thenation--2020-11-10--Can American Labor Survive Prop 22?

Can American Labor Survive Prop 22?

Uber , Lyft , DoorDash , Postmates , and Instacart convinced nearly 60 percent of Californian voters to support Proposition 22 , which excludes “ gig workers ” from basic labor protections .
The companies overwhelmed the opposition and muddled the truth with a record-breaking $ 200 million campaign , pelting voters with misleading ads that framed the proposal as a social justice cause .
It marks a dangerous new phase in big tech ’ s onslaught against workers , and a pivotal test of whether labor can push back .
Prop 22 reverses the momentum activists had in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AB5 , which recognized gig workers as full employees , entitling them to labor rights like unemployment insurance , paid sick leave , overtime , and a path to unionizing .
Prop 22 exempts the gig companies from AB5 , and instead creates a “ third category ” of independent contractors with a few perks .
Drivers will now receive limited health benefits , but only for those who log enough hours , and an hourly pay “ guarantee ” that a UC Berkeley Labor Center study found to be worth $ 5.64 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of seven-eighths of California ’ s legislature to make any changes , including any measure that would let workers collectively bargain .
Veena Dubal , a labor law professor at UC Hastings , told me that Prop 22 ’ s passage represents “ the most radical undoing of labor legislation since Taft-Hartley in 1947 , ” the law that debilitated the power granted to unions by the New Deal .
“ It will create a growing precariat of people who work very hard and are not able to survive off of their earnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on American politics for decades , if not the next century.
” The gig companies hope Prop 22 will force governments and labor to heel .
On Thursday after the election , as the value of his company ’ s stock ballooned by billions , an upbeat Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi promised investors , “ Going forward , you will see us more loudly advocate for new laws like Prop 22.… it ’ s a priority for us to work with governments across the US and the world to make this a reality.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was “ time for peace ” between the corporations and labor .
“ Prop 22 settled the question of driver independence , but we know there is more work to be done.
” The matter of employee classification has existed for as long as the gig companies have been in business—and points to a conflict over who bears the hidden costs of work .
Far from the happy-go-lucky freelancers portrayed in Uber and Lyft ’ s ads , “ gig workers ” are predominantly older people of color and immigrants without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other sources of income , and they typically drive more than 30 hours a week to support families .
As “ independent contractors , ” they are not paid for waiting time , which drastically lowers their real hourly rate .
They shoulder all the overhead of driving , pay significantly more taxes , and risk plunging into debt over car payments and repairs .
If they are suddenly “ deactivated ” from the app , they have no recourse or eligibility for unemployment insurance .
For a California rideshare driver who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ independent ” classification means his family will receive no worker ’ s compensation .
Employee classification is about power .
Federal labor law stipulates that only employees may form unions and , under Donald Trump , both the National Labor Relations Board ( NLRB ) , which enforces labor law , and the Department of Labor have declared gig workers to be independent contractors .
Without federal recognition , gig workers have been forced to self-organize into grassroots formations .
The most prominent , Rideshare Drivers United , has grown from around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members across the country .
It recruits using a custom app and by passing flyers through rolled-down windows at traffic lights .
Its members have protested Uber and Lyft by blocking traffic , honking horns , picketing in front of the companies ’ headquarters , and storming into government buildings .
But without formal status , they have only limited capacity to strike and no official power to negotiate .
And lacking workers classified as employees , their ranks are thinned out by rideshare ’ s high turnover rates .
“ People organize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who often volunteers with the group .
“ And if you don ’ t identify as a rideshare driver , then it ’ s hard to invest time and energy into trying to build power .
This , in and of itself , is part of union-busting culture , to try and force casualization.
” In the months leading up to the November election , Rideshare Drivers United led an all-out outreach effort , with the support of local unions , to counter the tech companies ’ VC-backed propaganda war .
Nicole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group , told me volunteers attempted to make a million calls and texts to prospective voters and found many of them , including drivers themselves , were confused .
“ Once we said , ‘ Hey , we ’ re drivers , and this is actually going to hurt us , ’ they were like , ‘ Ohh , OK , so I ’ m supposed to vote no , ’ ” she said .
In the end , it wasn ’ t enough to overcome the gig companies ’ domination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notifications through their apps , to delivery bags stamped with “ Yes on 22.
” An early voting survey found 40 percent of Californians who chose “ yes ” thought they were doing so to help workers .
“ Access to those people is what the difference is , ” said Moore .
“ [ The gig companies ] had complete saturation .
It was completely unfair.
” Over the last week , the gig companies have used the leverage of their victory to circumvent insurgent workers ’ groups like Rideshare Drivers United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For years , rideshare executives have suggested the unions could drop their opposition in return for a role in creating “ workers ’ associations ” that could “ represent drivers ’ interests ” without granting them employee status or the power to strike .
The main example is New York ’ s “ Independent Drivers Guild , ” which was formed in 2016 in a deal between Uber and the Machinists Union .
That organization , which receives funding from Uber and now boasts over 200,000 members across the Tri-State area , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22—suggesting these associations would augment the bosses ’ power , not challenge it .
In California , the Service Employees International Union drew outrage last year after it considered working with Uber on Prop 22 , before deciding to oppose it .
Now the unions are wavering again .
In response to the gig companies ’ post-election overtures , Rome Aloise , international vice president of the Teamsters—which represents UPS workers , and opposed Prop 22—signaled a willingness to play ball , reasoning that “ the goal of any union is to grow.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform capitalists ’ model coming for his members too .
Bhairavi Desai , executive director of the New York Taxi Workers ’ Alliance ( NYTWA ) , a 21,000-member union of drivers that staunchly opposed Prop 22 , said any union compromising with the gig companies would set a “ horrible precedent that can affect other workforces .
If business-minded unions make sweetheart deals , all they ’ ll do is cement this model , which really seeks to punish workers.
” Desai ’ s union has maintained a militant stance against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fought them to a draw .
In 2018 , the NYTWA helped enact a first-of-its-kind minimum wage law for rideshare workers , though the gig companies responded by “ locking out ” workers unless they put in punishing hours .
In July a federal judge sided with the NYTWA in a suit arguing that Uber and Lyft drivers were employees for the purposes of New York state unemployment benefits—though they remain classified as independent contractors for all other purposes .
Desai credits support from New York ’ s progressive lawmakers , including a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If Uber and company try to rush through a pro-gig company bill in this session , it ’ s going to be very difficult for them to do so , ” she said .
But Uber and Lyft have the upper hand everywhere else in the country , thanks to years of aggressive lobbying in nearly every state .
Lorena Gonzalez , the labor organizer turned California Assembly member who wrote AB5 , says workers ’ struggle against the platform capitalists needs federal support .
“ Even with pro-worker states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do this patchwork , and we ultimately need a discussion about the future of workers at the national level , ” she told me .
Activists hope the new Biden administration will fire Trump ’ s National Labor Relations Board general counsel , whose term lasts through next November ; that could open the door to app workers ’ forming federally recognized unions .
A far more difficult task would be to repeal Citizens United .
“ We can never compete with corporate money , ” Gonzalez said .
“ At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonuses they ’ ll pay their engineers , Uber probably spent $ 250 million .
They didn ’ t spend all that money to tell people , ‘ We ’ re going to screw workers ’ ; they tried to confuse people .
Californians voted , they thought , to give drivers a living wage.
” There will be a next round in the fight .
The question is whether rideshare workers ’ voices can break through .
Dubal believes they can—if organized labor returns to its radical roots .
“ We just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ It isn ’ t working .
We can ’ t be afraid of the word ‘ revolution.
’ It needs to be about ownership , redistribution , collective power .
We ’ re not at a place anymore where enough people are getting by , that things are OK .
If people feel this anger collectively , they can build something transformative .
”

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?
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, and Instacart convinced nearly 60 percent of Californian voters to support Proposition 22, which excludes “gig workers” from basic labor protections. The companies overwhelmed the opposition and muddled the truth with a record-breaking $200 million campaign, pelting voters with misleading ads that framed the proposal as a social justice cause. It marks a dangerous new phase in big tech’s onslaught against workers, and a pivotal test of whether labor can push back.
