thenation--2020-09-03--The Looter Is the Most Misunderstood Figure in American Politics

The looter , like most American figures , exists in a state of mythical distortion .
When looters emerge from social movements , the press depicts them as opportunists and outsiders ; when looters destroy property in response to police violence or the silent horrors of capitalism , they are deemed lawless aggressors .
Talking heads and commentators cast looters as mindless and apolitical , as if looting were not a risky , calculated act .
Vicky Osterweil ’ s In Defense of Looting corrects those misconceptions , reclaiming looters as conscious actors and heirs of a radical tradition stretching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2014 New Inquiry essay published during the Ferguson riots , the book robustly defends looting and compounds its definition .
Osterweil ’ s looters are fugitive slaves and beleaguered workers , victims of police violence and armed black militias .
Looting is for anyone trying to get free , in other words , and as Osterweil ’ s defense moves deftly through American history—from the colonial era , through the Civil War and Reconstruction , and all the way to this year of insurrection and plague—liberation becomes material and tactile , always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophical ideals .
In this interview , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discuss how the book developed , the many thinkers and texts that helped Osterweil scale up her essay , and the legacy of Ferguson .
tephen earse : The book feels more like a manifesto and a call to arms than your 2014 essay did .
During the writing of the book , how did tone and form factor into how you were shaping your argument ?
icky sterweil : I ’ m a writer who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can in a way discover the form and the mode that the writing will take .
I have had to consider not only the incredible violence against predominantly Black communities by the police and the prison system , but also the climate crisis .
We desperately need to be making radical changes to the way our society is organized .
So I think that truth may play into the urgency or the “ manifesto-y ” nature of the book .
SK : One of the main goals of your book , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting is a conscious political choice , whether looters are radicals or reactionaries .
Why is the looter such an important political figure to reclaim ?
VO : They are conscious political actors .
And I think they are important because the figure of the looter has emerged somewhat spontaneously through the last , well , we can say 50 years of struggle .
I trace the looter back to the Civil War and Reconstruction , and I frame the slave revolts and the general strike of the enslaved as W.E.B .
Du @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of looting .
There ’ s a Sylvia Wynter quote in the introduction , where she says , and I ’ m paraphrasing , “ It ’ s necessary that we think through things with these classes of people that are rising up against and resisting the system as it exists.
” That ’ s what inspires this work : people moving to get free or , indeed , just moving politically in the street—they know what they ’ re doing .
So rather than starting from a theory of what revolutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fit movements into that , post facto , I think it ’ s very important that we look at the way that people are moving now and did in the past and take it seriously .
A big part of the book is my indebtedness to the rebels in Ferguson , who made this all visible and possible for me .
These were thoughts that were already percolating around the UK riots in 2011 , but the way in which the rebels in Ferguson combined a certain form of holding space , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of looting and then sharing the goods in order to flourish and to have fun as well , was the basis for all my understanding .
SK : When you wrote the essay , Ferguson was on the national stage and in the national discourse .
As it has faded from the spotlight , how has your relationship to Ferguson changed ?
‘ Starve the Beast ’ : A Q & A With Alex S. Vitale on Defunding the Police VO : Well , there ’ s been some frustration as Ferguson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t just Ferguson .
It was also Charlotte , North Carolina .
and Minneapolis .
There were a number of big , big moments of rebellion and one thing that has happened , I think since the election of Trump , there has been a big explosion of the electoral socialist left .
The DSA [ Democratic Socialists of America ] , which when I was in the process of being radicalized in 2010 was a tiny organization that was largely about endorsing Democratic candidates , bloomed into this massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also had the Bernie Sanders movements of 2016 and 2019 .
Some people in those movements , I have noticed , seem to want to erase the role of Ferguson .
You hear them say , “ Oh , you know , there isn ’ t really any rebellion on the left .
There was Occupy and then Bernie Sanders.
” They draw this line that cuts out not only Black Lives Matter , but also Standing Rock , both of which have been incredibly important .
But there are still sectors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural production , podcasts , and magazines , who are still insisting that race is the wrong thing to look at .
And in this moment , a lot of those people have been silent .
Because their analysis is not just racist ; it ’ s incorrect .
SK : It ’ s also often not actionable for people looking at the streets and wanting to mobilize and seize the moment .
A lot of these liberal modes don ’ t really provide any way forward other than voting .
VO : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of Wildcat strikes and a lot of labor action involved in this as well .
But I think there are some people who fantasize that a movement has to directly call itself a labor movement to have any revolutionary validity .
And I think that doesn ’ t square with the history of even the successful revolutions .
Cedric Robinson , in Black Marxism , talks about the ways the most successful revolutions of the 20th century were largely peasant-led , anti-colonial uprisings , including in Russia .
They weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain kind of classical Marxism , as well as a kind of social democratic liberal electoralism , that imagines that the only route to power is through the shop floor .
And in order to say that , and argue that , you have to erase the last decade of struggle , which has seen incredible movements , from Occupy to Black Lives Matter .
There were also the prison strikes and riots of 2016 , the largest prison movement in American history , as well as the Standing Rock indigenous blockades and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these forms of revolutionary struggle have reemerged in the last two months and been innovated on .
It ’ s as Keeanga Yamahtta-Taylor says in From # BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation : when the Black movement goes into motion , it upsets all of American politics .
And I think we ’ re really seeing that .
SK : I ’ m interested in the composition and drafting of the book and how you scaled up from the essay to the book , because Ferguson was the catalyst for the essay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ferguson only toward the end .
That sequencing really escalates the stakes of Ferguson .
VO : W.E.B .
Du Bois ’ s Black Reconstruction is incredibly important for talking about this : The way that he cracks open that timeline , the way that he shows that there was a revolutionary moment that has largely been ignored and removed from history and how we ’ re really living in its shadow , really changed me .
So I guess , at that point , it became a practical question : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do I get from the general strike of the enslaved to now ?
How do I get from the figure of the fugitive and Harriet Tubman to the struggle for Mike Brown ?
And , what things do I need to say on the journey there ?
One thing that was very important to me in this book was the part—two chapters—about the formation of the police and white race riots .
I really think there is a certain tendency among a very small group of ultra-left or anarchist commentators to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in reverse , where if there is looting and rioting it ’ s considered [ inherently ] good .
And I really wanted to think about the ways in which looting and rioting have functioned in our history , often in the area of reactionary politics and , much less often , liberatory politics .
For example , right now in India , race rioting is one of the key tactics of the fascist movement .
So I really don ’ t want to romanticize what is in my opinion a tactic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main thread of the book .
I wanted to resist the idea that nonviolent tactics can be considered in the abstract outside of context and judged morally good or bad .
We should be keeping our toolbox as big and varied as possible , and not falling into these moral traps concerning tactics .
SK : In your chapter on the civil rights movement ’ s under-acknowledged use of armed self-defense , you use the term “ not nonviolence ” a lot .
And that term also appears in the original essay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for you in regard to carving out an area between violence and nonviolence ?
VO : “ Violence ” and “ nonviolence ” are a lot like the terms in the “ pro-life ” versus “ pro-choice ” debate , which is to say , in the framing of it ; the argument that I want to make is already lost .
I don ’ t want to oppose nonviolence to violence ; I don ’ t think it ’ s a very helpful way to think about the world .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown and the breaking of a cop car window in response as “ violent , ” then that is a meaningless word , or certainly morally meaningless , right ?
So for me , “ not nonviolence , ” which is a clunky phrase I picked up from the work of Lorenzo Raymond , who ’ s an activist historian from New York , points to the idea that this nonviolence is actually an ideological container for a certain kind of action without submitting to the moral blackmail of having to call yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loaded word .
One thing I talk about in the book is the moment when the Brooklyn Congress on Racial Equality , CORE , wanted to have a stall-in on the BQE at the 1964 World ’ s Fair .
They wanted to just stall out a bunch of junk cars on the highway and cause a massive traffic jam that would force the people coming to the World ’ s Fair , mostly from Manhattan or from the suburbs , to look directly off the highway into the ghettos that had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics called this action “ violent ” for weeks .
They really tried to take down this action by calling it that .
And a traffic jam is a completely normal part of everyday life .
So I just want to reject the violence/ nonviolence dichotomy in general .
So “ not nonviolent ” is a term that successfully threads that needle .
SK : As you recount in your book , the police and also proto-police like slave catchers and city guards play crucial roles in protecting property during and outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looter ’ s relationship to property outside the riot zone ?
VO : That ’ s an interesting question .
In the vast majority of cases the looters ’ relationship to property is probably that they don ’ t have much of it and they have to spend their whole life scraping together what little bit of money they can .
