thenation--2020-12-02--Will Biden Finally End the War in Afghanistan?

Within establishment circles , Donald Trump ’ s failure to win reelection has prompted merry singing and bell-ringing galore .
If you read The New York Times or watch MSNBC , the song featured in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz nicely captures the mood of the moment .
As a consequence , expectations for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to put America back on the path to the Emerald City after a dispiriting four-year detour are sky-high .
The new administration will defeat Covid-19 , restore prosperity , vanquish racism , reform education , expand health care coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effective and humane solution to the problem of undocumented migrants .
Oh , and Biden will also return the United States to its accustomed position of global leadership .
And save America ’ s soul to boot .
So we are told .
That these expectations are deemed even faintly credible qualifies as passing strange .
After all , the outcome of the 2020 presidential election turned less on competing approaches to governance than on the character of the incumbent .
It wasn ’ t Biden as principled standard-bearer of enlightened 21st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden as a retread centrist pol who emerged as the last line of defense shielding America and the world from four more years of Donald Trump .
So the balloting definitively resolved only a single question : By 80 million to 74 million votes , a margin of 6 million , Americans signaled their desire to terminate Trump ’ s lease on the White House .
Yet even if repudiating the president , voters hardly repudiated Trumpism .
Republicans actually gained seats in the House of Representatives and appear likely to retain control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a twofold transfer of power commenced .
A rapt public has fixed its attention on the first of those transfers : Biden ’ s succession to the presidency ( and Trump ’ s desperate resistance to the inevitable outcome ) .
But a second , hardly less important transfer of power is also occurring .
Once it became clear that Trump was not going to win a second term , control of the Republican Party began reverting from the president to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell .
The implications of that shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a longtime member of the Senate , no doubt appreciates .
Consider this telling anecdote from former president Barack Obama ’ s just published memoir .
Obama had tasked then–Vice President Biden with cajoling McConnell into supporting a piece of legislation favored by the administration .
After Biden made his pitch , the hyper-partisan McConnell dourly replied , “ You must be under the mistaken impression that I care.
” End of negotiation .
Perhaps the Democrats will miraculously win both Senate seats in Georgia ’ s January runoff elections and so consign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If they don ’ t , let us not labor under the mistaken impression that he ’ ll support Biden ’ s efforts to defeat Covid-19 , restore prosperity , vanquish racism , reform education , expand health care coverage , tackle climate change , or provide an effective and humane solution to the problem of undocumented migrants .
It ’ s a given that McConnell isn ’ t any more interested in saving souls than he is in passing legislation favored by Democrats .
That leaves restoring American global leadership as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might elicit from a McConnell-controlled GOP something other than unremitting obstructionism .
And that , in turn , brings us face to face with the issue Democrats and Republicans alike would prefer to ignore : the US penchant for war .
Since the end of the Cold War and especially since the terror attacks of 9/11 , successive administrations have relied on armed force to assert , affirm , or at least shore up America ’ s claim to global leadership .
The results have not been pretty .
A series of needless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even than Donald Trump ’ s zany ineptitude—to the growing perception that the United States is now a declining power .
That perception is not without validity .
Over the past two decades , wars have depleted America ’ s strength and undermined its global influence .
So , as the United States embarks on the post-Trump era , what are the prospects that a deeply divided government presiding over a deeply divided polity will come to a more reasoned and prudent attitude toward war ?
A lot hinges on whether Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer to that question .
As his inevitable exit from the White House approaches , President Trump himself may be forcing the issue .
One of the distinctive attributes of our 45th president is that he never seemed terribly interested in actually tending to the duties of his office .
He does not , in fact , possess a work ethic in any traditional sense .
He prefers to swagger and strut rather than deliberate and decide .
Once it became clear that he wasn ’ t going to win a second term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretense of governing .
Today , he golfs , tweets , and rails .
According to news reports , he no longer even bothers to set aside time for the daily presidential intelligence briefing .
As the clock runs out , however , certain Trumpian impulses remain in play .
The war in Afghanistan , now in its 19th year , offers a notable example .
In 2001 , President George W. Bush ordered US forces to invade the country , but prematurely turned his attention to a bigger and more disastrous misadventure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan War , promised to win it , and ordered a large-scale surge in the US troop presence there .
Yet the conflict stubbornly dragged on through his two terms .
As for candidate Trump , during campaign 2016 , he vowed to end it once and for all .
In office , however , he never managed to pull the plug—until now , that is .
Soon after losing the election , the president ousted several senior Pentagon civilians , including Secretary of Defense Mark Esper , and replaced them ( for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalists sharing his oft-stated commitment to “ ending endless wars.
” Within days of taking office , new Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller issued a letter to the troops , signaling his own commitment to that task .
“ We are not a people of perpetual war , ” he wrote , describing endless war as “ the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought.
” The time for accepting the inevitable had now arrived .
“ All wars must end , ” he continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce a better outcome .
“ We gave it our all , ” he concluded .
“ Now , it ’ s time to come home.
” Miller avoided using terms like victory or defeat , success or failure , and did not specify an actual timetable for a full-scale withdrawal .
Yet Trump had already made his intentions clear : He wanted all US troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year , and preferably by Christmas .
Having forgotten or punted on innumerable other promises , Trump appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s likely , in fact , that Miller ’ s primary—perhaps only—charge during his abbreviated tour of duty as Pentagon chief is to enable Trump to claim success in terminating at least one war .
So during this peculiar betwixt-and-between moment of ours , with one administration packing its bags and the next one trying to get its bearings , a question of immense significance to the future course of American statecraft presents itself : Will the United States at long last ring down the curtain on the most endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the guise of seeking a “ responsible end , ” will it pursue the irresponsible course of prolonging a demonstrably futile enterprise through another presidency ?
As Miller will soon discover , if he hasn ’ t already , his generals don ’ t concur with the commander in chief ’ s determination to “ come home.
” Whether in Afghanistan or Somalia , Iraq , Syria , or Europe , they have demonstrated great skill in foiling his occasional gestures aimed at reducing the US military ’ s overseas profile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s views align with those of the generals .
True , the conduct and legacy of recent wars played next to no role in deciding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election ( suggesting that many Americans have made their peace with endless war ) .
Still , given expectations that anyone aspiring to high office these days must stake out a position on every conceivable issue and promise something for everyone , candidate Biden spelled out his intentions regarding Afghanistan .
Basically , he wants to have it both ways .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these ‘ forever wars ’ have to end , ” while simultaneously proposing to maintain a contingent of American troops in Afghanistan to “ take out terrorist groups who are going to continue to emerge.
” In other words , Biden proposes to declare that the longest war in US history has ended , while simultaneously underwriting its perpetuation .
Such a prospect will find favor with the generals , members of the foreign policy establishment , and media hawks .
Yet hanging on in Afghanistan ( or other active theaters of war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s larger promise to “ build back better.
” Indeed , the staggering expenses that accompany protracted wars will undermine his prospects of making good on his domestic reform agenda .
It ’ s the dilemma that Lyndon Johnson faced in the mid-1960s : You can have your Great Society , Mr. President , or you can have your war in Vietnam , but you can ’ t have both .
Biden will face an analogous problem .
Put simply , his stated position on Afghanistan is at odds with the larger aspirations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Exit Strategy ?
As a practical matter , the odds of Trump ’ s actually ending the US military presence in Afghanistan between now and his departure from office are nil .
The logistical challenges are daunting , especially given that the pickup team now running the Pentagon is made up of something other than all-stars .
And the generals will surely drag their feet , while mobilizing allies not just in the punditocracy but throughout the Republican Party .
As a practical matter , Acting Secretary Miller has already bowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , it seems , to cut the force there roughly in half , from 4,500 to 2,500 , by Inauguration Day , with the remainder of US troops supposedly coming out of Afghanistan by May 2021 ( months after both Trump and Miller will be out of a job ) .
So call it Operation Half a Loaf .
But half is better than none .
Even if Trump won ’ t succeed in reducing US troop strength in Afghanistan to zero , I ’ m rooting for him anyway .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump makes headway in shutting down America ’ s war there , Biden will be among the principal beneficiaries .
Whatever his actual motives , Trump has cracked open a previously shut door to an exit strategy .
Through that door lies the opportunity of turning the page on a disastrous era of American statecraft dominated by a misplaced obsession with events in the Greater Middle East .
Twin convictions shaped basic US policy during this period : The first was that the United States has vital interests at stake in this region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it like Afghanistan ; the second , that the United States can best advance those interests by amassing and employing military power .
The first of those convictions turned out to be wildly misplaced , the second tragically wrongheaded .
Yet pursuant to those very mistaken beliefs , successive administrations have flung away lives , treasure , and influence with complete abandon .
The American people have gained less than nothing in return .
In fact , in terms of where taxpayer dollars were invested , they ’ ve lost their shirts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the troops plainly acknowledges a bitter truth to which too few members of the Washington establishment have been willing to admit : The time to move on from this misguided project is now .
To the extent that Donald Trump ’ s lame-duck administration begins the process of extricating the United States from Afghanistan , he will demonstrate the feasibility of doing so elsewhere as well .
Tired arguments for staying the course could then lose their persuasive power .
Doubtless , after all these disastrous years , there will be negative consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars inevitably yield poisonous fruit .
There will be further bills to pay .
Still , ending the US war there will establish a precedent for ending our military involvement in Iraq , Syria , and Somalia as well .
Terminating direct US military involvement across the Greater Middle East and much of Africa will create an opportunity to reconfigure US policy in a world that has changed dramatically since the United States recklessly embarked upon its crusade to transform great swaths of the Islamic world .
Biden himself should welcome such an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer fully subservient to President Trump , predicts that withdrawing from Afghanistan will produce an outcome “ reminiscent of the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975.
” In reality , of course , failure in Vietnam stemmed not from the decision to leave but from an erroneous conviction that it was incumbent upon Americans to decide the destiny of the Vietnamese people .
The big mistake occurred not in 1975 when American troops finally departed but a decade earlier when President Johnson decided that it was incumbent upon the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned in Vietnam , the only way to end a war gone wrong is to leave the field of battle .
If that describes Trump ’ s intentions in Afghanistan , then we may finally have some reason to be grateful for his service to our nation .
With time , Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell might even come to see the wisdom of doing so .