Prop 22 reverses the momentum activists had in 2019, when they passed California’s AB5, which recognized gig workers as full employees, entitling them to labor rights like unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, overtime, and a path to unionizing. Prop 22 exempts the gig companies from AB5, and instead creates a “third category” of independent contractors with a few perks. Drivers will now receive limited health benefits, but only for those who log enough hours, and an hourly pay “guarantee” that a UC Berkeley Labor Center study found to be worth $5.64. The law requires the near-impossible support of seven-eighths of California’s legislature to make any changes, including any measure that would let workers collectively bargain. Veena Dubal, a labor law professor at UC Hastings, told me that Prop 22’s passage represents “the most radical undoing of labor legislation since Taft-Hartley in 1947,” the law that debilitated the power granted to unions by the New Deal. “It will create a growing precariat of people who work very hard and are not able to survive off of their earnings. And it will have an impact on American politics for decades, if not the next century.”
The gig companies hope Prop 22 will force governments and labor to heel. On Thursday after the election, as the value of his company’s stock ballooned by billions, an upbeat Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi promised investors, “Going forward, you will see us more loudly advocate for new laws like Prop 22.… it’s a priority for us to work with governments across the US and the world to make this a reality.” Lyft president John Zimmer told reporters that it was “time for peace” between the corporations and labor. “Prop 22 settled the question of driver independence, but we know there is more work to be done.”
The matter of employee classification has existed for as long as the gig companies have been in business—and points to a conflict over who bears the hidden costs of work. Far from the happy-go-lucky freelancers portrayed in Uber and Lyft’s ads, “gig workers” are predominantly older people of color and immigrants without degrees, savings, proper insurance, or other sources of income, and they typically drive more than 30 hours a week to support families. As “independent contractors,” they are not paid for waiting time, which drastically lowers their real hourly rate. They shoulder all the overhead of driving, pay significantly more taxes, and risk plunging into debt over car payments and repairs. If they are suddenly “deactivated” from the app, they have no recourse or eligibility for unemployment insurance. For a California rideshare driver who died from Covid-19 last month, his “independent” classification means his family will receive no worker’s compensation. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Employee classification is about power. Federal labor law stipulates that only employees may form unions and, under Donald Trump, both the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which enforces labor law, and the Department of Labor have declared gig workers to be independent contractors. Without federal recognition, gig workers have been forced to self-organize into grassroots formations. The most prominent, Rideshare Drivers United, has grown from around 100 drivers in Los Angeles to 19,000 members across the country. It recruits using a custom app and by passing flyers through rolled-down windows at traffic lights. Its members have protested Uber and Lyft by blocking traffic, honking horns, picketing in front of the companies’ headquarters, and storming into government buildings. But without formal status, they have only limited capacity to strike and no official power to negotiate. And lacking workers classified as employees, their ranks are thinned out by rideshare’s high turnover rates. “People organize around their identities,” said Dubal, who often volunteers with the group. “And if you don’t identify as a rideshare driver, then it’s hard to invest time and energy into trying to build power. This, in and of itself, is part of union-busting culture, to try and force casualization.”
In the months leading up to the November election, Rideshare Drivers United led an all-out outreach effort, with the support of local unions, to counter the tech companies’ VC-backed propaganda war. Nicole Moore, a driver and organizer with the group, told me volunteers attempted to make a million calls and texts to prospective voters and found many of them, including drivers themselves, were confused. “Once we said, ‘Hey, we’re drivers, and this is actually going to hurt us,’ they were like, ‘Ohh, OK, so I’m supposed to vote no,’” she said.
In the end, it wasn’t enough to overcome the gig companies’ domination of advertising across every medium, from push notifications through their apps, to delivery bags stamped with “Yes on 22.” An early voting survey found 40 percent of Californians who chose “yes” thought they were doing so to help workers. “Access to those people is what the difference is,” said Moore. “[The gig companies] had complete saturation. It was completely unfair.” Current Issue View our current issue
Over the last week, the gig companies have used the leverage of their victory to circumvent insurgent workers’ groups like Rideshare Drivers United and propose deals with the larger unions. For years, rideshare executives have suggested the unions could drop their opposition in return for a role in creating “workers’ associations” that could “represent drivers’ interests” without granting them employee status or the power to strike. The main example is New York’s “Independent Drivers Guild,” which was formed in 2016 in a deal between Uber and the Machinists Union. That organization, which receives funding from Uber and now boasts over 200,000 members across the Tri-State area, stayed silent throughout the campaign for Prop 22—suggesting these associations would augment the bosses’ power, not challenge it.
In California, the Service Employees International Union drew outrage last year after it considered working with Uber on Prop 22, before deciding to oppose it. Now the unions are wavering again. In response to the gig companies’ post-election overtures, Rome Aloise, international vice president of the Teamsters—which represents UPS workers, and opposed Prop 22—signaled a willingness to play ball, reasoning that “the goal of any union is to grow.”
But Aloise could soon find the platform capitalists’ model coming for his members too. Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance (NYTWA), a 21,000-member union of drivers that staunchly opposed Prop 22, said any union compromising with the gig companies would set a “horrible precedent that can affect other workforces. If business-minded unions make sweetheart deals, all they’ll do is cement this model, which really seeks to punish workers.”
Desai’s union has maintained a militant stance against the gig companies, and has thus far fought them to a draw. In 2018, the NYTWA helped enact a first-of-its-kind minimum wage law for rideshare workers, though the gig companies responded by “locking out” workers unless they put in punishing hours. In July a federal judge sided with the NYTWA in a suit arguing that Uber and Lyft drivers were employees for the purposes of New York state unemployment benefits—though they remain classified as independent contractors for all other purposes. Desai credits support from New York’s progressive lawmakers, including a newly elected crop of leftist state legislators. “If Uber and company try to rush through a pro-gig company bill in this session, it’s going to be very difficult for them to do so,” she said.
But Uber and Lyft have the upper hand everywhere else in the country, thanks to years of aggressive lobbying in nearly every state. Lorena Gonzalez, the labor organizer turned California Assembly member who wrote AB5, says workers’ struggle against the platform capitalists needs federal support. “Even with pro-worker states, I’m not sure that we can do this patchwork, and we ultimately need a discussion about the future of workers at the national level,” she told me.
Activists hope the new Biden administration will fire Trump’s National Labor Relations Board general counsel, whose term lasts through next November; that could open the door to app workers’ forming federally recognized unions. A far more difficult task would be to repeal Citizens United. “We can never compete with corporate money,” Gonzalez said. “At the end of the day, including the bonuses they’ll pay their engineers, Uber probably spent $250 million. They didn’t spend all that money to tell people, ‘We’re going to screw workers’; they tried to confuse people. Californians voted, they thought, to give drivers a living wage.”
There will be a next round in the fight. The question is whether rideshare workers’ voices can break through. Dubal believes they can—if organized labor returns to its radical roots. “We just have to stop with our centrist crap,” she said. “It isn’t working. We can’t be afraid of the word ‘revolution.’ It needs to be about ownership, redistribution, collective power. We’re not at a place anymore where enough people are getting by, that things are OK. If people feel this anger collectively, they can build something transformative.”


thenation--2020-11-10--Trump Is Trying to Overturn the Election, but I’m Not Panicking—Yet

Joe Biden is going to be the next president of the United States .
He will be inaugurated on January 20 and take power at noon that day .
There is nothing , legally , that Trump can do to stop that .
What Trump and his feckless Republican Party might do illegally to try to overturn the results of the election and prevent Biden from taking power is a different matter .
Trump has evidently intimidated the administrator of the General Services Administration into refusing to acknowledge Biden ’ s victory and thus prevent his team from starting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans have acknowledged that Biden won , and most of those who have , like George W. Bush , no longer hold any political power .
