thenation--2020-05-26--Anti-War Groups Push Biden and the Democrats to Rethink Foreign Policy

More than 50 groups seeking “ a more principled foreign policy , one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism ” wrote an open letter last month to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
“ It is time , ” they argued , “ to end our endless wars and adopt a new approach to international relations , one in which the U.S. abides by international law , encourages others to do the same , and utilizes our military solely for the defense of the people of our country.
” The letter , which made a practical case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more progressive approach to international affairs , was organized by Demand Progress and signed by organizations such as MoveOn , Indivisible , Just Foreign Policy , Peace Action , and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft .
“ As the Coronavirus pandemic reveals , our country and many others are woefully unprepared for the crisis that we now face .
Without extraordinarily bold leadership , this is likely to be the beginning of a period of profound instability for the entire planet , given the intensifying climate crisis that is also now underway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just as the domestic policy debate has shifted significantly in recent years , the current global context demands that we act boldly to redefine the role of the U.S. in the world.
” The groups outline a set of proposals that include repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) and respecting congressional war powers , opposing regime change interventions and broad-based sanctions , and reducing the Pentagon budget , as well as engaging diplomatically with Iran and North Korea and supporting a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda that proposes substantial policy shifts by Biden .
Scott Walker Is Peddling the Deadly Snake Oil of Austerity ‘ America Needs a Coronavirus Cure , Not More War ’ This Vermonter Is Attracting Support From Top Bernie Backers This moment opens up the chance for a deeper foreign policy discussion , not just because of the coronavirus , but because , as Demand Progress senior policy counsel Yasmine Taeb reminds us , “ We are tired of endless wars and a destructive agenda of rampant militarization.
” To its credit , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and several other groups after the letter was sent ; a phone conversation took place and there ’ s a promise that the dialogue will continue .
So why not give a little more form and structure to the dialogue ?
Biden ’ s campaign has , in cooperation with Bernie Sanders , established six unity task forces that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee says will influence his campaign going forward .
“ We ’ ve set up joint committees together to deal with how we would deal with everything from the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criminal justice system , the New Green Deal , etc.
, ” the former vice president explained earlier this month in an interview with the CBS television affiliate in Las Vegas .
“ I ’ m working with Bernie and his people and , so , we ’ ve made some changes and listened to Bernie supporters.
” There ’ s been skepticism about the task forces .
There ’ s also been a measure of hope on the part of at least some progressives that the task forces might move Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the 2020 Democratic nomination race by Sanders .
It ’ s not just about the inclusion of people who have worked closely with the Vermont senator , such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal , as well as Sunrise Movement cofounder Varshini Prakash , and Sara Nelson , the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants–CWA .
It ’ s also that the task force members more closely associated with Biden , such as Representative Karen Bass and economist Jared Bernstein , have strong progressive credentials .
As the task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a void .
The six task forces that have been established deal with vital issues : climate change , criminal justice reform , the economy , education , health care , and immigration .
What about foreign policy ?
Taeb says the absence of a foreign policy task force is frustrating to a number of the groups she ’ s worked with , but that so far the Biden camp hasn ’ t signaled an interest in adding to the list .
That should change .
Of course , foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those debates are valuable , especially when they touch on issues of war and peace , international relations , trade policies and treaties , cooperation on the climate and all the other global concerns that might occupy a Biden administration .
During the nomination race , Sanders distinguished his foreign policy stances from Biden ’ s , explaining during a November debate , “ One of the big differences between the vice president and myself is he supported the terrible war in Iraq , and I helped lead the opposition against it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the very first Gulf War as well .
And I think we need a foreign policy which understands who our enemies are that we don ’ t have to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations combined.
” In that same debate , Sanders argued that the time has come to “ rethink the entire War on Terror.
” “ I think it is time , after spending many trillions of dollars on these endless wars which have resulted in more dislocation and mass migrations and pain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring our troops home , ” the senator declared .
He also called for a rethink of the US approach to Middle East affairs , telling the crowd at the Atlanta debate , “ It is no longer good enough for us to be pro-Israel , I am pro-Israel , but we must treat the Palestinians with the dignity they deserve.
” It would be naive to expect Biden to make an across-the-board shift from foreign policy positions he has held , in some cases , for decades .
But he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he promises to “ lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example , by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100 % clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
” Those are places from which to begin the dialogue .
The moment we are in demands plenty of rethinking , as the letter to Biden suggests .
Establishing a foreign policy task force and taking its work seriously would recognize concerns like those raised by the Quincy Institute ’ s Trita Parsi when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in dire need of a fundamental reorientation of its foreign policy , away from the goal of dominating the globe militarily , which has mired America in endless wars , and towards a national security strategy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint .
The COVID pandemic has made it abundantly clear that our excessive focus on foreign military threats—real and imagined—have left us naked and vulnerable for the real challenges of this century—pandemics and climate chaos .
”

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?
More than 50 groups seeking “a more principled foreign policy, one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism” wrote an open letter last month to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. “It is time,” they argued, “to end our endless wars and adopt a new approach to international relations, one in which the U.S. abides by international law, encourages others to do the same, and utilizes our military solely for the defense of the people of our country.”
The letter, which made a practical case for Biden and the Democrats to embrace a more progressive approach to international affairs, was organized by Demand Progress and signed by organizations such as MoveOn, Indivisible, Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“As the Coronavirus pandemic reveals, our country and many others are woefully unprepared for the crisis that we now face. Without extraordinarily bold leadership, this is likely to be the beginning of a period of profound instability for the entire planet, given the intensifying climate crisis that is also now underway,” explained the groups. “Just as the domestic policy debate has shifted significantly in recent years, the current global context demands that we act boldly to redefine the role of the U.S. in the world.”
The groups outline a set of proposals that include repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF ) and respecting congressional war powers, opposing regime change interventions and broad-based sanctions, and reducing the Pentagon budget, as well as engaging diplomatically with Iran and North Korea and supporting a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s a robust agenda that proposes substantial policy shifts by Biden. 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
This moment opens up the chance for a deeper foreign policy discussion, not just because of the coronavirus, but because, as Demand Progress senior policy counsel Yasmine Taeb reminds us, “We are tired of endless wars and a destructive agenda of rampant militarization.” To its credit, the Biden campaign reached out to Demand Progress and several other groups after the letter was sent; a phone conversation took place and there’s a promise that the dialogue will continue. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
So why not give a little more form and structure to the dialogue?
Biden’s campaign has, in cooperation with Bernie Sanders, established six unity task forces that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee says will influence his campaign going forward. “We’ve set up joint committees together to deal with how we would deal with everything from the virus all the way down to education, the criminal justice system, the New Green Deal, etc.,” the former vice president explained earlier this month in an interview with the CBS television affiliate in Las Vegas. “I’m working with Bernie and his people and, so, we’ve made some changes and listened to Bernie supporters.” Current Issue View our current issue
There’s been skepticism about the task forces. There’s also been a measure of hope on the part of at least some progressives that the task forces might move Biden to accept more of the policies advanced during the 2020 Democratic nomination race by Sanders. It’s not just about the inclusion of people who have worked closely with the Vermont senator, such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal, as well as Sunrise Movement cofounder Varshini Prakash, and Sara Nelson, the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants–CWA. It’s also that the task force members more closely associated with Biden, such as Representative Karen Bass and economist Jared Bernstein, have strong progressive credentials.
As the task forces get to work, however, there’s a void. The six task forces that have been established deal with vital issues: climate change, criminal justice reform, the economy, education, health care, and immigration. What about foreign policy? Taeb says the absence of a foreign policy task force is frustrating to a number of the groups she’s worked with, but that so far the Biden camp hasn’t signaled an interest in adding to the list.
That should change. Of course, foreign policy debates touch hot buttons. But those debates are valuable, especially when they touch on issues of war and peace, international relations, trade policies and treaties, cooperation on the climate and all the other global concerns that might occupy a Biden administration.
During the nomination race, Sanders distinguished his foreign policy stances from Biden’s, explaining during a November debate, “One of the big differences between the vice president and myself is he supported the terrible war in Iraq, and I helped lead the opposition against it. And not only that, I voted against the very first Gulf War as well. And I think we need a foreign policy which understands who our enemies are that we don’t have to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations combined.”
In that same debate, Sanders argued that the time has come to “rethink the entire War on Terror.”
“I think it is time, after spending many trillions of dollars on these endless wars which have resulted in more dislocation and mass migrations and pain in that region, it is time to bring our troops home,” the senator declared. He also called for a rethink of the US approach to Middle East affairs, telling the crowd at the Atlanta debate, “It is no longer good enough for us to be pro-Israel, I am pro-Israel, but we must treat the Palestinians with the dignity they deserve.”
It would be naive to expect Biden to make an across-the-board shift from foreign policy positions he has held, in some cases, for decades. But he has a history of engagement on nuclear proliferation issues and he promises to “lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”
Those are places from which to begin the dialogue.
The moment we are in demands plenty of rethinking, as the letter to Biden suggests. Establishing a foreign policy task force and taking its work seriously would recognize concerns like those raised by the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi when he said, “The United States is in dire need of a fundamental reorientation of its foreign policy, away from the goal of dominating the globe militarily, which has mired America in endless wars, and towards a national security strategy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The COVID pandemic has made it abundantly clear that our excessive focus on foreign military threats—real and imagined—have left us naked and vulnerable for the real challenges of this century—pandemics and climate chaos.”