Many of them are probably deep in debt : rent , medical , credit card , student debt , some form of debt .
They have to work maybe 40 hours a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t have work , they have to either commit crime or live on benefits .
In short , they are dispossessed of property , and their daily life is a constant reenactment of that dispossession .
In the case of Black people in America , there ’ s an even deeper relation of propertylessness .
As Cheryl Harris argues in her incredibly important essay “ Whiteness as Property , ” whiteness is the ur form of property from which all other forms of property come .
So you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if you own property then you likely have some proximity to whiteness .
So when people attack property and loot , they are precisely attacking that connection between white supremacy , anti-Blackness , and the police , which is the core argument of the book .
But in our discourse , property has been the unnamed but implicit part of that equation .
SK : You describe looting as as “ femme ” and “ reproductive , ” and throughout the book you highlight women and queer people ’ s participation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it important to you to decenter the image of the angry male mob ?
VO : The main reason is that it ’ s true .
Riots are largely carnival spaces where people find it easier to reproduce their lives and where people care for one another and are having fun and are expressing grief and rage and exhaustion and all of these feelings .
Femme versus masc is hardly a great way to think about the world , but things like social reproduction and emotion are coded as feminine even though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rioting and through looting .
A common slander of militant activity in general is that it ’ s macho , that it ’ s “ bro-y , ” that it ’ s patriarchal .
For me , that is a really damaging myth because there ’ s no way queers and women , and certainly not black queer women and black trans women , are going to get free without being able to have all of these tactics available to them .
So it ’ s both practically slanderous and incorrect , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : One thing that really stood out to me in the book is that once we start thinking of fugitive slaves as looters , Harriet Tubman ’ s legacy is changed in some sense .
VO : I had a whole huge section on her that didn ’ t end up making it into the final book .
She ’ s incredibly important to me and American history .
One thing that I think we ’ re seeing right now is that the current uprising has been so widespread and so many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some shift in the way people who support the movement talk about looting and rioting .
There has been an increase in people who are willing to say , “ I don ’ t think it was wrong.
” But the way that they seem to revert to defending property is by saying , “ Just attack the box store .
Don ’ t attack small businesses .
Don ’ t attack mom and pop businesses.
” One thing that ’ s very liberatory for genuinely understanding the incredible power of the fugitives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slave owner is ridiculous .
The notion that this person would be more deserving of their property than a plantation owner is obscene , right ?
There were many slave owners in the South who enslaved one or two people , who , if their slave were to go fugitive , they ’ d be ruined .
I think once you really start to understand property , private property and business , as a continuation of those slave owning systems by different means , in the form of prison labor , through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the pre–Jim Crow era , and in colonies across the globe , you understand that slavery is a constant form of relation in our society .
You begin to be free from these ideas that are really frankly Republican talking points about small businesses and about entrepreneurs , and about job creators and all this shit that has become really common discourse in the last 15 years .
SK : It ’ s interesting you mention that , because you start off the book by taking down these common talking points and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of property .
That really sets the stage for the rest of the book , because you can ’ t actually see looting as political if you hold those beliefs .
VO : All those slanders come down to the idea that people who are rioting don ’ t know what they ’ re doing .
I think when people look at a movement and they say , “ Those people don ’ t know what they ’ re doing , ” they ’ re telling on themselves .
So I wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and just historically misinformed nature of these slanders .
All of this stuff really reveals contempt more than it reveals anything true about the people acting .
SK : You have written extensively about video games and movies , but the arts aren ’ t mentioned that much in the book .
Did fictional portrayals of looting inform your argument in any way ?
You mentioned All Involved by Ryan Gaddis in a footnote .
VO : Yes , I was very upset , that book was so terrible .
I was excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fire on the Mountain as well .
As someone who has watched movies pretty widely , I ’ ve found that there just isn ’ t much fictional portrayal of revolutionary direct action .
Most of the films about riots are either some sort of documentary , many of which , in my opinion aren ’ t very useful , or riots are like a side note or it ’ s something happening off to the side .
I ’ ve watched a lot of those movies , and I ’ ve liked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Strike up to the 2018 Suspiria remake , which is arguably about the German Autumn in the ’ 70s .
I love movies .
[ Watching movies ] is my favorite hobby .
And I read a lot of novels as well , and play video games .
But ultimately I felt like I had enough on my plate just looking at the history .
SK : Are there any works that attempt to capture the essence of looting or speak to politics of rioting and fail ?
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Queen & Slim .
And even Dark Knight Rises .
Those movies have representations of protests , but they tend to present protesters as noble and almost weirdly apolitical .
VO : I did myself a favor .
I love Kathryn Bigelow ’ s early movies , but I didn ’ t even watch Detroit because I knew I would just have an aneurysm .
Maybe that makes me a bad researcher , but I was just being nice to myself .
Fun fact about Dark Knight Rises : They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets .
And they were filming in the financial district .
Occupy Wall Street marched through their set .
SK : Every trope you mentioned about looters has appeared this year in the media , in response to the protests against police brutality , and as we discussed earlier , sometimes among protesters .
What do you imagine your book says to people who believe they ’ re against looting , but they ’ re also anti-police .
You mentioned the idea of small-business slave owners earlier .
Do you think your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepting the role of looters in the movement ?
Small-business owners have a vested interest in not seeing the value of looting , so they ’ d be hard to convert .
But I think that in some ways this book really is written for them .
It is for people who have sympathy for looters but haven ’ t really thought about it .
It ’ s also for my comrades and accomplices and people in the street , to feel supported and seen .
It is a thank-you to the rebels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us and sacrificed .
Many of them have been murdered , probably by the police or vigilantes , in the last five years , since that uprising .
It ’ s been horrible .
A lot of really visible activists have been murdered in Ferguson , and it isn ’ t talked about much .
So it ’ s an act of grief and thanks to them .

The looter, like most American figures, exists in a state of mythical distortion. When looters emerge from social movements, the press depicts them as opportunists and outsiders; when looters destroy property in response to police violence or the silent horrors of capitalism, they are deemed lawless aggressors. Talking heads and commentators cast looters as mindless and apolitical, as if looting were not a risky, calculated act. Vicky Osterweil’s In Defense of Looting corrects those misconceptions, reclaiming looters as conscious actors and heirs of a radical tradition stretching back to chattel slavery.
Expanded from a 2014 New Inquiry essay published during the Ferguson riots, the book robustly defends looting and compounds its definition. Osterweil’s looters are fugitive slaves and beleaguered workers, victims of police violence and armed black militias. Looting is for anyone trying to get free, in other words, and as Osterweil’s defense moves deftly through American history—from the colonial era, through the Civil War and Reconstruction, and all the way to this year of insurrection and plague—liberation becomes material and tactile, always tied to bodies and contexts rather than philosophical ideals.
In this interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discuss how the book developed, the many thinkers and texts that helped Osterweil scale up her essay, and the legacy of Ferguson.—Stephen Kearse
S tephen K earse: The book feels more like a manifesto and a call to arms than your 2014 essay did. During the writing of the book, how did tone and form factor into how you were shaping your argument?
V icky O sterweil: I’m a writer who, through researching and thinking through things, can in a way discover the form and the mode that the writing will take. I have had to consider not only the incredible violence against predominantly Black communities by the police and the prison system, but also the climate crisis. We desperately need to be making radical changes to the way our society is organized. So I think that truth may play into the urgency or the “manifesto-y” nature of the book.
SK: One of the main goals of your book, one of many, is to show that looting is a conscious political choice, whether looters are radicals or reactionaries. Why is the looter such an important political figure to reclaim?
VO: They are conscious political actors. And I think they are important because the figure of the looter has emerged somewhat spontaneously through the last, well, we can say 50 years of struggle. I trace the looter back to the Civil War and Reconstruction, and I frame the slave revolts and the general strike of the enslaved as W.E.B. Du Bois does. There’s a Sylvia Wynter quote in the introduction, where she says, and I’m paraphrasing, “It’s necessary that we think through things with these classes of people that are rising up against and resisting the system as it exists.” 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
That’s what inspires this work: people moving to get free or, indeed, just moving politically in the street—they know what they’re doing. So rather than starting from a theory of what revolutions should look like, and then trying to fit movements into that, post facto, I think it’s very important that we look at the way that people are moving now and did in the past and take it seriously.
A big part of the book is my indebtedness to the rebels in Ferguson, who made this all visible and possible for me. These were thoughts that were already percolating around the UK riots in 2011, but the way in which the rebels in Ferguson combined a certain form of holding space, attacking the things that oppressed them, and of looting and then sharing the goods in order to flourish and to have fun as well, was the basis for all my understanding.
SK: When you wrote the essay, Ferguson was on the national stage and in the national discourse. As it has faded from the spotlight, how has your relationship to Ferguson changed?
