thenation--2020-10-20--Reimagining American Foreign Policy

Reimagining American Foreign Policy

The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten best-selling books , especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump ’ s haphazard and continuously shifting orbit .
With metronomic regularity , such gossipy volumes appear , make a splash , and almost as quickly vanish , leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond .
Remember when Michael Wolff ’ s Fire and Fury : Inside the Trump White House was all the rage ?
It ’ s now available in hardcover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
James Comey ’ s Higher Loyalty also sells for a penny less than a buck .
An additional 46 cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman ’ s “ insider ’ s account ” of her short-lived tenure in that very White House .
For the same price , you can acquire Sean Spicer ’ s memoir of his time as Trump ’ s press secretary , Anthony Scaramucci ’ s rendering of his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director , and Corey Lewandowski ’ s “ inside story ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton , Michael Cohen , Mary Trump , and that journalistic amaneusis Bob Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain-basement prices .
All that said , even in these dismal times genuinely important books do occasionally make their appearance .
My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one .
It ’ s called Tomorrow , the World : The Birth of U.S .
Global Supremacy and if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you really ought to read it .
Let me explain why .
Wertheim and I are cofounders of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , a small Washington , D.C.–based think tank .
That “ Quincy ” refers to John Quincy Adams who , as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago , warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad “ in search of monsters to destroy.
” Were the United States to do so , Adams predicted , its defining trait—its very essence— “ would insensibly change from liberty to force.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might become the dictatress of the world , ” he wrote , but “ she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
” While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities , it remains apt .
A privileged man of his times , Adams took it for granted that a WASP male elite was meant to run the country .
Women were to occupy their own separate sphere .
And while he would eventually become an ardent opponent of slavery , in 1821 race did not rank high on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity .
That meant avoiding unnecessary trouble .
We had already had our revolution .
In his view , it wasn ’ t this country ’ s purpose to promote revolution elsewhere or to dictate history ’ s future course .
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks : the Greatest of All Time .
As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians , he brought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like Washington , Jefferson , and Madison .
That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent , avid commercial engagement , and the avoidance of great-power rivalries abroad .
Adhering to such a template , the United States had , by the beginning of the 20th century , become the wealthiest , most secure nation on the planet—at which point Europeans spoiled the party .
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914 and 1918 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable—so at least a subsequent generation of WASPs concluded .
This is where Wertheim takes up the story .
Prompted by the German army ’ s lightning victory in the battle of France in May and June 1940 , members of that WASP elite set about creating—and promoting—an alternative policy paradigm , one he describes as pursuing “ dominance in the name of internationalism , ” with US military supremacy deemed “ the prerequisite of a decent world.
” The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia .
Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton , wrote columns for leading New York newspapers , staffed Henry Luce ’ s Time-Life press empire , and distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes ( grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among them ) .
Most importantly , just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) .
As such , they had a direct line to the State Department , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in formulating basic foreign policy .
While Tomorrow , The World is not a long book—fewer than 200 pages of text—it is a tour de force .
In it , Wertheim describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France .
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves castigated as “ isolationists , ” a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness .
Those favoring armed intervention , meanwhile , became “ internationalists , ” a term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , members of the foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework , which still warns against the bugaboo of “ isolationism ” that threatens to prevent high-minded policy-makers from exercising “ global leadership.
” Wertheim persuasively describes the “ turn ” toward militarized globalism engineered from above by that self-selected , unelected crew .
Crucially , their efforts achieved success prior to Pearl Harbor .
The Japanese attack of December 7 , 1941 , may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war , but the essential transformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what it meant .
Its future implications—permanently high levels of military spending , a vast network of foreign bases stretching across the globe , a penchant for armed intervention abroad , a sprawling “ national security ” apparatus , and a politically subversive arms industry—would only become apparent in the years ahead .
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully constructed myth , he does so with devastating effect .
Most of all , he helps his readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin , all is permitted.
” Contained within that all is a cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations , successes and failures , notable achievements and immense tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed .
While beyond the scope of Wertheim ’ s book , casting the Cold War as a de facto extension of the war against Nazi Germany , with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler , represented an equally significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outset of World War II , ominous changes in the global distribution of power prompted a basic reorientation of US policy .
Today , fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power—did someone say “ the rise of China ” ?
—are once again occurring right before our eyes .
Yet the foreign-policy establishment ’ s response is simply to double down .
So , even now , staggering levels of military spending , a vast network of foreign bases , a penchant for armed intervention abroad , a sprawling “ national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of US policy .
And even now , the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and expedient amnesia , as well as a means to enforce discipline .
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster .
Yet implicit in Tomorrow , The World is this question : If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a hitherto successful policy paradigm , then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today ?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army ’ s sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht ’ s assault and the accumulation of US military disappointments dating from 9/11 .
From a tactical or operational perspective , many will find such a comparison unpersuasive .
After all , the present-day armed forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat , nor is the government of the United States petitioning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities did in 1940 .
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes .
Time and again since 9/11 , whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or lesser theaters of conflict , the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes for which it went to war .
From a strategic and political perspective , therefore , the comparison with France is instructive , even if failure need not entail abject surrender .
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo ( including Americans who bothered to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression once and for all .
Defeat came as a profound shock .
Similarly , after the Cold War , most Americans ( and various beneficiaries of a supposed Pax Americana ) counted on US troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly global status quo .
Instead , the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of “ endless wars ” that US forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion .
Crucially , however , no reevaluation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that Wertheim describes has occurred .
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump ’ s promise to put “ America first ” might credit him with attempting such a turn .
In practice , however , his incompetence and inconsistency , not to mention his naked dishonesty , produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags .
Threats of “ fire and fury ” alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ( “ we fell in love ” ) .
Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolled back environmental regulations domestically , and then took credit for providing Americans with “ the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet.
” Little of this was to be taken seriously .
Trump ’ s legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic equivalent of Mulligan stew .
Examine the contents closely enough and you ’ ll be able to find just about anything .
Yet , taken as a whole , the concoction falls well short of being nutritious , much less appetizing .
On the eve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire national security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump ’ s departure from office will restore some version of normality .
Every component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post yearns for that moment .
To a very considerable degree , a Biden presidency will satisfy that yearning .
Nothing if not a creature of the establishment , Biden himself will conform to its requirements .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003 .
( No isolationist he . )
Count on a Biden administration , therefore , to perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices .
As Peter Beinart puts it , “ When it comes to defense , a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency , and that ’ s going to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers.
” Biden will increase the Pentagon budget , keep US troops in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China .
The United States will remain the world ’ s number-one arms merchant , accelerate efforts to militarize outer space , and continue the ongoing modernization of the entire US nuclear strike force .
Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the “ inside.
” Above all , Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership .
“ The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and autocracy created the free world .
But this contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It will define our future , as well.
” Those uplifting sentiments are , of course , his from a recent Foreign Affairs essay .
So if you liked US national security policy before Trump mucked things up , then Biden is probably your kind of guy .
Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of “ dominance in the name of internationalism ” will resume .
And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the White House .
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of evidence showing that it ’ s not working to the benefit of the American people ?
Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm that dates from Hitler ’ s assault on France , now a full 80 years in the past ?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that essential question .
In the meantime , however , allow me to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preliminary of answers .
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the military-industrial complex—the Pentagon , arms manufacturers , and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in discovering new “ threats ” —one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between self-interest and the national interest .
As secretary of state , John Quincy Adams never confused the two .
His latter-day successors have done far less well .
As an actual basis for policy , the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes inTomorrow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day proponents still purport to believe it to be .
The paradigm produced in 1940–41 was , at best , merely serviceable .
It responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment .
It justified US participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany , a necessary undertaking .
After 1945 , except as a device for affirming the authority of foreign-policy elites , the pursuit of “ dominance in the name of internationalism ” proved to be problematic .
Yet even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same : high levels of military spending , a network of foreign bases , a penchant for armed intervention abroad , a sprawling “ national security ” apparatus , and a politically subversive arms industry .
Even after the Cold War and 9/11 , these remain remarkably sacrosanct .
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of : Well , I guess it could have been worse .
When it comes to the US response to 9/11 , however , it ’ s difficult to imagine what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present-day foreign-policy establishment , however , a different interpretation prevails : The long , twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory , unsullied by any unfortunate post-9/11 missteps .
The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin , not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden , are dead and gone .
This paradigm persists for one reason only : It ensures that statecraft will remain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Elites decide , while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the bill .
In that regard , the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today .
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real change become possible .
The turn in US policy described in Tomorrow , The World came from the top .
The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit of deference when it comes to determining what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world will be .
Those on top will do all in their power to avert any such loss of status .
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and metaphorical .
Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns .
While Americans can not ignore the world beyond their borders , the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of searching for distant monsters to destroy .
Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential @ @ @ @ @

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten best-selling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump’s haphazard and continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was all the rage? It’s now available in hardcover for $0.99 from online used-book sellers. James Comey’s Higher Loyalty also sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional 46 cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman’s “insider’s account” of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire Sean Spicer’s memoir of his time as Trump’s press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci’s rendering of his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski’s “inside story” of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amaneusis Bob Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain-basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It’s called Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy and if you’ll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it. Let me explain why.
