thenation--2020-10-15--Synthesizing Sound and Self

Synthesizing Sound and Self

Wendy Carlos would hate the way I ’ ve written about her .
For decades , the pioneering electronic music composer has deflected suggestions that her identity as a transgender woman has any bearing on the inventive , playful , and often surreal electronic music she has made on the instrument she helped develop , the synthesizer .
She worked with Robert Moog closely and rigorously during the development of early commercial synths ; she ’ s in part responsible for the way these now ubiquitous machines sound and feel , helping usher in the synthesizer ’ s transformation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic laboratories to a lithe , flexible instrument that plays like a futuristic piano .
Carlos also made history as one of the first publicly known figures to transition between genders .
Though a handful of trans celebrities existed when she embarked on her medical transition in the late 1960s , most of them were known just for the taboo at the time of being trans , their lives the subject of tabloid stories and pulpy autobiographies .
With the release of her 1968 album Switched-On Bach , Carlos became famous , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The album boasted 12 Bach compositions painstakingly rendered on the then-cutting-edge Moog synth .
The combination of familiar classical compositions and novel electronic sounds proved a hit : Sales of the album and the kind of synthesizer on which it was made soared after its release .
Soon after Switched-On Bach , Carlos and her long-term collaborator Rachel Elkind began working on further electronic interpretations of classical music .
Their use of the vocoder , a voice compression technology developed for military telecommunications , in a rendition of Beethoven ’ s 9th Symphony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to popular music , one that would prove instrumental in the works of Kraftwerk , Laurie Anderson , Yellow Magic Orchestra , Jonzun Crew , Afrika Bambaataa , and many other envelope-pushing artists .
Amanda Sewell ’ s new biography of Carlos documents the half-century since the composer established the sound of electronic music as a viable popular form .
It also takes on the difficult job of reckoning with Carlos ’ s recent silence .
Though she once communicated regularly with fans and journalists via her website , she has settled into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surfacing this year to add an acidic note to her homepage contesting the accuracy of Sewell ’ s book .
“ It belongs on the fiction shelf , ” Carlos wrote .
“ No one ever interviewed me , nor anyone I know .
There ’ s zero fact-checking .
Don ’ t recognize myself anywhere in there—weird.
” In the biography ’ s introduction , Sewell claims that “ Carlos did not respond to repeated requests for interviews for this book , ” and that the musician ’ s friends and contemporaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her .
Sewell fills that gap by turning to Carlos ’ s archives , sifting through published and unpublished interviews , articles , and personal letters to draw on as much of her voice and thinking as possible .
Throughout the biography , Sewell respectfully reiterates Carlos ’ s firmly held belief that the composer ’ s gender identity and her music career dwell on entirely separate planes .
Many cis journalists and critics , especially those who worked in the decades that Carlos rose to prominence , often appended the modifier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made , pigeonholing their work as art made by individuals on a peculiar margin that colored their entire output .
Carlos has expressed her desire for her work to be taken on its own terms , divorced from the particulars of her story .
More than many other art forms , music is inextricably linked to the body .
Singing issues directly from the diaphragm , lungs , throat , and mouth , and intermediaries like guitar and piano respond expressively to subtle variations in touch .
Music , pop music especially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground for the reproduction and reinvention of gender .
For cis musicians as well as trans ones , a stage or a recording studio can be a dream space where fantasy or deeply held personal truth can be acted out , surfacing in the timbre of a vocal take or the futuristic trill of a keyboard line .
As a critic , I struggle to isolate provocative music like Carlos ’ s from the sociopolitical contexts in which she created it .
As her biographer , Sewell generally refrains from theorizing against her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her music .
She does her best to tell Carlos ’ s story plainly , amalgamating primary sources and offering historical context where appropriate .
Some of Sewell ’ s decisions are baffling , like the choice to reprint slurs wielded against Carlos by anonymous trolls in online forums and comment sections , apparently to make the obvious point that the Internet is not always kind to trans women .
But her biography is otherwise measured and thorough , a careful , sympathetic , and detailed portrait of a figure who changed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as it began to proliferate at an unprecedented pace in the 21st century , disappeared .
There is one way that Carlos still communicates to the public : through Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedowns of unauthorized uploads of her music to YouTube and other streaming platforms .
As much as her work seemed a beacon of futurity in the 1960s and ’ 70s , Carlos has unequivocally resisted the state of contemporary music distribution .
The only legal way to hear her work is to buy her CDs and LPs , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She stands as a defiant counterpoint to the common false claim that any recorded music in history can be heard within seconds on the Internet .
Carlos has good reasons for her resistance to streaming music .
Even before Spotify accounts became commonplace , she predicted that digital music distribution would devastate musicians ’ ability to earn income from selling their work .
“ To Carlos , when the consumers , the record companies , and the artists couldn ’ t come to a fair agreement about compensation , everyone would lose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlos wrote in 1988 what she saw as the dangerous potential of digital distribution and illegal file sharing .
Two decades later , the composer extrapolated on the effects of streaming and incidentally foreshadowed the Patreon model of selling music directly to listeners .
“ I don ’ t know if many record labels are going to be around much longer , ” she said in a 2007 interview for New Music USA .
“ I guess blame/credit streaming audio , and a change in listening habits .
So what is music distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” The current state of the music industry—for musicians , at least—is as dire as she warned .
Her reasons for ignoring all interview requests in the past decade are less clear , though she has spoken repeatedly about her frustrations with journalists and critics .
Carlos came out as trans in the pages of Playboy in 1979 , after extensive vetting to make sure she would be portrayed sympathetically .
She agreed to speak with Arthur Bell , a Village Voice columnist and gay liberationist , with the expectation that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published piece would focus primarily on her music and career , not her gender .
After multiple interviews , Bell whittled down his final piece from 800 pages of transcriptions .
To Carlos ’ s chagrin , much of what Playboy published focused on her transition , down to the medical details , rather than her career as a composer .
The interview was the first of many to pose the question about the relationship between Carlos ’ s identity and her work .
“ Has your transsexuality personally affected your own music @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would think not at all , ” Carlos replied .
“ Can you imagine writing The Transsexual Symphony ?
” When pressed , Carlos did concede this : Since her Playboy interview , Carlos has soundly rejected all suggestions that her transition influenced her music , or vice versa .
A “ hall of shame ” page on her website lists writers and publication who she says “ have tried to turn me into a cliché , to treat me as an object for potential scorn , ridicule , or even physical violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Playboy Magazine Editors ” among them .
In the past five years alone , an increasing number of electronic musicians known for their provocative and thrilling synthesizer playing have come out as trans ( or at least started using a new set of pronouns ) —Sophie , Arca , Angel-Ho , Lotic , Planningtorock , Yatta , and Fever Ray , among others .
The mainstreaming of trans identity has coincided with a surge in adventurous sound , much of it produced by trans musicians .
To deny any correlation seems to impoverish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extension of the self , an experimental space to test new and frightening ways of being .
Carlos and Elkind ’ s rendition of Beethoven ’ s 9th Symphony was used on the soundtrack of the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange , and voice processing has since become a staple of electronic music produced by this growing group of trans artists .
I don ’ t mean to suggest that Carlos is wrong about her interpretation of her music .
But music has meaning beyond that assigned to it by its creator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the way Carlos used and developed them , and now their development continues in the hands of these trans producers .
The ways she tested and expanded social boundaries , both around music and around gender , hold profound meaning for other trans people , even if she considers their affinity reductive .
Though she began transitioning near the start of the gay rights movement , Carlos apparently never sought community with other trans or queer people .
She pursued transition in isolation , a path largely determined by the gatekeeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
As Sewell notes , the most famous doctor working with trans patients in the United States , Harry Benjamin , advocated for trans people ’ s self-determination yet required that they keep their transitions quiet .
He and his contemporaries “ chose as their patients people who would blend into society and not draw attention to themselves , ” Sewell writes .
“ They did not treat patients who had any kind of diagnosed mental illness .
Benjamin and his colleagues also limited access to surgery and other treatment to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their identified gender and who promised to avoid any kind of publicity or notoriety.
” Because Carlos was slight and spoke in a higher register before transition , she easily fit the criteria for Benjamin ’ s clinic .
Other trans women in New York City at the time did not .
Many , like the gay rights activists Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera , were Black or Latinx and did not conform to the white-coded passing standards enforced by doctors like Benjamin .
Many were homeless , lacking the financial stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex work , which formally disqualified them from treatment .
Instead of gender clinics , these women had one another , creating ad hoc networks of social , medical , and financial support as they fought for the right to survive in public .
In the same city at the same time , two modes of transition emerged : one pursued individually and quietly , with institutional permission and supervision , and one pursued collectively and visibly in direct opposition to legal institutions like police .
In her comments about her gender , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical detour buried deep in her past .
She has been resentful of those writers who keep mentioning it half a century later , as if they were demanding she comment on a 50-year-old appendectomy scar .
But she has not been able to extract herself from the history through which she lived .
Despite her disidentification with the trans rights movement , her story is still contained in its history .
She was the first trans person I learned of as a child , the woman whose name I heard at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was possible .
When I listen to Carlos ’ s early music , I hear a composer forging previously unimaginable sounds through the confusing interface of a novel machine .
In Elkind ’ s processed and distorted singing , I hear an ambiguity that suggests the presence of a changing and disruptive body .
I sympathize with Carlos ’ s desire to keep these two facets of her life separate ; the ways cis people tokenize and objectify trans people can be infuriating , as she saw in the media treatment she received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who found the seeds of my own transness in Carlos ’ s music and the music she influenced , I fail to isolate the work from its creator .
I hear in her music both a brilliantly inventive composer and a person who could not live in the world as it was presented to her and so set about dreaming up one she could call home .