VO: Well, there’s been some frustration as Ferguson has faded, and you know, it wasn’t just Ferguson. It was also Charlotte, North Carolina. and Minneapolis. There were a number of big, big moments of rebellion and one thing that has happened, I think since the election of Trump, there has been a big explosion of the electoral socialist left. The DSA [Democratic Socialists of America], which when I was in the process of being radicalized in 2010 was a tiny organization that was largely about endorsing Democratic candidates, bloomed into this massive organizing force. And we’ve also had the Bernie Sanders movements of 2016 and 2019. Related Article ‘Starve the Beast’: A Q&A With Alex S. Vitale on Defunding the Police Zachary Siegel
Some people in those movements, I have noticed, seem to want to erase the role of Ferguson. You hear them say, “Oh, you know, there isn’t really any rebellion on the left. There was Occupy and then Bernie Sanders.” They draw this line that cuts out not only Black Lives Matter, but also Standing Rock, both of which have been incredibly important. But there are still sectors of the left, people clustered around mostly cultural production, podcasts, and magazines, who are still insisting that race is the wrong thing to look at. And in this moment, a lot of those people have been silent. Because their analysis is not just racist; it’s incorrect.
SK: It’s also often not actionable for people looking at the streets and wanting to mobilize and seize the moment. A lot of these liberal modes don’t really provide any way forward other than voting.
VO: Yes, there have been a tremendous number of Wildcat strikes and a lot of labor action involved in this as well. But I think there are some people who fantasize that a movement has to directly call itself a labor movement to have any revolutionary validity. And I think that doesn’t square with the history of even the successful revolutions. Cedric Robinson, in Black Marxism, talks about the ways the most successful revolutions of the 20th century were largely peasant-led, anti-colonial uprisings, including in Russia. They weren’t industrial-proletariat movements.
There is still a certain kind of classical Marxism, as well as a kind of social democratic liberal electoralism, that imagines that the only route to power is through the shop floor. And in order to say that, and argue that, you have to erase the last decade of struggle, which has seen incredible movements, from Occupy to Black Lives Matter. There were also the prison strikes and riots of 2016, the largest prison movement in American history, as well as the Standing Rock indigenous blockades and the massive militant antifascist organizing. All of these forms of revolutionary struggle have reemerged in the last two months and been innovated on. It’s as Keeanga Yamahtta-Taylor says in From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation: when the Black movement goes into motion, it upsets all of American politics. And I think we’re really seeing that.
SK: I’m interested in the composition and drafting of the book and how you scaled up from the essay to the book, because Ferguson was the catalyst for the essay, but in the book, you write of Ferguson only toward the end. That sequencing really escalates the stakes of Ferguson.
VO: W.E.B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction is incredibly important for talking about this: The way that he cracks open that timeline, the way that he shows that there was a revolutionary moment that has largely been ignored and removed from history and how we’re really living in its shadow, really changed me. So I guess, at that point, it became a practical question: How do I tell the story? How do I get from the general strike of the enslaved to now? How do I get from the figure of the fugitive and Harriet Tubman to the struggle for Mike Brown? And, what things do I need to say on the journey there?
One thing that was very important to me in this book was the part—two chapters—about the formation of the police and white race riots. I really think there is a certain tendency among a very small group of ultra-left or anarchist commentators to do the same thing that nonviolence people do, but in reverse, where if there is looting and rioting it’s considered [inherently] good. And I really wanted to think about the ways in which looting and rioting have functioned in our history, often in the area of reactionary politics and, much less often, liberatory politics. For example, right now in India, race rioting is one of the key tactics of the fascist movement. So I really don’t want to romanticize what is in my opinion a tactic. And that relates to the other main thread of the book. I wanted to resist the idea that nonviolent tactics can be considered in the abstract outside of context and judged morally good or bad. We should be keeping our toolbox as big and varied as possible, and not falling into these moral traps concerning tactics.
SK: In your chapter on the civil rights movement’s under-acknowledged use of armed self-defense, you use the term “not nonviolence” a lot. And that term also appears in the original essay. What is the value of the term for you in regard to carving out an area between violence and nonviolence?
VO: “Violence” and “nonviolence” are a lot like the terms in the “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” debate, which is to say, in the framing of it; the argument that I want to make is already lost. I don’t want to oppose nonviolence to violence; I don’t think it’s a very helpful way to think about the world. If you can describe both the murder of Mike Brown and the breaking of a cop car window in response as “violent,” then that is a meaningless word, or certainly morally meaningless, right? So for me, “not nonviolence,” which is a clunky phrase I picked up from the work of Lorenzo Raymond, who’s an activist historian from New York, points to the idea that this nonviolence is actually an ideological container for a certain kind of action without submitting to the moral blackmail of having to call yourself “violent,” which is a loaded word.
One thing I talk about in the book is the moment when the Brooklyn Congress on Racial Equality, CORE, wanted to have a stall-in on the BQE at the 1964 World’s Fair. They wanted to just stall out a bunch of junk cars on the highway and cause a massive traffic jam that would force the people coming to the World’s Fair, mostly from Manhattan or from the suburbs, to look directly off the highway into the ghettos that had been carved out for the highway. And critics called this action “violent” for weeks. They really tried to take down this action by calling it that. And a traffic jam is a completely normal part of everyday life. So I just want to reject the violence/ nonviolence dichotomy in general. So “not nonviolent” is a term that successfully threads that needle.
SK: As you recount in your book, the police and also proto-police like slave catchers and city guards play crucial roles in protecting property during and outside of riots. How would you describe the looter’s relationship to property outside the riot zone?
VO: That’s an interesting question. In the vast majority of cases the looters’ relationship to property is probably that they don’t have much of it and they have to spend their whole life scraping together what little bit of money they can. Many of them are probably deep in debt: rent, medical, credit card, student debt, some form of debt. They have to work maybe 40 hours a week, maybe more. Or if they don’t have work, they have to either commit crime or live on benefits. In short, they are dispossessed of property, and their daily life is a constant reenactment of that dispossession.
In the case of Black people in America, there’s an even deeper relation of propertylessness. As Cheryl Harris argues in her incredibly important essay “Whiteness as Property,” whiteness is the ur form of property from which all other forms of property come. So you have to have whiteness to really own property. And if you own property then you likely have some proximity to whiteness. So when people attack property and loot, they are precisely attacking that connection between white supremacy, anti-Blackness, and the police, which is the core argument of the book. But in our discourse, property has been the unnamed but implicit part of that equation.
SK: You describe looting as as “femme” and “reproductive,” and throughout the book you highlight women and queer people’s participation in looting and political organization. Why was it important to you to decenter the image of the angry male mob?
VO: The main reason is that it’s true. Riots are largely carnival spaces where people find it easier to reproduce their lives and where people care for one another and are having fun and are expressing grief and rage and exhaustion and all of these feelings. Femme versus masc is hardly a great way to think about the world, but things like social reproduction and emotion are coded as feminine even though they are the way that this struggle happens—through rioting and through looting. A common slander of militant activity in general is that it’s macho, that it’s “bro-y,” that it’s patriarchal. For me, that is a really damaging myth because there’s no way queers and women, and certainly not black queer women and black trans women, are going to get free without being able to have all of these tactics available to them. So it’s both practically slanderous and incorrect, but it’s also untrue.
SK: One thing that really stood out to me in the book is that once we start thinking of fugitive slaves as looters, Harriet Tubman’s legacy is changed in some sense.
VO: I had a whole huge section on her that didn’t end up making it into the final book. She’s incredibly important to me and American history. One thing that I think we’re seeing right now is that the current uprising has been so widespread and so many people have participated, that there has been some shift in the way people who support the movement talk about looting and rioting. There has been an increase in people who are willing to say, “I don’t think it was wrong.” But the way that they seem to revert to defending property is by saying, “Just attack the box store. Don’t attack small businesses. Don’t attack mom and pop businesses.” One thing that’s very liberatory for genuinely understanding the incredible power of the fugitives is that the idea of a small slave owner is ridiculous. The notion that this person would be more deserving of their property than a plantation owner is obscene, right? There were many slave owners in the South who enslaved one or two people, who, if their slave were to go fugitive, they’d be ruined.
I think once you really start to understand property, private property and business, as a continuation of those slave owning systems by different means, in the form of prison labor, through the chain gangs of the Jim Crow era and the pre–Jim Crow era, and in colonies across the globe, you understand that slavery is a constant form of relation in our society. You begin to be free from these ideas that are really frankly Republican talking points about small businesses and about entrepreneurs, and about job creators and all this shit that has become really common discourse in the last 15 years.
