thenation--2020-09-16--Defense Contractors Don’t Need Another Covid Bailout

The inadequate response of both the federal and state governments to the Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the United States , creating what could only be called a national security crisis .
More than 190,000 Americans are dead , approximately half of them people of color .
Yelp data show that more than 132,000 businesses have already closed and census data suggest that , thanks to lost wages , nearly 17 percent of Americans with children can ’ t afford to feed them enough food .
In this same period , a number of defense contractors have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Pentagon ’ s top contractor , reported that , compared to 2019 , its earnings are actually up—yes , up !
The company ’ s success led the financial magazine Barron ’ s to call it a “ pandemic star.
” And those profits are only likely to grow , given the Trump administration ’ s recent approval of a 10-year deal to sell $ 62 billion worth of its F-16s to Taiwan .
Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that support The Nation ’ s journalism .
You can read our Privacy Policy here .
Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week .
Thank you for signing up .
For more from The Nation , check out our latest issue Subscribe now for as little as $ 2 a month !
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 $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to write about the issues that matter .
Sign up for Take Action Now and we ’ ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week .
You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation ’ s journalism .
You can read our Privacy Policy here .
Sign up for Take Action Now and we ’ ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week .
Thank you for signing up .
For more from The Nation , check out our latest issue Be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and explore the world with kindred spirits .
Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations , and explore the world with kindred spirits .
Sign up for our Wine Club today .
Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine ?
Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine ?
Lockheed Martin is far from the only such outfit .
As Defense One reported , “ It ’ s becoming abundantly clear that companies with heavy defense business have been able to endure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , commercial aerospace firms .
And so it was that , while other companies have cut or suspended dividends during the pandemic , Lockheed Martin , which had already raised its gift to shareholders in late 2019 , continued to pay the same amount this March and September .
The spread of Covid-19 has created one of the most significant crises of our time , but it ’ s also provided far greater clarity about just how misplaced the priorities of Washington have been all these years .
Americans—the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health impacts of the pandemic and struggling to figure out how to safely reopen schools .
It ’ s none too soon , however , to start thinking as well about how best to rebuild a devastated economy and create new jobs to replace those that have been lost .
In that process , one thing is crucial : resisting the calls—and count on it , they will come—to “ rebuild ” the war economy that had betrayed us long before the coronavirus arrived on our shores , leaving this country in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade , the budget “ debate ” in this country has largely been shaped by the Budget Control Act , which tried to save $ 1 trillion over those 10 years by placing nominal caps on both defense and non-defense spending .
Notably , however , it exempted “ war spending ” that falls in what the Pentagon calls its Overseas Contingency Operations account .
While some argued that caps on both defense and non-defense spending created parity , the Pentagon ’ s ability to use and abuse that war slush fund ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget ) meant that the Pentagon still disproportionately benefited by tens of billions of dollars annually .
In 2021 , the Budget Control Act expires .
That means a Biden or Trump administration will have an enormous opportunity to significantly reshape federal spending .
At the very least , that Pentagon off-budget slush fund , which creates waste and undermines planning , could be ended .
In addition , there ’ s more reason than ever for Congress to reassess its philosophy of this century that the desires of the Pentagon invariably come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the significant economic damage the still-raging pandemic is creating .
In rebuilding the economy , however , count on one thing : Defense contractors will put every last lobbying dollar into an attempt to convince the public , Congress , and whatever administration is in power that their sector is the country ’ s major engine for creating jobs .
As TomDispatch regular Bill Hartung has shown , however , a close examination of such job-creation claims rarely stands up to serious scrutiny .
For example , the number of jobs created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now expected to be less than a 10th of those President Trump initially bragged about .
As Hartung noted in February , that ’ s “ well under .03 % of the U.S. labor force of more than 164 million people.
” As it turns out , creating jobs through Pentagon spending is among the least effective ways to rebuild the economy .
As experts at the University of Massachusetts and Brown University have both discovered , this country would get significantly more job-creation bang for the bucks it spends on weaponry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combating climate change , or creating more alternative energy .
And such investments would pay additional dividends by making our communities and small businesses stronger and more resilient .
At the Project On Government Oversight where I work , I spend my days looking at the many ways the arms industry exerts disproportionate influence over what ’ s still called ( however erroneously in this Covid-19 moment ) “ national security ” and the foreign policy that goes with it , including this country ’ s forever wars .
That work has included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers advocated for buying more than even the Pentagon requested of the most expensive weapons system in history , Lockheed Martin ’ s F-35 jet fighter , while failing to disclose that they also had significant personal financial interests in supporting that very program .
My colleagues and I are also continually tracking the many officials who leave the Pentagon to go to work on the boards of ( or to lobby for ) arms makers or leave those companies and end up in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the national security state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , as the military-industrial complex ’ s “ revolving door.
” And as President Trump recently noted , it helps ensure that those endless wars never end , while stoking an ever-increasing Pentagon budget .
While his actions on behalf of the arms industry don ’ t back up his rhetoric , his diagnosis of the problem is largely on target .
And yet , as familiar as I am with the damage that the weapons industry has done to our country , I still find myself shocked at how a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current crisis .
Almost immediately , they began lobbying the Department of Defense to make their employees part of this country ’ s “ essential critical infrastructure , ” so that they could force them to return to work , pandemic or not .
That decision drew a rare rebuke from the unions representing those workers , many of whom feared for their lives .
And mind you , only then did things become truly perverse .
In the initial Covid-19 relief bill , Congress gave the Pentagon $ 1 billion to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as congressional representatives imagined it , would be used to purchase personal protective equipment for employees who still had to show up at work , especially since the Department of Defense ’ s own initial estimate was that the country would need to produce as many as 3.3 billion N95 masks in six months .
The Pentagon , however , promptly gave those funds to defense contractors , including paying for such diverse “ needs ” as golf-course staffing , hypersonic missile development , and microelectronics , a Washington Post investigation found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense contractors “ was not the original intent of the funds.
” And now those defense contractors are asking for yet more bailouts .
Earlier this summer , they successfully convinced the Senate to put $ 30 billion for the arms industry in its next coronavirus relief bill .
As CQ Roll Call reported , the top beneficiaries of that spending spree would be the Pentagon ’ s two largest contractors : Lockheed Martin and Boeing .
The pandemic has certainly resulted in some delays and unexpected expenses for such companies , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pale compared to the devastation caused to so many businesses that have had to close permanently .
Every sector of the economy is undoubtedly facing unexpected costs due to the pandemic , but apparently the Department of Defense , despite being by far the best-funded military on the planet , and its major contractors , among the richest and most successful corporations in America , have essentially claimed that they will be unable to respond to the crisis without further taxpayer help .
The chair of the House Armed Services Committee and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense appropriations subcommittee recently pointed out that , even though contractors across the federal government are facing pandemic challenges , no other agency has asked for additional funds to cover the costs of the crisis .
Instead , they have worked on drawing from their existing resources .
It ’ s laughable to suggest that the very department that already has by far the most resources on hand and is , of course , charged with leading the country ’ s response to unexpected threats can ’ t figure out how to adjust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractors see no reason to adapt since they know that they can continue to count on Washington to bail them out .
Still , the defense industry has become impatient that Congress hasn ’ t already acquiesced to their demands .
In July , executives at most of the major contractors sent a letter to the White House demanding more money .
In it , they included a not-so-subtle threat of electoral consequences for the president and Senate Republicans in close races if such funds weren ’ t provided .
Only one major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from such highly public lobbying efforts because its CEO apparently had the common sense to recognize that her company was doing too well to demand more when so many others are desperate for money , particularly minority-owned businesses , many of which are likely to never come back .
There are signs , however , that someday such eternal winners in the congressional financial sweepstakes may finally be made accountable thanks to the pandemic .
This summer , both the House and the Senate for the first time each considered an amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 10 percent .
Such efforts even received support from at least some moderates , including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) , although it went down to defeat in both houses of Congress .
Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) refused to support the specifics of the amendment , she did at least express her agreement with the principle of needing to curtail the Pentagon ’ s spending spree during this crisis .
“ As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global threats facing our country , ” she said in a statement she released after the vote .
“ I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding to communities in need.
” The first real test of whether this country will learn any of the right lessons about national security from this ongoing pandemic moment will undoubtedly come in next year ’ s budget debate when the question will be : Is everything finally going to be on the table ?
As I previously wrote at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars in these years in no way prepared this country for the actual national security crisis of our lives .
In fact , even considering the Pentagon ’ s ridiculously outsized budget , prioritizing funding for unaffordable and unproven weapons systems over healthcare hurt its ability to keep the military and its labor force safe .
No less significantly , continuing to prioritize the Pentagon over the needs of every other agency and Americans more generally keeps us on a glide path to disaster .
A genuinely new discussion of budget priorities would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very definition of “ security ” to include responding to the many risks we actually face when it comes to our safety : not just pandemics , but the already increasing toll of climate change , a crumbling infrastructure , and a government that continues to disproportionately benefit the wealthy and well-connected over everyone else .
At the simplest level , the “ defense ” side of the budget ledger should be made to reflect what we ’ re really spending now on what passes for national security .
That means counting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with many other expenses that often get left out of the budget equation .
When such expenses are indeed included , as Brown University ’ s Costs of War Project has discovered , the real price tag for America ’ s wars in the Greater Middle East alone came to more than $ 6.4 trillion by 2020 .
In other words , to begin having an honest debate about how America ’ s other needs are funded , there would have to be a far more accurate accounting of what actually has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security.
” Surprisingly enough , unlike Congress ( or the Pentagon ) , the voting public already seems to grasp the need for change .
The nonprofit think tank Data for Progress found that more than half of likely voters support cutting the Pentagon ’ s budget by 10 percent to pay for domestic priorities such as fighting the coronavirus .
A University of Maryland poll found bipartisan majorities opposed to cutting funding generally with two notable exceptions : Pentagon spending and agricultural subsidies .
Unfortunately , those in the national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listening to what the American people want .
Instead , they ’ re the captives of a defense industry that eternally hypes new Cold War–style competition with China and Russia , both through donations to Washington think tanks and politicians and that infamous revolving door .
In fact , the Trump administration is a military-industrial nightmare when it comes to that endlessly spinning entrance and exit .
Both of his confirmed secretaries of defense and one acting secretary of defense came directly from major defense contractors , including the current one , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems unlikely to be all that different .
As The American Prospect reported recently , several members of his foreign policy team have already circumvented ethics rules that would restrict lobbying activities by becoming “ strategic consultants ” to the very defense firms aiming to win more Pentagon contracts .
For example , Biden ’ s most likely secretary of defense , Michèle Flournoy , became a senior adviser to Boston Consulting Group .
During the first three years she was with that company , it increased its Pentagon contract earnings by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , increased spending for the Pentagon , rather than real national security , lies in store .
The people , it seems , have spoken .
The question remains : Will anyone in Washington listen to them ?

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.
The inadequate response of both the federal and state governments to the Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the United States, creating what could only be called a national security crisis. More than 190,000 Americans are dead, approximately half of them people of color. Yelp data show that more than 132,000 businesses have already closed and census data suggest that, thanks to lost wages, nearly 17 percent of Americans with children can’t afford to feed them enough food.
In this same period, a number of defense contractors have been doing remarkably well. Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s top contractor, reported that, compared to 2019, its earnings are actually up—yes, up! The company’s success led the financial magazine Barron’s to call it a “pandemic star.” And those profits are only likely to grow, given the Trump administration’s recent approval of a 10-year deal to sell $62 billion worth of its F-16s to Taiwan. 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. A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. 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? Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Lockheed Martin is far from the only such outfit. As Defense One reported, “It’s becoming abundantly clear that companies with heavy defense business have been able to endure the coronavirus pandemic much better” than, for instance, commercial aerospace firms. And so it was that, while other companies have cut or suspended dividends during the pandemic, Lockheed Martin, which had already raised its gift to shareholders in late 2019, continued to pay the same amount this March and September.
The spread of Covid-19 has created one of the most significant crises of our time, but it’s also provided far greater clarity about just how misplaced the priorities of Washington have been all these years. Americans—the Trump administration aside—are now trying to deal with the health impacts of the pandemic and struggling to figure out how to safely reopen schools. It’s none too soon, however, to start thinking as well about how best to rebuild a devastated economy and create new jobs to replace those that have been lost. In that process, one thing is crucial: resisting the calls—and count on it, they will come—to “rebuild” the war economy that had betrayed us long before the coronavirus arrived on our shores, leaving this country in a distinctly weakened state. 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
A New Budget Debate?
For the past decade, the budget “debate” in this country has largely been shaped by the Budget Control Act, which tried to save $1 trillion over those 10 years by placing nominal caps on both defense and non-defense spending. Notably, however, it exempted “war spending” that falls in what the Pentagon calls its Overseas Contingency Operations account. While some argued that caps on both defense and non-defense spending created parity, the Pentagon’s ability to use and abuse that war slush fund (on top of an already gigantic base budget) meant that the Pentagon still disproportionately benefited by tens of billions of dollars annually.
In 2021, the Budget Control Act expires. That means a Biden or Trump administration will have an enormous opportunity to significantly reshape federal spending. At the very least, that Pentagon off-budget slush fund, which creates waste and undermines planning, could be ended. In addition, there’s more reason than ever for Congress to reassess its philosophy of this century that the desires of the Pentagon invariably come first, particularly given the need to address the significant economic damage the still-raging pandemic is creating.
In rebuilding the economy, however, count on one thing: Defense contractors will put every last lobbying dollar into an attempt to convince the public, Congress, and whatever administration is in power that their sector is the country’s major engine for creating jobs. As TomDispatch regular Bill Hartung has shown, however, a close examination of such job-creation claims rarely stands up to serious scrutiny. For example, the number of jobs created by recent arms sales to Saudi Arabia are now expected to be less than a 10th of those President Trump initially bragged about. As Hartung noted in February, that’s “well under .03% of the U.S. labor force of more than 164 million people.” Current Issue View our current issue
As it turns out, creating jobs through Pentagon spending is among the least effective ways to rebuild the economy. As experts at the University of Massachusetts and Brown University have both discovered, this country would get significantly more job-creation bang for the bucks it spends on weaponry by investing in rebuilding domestic infrastructure, combating climate change, or creating more alternative energy. And such investments would pay additional dividends by making our communities and small businesses stronger and more resilient.
Defense Contractors Campaigning for Bailouts
At the Project On Government Oversight where I work, I spend my days looking at the many ways the arms industry exerts disproportionate influence over what’s still called (however erroneously in this Covid-19 moment) “national security” and the foreign policy that goes with it, including this country’s forever wars. That work has included exposing how a bevy of retired military officers advocated for buying more than even the Pentagon requested of the most expensive weapons system in history, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet fighter, while failing to disclose that they also had significant personal financial interests in supporting that very program. My colleagues and I are also continually tracking the many officials who leave the Pentagon to go to work on the boards of (or to lobby for) arms makers or leave those companies and end up in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the national security state. That’s known, of course, as the military-industrial complex’s “revolving door.” And as President Trump recently noted, it helps ensure that those endless wars never end, while stoking an ever-increasing Pentagon budget. While his actions on behalf of the arms industry don’t back up his rhetoric, his diagnosis of the problem is largely on target.
And yet, as familiar as I am with the damage that the weapons industry has done to our country, I still find myself shocked at how a number of those companies have responded to the current crisis. Almost immediately, they began lobbying the Department of Defense to make their employees part of this country’s “essential critical infrastructure,” so that they could force them to return to work, pandemic or not. That decision drew a rare rebuke from the unions representing those workers, many of whom feared for their lives.
