivers food boxes to hungry people in our city , those who have lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic has only exacerbated this country ’ s already brutal version of economic inequality .
Another friend routinely sees a food line stretching over a mile , as people wait hours for a single free bag of groceries .
Perhaps the horrors of 2020—the fires and hurricanes , Trump ’ s vicious attacks on democracy , the death , sickness , and economic dislocation caused by Covid-19—can force a real conversation about national security in 2021 .
Maybe this time we can finally ask whether trying to prop up a dying empire actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is the best chance in a generation to start that conversation .
The alternative is to keep trudging mindlessly toward disaster .

EDITOR’S NOTE: 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.
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?
It was the end of October 2001. Two friends, Max Elbaum and Bob Wing, had just dropped by. (Yes, children, believe it or not, people used to drop in on each other, maskless, once upon a time.) They had come to hang out with my partner Jan Adams and me. Among other things, Max wanted to get some instructions from fellow-runner Jan about taping his foot to ease the pain of plantar fasciitis. But it soon became clear that he and Bob had a bigger agenda for the evening. They were eager to recruit us for a new project.
And so began War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, a free, bilingual, anti-war tabloid that, at its height, distributed 100,000 copies every six weeks to more than 700 anti-war organizations around the country. It was already clear to the four of us that night—as it was to millions around the world—that the terrorist attacks of September 11th would provide the pretext for a major new projection of US military power globally, opening the way to a new era of “all-war-all-the-time.” War Times was a project of its moment (although the name would still be apt today, given that those wars have never ended). It would be superseded in a few years by the explosive growth of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle. Still, it represented an early effort to fill the space where a peace movement would eventually develop.
All-War-All-the-Time—For Some of Us
We were certainly right that the United States had entered a period of all-war-all-the-time. It’s probably hard for people born since 9/11 to imagine how much—and how little—things changed after September 2001. By the end of that month, this country had already launched a “war” on an enemy that then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us was “not just in Afghanistan,” but in “50 or 60 countries, and it simply has to be liquidated.”
Five years and two never-ending wars later, he characterized what was then called the war on terror as “a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world.” A generation later, it looks like Rumsfeld was right, if not about the desires of the global enemy, then about the duration of the struggle.
Here in the United States, however, we quickly got used to being “at war.” In the first few months, interstate bus and train travelers often encountered (and, in airports, still encounter) a new and absurd kind of “security theater.” I’m referring to those long, snaking lines in which people first learned to remove their belts and coats, later their hats and shoes, as ever newer articles of clothing were recognized as potential hiding places for explosives. Fortunately, the arrest of the Underwear Bomber never led the Transportation Security Administration to the obvious conclusion about the clothing travelers should have to remove next. We got used to putting our three-ounce containers of liquids (No more!) into quart-sized baggies (No bigger! No smaller!). 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
It was all-war-all-the-time, but mainly in those airports. Once the shooting wars started dragging on, if you didn’t travel by airplane much or weren’t deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, it was hard to remember that we were still in war time at all. There were continuing clues for those who wanted to know, like the revelations of CIA torture practices at “black sites” around the world, the horrors of military prisons like the ones at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, and the still-functioning prison complex at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. And soon enough, of course, there were the hundreds and then thousands of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars taking their places among the unhoused veterans of earlier wars in cities across the United States, almost unremarked upon, except by service organizations.
So, yes, the wars dragged on at great expense, but with little apparent effect in this country. They even gained new names like “the long war” (as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense James Mattis put it in 2017) or the “forever wars,” a phrase now so common that it appears all over the place. But apart from devouring at least $6.4 trillion dollars through September 2020 that might otherwise have been invested domestically in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or addressing poverty and inequality, apart from creating increasingly militarized domestic police forces armed ever more lethally by the Pentagon, those forever wars had little obvious effect on the lives of most Americans. Current Issue View our current issue
Of course, if you happened to live in one of the places where this country has been fighting for the last 19 years, things are a little different. A conservative estimate by Iraq Body Count puts violent deaths among civilians in that country alone at 185,454 to 208,493 and Brown University’s Costs of War project points out that even the larger figure is bound to be a significant undercount:
“Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care, and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.”
And that’s just Iraq. Again, according to the Costs of War Project, “At least 800,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan.”
Of course, many more people than that have been injured or disabled. And America’s post-9/11 wars have driven an estimated 37 million people from their homes, creating the greatest human displacement since World War II. People in this country are rightly concerned about the negative effects of online schooling on American children amid the ongoing Covid-19 crisis (especially poor children and those in communities of color). Imagine, then, the effects on a child’s education of losing her home and her country, as well as one or both parents, and then growing up constantly on the move or in an overcrowded, under-resourced refugee camp. The war on terror has truly become a war of generations.
Every one of the 2,977 lives lost on 9/11 was unique and invaluable. But the US response has been grotesquely disproportionate—and worse than we War Times founders could have imagined that October night so many years ago.
Those wars of ours have gone on for almost two decades now. Each new metastasis has been justified by George W. Bush’s and then Barack Obama’s use of the now ancient 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress passed in the days after 9/11. Its language actually limited presidential military action to a direct response to the 9/11 attacks and the prevention of future attacks by the same actors. It stated that the president “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Despite that AUMF’s limited scope, successive presidents have used it to justify military action in at least 18 countries. (To be fair, President Obama realized the absurdity of his situation when he sent US troops to Syria and tried to wring a new authorization out of Congress, only to be stymied by a Republican majority that wouldn’t play along.)