Wendy Carlos would hate the way I’ve written about her. For decades, the pioneering electronic music composer has deflected suggestions that her identity as a transgender woman has any bearing on the inventive, playful, and often surreal electronic music she has made on the instrument she helped develop, the synthesizer. She worked with Robert Moog closely and rigorously during the development of early commercial synths; she’s in part responsible for the way these now ubiquitous machines sound and feel, helping usher in the synthesizer’s transformation from a huge, awkward computer housed in academic laboratories to a lithe, flexible instrument that plays like a futuristic piano. Books in Review Wendy Carlos: A Biography By Amanda Sewell Buy this book
Carlos also made history as one of the first publicly known figures to transition between genders. Though a handful of trans celebrities existed when she embarked on her medical transition in the late 1960s, most of them were known just for the taboo at the time of being trans, their lives the subject of tabloid stories and pulpy autobiographies. With the release of her 1968 album Switched-On Bach, Carlos became famous, under her deadname, for her music.
The album boasted 12 Bach compositions painstakingly rendered on the then-cutting-edge Moog synth. The combination of familiar classical compositions and novel electronic sounds proved a hit: Sales of the album and the kind of synthesizer on which it was made soared after its release. Soon after Switched-On Bach, Carlos and her long-term collaborator Rachel Elkind began working on further electronic interpretations of classical music. Their use of the vocoder, a voice compression technology developed for military telecommunications, in a rendition of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony introduced a startling and androgynous cyborg voice to popular music, one that would prove instrumental in the works of Kraftwerk, Laurie Anderson, Yellow Magic Orchestra, Jonzun Crew, Afrika Bambaataa, and many other envelope-pushing artists.
Amanda Sewell’s new biography of Carlos documents the half-century since the composer established the sound of electronic music as a viable popular form. It also takes on the difficult job of reckoning with Carlos’s recent silence. Though she once communicated regularly with fans and journalists via her website, she has settled into silence in the past decade, only surfacing this year to add an acidic note to her homepage contesting the accuracy of Sewell’s book. “It belongs on the fiction shelf,” Carlos wrote. “No one ever interviewed me, nor anyone I know. There’s zero fact-checking. Don’t recognize myself anywhere in there—weird.” In the biography’s introduction, Sewell claims that “Carlos did not respond to repeated requests for interviews for this book,” and that the musician’s friends and contemporaries similarly declined to speak on the record about her. Sewell fills that gap by turning to Carlos’s archives, sifting through published and unpublished interviews, articles, and personal letters to draw on as much of her voice and thinking as possible.
Throughout the biography, Sewell respectfully reiterates Carlos’s firmly held belief that the composer’s gender identity and her music career dwell on entirely separate planes. Many cis journalists and critics, especially those who worked in the decades that Carlos rose to prominence, often appended the modifier “trans” to everything trans people made, pigeonholing their work as art made by individuals on a peculiar margin that colored their entire output. Carlos has expressed her desire for her work to be taken on its own terms, divorced from the particulars of her story. 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 than many other art forms, music is inextricably linked to the body. Singing issues directly from the diaphragm, lungs, throat, and mouth, and intermediaries like guitar and piano respond expressively to subtle variations in touch. Music, pop music especially, has historically served as an active staging ground for the reproduction and reinvention of gender. For cis musicians as well as trans ones, a stage or a recording studio can be a dream space where fantasy or deeply held personal truth can be acted out, surfacing in the timbre of a vocal take or the futuristic trill of a keyboard line. As a critic, I struggle to isolate provocative music like Carlos’s from the sociopolitical contexts in which she created it. As her biographer, Sewell generally refrains from theorizing against her subject’s interpretation of herself and her music. She does her best to tell Carlos’s story plainly, amalgamating primary sources and offering historical context where appropriate.
Some of Sewell’s decisions are baffling, like the choice to reprint slurs wielded against Carlos by anonymous trolls in online forums and comment sections, apparently to make the obvious point that the Internet is not always kind to trans women. But her biography is otherwise measured and thorough, a careful, sympathetic, and detailed portrait of a figure who changed the course of electronic music and then, just as it began to proliferate at an unprecedented pace in the 21st century, disappeared. Related Article Arca’s Rebellion Against Music and Life Julyssa Lopez
There is one way that Carlos still communicates to the public: through Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedowns of unauthorized uploads of her music to YouTube and other streaming platforms. As much as her work seemed a beacon of futurity in the 1960s and ’70s, Carlos has unequivocally resisted the state of contemporary music distribution. The only legal way to hear her work is to buy her CDs and LPs, many of which are out of print. She stands as a defiant counterpoint to the common false claim that any recorded music in history can be heard within seconds on the Internet.
Carlos has good reasons for her resistance to streaming music. Even before Spotify accounts became commonplace, she predicted that digital music distribution would devastate musicians’ ability to earn income from selling their work. “To Carlos, when the consumers, the record companies, and the artists couldn’t come to a fair agreement about compensation, everyone would lose,” writes Sewell, citing an article Carlos wrote in 1988 what she saw as the dangerous potential of digital distribution and illegal file sharing. Two decades later, the composer extrapolated on the effects of streaming and incidentally foreshadowed the Patreon model of selling music directly to listeners. “I don’t know if many record labels are going to be around much longer,” she said in a 2007 interview for New Music USA. “I guess blame/credit streaming audio, and a change in listening habits. So what is music distribution going to become, individual artists only?” The current state of the music industry—for musicians, at least—is as dire as she warned.
Her reasons for ignoring all interview requests in the past decade are less clear, though she has spoken repeatedly about her frustrations with journalists and critics. Carlos came out as trans in the pages of Playboy in 1979, after extensive vetting to make sure she would be portrayed sympathetically. She agreed to speak with Arthur Bell, a Village Voice columnist and gay liberationist, with the expectation that the published piece with the expectation that the published piece would focus primarily on her music and career, not her gender.
After multiple interviews, Bell whittled down his final piece from 800 pages of transcriptions. To Carlos’s chagrin, much of what Playboy published focused on her transition, down to the medical details, rather than her career as a composer. The interview was the first of many to pose the question about the relationship between Carlos’s identity and her work. “Has your transsexuality personally affected your own music?” Bell asked. “I would think not at all,” Carlos replied. “Can you imagine writing The Transsexual Symphony?”
When pressed, Carlos did concede this:
Switched-On Bach in 1969 was a good musical barometer, while transsexuality in 1979 is a fairly good sexual and attitudinal social barometer. When Switched-On Bach was new, it stimulated strong reactions. Those who were comfortable in all forms of music, those who were open to novel variations, loved it. Transsexuality, too, is an emotional, action-prone situation, in that it tends to polarize people, depending on the attitudes one brings to sexuality and human rights. In both cases, there’s no middle ground.
Since her Playboy interview, Carlos has soundly rejected all suggestions that her transition influenced her music, or vice versa. A “hall of shame” page on her website lists writers and publication who she says “have tried to turn me into a cliché, to treat me as an object for potential scorn, ridicule, or even physical violence by bigots”; she ranks “Playboy Magazine Editors” among them.
In the past five years alone, an increasing number of electronic musicians known for their provocative and thrilling synthesizer playing have come out as trans (or at least started using a new set of pronouns)—Sophie, Arca, Angel-Ho, Lotic, Planningtorock, Yatta, and Fever Ray, among others. The mainstreaming of trans identity has coincided with a surge in adventurous sound, much of it produced by trans musicians. To deny any correlation seems to impoverish thinking about the ways music acts as an extension of the self, an experimental space to test new and frightening ways of being. Carlos and Elkind’s rendition of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony was used on the soundtrack of the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange, and voice processing has since become a staple of electronic music produced by this growing group of trans artists.
I don’t mean to suggest that Carlos is wrong about her interpretation of her music. But music has meaning beyond that assigned to it by its creator. Synthesizers sound the way they do because of the way Carlos used and developed them, and now their development continues in the hands of these trans producers. The ways she tested and expanded social boundaries, both around music and around gender, hold profound meaning for other trans people, even if she considers their affinity reductive.
Though she began transitioning near the start of the gay rights movement, Carlos apparently never sought community with other trans or queer people. She pursued transition in isolation, a path largely determined by the gatekeeping tendencies of trans-sympathetic medical practitioners at the time. As Sewell notes, the most famous doctor working with trans patients in the United States, Harry Benjamin, advocated for trans people’s self-determination yet required that they keep their transitions quiet. He and his contemporaries “chose as their patients people who would blend into society and not draw attention to themselves,” Sewell writes. “They did not treat patients who had any kind of diagnosed mental illness. Benjamin and his colleagues also limited access to surgery and other treatment to people who could convincingly ‘pass’ as their identified gender and who promised to avoid any kind of publicity or notoriety.”
Because Carlos was slight and spoke in a higher register before transition, she easily fit the criteria for Benjamin’s clinic. Other trans women in New York City at the time did not. Many, like the gay rights activists Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, were Black or Latinx and did not conform to the white-coded passing standards enforced by doctors like Benjamin. Many were homeless, lacking the financial stability needed for institutionalized transition, and did sex work, which formally disqualified them from treatment. Instead of gender clinics, these women had one another, creating ad hoc networks of social, medical, and financial support as they fought for the right to survive in public. In the same city at the same time, two modes of transition emerged: one pursued individually and quietly, with institutional permission and supervision, and one pursued collectively and visibly in direct opposition to legal institutions like police.
In her comments about her gender, Carlos has treated her transition as a medical detour buried deep in her past. She has been resentful of those writers who keep mentioning it half a century later, as if they were demanding she comment on a 50-year-old appendectomy scar. But she has not been able to extract herself from the history through which she lived. Despite her disidentification with the trans rights movement, her story is still contained in its history. She was the first trans person I learned of as a child, the woman whose name I heard at the same time I discovered that gender transition was possible.
When I listen to Carlos’s early music, I hear a composer forging previously unimaginable sounds through the confusing interface of a novel machine. In Elkind’s processed and distorted singing, I hear an ambiguity that suggests the presence of a changing and disruptive body. I sympathize with Carlos’s desire to keep these two facets of her life separate; the ways cis people tokenize and objectify trans people can be infuriating, as she saw in the media treatment she received throughout her life. But as someone who found the seeds of my own transness in Carlos’s music and the music she influenced, I fail to isolate the work from its creator. I hear in her music both a brilliantly inventive composer and a person who could not live in the world as it was presented to her and so set about dreaming up one she could call home.