thenation--2020-05-26--Take Action Now: Fight for Voting Rights

Last week , Trump launched yet another aggressive attack on vote-by-mail by threatening to withhold federal funds from Michigan and Nevada if they proceed with expanding mail voting .
As the president continues to threaten the basic functioning of our democracy , it ’ s crucial that we fight for people ’ s right to vote safely this November .
This week ’ s Take Action Now gives you ways to demand that Congress take decisive action to protect our democracy and for you to educate your community about voting rights and build democratic participation .
Take Action Now gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each week whatever your schedule .
You can sign up here to get these actions and more in your inbox every Tuesday .
The tools we need to maintain our democracy in the face of Covid-19 are clear : vote-by-mail , early voting hours , and no-excuse absentee voting .
Implore Congress to pass the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act now to institute these crucial reforms .
Then tell your elected reps to provide sufficient funding to pull the United States Postal Service back from the edge of bankruptcy , essential to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday struck down a Florida law restricting felons ’ voting rights , paving the way for hundreds of thousands of people to vote .
Help spread the word about felons ’ voting rights in your state using resources from the Restore Your Vote campaign .
Educate yourself about the rules on absentee voting and other voting procedures in your state , and spread the word to other voters in your area .
Learn more about electoral reforms that will keep our elections democratic and safe by checking out Campaign Legal Center ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting rights organizations are stepping up to make sure that no one is disenfranchised by this public health crisis .
Join Common Cause ’ s action team to see how you can help fight for our democracy .
Then check out the Movement Voter Project ’ s list of organizations fighting to build power and democratic participation across the country , and see how you can get involved in getting out the vote in November .

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. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
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. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
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.
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. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
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. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
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. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Last week, Trump launched yet another aggressive attack on vote-by-mail by threatening to withhold federal funds from Michigan and Nevada if they proceed with expanding mail voting. As the president continues to threaten the basic functioning of our democracy, it’s crucial that we fight for people’s right to vote safely this November.
This week’s Take Action Now gives you ways to demand that Congress take decisive action to protect our democracy and for you to educate your community about voting rights and build democratic participation.
Take Action Now gives you three meaningful actions you can take each week whatever your schedule. You can sign up here to get these actions and more in your inbox every Tuesday.
NO TIME TO SPARE?
The tools we need to maintain our democracy in the face of Covid-19 are clear: vote-by-mail, early voting hours, and no-excuse absentee voting. Implore Congress to pass the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act now to institute these crucial reforms. Then tell your elected reps to provide sufficient funding to pull the United States Postal Service back from the edge of bankruptcy, essential to making vote-by-mail possible.
GOT SOME TIME?
A federal judge on Sunday struck down a Florida law restricting felons’ voting rights, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of people to vote. Help spread the word about felons’ voting rights in your state using resources from the Restore Your Vote campaign. Educate yourself about the rules on absentee voting and other voting procedures in your state, and spread the word to other voters in your area. Learn more about electoral reforms that will keep our elections democratic and safe by checking out Campaign Legal Center’s resources.
READY TO DIG IN?
Across the country, voting rights organizations are stepping up to make sure that no one is disenfranchised by this public health crisis. Join Common Cause’s action team to see how you can help fight for our democracy. Then check out the Movement Voter Project’s list of organizations fighting to build power and democratic participation across the country, and see how you can get involved in getting out the vote in November.


thenation--2020-05-26--Birding While Black: Just the Latest Bad Reason for White People to Call Police