SK: It’s interesting you mention that, because you start off the book by taking down these common talking points and showing how they serve this hegemonic understanding of property. That really sets the stage for the rest of the book, because you can’t actually see looting as political if you hold those beliefs.
VO: All those slanders come down to the idea that people who are rioting don’t know what they’re doing. I think when people look at a movement and they say, “Those people don’t know what they’re doing,” they’re telling on themselves. So I wanted to really demonstrate the racist, classist, and just historically misinformed nature of these slanders. All of this stuff really reveals contempt more than it reveals anything true about the people acting.
SK: You have written extensively about video games and movies, but the arts aren’t mentioned that much in the book. Did fictional portrayals of looting inform your argument in any way? You mentioned All Involved by Ryan Gaddis in a footnote.
VO: Yes, I was very upset, that book was so terrible. I was excited. I used Terry Bisson’s Fire on the Mountain as well. As someone who has watched movies pretty widely, I’ve found that there just isn’t much fictional portrayal of revolutionary direct action. Most of the films about riots are either some sort of documentary, many of which, in my opinion aren’t very useful, or riots are like a side note or it’s something happening off to the side. I’ve watched a lot of those movies, and I’ve liked a lot of them, from Eisenstein’s Strike up to the 2018 Suspiria remake, which is arguably about the German Autumn in the ’70s. I love movies. [Watching movies] is my favorite hobby. And I read a lot of novels as well, and play video games. But ultimately I felt like I had enough on my plate just looking at the history.
SK: Are there any works that attempt to capture the essence of looting or speak to politics of rioting and fail? I’m thinking about movies like Selma, Detroit, and Queen & Slim. And even Dark Knight Rises. Those movies have representations of protests, but they tend to present protesters as noble and almost weirdly apolitical.
VO: I did myself a favor. I love Kathryn Bigelow’s early movies, but I didn’t even watch Detroit because I knew I would just have an aneurysm. Maybe that makes me a bad researcher, but I was just being nice to myself. Fun fact about Dark Knight Rises: They were filming it when Occupy was literally in the streets. And they were filming in the financial district. Occupy Wall Street marched through their set.
SK: Every trope you mentioned about looters has appeared this year in the media, in response to the protests against police brutality, and as we discussed earlier, sometimes among protesters. What do you imagine your book says to people who believe they’re against looting, but they’re also anti-police. You mentioned the idea of small-business slave owners earlier. Do you think your book pushes them toward—
VO: Toward accepting the role of looters in the movement? Small-business owners have a vested interest in not seeing the value of looting, so they’d be hard to convert. But I think that in some ways this book really is written for them. It is for people who have sympathy for looters but haven’t really thought about it. It’s also for my comrades and accomplices and people in the street, to feel supported and seen. It is a thank-you to the rebels of Ferguson for everything that they showed us and sacrificed. Many of them have been murdered, probably by the police or vigilantes, in the last five years, since that uprising. It’s been horrible. A lot of really visible activists have been murdered in Ferguson, and it isn’t talked about much. So it’s an act of grief and thanks to them.


thenation--2020-09-03--The NFL Is Desperately Trying to Avoid a Players’ Strike

I can ’ t say it ’ s not a satisfying sight .
Roger Goodell and the National Football League are tap-dancing as fast as they can , desperate to avoid a players ’ strike against racism one week out from the start of the season .
The league has seen every major sports federation—the NBA , the WNBA , MLB , MLS , even the NHL—cancel games because of player outrage after yet another police shooting , this time of Jacob Blake in Kenosha .
Goodell and his fraternity of NFL owners are working overtime to show that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ league to be a force for racial justice .
This is the same league , of course , that exiled Colin Kaepernick after the 2016 season because he dared take a knee during the national anthem to demonstrate against police impunity .
The same league whose franchise owners provided Donald Trump with millions of dollars during the 2016 campaign .
The same league that brought in Jay-Z to tell the world—and particularly the players—that “ we ’ ve moved past kneeling.
” Amazing how the balance of power has changed almost overnight .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest national demonstrations in the history of the United States and , more critically , the very real threat that the players—even with their short playing careers and non-guaranteed contracts—might sit out the games .
Just take a look at what the NFL is currently doing to demonstrate its sincerity to players , even if it upsets Trump and a section of its fan base .
Goodell has announced that “ End Racism ” and “ It Takes All of Us ” will be stenciled in the end zones of all stadiums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in addition to the national anthem , the song that is known as the Black national anthem , “ Lift Every Voice and Sing.
” Decals with political slogans will be allowed on helmets .
Voting drives will be a part of the league ’ s initiatives .
Goodell has even said that he wishes “ we had listened earlier ” to what Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to when he began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 and that he wants to “ encourage ” a team to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teams are putting out their own statements that call for police accountability , voting drives , and even legislation to deal with the reality that police exist above the law .
Anti-racist authors are being brought in to speak to team executives .
Everything short of Jerry Jones coming out in a Dashiki and leading a team study group in “ Go Tell It On The Mountain.
” The question , of course , is whether this will achieve the goal of making sure that no games have to be canceled .
NFL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vincent has said that players “ have the choice ” to sit out games and can do so without threat of reprisals .
This is likely a way to prevent entire teams from acting in unison and instead present protest as the symbolic action of an individual player—making sure that the games get played , even if a couple of players take Sunday off .
The Sports Strikes Against Racism Have Not Been Coopted Professional Athletes Are Showing America Just How Powerful Labor Really Is The Milwaukee Bucks and Brewers Strike for Racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming majority of the league ’ s revenue doesn ’ t flow from fans ’ buying nine-dollar bears and big foam fingers .
It comes from multibillion-dollar television deals with the networks and ESPN .
The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the land , and if its players , 70 percent of whom are Black , decide that the money will stop flowing , then that ’ s exactly what is going to happen .
It ’ s not just the players who are realizing their power , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players are realizing their power .
Where this goes is anyone ’ s guess .
Much of it , tragically , depends less on the league ’ s efforts at window dressing than on whether the police , or their extrajudicial militia arm that Trump is empowering in the streets , commit another atrocity , create another hashtag , and demonstrate yet again the depths of the violent crisis gripping the country .
If that happens , Dan Snyder wearing a Kente cloth just isn ’ t going to cut it .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely right when he said that they should ’ ve listened to Colin Kaepernick .
If only their biggest worry was the specter of a player taking a knee .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
I can’t say it’s not a satisfying sight. Roger Goodell and the National Football League are tap-dancing as fast as they can, desperate to avoid a players’ strike against racism one week out from the start of the season. The league has seen every major sports federation—the NBA, the WNBA, MLB, MLS, even the NHL—cancel games because of player outrage after yet another police shooting, this time of Jacob Blake in Kenosha. Goodell and his fraternity of NFL owners are working overtime to show that they understand players’ concerns and want the league to be a force for racial justice.
This is the same league, of course, that exiled Colin Kaepernick after the 2016 season because he dared take a knee during the national anthem to demonstrate against police impunity. The same league whose franchise owners provided Donald Trump with millions of dollars during the 2016 campaign. The same league that brought in Jay-Z to tell the world—and particularly the players—that “we’ve moved past kneeling.”
Amazing how the balance of power has changed almost overnight. All it took was a combination of the largest national demonstrations in the history of the United States and, more critically, the very real threat that the players—even with their short playing careers and non-guaranteed contracts—might sit out the games.
Just take a look at what the NFL is currently doing to demonstrate its sincerity to players, even if it upsets Trump and a section of its fan base. Goodell has announced that “End Racism” and “It Takes All of Us” will be stenciled in the end zones of all stadiums. Week one games will begin with, in addition to the national anthem, the song that is known as the Black national anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” Decals with political slogans will be allowed on helmets. Voting drives will be a part of the league’s initiatives. Goodell has even said that he wishes “we had listened earlier” to what Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to when he began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 and that he wants to “encourage” a team to sign the exiled quarterback. In addition, teams are putting out their own statements that call for police accountability, voting drives, and even legislation to deal with the reality that police exist above the law. Anti-racist authors are being brought in to speak to team executives. Everything short of Jerry Jones coming out in a Dashiki and leading a team study group in “Go Tell It On The Mountain.”
The question, of course, is whether this will achieve the goal of making sure that no games have to be canceled. NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent has said that players “have the choice” to sit out games and can do so without threat of reprisals. This is likely a way to prevent entire teams from acting in unison and instead present protest as the symbolic action of an individual player—making sure that the games get played, even if a couple of players take Sunday off. More From Dave Zirin “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash August 15, 2023 Why the Right Wanted the USWNT to Lose August 10, 2023 Carli Lloyd’s Attacks on the USWNT Are Personal—and Political August 1, 2023
Excuse my cynicism, but the overwhelming majority of the league’s revenue doesn’t flow from fans’ buying nine-dollar bears and big foam fingers. It comes from multibillion-dollar television deals with the networks and ESPN. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the land, and if its players, 70 percent of whom are Black, decide that the money will stop flowing, then that’s exactly what is going to happen. It’s not just the players who are realizing their power, but Goodell and friends are realizing that the players are realizing their power.