thenation--2020-10-15--Democrats Should Stop Worrying About Debating Climate Change

It ’ s February 2021 .
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have just been inaugurated , a new cabinet ’ s been sworn in , and Democrats have reclaimed their majority in the US Senate .
There ’ s a palpable sense of relief in the air , but also a real sense of urgency , because a legislative fight is already underway over a green stimulus bill .
Leadership didn ’ t give activists everything they wanted , but the bill would create millions of jobs and prevent a recession while also scaling up renewable energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future .
It would represent a massive step forward for climate justice , which is why Exxon Mobil and Chevron are running ads on the airwaves of newly elected freshman members in swing districts .
In Pennsylvania , the ads accuse Democrats of destroying fracking jobs .
Elsewhere , they say Democrats will raise the price of gas and the cost of household plastics .
All of which will stack on top of the predictable Fox News onslaught heralding the end of meat , the internal combustion engine , airplane travel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be as Democrats on legislative Game Day , our best real shot to mitigate climate disaster , when the right-wing fearmongering comes ?
That ’ s where my head went as I watched the climate change section of last week ’ s vice presidential debate .
The first mention of climate came when the moderator asked Vice President Mike Pence if man-made climate change was real , which is like asking candidates whether there are millions of Americans who don ’ t have health insurance in this country—it ’ s just a fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Pence , sensing the opportunity to deflect from his administration ’ s inaction on climate , used the question to immediately accuse Harris and Biden of wanting to ban fracking .
The next several minutes devolved into a discussion of the Democratic ticket ’ s true views on hydraulic fracturing .
At a time when parts of the country are still on fire and Americans suffer from increasingly severe storms , flooding , and hurricanes year after year , that ’ s an absurd dynamic—and it spells trouble for the coming legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend the first few months of 2021 doing press conferences to insist that we won ’ t raise gas prices or promising that the electric vehicle provisions of our climate bill won ’ t end gasoline-powered cars .
That ’ s especially true because we have such a compelling case .
The Trump-Pence administration has handed out billions to the oil and gas industry and dismantled EPA regulations as more Americans every year die from hurricanes , wildfires , and flooding .
Democrats , on the other hand , are starting to arrive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need heavy investment in renewable energy that creates millions of good-paying union jobs—and brings fossil fuel workers along in the transition .
It ’ s night and day , and according to study after study after study , that gap is a huge advantage for Democrats with enormous , planetary-scale consequences .
We can ’ t allow Republicans to hijack this conversation , and force us to spend rare , precious minutes devoted to climate change in a national debate on whether or not Biden is really a fracker .
To be clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician or one debate .
The exchange matters because it ’ s indicative of a defensive crouch that Democrats have trapped ourselves in for years , and one from which we ’ re just starting to emerge .
Gone are the days of 2008 and 2012 , when President Obama avoided talking about climate change for as long as possible , convinced the issue was a losing one .
The politics have shifted ; now , it ’ s clear climate is a top issue not only for the Democratic base , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undecided and independent voters .
Biden ’ s campaign understands this , which is why they ’ ve become the first presidential campaign in history to air a general election TV ad on climate change , and why Biden proactively did a major policy speech on the issue as wildfires were burning across the West Coast .
Still , if Democrats are serious about not just winning this election but next year ’ s legislative fight too , we need to shake off every bit of that historical crouch .
We need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you can ’ t win Pennsylvania without being for fracking ?
Are voters really incapable of understanding that the cost of inaction is higher than the price tag of a climate bill ?
We have to embrace the fact that this is winning , fertile ground for us—and we have the bad guys over a barrel .
Overwhelming majorities of Americans see it as a win-win to create millions of unionized jobs that build prosperity for all , while transitioning to the clean energy economy of the future .
If we keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll prevent civilizational collapse .
And we ’ ll probably win some elections , too .