And mind you, only then did things become truly perverse. In the initial Covid-19 relief bill, Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to help respond to the pandemic. Such aid, as congressional representatives imagined it, would be used to purchase personal protective equipment for employees who still had to show up at work, especially since the Department of Defense’s own initial estimate was that the country would need to produce as many as 3.3 billion N95 masks in six months. The Pentagon, however, promptly gave those funds to defense contractors, including paying for such diverse “needs” as golf-course staffing, hypersonic missile development, and microelectronics, a Washington Post investigation found. House appropriators responded that money for defense contractors “was not the original intent of the funds.”
And now those defense contractors are asking for yet more bailouts. Earlier this summer, they successfully convinced the Senate to put $30 billion for the arms industry in its next coronavirus relief bill. As CQ Roll Call reported, the top beneficiaries of that spending spree would be the Pentagon’s two largest contractors: Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
The pandemic has certainly resulted in some delays and unexpected expenses for such companies, but the costs borne by the weapons industry pale compared to the devastation caused to so many businesses that have had to close permanently. Every sector of the economy is undoubtedly facing unexpected costs due to the pandemic, but apparently the Department of Defense, despite being by far the best-funded military on the planet, and its major contractors, among the richest and most successful corporations in America, have essentially claimed that they will be unable to respond to the crisis without further taxpayer help. The chair of the House Armed Services Committee and the lead Democrat for the Senate’s defense appropriations subcommittee recently pointed out that, even though contractors across the federal government are facing pandemic challenges, no other agency has asked for additional funds to cover the costs of the crisis. Instead, they have worked on drawing from their existing resources.
It’s laughable to suggest that the very department that already has by far the most resources on hand and is, of course, charged with leading the country’s response to unexpected threats can’t figure out how to adjust without further funding. But most defense contractors see no reason to adapt since they know that they can continue to count on Washington to bail them out.
Still, the defense industry has become impatient that Congress hasn’t already acquiesced to their demands. In July, executives at most of the major contractors sent a letter to the White House demanding more money. In it, they included a not-so-subtle threat of electoral consequences for the president and Senate Republicans in close races if such funds weren’t provided. Only one major contractor, Northrop Grumman, has stayed away from such highly public lobbying efforts because its CEO apparently had the common sense to recognize that her company was doing too well to demand more when so many others are desperate for money, particularly minority-owned businesses, many of which are likely to never come back.
On a Glide Path to Disaster?
There are signs, however, that someday such eternal winners in the congressional financial sweepstakes may finally be made accountable thanks to the pandemic. This summer, both the House and the Senate for the first time each considered an amendment to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 10 percent. Such efforts even received support from at least some moderates, including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), although it went down to defeat in both houses of Congress. Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) refused to support the specifics of the amendment, she did at least express her agreement with the principle of needing to curtail the Pentagon’s spending spree during this crisis. “As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees, I’m keenly aware of the global threats facing our country,” she said in a statement she released after the vote. “I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding to communities in need.”
The first real test of whether this country will learn any of the right lessons about national security from this ongoing pandemic moment will undoubtedly come in next year’s budget debate when the question will be: Is everything finally going to be on the table? As I previously wrote at TomDispatch, giving the Pentagon trillions of dollars in these years in no way prepared this country for the actual national security crisis of our lives. In fact, even considering the Pentagon’s ridiculously outsized budget, prioritizing funding for unaffordable and unproven weapons systems over healthcare hurt its ability to keep the military and its labor force safe. No less significantly, continuing to prioritize the Pentagon over the needs of every other agency and Americans more generally keeps us on a glide path to disaster.
A genuinely new discussion of budget priorities would mean, as a start, changing the very definition of “security” to include responding to the many risks we actually face when it comes to our safety: not just pandemics, but the already increasing toll of climate change, a crumbling infrastructure, and a government that continues to disproportionately benefit the wealthy and well-connected over everyone else.
At the simplest level, the “defense” side of the budget ledger should be made to reflect what we’re really spending now on what passes for national security. That means counting homeland security and veterans’ benefits, along with many other expenses that often get left out of the budget equation. When such expenses are indeed included, as Brown University’s Costs of War Project has discovered, the real price tag for America’s wars in the Greater Middle East alone came to more than $6.4 trillion by 2020. In other words, to begin having an honest debate about how America’s other needs are funded, there would have to be a far more accurate accounting of what actually has been spent in these years on “national security.”
Surprisingly enough, unlike Congress (or the Pentagon), the voting public already seems to grasp the need for change. The nonprofit think tank Data for Progress found that more than half of likely voters support cutting the Pentagon’s budget by 10 percent to pay for domestic priorities such as fighting the coronavirus. A University of Maryland poll found bipartisan majorities opposed to cutting funding generally with two notable exceptions: Pentagon spending and agricultural subsidies.
Unfortunately, those in the national security establishment are not in the habit of listening to what the American people want. Instead, they’re the captives of a defense industry that eternally hypes new Cold War–style competition with China and Russia, both through donations to Washington think tanks and politicians and that infamous revolving door.
In fact, the Trump administration is a military-industrial nightmare when it comes to that endlessly spinning entrance and exit. Both of his confirmed secretaries of defense and one acting secretary of defense came directly from major defense contractors, including the current one, former Raytheon lobbyist Mark Esper—and the Biden administration seems unlikely to be all that different. As The American Prospect reported recently, several members of his foreign policy team have already circumvented ethics rules that would restrict lobbying activities by becoming “strategic consultants” to the very defense firms aiming to win more Pentagon contracts. For example, Biden’s most likely secretary of defense, Michèle Flournoy, became a senior adviser to Boston Consulting Group. During the first three years she was with that company, it increased its Pentagon contract earnings by a factor of 20.
So whoever wins in 2020, increased spending for the Pentagon, rather than real national security, lies in store. The people, it seems, have spoken. The question remains: Will anyone in Washington listen to them?


thenation--2020-09-16--Trump’s Strategy to Upend the Election Is Being Implemented in Plain Sight

There is a lot of talk in this tempestuous political moment about what will happen after the November 3 election , especially if the results are close and Donald Trump attempts to claim an illegitimate “ victory.
” But what could turn out to be the most concerted effort to overturn the will of the people is taking place before most ballots are cast .
In the courtrooms of battleground states across the country , lawyers associated with the Republican Party , Republican officials , and the Trump campaign—and jurists who do their bidding—are creating precisely the sort of preelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are so many different legal challenges , lawsuits , court orders , decisions , and rulings in so many states , it is easy to miss the full picture of a strategic assault on voting rights .
But that assault is occurring .
Indeed , it is going according to plan .
The New York Times reported in May that the GOP has allotted millions of dollars to fund legal actions as part of a $ 20 million plan to challenge “ voters deemed suspicious.
” That obscure phrase translates as voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a burn-it-down strategy , a strategy to win at all costs , ” said Lauren Groh-Wargo , the senior adviser with the voting rights group Fair Fight , who predicted that spending on lawsuits and other efforts to erect barriers to a high-turnout election would easily exceed the $ 20 million figure .
And that wasn ’ t counting the use of taxpayer funds by states , such as Florida , where Republican officials are leading the charge .
Democrats Have Ignored Cities Like Kenosha for Too Long Now , egged on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clogging the courts .
The effort to make it harder to vote have been averted in some states .
But in several of the most contested battlegrounds , Republican officials and lawyers have succeeded in getting conservative courts to discriminate against groups of voters that might be expected to lean toward the Democrats , and to create roadblocks to voting by mail in an election where the coronavirus pandemic has made that method a preferred option .
Consider the news from just the past week regarding voting in Florida , Iowa , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a 6-4 decision that upheld a fresh take on the Jim Crow–era poll taxes that warped politics in the segregated South .
The court upheld a law enacted by Florida Republicans that requires former felons to pay off outstanding court fees before they can cast ballots .
“ This ruling runs counter to the foundational principle that Americans do not have to pay to vote , ” explains the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Voting Rights Project attorney , Julie Ebenstein , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision can not be overstated .
It is an affront to the spirit of democracy.
” Is is estimated that 774,000 former felons in Florida owe outstanding court debt .