Trump has already filed a raft of baseless lawsuits .
His people are drumming up talk of some kind of Electoral College devilry to overthrow the popular will .
And Trump fired the secretary of defense , Mike Esper , yesterday , which seems like the kind of thing one does before launching a coup d ’ état .
Years of watching Democrats snatch defeat from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling that “ it ’ s happening , again.
” But rational thought tells us that these Trump gambits , all of them , are pointless .
Biden won and his ascension to power is now inevitable , whether Trump accedes to that reality or not .
As a wise man once sang : Gravity always wins .
Still , we ’ ve all seen Trump wriggle out of approximately a billion other defeats and scandals .
He ’ s exposed the weakness of our democratic institutions , revealing just how useless they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assaults .
So it feels somehow naive to believe that his loss at the ballot box will translate into his loss of an actual job .
It feels smart to consider that he might have a secret plan to retain that job , despite being voted out of it .
Trump is the Michael Myers of our politics : He can ’ t be defeated , because the horror movie franchise makes too much money to ever end .
And yet , despite all this , I have gone to bed every night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become President Biden .
I ’ ve come to this peace over the objection of my amygdala , which is the part of the brain that screams in fear and anxiety and tries to overpower rational thought .
Here ’ s what I tell myself in order to help me sleep at night .
Perhaps these are conversations others can have to achieve my level of forced serenity .
( Amygdala in bold italics . )
Who won the election if we only count legal votes ?
Only legal votes are being counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the possibility of a recount in swing states like Michigan or Pennsylvania ?
Recounts traditionally do not change more than a thousand votes .
Even if we ’ ve gone completely through the looking glass and this recount changes an unprecedented number of votes , like 5,000 , which is completely unheard of , Biden ’ s margin of victory is too great to overcome .
A recount would not change the result in states like Arizona , Georgia , Michigan , Nevada , Pennsylvania , or Wisconsin .
If Trump wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to him .
What about all the lawsuits , especially the ones they keep filing in Arizona and Pennsylvania ?
Trump ’ s election lawsuits fall , broadly , into three categories : lawsuits alleging poll watchers were too far away , lawsuits complaining about the established rules for submitting mail-in ballots , and lawsuits alleging Trump voters were denied their vote because of some kind of ballot machine malfunction .
None of these lawsuits provide evidence of massive voter fraud .
None of the lawsuits provide evidence of voter fraud at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some accidents , but the remedy for those accidents is counting more votes , not fewer .
Trump ’ s claims that his poll watchers were not allowed to watch the counting of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania is flatly untrue , and his lawyers have had to admit in court that they were allowed in the room .
They ’ ve been reduced to arguing that their poll watchers were not close enough , which , whatever .
The remedy for that is to move them closer , not throw out tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none of the Trump lawsuits allege anything that can be used to throw out tens of thousands of votes .
Throwing out votes that have already been counted is not something that courts do .
We can recount votes , this time with Trump watchers breathing down the necks of ballot counters and giving them Covid-19 , but again , recounts don ’ t usually change the balance of votes by all that much .
The important thing to ask with each new Trump lawsuit is this : What is the remedy ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of votes from people whose votes were clear in their choice and timely in their submission , ” then that lawsuit is going nowhere .
And if the remedy is not throwing out those entirely timely and legal votes , then the lawsuit will not change the results of the election .
Why would the Trump people be pushing these lawsuits if there was no chance for them to change the outcome ?
Because Trump people are dumb ?
Hanlon ’ s Razor tells us : “ Never attribute to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stupidity.
” Black People Repudiated Trump Like He Was a Piece of Used Gum Joking aside , there might be many malicious reasons for the Trump campaign to be pushing lawsuits they know are destined to fail .
Stirring up doubt in Biden ’ s victory is a prelude to refusing to acknowledge his authority as president .
Trump , or one of his kids , or somebody “ Trump-approved ” is surely going to run for president in 2024 , and making Trump ’ s rabid , white-supremacist base feel like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a political upside as they fight for their new “ Lost Cause.
” And , there ’ s also the grift .
Trump ’ s campaign is broke .
They ’ ve literally written checks they can ’ t cash .
Trump doesn ’ t like spending his own money on these things ( to the extent he actually has any ) .
These lawsuits purportedly challenging the election are a huge money-making opportunity for the Trump campaign .
If you read the fine print on the new fundraising e-mails Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they say that “ 60 percent of contributions ” will go toward retiring campaign debt .
Would the Trump campaign put America through 70 days of trauma to make a buck ?
You better believe it .
The whole Trump presidency is a guerrilla marketing campaign for the Trump brand that went too far .
But the Republican Senate is going along .
This is just like impeachment .
Republicans wouldn ’ t remove Trump then and they won ’ t now .
Well , it ’ s not up to Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution does all that work on January 20 .
Joe Biden is the president on that day whether Republicans acknowledge it or not .
But now Bill Barr has gotten in on the game , and he is the worst of Trump ’ s henchman .
He ’ s given federal prosecutors the green light to open up investigations into possible voter fraud .
There wasn ’ t election fraud .
Trump ’ s legal team has no evidence of election fraud and has no money to investigate to find such evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ money to look for it .
But Barr ’ s prosecutors won ’ t find anything because there ’ s nothing there .
This is going to turn out the same way it did when Barr investigated but didn ’ t arrest Hunter or Joe Biden .
The head of the Election Crimes Branch , Richard Pilger , resigned .
That should tell us how wrong this is .
But Barr is not going to succeed .
It ’ s just another thing to remember in 70 days when Barr is out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and charge him with abuse of power .
What if Trump refuses to leave the White House ?
Biden can be president from Delaware until the White House runs out of cheeseburgers .
He ’ ll come out of hiding eventually .
But what if Republicans never acknowledged that Biden is the president ?
How ’ s that different from the way they treated Barack Obama ?
Good point , but what about a re-vote ?
I ’ ve seen MAGA people online calling for a re-vote .
Re-voting is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional language that can compel a nationwide re-vote .
States will certify the results of their elections in the coming weeks .
And then the Electoral College will meet on December 14 in a pro-forma session to… WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ?
Can Republican state legislatures put forward a slate of electors who will vote for Trump even though Biden won those states ?
Let ’ s be very clear : The states get to choose how they will determine their own electors , but that determination has to be made before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican legislature—let ’ s say , Pennsylvania—could have decided to choose electors based on a simple vote of the legislature .
In fact , Republican legislators contemplated doing such a thing .
But they didn ’ t .
Instead they decided , like every other state , to let the popular will in their state determine the slate of electors .
They can ’ t change the method of picking electors after the election has taken place .
Remember , when voters showed up to vote , they technically weren ’ t voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ” but for a slate of electors who would vote for Biden or Trump .
If Pennsylvania wanted to change those rules , it would have had to tell its voters before they voted .
It can ’ t run a bait-and-switch on an election .
It can ’ t say that a vote for Biden ’ s electors was actually a vote for the Pennsylvania legislature to choose the electors .
This is an election , not a Groupon .
The only legal recourse , which some Republicans are arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters “ failed to make a choice ” on which slate of electors to nominate , or that the results of that choice are somehow unclear .
But the results will be clear once Pennsylvania certifies its election results ( and , in this case , the governor and secretary of state , who certifies the results , are Democrats ) .
It will be a close election , but voters made a choice and that choice will be clear upon certification .
States have until December 8 to certify the results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Republican legislators insist that the results weren ’ t clear ?
Would the Supreme Court ’ s conservative supermajority allow the state ’ s Republican legislature to choose a Republican slate of electors , even though it ’ s unconstitutional ?
Maybe ?
Conservatives on the Supreme Court act in bad faith all the time .
But consider that Biden has likely won this election with 306 electoral votes .
For this gambit to work , legislatures in Pennsylvania and at least two of the other states Biden won would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Supreme Court would have to OK this upending of the popular will three times in total .
That ’ s incredibly unlikely and would spark almost immediate civil unrest directed right at the Supreme Court , which has no army to enforce its rulings .