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?
It’s February 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have just been inaugurated, a new cabinet’s been sworn in, and Democrats have reclaimed their majority in the US Senate. There’s a palpable sense of relief in the air, but also a real sense of urgency, because a legislative fight is already underway over a green stimulus bill. Leadership didn’t give activists everything they wanted, but the bill would create millions of jobs and prevent a recession while also scaling up renewable energy and building the clean energy economy of the future. It would represent a massive step forward for climate justice, which is why Exxon Mobil and Chevron are running ads on the airwaves of newly elected freshman members in swing districts. In Pennsylvania, the ads accuse Democrats of destroying fracking jobs. Elsewhere, they say Democrats will raise the price of gas and the cost of household plastics. All of which will stack on top of the predictable Fox News onslaught heralding the end of meat, the internal combustion engine, airplane travel, and freedom.
What will our response be as Democrats on legislative Game Day, our best real shot to mitigate climate disaster, when the right-wing fearmongering comes? That’s where my head went as I watched the climate change section of last week’s vice presidential debate. The first mention of climate came when the moderator asked Vice President Mike Pence if man-made climate change was real, which is like asking candidates whether there are millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance in this country—it’s just a fact, no exchange of opinion required. But Pence, sensing the opportunity to deflect from his administration’s inaction on climate, used the question to immediately accuse Harris and Biden of wanting to ban fracking. The next several minutes devolved into a discussion of the Democratic ticket’s true views on hydraulic fracturing.
At a time when parts of the country are still on fire and Americans suffer from increasingly severe storms, flooding, and hurricanes year after year, that’s an absurd dynamic—and it spells trouble for the coming legislative fights. Democrats will lose if we spend the first few months of 2021 doing press conferences to insist that we won’t raise gas prices or promising that the electric vehicle provisions of our climate bill won’t end gasoline-powered cars.
That’s especially true because we have such a compelling case. The Trump-Pence administration has handed out billions to the oil and gas industry and dismantled EPA regulations as more Americans every year die from hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding. Democrats, on the other hand, are starting to arrive at consensus in our vision: We need heavy investment in renewable energy that creates millions of good-paying union jobs—and brings fossil fuel workers along in the transition. It’s night and day, and according to study after study after study, that gap is a huge advantage for Democrats with enormous, planetary-scale consequences. We can’t allow Republicans to hijack this conversation, and force us to spend rare, precious minutes devoted to climate change in a national debate on whether or not Biden is really a fracker.
To be clear, this isn’t about one politician or one debate. The exchange matters because it’s indicative of a defensive crouch that Democrats have trapped ourselves in for years, and one from which we’re just starting to emerge. Gone are the days of 2008 and 2012, when President Obama avoided talking about climate change for as long as possible, convinced the issue was a losing one. The politics have shifted; now, it’s clear climate is a top issue not only for the Democratic base, but also one with the ability to persuade undecided and independent voters. Biden’s campaign understands this, which is why they’ve become the first presidential campaign in history to air a general election TV ad on climate change, and why Biden proactively did a major policy speech on the issue as wildfires were burning across the West Coast.
Still, if Democrats are serious about not just winning this election but next year’s legislative fight too, we need to shake off every bit of that historical crouch. We need to question old political truisms—is it really true that you can’t win Pennsylvania without being for fracking? Are voters really incapable of understanding that the cost of inaction is higher than the price tag of a climate bill? We have to embrace the fact that this is winning, fertile ground for us—and we have the bad guys over a barrel. Overwhelming majorities of Americans see it as a win-win to create millions of unionized jobs that build prosperity for all, while transitioning to the clean energy economy of the future. If we keep the focus of the climate debate there, we’ll prevent civilizational collapse. And we’ll probably win some elections, too.


thenation--2020-10-15--Lindsey Graham Just ‘Committed a Crime in Plain Sight’

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is a desperate man .
So desperate that he broke the law on Wednesday by explicitly soliciting campaign donations in the halls of a federal building .
After he chaired Wednesday ’ s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett , the Republican senator stepped into the hallway of the Hart Senate Office Building and made a pitch for online campaign donations .
Representative Eric Swalwell , a California Democrat who is a former prosecutor , immediately noted federal laws barring such activities and declared , “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] committed a crime in plain sight.
” Graham ’ s pitch communicated just how scared he is by the prospect that he might lose the Senate seat he has treated as a personal sinecure since he replaced former segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond in 2002 .
After coasting through election after election , Graham now faces the very real prospect that he could be beaten by former South Carolina Democratic Party chair Jaime Harrison .
The Democrat , who has been tied with the Republican incumbent in recent polls , pulled narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Data for Progress survey .
And The Cook Political Report recently shifted its rating for a contest Graham had been expected to win with ease to “ toss-up.
” But the poll numbers are not the ones freaking out Graham .
It ’ s the fundraising numbers .
Harrison announced this week that he had taken in an eye-popping $ 57 million in donations during the third quarter of 2020 , as compared with Graham ’ s $ 28 million .
Can Trump Delay the Election ?
Amy Coney Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Time to Put Some Muscle Behind the 25th Amendment Graham is obsessing about the money race .
Last month , in an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News , he made an explicit appeal for donations , warning , “ I ’ m getting overwhelmed .
Help me .
They ’ re killing me money wise .
Help me.
” During Tuesday ’ s session of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , Graham , the committee ’ s chair , made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several times and , at one point , mused about the fundraising numbers .
“ I ’ d like to know where the hell it ’ s coming from , ” he said , apparently in reference to Harrison ’ s haul .
Then , on Wednesday , after the hearing finished , Graham stepped across the line when he responded to a question from a reporter about his race .
Revealing the Republican political strategy for ramming through the Barrett confirmation ahead of the November 3 election , the senator said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are excited about Judge Barrett.
” But he didn ’ t stop there .
Graham added , “ I don ’ t know how much it affected fundraising today , but if you want to help me close the gap , lindseygraham.com .
A little bit goes a long way .
The bottom line is my opponent raised $ 57 million .
Congratulations to him .
That ’ s the most anybody ’ s ever raised in the history of the Senate .
I raised $ 28 million , the most any Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile.
” That pitch , targeted at television viewers nationally , with its explicit mention of his campaign ’ s web address , led veteran election lawyer Marc Elias to declare , “ Senator Graham might need a lawyer.
” Elias highlighted the text of the section of the Code of Laws of the United States of America dealing with the solicitation of campaign funds inside federal buildings , 18 USC 607 , which plainly states : It shall be unlawful for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee of the Federal Government , including the President , Vice President , and Members of Congress , to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal , State , or local election , while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States , from any person .
The code outlines tough penalties for wrongdoers : “ A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $ 5,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or both.
” South Carolina media outlets also noted that the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics says , “ Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building.
” Graham ’ s campaign scrambled to explain the solicitation , but didn ’ t do well .
Spokesman Kevin Bishop responded to a local TV station in Charleston , ABC News 4 , with a bizarre statement that seemed to acknowledge how bad the C-SPAN video looked : “ Senator Graham was responding to reporters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Confident any reasonable person can see that any violation—if one even occurred—was unintentional and does not represent a pattern of behavior.
” The “ ignorance of the law ” excuse didn ’ t cut it with the South Carolina Democratic Party , whose communications director Lauren Brown said , “ After 25 years in Washington , Senator Graham should know better than to spend his time campaigning in the halls of Congress .
This profile in desperate and unethical behavior is unbecoming of a US senator—and it is yet another demonstration of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming to an end .
”