Where this goes is anyone’s guess. Much of it, tragically, depends less on the league’s efforts at window dressing than on whether the police, or their extrajudicial militia arm that Trump is empowering in the streets, commit another atrocity, create another hashtag, and demonstrate yet again the depths of the violent crisis gripping the country. If that happens, Dan Snyder wearing a Kente cloth just isn’t going to cut it.
One thing is certain: Roger Goodell is absolutely right when he said that they should’ve listened to Colin Kaepernick. If only their biggest worry was the specter of a player taking a knee.


thenation--2020-09-03--Ed Markey Has a Message for Democrats: ‘The Age of Incrementalism Is Over’

No Kennedy had ever lost a Democratic primary , or a general election , in Massachusetts .
From June 18 , 1946 , when a young World War II vet named John Fitzgerald Kennedy won the Democratic nomination to fill a congressional seat representing Cambridge and parts of Boston and Somerville , Kennedys had won every race they entered in the state .
Until September 1 , 2020 , when Representative Joe Kennedy III failed in his Democratic primary challenge to Senator Ed Markey by a 55-45 margin statewide .
Markey won 60 percent of the vote in Boston and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political narratives , at least as they have been written by pundits and political insiders , don ’ t usually end that way .
Kennedys aren ’ t supposed to lose in Massachusetts .
And 39-year-old challengers with “ star power , ” 100 percent name recognition , and mounds of money—and who start their campaigns with double-digit poll leads—aren ’ t supposed to get crushed by earnest 74-year-old veterans of the state legislature , the US House , and the US Senate who have spent decades focusing on the complexities of issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the future of Democratic Party politics took shape in 2016 and ’ 18 , Markey understood that everything was changing .
He had always been a liberal with an instinct for reform .
But Markey saw a new politics emerging , and he was ready to embrace it .
Donald Trump Came to Kenosha to Make the Most Vile Campaign Commercial in American Political History Jacob Blake Was Shot in Kenosha , a City Adrift in a Moral Desert That was not typical of other long-serving Democrats .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—in a June 2018 New York primary where the 28-year-old activist upset a top House Democrat—by saying it was merely “ a choice in one district.
” A lot of other senior Democrats reacted in the same way .
Just as they were slow to recognize the transformational role that the 2016 presidential bid had played in reframing the issues , many senior Democrats were dismissive of the significance of congressional wins in 2016 by California ’ s Ro Khanna and in 2018 by New York ’ s Ocasio-Cortez , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Ilhan Omar , and Massachusetts ’ s Ayanna Pressley “ When I first got to Congress , the reception I got was ( very ) chilly , ” AOC recalled Tuesday .
But , she added , “ Ed Markey wasn ’ t afraid .
He offered his expertise and partnership .
He wasn ’ t scared of big policy and he didn ’ t use kid gloves.
” The unlikely duo introduced a groundbreaking Green New Deal resolution in the House and Senate , and they found common ground on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and racial justice .
A year ago , at a point when pundits were predicting that a challenge from Kennedy would force Markey out of politics , Ocasio-Cortez provided a critical endorsement for the senator : In so many conversations that I have had with Ed , it is so abundantly clear the path that he has paved for all of us to be here in this moment and to continue to push for change in the future , as well .
When I first got to Congress and we started to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scale of the crisis—many members shied away .
A lot of people said we can ’ t do too much , we can ’ t go too fast in order to pursue change for the American people .
And Ed Markey was one of the few people that had the courage to stand up and take a chance—take a chance on a freshman Congresswoman .
And take a chance on this plan .
Instead of “ resting on his record of the past , ” AOC argued , Markey has been “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That , she explained , is “ what a progressive is , and that ’ s what progressivism is all about.
” And what the Democratic Party must be about .
There will be pols and pundits who try to compartmentalize Markey ’ s unprecedented win this week , to narrow its import and its message for Democrats .
That ’ s a mistake .
Yes , he won a Democratic Party primary in a Democratic state .
But he did more than that .
He won with a campaign that abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long burdened so many Democratic contenders—and that threatens to burden Democratic candidates this year , including presidential nominee Joe Biden .
That caution plays into the hands of Republicans like Donald Trump , who delight in running against tepid Democrats .
Trump wants his Democratic rivals to be afraid of making big proposals that might be labeled “ radical.
” Markey says that Democrats should stop stepping into the traps that the Republicans set for them .
So while Kennedy conducted an oddly predictable mainstream Democratic campaign this year , Markey abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not merely champion the Green New Deal , Medicare for All , and real responses to the shootings of unarmed Black men that he decried as “ murders at the hands of the police.
” The senator , who ran his first election campaign in 1972 , mounted a thoroughly modern 2020 campaign that embraced the policies , the tactics , and the vision of a new generation of progressives—many of them aligned with the Sunrise Movement—who formed the campaign ’ s “ Markeyverse , ” and who , as The Boston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the ballot box , over the phones , and—perhaps most of all—in ebullient , meme-filled online organizing.
” Along the way , Markey showed Democrats how to respond when Republicans claim that advocacy for necessary change represents some sort of capitulation to a “ far-left agenda.
” Recalling when he and Ocasio-Cortez introduced their Green New Deal resolution in 2019 , Markey told Massachusetts crowds : The Republicans , Fox News , they called the Green New Deal when Alexandria and I introduced it socialism .
Well , what do you call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil , for the gas , for the coal industries—the wealthiest industries in America shaking our money out of our pockets for tax breaks for them ?
What I say is : give us some of that socialism for wind , and solar , and all-electric vehicles , and plug-in hybrids and storage battery technology .
And we will be looking at the fossil-fuel industry in the rear-view mirror of history .
No cowering .
No apologies .
That was Markey ’ s strategy .
And it worked .
Brilliantly .
So brilliantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pause and listen to what Ed Markey said Tuesday night , when he claimed his victory in a race by explaining that “ justice was on the ballot.… economic justice.… racial justice.… environmental justice.
” Urging on his young supporters , Markey said , “ March in the streets , protest , run for school committee or the city council or the state legislature—and win .
But don ’ t just challenge the status quo , dismantle it .
Take things over .
When they say ‘ slow down , ’ go faster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ start that day .
When they say ‘ not that way , ’ redraw the map .
When they say you ’ re too young , show up with your friends .
Every reason the critics and cynics offer to give up or give in is proof positive that you should push forward—and hard .
The time to be timid is past .
The age of incrementalism is over .
Now is our moment to think big , to build big , to be big .
This is what this election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment demands.
” That is the next politics speaking .
And it is a winning politics for 2020 and for the future .

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?
No Kennedy had ever lost a Democratic primary, or a general election, in Massachusetts. From June 18, 1946, when a young World War II vet named John Fitzgerald Kennedy won the Democratic nomination to fill a congressional seat representing Cambridge and parts of Boston and Somerville, Kennedys had won every race they entered in the state.
Until September 1, 2020, when Representative Joe Kennedy III failed in his Democratic primary challenge to Senator Ed Markey by a 55-45 margin statewide. Markey won 60 percent of the vote in Boston and 80 percent in Cambridge and Somerville. Political narratives, at least as they have been written by pundits and political insiders, don’t usually end that way. Kennedys aren’t supposed to lose in Massachusetts. And 39-year-old challengers with “star power,” 100 percent name recognition, and mounds of money—and who start their campaigns with double-digit poll leads—aren’t supposed to get crushed by earnest 74-year-old veterans of the state legislature, the US House, and the US Senate who have spent decades focusing on the complexities of issues like nuclear disarmament and net neutrality.
What happened?