The “Turn”
Wertheim and I are cofounders of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a small Washington, D.C.–based think tank. That “Quincy” refers to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait—its very essence—“would insensibly change from liberty to force.” By resorting to force, America “might become the dictatress of the world,” he wrote, but “she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt. 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 privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn’t this country’s purpose to promote revolution elsewhere or to dictate history’s future course. Current Issue View our current issue
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks: the Greatest of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great-power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had, by the beginning of the 20th century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet—at which point Europeans spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914 and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable—so at least a subsequent generation of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army’s lightning victory in the battle of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating—and promoting—an alternative policy paradigm, one he describes as pursuing “dominance in the name of internationalism,” with US military supremacy deemed “the prerequisite of a decent world.”
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce’s Time-Life press empire, and distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While Tomorrow, The World is not a long book—fewer than 200 pages of text—it is a tour de force. In it, Wertheim describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France. He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves castigated as “isolationists,” a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed intervention, meanwhile, became “internationalists,” a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of “isolationism” that threatens to prevent high-minded policy-makers from exercising “global leadership.”
Wertheim persuasively describes the “turn” toward militarized globalism engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success prior to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war, but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what it meant. Its future implications—permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling “national security” apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry—would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that “so long as the phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted.”
Contained within that all is a cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim’s book, casting the Cold War as a de facto extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign-policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution of power prompted a basic reorientation of US policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power—did someone say “the rise of China”?—are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment’s response is simply to double down.
So, even now, staggering levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling “national security” apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of US policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in Tomorrow, The World is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a hitherto successful policy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army’s sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht’s assault and the accumulation of US military disappointments dating from 9/11. From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive, even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo (including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country’s soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of a supposed Pax Americana) counted on US troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of “endless wars” that US forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of US policy comparable to the “turn” that Wertheim describes has occurred. An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump’s promise to put “America first” might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of “fire and fury” alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators (“we fell in love”). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump abandoned a global environmental agreement, massively rolled back environmental regulations domestically, and then took credit for providing Americans with “the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet.” Little of this was to be taken seriously.
Trump’s legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic equivalent of Mulligan stew. Examine the contents closely enough and you’ll be able to find just about anything. Yet, taken as a whole, the concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump’s departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart puts it, “When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that’s going to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers.” Biden will increase the Pentagon budget, keep US troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world’s number-one arms merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the ongoing modernization of the entire US nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the “inside.”
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. “The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well.” Those uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent Foreign Affairs essay.
So if you liked US national security policy before Trump mucked things up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of “dominance in the name of internationalism” will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of evidence showing that it’s not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm that dates from Hitler’s assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the military-industrial complex—the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in discovering new “threats”—one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes inTomorrow, The Worldhas proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940–41 was, at best, merely serviceable. It responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified US participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of “dominance in the name of internationalism” proved to be problematic. Yet even as conditions changed, basic US policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling “national security” apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry. Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of: Well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the US response to 9/11, however, it’s difficult to imagine what worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different interpretation prevails: The long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: It ensures that statecraft will remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real change become possible. The turn in US policy described in Tomorrow, The World came from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit of deference when it comes to determining what this nation’s role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns. While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step toward recovery.


thenation--2020-10-20--We’re Going to Need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to Recover From Trump

In January 2009 , days before his inauguration as the 44th president of the United States , President-elect Barack Obama sat down for an interview with ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos .
Obama was asked directly if his administration would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate George W. Bush administration officials who participated in illegal detentions and torture .
Obama said , “ I don ’ t believe that anybody is above the law .
On the other hand , I also have a belief that we need to look forward , as opposed to looking backwards.
” Obama was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told him so .
Refusing to prosecute Bush administration officials who engaged in human rights violations may have been smart , moderate politics for a deeply divided nation , but allowing torturers and their enablers to blend seamlessly back in with decent society was a moral failure .
Want more from Elie ?
Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring Elie Mystal alongside an extraordinary group of speakers .
Nov. 18-21 .
The depth of that failure has only grown over time .
Many of the legal apparatchiks who made torture possible still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , Gina Haspel .
The current director of the CIA is the former head of a “ black site ” where torture went down .
The fact that she ’ s allowed to hold power today is an indictment of our country and our commitment to human rights .
Moreover , failing to hold accountable those who abuse their power signals to future abusers that all will be forgiven .
It tells people in power that they can commit atrocities while they hold office , because nobody will be coming for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side .