Well , what ’ s our plan for that ?
My dude , I don ’ t have a plan for “ nothing matters anymore.
” The end of democratic self-government is not a thing one has a legal plan for .
That ’ s like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a demonic hell mouth that opens in my backyard .
Die .
My plan would be to die .
I ’ m not Keanu Reeves .
What if Trump fires FBI Director Chris Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel and gets the “ deep state ” to keep him in power indefinitely ?
I ’ m not Kiefer Sutherland either .
I can not find the mole .
What if Trump launches a full-scale coup d ’ état and uses the military to keep him in power ?
Then we ’ re at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want from me ?
Yes , there is a non-zero chance that Trump ’ s refusal to accept the results of the election leads to a civil war and , in such a conflict , Abigail Spanberger forms a Vichy government to “ compromise ” with Trump supporters , and I have to pilot a jet carrying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez off of Naboo in hopes of finding friendly Jedis willing to fight for our cause .
But there is no legitimate way for Trump to stay in power now .
There ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Either he ’ s gone on January 20 or he remains atop a military junta willing to use violence to enforce his will .
This makes you feel better ?
I find it comforting that a full-scale military takeover is now the only way for Trump to stay in power .
Because if there ’ s one thing I know about Trump , it ’ s that he is a coward .
President Bone Spurs is not the guy to cross the Rubicon .
I look at it this way : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the Alps to get away ; all I have to do is drive my people to the Thousand Islands Bridge while we all sing “ Edelweiss.
” Thinking much beyond that is pointless .
Well , you could get your lazy ass on the elliptical trainer in case you ’ re needed to fight .
Don ’ t start this with me again .
Goodbye .

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?
Joe Biden is going to be the next president of the United States. He will be inaugurated on January 20 and take power at noon that day. There is nothing, legally, that Trump can do to stop that.
What Trump and his feckless Republican Party might do illegally to try to overturn the results of the election and prevent Biden from taking power is a different matter. Trump has evidently intimidated the administrator of the General Services Administration into refusing to acknowledge Biden’s victory and thus prevent his team from starting the transition process. Only a smattering of Republicans have acknowledged that Biden won, and most of those who have, like George W. Bush, no longer hold any political power. Trump has already filed a raft of baseless lawsuits. His people are drumming up talk of some kind of Electoral College devilry to overthrow the popular will. And Trump fired the secretary of defense, Mike Esper, yesterday, which seems like the kind of thing one does before launching a coup d’état.
Years of watching Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory gives many the sinking feeling that “it’s happening, again.” But rational thought tells us that these Trump gambits, all of them, are pointless. Biden won and his ascension to power is now inevitable, whether Trump accedes to that reality or not. As a wise man once sang: Gravity always wins.
Still, we’ve all seen Trump wriggle out of approximately a billion other defeats and scandals. He’s exposed the weakness of our democratic institutions, revealing just how useless they are in the face of his norm-breaking assaults. So it feels somehow naive to believe that his loss at the ballot box will translate into his loss of an actual job. It feels smart to consider that he might have a secret plan to retain that job, despite being voted out of it. Trump is the Michael Myers of our politics: He can’t be defeated, because the horror movie franchise makes too much money to ever end.
And yet, despite all this, I have gone to bed every night since Friday confident that President-elect Biden will become President Biden. I’ve come to this peace over the objection of my amygdala, which is the part of the brain that screams in fear and anxiety and tries to overpower rational thought. Here’s what I tell myself in order to help me sleep at night. Perhaps these are conversations others can have to achieve my level of forced serenity. (Amygdala in bold italics.)
Who won the election?
Joe Biden. Current Issue View our current issue
Who won the election if we only count legal votes? Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Only legal votes are being counted. Joe Biden won those.
What about the possibility of a recount in swing states like Michigan or Pennsylvania?
Recounts traditionally do not change more than a thousand votes. Even if we’ve gone completely through the looking glass and this recount changes an unprecedented number of votes, like 5,000, which is completely unheard of, Biden’s margin of victory is too great to overcome. A recount would not change the result in states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. If Trump wants to lose twice, that’s up to him.
What about all the lawsuits, especially the ones they keep filing in Arizona and Pennsylvania?
Trump’s election lawsuits fall, broadly, into three categories: lawsuits alleging poll watchers were too far away, lawsuits complaining about the established rules for submitting mail-in ballots, and lawsuits alleging Trump voters were denied their vote because of some kind of ballot machine malfunction.
None of these lawsuits provide evidence of massive voter fraud. None of the lawsuits provide evidence of voter fraud at all. Some of the lawsuits allege some accidents, but the remedy for those accidents is counting more votes, not fewer. Trump’s claims that his poll watchers were not allowed to watch the counting of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania is flatly untrue, and his lawyers have had to admit in court that they were allowed in the room. They’ve been reduced to arguing that their poll watchers were not close enough, which, whatever. The remedy for that is to move them closer, not throw out tens of thousands of votes.
In fact, none of the Trump lawsuits allege anything that can be used to throw out tens of thousands of votes. Throwing out votes that have already been counted is not something that courts do. We can recount votes, this time with Trump watchers breathing down the necks of ballot counters and giving them Covid-19, but again, recounts don’t usually change the balance of votes by all that much.
The important thing to ask with each new Trump lawsuit is this: What is the remedy? If the remedy is “throw away tens of thousands of votes from people whose votes were clear in their choice and timely in their submission,” then that lawsuit is going nowhere. And if the remedy is not throwing out those entirely timely and legal votes, then the lawsuit will not change the results of the election.
Why would the Trump people be pushing these lawsuits if there was no chance for them to change the outcome?
Because Trump people are dumb? Hanlon’s Razor tells us: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Election 2020 Is Trump Planning a Coup d’État? Sasha Abramsky Black People Repudiated Trump Like He Was a Piece of Used Gum Elie Mystal The High Cost of Defeating Donald Trump Jeet Heer
Joking aside, there might be many malicious reasons for the Trump campaign to be pushing lawsuits they know are destined to fail. Stirring up doubt in Biden’s victory is a prelude to refusing to acknowledge his authority as president. Trump, or one of his kids, or somebody “Trump-approved” is surely going to run for president in 2024, and making Trump’s rabid, white-supremacist base feel like the election was “stolen” from them has a political upside as they fight for their new “Lost Cause.”
And, there’s also the grift. Trump’s campaign is broke. They’ve literally written checks they can’t cash. Trump doesn’t like spending his own money on these things (to the extent he actually has any). These lawsuits purportedly challenging the election are a huge money-making opportunity for the Trump campaign. If you read the fine print on the new fundraising e-mails Trump’s campaign is sending out to supporters, they say that “60 percent of contributions” will go toward retiring campaign debt.
Would the Trump campaign put America through 70 days of trauma to make a buck? You better believe it. The whole Trump presidency is a guerrilla marketing campaign for the Trump brand that went too far.
But the Republican Senate is going along. This is just like impeachment. Republicans wouldn’t remove Trump then and they won’t now.
Well, it’s not up to Republicans to remove Trump from office. The Constitution does all that work on January 20. Joe Biden is the president on that day whether Republicans acknowledge it or not.
But now Bill Barr has gotten in on the game, and he is the worst of Trump’s henchman.
Yes.
He’s given federal prosecutors the green light to open up investigations into possible voter fraud.
So?
SO?
There wasn’t election fraud. Trump’s legal team has no evidence of election fraud and has no money to investigate to find such evidence, so they’re using the taxpayers’ money to look for it. But Barr’s prosecutors won’t find anything because there’s nothing there. This is going to turn out the same way it did when Barr investigated but didn’t arrest Hunter or Joe Biden.
The head of the Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, resigned. That should tell us how wrong this is. But Barr is not going to succeed. It’s just another thing to remember in 70 days when Barr is out of a job. We should arrest him and charge him with abuse of power.
What if Trump refuses to leave the White House?
Biden can be president from Delaware until the White House runs out of cheeseburgers. He’ll come out of hiding eventually.