Central Park birders are intense , passionate people .
So are Central Park dog owners .
I have a foot in both camps of urban outdoors people , but I ’ m first and foremost a dog owner , because you really can ’ t go birding with a dog .
On-leash but especially off-leash , your dog will , however inadvertently , scatter the birds .
During this pandemic , I ’ ve been feeling a particularly drawn to birding—you can hear the birds better without the city noise , and Central Park feels wilder , Edenic .
Birding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cure for pandemic jitters .
But leaving my dog at home on a gorgeous spring morning feels like cruelty .
So I watch the watchers from a distance , a little enviously .
Thus I came to the bizarre and enraging story of Amy Cooper vs. Christian Cooper , no relation ( if God is trying to remind us we should all get along , She ’ s overdoing the symbolism there ) , with at least some insight , if not sympathy , for both sides .
On Monday Ms. Cooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off-leash , was confronted by Mr. Cooper , a black man who ’ s a bird-watcher , politely asking her to obey the rules and leash her dog .
He was in the right : First of all , in the Ramble , where the confrontation took place , dogs must always be on leashes—even when it ’ s not peak birding season ( which passes quickly each spring ) .
The Ramble is a popular spot for hikers , walkers , families .
I ’ ve seen two weddings there .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ native plants and other flora that don ’ t coexist well with playful dogs .
Still , some dog owners ignore the rules—I don ’ t in the Ramble , but I do elsewhere , true confession , when the park isn ’ t crowded .
And never around birders .
There ’ s only one right answer when someone asks you to put your dog back on the leash in Central Park ( or essentially anywhere that ’ s not your own home ) : You say “ I ’ m sorry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Amy Cooper performed high dudgeon as only a white person can perform it , essentially asking to see Cooper ’ s manager , challenging his right to make such a request .
She complained that the city ’ s dog runs are closed ( they are in this pandemic ) and that another park area he suggested nearby was unsafe ( it is not ) .
Then , speaking of unsafe , when Christian Cooper took out his phone to record their clash , she warned him she was going to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking a picture and calling the cops , ” she says in his video .
“ I ’ m going to tell them there ’ s an African American man threatening my life.
” The way she snarled those words made clear she knew she was lying about Cooper ’ s being a threat—the ultimate weapon in the white-lady arsenal , given the history of police violently responding to claims about “ threatening ” black men .
She quickly became the subject of social media outrage and soon after was fired by her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was a vice president .
The Murder That Threatened to Divide the Two Harlems A Fox News Anchor Egged On a Clash With Police .
It Didn ’ t Work .
I don ’ t know if that was the right outcome ; I do know Amy Cooper should be charged with making a false police report .
What will it take before white people realize that the callous use of police to arbitrate their notion of fairness in the world ( always about fairness to themselves ) is a dangerous act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ’ s life at risk ?
That ’ s a rhetorical question , because I ’ d argue Amy Cooper knew that—and that ’ s precisely why she put her threat the way she did , adding “ African American man ” for emphasis .
She spelled it out for him , because it was not clear she was under any sort of threat .
In fact , as the video began , she initially approached Cooper , trying to get him to stop filming , a strange move to make if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ both sides ” Twitter pointed to Christian Cooper ’ s account of the clash , in which he said he told her that if she wouldn ’ t leash her dog , he would do something she ’ s “ not going to like , ” and went to give her dog a treat , as if that was a threat .
( Owners tend not to like strangers feeding their dogs , for a variety of reasons , some rational , some paranoid . )
The normal response , again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But not for Amy Cooper .
And it wasn ’ t an empty threat : The police did come to investigate her assault charge , but by that time both had left the area .
“ I videotaped it because I thought it was important to document things , ” Christian Cooper told CNN .
“ Unfortunately we live in an era with things like Ahmaud Arbery , where black men are seen as targets .
This woman thought she could exploit that to her advantage , and I wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an southern Georgia neighborhood allegedly for jogging while black .
Only yesterday a Minneapolis cop pinned a black suspect with his knee on his neck and ignored his cries of “ I can not breathe ” ; George Floyd reportedly died at the scene .
“ I ’ m not a racist .
I did not mean to harm that man in any way , ” Cooper told CNN , adding that she didn ’ t mean any harm to the African American community , either .
She really laid it on for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police , I ’ m such a blessed person .
I ’ ve come to realize especially today that I think of [ the police ] as a protection agency , and unfortunately , this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don ’ t have that luxury.
” Since she ’ s over the age of 7 , Amy Cooper made that realization very belatedly .
There ’ s another subtext to the story that ’ s bothered a lot of people : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry under control , Amy Cooper seems to be choking him .
He repeatedly yelps in what sounds like pain as she twists his collar instead of putting on the leash .
The cocker spaniel rescue organization where she got the dog several years ago stepped in to take it pending an investigation .
My heart goes out to any dog owner who loses a dog , but from the short video Cooper appears to lack the basics to care for a dog : keeping him on a leash when requested , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I had a hard time watching the video a second time .
Christian Cooper , a 57-year-old science editor , happens to be a former Marvel Comics writer and editor who is well known in the Central Park bird-watching community .
It ’ s a heavily but not exclusively white avocation , especially not in the Harlem-adjacent regions of the park near where I live .
The great series “ Birds of North America , ” produced for Topic by my friend Anna Holmes , got me interested not only in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ward , a birder from the South Bronx—but birding everywhere .
( One episode featured Cooper . )
Despite some outsiders ’ perception of Harlem , living near Central Park has afforded me the best bird-watching opportunities of my life .
My sister recently sent me a nice set of binoculars to give me a new hobby in the age of lockdown , but I mainly use them to spot the birds in the alley behind me .
I respect the birders too much to bring my dog , and I love my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
Without knowing the racial details , this conflict between dog owner and birder first struck me as a pandemic story—two people seeking urban solace , trying to find their own space .
I quickly realized it was much older , of course , older than the pandemic and older than this country .
Any potential empathy for Amy Cooper has to end with her calling the police on a black man who asked her to obey the law , rather than simply leashing her dog .
Despite her fulsome apologies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire life is being destroyed.
” While she ’ s unemployed , she should familiarize herself with the countless stories of white women using the police this way , to know what it really means to have your life destroyed .