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?
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is a desperate man. So desperate that he broke the law on Wednesday by explicitly soliciting campaign donations in the halls of a federal building.
After he chaired Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the Republican senator stepped into the hallway of the Hart Senate Office Building and made a pitch for online campaign donations. Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat who is a former prosecutor, immediately noted federal laws barring such activities and declared, “This is a crime. [Lindsey Graham] committed a crime in plain sight.” Want more from John? Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring John Nichols alongside an extraordinary group of speakers. Nov. 18-21.
Graham’s pitch communicated just how scared he is by the prospect that he might lose the Senate seat he has treated as a personal sinecure since he replaced former segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond in 2002. After coasting through election after election, Graham now faces the very real prospect that he could be beaten by former South Carolina Democratic Party chair Jaime Harrison. The Democrat, who has been tied with the Republican incumbent in recent polls, pulled narrowly ahead Thursday—47 percent to 46 percent—in a new Data for Progress survey. And The Cook Political Report recently shifted its rating for a contest Graham had been expected to win with ease to “toss-up.”
But the poll numbers are not the ones freaking out Graham. It’s the fundraising numbers. Harrison announced this week that he had taken in an eye-popping $57 million in donations during the third quarter of 2020, as compared with Graham’s $28 million. 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
Graham is obsessing about the money race. Last month, in an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, he made an explicit appeal for donations, warning, “I’m getting overwhelmed. Help me. They’re killing me money wise. Help me.” During Tuesday’s session of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Graham, the committee’s chair, made the unusual move of mentioning his reelection contest several times and, at one point, mused about the fundraising numbers. “I’d like to know where the hell it’s coming from,” he said, apparently in reference to Harrison’s haul. 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
Then, on Wednesday, after the hearing finished, Graham stepped across the line when he responded to a question from a reporter about his race.
Revealing the Republican political strategy for ramming through the Barrett confirmation ahead of the November 3 election, the senator said, “I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett.”
But he didn’t stop there. Graham added, “I don’t know how much it affected fundraising today, but if you want to help me close the gap, lindseygraham.com. A little bit goes a long way. The bottom line is my opponent raised $57 million. Congratulations to him. That’s the most anybody’s ever raised in the history of the Senate. I raised $28 million, the most any Republican has ever raised. I think the contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile.”
That pitch, targeted at television viewers nationally, with its explicit mention of his campaign’s web address, led veteran election lawyer Marc Elias to declare, “Senator Graham might need a lawyer.” Elias highlighted the text of the section of the Code of Laws of the United States of America dealing with the solicitation of campaign funds inside federal buildings, 18 USC 607, which plainly states:
It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
The code outlines tough penalties for wrongdoers: “A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.”
South Carolina media outlets also noted that the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics says, “Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building.” Current Issue View our current issue
Graham’s campaign scrambled to explain the solicitation, but didn’t do well. Spokesman Kevin Bishop responded to a local TV station in Charleston, ABC News 4, with a bizarre statement that seemed to acknowledge how bad the C-SPAN video looked: “Senator Graham was responding to reporters’ questions about his campaign and fundraising. Confident any reasonable person can see that any violation—if one even occurred—was unintentional and does not represent a pattern of behavior.”
The “ignorance of the law” excuse didn’t cut it with the South Carolina Democratic Party, whose communications director Lauren Brown said, “After 25 years in Washington, Senator Graham should know better than to spend his time campaigning in the halls of Congress. This profile in desperate and unethical behavior is unbecoming of a US senator—and it is yet another demonstration of why Senator Graham’s time in Congress is coming to an end.”