But what if Republicans never acknowledged that Biden is the president?
How’s that different from the way they treated Barack Obama?
Good point, but what about a re-vote? I’ve seen MAGA people online calling for a re-vote.
Re-voting is not a thing. There is no statutory or constitutional language that can compel a nationwide re-vote. States will certify the results of their elections in the coming weeks. And then the Electoral College will meet on December 14 in a pro-forma session to…
WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
Damn it.
Can Republican state legislatures put forward a slate of electors who will vote for Trump even though Biden won those states?
Let’s be very clear: The states get to choose how they will determine their own electors, but that determination has to be made before the election. A state with a Republican legislature—let’s say, Pennsylvania—could have decided to choose electors based on a simple vote of the legislature. In fact, Republican legislators contemplated doing such a thing. But they didn’t. Instead they decided, like every other state, to let the popular will in their state determine the slate of electors.
They can’t change the method of picking electors after the election has taken place. Remember, when voters showed up to vote, they technically weren’t voting for “Joe Biden” or “Donald Trump” but for a slate of electors who would vote for Biden or Trump. If Pennsylvania wanted to change those rules, it would have had to tell its voters before they voted. It can’t run a bait-and-switch on an election. It can’t say that a vote for Biden’s electors was actually a vote for the Pennsylvania legislature to choose the electors. This is an election, not a Groupon.
The only legal recourse, which some Republicans are arguing for, is to determine that the voters “failed to make a choice” on which slate of electors to nominate, or that the results of that choice are somehow unclear. But the results will be clear once Pennsylvania certifies its election results (and, in this case, the governor and secretary of state, who certifies the results, are Democrats). It will be a close election, but voters made a choice and that choice will be clear upon certification.
States have until December 8 to certify the results of their elections.
But what if Pennsylvania’s Republican legislators insist that the results weren’t clear? Would the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority allow the state’s Republican legislature to choose a Republican slate of electors, even though it’s unconstitutional?
Maybe? Conservatives on the Supreme Court act in bad faith all the time. But consider that Biden has likely won this election with 306 electoral votes. For this gambit to work, legislatures in Pennsylvania and at least two of the other states Biden won would have to submit a slate of Trump electors. The Supreme Court would have to OK this upending of the popular will three times in total. That’s incredibly unlikely and would spark almost immediate civil unrest directed right at the Supreme Court, which has no army to enforce its rulings.
Well, what’s our plan for that?
My dude, I don’t have a plan for “nothing matters anymore.” The end of democratic self-government is not a thing one has a legal plan for. That’s like asking what my plan is for closing a demonic hell mouth that opens in my backyard. Die. My plan would be to die. I’m not Keanu Reeves.
What if Trump fires FBI Director Chris Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel and gets the “deep state” to keep him in power indefinitely?
I’m not Kiefer Sutherland either. I cannot find the mole.
What if Trump launches a full-scale coup d’état and uses the military to keep him in power?
Then we’re at war. Honestly, what do you want from me? Yes, there is a non-zero chance that Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the election leads to a civil war and, in such a conflict, Abigail Spanberger forms a Vichy government to “compromise” with Trump supporters, and I have to pilot a jet carrying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez off of Naboo in hopes of finding friendly Jedis willing to fight for our cause.
But there is no legitimate way for Trump to stay in power now. There’s no peaceful way for Trump to stay in power. Either he’s gone on January 20 or he remains atop a military junta willing to use violence to enforce his will.
This makes you feel better?
I find it comforting that a full-scale military takeover is now the only way for Trump to stay in power. Because if there’s one thing I know about Trump, it’s that he is a coward. President Bone Spurs is not the guy to cross the Rubicon.
I look at it this way: Captain von Trapp hiked his enormous family over the Alps to get away; all I have to do is drive my people to the Thousand Islands Bridge while we all sing “Edelweiss.” Thinking much beyond that is pointless.
Well, you could get your lazy ass on the elliptical trainer in case you’re needed to fight.
Don’t start this with me again. Goodbye.


thenation--2020-11-10--Progressives Are an Asset for the Democratic Party. It Should Treat Them That Way.

Is the growing progressive wing of the Democratic Party an asset or a liability ?
Do the largest citizen mobilizations @ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter demonstrations—alienate more US voters than they bring to the polls ?
Before the @ @ @ @ @ Saturday , and even as citizens filled the streets celebrating Joe Biden ’ s projected @ @ @ @ @ recriminations were flying among Democrats distraught over the unexpected loss of House seats and their @ @ @ @ @ Senate majority .
First-term Representative Abigail Spanberger ( Va. ) , a former CIA analyst @ @ @ @ @ centrist ” Democrat , reportedly blamed liberals who talked about “ socialism ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ losses in contested suburban districts .
Veteran Representative James E. Clyburn ( S.C. ) , @ @ @ @ @ House , reportedly cautioned against running on Medicare for All or “ socialized medicine.
” @ @ @ @ @ road , they should consider : Many of the progressive wing ’ s big ideas @ @ @ @ @ Democratic candidates .
Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
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?
Is the growing progressive wing of the Democratic Party an asset or a liability? Do the largest citizen mobilizations in history—galvanized by the Black Lives Matter demonstrations—alienate more US voters than they bring to the polls? Before the presidential election was called on Saturday, and even as citizens filled the streets celebrating Joe Biden’s projected victory over President Trump, recriminations were flying among Democrats distraught over the unexpected loss of House seats and their narrowed hopes of winning a Senate majority.
First-term Representative Abigail Spanberger (Va.), a former CIA analyst considered by many a “centrist” Democrat, reportedly blamed liberals who talked about “socialism” and “defunding the police” for losses in contested suburban districts. Veteran Representative James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking Democrat in the House, reportedly cautioned against running on Medicare for All or “socialized medicine.”
Before Democrats continue down this road, they should consider: Many of the progressive wing’s big ideas enjoy greater support than most Democratic candidates.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-11-11--Abstraction at a Distance

Abstraction at a Distance

It was a little unnerving , I ’ ll admit , to venture into the Manhattan galleries again , to finally see some new art after six months of abstinence .
It was a return for some of the art , too .
Kara Walker ’ s exhibition “ Drawings ” opened briefly in March before the gallery doors had to close .
Luckily , it was still there when Sikkema Jenkins & Co. reopened in September for a three-week extension .
Even that seemed hardly enough time for anyone to fully grasp this immense gathering of work : hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the 1990s and this year .
Some have been executed on a grand scale and to a considerable degree of finish .
Among a quartet of six-foot-tall allegories featuring the figure of Barack Obama made in 2019 , two have been left in a fairly sketchy state—Barack Obama Tormented Saint Anthony Putting Up With the Whole “ Birther ” Conspiracy and Barack Obama as “ an African ” With a Fat Pig ( by Kara Walker ) —but two others , Allegory of the Obama Years by Kara E. Walker and Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the Severed Head of Iago in a New and Revised Ending by Kara E. Walker , are dense with detail .
In case it ’ s not evident from those titles alone that Walker ’ s way of expressing her seriousness of intent is usually by way of a scathing sense of humor , I should probably point out that the head of Iago in the Othello piece is that of Obama ’ s successor to the presidency .
And the bilious wit hits out in all directions : The work implies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pathetic that we ever imagined Obama could be our savior as it is that a savior is what desperately seems to be needed now .
What I like about these Obama images is the way they intimate that , even if Walker is a diehard pessimist who always knew American history was too poisonous for any one man to rescue from its own contradictions , she was clearly beguiled enough by the hope that a handsome and intelligent hero just might be able to slay the beasts that assail us .
Make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerability—and it ’ s her not-quite-successfully concealed vulnerability that gives Walker ’ s caustic stance its true force and depth .
In any case , the heart of this exhibition was not in a handful of grand-scale showstoppers .
Walker ’ s effacement of the distinction between writing and drawing made the whole show feel like being trapped inside someone ’ s diary , and if the entries are undated—well , that ’ s because any of these feelings could have been felt at almost any time .