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?
Central Park birders are intense, passionate people. So are Central Park dog owners. I have a foot in both camps of urban outdoors people, but I’m first and foremost a dog owner, because you really can’t go birding with a dog. On-leash but especially off-leash, your dog will, however inadvertently, scatter the birds. During this pandemic, I’ve been feeling a particularly drawn to birding—you can hear the birds better without the city noise, and Central Park feels wilder, Edenic. Birding’s careful, meditative rhythms seem a cure for pandemic jitters. But leaving my dog at home on a gorgeous spring morning feels like cruelty. So I watch the watchers from a distance, a little enviously.
Thus I came to the bizarre and enraging story of Amy Cooper vs. Christian Cooper, no relation (if God is trying to remind us we should all get along, She’s overdoing the symbolism there), with at least some insight, if not sympathy, for both sides. On Monday Ms. Cooper, a white woman walking her dog off-leash, was confronted by Mr. Cooper, a black man who’s a bird-watcher, politely asking her to obey the rules and leash her dog. He was in the right: First of all, in the Ramble, where the confrontation took place, dogs must always be on leashes—even when it’s not peak birding season (which passes quickly each spring). The Ramble is a popular spot for hikers, walkers, families. I’ve seen two weddings there. It’s also very carefully tended with native plants and other flora that don’t coexist well with playful dogs. Still, some dog owners ignore the rules—I don’t in the Ramble, but I do elsewhere, true confession, when the park isn’t crowded. And never around birders.
There’s only one right answer when someone asks you to put your dog back on the leash in Central Park (or essentially anywhere that’s not your own home): You say “I’m sorry,” and you do it immediately. Amy Cooper performed high dudgeon as only a white person can perform it, essentially asking to see Cooper’s manager, challenging his right to make such a request. She complained that the city’s dog runs are closed (they are in this pandemic) and that another park area he suggested nearby was unsafe (it is not). Then, speaking of unsafe, when Christian Cooper took out his phone to record their clash, she warned him she was going to call the police.
“I’m taking a picture and calling the cops,” she says in his video. “I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life.”
The way she snarled those words made clear she knew she was lying about Cooper’s being a threat—the ultimate weapon in the white-lady arsenal, given the history of police violently responding to claims about “threatening” black men. She quickly became the subject of social media outrage and soon after was fired by her employer, Franklin Templeton Investments, where she was a vice president. More From Joan Walsh The Promise of Justice in Fani Willis’s Indictment August 15, 2023 Please, Please Stop Blaming “Progressives” for Donald Trump’s Fascism August 11, 2023 The Ron-mentum Continues… Circling the Drain August 9, 2023
I don’t know if that was the right outcome; I do know Amy Cooper should be charged with making a false police report. What will it take before white people realize that the callous use of police to arbitrate their notion of fairness in the world (always about fairness to themselves) is a dangerous act of privilege that can put a black person’s life at risk? Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
That’s a rhetorical question, because I’d argue Amy Cooper knew that—and that’s precisely why she put her threat the way she did, adding “African American man” for emphasis. She spelled it out for him, because it was not clear she was under any sort of threat. In fact, as the video began, she initially approached Cooper, trying to get him to stop filming, a strange move to make if you genuinely feel under threat. Later, “both sides” Twitter pointed to Christian Cooper’s account of the clash, in which he said he told her that if she wouldn’t leash her dog, he would do something she’s “not going to like,” and went to give her dog a treat, as if that was a threat. (Owners tend not to like strangers feeding their dogs, for a variety of reasons, some rational, some paranoid.) Current Issue View our current issue
The normal response, again, would be to leash your dog. But not for Amy Cooper. And it wasn’t an empty threat: The police did come to investigate her assault charge, but by that time both had left the area. “I videotaped it because I thought it was important to document things,” Christian Cooper told CNN. “Unfortunately we live in an era with things like Ahmaud Arbery, where black men are seen as targets. This woman thought she could exploit that to her advantage, and I wasn’t having it.” Arbery was killed in an southern Georgia neighborhood allegedly for jogging while black. Only yesterday a Minneapolis cop pinned a black suspect with his knee on his neck and ignored his cries of “I cannot breathe”; George Floyd reportedly died at the scene.
“I’m not a racist. I did not mean to harm that man in any way,” Cooper told CNN, adding that she didn’t mean any harm to the African American community, either. She really laid it on for NBC: “When I think about the police, I’m such a blessed person. I’ve come to realize especially today that I think of [the police] as a protection agency, and unfortunately, this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don’t have that luxury.”
Since she’s over the age of 7, Amy Cooper made that realization very belatedly.
There’s another subtext to the story that’s bothered a lot of people: While she’s getting her dog Henry under control, Amy Cooper seems to be choking him. He repeatedly yelps in what sounds like pain as she twists his collar instead of putting on the leash. The cocker spaniel rescue organization where she got the dog several years ago stepped in to take it pending an investigation. My heart goes out to any dog owner who loses a dog, but from the short video Cooper appears to lack the basics to care for a dog: keeping him on a leash when requested, as well as humanely keeping him under control. I had a hard time watching the video a second time.
Christian Cooper, a 57-year-old science editor, happens to be a former Marvel Comics writer and editor who is well known in the Central Park bird-watching community. It’s a heavily but not exclusively white avocation, especially not in the Harlem-adjacent regions of the park near where I live. The great series “Birds of North America,” produced for Topic by my friend Anna Holmes, got me interested not only in the world of black birders—it focused on Jason Ward, a birder from the South Bronx—but birding everywhere. (One episode featured Cooper.)
Despite some outsiders’ perception of Harlem, living near Central Park has afforded me the best bird-watching opportunities of my life. My sister recently sent me a nice set of binoculars to give me a new hobby in the age of lockdown, but I mainly use them to spot the birds in the alley behind me. I respect the birders too much to bring my dog, and I love my dog too much to leave her at home.
Without knowing the racial details, this conflict between dog owner and birder first struck me as a pandemic story—two people seeking urban solace, trying to find their own space. I quickly realized it was much older, of course, older than the pandemic and older than this country. Any potential empathy for Amy Cooper has to end with her calling the police on a black man who asked her to obey the law, rather than simply leashing her dog. Despite her fulsome apologies, Cooper is still complaining that “my entire life is being destroyed.” While she’s unemployed, she should familiarize herself with the countless stories of white women using the police this way, to know what it really means to have your life destroyed.


thenation--2020-05-26--Withdrawing From Open Skies Puts the US at Odds With the World

On Thursday , President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty , a multilateral agreement among 34 countries that allows countries to conduct reconnaissance flights in order to provide transparency regarding military activities .
That day , secretary of state Mike Pompeo issued a statement accusing Russia of serial violations of the treaty .
Open Skies is but the latest in a series of treaties , international agreements , and norms that have been trampled underfoot by the elephantine Pompeo at the behest of Trump .
Experts now fear that with the INF and Open Skies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has his sights set on the Obama-era New START treaty , which caps the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia at 1,550 each .
Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon warns , “ If the Trump administration puts the New START Treaty on the chopping block next , it would leave us without constraints on Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals for the first time in half a century , risking a disastrously expensive and dangerous arms race.
” Merkley , who spoke to The Nation on Friday , says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trustworthy actor , ” treaties such as Open Skies are “ nonetheless important tools to improve our visibility into what our adversaries are doing and to reduce possible catastrophic miscalculations.
” And that ’ s the point of Open Skies : Allowing for reconnaissance flights at short notice lessens the uncertainty about the intentions of adversaries and acts as a safeguard against a potentially devastating miscalculation .
Progressive congressman Ro Khanna also denounced the move .
Khanna told The Nation , “ If there was ever a moment to strengthen our international ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing the world needs is more instability .
This decision undermines global arms control efforts , and only makes war more likely.
” Praise for the move came from the usual suspects .
Neoconservative former national security adviser John Bolton praised the decision as “ another great moment in arms control history if and when it happens !
” Bolton himself , of course , deserves plenty of blame for setting this train in motion , after all , as undersecretary for arms control and verification under George W. Bush , Bolton successfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missile Treaty .
Alexandra Bell , a former State Department official with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation , told me that in her view “ this is just another in a series of actions that prove the administration isn ’ t just interested in dismantling treaties .
It is in the business of devaluing alliances and proving that America First is America alone.
” Bell expressed incredulity that the administration would be so reckless as to abandon Open Skies , which in her view “ provided valuable insight into military force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It defies logic that we would throw it out , ” said Bell .
Appearing on Fox News on Thursday evening , national security adviser Robert C. O ’ Brien claimed that the treaty provided “ ‘ Open skies ’ for the Russians to fly over the United States , but ‘ closed skies ’ for the United States to fly over Russia.
” O ’ Brien contended that the Russians were violating the treaty by surveilling civilian infrastructure .
Yet Bell disputes this .
“ The treaty doesn ’ t prohibit what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ We are on plane with the Russians and they have to share what they ’ ve surveilled with us .
We also overfly Russia at three-times the rate they overfly us.
” The end result is that the United States will lose access to valuable intelligence .
Meanwhile , Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko criticized the decision .
“ The withdrawal of the US from this treaty will come as yet another blow to the system of military security in Europe , which is already weakened by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grushko told the Russian state news agency Tass .
On this the Russians and our European and Canadian allies find themselves in agreement .
And once again , Trump has made the United States the odd man out .
But still worse , withdrawing from Open Skies is the latest ( and may not be the last ) assault on arms control by President Trump .
Important pillars of the global nuclear nonproliferation and arms control and verification regimes—painstakingly erected over the course of decades—have been abandoned by the last two Republican administrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generations .