It is important to distinguish crimes against humanity from mere political policy differences , but acting like no distinction can be made is a mistake .
It ’ s a mistake that Obama ’ s vice president , Joe Biden , can not be allowed to repeat .
Unfortunately , even as the current election still rages , with no conclusion expected for weeks ( if not longer ) , some elites are already circling the wagons around the morally bankrupt concept of amnesty for President Trump and his administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lepore published a piece in The Washington Post saying that Trump should not be investigated for crimes should he lose power but , rather , “ history ” should be his judge .
The widely shared article argued against a post–World War II style “ truth and reconciliation commission ” ( as has been proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren and others ) to investigate wrongdoing by the Trump administration .
The core of Lepore ’ s argument is that functioning democracies have other means of holding the likes of Trump and his enablers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracies have all sorts of other institutions that do that : investigative journalism , a functioning judiciary , legislative deliberation and action , and dissent itself .
In the United States today , those institutions need fortifying , not bypassing.
” The problem is that every single one of the institutions she lists has in some way failed during the Trump administration .
Journalists have failed to report on Trump accurately during his first campaign , his administration , and now his reelection run .
The judiciary does not function as a reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal systems have been stacked with Trump-aligned justices .
“ Legislative deliberation ” is a joke of a concept in a country that can ’ t even pass a Covid-19 relief bill .
And “ dissent itself ” has been manhandled and brutalized under this administration , with Attorney General Bill Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfe deploying storm troopers into the streets to tear-gas and pepper-spray citizens exercising their right to protest .
Trump has largely defeated these institutions in order to gain and maintain power .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebound to hold him accountable when he ’ s out of office , assuming he is even willing to transfer power peacefully .
We need a form of truth and reconciliation commission precisely because our normal institutions have failed .
We need to understand how that failure happened , who is responsible , and who should face justice .
When a plane falls out of the sky , we don ’ t just shrug our shoulders and say , “ Gravity has consequences.
” We send in a team of experts to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what went wrong , hold people accountable , and make recommendations for future safety .
We send in experts after disasters not just for vengeance but to make people feel safe again .
The “ reconciliation ” part of a commission is just as important as the “ truth ” part .
We still have to have a society with these Trump people , and that can ’ t happen until we understand what they ’ ve done and feel measures have been taken to protect us from them again .
Toward this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of commission on accountability is that it would allow the American public to reckon with the abuses and violations committed not just by Trump but also by his many enablers .
Barr must be brought to justice for turning tear gas on peaceful protesters so that Trump could take a photograph with an upside-down Bible .
Former Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen must be held accountable for her role in kidnapping children , sending them to concentration camps , and then lying to courts about what she was doing .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people die from Covid-19 instead of helping those who live in “ blue ” states , including presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner , must be investigated and held to some manner of justice for the lives they ’ ve snuffed out .
All of these moral and ethical failures need to be investigated , and that ’ s before we get into the actual statutory crimes potentially committed by Trump , his administration , his enablers , and his family .
Trump and likely his daughter Ivanka appear to be tax cheats .
Senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have traded on inside information to avoid stock market losses during the pandemic .
Rudy Giuliani is in so deep with foreign operatives who are trying to manipulate the election that he comes close to admitting to treason every time he butt-dials Olivia Nuzzi .
And let ’ s not forget that seven former Trump officials or advisors have been criminally charged during the last four years .
Does anybody reasonably think that we ’ ve caught all the actual criminals in this administration ?
History will remember Trump , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Stephen Miller .
Lepore claims to be arguing that our democracy is strong enough to ignore criminal activity by the Trump administration , but what she ’ s really saying is that our democracy is too weak to seek equal justice for all .
Lepore would let all of these additional criminals off the hook in the name of comity with the Republicans who voted for their boss .
This way of thinking incentivizes future Republican assaults on the rule of law by treating the Republican Party as too big to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice is this : “ But the Trump administration is not Nazi Germany , nor is it a nation defeated in war.
” Tell that to somebody who has lost a loved one from Covid-19 .
Tell that to some of the 200,000 people still expected to die from the disease between now and the first of the year .
Go , lean over their hospital beds as they gasp for oxygen and tell them , “ Future historians will judge the people who decided you could die because Trump won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who has been raped by agents of the American government in one of their immigrant concentration camps .
Tell that to a woman who ’ s had her uterus removed in a procedure she didn ’ t understand was happening , after being denied counsel or even a translator .
Lepore uses a facile Nazi analogy the way my parents told me to eat my vegetables because other kids were starving .
But I doubt she ’ d make that argument to the face of a person who has been on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleansing ideations .