The show worked by crowding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you down through its sheer inexhaustibility , the multitudes of small works in serried ranks on the walls and chockablock in all the vitrines .
These seemed to amount to a half-written , half-pictorial journal chronicling a thousand points of distress and anger , moments in which one is pushed over the edge of reason and in which acting out , or rather lashing out , transmutes into a kind of dire , self-reflective magnificence .
Another of the largest pieces in the show , dated 2020 and mainly in charcoal , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlined in white pastel— “ I AM NOT MY NEGRO.
” Of course , this is a riff on James Baldwin and the title of Raoul Peck ’ s 2016 documentary film about his life .
Presumably Walker knows that the title is a bowdlerization , that Baldwin himself very specifically did not use the word “ Negro ” when he spoke the sentence .
In her drawing , what might at first look like atmospheric abstract markings resolve , at times , into ghostly figures haunting the nebulous space behind the inscription @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these personages is eerie , and apparently the “ I ” of the title is just as enigmatic .
If identity means a thorough transparency of oneself to oneself , then it ’ s clearly not on offer here .
I may be a problem for you , a mystery you ’ ll never be able to solve , Walker seems to say , but I ’ m no less of a conundrum for myself .
Walter Price might best be seen as an abstract painter who puts roadblocks in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
Or maybe that ’ s just my bias for abstraction speaking .
Someone else would call him a figurative painter who uses abstraction to make trouble for representation .
His work has been developing quickly since it first began gaining attention in 2016 , when he had one-person exhibitions in New York and Glasgow .
Born in 1989 in Macon , Ga. , he took an AA degree at what was then Central Georgia College and served four years in the Navy before arriving in New York .
Price ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Pearl Lines ” —a title he ’ s used for most of his exhibitions so far and that will also be used for a show in London in 2021—was a big one : 17 paintings made between 2017 and this year as well as about 70 drawings , giving a sense of how substantial his achievement is already .
The paintings can be disorienting ; they invite the viewer to see them as illustrating a narrative while at the same time frustrating that attempt .
Then you realize that what they show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of representation .
The images that occur and recur in the paintings—a male figure running to the left ( and if “ forward ” or the future is always to the right , as in the Western alphabet or Western painting , then that means he is running away , perhaps taking refuge in the past ) , a car , an overstuffed armchair—are rarely if ever whole .
As full of energy and life as these paintings are , the things pictured in them are ghostly or trail away into nothing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that appears in many of them .
When paintings have words in them , we have a propensity to read first , look afterward—and a propensity , too , to think the words will establish the import and significance of what we ’ ll see when we ’ ve stopped reading .
In other words , it ’ s hard to avoid taking words , in the vicinity of images , as captions .
Price , though , puts his words on the same level as his abstract marks and half-formed images .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to read , even completely illegible .
And the places—that is , the fields of color in which Price sets these things : are they even places ?
Is the frozen movement of the material substance of paint itself the only place ?
Or can the implicit space evoked by color and texture alone be enough to give a meaningful local habitation to these scattered shards of imagery ?
Price may be throwing such questions in the viewer ’ s lap , but because one senses that he has thought long and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to begrudge him the lack of resolution .
We ’ re thinking through these problems together , the paintings seem to say , and in that togetherness , rather than in the relief offered by a proposed answer , resides the work ’ s generosity .
No points are docked for messiness , amorphousness , or self-contradiction .
Consider Price ’ s 2018 painting Psychological acceleration .
The ground , distinctly landscape-y for all its discontinuities , is adumbrated mainly in red and earth tones—cinnabar , rust , brick .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if from some poisonously polluted sunset .
You can make out a little house in outline , the kind of thing a kid might draw , and there are some trees , maybe palms—all blue , some of them too small to make sense in the same painting as the biggest of them , and one seems half effaced with another slather of blue .
In the foreground , a car rides in from the right , its rear end blurring into the landscape ; facing it on the left is a blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chair has been partly erased , painted over with a darker blue , the same shade as in a gridded sequence of marks that appear to have been made by pressing some rectangular paint-covered surface onto the canvas and then pulling it off—a sort of indirect mark-making that occurs in many of Price ’ s paintings , and that counterpoints his deft , expressive draftsmanship with a less manageable , even deliberately clumsy facture .
Also half wiped out is some lettering across the painting ’ s bottom left—one can just make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the paintings : “ SAVE YOURSELF.
” There seems to be some writing in red against blue near the upper right as well , but it ’ s impossible to make out what it says ( I even asked the gallery attendant , but he couldn ’ t read it either ) , though just below the illegible inscription , almost like a shadow , are some ghostly letters : “ SAVE Y.
” It ’ s always dangerous to ask a painting : What are you saying ?
Painting has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the painting bears an inscription , the temptation to see it as saying what the inscription seems to say becomes almost irresistible .
If Psychological acceleration is saying anything , though , it ’ s something self-contradictory , maybe self-canceling : Don ’ t think you ’ ll get far by reading me .
Save yourself the trouble .
If the concerted experiences of color , line , surface , and fragments of imagery offered by a painting feel like not enough for you , maybe it ’ s really because , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if seeing isn ’ t experience enough , try tasting them—this is not eye candy .
There is sweetness in Price ’ s palette , but bitterness too .
As the art historian Darby English writes in an online text for the show , what Price offers is “ a vague aboutness , deeply trustful of loose connection , preferred to landing.
” This art is comfortable with its own volatility .
It knows danger— “ SAVE YOURSELF ” —and suspects that the best way to handle it is to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run .
Price , like Walker , is African American .
A generation apart , both exemplify a moment in which the work of Black artists is not only flourishing but at long last gaining concomitant recognition and reward .
In particular , as Tomashi Jackson , an up-and-coming Black artist whose work is fundamentally abstract , recently complained to the critic Seph Rodney , “ What I see in the market is a desire for black figuration , blunt and blatant figuration.
” Price and Walker , by contrast , refuse to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with dissonant nuances rather than an easy familiarity .
Their imagery evokes stories that may not be specified and that put viewers on the spot to decide : Where do I fit into the narrative ?
In doing so , they brush against the grain of a culture in which , as William Deresiewicz observed in his recent diagnosis of the ills of contemporary culture , ominously titled The Death of the Artist , “ You sell your work today by selling your story , your personality—by selling , in essence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more story to him than any dozen other artists I can think of , seems never to have wanted to capitalize on it .
He was born in 1962 in Asmara , Eritrea , which had just asserted its independence from Ethiopia .
The three decades of civil war that followed were only at about their midpoint when the then-16-year-old Ghebreyesus became a refugee , making his way to Sudan , then to Europe , before finding his way to the United States—first to New York and finally settling in New Haven , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant he owned with his brothers .
A typical immigrant success story—but Ghebreyesus had other dreams , other stories in mind .
In New York he ’ d begun painting , taking classes at the Art Students League .
“ My tiny kitchen table immediately became my studio table , ” he later recalled .
In 2000 , at age 38 , he enrolled in the Yale School of Art , obtaining his MFA ( and a prize for excellence in painting ) two years later .
But he kept cooking and hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingratiating headline over a recent New York Times article on him : “ The Inventive Chef Who Kept His 700 Paintings Hidden.
” Only in 2008 did Ghebreyesus finally devote himself to his art full-time , but he died four years later , struck down by a heart attack just after his 50th birthday .
The recent exhibition “ Ficre Ghebreyesus : Gate to the Blue , ” at Galerie Lelong , was the first show of his work in New York , and a revelation .
The closest thing to a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in his application to art school .
There he defined painting as an “ act of defiance through which I exorcised the pain and reclaimed my sense of place , my moral compass , and my love for life.
” It represented not an escape from the harshness of existence and the anxieties of displacement but rather a catharsis that made healing possible .
His work demands to be perceived with a twofold awareness , emerging both from the visual world he imbibed in his childhood and youth and from the modernist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; echoes of Braque and Matisse find answering vibrations in memories of Coptic Christian church art .