And then , of course , they can bicker about the shortest path to the Emerald City .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Let’s open up and sing, and ring the bells out
Ding-dong! the merry-oh sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the wicked witch is dead!
Within establishment circles, Donald Trump’s failure to win reelection has prompted merry singing and bell-ringing galore. If you read The New York Times or watch MSNBC, the song featured in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz nicely captures the mood of the moment.
As a consequence, expectations for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to put America back on the path to the Emerald City after a dispiriting four-year detour are sky-high. The new administration will defeat Covid-19, restore prosperity, vanquish racism, reform education, expand health care coverage, tackle climate change, and provide an effective and humane solution to the problem of undocumented migrants. Oh, and Biden will also return the United States to its accustomed position of global leadership. And save America’s soul to boot.
So we are told.
That these expectations are deemed even faintly credible qualifies as passing strange. After all, the outcome of the 2020 presidential election turned less on competing approaches to governance than on the character of the incumbent. It wasn’t Biden as principled standard-bearer of enlightened 21st century liberalism who prevailed. It was Biden as a retread centrist pol who emerged as the last line of defense shielding America and the world from four more years of Donald Trump.
So the balloting definitively resolved only a single question: By 80 million to 74 million votes, a margin of 6 million, Americans signaled their desire to terminate Trump’s lease on the White House. Yet even if repudiating the president, voters hardly repudiated Trumpism. Republicans actually gained seats in the House of Representatives and appear likely to retain control of the Senate.
On November 3, a twofold transfer of power commenced. A rapt public has fixed its attention on the first of those transfers: Biden’s succession to the presidency (and Trump’s desperate resistance to the inevitable outcome). But a second, hardly less important transfer of power is also occurring. Once it became clear that Trump was not going to win a second term, control of the Republican Party began reverting from the president to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. The implications of that shift are immense, as Biden, himself a longtime member of the Senate, no doubt appreciates. Current Issue View our current issue
Consider this telling anecdote from former president Barack Obama’s just published memoir. Obama had tasked then–Vice President Biden with cajoling McConnell into supporting a piece of legislation favored by the administration. After Biden made his pitch, the hyper-partisan McConnell dourly replied, “You must be under the mistaken impression that I care.” End of negotiation. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
Perhaps the Democrats will miraculously win both Senate seats in Georgia’s January runoff elections and so consign McConnell to the status of minority leader. If they don’t, let us not labor under the mistaken impression that he’ll support Biden’s efforts to defeat Covid-19, restore prosperity, vanquish racism, reform education, expand health care coverage, tackle climate change, or provide an effective and humane solution to the problem of undocumented migrants.
It’s a given that McConnell isn’t any more interested in saving souls than he is in passing legislation favored by Democrats. That leaves restoring American global leadership as the sole remaining arena where President Biden might elicit from a McConnell-controlled GOP something other than unremitting obstructionism.
And that, in turn, brings us face to face with the issue Democrats and Republicans alike would prefer to ignore: the US penchant for war. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since the terror attacks of 9/11, successive administrations have relied on armed force to assert, affirm, or at least shore up America’s claim to global leadership. The results have not been pretty. A series of needless and badly mismanaged wars have contributed appreciably—more even than Donald Trump’s zany ineptitude—to the growing perception that the United States is now a declining power. That perception is not without validity. Over the past two decades, wars have depleted America’s strength and undermined its global influence.
So, as the United States embarks on the post-Trump era, what are the prospects that a deeply divided government presiding over a deeply divided polity will come to a more reasoned and prudent attitude toward war? A lot hinges on whether Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell can agree on an answer to that question.
An Unexpected Gift for “Sleepy Joe”
As his inevitable exit from the White House approaches, President Trump himself may be forcing the issue.
One of the distinctive attributes of our 45th president is that he never seemed terribly interested in actually tending to the duties of his office. He does not, in fact, possess a work ethic in any traditional sense. He prefers to swagger and strut rather than deliberate and decide. Once it became clear that he wasn’t going to win a second term, he visibly gave up even the pretense of governing. Today, he golfs, tweets, and rails. According to news reports, he no longer even bothers to set aside time for the daily presidential intelligence briefing.
As the clock runs out, however, certain Trumpian impulses remain in play. The war in Afghanistan, now in its 19th year, offers a notable example. In 2001, President George W. Bush ordered US forces to invade the country, but prematurely turned his attention to a bigger and more disastrous misadventure in Iraq. Barack Obama inherited the Afghanistan War, promised to win it, and ordered a large-scale surge in the US troop presence there. Yet the conflict stubbornly dragged on through his two terms. As for candidate Trump, during campaign 2016, he vowed to end it once and for all. In office, however, he never managed to pull the plug—until now, that is.
Soon after losing the election, the president ousted several senior Pentagon civilians, including Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and replaced them (for a couple of months anyway) with loyalists sharing his oft-stated commitment to “ending endless wars.” Within days of taking office, new Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller issued a letter to the troops, signaling his own commitment to that task.
“We are not a people of perpetual war,” he wrote, describing endless war as “the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought.” The time for accepting the inevitable had now arrived. “All wars must end,” he continued, adding that trying harder was not going to produce a better outcome. “We gave it our all,” he concluded. “Now, it’s time to come home.”
Miller avoided using terms like victory or defeat, success or failure, and did not specify an actual timetable for a full-scale withdrawal. Yet Trump had already made his intentions clear: He wanted all US troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, and preferably by Christmas. Having forgotten or punted on innumerable other promises, Trump appeared determined to make good on this one. It’s likely, in fact, that Miller’s primary—perhaps only—charge during his abbreviated tour of duty as Pentagon chief is to enable Trump to claim success in terminating at least one war.
So during this peculiar betwixt-and-between moment of ours, with one administration packing its bags and the next one trying to get its bearings, a question of immense significance to the future course of American statecraft presents itself: Will the United States at long last ring down the curtain on the most endless of its endless wars? Or, under the guise of seeking a “responsible end,” will it pursue the irresponsible course of prolonging a demonstrably futile enterprise through another presidency?
As Miller will soon discover, if he hasn’t already, his generals don’t concur with the commander in chief’s determination to “come home.” Whether in Afghanistan or Somalia, Iraq, Syria, or Europe, they have demonstrated great skill in foiling his occasional gestures aimed at reducing the US military’s overseas profile.
The available evidence suggests that Biden’s views align with those of the generals. True, the conduct and legacy of recent wars played next to no role in deciding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election (suggesting that many Americans have made their peace with endless war). Still, given expectations that anyone aspiring to high office these days must stake out a position on every conceivable issue and promise something for everyone, candidate Biden spelled out his intentions regarding Afghanistan.
Basically, he wants to have it both ways. So he is on record insisting that “these ‘forever wars’ have to end,” while simultaneously proposing to maintain a contingent of American troops in Afghanistan to “take out terrorist groups who are going to continue to emerge.” In other words, Biden proposes to declare that the longest war in US history has ended, while simultaneously underwriting its perpetuation.
Such a prospect will find favor with the generals, members of the foreign policy establishment, and media hawks. Yet hanging on in Afghanistan (or other active theaters of war) will contribute nothing to Biden’s larger promise to “build back better.” Indeed, the staggering expenses that accompany protracted wars will undermine his prospects of making good on his domestic reform agenda. It’s the dilemma that Lyndon Johnson faced in the mid-1960s: You can have your Great Society, Mr. President, or you can have your war in Vietnam, but you can’t have both.
Biden will face an analogous problem. Put simply, his stated position on Afghanistan is at odds with the larger aspirations of his presidency.
At Long Last an Exit Strategy?
As a practical matter, the odds of Trump’s actually ending the US military presence in Afghanistan between now and his departure from office are nil. The logistical challenges are daunting, especially given that the pickup team now running the Pentagon is made up of something other than all-stars. And the generals will surely drag their feet, while mobilizing allies not just in the punditocracy but throughout the Republican Party.
As a practical matter, Acting Secretary Miller has already bowed to reality. The definition of success now is, it seems, to cut the force there roughly in half, from 4,500 to 2,500, by Inauguration Day, with the remainder of US troops supposedly coming out of Afghanistan by May 2021 (months after both Trump and Miller will be out of a job).
So call it Operation Half a Loaf. But half is better than none. Even if Trump won’t succeed in reducing US troop strength in Afghanistan to zero, I’m rooting for him anyway. As, indeed, Biden should be—because if Trump makes headway in shutting down America’s war there, Biden will be among the principal beneficiaries.
Whatever his actual motives, Trump has cracked open a previously shut door to an exit strategy. Through that door lies the opportunity of turning the page on a disastrous era of American statecraft dominated by a misplaced obsession with events in the Greater Middle East.
Twin convictions shaped basic US policy during this period: The first was that the United States has vital interests at stake in this region, even in utterly remote parts of it like Afghanistan; the second, that the United States can best advance those interests by amassing and employing military power. The first of those convictions turned out to be wildly misplaced, the second tragically wrongheaded. Yet pursuant to those very mistaken beliefs, successive administrations have flung away lives, treasure, and influence with complete abandon. The American people have gained less than nothing in return. In fact, in terms of where taxpayer dollars were invested, they’ve lost their shirts.
Acting Secretary Miller’s charge to the troops plainly acknowledges a bitter truth to which too few members of the Washington establishment have been willing to admit: The time to move on from this misguided project is now. To the extent that Donald Trump’s lame-duck administration begins the process of extricating the United States from Afghanistan, he will demonstrate the feasibility of doing so elsewhere as well. Tired arguments for staying the course could then lose their persuasive power.
Doubtless, after all these disastrous years, there will be negative consequences to leaving Afghanistan. Ill-considered and mismanaged wars inevitably yield poisonous fruit. There will be further bills to pay. Still, ending the US war there will establish a precedent for ending our military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia as well. Terminating direct US military involvement across the Greater Middle East and much of Africa will create an opportunity to reconfigure US policy in a world that has changed dramatically since the United States recklessly embarked upon its crusade to transform great swaths of the Islamic world.
Biden himself should welcome such an opportunity. Admittedly, Mitch McConnell, no longer fully subservient to President Trump, predicts that withdrawing from Afghanistan will produce an outcome “reminiscent of the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975.” In reality, of course, failure in Vietnam stemmed not from the decision to leave but from an erroneous conviction that it was incumbent upon Americans to decide the destiny of the Vietnamese people. The big mistake occurred not in 1975 when American troops finally departed but a decade earlier when President Johnson decided that it was incumbent upon the United States to Americanize the war.
As Americans learned in Vietnam, the only way to end a war gone wrong is to leave the field of battle. If that describes Trump’s intentions in Afghanistan, then we may finally have some reason to be grateful for his service to our nation. With time, Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell might even come to see the wisdom of doing so.
And then, of course, they can bicker about the shortest path to the Emerald City.