Cruelty is not an acceptable policy outcome from the marketplace of ideas .
Treating the Trump administration as a group of good-faith public servants who merely have a political disagreement with their opposition is one of the reasons we arrived in this hellscape in the first place .
The Bush administration tortured people and waged war against foreign nations based on false pretenses .
Nothing was done to hold them accountable when they left office .
Without fear of retribution , the Trump administration has come along and waged war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that being cruel to brown people and people living in blue states is just a “ political ” choice .
If we don ’ t hold the Trump administration accountable , what will the next Republican administration do ?
Who will be the next group of people Republicans decide it ’ s OK to kill or let die in the name of electoral politics ?
Maybe it ’ ll be the historians .
Lepore should check out what the Republicans are trying to do to the 1619 Project before she naively suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read histories should Republican administrations get their way .
We must hold the perpetrators of Trumpism accountable .
Otherwise , we won ’ t ever be able to move forward .
That ’ s what Obama missed .
I hope Biden , should we even be so lucky , doesn ’ t make the same mistake .

In January 2009, days before his inauguration as the 44th president of the United States, President-elect Barack Obama sat down for an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Obama was asked directly if his administration would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate George W. Bush administration officials who participated in illegal detentions and torture. Obama said, “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards.”
Obama was wrong at the time. Many people told him so. Refusing to prosecute Bush administration officials who engaged in human rights violations may have been smart, moderate politics for a deeply divided nation, but allowing torturers and their enablers to blend seamlessly back in with decent society was a moral failure. Want more from Elie? Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring Elie Mystal alongside an extraordinary group of speakers. Nov. 18-21.
The depth of that failure has only grown over time. Many of the legal apparatchiks who made torture possible still wield power today. Take, for instance, Gina Haspel. The current director of the CIA is the former head of a “black site” where torture went down. The fact that she’s allowed to hold power today is an indictment of our country and our commitment to human rights.
Moreover, failing to hold accountable those who abuse their power signals to future abusers that all will be forgiven. It tells people in power that they can commit atrocities while they hold office, because nobody will be coming for them when they’re on the other side. It is important to distinguish crimes against humanity from mere political policy differences, but acting like no distinction can be made is a mistake.
It’s a mistake that Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, cannot be allowed to repeat.
Unfortunately, even as the current election still rages, with no conclusion expected for weeks (if not longer), some elites are already circling the wagons around the morally bankrupt concept of amnesty for President Trump and his administration. Over the weekend, Harvard professor Jill Lepore published a piece in The Washington Post saying that Trump should not be investigated for crimes should he lose power but, rather, “history” should be his judge. The widely shared article argued against a post–World War II style “truth and reconciliation commission” (as has been proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren and others) to investigate wrongdoing by the Trump administration.
The core of Lepore’s argument is that functioning democracies have other means of holding the likes of Trump and his enablers to account. Lepore writes, “Democracies have all sorts of other institutions that do that: investigative journalism, a functioning judiciary, legislative deliberation and action, and dissent itself. In the United States today, those institutions need fortifying, not bypassing.”
The problem is that every single one of the institutions she lists has in some way failed during the Trump administration. Journalists have failed to report on Trump accurately during his first campaign, his administration, and now his reelection run. The judiciary does not function as a reliable check, as both the state and federal systems have been stacked with Trump-aligned justices. “Legislative deliberation” is a joke of a concept in a country that can’t even pass a Covid-19 relief bill. And “dissent itself” has been manhandled and brutalized under this administration, with Attorney General Bill Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfe deploying storm troopers into the streets to tear-gas and pepper-spray citizens exercising their right to protest.
Trump has largely defeated these institutions in order to gain and maintain power. There is no rational reason to think they’ll rebound to hold him accountable when he’s out of office, assuming he is even willing to transfer power peacefully.
We need a form of truth and reconciliation commission precisely because our normal institutions have failed. We need to understand how that failure happened, who is responsible, and who should face justice. When a plane falls out of the sky, we don’t just shrug our shoulders and say, “Gravity has consequences.” We send in a team of experts to pick through the wreckage, figure out exactly what went wrong, hold people accountable, and make recommendations for future safety.
We send in experts after disasters not just for vengeance but to make people feel safe again. The “reconciliation” part of a commission is just as important as the “truth” part. We still have to have a society with these Trump people, and that can’t happen until we understand what they’ve done and feel measures have been taken to protect us from them again.