When the future of Democratic Party politics took shape in 2016 and ’18, Markey understood that everything was changing. He had always been a liberal with an instinct for reform. But Markey saw a new politics emerging, and he was ready to embrace it. 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
That was not typical of other long-serving Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the excitement over the nomination of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—in a June 2018 New York primary where the 28-year-old activist upset a top House Democrat—by saying it was merely “a choice in one district.” A lot of other senior Democrats reacted in the same way. Just as they were slow to recognize the transformational role that the 2016 presidential bid had played in reframing the issues, many senior Democrats were dismissive of the significance of congressional wins in 2016 by California’s Ro Khanna and in 2018 by New York’s Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, and Massachusetts’s Ayanna Pressley
“When I first got to Congress, the reception I got was (very) chilly,” AOC recalled Tuesday. But, she added, “Ed Markey wasn’t afraid. He offered his expertise and partnership. He wasn’t scared of big policy and he didn’t use kid gloves.” The unlikely duo introduced a groundbreaking Green New Deal resolution in the House and Senate, and they found common ground on a host of issues concerning economic, social, and racial justice. A year ago, at a point when pundits were predicting that a challenge from Kennedy would force Markey out of politics, Ocasio-Cortez provided a critical endorsement for the senator: 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
In so many conversations that I have had with Ed, it is so abundantly clear the path that he has paved for all of us to be here in this moment and to continue to push for change in the future, as well. When I first got to Congress and we started to discuss big, bold plans—a solution on the scale of the crisis—many members shied away. A lot of people said we can’t do too much, we can’t go too fast in order to pursue change for the American people. And Ed Markey was one of the few people that had the courage to stand up and take a chance—take a chance on a freshman Congresswoman. And take a chance on this plan. Current Issue View our current issue
Instead of “resting on his record of the past,” AOC argued, Markey has been “aggressively pursuing an agenda for the future.” That, she explained, is “what a progressive is, and that’s what progressivism is all about.” And what the Democratic Party must be about.
There will be pols and pundits who try to compartmentalize Markey’s unprecedented win this week, to narrow its import and its message for Democrats. That’s a mistake. Yes, he won a Democratic Party primary in a Democratic state. But he did more than that. He won with a campaign that abandoned the drab centrist caution that has for so long burdened so many Democratic contenders—and that threatens to burden Democratic candidates this year, including presidential nominee Joe Biden. That caution plays into the hands of Republicans like Donald Trump, who delight in running against tepid Democrats. Trump wants his Democratic rivals to be afraid of making big proposals that might be labeled “radical.”
Markey says that Democrats should stop stepping into the traps that the Republicans set for them.
So while Kennedy conducted an oddly predictable mainstream Democratic campaign this year, Markey abandoned caution and mounted a reelection bid that did not merely champion the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and real responses to the shootings of unarmed Black men that he decried as “murders at the hands of the police.” The senator, who ran his first election campaign in 1972, mounted a thoroughly modern 2020 campaign that embraced the policies, the tactics, and the vision of a new generation of progressives—many of them aligned with the Sunrise Movement—who formed the campaign’s “Markeyverse,” and who, as The Boston Globe observed, “powered his campaign at the ballot box, over the phones, and—perhaps most of all—in ebullient, meme-filled online organizing.”
Along the way, Markey showed Democrats how to respond when Republicans claim that advocacy for necessary change represents some sort of capitulation to a “far-left agenda.”
Recalling when he and Ocasio-Cortez introduced their Green New Deal resolution in 2019, Markey told Massachusetts crowds: “The Republicans, Fox News, they called the Green New Deal when Alexandria and I introduced it ‘socialism.’ Well, what do you call tax breaks for 100 years for the oil, for the gas, for the coal industries—the wealthiest industries in America shaking our money out of our pockets for tax breaks for them? What I say is: Give us some of that socialism for wind, and solar, and all-electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrids and storage battery technology. And we will be looking at the fossil-fuel industry in the rear-view mirror of history.”
No cowering. No apologies. That was Markey’s strategy. And it worked. Brilliantly.
So brilliantly that Democratic candidates and strategists really should pause and listen to what Ed Markey said Tuesday night, when he claimed his victory in a race by explaining that “justice was on the ballot.… economic justice.… racial justice.… environmental justice.”
Urging on his young supporters, Markey said, “March in the streets, protest, run for school committee or the city council or the state legislature—and win. But don’t just challenge the status quo, dismantle it. Take things over. When they say ‘slow down,’ go faster. When they say ‘not now,’ start that day. When they say ‘not that way,’ redraw the map. When they say you’re too young, show up with your friends. Every reason the critics and cynics offer to give up or give in is proof positive that you should push forward—and hard. The time to be timid is past. The age of incrementalism is over. Now is our moment to think big, to build big, to be big. This is what this election is all about. This is what this moment demands.”
That is the next politics speaking. And it is a winning politics for 2020 and for the future.


thenation--2020-09-03--You Think Things Couldn’t Get Any Worse With the Pandemic?

Just two weeks ago , Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn got up in front of a podium with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and President Donald Trump to announce an Emergency Use Authorization for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 .
Each crowed in succession about how this pooled blood product could reduce deaths by a third .
Within seconds of the announcement , scientists and clinicians were pointing out that this was a rookie statistical error .
The study in question actually showed a far more modest 35 percent relative risk reduction in hospitalized patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ventilators and who received plasma with high levels of antibodies within three days of diagnosis , compared with those who received plasma with low levels of antibodies .
Of course , the FDA commissioner is not a rookie ; he ’ s a trained oncologist from a major academic medical center .
Furthermore , the study that was the basis for all these claims had serious methodological flaws that made even the statements about relative risk reductions in mortality suspect and unreliable .
The NIH then and in a new statement this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the eve of the Republican National Convention , and you don ’ t drag the president to an announcement of something that isn ’ t a breakthrough , so juking the stats for the day was just what the doctor ordered .
Since then , major newspapers have raked Hahn over the coals , and there have been calls for his resignation , even from his peers in academic medicine .
But if you thought that after Hahn dragged himself and his agency down into the mud things couldn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has a message for you : Hold my beer .
Last week , the CDC announced that it was no longer recommending testing for people without symptoms of Covid-19 , that is , the asymptomatic individuals who may account for upwards of 40 percent of infections in the United States .
The Infectious Disease Society of America , the American Medical Association , and the American Public Health Association all came out with statements within hours to slam the CDC ’ s new guidelines as politically motivated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue states around the country said they would not follow the new guidance .
Disease control and prevention for Covid-19 depends on us knowing who has the virus , where they are , and to what extent the disease has spread through our communities .
Testing asymptomatics is central to the fight against Covid-19 .
Earlier this week , in The New York Times , Nobel Prize winner and former NIH director Harold Varmus and current head of the Rockefeller Foundation and former chief of the US Agency for International Development Rajiv Shah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC .
These men are institutionalists , not fire-breathing activists , and in the midst of a pandemic , they offered a rebuke to the agency that at any time would be momentous .
To see this now from these two men tells us we ’ re in a hair-on-fire emergency in this country .
We have lost our main public health agency to the whims of the White House .
So Far , 2020 Has Been Our Year of Magical Thinking The New Lysenkoism in Washington It ’ s not a coincidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HHS under Azar .
If edicts from above are flowing down to these once-venerable institutions , he is the one with line responsibility—and the power—to make the FDA commissioner and CDC director a set of offers they can ’ t refuse .
He also has a communications team , led by Trump loyalist Michael Caputo , chasing down reporters who might cover him or HHS unfavorably .
There may be 185,000 dead , but Azar still will look fresh as a daisy .
But what of the NIH , the other main agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this year the White House wanted to cancel a grant to the EcoHealth Alliance on coronavirus research in China .
Azar made that happen over the objections of NIH Director Francis Collins and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci .
Again , there was criticism of this move , but , strangely , Azar has escaped the opprobrium that his underlings at the FDA and the CDC have faced .
But wait , there ’ s more .
The Washington Post this week put out an explosive story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the White House ’ s task force on the pandemic , a Fox commentator who now talks with the president regularly .
Atlas , a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford , and once a practicing neuroradiologist , is a champion of all the things the president likes , and has a special talent for the one thing the president likes best : getting his worst instincts validated by someone with an advanced degree .
The Post story describes how Atlas is nudging the Trump administration to an implicit strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you can let everyone catch Covid-19 , but just protect the elderly , who are at highest risk of developing severe complications of it .
This concept was tried out in the real world in Sweden earlier this year and failed : Sweden ’ s death rate was higher than its neighbors ’ , and it didn ’ t escape the economic impact of the pandemic , which was the initial rationale for keeping the country open .
Should we try this here in the United States , we are likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since the Post story came out , Atlas has said it all was a lie and he doesn ’ t support herd immunity .
But he is on the record advocating for almost all the components of such an approach : reopening schools and business , refraining from testing asymptomatic individuals , protecting the elderly while letting the virus take its course through the rest of the population—who he suggests are not at risk of serious complications of the disease .
To be fair to Atlas , the Trump administration ’ s policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy all along : We ’ ve never had any emphasis on scaling up widespread testing , contact tracing , and isolation—or the support to state and local governments that would be needed to do these things—nor the social and economic support needed by ordinary Americans to get through these tough times , allowing them to continue to socially distance and isolate if necessary .