He strove to give form to a present that makes space for multiple pasts .
One of the most haunting works in the exhibition was Gate to the Compound , circa 2006 .
( The dates of almost all the pieces in the show are merely approximate ; apparently Ghebreyesus rarely bothered to record them . )
The approximately four-foot-square canvas presents a landscape that , rather than stretching back into a distance , seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top , Cubist-style .
In the extreme foreground , a greensward and a single bare tree ; then a wide blue river runs by , like a moat , smack up against a high white fence with the gate incongruously open onto the water .
A ways behind that , we glimpse a cluster of buildings and , very small , a couple of vehicles and some shadowy figures of armed men .
Yes , this might be a memory of something glimpsed during the years of civil war , though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by contemporary news reports—after all , in 2006 as in every other year , armed men in compounds were busy doing their thing just about everywhere .
To my mind , the river is the flux of imagination , of dreams , and here it seems to separate us , far more effectively than the fence with its open gate , from the sinister realm of dark memories .
The tree may be bare , but it is still alive , nourished by the water that mixes things together and washes them away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connect and boundaries that separate seems to have been a constant in Ghebreyesus ’ s sense of form .
Angel and Musician circa 2011 , is another four-foot square , this time formed of two abutted horizontal canvases .
The musician ’ s body and his instrument , known as a krar , are seen on the low his head and that of the winged being floating above him , who stares out a challenge at the viewer , not watching over the musician ( perhaps an implicit self-portrait ?
—for with good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Julie Mehretu described him as a practitioner of “ painting as incantation ” ) .
The two figures are enveloped in swirls of color—as often in Ghebreyesus ’ s work , at once rich and somber—mostly abstract , though there are floral sprig patterns scratched into the paint here and there , some eyes , and toward the upper left what seems to be a mountainous landscape with a lake or river .
The imagery is almost entirely discontinuous from one canvas to the other , the gap between the two adjoined canvases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only element of continuity : the musician ’ s neck , as if to say what gives the man a sense of wholeness—and a sense that his world , with all its contradictions , can also be experienced as a whole—is not the spiritual realm above him but the connection between his body and his head , implicitly through his art , his music .
This was a reflection on what Ghebreyesus knew implicitly .
In painting , he said , he felt himself “ accompanied by dissonances , syncopations , ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Price or Walker , Ghebreyesus did not have much use for words in his art .
It ’ s all the more striking , then , that one small painting in the Lelong show , a loosely geometrical composition that might be a Matissean view out the window or a pure abstraction , dated circa 2007-2011 , features the legend “ Tis Time to Seek Asylum.
” This artist knew in a very literal sense what it meant to need and seek asylum , but he also knew , I think , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within oneself , and that art can give a glimpse of it .

It was a little unnerving, I’ll admit, to venture into the Manhattan galleries again, to finally see some new art after six months of abstinence. It was a return for some of the art, too. Kara Walker’s exhibition “Drawings” opened briefly in March before the gallery doors had to close. Luckily, it was still there when Sikkema Jenkins & Co. reopened in September for a three-week extension. Even that seemed hardly enough time for anyone to fully grasp this immense gathering of work: hundreds upon hundreds of works on paper made between the 1990s and this year. Some have been executed on a grand scale and to a considerable degree of finish. Among a quartet of six-foot-tall allegories featuring the figure of Barack Obama made in 2019, two have been left in a fairly sketchy state—Barack Obama Tormented Saint Anthony Putting Up With the Whole “Birther” Conspiracy and Barack Obama as “an African” With a Fat Pig (by Kara Walker)—but two others, Allegory of the Obama Years by Kara E. Walker and Barack Obama as Othello “the Moor” With the Severed Head of Iago in a New and Revised Ending by Kara E. Walker, are dense with detail.
In case it’s not evident from those titles alone that Walker’s way of expressing her seriousness of intent is usually by way of a scathing sense of humor, I should probably point out that the head of Iago in the Othello piece is that of Obama’s successor to the presidency. And the bilious wit hits out in all directions: The work implies that it’s just as absurd and pathetic that we ever imagined Obama could be our savior as it is that a savior is what desperately seems to be needed now. What I like about these Obama images is the way they intimate that, even if Walker is a diehard pessimist who always knew American history was too poisonous for any one man to rescue from its own contradictions, she was clearly beguiled enough by the hope that a handsome and intelligent hero just might be able to slay the beasts that assail us. Make no mistake, that hope is a vulnerability—and it’s her not-quite-successfully concealed vulnerability that gives Walker’s caustic stance its true force and depth.
In any case, the heart of this exhibition was not in a handful of grand-scale showstoppers. Walker’s effacement of the distinction between writing and drawing made the whole show feel like being trapped inside someone’s diary, and if the entries are undated—well, that’s because any of these feelings could have been felt at almost any time. The show worked by crowding you, overwhelming you, almost wearing you down through its sheer inexhaustibility, the multitudes of small works in serried ranks on the walls and chockablock in all the vitrines. These seemed to amount to a half-written, half-pictorial journal chronicling a thousand points of distress and anger, moments in which one is pushed over the edge of reason and in which acting out, or rather lashing out, transmutes into a kind of dire, self-reflective magnificence.
Another of the largest pieces in the show, dated 2020 and mainly in charcoal, was dominated by the written declaration—dark-gray block lettering outlined in white pastel—“I AM NOT MY NEGRO.” Of course, this is a riff on James Baldwin and the title of Raoul Peck’s 2016 documentary film about his life. Presumably Walker knows that the title is a bowdlerization, that Baldwin himself very specifically did not use the word “Negro” when he spoke the sentence. In her drawing, what might at first look like atmospheric abstract markings resolve, at times, into ghostly figures haunting the nebulous space behind the inscription. The intangibility, the seeming unknowability of these personages is eerie, and apparently the “I” of the title is just as enigmatic. If identity means a thorough transparency of oneself to oneself, then it’s clearly not on offer here. I may be a problem for you, a mystery you’ll never be able to solve, Walker seems to say, but I’m no less of a conundrum for myself. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Walter Price might best be seen as an abstract painter who puts roadblocks in the way of his abstraction by using representation—and text, too. Or maybe that’s just my bias for abstraction speaking. Someone else would call him a figurative painter who uses abstraction to make trouble for representation. His work has been developing quickly since it first began gaining attention in 2016, when he had one-person exhibitions in New York and Glasgow. Born in 1989 in Macon, Ga., he took an AA degree at what was then Central Georgia College and served four years in the Navy before arriving in New York.
Price’s recent show at Greene Naftali, “Pearl Lines”—a title he’s used for most of his exhibitions so far and that will also be used for a show in London in 2021—was a big one: 17 paintings made between 2017 and this year as well as about 70 drawings, giving a sense of how substantial his achievement is already. The paintings can be disorienting; they invite the viewer to see them as illustrating a narrative while at the same time frustrating that attempt. Then you realize that what they show, most directly, is the incompleteness of representation. The images that occur and recur in the paintings—a male figure running to the left (and if “forward” or the future is always to the right, as in the Western alphabet or Western painting, then that means he is running away, perhaps taking refuge in the past), a car, an overstuffed armchair—are rarely if ever whole. As full of energy and life as these paintings are, the things pictured in them are ghostly or trail away into nothing. The same is true of the writing that appears in many of them. When paintings have words in them, we have a propensity to read first, look afterward—and a propensity, too, to think the words will establish the import and significance of what we’ll see when we’ve stopped reading. In other words, it’s hard to avoid taking words, in the vicinity of images, as captions. Price, though, puts his words on the same level as his abstract marks and half-formed images. Only half there, his lettering is hard to read, even completely illegible.