While it is impossible to say how many of them will vote , and how many might vote for Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , it is important to remember that this drive to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters was propelled by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis , an ardent Trump backer .
It is also important to remember that Democrat Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 115,000 votes .
On Monday , Iowa Judge Ian Thornhill voided absentee ballot requests sent out by Johnson County Auditor and Commisioner of Elections Travis Weipert because , in order to avoid confusion and make the process easier for voters , the forms have personal information ( name , address , date of birth , voter ID number ) already filled in .
Lawyers for the Trump campaign and state and national Republican Party organizations mounted legal challenges to the practice in a number of counties , and last week succeeded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populous Linn ( Cedar Rapids ) and Woodbury ( Sioux City ) counties .
In Johnson County , home to the University of Iowa and and a liberal stronghold , Weipert had mailed out 92,000 forms .
Now , because of the judge ’ s ruling , the Associated Press reports , “ anyone in Johnson County who sent in a pre-filled absentee ballot request form and still wishes to vote by mail in November must send a new request form.
” This puts a new burden on voters in a state where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that Biden is within two points of overtaking Trump .
Multiple lawsuits have thrown officials for a loop as they attempt to plan for an election that is now less than 50 days away .
Trump is obsessed with Pennsylvania , which he won narrowly in 2016 .
Now , the Trump campaign is in the courts seeking to prevent voters from using drop boxes to deliver their absentee ballots .
A number of states use drop boxes to allow voters to deliver their ballots without mailing them .
That speeds up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are widespread concerns about the efforts of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , a Trump campaign donor , undermine the operations of the postal service .
At the same time , Republican legislators in Pennsylvania have tried to ban the use of drop boxes and put new restrictions on deadlines for requesting mail ballots .
“ It should be a bipartisan issue to allow every Pennsylvanian to have access to their fundamental right to vote , ” Pennsylvania state Representative Malcolm Kenyatta , a Philadelphia Democrat , explained in early September when the legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what this [ measure ] does is make the process inaccessible for Pennsylvanians .
And unfortunately , it has been driven by national politics.
” The national politics are clear enough : In 2016 , Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 45,000 votes out of more than 6,000,000 cast .
Pennsylvania polls have Biden leading the 2020 race .
But Trump hasn ’ t given up on gaming the process in his favor ; he was tweeting Saturday about “ Mail-Vote Madness ” and accusing Democratic Governor Tom Wolf of trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” Why Are Federal Jurists Cheering on Voter Suppression in Wisconsin ?
In battleground state after battleground state , Trump-aligned lawyers have ramped up efforts to restrict voting—especially voting by those who might cast ballots for Biden and other Democrats .
The Republicans are losing some fights .
In Ohio , for instance , a judge ruled Tuesday that Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose ’ s move to limit the use of drop boxes by voters casting absentee ballots was “ arbitrary and unreasonable.
” In Wisconsin , the state Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million requested absentee ballots be sent to voters before a Thursday deadline mandated by state law ; the court had briefly blocked the mailing of ballots in order to resolve a dispute over whether the Green Party ( which was represented by lawyers who have worked with former governor Scott Walker and other top Republicans ) had qualified for the ballot .
But in other states , the chaos continues .
Last week , in the suddenly competitive state of Texas , a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to offer a vote-by-mail option to all eligible voters .
The court embraced a Republican argument that the state should be allowed to impose a 65-and-over age limit on voting by mail .
The decision discriminates against younger voters who polls suggest are more likely to vote Democratic in a state where the latest Dallas Morning News poll finds Trump ’ s advantage over Biden has slipped to just 2 points .
Democrats have argued for months that limiting vote-by-mail options “ simply on account of their age is facially unconstitutional.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are poll taxes .
But , this fall , the Trump campaign , the Republican Party and their judicial allies are not worrying about the Constitution .
They are in full burn-it-down , win-at-any-cost mode .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
There is a lot of talk in this tempestuous political moment about what will happen after the November 3 election, especially if the results are close and Donald Trump attempts to claim an illegitimate “victory.” But what could turn out to be the most concerted effort to overturn the will of the people is taking place before most ballots are cast.
In the courtrooms of battleground states across the country, lawyers associated with the Republican Party, Republican officials, and the Trump campaign—and jurists who do their bidding—are creating precisely the sort of preelection chaos that Trump wants. Because there are so many different legal challenges, lawsuits, court orders, decisions, and rulings in so many states, it is easy to miss the full picture of a strategic assault on voting rights.
But that assault is occurring. Indeed, it is going according to plan.
The New York Times reported in May that the GOP has allotted millions of dollars to fund legal actions as part of a $20 million plan to challenge “voters deemed suspicious.” That obscure phrase translates as voters who might cast Democratic ballots. “This is a burn-it-down strategy, a strategy to win at all costs,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, the senior adviser with the voting rights group Fair Fight, who predicted that spending on lawsuits and other efforts to erect barriers to a high-turnout election would easily exceed the $20 million figure. And that wasn’t counting the use of taxpayer funds by states, such as Florida, where Republican officials are leading the charge. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Now, egged on by President Trump, Republican lawyers are clogging the courts.
The effort to make it harder to vote have been averted in some states. But in several of the most contested battlegrounds, Republican officials and lawyers have succeeded in getting conservative courts to discriminate against groups of voters that might be expected to lean toward the Democrats, and to create roadblocks to voting by mail in an election where the coronavirus pandemic has made that method a preferred option.
Consider the news from just the past week regarding voting in Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania.
Florida
On Friday, the Atlanta-based US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a 6-4 decision that upheld a fresh take on the Jim Crow–era poll taxes that warped politics in the segregated South. The court upheld a law enacted by Florida Republicans that requires former felons to pay off outstanding court fees before they can cast ballots. “This ruling runs counter to the foundational principle that Americans do not have to pay to vote,” explains the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project attorney, Julie Ebenstein, who says, “The gravity of this decision cannot be overstated. It is an affront to the spirit of democracy.” Is is estimated that 774,000 former felons in Florida owe outstanding court debt. While it is impossible to say how many of them will vote, and how many might vote for Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, it is important to remember that this drive to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters was propelled by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, an ardent Trump backer. It is also important to remember that Democrat Hillary Clinton lost Florida in 2016 by less than 115,000 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 Current Issue View our current issue
Iowa
On Monday, Iowa Judge Ian Thornhill voided absentee ballot requests sent out by Johnson County Auditor and Commisioner of Elections Travis Weipert because, in order to avoid confusion and make the process easier for voters, the forms have personal information (name, address, date of birth, voter ID number) already filled in. Lawyers for the Trump campaign and state and national Republican Party organizations mounted legal challenges to the practice in a number of counties, and last week succeeded in voiding 64,000 requests for absentee ballots in populous Linn (Cedar Rapids) and Woodbury (Sioux City) counties. In Johnson County, home to the University of Iowa and and a liberal stronghold, Weipert had mailed out 92,000 forms. Now, because of the judge’s ruling, the Associated Press reports, “anyone in Johnson County who sent in a pre-filled absentee ballot request form and still wishes to vote by mail in November must send a new request form.” This puts a new burden on voters in a state where Real Clear Politics average of recent polls suggests that Biden is within two points of overtaking Trump.