thenation--2020-12-02--Joaquin Castro Shows the Path Forward for Democrats

As the battle between progressives and centrists over blame for Democrats ’ down-ballot struggles rages , the race for House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman indicates another , more productive path forward .
At first , there were two contenders : Representative Gregory W. Meeks ( D-N.Y. ) and Representative Brad Sherman ( D-Calif. ) , a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
Meeks faced opposition from labor and environmental groups , but he was heavily favored by a party establishment that is rightly concerned about diversity and representation in leadership .
Then four-term junior committee member Joaquin Castro ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race .
One might have expected that Castro , a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition , would also be anathema to the party left , given some moderate stances such as voting to condemn the Boycott , Divestment , and Sanctions movement against Israel .
But in another surprise , the second-generation Mexican American has received support from a range of progressive foreign policy and environmental groups .
In addition to his progressive positions , including opposing President Trump ’ s brazen US interventionism in Latin America and leading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s model of engaging groups on all sides , from progressives to youth groups such as the Sunrise Movement , shows the path forward for the Democratic Party .
Castro pledges to bring diverse voices to the witness table in the committee—not just in terms of race , gender and sexual orientation , but also a diversity of viewpoints , something sorely missing under the conservative tenure of outgoing chair Representative Eliot L. Engel ( D-N.Y. ) .
Castro has excited progressive Jewish groups such as J Street—and unnerved conservative pro-Israel groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee—with his novel suggestion that the committee hear from Palestinian voices for the first time .
After all , Castro argues , if the United States hopes to be “ an arbiter of peace , it has to be willing to hear from the different sides.
” Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As the battle between progressives and centrists over blame for Democrats’ down-ballot struggles rages, the race for House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman indicates another, more productive path forward. At first, there were two contenders: Representative Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Meeks faced opposition from labor and environmental groups, but he was heavily favored by a party establishment that is rightly concerned about diversity and representation in leadership.
Then four-term junior committee member Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) surprised analysts by joining the race. One might have expected that Castro, a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, would also be anathema to the party left, given some moderate stances such as voting to condemn the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. But in another surprise, the second-generation Mexican American has received support from a range of progressive foreign policy and environmental groups. In addition to his progressive positions, including opposing President Trump’s brazen US interventionism in Latin America and leading the fight against cruel migration policies, Castro’s model of engaging groups on all sides, from progressives to youth groups such as the Sunrise Movement, shows the path forward for the Democratic Party.
Castro pledges to bring diverse voices to the witness table in the committee—not just in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation, but also a diversity of viewpoints, something sorely missing under the conservative tenure of outgoing chair Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.). Castro has excited progressive Jewish groups such as J Street—and unnerved conservative pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—with his novel suggestion that the committee hear from Palestinian voices for the first time. After all, Castro argues, if the United States hopes to be “an arbiter of peace, it has to be willing to hear from the different sides.”
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-12-03--Take Care, Big Apple!

Take Care, Big Apple!

Covid cases are rising at an alarming rate in cities big and small .