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?
On Thursday, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, a multilateral agreement among 34 countries that allows countries to conduct reconnaissance flights in order to provide transparency regarding military activities. That day, secretary of state Mike Pompeo issued a statement accusing Russia of serial violations of the treaty. Open Skies is but the latest in a series of treaties, international agreements, and norms that have been trampled underfoot by the elephantine Pompeo at the behest of Trump.
Experts now fear that with the INF and Open Skies treaties out of the way, Trump has his sights set on the Obama-era New START treaty, which caps the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia at 1,550 each. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon warns, “If the Trump administration puts the New START Treaty on the chopping block next, it would leave us without constraints on Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals for the first time in half a century, risking a disastrously expensive and dangerous arms race.” Merkley, who spoke to The Nation on Friday, says that while “nobody thinks Russia is a trustworthy actor,” treaties such as Open Skies are “nonetheless important tools to improve our visibility into what our adversaries are doing and to reduce possible catastrophic miscalculations.”
And that’s the point of Open Skies: Allowing for reconnaissance flights at short notice lessens the uncertainty about the intentions of adversaries and acts as a safeguard against a potentially devastating miscalculation.
Progressive congressman Ro Khanna also denounced the move. Khanna told The Nation, “If there was ever a moment to strengthen our international ties, this is it. The last thing the world needs is more instability. This decision undermines global arms control efforts, and only makes war more likely.” Treaties NATO Turns 70 James Carden
Praise for the move came from the usual suspects. Neoconservative former national security adviser John Bolton praised the decision as “another great moment in arms control history if and when it happens!” Bolton himself, of course, deserves plenty of blame for setting this train in motion, after all, as undersecretary for arms control and verification under George W. Bush, Bolton successfully pushed for US withdrawal from 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told me that in her view “this is just another in a series of actions that prove the administration isn’t just interested in dismantling treaties. It is in the business of devaluing alliances and proving that America First is America alone.” Bell expressed incredulity that the administration would be so reckless as to abandon Open Skies, which in her view “provided valuable insight into military force movements from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”
“It defies logic that we would throw it out,” said Bell. Current Issue View our current issue
Appearing on Fox News on Thursday evening, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien claimed that the treaty provided “‘Open skies’ for the Russians to fly over the United States, but ‘closed skies’ for the United States to fly over Russia.” O’Brien contended that the Russians were violating the treaty by surveilling civilian infrastructure.
Yet Bell disputes this. “The treaty doesn’t prohibit what you can take pictures of,” she said. “We are on plane with the Russians and they have to share what they’ve surveilled with us. We also overfly Russia at three-times the rate they overfly us.” The end result is that the United States will lose access to valuable intelligence.
Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko criticized the decision. “The withdrawal of the US from this treaty will come as yet another blow to the system of military security in Europe, which is already weakened by the previous moves by the administration,” Grushko told the Russian state news agency Tass.
On this the Russians and our European and Canadian allies find themselves in agreement. And once again, Trump has made the United States the odd man out.
But still worse, withdrawing from Open Skies is the latest (and may not be the last) assault on arms control by President Trump. Important pillars of the global nuclear nonproliferation and arms control and verification regimes—painstakingly erected over the course of decades—have been abandoned by the last two Republican administrations, with potentially catastrophic consequences for future generations.