Pennsylvania
Multiple lawsuits have thrown officials for a loop as they attempt to plan for an election that is now less than 50 days away. Trump is obsessed with Pennsylvania, which he won narrowly in 2016. Now, the Trump campaign is in the courts seeking to prevent voters from using drop boxes to deliver their absentee ballots. A number of states use drop boxes to allow voters to deliver their ballots without mailing them. That speeds up the process at a point when there are widespread concerns about the efforts of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump campaign donor, undermine the operations of the postal service. At the same time, Republican legislators in Pennsylvania have tried to ban the use of drop boxes and put new restrictions on deadlines for requesting mail ballots. “It should be a bipartisan issue to allow every Pennsylvanian to have access to their fundamental right to vote,” Pennsylvania state Representative Malcolm Kenyatta, a Philadelphia Democrat, explained in early September when the legislature began wrangling with the issue. “But what this [measure] does is make the process inaccessible for Pennsylvanians. And unfortunately, it has been driven by national politics.” The national politics are clear enough: In 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 45,000 votes out of more than 6,000,000 cast. Pennsylvania polls have Biden leading the 2020 race. But Trump hasn’t given up on gaming the process in his favor; he was tweeting Saturday about “Mail-Vote Madness” and accusing Democratic Governor Tom Wolf of trying to “defraud the people of the United States.” Voter Suppression Why Are Federal Jurists Cheering on Voter Suppression in Wisconsin? John Nichols
In battleground state after battleground state, Trump-aligned lawyers have ramped up efforts to restrict voting—especially voting by those who might cast ballots for Biden and other Democrats. The Republicans are losing some fights. In Ohio, for instance, a judge ruled Tuesday that Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s move to limit the use of drop boxes by voters casting absentee ballots was “arbitrary and unreasonable.” In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court voted 4-3 Monday to let 1 million requested absentee ballots be sent to voters before a Thursday deadline mandated by state law; the court had briefly blocked the mailing of ballots in order to resolve a dispute over whether the Green Party (which was represented by lawyers who have worked with former governor Scott Walker and other top Republicans) had qualified for the ballot.
But in other states, the chaos continues. Last week, in the suddenly competitive state of Texas, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas does not have to offer a vote-by-mail option to all eligible voters. The court embraced a Republican argument that the state should be allowed to impose a 65-and-over age limit on voting by mail. The decision discriminates against younger voters who polls suggest are more likely to vote Democratic in a state where the latest Dallas Morning News poll finds Trump’s advantage over Biden has slipped to just 2 points. Democrats have argued for months that limiting vote-by-mail options “simply on account of their age is facially unconstitutional.” True enough. So, too, are poll taxes. But, this fall, the Trump campaign, the Republican Party and their judicial allies are not worrying about the Constitution. They are in full burn-it-down, win-at-any-cost mode.


thenation--2020-09-16--Biden Republicans Are a Political Illusion

In late August , Rahm Emanuel , chief of staff under President Barack Obama as well as onetime mayor of Chicago , declared , “ This will be the year of the Biden Republican.
” Emanuel was describing the hope that the Democratic Party would convert enough hardcore partisans to fundamentally realign American politics .
Just as Reagan Democrats helped the Republicans dominate American politics in the 1980s , so Biden Republicans could help usher in a new era .
To that end , much of the Democratic National Convention was tailored to please Republicans more than Democrats , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans like Colin Powell , Michael Bloomberg , John Kasich , and Cindy McCain .
Progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were marginalized .
This stood in contrast to the Republican convention , which was aimed not at outreach but at bolstering the party ’ s Trumpist identity , with all the adult children of the president speaking .
In both campaigns , Trump was the center of attention .
The Republicans sold themselves as the party of proud Trumpists , while the Democrats offered themselves as the party for all those who hated Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone by since the convention that we can safely say that the Republican message was more successful .
On August 17 , the first day of the DNC , Joe Biden had a 8.4 percent lead in FiveThirtyEight ’ s aggregation of the polls .
By September 15 , this had narrowed to a 7 percent lead .
The narrowing of the poll is slight , and Biden retains an enviable position .
But the narrowing , measured in many polls , is real and speaks to the relative success of the rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consolidating Republican support behind him , while the Democratic pitch to Republican voters hasn ’ t gained any traction .
Republicans who are skeptical of Trump are returning to the fold , while Democrats aren ’ t winning new converts .
Fires Prove the Climate Catastrophe Is a Constitutional Crisis Too A Washington Post op-ed by Danielle Pletka , a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute , illuminates why Biden ’ s message isn ’ t pulling in the voters he ’ s seeking .
Pletka , a longtime foreign policy hawk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters of George W. Bush ’ s foreign policy , is exactly the type of national security hard-liner that Biden is trying to recruit .
She admits to being wary of Trump both for his erratic governing style and also his occasional straying from Republican orthodoxy , mainly on trade and military commitments in the Middle East .
“ I don ’ t need a bumper sticker or a lawn sign to convey my distaste for Trump—his odious tweets , his chronic mendacity and general crudeness , ” she notes .
Having said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Joe Biden , because she thinks he ’ ll be a puppet of the left wing of the Democratic Party .
In a remarkable paragraph , Pletka spells out her nightmare scenario : I fear that former vice president Joe Biden would be a figurehead president , incapable of focus or leadership , who would run a teleprompter presidency with the words drafted by his party ’ s hard-left ideologues .
I fear that a Congress with Democrats controlling both houses—almost certainly ensured by a Biden victory in November—would begin an assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s small “ d ” democracy .
That could include the abolition of the filibuster , creating an executive-legislative monolith of unlimited political power ; an increase in the number of Supreme Court seats to ensure a liberal supermajority ; passage of devastating economic measures such as the Green New Deal ; nationalized health care ; the dismantling of U.S. borders and the introduction of socialist-inspired measures that will wreck an economy still recovering from the pandemic shutdown .
Pletka ’ s worries seem so divorced from reality that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything other than bad-faith rationalization .
From a progressive point of view , it would be wonderful if her nightmares came true , but they remain the stuff of fantasy .
There ’ s nothing in Biden ’ s past that would indicate he ’ d govern as a hard leftist .
Aside from Biden , the leaders of the current Democratic Party , including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer , are all resolute centrists .
Biden has specifically rejected some of the polices Pletka ascribed to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ dismantling of U.S. borders.
” Yet as lurid and unreal as Pletka ’ s ideas of Biden are , they are widely shared among Republicans .
Commenting on Pletka ’ s article , National Review writer Dan McLaughlin noted , “ I can not even count the number of people from whom I have heard this exact argument , in conversations & private emails.
” The idea of Biden as a Trojan horse for the left is a standard Republican talking point .
It ’ s tempting enough to mock the motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri splendidly did in a parody of Pletka ’ s op-ed : Believe me when I tell you that the LAST THING I could POSSIBLY want would be to vote for Donald Trump .
That ’ s why I am so stunned that you have taken it upon yourself to go to such lengths to FORCE me to vote for him !
You sick , sick monster !
I don ’ t even like him , not even one little bit .
So I hope you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , which comes to me as a total surprise and is definitely not a foregone conclusion in any way .
But behind the bad faith of Pletka ’ s argument lies an unstated but stark truth : Partisan Republicans and Democrats have ideological commitments that override personal feelings about a candidate .
Trump might embarrass Pletka with his ugly tweets , but he ’ s largely governed as a standard Republican .
Even in foreign policy , his occasional anti-interventionist statement is more a matter of rhetoric than policy .
In actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what any senior fellow at a right-wing think tank would want : tax cuts for the rich , a roll back of environmental regulations , a judiciary filled with Federalist Society alumni , and a massive increase in military spending .
Given that Trump has given Republicans what they want , they would be foolish to go for even so centrist a Democrat as Biden .
A nasty tweet is easily forgotten , while policy victories can last for decades .
Pletka ’ s op-ed explains why Trump ’ s attempt to consolidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller size of the Republican base , this strategy might still fail .
The Republicans have a chance only if the base consolidates and enough Democrats are discouraged and stay home , as happened in 2016 .
The danger of Biden ’ s strategy is that in trying to win over people like Pletka , the Democrats demobilize their own base .
Writing in Jacobin , David Sirota notes , “ Biden is still ahead overall , but his margin is smaller than it appears , and the race in key battleground states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy craters and the Trump-intensified pandemic persists .
Meanwhile , there appears to be a significant enthusiasm gap between both candidates ’ voters.
” Sirota cites a recent Fox News poll showing that 59 percent of Trump voters are enthusiastic about their candidate as compared to 43 percent of Biden supporters .
This enthusiasm gap is exactly what one would expect given Trump ’ s focus on energizing his base and Biden ’ s efforts to appeal to people who fundamentally reject Democratic Party policies .