In 2002, in the run-up to the Iraq War, Congress passed a second AUMF, which permitted the president to use the armed forces as “necessary and appropriate” to “defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” In January 2020, Donald Trump used that second authorization to justify the murder by drone of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general, along with nine other people.
Trump Steps In
In 2016, peace activists were preparing to confront a Hillary Clinton administration that we expected would continue Obama’s version of the forever wars—the “surge” in Afghanistan, the drone assassination campaigns, the special ops in Africa. But on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, something went “Trump” in the night and Donald J. Trump took over the presidency with a promise to end this country’s forever wars, which he had criticized relentlessly during his campaign. That, of course, didn’t mean we should have expected a peace dividend anytime soon. He was also committed to rebuilding a supposedly “depleted” US military. As he said at a 2019 press conference,
When I took over, it was a mess.… One of our generals came in to see me and he said, “Sir, we don’t have ammunition.” I said, “That’s a terrible thing you just said.” He said, “We don’t have ammunition.” Now we have more ammunition than we’ve ever had.
It’s highly unlikely that the military couldn’t afford to buy enough bullets when Trump entered the Oval Office, given that publicly acknowledged defense funding was then running at $580 billion a year. He did, however, manage to push that figure to $713 billion by fiscal year 2020. That December, he threatened to veto an even larger appropriation for 2021—$740 billion—but only because he wanted the military to continue to honor Confederate generals by keeping their names on military bases. Oh, and because he thought the bill should also change liability rules for social media companies, an issue you don’t normally expect to see addressed in a defense appropriations bill. And, in any case, Congress passed the bill with a veto-proof majority.
As Pentagon expert Michael Klare pointed out recently, while it might seem contradictory that Trump would both want to end the forever wars and to increase military spending, his actions actually made a certain sense. The president, suggested Klare, had been persuaded to support the part of the US military command that has favored a sharp pivot away from reigning post-9/11 Pentagon practices. For 19 years, the military high command had hewed fairly closely to the strategy laid out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld early in the Bush years: maintaining the capacity to fight ground wars against one or two regional powers (think of that “Axis of Evil” of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran), while deploying agile, technologically advanced forces in low-intensity (and a couple of higher-intensity) counterterrorism conflicts. Nineteen years later, whatever its objectives may have been—a more stable Middle East? Fewer and weaker terrorist organizations?—it’s clear that the Rumsfeld-Bush strategy has failed spectacularly.
Klare points out that the Pentagon, after almost two decades without a victory, has largely decided to demote international terrorism from rampaging monster to annoying mosquito cloud. Instead, the United States must now prepare to confront the rise of China and Russia, even if China has only one overseas military base and Russia, economically speaking, is a rickety petro-state with imperial aspirations. In other words, the United States. must prepare to fight short but devastating wars in multiple domains (including space and cyberspace), perhaps even involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the Eurasian continent. To this end, the country has indeed begun a major renovation of its nuclear arsenal and announced a new 30-year plan to beef up its naval capacity. And President Trump rarely misses a chance to tout “his” creation of a new Space Force.
Meanwhile, did he actually keep his promise and at least end those forever wars? Not really. He did promise to bring all US troops home from Afghanistan by Christmas, but acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller only recently said that we’d be leaving about 2,500 troops there and a similar number in Iraq, with the hope that they’d all be out by May 2021. (In other words, he dumped those wars in the lap of the future Biden administration.)
In the meantime in these years of “ending” those wars, the Trump administration actually loosened the rules of engagement for air strikes in Afghanistan, leading to a “massive increase in civilian casualties,” according to a new report from the Costs of War Project. “From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data during the Trump administration,” writes its author, Neta Crawford, “the number of civilians killed by US-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent.”
In spite of his isolationist “America First” rhetoric, in other words, President Trump has presided over an enormous buildup of an institution, the military-industrial complex, that was hardly in need of major new investment. And in spite of his anti-NATO rhetoric, his reduction by almost a third of US troop strength Germany, and all the rest, he never really violated the post–World War II foreign policy pact between the Republican and Democratic parties. Regardless of how they might disagree about dividing the wealth domestically, they remain united in their commitment to using diplomacy when possible, but military force when necessary, to maintain and expand the imperial power that they believed to be the guarantor of that wealth.
And Now Comes Joe
On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden will become the president of a country that spends as much on its armed forces, by some counts, as the next 10 countries combined. He’ll inherit responsibility for a nation with a military presence in 150 countries and special-operations deployments in 22 African nations alone. He’ll be left to oversee the still-unfinished, deeply unsuccessful, never-ending War on Terror in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia and, as publicly reported by the Department of Defense, 187,000 troops stationed outside the United States.
Nothing in Biden’s history suggests that he or any of the people he’s already appointed to his national security team have the slightest inclination to destabilize that Democratic-Republican imperial pact. But empires are not sustained by inclination alone. They don’t last forever. They overextend themselves. They rot from within.
If you’re old enough, you may remember stories about the long lines for food in the crumbling Soviet Union, that other superpower of the Cold War. You can see the same thing in the United States today. Once a week, my partner delivers food boxes to hungry people in our city, those who have lost their jobs and homes, because the pandemic has only exacerbated this country’s already brutal version of economic inequality. Another friend routinely sees a food line stretching over a mile, as people wait hours for a single free bag of groceries.
Perhaps the horrors of 2020—the fires and hurricanes, Trump’s vicious attacks on democracy, the death, sickness, and economic dislocation caused by Covid-19—can force a real conversation about national security in 2021. Maybe this time we can finally ask whether trying to prop up a dying empire actually makes us—or indeed the world—any safer. This is the best chance in a generation to start that conversation. The alternative is to keep trudging mindlessly toward disaster.