Take Care, Big Apple!
Take Care, Big Apple!
Covid cases are rising at an alarming rate in cities big and small.


thenation--2020-12-03--Asian American Voters Could Help Flip Georgia

“ I would have done the same , ” Andrew Yang assured the 100 or so listeners sitting in the yard below the porch on which he stood .
“ I ’ m one of you.
” The small , socially distanced crowd sitting in the tony Atlanta neighborhood of Buckhead was mostly Asian American : Chinese , Vietnamese , Korean , Bangladeshi , Indian .
Yang was delivering the last lines of his opening anecdote , in which he imagined how Asian American people nationwide reacted when they first heard he was running for president : “ What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running for president now ?
Please , let this guy not be terrible !
” After the laughter died down , Yang delivered a more serious message : “ I hope I helped activate the Asian American community to say , ‘ Maybe I should be paying more attention to politics.
’ ” It was the first such event in Georgia for the entrepreneur and former Democratic candidate for president , after he bought what he said afterward was “ a one-way ticket ” to the state .
His plans are to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 special election exhorting groups like the one he addressed Sunday afternoon to get out and vote .
What ’ s at stake is nothing less than the balance of power in the US Senate , with a rare two seats up for grabs and Democratic candidates the Rev .
Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff polling competitively .
Though small , the audience Yang addressed was carefully chosen by Cam T. Ashling , the Democratic activist whose porch Yang was standing on .
It included grassroots organizers , political donors , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislature , which has grown from one to five since 2016 .
This year , it welcomes Michelle Au , who became the first Asian American woman to serve as state senator on November 3 , after defeating GOP opponent Matt Reeves .
The event also served to launch the Georgia chapter of the Asian American Action Fund , a political action committee that supports progressive candidates nationwide—and which will be focusing on getting Asian American voters in Georgia to the polls for Warnock and Ossoff .
Warnock was also at the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ The whole country is watching , as Georgia rises up in this defining moment in American history.
” Asian American voters made Georgia history in the general election , said state Representative Bee Nguyen , who in 2017 became the state ’ s first Vietnamese American elected to the legislature .
Their constituency nearly doubled in number from 2016 , and contributed to flipping the only congressional seat , Carolyn Bourdeaux ’ s in the seventh district , from red to blue .
Those results have led a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including those at Sunday ’ s event , to feel a dizzying sense of pride .
“ We were never in polls before ; we were never considered a number to look at , ” said Stephanie Cho , executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice–Atlanta .
“ When I saw the numbers , it was really inspiring to me.
” Cho came to the phone amid efforts to organize dozens of volunteers to reach as many potential voters as possible in the coming weeks—in seven different languages .
This includes registering new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote when early voting starts December 14 .
Reporting in recent weeks has drawn attention to the need to disaggregate Latino populations from one another in efforts to reach potential voters , given the many different cultures and attitudes that fit under the umbrella implied by the term .
But building the Asian American vote also includes communicating in different languages as well as understanding different cultures , said Tom K. Wong , political science professor at the University of California–San Diego .
“ More targeted outreach ” is needed , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese-Americans may not work for Vietnamese-Americans , and so on.
” Using an algorithm he developed based on genealogy and last names , Wong has analyzed Georgia ’ s voter registration data and estimates that there are 274,000 Asian American and Pacific Islander voters in the state .
The challenge : “ How can we take the limited information in the voter file , and target voters according to language and culture ?
” People working with voter data in political campaigns tend to be “ pale , male , and stale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t see the nuance in voter files.
” Deborah Nguyen has been cold-calling potential voters for several months as a volunteer for Cho ’ s group .
She has found that speaking Vietnamese to people from her native country has helped her to communicate basic information about registering to vote and where and how to cast a ballot .
“ Language is an obstacle , ” she said .
“ They don ’ t have any clue , ” she added , referring to some of the 10 percent or so who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t even know there ’ s an election.
” Nguyen also said Vietnamese-Americans also receive a lot of misinformation in their native language , including the claim that Democratic candidates are Communists .
Nguyen , who lives in suburban Roswell and is not related to Bee Nguyen , said she was “ so proud ” after hearing about increased Asian American turnout in Georgia .
“ I felt like I was part of something , like we were actually having an effect.
” Bee Nguyen said that the tight time frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperative to focus on Asian American voters who already cast ballots for President-elect Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates—and not apply too many resources to convincing conservative voters , many of whom are older and under the influence of disinformation campaigns .
“ In this election , it ’ s about trying to mobilize voters already on our side , ” she said .
One obstacle she and other Vietnamese Americans trying to inform potential voters face is that “ there ’ s no term for ‘ run-off ’ ” in Vietnamese , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian American who failed in his bid to represent Texas ’ s 22nd Congressional District , was also at Ashling ’ s event Sunday .
Kulkarni , who if elected would have been the first Asian American in Congress from Texas , ran a campaign that included outreach in 27 languages .
Although unsuccessful , he said Asian American turnout nearly doubled in his district , which covers the south-central Houston metro area .
Similar increases were seen in Nevada , North Carolina and in the battleground states Michigan and Pennsylvania .
Kulkarni @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relational organizing ” in the coming weeks in Georgia , based on “ trying to figure out networks [ of voters ] , instead of treating everyone as unknown.
” The goal , he said , is to get at least one person or organization with relations to Asian American voters in each of Georgia ’ s 2,655 precincts .
There are several hundred Asian American volunteers from other states helping in the effort , said Kulkarni .
Ashling said increased Asian American turnout nationwide and interest in Georgia ’ s special election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s candidacy .
“ He broke the bamboo ceiling , ” she said .
At the close of his talk Sunday , Yang told the audience , “ I know you ’ ve gotten the message that we are somehow less than American .
We need to put that to rest .
“ We can lead .
We can contribute .
And yes , we can vote .
”

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 would have done the same,” Andrew Yang assured the 100 or so listeners sitting in the yard below the porch on which he stood. “I’m one of you.” The small, socially distanced crowd sitting in the tony Atlanta neighborhood of Buckhead was mostly Asian American: Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Bangladeshi, Indian.
Yang was delivering the last lines of his opening anecdote, in which he imagined how Asian American people nationwide reacted when they first heard he was running for president: “What’s going on? We’re running for president now? Please, let this guy not be terrible!”
After the laughter died down, Yang delivered a more serious message: “I hope I helped activate the Asian American community to say, ‘Maybe I should be paying more attention to politics.’”
It was the first such event in Georgia for the entrepreneur and former Democratic candidate for president, after he bought what he said afterward was “a one-way ticket” to the state. His plans are to spend the weeks leading up to the January 5 special election exhorting groups like the one he addressed Sunday afternoon to get out and vote. What’s at stake is nothing less than the balance of power in the US Senate, with a rare two seats up for grabs and Democratic candidates the Rev. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff polling competitively. The runoffs Can Democrats Really Win Georgia’s 2 Senate Seats? Joan Walsh
Though small, the audience Yang addressed was carefully chosen by Cam T. Ashling, the Democratic activist whose porch Yang was standing on. It included grassroots organizers, political donors, and the Asian American Democratic caucus in the Georgia legislature, which has grown from one to five since 2016. This year, it welcomes Michelle Au, who became the first Asian American woman to serve as state senator on November 3, after defeating GOP opponent Matt Reeves.
The event also served to launch the Georgia chapter of the Asian American Action Fund, a political action committee that supports progressive candidates nationwide—and which will be focusing on getting Asian American voters in Georgia to the polls for Warnock and Ossoff. Warnock was also at the event, and echoed several speakers when he said, “The whole country is watching, as Georgia rises up in this defining moment in American history.”
Asian American voters made Georgia history in the general election, said state Representative Bee Nguyen, who in 2017 became the state’s first Vietnamese American elected to the legislature. Their constituency nearly doubled in number from 2016, and contributed to flipping the only congressional seat, Carolyn Bourdeaux’s in the seventh district, from red to blue. Current Issue View our current issue
Those results have led a lot of Asian American leaders in the state, including those at Sunday’s event, to feel a dizzying sense of pride. “We were never in polls before; we were never considered a number to look at,” said Stephanie Cho, executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice–Atlanta. “When I saw the numbers, it was really inspiring to me.” Cho came to the phone amid efforts to organize dozens of volunteers to reach as many potential voters as possible in the coming weeks—in seven different languages. This includes registering new voters before December 7 and getting out the vote when early voting starts December 14. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
Reporting in recent weeks has drawn attention to the need to disaggregate Latino populations from one another in efforts to reach potential voters, given the many different cultures and attitudes that fit under the umbrella implied by the term. But building the Asian American vote also includes communicating in different languages as well as understanding different cultures, said Tom K. Wong, political science professor at the University of California–San Diego. “More targeted outreach” is needed, he said, as “what works for Chinese-Americans may not work for Vietnamese-Americans, and so on.”
Using an algorithm he developed based on genealogy and last names, Wong has analyzed Georgia’s voter registration data and estimates that there are 274,000 Asian American and Pacific Islander voters in the state. The challenge: “How can we take the limited information in the voter file, and target voters according to language and culture?”
People working with voter data in political campaigns tend to be “pale, male, and stale,” Wong added. “They don’t see the nuance in voter files.”
Deborah Nguyen has been cold-calling potential voters for several months as a volunteer for Cho’s group. She has found that speaking Vietnamese to people from her native country has helped her to communicate basic information about registering to vote and where and how to cast a ballot. “Language is an obstacle,” she said. “They don’t have any clue,” she added, referring to some of the 10 percent or so who actually take her calls. “They don’t even know there’s an election.” Nguyen also said Vietnamese-Americans also receive a lot of misinformation in their native language, including the claim that Democratic candidates are Communists.
Nguyen, who lives in suburban Roswell and is not related to Bee Nguyen, said she was “so proud” after hearing about increased Asian American turnout in Georgia. “I felt like I was part of something, like we were actually having an effect.”
Bee Nguyen said that the tight time frame before the January 5 election makes it imperative to focus on Asian American voters who already cast ballots for President-elect Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates—and not apply too many resources to convincing conservative voters, many of whom are older and under the influence of disinformation campaigns. “In this election, it’s about trying to mobilize voters already on our side,” she said. One obstacle she and other Vietnamese Americans trying to inform potential voters face is that “there’s no term for ‘run-off’” in Vietnamese, she said.
Sri Kulkarni, an Indian American who failed in his bid to represent Texas’s 22nd Congressional District, was also at Ashling’s event Sunday. Kulkarni, who if elected would have been the first Asian American in Congress from Texas, ran a campaign that included outreach in 27 languages. Although unsuccessful, he said Asian American turnout nearly doubled in his district, which covers the south-central Houston metro area.
Similar increases were seen in Nevada, North Carolina , and in the battleground states Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Kulkarni is helping implement what he calls “relational organizing” in the coming weeks in Georgia, based on “trying to figure out networks [of voters], instead of treating everyone as unknown.” The goal, he said, is to get at least one person or organization with relations to Asian American voters in each of Georgia’s 2,655 precincts.
There are several hundred Asian American volunteers from other states helping in the effort, said Kulkarni.
Ashling said increased Asian American turnout nationwide and interest in Georgia’s special election are due in part to Andrew Yang’s candidacy. “He broke the bamboo ceiling,” she said.
At the close of his talk Sunday, Yang told the audience, “I know you’ve gotten the message that we are somehow less than American. We need to put that to rest.
“We can lead. We can contribute. And yes, we can vote.”