thenation--2020-05-26--We Must Resist the ‘China Threat’ Syndrome

As the immediate impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic recede , progressives will seek to address a wide range of pressing issues : income inequality , racial injustice , immigration reform , and climate change , to mention a few .
Many will also plan to work on local and state elections and , crucially , the 2020 presidential election .
But progress on all these fronts could be thwarted if we do not also counter the right ’ s drive to make China—or rather , the China Threat—the overarching concern of the post-coronavirus era .
The right ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cudgel against Joe Biden and the Democrats is already in full swing .
Starting on April 17 , a leading pro-Trump super PAC , America First Action , began running TV ads in key battleground states deriding the Democratic candidate as “ Beijing Biden ” and painting him as soft on China .
In Congress , exaggerated claims of Chinese superiority in hypersonic missiles and other exotic weaponry are being used to garner Democratic support for a vast increase in spending on both nuclear and conventional weapons , despite the obvious need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With China ’ s rubber-stamp parliament , the National People ’ s Congress , expected to adopt harsh new security laws aimed at Hong Kong , Democrats are joining Republicans in calls for fresh sanctions on Chinese leaders .
Meanwhile , hopes to mount a unified international effort to fight the pandemic and revitalize the global economy have been undermined by the Trump administration ’ s attacks on China at the World Health Organization—and on the WHO itself—along with its drive to “ decouple ” the US and Chinese economies .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican drive continues gaining momentum , we will soon be in a near-war situation with China , with heavily armed forces from both sides facing each other in the East China Sea , the South China Sea , and the waters off Taiwan .
In such an environment , with war possible at a moment ’ s notice , consideration of domestic concerns such as poverty and inequality will be branded as irrelevant or unpatriotic—just as was the case during the Cold War .
Under these conditions , it will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s foreign policy ; we ’ re focused on domestic issues.
” Or , “ Yes , China has done some bad things , but Trump is far worse .
Let ’ s talk about his bad deeds.
” Or , even worse , to try to claim—as former Obama security adviser Susan Rice attempted in The New York Times on May 19—that it ’ s Trump who ’ s soft on China , and that Biden and the Democrats will be tougher .
None of those responses will protect Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syndrome .
If progressives are to achieve progress on any of their goals in the post-coronavirus era , they must address the China Threat argument head-on , and show that Americans can embrace progressive objectives without fear of being subjugated by Beijing .
The New Cold War in Asia Is Born of Desperation The first step in addressing the China Threat Syndrome must be to acknowledge that yes , as China has risen to great-power status , it has begun to act badly in many areas .
This begins at home , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular dissent and its severe repression of the Tibetans and Uighurs ; it extends from there to its increasingly heavy-handed interference in the nominally self-governing territory of Hong Kong and its illegal militarization of islands in the South China Sea .
Many activists in the developing world have also complained of China ’ s large infrastructure and resource-extraction projects , saying they saddle poor countries with debt , create few local jobs , and perpetuate a status of dependency .
More recently , of course , Beijing has been chided—both within the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus when it first emerged in Wuhan .
It might be tempting to say , “ Yes , but.
” Yes , China has behaved badly , but not nearly as badly at the Trump administration .
“ Look at how badly Trump is doing on immigration , ” you might say , “ separating children from their parents at the border.
” On foreign policy , we could point to the administration ’ s shameful supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in its brutal war in Yemen , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , there ’ s Trump utterly disgraceful mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
All this may be true , but it does not erase the fact that China under the leadership of Xi Jinping is behaving badly in many areas that should matter to us , and that , by trying to downplay these abuses , we provide the right with more ammunition to attack us—both as apologists for China and as hypocrites .
The proper response , I believe , is to draw upon history and political theory to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for great-power status , inevitably behave badly , using their newly gained strength to overpower smaller powers in their path and to secure economic advantages .
One need look no further than America ’ s behavior in the late 19th century , when a newly empowered Washington fought Spain to acquire an empire of its own in the Caribbean and Western Pacific .
Germany , in its rise to power , initiated two world wars , while the former Soviet Union , seeking global sway , smothered Eastern Europe in the wake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far and wide .
We also know , from history and theory , that the reigning powers in such times of transition tend to demonize their new rivals as “ bad actors ” for threatening the global status quo ( the language being used by the Trump administration to describe China ’ s behavior ) and to forge coalitions to resist the challenger .
This is the message being delivered on an almost daily basis by senior US officials in Washington and friendly capitals abroad .
The most common outcome of this dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war .
( Think , for example , of the Peloponnesian Wars , between dominant Athens and a rising Sparta , or the Punic Wars , between dominant Carthage and a rising Rome . )
On our present course , with US and Chinese warships confronting each other on an almost daily basis in the South China Sea , that could prove the outcome in this instance .
If we are to avoid such a catastrophe , it is essential to devise a blueprint for US-Chinese coexistence on our increasingly beleaguered planet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our rival .
This would entail , for example , devising rules of the road for mutual involvement in such contested realms as space , cyberspace , and the South China Sea .
Those of us who are old enough can remember the “ missile gap ” of the early Cold War era , when the Soviet Union was said to possess more intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs ) than the United States—a claim , loudly made by John F. Kennedy during his 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon , that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was the “ Team B ” affair of 1976 , in which anti-Soviet hard-liners like Paul Nitze , Donald Rumsfeld , and Paul Wolfowitz claimed that the USSR had again soared ahead of the United States in missile strength ; this , too , was later proved to be inaccurate .
Now , we are again hearing of a “ missile gap ” —this time involving China ’ s supposed lead in hypersonic missiles ( weapons that fly at more than five times the speed of sound ) —and of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump Has No Secret Intel on the Coronavirus ’ s Origins To refute all of the outlandish claims being made about Chinese military-technological superiority would take far more space than this article would allow .
The main point , however , is that China ’ s armed forces are far inferior to those of the United States and its allies , and we should not be hesitant in proclaiming this reality .
Just to provide a few critical examples : According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ( SIPRI ) , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is believed to possess approximately 290 nuclear warheads , as compared to 6,185 for the United States .
Similarly , China is thought to deploy approximately 130 ICBMs and 48 submarine-launched ballistic missiles ( SLBMs ) for a total of about 180 nuclear launch vehicles , whereas , in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( New START ) , the United States now deploys 400 ICBMs and slightly over 200 SLBMs , for a total exceeding 600 .
A comparison of advanced , “ fifth generation ” jet aircraft would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , as would tallies of aircraft carriers , modern submarines , and other key war-fighting capabilities .
On top of this , China has no real allies to speak of , whereas the United States can call on the added military capabilities of Australia , Japan , and South Korea , among others .
Those who seek to magnify the China Threat are likely to pick out a few areas where China appears , on paper , to hold an advantage of some sorts .
This is true , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MRBMs ) and intermediate-range ballistic missiles ( IRBMs ) —types with a range of between 1,000 and 3,000 , and 3,000 and 5,500 kilometers , respectively—of which China owns an estimated 200 or so , some said to be equipped with hypersonic warheads .
Under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces ( INF ) Treaty of 1987 , the United States agreed not to deploy any land-based missiles with these ranges ; however , since Trump abandoned the INF treaty last year , the Defense Department has begun development of several missiles of this type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More to the point , US ships and planes in the Pacific are capable to delivering Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and a wide array of other potent weapons , negating any hypothetical advantage in Chinese IRBMs/MRBMs .
Progressive activists and Democratic candidates need not be afraid to spar with Republican propagandists about the supposed severity of the China Threat .
There are many respected , nonpartisan organizations like SIPRI , the Arms Control Association , and the Federation of American Scientists that can be called upon to help in deconstructing the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so will put us at a perennial disadvantage .
An Artificially Elevated “ China Threat ” Is Itself Dangerous Finally , it is essential to argue that hyping an exaggerated China Threat at a time when everyone on the planet faces shared dangers from the coronavirus , a sinking world economy , and pending climate catastrophe is an immense threat all its own , as it is preventing the world ’ s two wealthiest and most powerful nations from working together to overcome those mighty perils .
President Trump ’ s insistence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ we could cut off the whole relationship [ with China ] , ” is sheer lunacy : You can not fight a global pandemic , revive the global economy , or stave off global incineration without close collaboration at the highest level .
Indeed , igniting a new Cold War with China at this time of economic turmoil is bound to cause increased harm to most Americans , as it will sever critical supply links and deter increased spending by both investors and consumers on both sides of the Pacific .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ abandon ties with their Chinese partners and seek collaborators elsewhere , innovation is stalling and prices are rising ; the Chinese , having been battered by Covid-19 and punitive US tariffs , are buying fewer American crops and other products .
Scientific and medical cooperation between the two countries—essential for the development of vaccines and treatments for this and future pandemics—is being put at risk by the administration ’ s scapegoating of China for the pandemic ’ s early spread and denial of funding for collaborative work on virus transmission .
How the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest danger , however , is that artificially inflamed antagonisms between the United States and China will increase the likelihood of war .
American and Chinese ships pass within shooting range of each other on an almost daily basis in the South China Sea , and often behave in an intentionally provocative way—sailing dangerously close to each other or to the islands illegally militarized by the Chinese .
As tensions and name-calling between Washington and China increase , the risk of a minor incident escalating into something far greater is bound to grow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what assurances do we have that the leaders on either side—Donald Trump here , Xi Jinping there—will respond in a level-headed fashion and halt the fighting before it results in ( a possibly nuclear ) World War III ?
To overcome these immense challenges and make further progress on the issues that matter the most to us , we must call out the China Threat hucksters as posing a clear and present danger to the safety and well-being of all Americans .
China may be acting badly in certain ways—so are we—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in areas of mutual risk in order to avoid mutual catastrophe .