Toward this end, perhaps the main benefit of some kind of commission on accountability is that it would allow the American public to reckon with the abuses and violations committed not just by Trump but also by his many enablers. Barr must be brought to justice for turning tear gas on peaceful protesters so that Trump could take a photograph with a Bible. Former Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen must be held accountable for her role in kidnapping children, sending them to concentration camps, and then lying to courts about what she was doing. And every single person who decided to let people die from Covid-19 instead of helping those who live in “blue” states, including presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, must be investigated and held to some manner of justice for the lives they’ve snuffed out.
All of these moral and ethical failures need to be investigated, and that’s before we get into the actual statutory crimes potentially committed by Trump, his administration, his enablers, and his family. Trump and likely his daughter Ivanka appear to be tax cheats. Senators Richard Burr and Kelly Loeffler appear to have traded on inside information to avoid stock market losses during the pandemic. Rudy Giuliani is in so deep with foreign operatives who are trying to manipulate the election that he comes close to admitting to treason every time he butt-dials Olivia Nuzzi. And let’s not forget that seven former Trump officials or advisors have been criminally charged during the last four years. Does anybody reasonably think that we’ve caught all the actual criminals in this administration?
History will remember Trump, but it will forget about Steve Bannon, Rod Rosenstein, and Stephen Miller. Lepore claims to be arguing that our democracy is strong enough to ignore criminal activity by the Trump administration, but what she’s really saying is that our democracy is too weak to seek equal justice for all. Lepore would let all of these additional criminals off the hook in the name of comity with the Republicans who voted for their boss. This way of thinking incentivizes future Republican assaults on the rule of law by treating the Republican Party as too big to fail.
Her justification for this manifest injustice is this: “But the Trump administration is not Nazi Germany, nor is it a nation defeated in war.”
Tell that to somebody who has lost a loved one from Covid-19. Tell that to some of the 200,000 people still expected to die from the disease between now and the first of the year. Go, lean over their hospital beds as they gasp for oxygen and tell them, “Future historians will judge the people who decided you could die because Trump won’t win Illinois.” Tell that to a woman who has been raped by agents of the American government in one of their immigrant concentration camps. Tell that to a woman who’s had her uterus removed in a procedure she didn’t understand was happening, after being denied counsel or even a translator. Lepore uses a facile Nazi analogy the way my parents told me to eat my vegetables because other kids were starving. But I doubt she’d make that argument to the face of a person who has been on the receiving end of Miller’s ethnic cleansing ideations.
Cruelty is not an acceptable policy outcome from the marketplace of ideas. Treating the Trump administration as a group of good-faith public servants who merely have a political disagreement with their opposition is one of the reasons we arrived in this hellscape in the first place.
The Bush administration tortured people and waged war against foreign nations based on false pretenses. Nothing was done to hold them accountable when they left office. Without fear of retribution, the Trump administration has come along and waged war against our own nation, on the theory that being cruel to brown people and people living in blue states is just a “political” choice.
If we don’t hold the Trump administration accountable, what will the next Republican administration do? Who will be the next group of people Republicans decide it’s OK to kill or let die in the name of electoral politics? Maybe it’ll be the historians. Lepore should check out what the Republicans are trying to do to the 1619 Project before she naively suggests that people will even be allowed to read histories should Republican administrations get their way.
We must hold the perpetrators of Trumpism accountable. Otherwise, we won’t ever be able to move forward. That’s what Obama missed. I hope Biden, should we even be so lucky, doesn’t make the same mistake.
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Trump took a photograph with an upside-down Bible after demonstrators were tear gassed outside of a Washington, DC church in June. The Bible was right-side up.


thenation--2020-10-20--‘The Nation’ and the ‘Texas Observer’ Partner on Hard-Hitting Accountability Journalism in a Key Bat

‘The Nation’ and the ‘Texas Observer’ Partner on Hard-Hitting Accountability Journalism in a Key Battleground State

ew ork , and The Nation , America ’ s leading source of progressive politics and culture , and the Texas Observer , the state ’ s preeminent source of public-interest journalism , are pleased to announce a formal collaboration that will extend the Observer ’ s brand of Texas-centric investigative and accountability journalism to Nation readers .
The new partnership will deliver an on-the-ground view of the forces shaping Texas , and the United States , for Nation readers , while providing the Observer ’ s journalism with a broader national platform .
“ The Nation and the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facto collaboration , from their founder Ronnie Dugger to the late ( and much lamented ) Molly Ivins , both of whom wrote frequently—in Ivins ’ s case regularly—for The Nation , ” said Nation editor D.D .
Guttenplan .
“ It seems about time we make our arrangement de jure .
I ’ m also a personal admirer of their new editor , Tristan Ahtone , and the amazing work he ’ s done .
In the middle of a pandemic , given the chance of access to experienced , savvy reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Texas Organizing Project has done amazing work—we ’ d be fools not to leap at the chance to work together .