thenation--2020-12-03--Absolutely Not Rahm Emanuel

Absolutely Not Rahm Emanuel

Anyone who has ever been close to presidential power knows that personnel is policy .
Nothing makes so strong a statement about the direction of a new administration as the people a president-elect chooses for the cabinet and the myriad boards and commissions that can seize or relinquish governing mandates .
And no statement from President-elect Joe Biden could be worse than the selection of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for a top job on the team Biden is now assembling .
There is widespread speculation that Emanuel might be selected as secretary of transportation or as the next United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate the Chicagoan for either post , he would signal a callous disregard for concerns raised about a record of governing malpractice so egregious that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rightly identifies it as “ disqualifying for public leadership.
” But this is not just about adding insult to injury .
If past is prologue , empowering Emanuel would undermine not just Biden ’ s presidency but also his party ’ s prospects in the 2022 and 2024 elections .
Emanuel ’ s service in the last two Democratic administrations—as senior adviser to President Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s White House chief of staff—was crudely divisive .
He went out of his way to stamp on those administrations a neoliberal brand that would haunt the party for decades after he headed off to pursue his own personal and political ambitions .
It was Emanuel who was the lead strategist in bitter fights for the North American Free Trade Agreement and a host of other economic arrangements that divided the party against itself and left Democrats vulnerable to attack for selling out working-class Americans .
It was Emanuel who battled against an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when bold reform was not just possible but necessary .
It was Emanuel who was accused of spewing obscenities at union members who wanted to do more to save the domestic auto industry ( “ Fuck the UAW !
” ) and at progressives who wanted to ramp up the fight for a public option in the ACA ( “ fucking retarded ” ) .
People ’ s Action Director George Goehl summarized some of the reasons Biden should reject Emanuel : “ Under the Clinton and Obama administrations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty and blocked immigration reform .
Appointing Rahm Emanuel would show that the Democratic Party sees no harm in its culture of ‘ failing up ’ which gives more power to electeds who fail to govern and consultants who fail to win elections.
” Donald Trump Just Paid $ 3 Million to Expand Joe Biden ’ s Margin of Victory Trump ’ s Trying to Take the Internet Down With Him Want to Be Like FDR , Joe Biden ?
Make Your Thanksgiving Proclamations Rallying Cries But Emanuel ’ s D.C. record is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his selection .
After leaving the Obama White House just prior to the disastrous 2010 mid-term election , Emanuel took his cruel blend of neoliberal politics and personal vindictiveness to Chicago .
His two terms as mayor were characterized by reckless and politically self-serving responses to police violence and to demands for education , health care , and housing .
Emanuel ’ s mayoral tenure was so divisive that more than 7,000 Chicagoans and their allies have signed a “ Keep Rahm Away from the White House ” petition promoted by City Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case you ’ re unaware , ” the petition reads , “ allow us to acquaint you with Rahm ’ s resume in some key policy areas ” : • Covered up the police murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014 .
McDonald ’ s killing—police shot him 16 times , including while he lay on the ground—was a catalyst of the Black Lives Matter movement and doomed Rahm ’ s political future in the city .
• Closed 50 elementary schools—the single largest school closure in US history—over an outcry from parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the schools served African American children on the south and west sides of the city .
• Shuttered half of Chicago ’ s public mental health clinics , leaving patients in need of care literally sitting on the sidewalk outside of the locked doors and pleading for help .
• Lavished wealthy neighborhoods and pet projects with public dollars through Tax Increment Financing ( TIF ) .
Rahm ’ s greatest TIF hits—this is an economic development tool that ’ s supposed to fight “ blight , ” mind you—include $ 55 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basketball stadium , millions funneled to Navy Pier through an elaborate shell game , and another $ 1.3 billion given in subsidies for luxury mega-developments on his way out the door .
• Repeatedly broke the city ’ s promises to rebuild public housing , while blocking an ordinance improving transparency in the mismanaged Chicago Housing Authority .
The deficit in affordable housing , combined with staggering and deeply regressive property-tax hikes , were factors in the exodus of tens of thousands of Black residents from Chicago during his term .
• Hyped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train from downtown Chicago to O ’ Hare airport that would bypass the transit used by actual Chicagoans .
The boondoggle , hatched by Rahm campaign donor Elon Musk , was widely panned ; one alderman called it a scheme “ mostly for tourists and Musk ’ s reputation.
” • Oversaw a police department that cost taxpayers more than $ 540 million in abuse and misconduct settlements during his time in office .
• Rejected public referenda calling for an elected school board , instead handpicking school CEOs such as Barbara Byrd-Bennett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after pleading guilty on a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme involving Chicago Public Schools money .
• Went on a privatization spree , to disastrous effect .
Selling off everything from school janitorial services to trash collection , privatization left Chicago with indignities such as dirty classrooms and one of the nation ’ s most abysmal recycling rates .
The opposition in Chicago , where people know Emanuel best , is so intense that Streetsblog Chicago , a news site that covers sustainable transportation issues , recently warned , “ Hiring Rahm Emanuel as U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuses to go away .
Joe Biden , you really don ’ t want to kick off your administration with hundreds or thousands of justifiably angry Chicagoans marching in protest.
” Chicagoans are particularly upset over the idea of handing Emanuel the Department of Transportation post because , Chicago Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa notes , “ as Mayor of Chicago , Rahm Emanuel ’ s big transportation idea was to give Elon Musk public resources to put a car in an over-priced and unnecessary tunnel from downtown to O ’ Hare Airport .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of Transportation is asinine.
” The prospect stirs opposition beyond Chicago , as well .
“ We do not need a union buster setting the rules for workers in aviation , ” argues Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson .
“ That just doesn ’ t reflect Joe Biden ’ s deep commitment to workers and our unions.
” That goes double for the trade representative job , where Emanuel would again be positioned to promote Wall Street–friendly agreements , such as NAFTA and permanent normalization of trade relations with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dislocated workers , which would eventually be exploited by Donald Trump , who made an argument that Democrats had abandoned working-class communities central to his 2016 campaign .
Should Biden Hire Rahm Emanuel ?
Chicago Says , ‘ Never !
Never !
Never !
’ Bringing Emanuel into a third Democratic administration “ would be perceived as a slap in the face to labor , ” explains Shane Larson , the senior director for government affairs for the powerful Communication Workers of America union .
“ It would be received very poorly.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the usual jockeying over whether a Democratic administration tilts to the left or the center .
Indeed , as AOC notes , it is “ a truly embarrassing indictment of what ’ s considered ‘ center ’ politics in the US that objecting to the appointment of an official who helped cover up the murder of a Black child is deemed the ‘ progressive , far left ’ position.
” This is about the very real damage Emanuel has done—on matters of policy and politics—and that he will again do if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common sense indicates Representative-elect Jamaal Bowman of New York , is right when he says , “ Rahm Emanuel should not be considered for any position within the Biden administration .
”