thenation--2020-10-15--A Red Zone Grows in Brooklyn

A Red Zone Grows in Brooklyn

No area in the world , including in Israel , is more diversely Jewish than Brooklyn ’ s Ocean Parkway .
Along its roughly five-mile course from Prospect Park to Coney Island live Jewish communities with roots in the Caucasus , North Africa , the Middle East , Central Asia , and Eastern Europe .
People speak English , Yiddish , and Hebrew—but also half a dozen forms of Arabic ( both Jewish and non-Jewish varieties ) , Russian , Persian , Azeri , and Uzbek .
Some speak smaller , endangered Jewish languages such as Juhuri , Bukhori , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refugees , or the children or grandchildren of refugees—survivors of persecution , displacement , and in some cases genocide .
Compared to most American Jews , they are much more religiously and communally engaged , following many different traditions and leaders .
Usually this remarkable microcosm of the vanishing global Jewish diaspora , compressed into a handful of neighborhoods with an equally diverse array of non-Jews , gets on more or less like any other part of New York City—by some miraculous formula perhaps best left unquestioned .
But as of last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a designated Covid-19 red zone along with two other Orthodox clusters in Queens , is in lockdown .
Citywide , cases have doubled from where they were a month ago , and positivity rates in the red zones are pushing 5 percent .
After the nightmare of March and April , the city ’ s phased reopening looks increasingly in peril .
Fears of a second wave , worsening in winter , are growing .
For Governor Andrew Cuomo , Mayor Bill de Blasio , and many New Yorkers , a targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spring for the red zones and lesser reversals for the adjacent orange and yellow zones—seems like common sense .
Although it ’ s not clear whether you can shut down individual neighborhoods when residents can still walk or ride to a nearby area where everything is business as usual .
When the virus struck in the spring , wealthy New Yorkers fled and working-class New Yorkers kept things running and disproportionately fell ill and died .
The impact on heavily minority outer-borough neighborhoods was a tragedy , connected to structural inequalities around health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors .
Likewise epidemiologically vulnerable , Orthodox neighborhoods—overcrowded , mixed-income , and at times with limited or delayed access to good information in the relevant languages—suffered grievously and adjusted heroically .
Many subsequently believed that herd immunity had been achieved .
Newish and Jewish : An Interview With ‘ Currents ’ Editor Arielle Angel “ Pandemic fatigue ” is to varying degrees everywhere now , and Orthodox Jews—from many different backgrounds , though Hasidim are always the most visible—are the local face of a global problem .
For a still-traumatized city , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , secret yeshivas , masks under the nose ( if on at all ) , and most recently the antics of a scary self-promoter inciting violence .
Beyond the city , the pattern is similar in other , linked Orthodox communities in Rockland , Orange , Nassau , and Ocean counties .
( There is no clear evidence of a spike , however , in more liberal or “ centrist ” Orthodox parts of the city like Washington Heights and Riverdale . )
In recent months , Israel too has been struggling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most contentious outbreaks , centered on Haredi areas like Bnei Brak .
The problem is not religious but political .
Large weddings and religious gatherings may well be playing a role in transmission , especially around the High Holidays , which many liberal and secular Jews observed virtually or very cautiously .
Orthodox lifeways are intensely face-to-face and driven by community priorities , often with scant respect for “ outside ” political or scientific authorities .
But if Orthodox Brooklyn is now a red zone , with wavering community commitment to stopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-maskers , the reason is that it is a de facto red state in the making .
For New Yorkers and for American Jews , there are serious long-term implications to an Orthodox red state of half a million people and counting in the tristate area .
There are all sorts of ways that an Orthodox red state can steer politics in the region .
Consider how the Christian right calls the shot in red states , and is now pushing for a champion on the Supreme Court , and then consider how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installing a similar , albeit smaller , force in the middle of the nation ’ s largest metro area .
The multigenerational demographic , material , and affective ties that bind most secular American Jews to liberalism were only ever marginally operative for the post–World War II arrivals who dominate Orthodox Brooklyn and its satellite communities .
But over the last few decades , places like Midwood and Borough Park have turned decisively into right-wing strongholds , with the process only accelerating under Donald Trump .
Some of it is about Israel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethno-state heralding the apocalypse doesn ’ t explain why even many anti-Zionist Hasidim vote Republican .
Some of it is social conservatism , though the Christian right operates from much deeper political and theological roots .
For post-Soviet Jews , there ’ s residual anti-communism ; for Syrian Jews , there ’ s talking tough on Islamic militants ; for business types , there ’ s tax cuts ; for others , it ’ s the appeal of histrionics and chauvinism full-stop .
In the New York context , a red-state identity can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of difference as a Borsalino and a pair of payos .
Like other white ethnic New Yorkers , many Orthodox New Yorkers are emphatically defining themselves against what they see as the dual hegemony of both white ( especially secular Jewish ) liberals and the surrounding minority communities .
Orthodox communities—far from being the backward relics that many outsiders like to imagine—have engineered an extraordinary survival , expansion , and transformation since the Holocaust .
Many Orthodox understand their communities , understandably , as the cutting edge of Jewish life , and liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves obsolete through assimilation , intermarriage , low birthrate , and disengagement .
At a minimum , the successful regeneration of the Orthodox world means neighborhoods bursting at the seams , new zones of settlement , more contact with and scrutiny from outsiders , changing community dynamics , and deepening challenges in public health and other realms .
Just to take public health : When informed , motivated , and united , Orthodox New Yorkers have had impressive achievements , from the response to Tay-Sachs to the Covid-19 plasma drives just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly contagious nature of Covid-19 , the Orthodox practice of bikur holim , or visiting the sick , is a grassroots support system like few others .
The Hatzolah ambulances , working double time this year , are a fascinating example of a highly decentralized Orthodox network that both serves specific religious needs , in a spirit of community self-reliance , and interfaces with the systems of the wider society .
To confront the rising caseload and keep New York safe , both city and state have to rebuild trust , with aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their Jewish ( and non-Jewish ) diversity .
Global and national failures have brought us here , to the point of shutting down individual ZIP codes , and the city has largely failed , despite some strides and good intentions , to communicate effectively across all of its complex ethnolinguistic landscapes .
No community is going to like a targeted lockdown , and a pandemic is a dangerous time to generalize about groups of people , particularly in the context of rising anti-Semitism .
( Last year , more than half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were anti-Semitic . )
The red zone may be Ocean Parkway today , but it was Corona in Queens back in April , Starrett City in Brooklyn after that , and it could be anywhere next month .
City and state need to find and support the communities ’ more liberal and moderate forces , quietly if necessary .
For decades , in a distant reflection of the medieval shtadln system , city politicians have counted on being able to call up a handful of well-known mediators presumed to be close to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support , and getting things done , Orthodox communities got a pass on everything from the lack of secular studies at many yeshivas to metzitzah b ’ peh .
In the current crisis , de Blasio and Cuomo appear to be taking a harder line , and many New Yorkers will agree with them .
But enforcing compliance will be a nightmare ; far better to find points of leverage like state funding and convince Orthodox communities , one by one if necessary , before the wails of ambulance sirens do the convincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to confront not just the traditional mediators , who still matter , but a whole host of freelance operators and opportunists as well .
In particular , the controversial and explosive impact of the Internet is giving a platform to all sorts of new voices , both dangerous and promising , as well as enabling a small but steady stream of defectors .
One liaison in the city ’ s Department of Health is good , but how about a minyan ’ s worth of liaisons ?
Ideally , there should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many different Hasidic courts and with the Syrian , Bukharian , Juhuro , Litvish , Russian communities , to name only some of the most numerous .
From Der Yid to the Bukharian Times to the WhatsApp groups and the Yiddish hotlines , there is a vast world of local Orthodox media to reach .
Modern Orthodox leaders should help bridge the gap .
Even secular and liberal Jewish organizations , however far removed , have a role to play , after years of protecting , funding , and at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting the system of kashrut ( kosher ) certification dominated by groups like the Orthodox Union to letting Chabad take over communities and campuses , we are enabling the red state in our own backyard .