In the language of the oil industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Democrats can keep drilling and drilling , but there ’ s only a dribble of voters to be gained from this patch of land .
They would be better advised to start motivating the voters they already have .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In late August, Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff under President Barack Obama as well as onetime mayor of Chicago, declared, “This will be the year of the Biden Republican.” Emanuel was describing the hope that the Democratic Party would convert enough hardcore partisans to fundamentally realign American politics. Just as Reagan Democrats helped the Republicans dominate American politics in the 1980s, so Biden Republicans could help usher in a new era. To that end, much of the Democratic National Convention was tailored to please Republicans more than Democrats, with plenty of speeches by past and present Republicans like Colin Powell, Michael Bloomberg, John Kasich, and Cindy McCain. Progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were marginalized. This stood in contrast to the Republican convention, which was aimed not at outreach but at bolstering the party’s Trumpist identity, with all the adult children of the president speaking.
In both campaigns, Trump was the center of attention. The Republicans sold themselves as the party of proud Trumpists, while the Democrats offered themselves as the party for all those who hated Trump, including Republicans.
Enough time has gone by since the convention that we can safely say that the Republican message was more successful. On August 17, the first day of the DNC, Joe Biden had a 8.4 percent lead in FiveThirtyEight’s aggregation of the polls. By September 15, this had narrowed to a 7 percent lead. The narrowing of the poll is slight, and Biden retains an enviable position. But the narrowing, measured in many polls, is real and speaks to the relative success of the rival political messages.
Trump is succeeding in consolidating Republican support behind him, while the Democratic pitch to Republican voters hasn’t gained any traction. Republicans who are skeptical of Trump are returning to the fold, while Democrats aren’t winning new converts. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
A Washington Post op-ed by Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, illuminates why Biden’s message isn’t pulling in the voters he’s seeking. Pletka, a longtime foreign policy hawk who was one of the major intellectual supporters of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, is exactly the type of national security hard-liner that Biden is trying to recruit. She admits to being wary of Trump both for his erratic governing style and also his occasional straying from Republican orthodoxy, mainly on trade and military commitments in the Middle East. “I don’t need a bumper sticker or a lawn sign to convey my distaste for Trump—his odious tweets, his chronic mendacity and general crudeness,” she notes.
Having said that, Pletka is even more wary of Joe Biden, because she thinks he’ll be a puppet of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
In a remarkable paragraph, Pletka spells out her nightmare scenario:
Pletka’s worries seem so divorced from reality that it’s hard to see them as anything other than bad-faith rationalization. From a progressive point of view, it would be wonderful if her nightmares came true, but they remain the stuff of fantasy. There’s nothing in Biden’s past that would indicate he’d govern as a hard leftist. Aside from Biden, the leaders of the current Democratic Party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, are all resolute centrists. Biden has specifically rejected some of the polices Pletka ascribed to him, notably nationalized health care and the “dismantling of U.S. borders.”
Yet as lurid and unreal as Pletka’s ideas of Biden are, they are widely shared among Republicans. Commenting on Pletka’s article, National Review writer Dan McLaughlin noted, “I cannot even count the number of people from whom I have heard this exact argument, in conversations & private emails.” The idea of Biden as a Trojan horse for the left is a standard Republican talking point.
It’s tempting enough to mock the motivated reasoning and blame-shifting of these arguments, as Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri splendidly did in a parody of Pletka’s op-ed:
Believe me when I tell you that the LAST THING I could POSSIBLY want would be to vote for Donald Trump. That’s why I am so stunned that you have taken it upon yourself to go to such lengths to FORCE me to vote for him! You sick, sick monster! I don’t even like him, not even one little bit. So I hope you’re happy with what YOU are making me do, which comes to me as a total surprise and is definitely not a foregone conclusion in any way.
But behind the bad faith of Pletka’s argument lies an unstated but stark truth: Partisan Republicans and Democrats have ideological commitments that override personal feelings about a candidate. Trump might embarrass Pletka with his ugly tweets, but he’s largely governed as a standard Republican. Even in foreign policy, his occasional anti-interventionist statement is more a matter of rhetoric than policy. In actual policy terms, he’s delivered what any senior fellow at a right-wing think tank would want: tax cuts for the rich, a roll back of environmental regulations, a judiciary filled with Federalist Society alumni, and a massive increase in military spending.
Given that Trump has given Republicans what they want, they would be foolish to go for even so centrist a Democrat as Biden. A nasty tweet is easily forgotten, while policy victories can last for decades.
Pletka’s op-ed explains why Trump’s attempt to consolidate his base makes sense. Given the smaller size of the Republican base, this strategy might still fail. The Republicans have a chance only if the base consolidates and enough Democrats are discouraged and stay home, as happened in 2016. Current Issue View our current issue
The danger of Biden’s strategy is that in trying to win over people like Pletka, the Democrats demobilize their own base. Writing in Jacobin, David Sirota notes, “Biden is still ahead overall, but his margin is smaller than it appears, and the race in key battleground states remains tight, even as the Trump economy craters and the Trump-intensified pandemic persists. Meanwhile, there appears to be a significant enthusiasm gap between both candidates’ voters.”
Sirota cites a recent Fox News poll showing that 59 percent of Trump voters are enthusiastic about their candidate as compared to 43 percent of Biden supporters. This enthusiasm gap is exactly what one would expect given Trump’s focus on energizing his base and Biden’s efforts to appeal to people who fundamentally reject Democratic Party policies.
In the language of the oil industry, Biden Republicans are a dry well. The Democrats can keep drilling and drilling, but there’s only a dribble of voters to be gained from this patch of land. They would be better advised to start motivating the voters they already have.


thenation--2020-09-16--The Stories We Tell About Class

The Stories We Tell About Class

In one story commonly told by the United States , homeownership promises the good life .
A white picket fence , sure , but also a washing machine , health insurance , family dinners , and a retirement account .
In her new book , Having and Being Had , Eula Biss scrutinizes the persistence of this promise by reflecting on her affluence .
“ When I could pass as permanent , ” she writes , “ I bought a house.
” But permanence , she quickly learns , has its own set of insecurities , alienations , and self-delusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we tell about money keep America bound to capitalism .
While Biss ’ s previous works—On Immunity , Notes From No Man ’ s Land , and The Balloonists—interrogate the invisible contracts of race and gender , Having and Being Had explores the nature of work , leisure , investment , and consumption .
The question embedded in the book ’ s title ( How does what we own own us ? )
remains , not fully resolved by the series of short essays that further prod : What happens when the things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the things that make the world unlivable ?
( Perusing a furniture store , Biss writes , “ I want everything and nothing ” —a deflated desire that reappears throughout the book . )
The book ’ s focus on everyday life—a game of Monopoly , weekend yard work , new Ikea furniture—is undergirded by an inquiry into history , literature , and economics .
In one section , Biss writes about her real estate agent , who is “ forbidden by law ” to discuss demographics while selling homes in a neighborhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property value.
” In another , she reintroduces Virginia Woolf as both literary model and cautionary tale .
Elsewhere , she surveys how slavery and marriage made people into objects .
If writing about income inequality often orients toward big-picture prescriptives , then Having and Being Had invests in transparency and self-scrutiny .
Published in the face of massive state failure and a surge in mutual aid projects across the country , the book suggests that talking about class—and specifically class privilege—is a necessary step in redistributing wealth and building equitable communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-capitalist nature of poetry , and whether there ’ s any way out of this .
Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length .
aliah ancini : You suggest that the house is wrapped up in a cult of safety , permanence , and security .
What does one have to trade to become part of this cult ?
ula iss : Part of what I traded away was a certain degree of control over my own time .
In order for me to buy a house , I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my job in a way that I had not been before .
Many people trade away flexibility and freedom when they enter that cult , and I think some people leave the cult because they want to live in a different way .
This is one of the things I wrestled with in this book .
I don ’ t necessarily believe in homeownership as a financial strategy or a wealth-building mechanism , but people who , for various reasons , don ’ t own their houses are disadvantaged in terms of building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
And that has ramifications in terms of some very basic forms of security .