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?
Anyone who has ever been close to presidential power knows that personnel is policy. Nothing makes so strong a statement about the direction of a new administration as the people a president-elect chooses for the cabinet and the myriad boards and commissions that can seize or relinquish governing mandates. And no statement from President-elect Joe Biden could be worse than the selection of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for a top job on the team Biden is now assembling.
There is widespread speculation that Emanuel might be selected as secretary of transportation or as the next United States trade representative. Were Biden to nominate the Chicagoan for either post, he would signal a callous disregard for concerns raised about a record of governing malpractice so egregious that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rightly identifies it as “disqualifying for public leadership.” But this is not just about adding insult to injury. If past is prologue, empowering Emanuel would undermine not just Biden’s presidency but also his party’s prospects in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Emanuel’s service in the last two Democratic administrations—as senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and as President Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff—was crudely divisive. He went out of his way to stamp on those administrations a neoliberal brand that would haunt the party for decades after he headed off to pursue his own personal and political ambitions. It was Emanuel who was the lead strategist in bitter fights for the North American Free Trade Agreement and a host of other economic arrangements that divided the party against itself and left Democrats vulnerable to attack for selling out working-class Americans. It was Emanuel who battled against an expansive vision of the Affordable Care Act at a time when bold reform was not just possible but necessary. It was Emanuel who was accused of spewing obscenities at union members who wanted to do more to save the domestic auto industry (“Fuck the UAW!”) and at progressives who wanted to ramp up the fight for a public option in the ACA (“fucking retarded”).
People’s Action Director George Goehl summarized some of the reasons Biden should reject Emanuel: “Under the Clinton and Obama administrations, he attacked public benefits for people in poverty and blocked immigration reform. Appointing Rahm Emanuel would show that the Democratic Party sees no harm in its culture of ‘failing up’ which gives more power to electeds who fail to govern and consultants who fail to win elections.” 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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
But Emanuel’s D.C. record is just the beginning of the case against his selection.
After leaving the Obama White House just prior to the disastrous 2010 mid-term election, Emanuel took his cruel blend of neoliberal politics and personal vindictiveness to Chicago. His two terms as mayor were characterized by reckless and politically self-serving responses to police violence and to demands for education, health care, and housing. Emanuel’s mayoral tenure was so divisive that more than 7,000 Chicagoans and their allies have signed a “Keep Rahm Away from the White House” petition promoted by City Council member Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez.
“In case you’re unaware,” the petition reads, “allow us to acquaint you with Rahm’s resume in some key policy areas”:
The opposition in Chicago, where people know Emanuel best, is so intense that Streetsblog Chicago, a news site that covers sustainable transportation issues, recently warned, “Hiring Rahm Emanuel as U.S. transportation chief is the bad idea that refuses to go away. Joe Biden, you really don’t want to kick off your administration with hundreds or thousands of justifiably angry Chicagoans marching in protest.” Current Issue View our current issue
Chicagoans are particularly upset over the idea of handing Emanuel the Department of Transportation post because, Chicago Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa notes, “as Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel’s big transportation idea was to give Elon Musk public resources to put a car in an over-priced and unnecessary tunnel from downtown to O’Hare Airport. The thought of Emanuel as Biden’s Secretary of Transportation is asinine.”
The prospect stirs opposition beyond Chicago, as well. “We do not need a union buster setting the rules for workers in aviation,” argues Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson. “That just doesn’t reflect Joe Biden’s deep commitment to workers and our unions.”
That goes double for the trade representative job, where Emanuel would again be positioned to promote Wall Street–friendly agreements, such as NAFTA and permanent normalization of trade relations with China. Those deals stirred deep frustration among dislocated workers, which would eventually be exploited by Donald Trump, who made an argument that Democrats had abandoned working-class communities central to his 2016 campaign. Chicago Says ‘No’ Should Biden Hire Rahm Emanuel? Chicago Says, ‘Never! Never! Never!’ John Nichols
Bringing Emanuel into a third Democratic administration “would be perceived as a slap in the face to labor,” explains Shane Larson, the senior director for government affairs for the powerful Communication Workers of America union. “It would be received very poorly.”
The debate over Emanuel is about more than the usual jockeying over whether a Democratic administration tilts to the left or the center. Indeed, as AOC notes, it is “a truly embarrassing indictment of what’s considered ‘center’ politics in the US that objecting to the appointment of an official who helped cover up the murder of a Black child is deemed the ‘progressive, far left’ position.” This is about the very real damage Emanuel has done—on matters of policy and politics—and that he will again do if he joins a new Democratic administration.
Political common sense indicates Representative-elect Jamaal Bowman of New York, is right when he says, “Rahm Emanuel should not be considered for any position within the Biden administration.”