So we ’ re leaping.
” “ We ’ re excited to be working with reporters and editors at The Nation , and hopeful that this partnership will lead to even greater collaborations in the future , ” said Observer editor Tristan Ahtone .
“ We ’ re absolutely thrilled to kick-off what , for us , will be a signature partnership , ” added Observer publisher Mike Kanin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a larger myth of rugged individualism that now dominates the national conversation .
Indeed , the complicated truths about the state—truths that rest in a history built on ethnic cleansing and slavery , of those who still suffer the consequences of a derelict system—are too often glossed over in favor of a half-told narrative .
For 65 years , the Observer has tried to counter that narrative , diving deeper into the state ’ s troubled institutions and producing award-winning work that holds officials accountable , gives a platform to underserved voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .
In similar spirit , The Nation has long held the powerful to account , no matter their political persuasion , in the belief that independent journalism has the capacity to bring about a more democratic and equitable world .
The first two installments of the partnership demonstrate the breadth and range of its planned focuses : Texas Observer civil rights correspondent Michael Barajas reports on “ Texas and the Long Tail of Voter Suppression ” : As the growing number of Black and Latinx voters threaten the GOP ’ s stranglehold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting options during the pandemic reveal a deeper sickness in Texas politics .
And investigative journalists Chris O ’ Connell and Savannah Maher report on how , after untold exploitation and erasure , Native artwork is being undermined by fraud : “ Indigenous Art May Face a New Foe : Forgery.
” The Texas Observer partnership builds on The Nation ’ s proud history of building collaborations with like-minded organizations and offering dateline dispatches from locations both domestic and international .
In the last year , we ’ ve partnered with Kopkind to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and with Magnum Foundation to offer a visual chronicle of the untold stories of the coronavirus .
In addition to cofounding Covering Climate Now , a global journalism initiative of more than 400 news outlets committed to more and better coverage of the defining story of our time , The Nation has partnered since 2016 with Le Monde diplomatique on its international coverage , and for years worked with a host of investigative partners , including Type Investigations , the Economic Hardship Reporting Project , Food and Environment Reporting Network , the Hechinger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reporting , and more .
For interview requests or further information , please see contact information above .
ABOUT : Founded by abolitionists in 1865 , The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of political and cultural life , from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of Twitter , serving as a critical , independent , and progressive voice in American journalism .
The Texas Observer is an Austin-based nonprofit news organization that strives to make Texas a more equitable place by exposing injustice through narrative storytelling , investigative journalism @ @ @ @ @

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?
Contact: Caitlin Graf, The Nation, press [at] thenation.com, 212-209-5400
Mike Kanin, Texas Observer, kanin [at] texasobserver.org, 512-477-0746
N ew Y ork, N.Y., and Austin, T ex.— O ctober 20, 2020— The Nation, America’s leading source of progressive politics and culture, and the Texas Observer, the state’s preeminent source of public-interest journalism, are pleased to announce a formal collaboration that will extend the Observer’s brand of Texas-centric investigative and accountability journalism to Nation readers. The new partnership will deliver an on-the-ground view of the forces shaping Texas, and the United States, for Nation readers, while providing the Observer’s journalism with a broader national platform.
“The Nation and the Texas Observer have a long record of de facto collaboration, from their founder Ronnie Dugger to the late (and much lamented) Molly Ivins, both of whom wrote frequently—in Ivins’s case regularly—for The Nation,” said Nation editor D.D. Guttenplan. “It seems about time we make our arrangement de jure. I’m also a personal admirer of their new editor, Tristan Ahtone, and the amazing work he’s done. In the middle of a pandemic, given the chance of access to experienced, savvy reporting from a key battleground state—and a state where the Texas Organizing Project has done amazing work—we’d be fools not to leap at the chance to work together. So we’re leaping.”
“We’re excited to be working with reporters and editors at The Nation, and hopeful that this partnership will lead to even greater collaborations in the future,” said Observer editor Tristan Ahtone.
“We’re absolutely thrilled to kick-off what, for us, will be a signature partnership,” added Observer publisher Mike Kanin.