This is one of the things that make me angry about our system .
You actually have to be quite wealthy to have very basic kinds of stability—to know that your health care is covered , your child ’ s education will be covered , that your retirement will be covered .
We ’ d like to imagine that those are middle-class givens , but they aren ’ t .
TM : Throughout , you talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth .
Was writing this book a declaration against this type of self-deception ?
EB : It was not just a declaration but a tool to actively work myself out of that deception .
I didn ’ t think that I was lying to myself about money or my own social power , but once I got into the writing , I realized that I had been engaged in self-deception and that many people around me were .
That self-deception is not really a personal view so much as it makes possible our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one thing to lie to yourself , but it ’ s another thing to lie to yourself in a way that makes a system of inequality run more smoothly .
If upper-middle-class people believe ourselves to be more financially strapped than we are , we don ’ t feel in the position to engage in wealth distribution efforts , right ?
This self-deception has consequences for policy-making and the way that people vote and the way that people engage with giving .
One surprising thing that I found while doing research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your income is , the less you ’ re likely you are to give away .
That pattern suggests that the wealthier we become , the stingier we become , and part of that has to do with the psychology of our particular kind of capitalism that really encourages us to feel like we never have enough and that we always need more .
TM : Metaphors are central to your thinking about capitalism .
You talk about consumption as a metaphor for destruction , for example , and there ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m interested in how you used metaphor in this book differently from in your past work .
How to Be Critical of the Things You Love EB : I was very drawn , in this work , to work directly with metaphor without actually talking about metaphor .
My last book , On Immunity , dealt with metaphor , but I was also talking about metaphor .
In this work I wanted to circle back to a mode of writing that I engaged in much earlier in my career , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much closer to poetry than my most recent .
I know not everyone is going to read the book this way , but there really isn ’ t a single noun or exchange or event that isn ’ t functioning as metaphor .
For me , the certain repeated elements that are pretty subtle—like the turkey that my next-door neighbor refuses and then the holiday turkey I cook in my house—have symbolic significance .
Though as much as On Immunity was about metaphor , this book is about internalized contradictions .
Middle-class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradiction .
Kudzu , for instance , comes up a number of times throughout the book and in different contexts and for different reasons .
I was thinking about the insidiousness of this system , and this type of kudzu grows over other plants and strangles them , strangles out other ways of being or thinking .
Metaphor in this book was meant to be a primary tool for meaning-making and understanding , and all of these details from my life , pretty much every single one of them , is intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the work of the book , then , was trying to harness those metaphors and test them , to think , “ Is capitalism really like kudzu ?
What does this turkey symbolize ?
Is it middle-class excess ?
And what does it mean when my neighbor refuses it out of pride ?
And what does it mean when I serve it to my friends ?
” I know that there is a literal reading of it , but the literal read probably misses most of the more interesting things .
TM : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the works you cited—from Marx and Silvia Federici to Virginia Woolf and Joan Didion to Adam Smith and Anna Tsing—as a study of a knowledge economy .
What was your process of finding and choosing texts like ?
EB : That ’ s very much what it was .
I was curious about what we collectively know about capitalism .
It was a portrait not just of what kind of access I and the people around me had about information about our system but also the way that knowledge moves—that kind of gift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to honor the gift economy that supports my work as a writer , this network of people who are informing me , connecting me , challenging me , sending me the readings .
But if you look through the list of references at the end , there ’ s a real tilt to white cultural ephemera .
The whiteness of my knowledge base is evidenced in that source list .
It was a place where I was forced to reflect on how the whiteness of my social group was limiting my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It brings up the question of what white writers are for .
Maybe more than being about a house , the book is about a certain type of life afforded by the creation of the legal and political category “ white people.
” EB : Definitely .
In some ways , this book is an extension of my previous work where I wrote about whiteness as a white person .
I do think that in general , it ’ s harder to see whiteness from within it , but I also feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of us who profit from this system of advantages to do the work of trying to see it .
My hope in that work was , in trying to see this system that really does remain invisible to most white people and entirely visible to people of color , I could kind of model that process [ of trying to see ] .
Similarly , it is the responsibility of those of us who have class advantages to interrogate those advantages and try to see them and not let them remain invisible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenges early in writing this book was trying to figure out how to make this way of life , which has been really normalized in our media and popular literature and movies , uncanny .
To make strange these things that have been accepted as normal , everyday luxuries of this class position .
TM : At points you seem struck by how deeply invested we are in this normal , to the point that every other system looks impossible .
In one section you even refer to John Berger ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of property .
Museums acquire paintings .
But you also write that art can “ unmake the world made by work.
” How might art help us imagine new ways of living that aren ’ t centered on work ?
EB : Art is interesting because it ’ s work that , for most people , doesn ’ t look like or function like other work .
For most artists , art-making is unpaid .
That alone puts it in a realm of things that are difficult , that take a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compensated , like parenting .
In our current society and economy , we tend to only support work that is financially compensated , and the higher the compensation , the more respect we have for the work .
It doesn ’ t have to do with whether the work is essential or not , and this has been made abundantly exposed by the [ coronavirus ] pandemic .
In a more rational economic system , the people who would be essential would be very well supported by our system .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re choosing to move outside a system of compensation .
Even just engaging in art-making , then , is a challenge to the system and not just a challenge to some of our preconceptions about what work is and what it has to be but also a challenge to the idea that profit is and should be what motivates people .
This goes back to not being able to see out of capitalism—every other system looking strange or implausible or nostalgic .
That ’ s maybe the saddest part about our situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even imagine another way of being has been constrained and limited .
What ’ s exciting to me about some of David Graeber ’ s work , who I reference throughout the book , is his argument that the alternatives to capitalism are actually already here .
We ’ re already living them .
We just need to invest in them and build policies and economies around them .
His argument is that it ’ s not impossible to imagine an alternative .
People are already doing things that don ’ t follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why art seems so full of promise , because communities of artists—especially artists who are in a position like poets , where there ’ s no money even for people who are very successful—can serve as a kind of model for how people might live and work outside the system that is based on profit motivation .
TM : I want to ask about the book ’ s ending .
At one point , you tell your friend that this book has “ no resolution , ” and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end it would be to burn your house down.
” Why end the book the way you do ?
EB : One of the central problems of the book for me is this contradiction between my own comforts and my discomforts with those comforts .
I want the comforts and securities afforded to me by capitalism , and I ’ m completely uncomfortable with the system that rewarded me those comforts .
What disturbed me about my own economic privilege was that I was pretty attached to it .
It points to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system I know to be unjust .
It ’ s an ethical problem , and it would be dishonest to imply some sort of resolution there .

In one story commonly told by the United States, homeownership promises the good life. A white picket fence, sure, but also a washing machine, health insurance, family dinners, and a retirement account. In her new book, Having and Being Had, Eula Biss scrutinizes the persistence of this promise by reflecting on her affluence. “When I could pass as permanent,” she writes, “I bought a house.” But permanence, she quickly learns, has its own set of insecurities, alienations, and self-delusions. Much like homeownership, the stories we tell about money keep America bound to capitalism.
While Biss’s previous works—On Immunity, Notes From No Man’s Land, and The Balloonists—interrogate the invisible contracts of race and gender, Having and Being Had explores the nature of work, leisure, investment, and consumption. The question embedded in the book’s title (How does what we own own us?) remains, not fully resolved by the series of short essays that further prod: What happens when the things that provide us with comfort are also the things that make the world unlivable? (Perusing a furniture store, Biss writes, “I want everything and nothing”—a deflated desire that reappears throughout the book.)
The book’s focus on everyday life—a game of Monopoly, weekend yard work, new Ikea furniture—is undergirded by an inquiry into history, literature, and economics. In one section, Biss writes about her real estate agent, who is “forbidden by law” to discuss demographics while selling homes in a neighborhood where redlining once “translated race into property value.” In another, she reintroduces Virginia Woolf as both literary model and cautionary tale. Elsewhere, she surveys how slavery and marriage made people into objects.