thenation--2020-12-03--Olivia Laing’s Banal Avant-Garde

Olivia Laing’s Banal Avant-Garde

In the fall of 2016 , a month after Donald Trump was elected president , I introduced a talk at The New School by Chris Kraus , who was reading from her forthcoming biography of Kathy Acker .
As I stared out at the rows of young people who had packed in to see her , I could see that many in the audience looked remarkably similar to me : white women with dark hair and glasses , all of us fans of Kraus ’ s novel I Love Dick , separated into micro-generations in accordance with its original publishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2007 , and its second reissue in 2015 .
It was then dawning on me , in my early 20s , as we sat there that me and my peers ( anyone at this reading really ) weren ’ t part of a second wave of the downtown scene , and we never would be .
Because the downtown scene was dead .
Instead , we were ushering in the gentrification of an already existing white avant garde into mainstream publishing .
Olivia Laing was one of these readers .
She read Kraus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following summer , and feeling inspired , announced on Twitter that she was going to write a novel .
The premise of Crudo , the novel that emerged from the tweet , is that Laing ’ s protagonist , who “ may or may not be Kathy Acker , ” who died in 1997 , is alive in 2017 , is getting married , and is addicted to Twitter .
It was a strange fiction debut for the acclaimed writer of three nonfiction books , who spent a large majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration and thinking about her protagonist ’ s impending marriage in an Acker imitation ( something of a departure from her previous , though still bibliographic writing style , which had drawn from anglophone writers and artists like Virginia Woolf and David Hockney ) .
Laing was experimenting with questions she had not previously addressed in her work : appropriation and authorship , narrative structures , embodiment , and the Internet .
It did not feel like a wholly genuine shift in her narrative style , and in my opinion it totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if not also infuriating , because it marked the popularization of a new kind of writing .
Laing was attaching herself to a literary trend .
Those couple of years she spent wrapped in the specter of autofiction marked a pivotal shift in the literary landscape of the 2010s .
The term “ lyrical memoir ” was not yet met with eye rolls , and a personal memoir still held the potential to be somewhat subversive .
This was also around the time Laing was writing a column for the art magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dodie Bellamy ’ s When the Sick Rule the World and Juliet Jacques ’ s Trans .
“ The memoir is a morphing form and it seems to me that this particular approach represents a new development , ” she wrote of those books .
She was building a foundation for themes she was about to present in Crudo , and justifying the direction she was about to take .
Composed of collected essays , Funny Weather is a precursor to Crudo and a companion reader to it .
You can almost see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her reprinted Guardian reviews ( also included in the collection ) .
In a piece on Maggie Nelson ’ s The Argonauts , originally appearing in 2015 , she writes , “ If you haven ’ t heard of her , it ’ s because she has yet to be published in the UK , from which one might conclude that British publishing is becoming too timid for its own good.
” Her review of I Love Dick from the same year also comes to this conclusion : “ Amazingly , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The backbone of this mode of writing , besides the commentary on British publishing , was a kind of worshipful love for the 1990s New York avant-garde and many of its ancestors to be found in the Bay Area ’ s New Narrative scene .
It was also within these years that the New Narrative movement—decades after its golden age—moved to establish itself in the mainstream literary canon , not just as a footnote in the works of popular authors like Ben Lerner and Sheila Heti .
The same year , 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelves , Kevin Killian and Dodie Bellamy edited an anthology called Writers Who Love Too Much , a collection of New Narrative writing with excerpts of notable books pertaining to the movement spanning the years 1977 to 1997 .
There are many facets and claims to what New Narrative was , but first and foremost it was a movement focused on queer poetics that were driven by theory .
To write well , one of its founders , Robert Glück , wrote , one had to come at narrative in a manner informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , was to rearrange narrative , to write about desire openly , and to challenge bourgeois writing and its ends .
( Crudo starts with an engagement and ends with a straight marriage .
It ’ s almost comical how Laing ’ s novel begins by taking up the ending of a 19th century bourgeois novel focused on the marriage plot . )
Killian and Bellamy ’ s anthology concludes with an excerpt from Kraus ’ s I Love Dick , an example of this period of writing that managed to encapsulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coming out the same summer as the I Love Dick television series the two anthologists wrote : “ Now we hear that I Love Dick , in its day one of the most scandalous books ever written , is being made as a TV series for Netflix , and America ’ s sweetheart , Kevin Bacon , the Zelig of modern representation , has been cast as Dick.
” A style of writing that had always been felt to be on the periphery suddenly manifested itself on billboards , and its influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of highways .
It had drifted someplace new from writers like Ben Lerner and Olivia Laing .
Crudo , with its intended and obvious influences aside , may also be considered a distant cousin of Ben Lerner ’ s 10:04 , a crown jewel of American autofiction , if only because both books allude to metaphors of expensive seafood .
In the first sentence of 10:04 , Lerner eats baby octopus at a restaurant with his agent .
The octopus is “ impossibly tender , ” and arrives fresh every morning from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death .
The octopus is an organizing metaphor for the rest of the novel , its tentacles spreading out into different pasts and futures in the narrator ’ s orbit .
And while the octopus serves as a stand-in for the global economy , I couldn ’ t help but see it as a symbol of the literary industry itself .
The personal mode of writing , a motif of the late-20th-century avant-garde , is massaged to death , made into an almost perfect novel .
Lerner ’ s complicity as he masticates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it into his body while sitting in a Chelsea restaurant , is a concession of complicity beyond his control .
There is no scene like this in Crudo .
Kathy eats rich food on her European vacation , she thoughtlessly consumes what is in front of her rather guiltlessly , also a concession .
Here is another one : In a piece Laing wrote for The Paris Review ’ s column “ Writers ’ Fridges ” ( not included in Funny Weather ) , she penned an essay on the food in her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice of the narrator of Crudo and admits to eating but never cooking .
She describes food outsourced and produced in other countries , from molasses to Greek yogurt , and concludes that this is “ Food that has traveled across borders , food that needs visas and will soon be deported.
” This is a Laing trademark .
The personal may be political , but for Laing , the political is also banal .
The essays of Funny Weather span many disparate topics ; they range from art and book reviews to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thoughts on the lives of artists .
Most have appeared in various publications over the past decade .
For Laing , politicizing her personal life often results in inserting herself into world historical tragedies , like the time she wrote a Guardian piece comparing the overflow of information on Twitter to the desensitization of German citizens in the Holocaust .
In recent years , as with her essay about her refrigerator , she has zeroed in on the refugee crisis , which she ties to a belief in hospitality and the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more welcoming .
In an essay on John Berger at the end of the book , she writes : “ Hospitality : the friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests , visitors or strangers , a word that shares its origin with hospital , a place to treat sick or injured people.
” This kind of argument is symptomatic of Laing ’ s critical shortcomings—it is a reading so strained and devoid of meaning she had to resort to a basic dictionary definition to fill up space .
In another essay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year 2016 , after the Pulse shooting and during the anti-refugee rhetoric of the Trump campaign .
She writes , “ Like you , maybe , I ’ m trying to make sense of this summer , to work out the best way to respond.
” She continues on about the violent rise of fascism and then , “ I don ’ t want to write another word about Trump or guns or hatred.
” Instead she wants to write about where hospitality happens , which for her occurs in art galleries around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marc Hundley ’ s show ( which gives her a “ bright ” feeling ) of pop inspired prints to being out on a lake .
“ Hundley ’ s work isn ’ t political , exactly , but it ’ s about a hospitality to feeling , a tolerance and openness that feels radical in its own right.
” She feels this while looking at a silhouette of trees with a John Maus lyric printed on it .
Sitting on the bench provided by the show at Canada , a Lower East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then the essay ends .
Her essay “ Party Going , ” a riff on a Henry Green novel of the same name , contemplates citizenship and borders while Laing is on a train ride originating in Italy .
Travel , she writes in the last paragraph , takes a toll , but “ we ” ( she includes herself in the struggle ) need to be moving often , “ for love or water , away from bombs , looking for places of greater safety or abundance.
” Wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doors , to pool the resources ” of nation-states ?
She answers herself by quoting the last sentence of Molly Bloom ’ s soliloquy in Ulysses : “ Yes , I said yes.
” This is my main objection to Laing—her broad strokes on fascism , death , and struggle barely register in her overfluffed prose , which is dominated by her bibliography .
In “ The Abandoned Person ’ s Tale , ” originally published in 2016 for an outreach project called Refugee Tales , she interviews a man escaping from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a corrupt country ” ) who becomes trapped in one of Britain ’ s detention centers for a petty crime for 11 years .
She draws again on the concept of “ hospitality ” in John Berger ’ s work to talk about nation-states , and how they should welcome strangers .
“ So imagine a country founded on kindness , a country that treats desperate strangers with respect .
And now we come to the question that haunts me .
What could you have become in that good , imagined place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your beautiful life ?
” To describe the imperialism , racism , and brutality in Britain that destroyed a man ’ s life as a lack of kindness diminishes the story .
It falsely posits that empathy is a politically useful vehicle in and of itself .
When Laing writes about her life before she became a writer , she describes her thought process of becoming a recluse in a house without electricity when she was in her 20s ( this period of her life only lasted one season , hence the essay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She wanted to live in a way that would not create any environmental harm , to exit from society .
For her , this is a form of activism , the seed of a thought that later manifests itself in simplistic thinking throughout this collection .
Laing would rather overemphasize the politics of the personal than account for her own lack of solidarity with forces of meaningful reform .
The problem is that you can ’ t .