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 area in the world, including in Israel, is more diversely Jewish than Brooklyn’s Ocean Parkway. Along its roughly five-mile course from Prospect Park to Coney Island live Jewish communities with roots in the Caucasus, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. People speak English, Yiddish, and Hebrew—but also half a dozen forms of Arabic (both Jewish and non-Jewish varieties), Russian, Persian, Azeri, and Uzbek. Some speak smaller, endangered Jewish languages such as Juhuri, Bukhori, Ladino, and Judeo-Shirazi. Many are refugees, or the children or grandchildren of refugees—survivors of persecution, displacement, and in some cases genocide. Compared to most American Jews, they are much more religiously and communally engaged, following many different traditions and leaders.
Usually this remarkable microcosm of the vanishing global Jewish diaspora, compressed into a handful of neighborhoods with an equally diverse array of non-Jews, gets on more or less like any other part of New York City—by some miraculous formula perhaps best left unquestioned. But as of last week, the “Ocean Parkway cluster,” a designated Covid-19 red zone along with two other Orthodox clusters in Queens, is in lockdown.
Citywide, cases have doubled from where they were a month ago, and positivity rates in the red zones are pushing 5 percent. After the nightmare of March and April, the city’s phased reopening looks increasingly in peril. Fears of a second wave, worsening in winter, are growing. For Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bill de Blasio, and many New Yorkers, a targeted lockdown—more or less a return to the spring for the red zones and lesser reversals for the adjacent orange and yellow zones—seems like common sense. Although it’s not clear whether you can shut down individual neighborhoods when residents can still walk or ride to a nearby area where everything is business as usual.
When the virus struck in the spring, wealthy New Yorkers fled and working-class New Yorkers kept things running and disproportionately fell ill and died. The impact on heavily minority outer-borough neighborhoods was a tragedy, connected to structural inequalities around health, housing, language, and other factors. Likewise epidemiologically vulnerable, Orthodox neighborhoods—overcrowded, mixed-income, and at times with limited or delayed access to good information in the relevant languages—suffered grievously and adjusted heroically. Many subsequently believed that herd immunity had been achieved. Related Article Newish and Jewish: An Interview With ‘Currents’ Editor Arielle Angel Sarah M. Seltzer
“Pandemic fatigue” is to varying degrees everywhere now, and Orthodox Jews—from many different backgrounds, though Hasidim are always the most visible—are the local face of a global problem. For a still-traumatized city, there is no sympathizing with packed mass gatherings, secret yeshivas, masks under the nose (if on at all), and most recently the antics of a scary self-promoter inciting violence. Beyond the city, the pattern is similar in other, linked Orthodox communities in Rockland, Orange, Nassau, and Ocean counties. (There is no clear evidence of a spike, however, in more liberal or “centrist” Orthodox parts of the city like Washington Heights and Riverdale.) In recent months, Israel too has been struggling with one of the world’s worst and most contentious outbreaks, centered on Haredi areas like Bnei Brak. 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 problem is not religious but political. Large weddings and religious gatherings may well be playing a role in transmission, especially around the High Holidays, which many liberal and secular Jews observed virtually or very cautiously. Orthodox lifeways are intensely face-to-face and driven by community priorities, often with scant respect for “outside” political or scientific authorities. But if Orthodox Brooklyn is now a red zone, with wavering community commitment to stopping the spread and a vocal minority of anti-maskers, the reason is that it is a de facto red state in the making.
For New Yorkers and for American Jews, there are serious long-term implications to an Orthodox red state of half a million people and counting in the tristate area. There are all sorts of ways that an Orthodox red state can steer politics in the region. Consider how the Christian right calls the shot in red states, and is now pushing for a champion on the Supreme Court, and then consider how “the evangelicalization of Orthodoxy” is installing a similar, albeit smaller, force in the middle of the nation’s largest metro area. Current Issue View our current issue
The multigenerational demographic, material, and affective ties that bind most secular American Jews to liberalism were only ever marginally operative for the post–World War II arrivals who dominate Orthodox Brooklyn and its satellite communities. But over the last few decades, places like Midwood and Borough Park have turned decisively into right-wing strongholds, with the process only accelerating under Donald Trump. Some of it is about Israel, but the Republican fetish for a hypermilitarized ethno-state heralding the apocalypse doesn’t explain why even many anti-Zionist Hasidim vote Republican. Some of it is social conservatism, though the Christian right operates from much deeper political and theological roots.
For post-Soviet Jews, there’s residual anti-communism; for Syrian Jews, there’s talking tough on Islamic militants; for business types, there’s tax cuts; for others, it’s the appeal of histrionics and chauvinism full-stop. In the New York context, a red-state identity can be situational, as much a declaration of difference as a Borsalino and a pair of payos. Like other white ethnic New Yorkers, many Orthodox New Yorkers are emphatically defining themselves against what they see as the dual hegemony of both white (especially secular Jewish) liberals and the surrounding minority communities.
Orthodox communities—far from being the backward relics that many outsiders like to imagine—have engineered an extraordinary survival, expansion, and transformation since the Holocaust. Many Orthodox understand their communities, understandably, as the cutting edge of Jewish life, and liberal and secular Jews as the ones rendering themselves obsolete through assimilation, intermarriage, low birthrate, and disengagement. At a minimum, the successful regeneration of the Orthodox world means neighborhoods bursting at the seams, new zones of settlement, more contact with and scrutiny from outsiders, changing community dynamics, and deepening challenges in public health and other realms.
Just to take public health: When informed, motivated, and united, Orthodox New Yorkers have had impressive achievements, from the response to Tay-Sachs to the Covid-19 plasma drives just a few months ago. Though unworkable given the highly contagious nature of Covid-19, the Orthodox practice of bikur holim, or visiting the sick, is a grassroots support system like few others. The Hatzolah ambulances, working double time this year, are a fascinating example of a highly decentralized Orthodox network that both serves specific religious needs, in a spirit of community self-reliance, and interfaces with the systems of the wider society.
To confront the rising caseload and keep New York safe, both city and state have to rebuild trust, with aid and sympathy for the affected communities in all their Jewish (and non-Jewish) diversity. Global and national failures have brought us here, to the point of shutting down individual ZIP codes, and the city has largely failed, despite some strides and good intentions, to communicate effectively across all of its complex ethnolinguistic landscapes. No community is going to like a targeted lockdown, and a pandemic is a dangerous time to generalize about groups of people, particularly in the context of rising anti-Semitism. (Last year, more than half of the city’s reported hate crimes were anti-Semitic.) The red zone may be Ocean Parkway today, but it was Corona in Queens back in April, Starrett City in Brooklyn after that, and it could be anywhere next month.
City and state need to find and support the communities’ more liberal and moderate forces, quietly if necessary. For decades, in a distant reflection of the medieval shtadln system, city politicians have counted on being able to call up a handful of well-known mediators presumed to be close to the religious leaders. In return for their support, and getting things done, Orthodox communities got a pass on everything from the lack of secular studies at many yeshivas to metzitzah b’peh.
In the current crisis, de Blasio and Cuomo appear to be taking a harder line, and many New Yorkers will agree with them. But enforcing compliance will be a nightmare; far better to find points of leverage like state funding and convince Orthodox communities, one by one if necessary, before the wails of ambulance sirens do the convincing. To do so, the city will have to confront not just the traditional mediators, who still matter, but a whole host of freelance operators and opportunists as well. In particular, the controversial and explosive impact of the Internet is giving a platform to all sorts of new voices, both dangerous and promising, as well as enabling a small but steady stream of defectors.
One liaison in the city’s Department of Health is good, but how about a minyan’s worth of liaisons? Ideally, there should be concerted, separate efforts with the many different Hasidic courts and with the Syrian, Bukharian, Juhuro, Litvish, Russian communities, to name only some of the most numerous. From Der Yid to the Bukharian Times to the WhatsApp groups and the Yiddish hotlines, there is a vast world of local Orthodox media to reach. Modern Orthodox leaders should help bridge the gap. Even secular and liberal Jewish organizations, however far removed, have a role to play, after years of protecting, funding, and at the same time privately deprecating the Orthodox world. From supporting the system of kashrut (kosher) certification dominated by groups like the Orthodox Union to letting Chabad take over communities and campuses, we are enabling the red state in our own backyard.