If writing about income inequality often orients toward big-picture prescriptives, then Having and Being Had invests in transparency and self-scrutiny. Published in the face of massive state failure and a surge in mutual aid projects across the country, the book suggests that talking about class—and specifically class privilege—is a necessary step in redistributing wealth and building equitable communities.
I talked to Biss about precarity, the anti-capitalist nature of poetry, and whether there’s any way out of this. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
—Taliah Mancini
T aliah M ancini: You suggest that the house is wrapped up in a cult of safety, permanence, and security. What does one have to trade to become part of this cult?
E ula B iss: Part of what I traded away was a certain degree of control over my own time. In order for me to buy a house, I had to be willing to be locked into my job in a way that I had not been before. Many people trade away flexibility and freedom when they enter that cult, and I think some people leave the cult because they want to live in a different way. This is one of the things I wrestled with in this book. I don’t necessarily believe in homeownership as a financial strategy or a wealth-building mechanism, but people who, for various reasons, don’t own their houses are disadvantaged in terms of building wealth and passing on wealth to their children. And that has ramifications in terms of some very basic forms of security. This is one of the things that make me angry about our system. You actually have to be quite wealthy to have very basic kinds of stability—to know that your health care is covered, your child’s education will be covered, that your retirement will be covered. We’d like to imagine that those are middle-class givens, but they aren’t. 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
TM: Throughout, you talk about the phenomenon of wealthier people downplaying their wealth. Was writing this book a declaration against this type of self-deception?
EB: It was not just a declaration but a tool to actively work myself out of that deception. I didn’t think that I was lying to myself about money or my own social power, but once I got into the writing, I realized that I had been engaged in self-deception and that many people around me were. That self-deception is not really a personal view so much as it makes possible our comfort with the entire system. It’s one thing to lie to yourself, but it’s another thing to lie to yourself in a way that makes a system of inequality run more smoothly. If upper-middle-class people believe ourselves to be more financially strapped than we are, we don’t feel in the position to engage in wealth distribution efforts, right? This self-deception has consequences for policy-making and the way that people vote and the way that people engage with giving. One surprising thing that I found while doing research for this book is that the higher your income is, the less you’re likely you are to give away. That pattern suggests that the wealthier we become, the stingier we become, and part of that has to do with the psychology of our particular kind of capitalism that really encourages us to feel like we never have enough and that we always need more.
TM: Metaphors are central to your thinking about capitalism. You talk about consumption as a metaphor for destruction, for example, and there’s the metaphor of peeling paint off your walls. I’m interested in how you used metaphor in this book differently from in your past work. Related Article How to Be Critical of the Things You Love Nawal Arjini
EB: I was very drawn, in this work, to work directly with metaphor without actually talking about metaphor. My last book, On Immunity, dealt with metaphor, but I was also talking about metaphor. In this work I wanted to circle back to a mode of writing that I engaged in much earlier in my career, like in my first book, which was much closer to poetry than my most recent. I know not everyone is going to read the book this way, but there really isn’t a single noun or exchange or event that isn’t functioning as metaphor. For me, the certain repeated elements that are pretty subtle—like the turkey that my next-door neighbor refuses and then the holiday turkey I cook in my house—have symbolic significance. Though as much as On Immunity was about metaphor, this book is about internalized contradictions. Middle-class life is in certain ways defined by contradiction.
Kudzu, for instance, comes up a number of times throughout the book and in different contexts and for different reasons. I was thinking about the insidiousness of this system, and this type of kudzu grows over other plants and strangles them, strangles out other ways of being or thinking. Metaphor in this book was meant to be a primary tool for meaning-making and understanding, and all of these details from my life, pretty much every single one of them, is intended to be a symbol. A lot of the work of the book, then, was trying to harness those metaphors and test them, to think, “Is capitalism really like kudzu? What does this turkey symbolize? Is it middle-class excess? And what does it mean when my neighbor refuses it out of pride? And what does it mean when I serve it to my friends?” I know that there is a literal reading of it, but the literal read probably misses most of the more interesting things.
TM: I couldn’t help thinking of the works you cited—from Marx and Silvia Federici to Virginia Woolf and Joan Didion to Adam Smith and Anna Tsing—as a study of a knowledge economy. What was your process of finding and choosing texts like?
EB: That’s very much what it was. I was curious about what we collectively know about capitalism. It was a portrait not just of what kind of access I and the people around me had about information about our system but also the way that knowledge moves—that kind of gift economy of knowledge. I was partly trying to honor the gift economy that supports my work as a writer, this network of people who are informing me, connecting me, challenging me, sending me the readings. But if you look through the list of references at the end, there’s a real tilt to white cultural ephemera. The whiteness of my knowledge base is evidenced in that source list. It was a place where I was forced to reflect on how the whiteness of my social group was limiting my own knowledge base in various ways.
TM: It brings up the question of what white writers are for. Maybe more than being about a house, the book is about a certain type of life afforded by the creation of the legal and political category “white people.”
EB: Definitely. In some ways, this book is an extension of my previous work where I wrote about whiteness as a white person. I do think that in general, it’s harder to see whiteness from within it, but I also feel that it’s the responsibility of those of us who profit from this system of advantages to do the work of trying to see it. My hope in that work was, in trying to see this system that really does remain invisible to most white people and entirely visible to people of color, I could kind of model that process [of trying to see]. Similarly, it is the responsibility of those of us who have class advantages to interrogate those advantages and try to see them and not let them remain invisible or taken for granted. One of the challenges early in writing this book was trying to figure out how to make this way of life, which has been really normalized in our media and popular literature and movies, uncanny. To make strange these things that have been accepted as normal, everyday luxuries of this class position.
TM: At points you seem struck by how deeply invested we are in this normal, to the point that every other system looks impossible. In one section you even refer to John Berger’s observation that now art is inherently a form of property. Museums acquire paintings. But you also write that art can “unmake the world made by work.” How might art help us imagine new ways of living that aren’t centered on work?
EB: Art is interesting because it’s work that, for most people, doesn’t look like or function like other work. For most artists, art-making is unpaid. That alone puts it in a realm of things that are difficult, that take a lot of effort and time but are not compensated, like parenting. In our current society and economy, we tend to only support work that is financially compensated, and the higher the compensation, the more respect we have for the work. It doesn’t have to do with whether the work is essential or not, and this has been made abundantly exposed by the [coronavirus] pandemic. In a more rational economic system, the people who would be essential would be very well supported by our system. If you’re choosing to make art, you’re choosing to move outside a system of compensation.
Even just engaging in art-making, then, is a challenge to the system and not just a challenge to some of our preconceptions about what work is and what it has to be but also a challenge to the idea that profit is and should be what motivates people. This goes back to not being able to see out of capitalism—every other system looking strange or implausible or nostalgic. That’s maybe the saddest part about our situation. The way that our ability to even imagine another way of being has been constrained and limited. What’s exciting to me about some of David Graeber’s work, who I reference throughout the book, is his argument that the alternatives to capitalism are actually already here. We’re already living them. We just need to invest in them and build policies and economies around them. His argument is that it’s not impossible to imagine an alternative. People are already doing things that don’t follow the logic of capitalism all the time. That’s why art seems so full of promise, because communities of artists—especially artists who are in a position like poets, where there’s no money even for people who are very successful—can serve as a kind of model for how people might live and work outside the system that is based on profit motivation.
TM: I want to ask about the book’s ending. At one point, you tell your friend that this book has “no resolution,” and she responds, “The only way to end it would be to burn your house down.” Why end the book the way you do?
EB: One of the central problems of the book for me is this contradiction between my own comforts and my discomforts with those comforts. I want the comforts and securities afforded to me by capitalism, and I’m completely uncomfortable with the system that rewarded me those comforts. What disturbed me about my own economic privilege was that I was pretty attached to it. It points to a problem: my own investment in a system I know to be unjust. It’s an ethical problem, and it would be dishonest to imply some sort of resolution there.