In the fall of 2016, a month after Donald Trump was elected president, I introduced a talk at The New School by Chris Kraus, who was reading from her forthcoming biography of Kathy Acker. As I stared out at the rows of young people who had packed in to see her, I could see that many in the audience looked remarkably similar to me: white women with dark hair and glasses, all of us fans of Kraus’s novel I Love Dick, separated into micro-generations in accordance with its original publishing date in 1997, its reissue in 2007, and its second reissue in 2015. It was then dawning on me, in my early 20s, as we sat there that me and my peers (anyone at this reading really) weren’t part of a second wave of the downtown scene, and we never would be. Because the downtown scene was dead. Instead, we were ushering in the gentrification of an already existing white avant garde into mainstream publishing. Books in Review Funny Weather: Art in an Emergency By Olivia Laing Buy this book
Olivia Laing was one of these readers. She read Kraus’s acerbic biography of Kathy Acker the following summer, and feeling inspired, announced on Twitter that she was going to write a novel. The premise of Crudo, the novel that emerged from the tweet, is that Laing’s protagonist, who “may or may not be Kathy Acker,” who died in 1997, is alive in 2017, is getting married, and is addicted to Twitter. It was a strange fiction debut for the acclaimed writer of three nonfiction books, who spent a large majority of the novel quoting the tweets of the early Trump administration and thinking about her protagonist’s impending marriage in an Acker imitation (something of a departure from her previous, though still bibliographic writing style, which had drawn from anglophone writers and artists like Virginia Woolf and David Hockney).
Laing was experimenting with questions she had not previously addressed in her work: appropriation and authorship, narrative structures, embodiment, and the Internet. It did not feel like a wholly genuine shift in her narrative style, and in my opinion it totally flopped. But the failure was interesting, if not also infuriating, because it marked the popularization of a new kind of writing. Laing was attaching herself to a literary trend. Those couple of years she spent wrapped in the specter of autofiction marked a pivotal shift in the literary landscape of the 2010s. The term “lyrical memoir” was not yet met with eye rolls, and a personal memoir still held the potential to be somewhat subversive.
This was also around the time Laing was writing a column for the art magazine Frieze, commenting on works such as Dodie Bellamy’s When the Sick Rule the World and Juliet Jacques’s Trans. “The memoir is a morphing form and it seems to me that this particular approach represents a new development,” she wrote of those books. She was building a foundation for themes she was about to present in Crudo, and justifying the direction she was about to take. Composed of collected essays, Funny Weather is a precursor to Crudo and a companion reader to it.
You can almost see Laing’s thought process solidify in her reprinted Guardian reviews (also included in the collection). In a piece on Maggie Nelson’s The Argonauts, originally appearing in 2015, she writes, “If you haven’t heard of her, it’s because she has yet to be published in the UK, from which one might conclude that British publishing is becoming too timid for its own good.” Her review of I Love Dick from the same year also comes to this conclusion: “Amazingly, this is its first publication in the UK.” The backbone of this mode of writing, besides the commentary on British publishing, was a kind of worshipful love for the 1990s New York avant-garde and many of its ancestors to be found in the Bay Area’s New Narrative scene. 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung 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 My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. My Homeland Is Being Ruled by Terror. The World Must Pay Attention. Manny Maung
It was also within these years that the New Narrative movement—decades after its golden age—moved to establish itself in the mainstream literary canon, not just as a footnote in the works of popular authors like Ben Lerner and Sheila Heti. The same year, 2017, that Kraus’s Acker biography hit shelves, Kevin Killian and Dodie Bellamy edited an anthology called Writers Who Love Too Much, a collection of New Narrative writing with excerpts of notable books pertaining to the movement spanning the years 1977 to 1997. There are many facets and claims to what New Narrative was, but first and foremost it was a movement focused on queer poetics that were driven by theory. To write well, one of its founders, Robert Glück, wrote, one had to come at narrative in a manner informed by politics. To write politically, then, was to rearrange narrative, to write about desire openly, and to challenge bourgeois writing and its ends. (Crudo starts with an engagement and ends with a straight marriage. It’s almost comical how Laing’s novel begins by taking up the ending of a 19th century bourgeois novel focused on the marriage plot.)
Killian and Bellamy’s anthology concludes with an excerpt from Kraus’s I Love Dick, an example of this period of writing that managed to encapsulate many particulars of the genre at once. Coming out the same summer as the I Love Dick television series the two anthologists wrote: “Now we hear that I Love Dick, in its day one of the most scandalous books ever written, is being made as a TV series for Netflix, and America’s sweetheart, Kevin Bacon, the Zelig of modern representation, has been cast as Dick.” A style of writing that had always been felt to be on the periphery suddenly manifested itself on billboards, and its influence wasn’t apparent just on the side of highways. It had drifted someplace new from writers like Ben Lerner and Olivia Laing.
Crudo, with its intended and obvious influences aside, may also be considered a distant cousin of Ben Lerner’s 10:04, a crown jewel of American autofiction, if only because both books allude to metaphors of expensive seafood. In the first sentence of 10:04, Lerner eats baby octopus at a restaurant with his agent. The octopus is “impossibly tender,” and arrives fresh every morning from Portugal, prepared by being massaged to death. The octopus is an organizing metaphor for the rest of the novel, its tentacles spreading out into different pasts and futures in the narrator’s orbit. And while the octopus serves as a stand-in for the global economy, I couldn’t help but see it as a symbol of the literary industry itself. The personal mode of writing, a motif of the late-20th-century avant-garde, is massaged to death, made into an almost perfect novel. Lerner’s complicity as he masticates and swallows the dead mollusk, absorbing it into his body while sitting in a Chelsea restaurant, is a concession of complicity beyond his control.
There is no scene like this in Crudo. Kathy eats rich food on her European vacation, she thoughtlessly consumes what is in front of her rather guiltlessly, also a concession. Here is another one: In a piece Laing wrote for The Paris Review’s column “Writers’ Fridges” (not included in Funny Weather), she penned an essay on the food in her refrigerator (and Brexit) through the voice of the narrator of Crudo and admits to eating but never cooking. She describes food outsourced and produced in other countries, from molasses to Greek yogurt, and concludes that this is “Food that has traveled across borders, food that needs visas and will soon be deported.” This is a Laing trademark. The personal may be political, but for Laing, the political is also banal.
The essays of Funny Weather span many disparate topics; they range from art and book reviews to personal writings about Laing’s upbringing to thoughts on the lives of artists. Most have appeared in various publications over the past decade. For Laing, politicizing her personal life often results in inserting herself into world historical tragedies, like the time she wrote a Guardian piece comparing the overflow of information on Twitter to the desensitization of German citizens in the Holocaust. In recent years, as with her essay about her refrigerator, she has zeroed in on the refugee crisis, which she ties to a belief in hospitality and the idea that Britain and the US should be more welcoming. In an essay on John Berger at the end of the book, she writes: “Hospitality: the friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers, a word that shares its origin with hospital, a place to treat sick or injured people.” This kind of argument is symptomatic of Laing’s critical shortcomings—it is a reading so strained and devoid of meaning she had to resort to a basic dictionary definition to fill up space.
In another essay, Laing writes of the confusion of the year 2016, after the Pulse shooting and during the anti-refugee rhetoric of the Trump campaign. She writes, “Like you, maybe, I’m trying to make sense of this summer, to work out the best way to respond.” She continues on about the violent rise of fascism and then, “I don’t want to write another word about Trump or guns or hatred.” Instead she wants to write about where hospitality happens, which for her occurs in art galleries around the world. She compares attending artist Marc Hundley’s show (which gives her a “bright” feeling) of pop inspired prints to being out on a lake. “Hundley’s work isn’t political, exactly, but it’s about a hospitality to feeling, a tolerance and openness that feels radical in its own right.” She feels this while looking at a silhouette of trees with a John Maus lyric printed on it. Sitting on the bench provided by the show at Canada, a Lower East Side gallery, she feels welcome, and then the essay ends.
Her essay “Party Going,” a riff on a Henry Green novel of the same name, contemplates citizenship and borders while Laing is on a train ride originating in Italy. Travel, she writes in the last paragraph, takes a toll, but “we” (she includes herself in the struggle) need to be moving often, “for love or water, away from bombs, looking for places of greater safety or abundance.” Wouldn’t it be better to “unlock the doors, to pool the resources” of nation-states? She answers herself by quoting the last sentence of Molly Bloom’s soliloquy in Ulysses: “Yes, I said yes.” This is my main objection to Laing—her broad strokes on fascism, death, and struggle barely register in her overfluffed prose, which is dominated by her bibliography.
In “The Abandoned Person’s Tale,” originally published in 2016 for an outreach project called Refugee Tales, she interviews a man escaping from “X country” (“X country is a corrupt country”) who becomes trapped in one of Britain’s detention centers for a petty crime for 11 years. She draws again on the concept of “hospitality” in John Berger’s work to talk about nation-states, and how they should welcome strangers. “So imagine a country founded on kindness, a country that treats desperate strangers with respect. And now we come to the question that haunts me. What could you have become in that good, imagined place? What would you have done with your beautiful life?”
To describe the imperialism, racism, and brutality in Britain that destroyed a man’s life as a lack of kindness diminishes the story. It falsely posits that empathy is a politically useful vehicle in and of itself. When Laing writes about her life before she became a writer, she describes her thought process of becoming a recluse in a house without electricity when she was in her 20s (this period of her life only lasted one season, hence the essay title “Feral Spring”). She wanted to live in a way that would not create any environmental harm, to exit from society. For her, this is a form of activism, the seed of a thought that later manifests itself in simplistic thinking throughout this collection. Laing would rather overemphasize the politics of the personal than account for her own lack of solidarity with forces of meaningful reform. The problem is that you can’t.