thenation--2020-10-15--‘Roe v. Wade’ Is Nonnegotiable

‘Roe v. Wade’ Is Nonnegotiable

Is it time to bid farewell to Roe v. Wade ?
If Amy Coney Barrett is seated on the Supreme Court , as seems likely , she will be the sixth anti-abortion justice .
That means John Roberts ’ s respect for precedent , which last summer led him to strike down restrictions on clinics because they were identical to those the court struck down in 2016 , won ’ t matter .
He can play the dignified centrist while the other five tip Roe into the grave .
Of course , they might leave it technically in force while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That would be the politically clever thing to do , because it would keep anti-abortion voters riled up while lulling into complacency the many pro-choicers who don ’ t read beyond the headlines .
“ Court Upholds Roe ” will be what they take in , not “ Court OKs Barbecuing Louisiana Abortion Docs.
” So prepare yourself for the hot takes , op-eds , and think pieces claiming the end of Roe might be all for the best .
Abortion should have been decided by legislators in the first place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aloof justices insulated from people and politics .
Joan C. Williams gets a head start with her New York Times opinion piece “ The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe.
” Her points have all been made many times before , so let me go through them for handy future reference .
Abortion , Williams points out , is already inaccessible for many women : 90 percent of counties have no clinics , poor women don ’ t have money to travel , and so on .
This is all true , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 850,000 people manage to get a legal abortion each year , including many in or from states with only one or two clinics .
This testifies to the fierce determination of unwillingly pregnant women , as well as to the hard work of organizations that raise abortion funds and make the arrangements and to the providers who move heaven and earth to accommodate their patients .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Williams continues , suggested that Roe short-circuited a legislative process of liberalization that was underway ; the backlash to Roe solidified the right-to-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Republican Party .
Yet Ginsburg defended reproductive autonomy again and again as essential to women ’ s dignity and equality , and she may have been wrong about the history .
As Linda Greenhouse wrote in her Times obituary for Ginsburg , “ There was in fact ample evidence that what had once appeared a steady legislative march toward revision or repeal of the old criminal abortion laws had stalled by 1973 in the face of powerful lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church .
And there was also evidence that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spontaneous response—in fact , polling in the decision ’ s immediate aftermath demonstrated widespread and growing public approval—but rather was elicited by Republican strategists hunting for Catholic voters , who had traditionally been Democrats.
” Williams writes that we need a “ dialogue ” on abortion , like that which persuaded voters in Ireland to end the constitutional ban on abortion .
Well , dialogue is always good , and getting rid of the Eighth Amendment was a magnificent victory and a powerful rebuke to the Catholic Church , but let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It still bans almost all abortion after 12 weeks .
A similar law in the US would mean that about 100,000 women a year would be out of luck .
And what would anti-choicers give up in return ?
I ’ m betting : nothing .
They would keep harassing patients and providers , passing restrictions to force clinics to close .
To them , even the earliest abortion is murder .
What Williams is really getting at is the old pipe dream that if only abortion could be gotten out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would return to the Democratic Party en masse .
Frankly , I doubt it .
There are too many other things for them to like about Republicans : white supremacy , anti-intellectualism , superpatriotism , machismo , gun rights , and ( let ’ s not forget ) taking away people ’ s health care , including their own .
Williams claims , “ The attitudes driving opposition to abortion actually reveal some surprising common ground with progressives on economic issues.
” Maybe on paper , but if Democrats could win back votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robust economic progressivism , ambitious pols would surely have tried it by now .
Notwithstanding exceptions like Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. , anti-abortion Democrats have tended to be conservative on economic issues as well .
There ’ s a reason social democratic welfare states have liberal abortion laws .
What Williams means is that , like progressives , “ pro-life ” voters claim to oppose greed and materialism ; they see abortion as promoting selfishness and individualism .
This stance would be more persuasive if it weren ’ t aimed at women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to be sacrificing their needs and dreams and desires to have that baby , no matter what .
It ’ s the old picture of women having abortions because they hate children , are ambitious for success , or just want to take that European vacation or wear that prom dress .
However , as Williams acknowledges , most women who have abortions are already mothers and are poor or near poor ( they are also disproportionately Black , although she doesn ’ t mention that ) —hardly the privileged careerists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write an entire op-ed without mentioning such inconvenient words as “ sex , ” “ birth control , ” “ abstinence education , ” “ sexism , ” or “ patriarchy , ” let alone bringing up domestic violence , reproductive coercion , or even medically dangerous pregnancies .
She leaves intact the stereotype of women who have abortions as careless and sluttish and does not bother to explain what is supposed to happen to the unwillingly pregnant women in the 29 states where abortion could immediately be criminalized or unprotected by state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not acknowledge that abortion , as I and others have written , is itself an economic issue .
What Williams has written is not an argument .
It is just a wish .
Overturning Roe will not take abortion off the political table .
It will politicize it even more , as every state legislative session and every election , from small-town mayor to president , becomes a battle over whether , when , and under what circumstances women can legally end their pregnancies—or perhaps even use contraception , which some anti-choicers believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the abortion pill , which is already being used in self-managed abortion .
Even Amy Coney Barrett may find it impossible to keep it out of women ’ s hands .

This article appears in the November 2/9, 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?
Is it time to bid farewell to Roe v. Wade? If Amy Coney Barrett is seated on the Supreme Court, as seems likely, she will be the sixth anti-abortion justice. That means John Roberts’s respect for precedent, which last summer led him to strike down restrictions on clinics because they were identical to those the court struck down in 2016, won’t matter. He can play the dignified centrist while the other five tip Roe into the grave. Of course, they might leave it technically in force while approving every restriction that crosses their desks. That would be the politically clever thing to do, because it would keep anti-abortion voters riled up while lulling into complacency the many pro-choicers who don’t read beyond the headlines. “Court Upholds Roe” will be what they take in, not “Court OKs Barbecuing Louisiana Abortion Docs.”
So prepare yourself for the hot takes, op-eds, and think pieces claiming the end of Roe might be all for the best. Abortion should have been decided by legislators in the first place, this position holds, not by nine aloof justices insulated from people and politics. Joan C. Williams gets a head start with her New York Times opinion piece “The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe.” Her points have all been made many times before, so let me go through them for handy future reference.
Abortion, Williams points out, is already inaccessible for many women: 90 percent of counties have no clinics, poor women don’t have money to travel, and so on. This is all true, but one way or another, more than 850,000 people manage to get a legal abortion each year, including many in or from states with only one or two clinics. This testifies to the fierce determination of unwillingly pregnant women, as well as to the hard work of organizations that raise abortion funds and make the arrangements and to the providers who move heaven and earth to accommodate their patients.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Williams continues, suggested that Roe short-circuited a legislative process of liberalization that was underway; the backlash to Roe solidified the right-to-life movement and brought anti-abortion evangelicals and Catholics into the Republican Party. Yet Ginsburg defended reproductive autonomy again and again as essential to women’s dignity and equality, and she may have been wrong about the history. As Linda Greenhouse wrote in her Times obituary for Ginsburg, “There was in fact ample evidence that what had once appeared a steady legislative march toward revision or repeal of the old criminal abortion laws had stalled by 1973 in the face of powerful lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church. And there was also evidence that the backlash against [Roe] was not a spontaneous response—in fact, polling in the decision’s immediate aftermath demonstrated widespread and growing public approval—but rather was elicited by Republican strategists hunting for Catholic voters, who had traditionally been Democrats.” 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
Williams writes that we need a “dialogue” on abortion, like that which persuaded voters in Ireland to end the constitutional ban on abortion. Well, dialogue is always good, and getting rid of the Eighth Amendment was a magnificent victory and a powerful rebuke to the Catholic Church, but let’s not oversell the new Irish law. It still bans almost all abortion after 12 weeks. A similar law in the US would mean that about 100,000 women a year would be out of luck. And what would anti-choicers give up in return? I’m betting: nothing. They would keep harassing patients and providers, passing restrictions to force clinics to close. To them, even the earliest abortion is murder.
What Williams is really getting at is the old pipe dream that if only abortion could be gotten out of the way, the white working class would return to the Democratic Party en masse.
Frankly, I doubt it. There are too many other things for them to like about Republicans: white supremacy, anti-intellectualism, superpatriotism, machismo, gun rights, and (let’s not forget) taking away people’s health care, including their own. Williams claims, “The attitudes driving opposition to abortion actually reveal some surprising common ground with progressives on economic issues.” Maybe on paper, but if Democrats could win back votes by combining serious restrictions on abortion with robust economic progressivism, ambitious pols would surely have tried it by now. Notwithstanding exceptions like Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr., anti-abortion Democrats have tended to be conservative on economic issues as well. There’s a reason social democratic welfare states have liberal abortion laws. Current Issue View our current issue
What Williams means is that, like progressives, “pro-life” voters claim to oppose greed and materialism; they see abortion as promoting selfishness and individualism. This stance would be more persuasive if it weren’t aimed at women. They are the ones who are supposed to be sacrificing their needs and dreams and desires to have that baby, no matter what. It’s the old picture of women having abortions because they hate children, are ambitious for success, or just want to take that European vacation or wear that prom dress. However, as Williams acknowledges, most women who have abortions are already mothers and are poor or near poor (they are also disproportionately Black, although she doesn’t mention that)—hardly the privileged careerists of popular fantasy.
Somehow Williams managed to write an entire op-ed without mentioning such inconvenient words as “sex,” “birth control,” “abstinence education,” “sexism,” or “patriarchy,” let alone bringing up domestic violence, reproductive coercion, or even medically dangerous pregnancies. She leaves intact the stereotype of women who have abortions as careless and sluttish and does not bother to explain what is supposed to happen to the unwillingly pregnant women in the 29 states where abortion could immediately be criminalized or unprotected by state law after Roe falls. She does not acknowledge that abortion, as I and others have written, is itself an economic issue.
What Williams has written is not an argument. It is just a wish. Overturning Roe will not take abortion off the political table. It will politicize it even more, as every state legislative session and every election, from small-town mayor to president, becomes a battle over whether, when, and under what circumstances women can legally end their pregnancies—or perhaps even use contraception, which some anti-choicers believe is abortion, too.
Thank God for the abortion pill, which is already being used in self-managed abortion. Even Amy Coney Barrett may find it impossible to keep it out of women’s hands.