Texas’s enigmatic identity is part of a larger myth of rugged individualism that now dominates the national conversation. Indeed, the complicated truths about the state—truths that rest in a history built on ethnic cleansing and slavery, of those who still suffer the consequences of a derelict system—are too often glossed over in favor of a half-told narrative. For 65 years, the Observer has tried to counter that narrative, diving deeper into the state’s troubled institutions and producing award-winning work that holds officials accountable, gives a platform to underserved voices, and investigates where no other outlet will. In similar spirit, The Nation has long held the powerful to account, no matter their political persuasion, in the belief that independent journalism has the capacity to bring about a more democratic and equitable world. Current Issue View our current issue
The first two installments of the partnership demonstrate the breadth and range of its planned focuses: Texas Observer civil rights correspondent Michael Barajas reports on “Texas and the Long Tail of Voter Suppression”: As the growing number of Black and Latinx voters threaten the GOP’s stranglehold on power, attempts to limit safe voting options during the pandemic reveal a deeper sickness in Texas politics. And investigative journalists Chris O’Connell and Savannah Maher report on how, after untold exploitation and erasure, Native artwork is being undermined by fraud: “Indigenous Art May Face a New Foe: Forgery.”
The Texas Observer partnership builds on The Nation’s proud history of building collaborations with like-minded organizations and offering dateline dispatches from locations both domestic and international. In the last year, we’ve partnered with Kopkind to spotlight far-flung scenes from a pandemic, and with Magnum Foundation to offer a visual chronicle of the untold stories of the coronavirus. In addition to cofounding Covering Climate Now, a global journalism initiative of more than 400 news outlets committed to more and better coverage of the defining story of our time, The Nation has partnered since 2016 with Le Monde diplomatique on its international coverage, and for years worked with a host of investigative partners, including Type Investigations, the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, Food and Environment Reporting Network, the Hechinger Report, the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, and more.
For interview requests or further information, please see contact information above.
ABOUT: Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of political and cultural life, from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical, independent, and progressive voice in American journalism.
The Texas Observer is an Austin-based nonprofit news organization that strives to make Texas a more equitable place by exposing injustice through narrative storytelling, investigative journalism, and cultural criticism.
###


thenation--2020-10-20--Progressives Should Support Biden Now, but Be Ready to Push Later

This year more than most election years , progressives are on tenterhooks .
The anticipation is twofold : whether November 3 will mark a new chapter not just for the country but also for the Democratic Party .
This moment demands broad-scale transformation—testing and treatment to contain the coronavirus ; economic justice for Americans caught in the crosshairs of governmental incompetence ; and a full push to dismantle systemic racism .
Time , and action , will tell whether the Democratic Party sticks with centrism or embraces the progressivism necessary for that transformation .
When the House reconvenes on January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) will have the opportunity once again to introduce HR1 , the For the People Act .
The bill would expand voting rights , fight governmental corruption , and increase campaign-finance transparency .
In 2019 , when there was no chance of the bill getting past Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , it passed the House easily .
In 2021 , however , sources say that Pelosi may face pressure to whittle down the bill to get support from both chambers and both sides of the aisle .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package and as systemic legislation to stop the right wing ’ s march to minoritarian rule .
Progressives in the House will have to work to make sure the sausage-making on next year ’ s version of HR1 does not weaken the final product .
Want more from Katrina ?
Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring Katrina vanden Heuvel alongside an extraordinary group of speakers .
Nov. 18-21 .
Democrats in the Senate will face a different challenge .
Polling currently suggests that Democrats will win a slight majority in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to hope , that hope is tempered with the realization that Democrats are unlikely to claim the 60 seats needed to avoid the filibuster .
They are even less likely to gain the support of the eight or nine Republicans they need to pass progressive legislation .
Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
This year more than most election years, progressives are on tenterhooks. The anticipation is twofold: whether November 3 will mark a new chapter not just for the country but also for the Democratic Party. This moment demands broad-scale transformation—testing and treatment to contain the coronavirus; economic justice for Americans caught in the crosshairs of governmental incompetence; and a full push to dismantle systemic racism. Time, and action, will tell whether the Democratic Party sticks with centrism or embraces the progressivism necessary for that transformation.
When the House reconvenes on January 3, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will have the opportunity once again to introduce HR1, the For the People Act. The bill would expand voting rights, fight governmental corruption, and increase campaign-finance transparency. In 2019, when there was no chance of the bill getting past Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), it passed the House easily. In 2021, however, sources say that Pelosi may face pressure to whittle down the bill to get support from both chambers and both sides of the aisle. But the provisions in HR1 work best as a package and as systemic legislation to stop the right wing’s march to minoritarian rule. Progressives in the House will have to work to make sure the sausage-making on next year’s version of HR1 does not weaken the final product. Want more from Katrina? Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring Katrina vanden Heuvel alongside an extraordinary group of speakers. Nov. 18-21.
Democrats in the Senate will face a different challenge. Polling currently suggests that Democrats will win a slight majority in the Senate next month. While this gives progressives reason to hope, that hope is tempered with the realization that Democrats are unlikely to claim the 60 seats needed to avoid the filibuster. They are even less likely to gain the support of the eight or nine Republicans they need to pass progressive legislation.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.