The administration , however , is interested in protecting the elderly at all costs—it just invoked the Defense Production Act to deliver millions of tests to nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , apparently , are expendable .
Finally , just this week , FEMA suggested it would pull funding for face masks in US schools .
Even kids are being thrown to the wolves , deprived of financial support for the most simple of protective equipment against the virus as the president and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos are urging schools to reopen .
As we head toward the November election , the stakes couldn ’ t be higher—and I am afraid that , after all these months , there is now a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ madness on Covid-19 .
They do think that trying to sequester the elderly will stave off the worst of the pandemic—and thus have no interest in protecting the rest of us .
No matter that plans to shield our seniors will be almost impossible to carry out , as most of the elderly are integrated into our communities and do not reside in skilled nursing facilities .
No matter that with the rates of underlying medical conditions in this country , the vulnerable also include millions of people who are far from old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October surprise of a vaccine trotted out before we know if it works ?
It ’ s all been theater : to provide false hopes and to distract us from the gory path we are on for the foreseeable future .
None of these drugs or vaccine miracles are going to save us .
We ’ ve had the tools to stop the pandemic—or to at least slow its relentless march—in front of us all the time : the very basic public health measures that people from the left and right have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we head toward he fall , with the prospect of a resurgence of the virus , we ’ ve had an utter and complete abdication of responsibility from the federal government .
It turns out that has been the plan all along .

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?
Just two weeks ago, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn got up in front of a podium with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and President Donald Trump to announce an Emergency Use Authorization for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19. Each crowed in succession about how this pooled blood product could reduce deaths by a third. Within seconds of the announcement, scientists and clinicians were pointing out that this was a rookie statistical error. The study in question actually showed a far more modest 35 percent relative risk reduction in hospitalized patients less than 80 years old not on ventilators and who received plasma with high levels of antibodies within three days of diagnosis, compared with those who received plasma with low levels of antibodies.
Of course, the FDA commissioner is not a rookie; he’s a trained oncologist from a major academic medical center. Furthermore, the study that was the basis for all these claims had serious methodological flaws that made even the statements about relative risk reductions in mortality suspect and unreliable. The NIH then and in a new statement this week has admitted as much. But this was the eve of the Republican National Convention, and you don’t drag the president to an announcement of something that isn’t a breakthrough, so juking the stats for the day was just what the doctor ordered. Since then, major newspapers have raked Hahn over the coals, and there have been calls for his resignation, even from his peers in academic medicine.
But if you thought that after Hahn dragged himself and his agency down into the mud things couldn’t get any worse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has a message for you: Hold my beer. Last week, the CDC announced that it was no longer recommending testing for people without symptoms of Covid-19, that is, the asymptomatic individuals who may account for upwards of 40 percent of infections in the United States. The Infectious Disease Society of America, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association all came out with statements within hours to slam the CDC’s new guidelines as politically motivated and without basis in fact—dangerous. Red and blue states around the country said they would not follow the new guidance.
Disease control and prevention for Covid-19 depends on us knowing who has the virus, where they are, and to what extent the disease has spread through our communities. Testing asymptomatics is central to the fight against Covid-19. Earlier this week, in The New York Times, Nobel Prize winner and former NIH director Harold Varmus and current head of the Rockefeller Foundation and former chief of the US Agency for International Development Rajiv Shah made this startling recommendation: Ignore the CDC. These men are institutionalists, not fire-breathing activists, and in the midst of a pandemic, they offered a rebuke to the agency that at any time would be momentous. To see this now from these two men tells us we’re in a hair-on-fire emergency in this country. We have lost our main public health agency to the whims of the White House. 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 More From Gregg Gonsalves These New Alzheimer’s Drugs Are a Travesty July 27, 2023 It's Not “Unreasonable” to Want to Change Our Rotten Health Care System June 1, 2023 Now More Than Ever, We Need to Fight, Not Despair May 11, 2023
It’s not a coincidence that these two agencies are part of HHS under Azar. If edicts from above are flowing down to these once-venerable institutions, he is the one with line responsibility—and the power—to make the FDA commissioner and CDC director a set of offers they can’t refuse. He also has a communications team, led by Trump loyalist Michael Caputo, chasing down reporters who might cover him or HHS unfavorably. There may be 185,000 dead, but Azar still will look fresh as a daisy. But what of the NIH, the other main agency under his purview? We know that earlier this year the White House wanted to cancel a grant to the EcoHealth Alliance on coronavirus research in China. Azar made that happen over the objections of NIH Director Francis Collins and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci. Again, there was criticism of this move, but, strangely, Azar has escaped the opprobrium that his underlings at the FDA and the CDC have faced.
But wait, there’s more. The Washington Post this week put out an explosive story on Scott Atlas—a little-known, newly appointed member of the White House’s task force on the pandemic, a Fox commentator who now talks with the president regularly. Atlas, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and once a practicing neuroradiologist, is a champion of all the things the president likes, and has a special talent for the one thing the president likes best: getting his worst instincts validated by someone with an advanced degree.
The Post story describes how Atlas is nudging the Trump administration to an implicit strategy of “herd immunity”—the idea that you can let everyone catch Covid-19, but just protect the elderly, who are at highest risk of developing severe complications of it. This concept was tried out in the real world in Sweden earlier this year and failed: Sweden’s death rate was higher than its neighbors’, and it didn’t escape the economic impact of the pandemic, which was the initial rationale for keeping the country open. Should we try this here in the United States, we are likely to see upwards of 2 million deaths. Since the Post story came out, Atlas has said it all was a lie and he doesn’t support herd immunity. But he is on the record advocating for almost all the components of such an approach: reopening schools and business, refraining from testing asymptomatic individuals, protecting the elderly while letting the virus take its course through the rest of the population—who he suggests are not at risk of serious complications of the disease. Current Issue View our current issue
To be fair to Atlas, the Trump administration’s policies have been consistent with a herd immunity strategy all along: We’ve never had any emphasis on scaling up widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation—or the support to state and local governments that would be needed to do these things—nor the social and economic support needed by ordinary Americans to get through these tough times, allowing them to continue to socially distance and isolate if necessary. The administration, however, is interested in protecting the elderly at all costs—it just invoked the Defense Production Act to deliver millions of tests to nursing homes around the country. The rest of us, apparently, are expendable. Finally, just this week, FEMA suggested it would pull funding for face masks in US schools. Even kids are being thrown to the wolves, deprived of financial support for the most simple of protective equipment against the virus as the president and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos are urging schools to reopen.
As we head toward the November election, the stakes couldn’t be higher—and I am afraid that, after all these months, there is now a method to the Trump crew’s madness on Covid-19. They do think that trying to sequester the elderly will stave off the worst of the pandemic—and thus have no interest in protecting the rest of us. No matter that plans to shield our seniors will be almost impossible to carry out, as most of the elderly are integrated into our communities and do not reside in skilled nursing facilities. No matter that with the rates of underlying medical conditions in this country, the vulnerable also include millions of people who are far from old.
Hydroxychloroquine? Convalescent plasma? An October surprise of a vaccine trotted out before we know if it works? It’s all been theater: to provide false hopes and to distract us from the gory path we are on for the foreseeable future. None of these drugs or vaccine miracles are going to save us. We’ve had the tools to stop the pandemic—or to at least slow its relentless march—in front of us all the time: the very basic public health measures that people from the left and right have been crying out for for months. But as we head toward the fall, with the prospect of a resurgence of the virus, we’ve had an utter and complete abdication of responsibility from the federal government. It turns out that has been the plan all along.


thenation--2020-09-03--The Sycophants at Fox News

The Sycophants at Fox News

Donald Trump has a few things in common with Joseph Stalin .
In some ways , the comparison is an injustice to both men : Stalin was not a moron , grifter , or alleged rapist ; Trump is not ( as of this writing ) a world-historical mass murderer .
But both men were addicted to lies .
They also smeared anyone who told the truth—or might one day tell the truth—as enemies of the people .
A third , related similarity is that they listen to sycophants who praise their bravery and genius , even when the sudden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it nearly impossible for these toadies to remain in good standing .
Pity , therefore , the million-dollar babies at Fox News whose careers depend on this complicated skill .
Brian Stelter tells their story in his best-selling new book Hoax : Donald Trump , Fox News , and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth .
The folks at Fox News are stuck on a hamster wheel , just like those who serve Trump in the White House .
Fox News employees have a much nicer cage , of course .
Its stars have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and people most Nation readers have probably never heard can easily get paid in excess of a mere $ 1 million a year .
The job is the same at Fox as it is in the White House : to fluff their Dear Leader .
Sometimes this means anticipating what Trump will want to do next and suggesting it to him , at times privately but more often on the air while millions of people watch .