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 immediate impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic recede, progressives will seek to address a wide range of pressing issues: income inequality, racial injustice, immigration reform, and climate change, to mention a few. Many will also plan to work on local and state elections and, crucially, the 2020 presidential election. But progress on all these fronts could be thwarted if we do not also counter the right’s drive to make China—or rather, the China Threat—the overarching concern of the post-coronavirus era.
The right’s campaign to demonize China and use it as a cudgel against Joe Biden and the Democrats is already in full swing. Starting on April 17, a leading pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, began running TV ads in key battleground states deriding the Democratic candidate as “Beijing Biden” and painting him as soft on China. In Congress, exaggerated claims of Chinese superiority in hypersonic missiles and other exotic weaponry are being used to garner Democratic support for a vast increase in spending on both nuclear and conventional weapons, despite the obvious need to channel government funds toward economic reconstruction. With China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, expected to adopt harsh new security laws aimed at Hong Kong, Democrats are joining Republicans in calls for fresh sanctions on Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, hopes to mount a unified international effort to fight the pandemic and revitalize the global economy have been undermined by the Trump administration’s attacks on China at the World Health Organization—and on the WHO itself—along with its drive to “decouple” the US and Chinese economies.
But this is only the beginning. If the Republican drive continues gaining momentum, we will soon be in a near-war situation with China, with heavily armed forces from both sides facing each other in the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the waters off Taiwan. In such an environment, with war possible at a moment’s notice, consideration of domestic concerns such as poverty and inequality will be branded as irrelevant or unpatriotic—just as was the case during the Cold War.
Under these conditions, it will not be sufficient to say, “Oh, that’s foreign policy; we’re focused on domestic issues.” Or, “Yes, China has done some bad things, but Trump is far worse. Let’s talk about his bad deeds.” Or, even worse, to try to claim—as former Obama security adviser Susan Rice attempted in The New York Times on May 19—that it’s Trump who’s soft on China, and that Biden and the Democrats will be tougher. None of those responses will protect Democrats from being pulverized by the China Threat Syndrome.
If progressives are to achieve progress on any of their goals in the post-coronavirus era, they must address the China Threat argument head-on, and show that Americans can embrace progressive objectives without fear of being subjugated by Beijing. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Related Articles The New Cold War in Asia Is Born of Desperation Jeet Heer The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong Wilfred Chan
Giant Powers Behave Badly—They All Do
The first step in addressing the China Threat Syndrome must be to acknowledge that yes, as China has risen to great-power status, it has begun to act badly in many areas. This begins at home, with the Chinese government’s silencing of popular dissent and its severe repression of the Tibetans and Uighurs; it extends from there to its increasingly heavy-handed interference in the nominally self-governing territory of Hong Kong and its illegal militarization of islands in the South China Sea. Many activists in the developing world have also complained of China’s large infrastructure and resource-extraction projects, saying they saddle poor countries with debt, create few local jobs, and perpetuate a status of dependency. More recently, of course, Beijing has been chided—both within the country and abroad—for keeping silent about the novel coronavirus when it first emerged in Wuhan.
It might be tempting to say, “Yes, but.” Yes, China has behaved badly, but not nearly as badly at the Trump administration. “Look at how badly Trump is doing on immigration,” you might say, “separating children from their parents at the border.” On foreign policy, we could point to the administration’s shameful supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in its brutal war in Yemen, which has killed many civilians. And, of course, there’s Trump utterly disgraceful mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Current Issue View our current issue
All this may be true, but it does not erase the fact that China under the leadership of Xi Jinping is behaving badly in many areas that should matter to us, and that, by trying to downplay these abuses, we provide the right with more ammunition to attack us—both as apologists for China and as hypocrites.
The proper response, I believe, is to draw upon history and political theory to point out that rising powers, in their quest for great-power status, inevitably behave badly, using their newly gained strength to overpower smaller powers in their path and to secure economic advantages. One need look no further than America’s behavior in the late 19th century, when a newly empowered Washington fought Spain to acquire an empire of its own in the Caribbean and Western Pacific. Germany, in its rise to power, initiated two world wars, while the former Soviet Union, seeking global sway, smothered Eastern Europe in the wake of World War II and acquired client states far and wide.
We also know, from history and theory, that the reigning powers in such times of transition tend to demonize their new rivals as “bad actors” for threatening the global status quo (the language being used by the Trump administration to describe China’s behavior) and to forge coalitions to resist the challenger. This is the message being delivered on an almost daily basis by senior US officials in Washington and friendly capitals abroad.
The most common outcome of this dynamic, since ancient times, has been war. (Think, for example, of the Peloponnesian Wars, between dominant Athens and a rising Sparta, or the Punic Wars, between dominant Carthage and a rising Rome.) On our present course, with US and Chinese warships confronting each other on an almost daily basis in the South China Sea, that could prove the outcome in this instance. If we are to avoid such a catastrophe, it is essential to devise a blueprint for US-Chinese coexistence on our increasingly beleaguered planet, however much we may dislike certain characteristics of our rival. This would entail, for example, devising rules of the road for mutual involvement in such contested realms as space, cyberspace, and the South China Sea.
Deconstructing the “China Threat”
Those of us who are old enough can remember the “missile gap” of the early Cold War era, when the Soviet Union was said to possess more intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) than the United States—a claim, loudly made by John F. Kennedy during his 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, that was later proved to be hollow. Later, there was the “Team B” affair of 1976, in which anti-Soviet hard-liners like Paul Nitze, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz claimed that the USSR had again soared ahead of the United States in missile strength; this, too, was later proved to be inaccurate. Now, we are again hearing of a “missile gap”—this time involving China’s supposed lead in hypersonic missiles (weapons that fly at more than five times the speed of sound)—and of other supposed Chinese advantages in military power. Related Article Trump Has No Secret Intel on the Coronavirus’s Origins Bob Dreyfuss
To refute all of the outlandish claims being made about Chinese military-technological superiority would take far more space than this article would allow. The main point, however, is that China’s armed forces are far inferior to those of the United States and its allies, and we should not be hesitant in proclaiming this reality.
Just to provide a few critical examples: According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading authority on the subject, China is believed to possess approximately 290 nuclear warheads, as compared to 6,185 for the United States. Similarly, China is thought to deploy approximately 130 ICBMs and 48 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) for a total of about 180 nuclear launch vehicles, whereas, in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the United States now deploys 400 ICBMs and slightly over 200 SLBMs, for a total exceeding 600. A comparison of advanced, “fifth generation” jet aircraft would show a similar imbalance in favor of the United States, as would tallies of aircraft carriers, modern submarines, and other key war-fighting capabilities. On top of this, China has no real allies to speak of, whereas the United States can call on the added military capabilities of Australia, Japan, and South Korea, among others.
Those who seek to magnify the China Threat are likely to pick out a few areas where China appears, on paper, to hold an advantage of some sorts. This is true, for example, of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs)—types with a range of between 1,000 and 3,000, and 3,000 and 5,500 kilometers, respectively—of which China owns an estimated 200 or so, some said to be equipped with hypersonic warheads. Under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, the United States agreed not to deploy any land-based missiles with these ranges; however, since Trump abandoned the INF treaty last year, the Defense Department has begun development of several missiles of this type, most designed to carry hypersonic warheads. More to the point, US ships and planes in the Pacific are capable to delivering Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and a wide array of other potent weapons, negating any hypothetical advantage in Chinese IRBMs/MRBMs.
Progressive activists and Democratic candidates need not be afraid to spar with Republican propagandists about the supposed severity of the China Threat. There are many respected, nonpartisan organizations like SIPRI, the Arms Control Association, and the Federation of American Scientists that can be called upon to help in deconstructing the right’s inflated claims. Failing to do so will put us at a perennial disadvantage.
An Artificially Elevated “China Threat” Is Itself Dangerous
Finally, it is essential to argue that hyping an exaggerated China Threat at a time when everyone on the planet faces shared dangers from the coronavirus, a sinking world economy, and pending climate catastrophe is an immense threat all its own, as it is preventing the world’s two wealthiest and most powerful nations from working together to overcome those mighty perils. President Trump’s insistence that we can go it alone, that “we could cut off the whole relationship [with China],” is sheer lunacy: You cannot fight a global pandemic, revive the global economy, or stave off global incineration without close collaboration at the highest level.
Indeed, igniting a new Cold War with China at this time of economic turmoil is bound to cause increased harm to most Americans, as it will sever critical supply links and deter increased spending by both investors and consumers on both sides of the Pacific. With US tech firms being forced to abandon ties with their Chinese partners and seek collaborators elsewhere, innovation is stalling and prices are rising; the Chinese, having been battered by Covid-19 and punitive US tariffs, are buying fewer American crops and other products. Scientific and medical cooperation between the two countries—essential for the development of vaccines and treatments for this and future pandemics—is being put at risk by the administration’s scapegoating of China for the pandemic’s early spread and denial of funding for collaborative work on virus transmission. Related Article How the Covid-19 Lockdown Is Reshaping Uighur Activism Andrew McCormick
The greatest danger, however, is that artificially inflamed antagonisms between the United States and China will increase the likelihood of war. American and Chinese ships pass within shooting range of each other on an almost daily basis in the South China Sea, and often behave in an intentionally provocative way—sailing dangerously close to each other or to the islands illegally militarized by the Chinese. As tensions and name-calling between Washington and China increase, the risk of a minor incident escalating into something far greater is bound to grow. And, once the shooting starts, what assurances do we have that the leaders on either side—Donald Trump here, Xi Jinping there—will respond in a level-headed fashion and halt the fighting before it results in (a possibly nuclear) World War III?
To overcome these immense challenges and make further progress on the issues that matter the most to us, we must call out the China Threat hucksters as posing a clear and present danger to the safety and well-being of all Americans. China may be acting badly in certain ways—so are we—but we have to learn to work with them in areas of mutual risk in order to avoid mutual catastrophe.