And the places—that is, the fields of color in which Price sets these things: are they even places? Is the frozen movement of the material substance of paint itself the only place? Or can the implicit space evoked by color and texture alone be enough to give a meaningful local habitation to these scattered shards of imagery? Price may be throwing such questions in the viewer’s lap, but because one senses that he has thought long and hard about them, it’s difficult to begrudge him the lack of resolution. We’re thinking through these problems together, the paintings seem to say, and in that togetherness, rather than in the relief offered by a proposed answer, resides the work’s generosity. No points are docked for messiness, amorphousness, or self-contradiction. Current Issue View our current issue
Consider Price’s 2018 painting Psychological acceleration. The ground, distinctly landscape-y for all its discontinuities, is adumbrated mainly in red and earth tones—cinnabar, rust, brick. Even the sky and sun blaze crimson-pink, as if from some poisonously polluted sunset. You can make out a little house in outline, the kind of thing a kid might draw, and there are some trees, maybe palms—all blue, some of them too small to make sense in the same painting as the biggest of them, and one seems half effaced with another slather of blue. In the foreground, a car rides in from the right, its rear end blurring into the landscape; facing it on the left is a blue armchair. Like the tree above, the chair has been partly erased, painted over with a darker blue, the same shade as in a gridded sequence of marks that appear to have been made by pressing some rectangular paint-covered surface onto the canvas and then pulling it off—a sort of indirect mark-making that occurs in many of Price’s paintings, and that counterpoints his deft, expressive draftsmanship with a less manageable, even deliberately clumsy facture. Also half wiped out is some lettering across the painting’s bottom left—one can just make out a phrase that recurs in several of the paintings: “SAVE YOURSELF.” There seems to be some writing in red against blue near the upper right as well, but it’s impossible to make out what it says (I even asked the gallery attendant, but he couldn’t read it either), though just below the illegible inscription, almost like a shadow, are some ghostly letters: “SAVE Y.”
It’s always dangerous to ask a painting: What are you saying? Painting has more to do with not-saying. Yet when the painting bears an inscription, the temptation to see it as saying what the inscription seems to say becomes almost irresistible. If Psychological acceleration is saying anything, though, it’s something self-contradictory, maybe self-canceling: Don’t think you’ll get far by reading me. Save yourself the trouble. If the concerted experiences of color, line, surface, and fragments of imagery offered by a painting feel like not enough for you, maybe it’s really because, instead, they are too much, excessive. And if seeing isn’t experience enough, try tasting them—this is not eye candy. There is sweetness in Price’s palette, but bitterness too. As the art historian Darby English writes in an online text for the show, what Price offers is “a vague aboutness, deeply trustful of loose connection, preferred to landing.” This art is comfortable with its own volatility. It knows danger—“SAVE YOURSELF”—and suspects that the best way to handle it is to avoid pinning yourself down. Be ready to run.
Price, like Walker, is African American. A generation apart, both exemplify a moment in which the work of Black artists is not only flourishing but at long last gaining concomitant recognition and reward. In particular, as Tomashi Jackson, an up-and-coming Black artist whose work is fundamentally abstract, recently complained to the critic Seph Rodney, “What I see in the market is a desire for black figuration, blunt and blatant figuration.” Price and Walker, by contrast, refuse to present the figure straightforwardly; they endow it with dissonant nuances rather than an easy familiarity. Their imagery evokes stories that may not be specified and that put viewers on the spot to decide: Where do I fit into the narrative? In doing so, they brush against the grain of a culture in which, as William Deresiewicz observed in his recent diagnosis of the ills of contemporary culture, ominously titled The Death of the Artist, “You sell your work today by selling your story, your personality—by selling, in essence, yourself.”
Ficre Ghebreyesus, who had more story to him than any dozen other artists I can think of, seems never to have wanted to capitalize on it. He was born in 1962 in Asmara, Eritrea, which had just asserted its independence from Ethiopia. The three decades of civil war that followed were only at about their midpoint when the then-16-year-old Ghebreyesus became a refugee, making his way to Sudan, then to Europe, before finding his way to the United States—first to New York and finally settling in New Haven, where he became a chef in a restaurant he owned with his brothers.
A typical immigrant success story—but Ghebreyesus had other dreams, other stories in mind. In New York he’d begun painting, taking classes at the Art Students League. “My tiny kitchen table immediately became my studio table,” he later recalled. In 2000, at age 38, he enrolled in the Yale School of Art, obtaining his MFA (and a prize for excellence in painting) two years later. But he kept cooking and hardly ever exhibited his paintings. Thus the ingratiating headline over a recent New York Times article on him: “The Inventive Chef Who Kept His 700 Paintings Hidden.” Only in 2008 did Ghebreyesus finally devote himself to his art full-time, but he died four years later, struck down by a heart attack just after his 50th birthday. The recent exhibition “Ficre Ghebreyesus: Gate to the Blue,” at Galerie Lelong, was the first show of his work in New York, and a revelation.
The closest thing to a public statement Ghebreyesus ever made about his art was in his application to art school. There he defined painting as an “act of defiance through which I exorcised the pain and reclaimed my sense of place, my moral compass, and my love for life.” It represented not an escape from the harshness of existence and the anxieties of displacement but rather a catharsis that made healing possible. His work demands to be perceived with a twofold awareness, emerging both from the visual world he imbibed in his childhood and youth and from the modernist sophistication of the middle-age art school graduate; echoes of Braque and Matisse find answering vibrations in memories of Coptic Christian church art. He strove to give form to a present that makes space for multiple pasts.
One of the most haunting works in the exhibition was Gate to the Compound, circa 2006. (The dates of almost all the pieces in the show are merely approximate; apparently Ghebreyesus rarely bothered to record them.) The approximately four-foot-square canvas presents a landscape that, rather than stretching back into a distance, seems to tilt up toward the picture plane at the top, Cubist-style. In the extreme foreground, a greensward and a single bare tree; then a wide blue river runs by, like a moat, smack up against a high white fence with the gate incongruously open onto the water. A ways behind that, we glimpse a cluster of buildings and, very small, a couple of vehicles and some shadowy figures of armed men. Yes, this might be a memory of something glimpsed during the years of civil war, though it could just as easily have been inspired by contemporary news reports—after all, in 2006 as in every other year, armed men in compounds were busy doing their thing just about everywhere. To my mind, the river is the flux of imagination, of dreams, and here it seems to separate us, far more effectively than the fence with its open gate, from the sinister realm of dark memories. The tree may be bare, but it is still alive, nourished by the water that mixes things together and washes them away eventually.
The dialectic between flows that connect and boundaries that separate seems to have been a constant in Ghebreyesus’s sense of form. Angel and Musician circa 2011, is another four-foot square, this time formed of two abutted horizontal canvases. The musician’s body and his instrument, known as a krar, are seen on the low his head and that of the winged being floating above him, who stares out a challenge at the viewer, not watching over the musician (perhaps an implicit self-portrait?—for with good reason, Ghebreyesus’s fellow painter Julie Mehretu described him as a practitioner of “painting as incantation”). The two figures are enveloped in swirls of color—as often in Ghebreyesus’s work, at once rich and somber—mostly abstract, though there are floral sprig patterns scratched into the paint here and there, some eyes, and toward the upper left what seems to be a mountainous landscape with a lake or river. The imagery is almost entirely discontinuous from one canvas to the other, the gap between the two adjoined canvases functioning as a collage-like cut. The only element of continuity: the musician’s neck, as if to say what gives the man a sense of wholeness—and a sense that his world, with all its contradictions, can also be experienced as a whole—is not the spiritual realm above him but the connection between his body and his head, implicitly through his art, his music. This was a reflection on what Ghebreyesus knew implicitly. In painting, he said, he felt himself “accompanied by dissonances, syncopations,” but found a “moral order.”
Unlike Price or Walker, Ghebreyesus did not have much use for words in his art. It’s all the more striking, then, that one small painting in the Lelong show, a loosely geometrical composition that might be a Matissean view out the window or a pure abstraction, dated circa 2007-2011, features the legend “Tis Time to Seek Asylum.” This artist knew in a very literal sense what it meant to need and seek asylum, but he also knew, I think, that everyone needs to find an inviolable place within oneself, and that art can give a glimpse of it.