Other times it means making a fool of oneself , often with a dose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s most recent bonkers claim was in any way deserving of criticism .
Stelter , who hosts CNN ’ s Reliable Sources and is a former blogger and New York Times media reporter , has written a book that reads like a 350-page newspaper article : This happened , then that happened , then this anonymous person said this or that about this other person—plenty of gossip but little history or context and barely any explanation as to why something is happening or what it all means .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the significant body of scholarly literature that investigates the near religious devotion of the Fox News audience .
Nor does he delve much into what these phenomena are doing to our country , our democracy , and by extension , the rest of the world .
What he does effectively is illustrate , repeatedly and in different contexts , the following points : § Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was a paranoid right-wing tyrant and a serial sexual predator , but at least people knew what their jobs were when he ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misses him .
§ Host Sean Hannity acts as a kind of “ shadow chief of staff ” to Trump , even though he knows the president is “ batshit crazy.
” Thing is , Hannity is , too ; witness his horrific torture of the family of Seth Rich , the Democratic National Committee staffer who was killed in 2016 , on behalf of a discredited conspiracy theory .
Hannity is also lazy and often tapes his show in advance .
For this , he gets paid upwards of $ 30 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Fox News understand that they are a ) overpaid for what they do and b ) likely unhirable anywhere else .
They are therefore willing to abase themselves in the service of Trump ’ s lies because if they don ’ t , Fox ’ s lemminglike audience will turn on them , and they will be left with nothing .
§ The Murdochs , who own Fox Corporation through a family trust , don ’ t care about any of the above , as long as the money keeps rolling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Convention Makes Clear the GOP Threat Not All Presidential Liars Are Created Equal Broadly speaking , the power and influence of Fox News—especially in its current Trump-servile iteration—creates two massive problems for American democracy .
Stelter ’ s book describes one and , unfortunately , embodies the other .
The first problem is the perpetuation of what the authors of the book Network Propaganda call the “ propaganda feedback loop.
” They define this as a “ network dynamic in which media outlets , political elites , activists , and publics form and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements , and that progressively lowers the costs of telling lies that are consistent with a shared political narrative and increases the costs of resisting that shared narrative in the name of truth.
” In other words , these people are living in a world of lies fed to them by Fox News and Trump , and that ’ s the way they like it .
We are all aware of this problem .
It is Trump ’ s base .
The second problem , however , is the influence on the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , high-profile propaganda network that is allowed to masquerade as news .
There is an amazing moment in the book when Stelter is interviewing pathological liar Kellyanne Conway for CNN—something that ought to set off alarm bells itself—about Trump ’ s absurd claim that he was the victim of voter fraud and had been wiretapped by then-President Barack Obama .
To Stelter ’ s questions , Conway replied , “ Excuse me ?
He doesn ’ t think he ’ s lying about those issues , and you know it.
” What Conway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lying , Trump is not guilty by reason of insanity .
And Stelter apparently accepts this as a satisfactory answer , at least to the degree that he gives her the last word on the topic .
Much the same thing can be seen when Stelter quotes Lachlan Murdoch , the executive chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation , again with no pushback , when he describes CNN as the “ soft left ” and MSNBC as the “ hard left.
” Recall that CNN is the news network that hired former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that a nondisparagement clause legally prevented him from not just telling the truth about Trump but even from criticizing him .
It is also the news organization that brought on current White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany while she was still a law student to be one of Trump ’ s many network dissemblers .
Meanwhile , “ hard left ” MSNBC gives 15 hours a week to Joe Scarborough , a former Republican congressman , and 10 to Nicolle Wallace , George W. Bush ’ s former communications director .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is today “ balanced ” between incitement to race war on the one hand and old-fashioned establishment centrism on the other , well , there ’ s your answer .

This article appears in the September 21/28, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Donald Trump has a few things in common with Joseph Stalin. In some ways, the comparison is an injustice to both men: Stalin was not a moron, grifter, or alleged rapist; Trump is not (as of this writing) a world-historical mass murderer. But both men were addicted to lies. They also smeared anyone who told the truth—or might one day tell the truth—as enemies of the people. A third, related similarity is that they listen to sycophants who praise their bravery and genius, even when the sudden, unpredictable shifts in their beliefs make it nearly impossible for these toadies to remain in good standing. Pity, therefore, the million-dollar babies at Fox News whose careers depend on this complicated skill.
Brian Stelter tells their story in his best-selling new book Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth. The folks at Fox News are stuck on a hamster wheel, just like those who serve Trump in the White House. Fox News employees have a much nicer cage, of course. Its stars have annual salaries that can reach eight figures, and people most Nation readers have probably never heard of can easily get paid in excess of a mere $1 million a year. The job is the same at Fox as it is in the White House: to fluff their Dear Leader. Sometimes this means anticipating what Trump will want to do next and suggesting it to him, at times privately but more often on the air while millions of people watch. Other times it means making a fool of oneself, often with a dose of faux outrage over anyone who would suggest that Trump’s most recent bonkers claim was in any way deserving of criticism.
Stelter, who hosts CNN’s Reliable Sources and is a former blogger and New York Times media reporter, has written a book that reads like a 350-page newspaper article: This happened, then that happened, then this anonymous person said this or that about this other person—plenty of gossip but little history or context and barely any explanation as to why something is happening or what it all means. He is unfamiliar with or at least uninterested in the significant body of scholarly literature that investigates the near religious devotion of the Fox News audience. Nor does he delve much into what these phenomena are doing to our country, our democracy, and by extension, the rest of the world. What he does effectively is illustrate, repeatedly and in different contexts, the following points:
§ Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was a paranoid right-wing tyrant and a serial sexual predator, but at least people knew what their jobs were when he ran the place, so almost everybody there misses him.
§ Host Sean Hannity acts as a kind of “shadow chief of staff” to Trump, even though he knows the president is “batshit crazy.” Thing is, Hannity is, too; witness his horrific torture of the family of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer who was killed in 2016, on behalf of a discredited conspiracy theory. Hannity is also lazy and often tapes his show in advance. For this, he gets paid upwards of $30 million a year. 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
§ The on-air personalities at Fox News understand that they are a) overpaid for what they do and b) likely unhirable anywhere else. They are therefore willing to abase themselves in the service of Trump’s lies because if they don’t, Fox’s lemminglike audience will turn on them, and they will be left with nothing.
§ The Murdochs, who own Fox Corporation through a family trust, don’t care about any of the above, as long as the money keeps rolling in. More From Eric Alterman Conservative Jews Made a Terrible Bargain With Trump and the Right Over Israel December 21, 2022 Todd Gitlin Told His Truth Everywhere He Went February 8, 2022 Why the Media No Longer Cares About Nicaragua September 28, 2021
Broadly speaking, the power and influence of Fox News—especially in its current Trump-servile iteration—creates two massive problems for American democracy. Stelter’s book describes one and, unfortunately, embodies the other. The first problem is the perpetuation of what the authors of the book Network Propaganda call the “propaganda feedback loop.” They define this as a “network dynamic in which media outlets, political elites, activists, and publics form and break connections based on the contents of statements, and that progressively lowers the costs of telling lies that are consistent with a shared political narrative and increases the costs of resisting that shared narrative in the name of truth.” In other words, these people are living in a world of lies fed to them by Fox News and Trump, and that’s the way they like it. We are all aware of this problem. It is Trump’s base.
The second problem, however, is the influence on the rest of the media of this extremely profitable, high-profile propaganda network that is allowed to masquerade as news. There is an amazing moment in the book when Stelter is interviewing pathological liar Kellyanne Conway for CNN—something that ought to set off alarm bells itself—about Trump’s absurd claim that he was the victim of voter fraud and had been wiretapped by then-President Barack Obama. To Stelter’s questions, Conway replied, “Excuse me? He doesn’t think he’s lying about those issues, and you know it.” What Conway was saying is that when it comes to lying, Trump is not guilty by reason of insanity. And Stelter apparently accepts this as a satisfactory answer, at least to the degree that he gives her the last word on the topic. Much the same thing can be seen when Stelter quotes Lachlan Murdoch, the executive chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation, again with no pushback, when he describes CNN as the “soft left” and MSNBC as the “hard left.” Recall that CNN is the news network that hired former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, despite the fact that a nondisparagement clause legally prevented him from not just telling the truth about Trump but even from criticizing him. It is also the news organization that brought on current White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany while she was still a law student to be one of Trump’s many network dissemblers. Meanwhile, “hard left” MSNBC gives 15 hours a week to Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, and 10 to Nicolle Wallace, George W. Bush’s former communications director. If you were wondering why both-sides journalism is today “balanced” between incitement to race war on the one hand and old-fashioned establishment centrism on the other, well, there’s your answer.