thenation--2020-05-26--3 Lessons From Nebraska That Show How Progressive Candidates Can Win

Two years ago , I wrote about what Kara Eastman ’ s victory in the Democratic primary for Nebraska ’ s 2nd Congressional District meant for the party .
Eastman ’ s narrow win , without the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) , was “ stunning , ” I said .
“ If there is to be a Democratic wave , it is outside insurgents such as Eastman who will drive it.
” This month , Eastman took 62 percent of the primary vote , about double the share of her next-closest competitor .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Eastman lost in the 2018 general election , but she rebounded from that and her DCCC snub .
This time , with the help of the DCCC and the backing of Emily ’ s List and other groups , she has a real shot at winning in November—despite the pandemic , the economic crisis and the fact that Nebraska remains a deeply red state .
Progressives like Eastman are the future of the Democratic Party .
Progressives like Eastman are teaching other candidates , up and down the ballot , how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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?
Two years ago, I wrote about what Kara Eastman’s victory in the Democratic primary for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District meant for the party. Eastman’s narrow win, without the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), was “stunning,” I said. “If there is to be a Democratic wave, it is outside insurgents such as Eastman who will drive it.”
This month, Eastman took 62 percent of the primary vote, about double the share of her next-closest competitor. Her landslide victory is a story of persistence. Eastman lost in the 2018 general election, but she rebounded from that and her DCCC snub. This time, with the help of the DCCC and the backing of Emily’s List and other groups, she has a real shot at winning in November—despite the pandemic, the economic crisis and the fact that Nebraska remains a deeply red state.
Progressives like Eastman are the future of the Democratic Party. Progressives like Eastman are teaching other candidates, up and down the ballot, how to win—no matter the geography or the catastrophe.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-05-26--Trump’s Gutter Politics Just Keep Getting Nastier

The Signal ?
Yet more ugly anti-immigrant gutter politics .
Last week , the administration unveiled its latest xenophobic policy monstrosity .
The target ?
H-1B visa holders , the high-tech workers who for years have been allowed into the country—not as an act of altruism on America ’ s part , but because it has been generally recognized that if the US immigration system is a magnet for skilled scientists , doctors , entrepreneurs , computer specialists , and so on , the country benefits tremendously .
Now , however , as Trump and Stephen Miller batten down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all immigrants—especially those who are nonwhite—are viewed as the enemy .
The new proposal the administration is mulling would require that companies wanting to hire workers under the H-1B visa program pay them such extraordinarily high wages that , in practice , almost no employer would be willing to do so .
This has nothing to do with the administration ’ s concern for workers ’ rights .
After all , in 2016 Trump declared that he opposed any federal minimum wage ; and since his inauguration , he has gone out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia , who march in lockstep with the Senate ’ s GOP majority in opposing increases in the existing federal minimum wage .
Instead , this is all about scapegoating immigrants for the economic insecurity faced by a growing proportion of the American workforce .
Here ’ s What We ’ re Doing With Your Check , Donald This death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to immigration , using regulatory changes in lieu of congressional law , is already having a calamitous effect on the lives of millions of would-be immigrants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , women , and children simply won ’ t be able to apply for visas and residency rights .
Those who were already in the process of doing so are seeing their applications put into deep freeze .
Some are seeing their legal status change overnight ; others are simply being deported with zero due process .
America is currently admitting no new refugees and has locked down the border with Mexico against pretty much all asylum seekers too .
The rationale is essentially that the pandemic is too dangerous to honor normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration , attempting to shore up a crashing economy , is trying to convince millions of Americans to go out in public and interact , with no respect for social distancing .
If , as now seems likely , this leads to a second peak in Covid-19 infections and deaths , it will have everything to do with Trump ’ s crude and irresponsible messaging and nothing to do with immigrants and refugees .
“ We see the humanitarian system being decimated , at least regarding the US-Mexico border , ” Olga Byrne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US immigration for the International Rescue Committee , told me .
“ The laws we have on the books—US laws—unequivocally provide for the right to seek asylum .
It ’ s undebatable.
” Byrne doesn ’ t buy the administration ’ s argument that the pandemic makes it impossible to admit asylum-seekers while still protecting Americans ’ health .
After all , the IRC already runs a welcome center in Phoenix for asylum-seekers .
It already has health protocols , screenings , and temperature checks ; has the ability to run in-depth medical-history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation facilities for those with contagious diseases .
But instead of utilizing facilities such as the IRC ’ s , the administration is simply dumping asylum seekers back into Mexico , where they often end up in overwhelmed camps that have no ability to monitor the spread of Covid-19 .
Meanwhile , as the country nears 100,000 fatalities from the pandemic , Trump ’ s master class in distraction continues .
Some examples of this week ’ s Noise include Trump retweeting a particularly coarse tweet calling Hillary Clinton “ the Skank ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his claim , accusing TV host Joe Scarborough of being a murderer .
Don ’ t get sucked into these distractions .
Focus on the important stuff , be it the administration ’ s disastrous handling of the pandemic and its increasingly overt cheerleading for the anti–social distancing brigade ; or the anti-immigrant policies being rolled out on a near-daily basis ; or the ongoing efforts to prevent Americans from voting by mail ; or the deranged idea , touted last week—shortly after Trump had announced that the US military is developing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might renew nuclear testing for the first time since 1992 .
That ’ s the Signal .
Stay healthy , and stay focused on removing this loathsome man and his gargoyle administration from power in November .

The Signal? Yet more ugly anti-immigrant gutter politics.
Last week, the administration unveiled its latest xenophobic policy monstrosity. The target? H-1B visa holders, the high-tech workers who for years have been allowed into the country—not as an act of altruism on America’s part, but because it has been generally recognized that if the US immigration system is a magnet for skilled scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, computer specialists, and so on, the country benefits tremendously.
Now, however, as Trump and Stephen Miller batten down the country’s hatches, any and all immigrants—especially those who are nonwhite—are viewed as the enemy. The new proposal the administration is mulling would require that companies wanting to hire workers under the H-1B visa program pay them such extraordinarily high wages that, in practice, almost no employer would be willing to do so.
This has nothing to do with the administration’s concern for workers’ rights. After all, in 2016 Trump declared that he opposed any federal minimum wage; and since his inauguration, he has gone out of his way to appoint cabinet members, such as Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, who march in lockstep with the Senate’s GOP majority in opposing increases in the existing federal minimum wage. Instead, this is all about scapegoating immigrants for the economic insecurity faced by a growing proportion of the American workforce. More Signal:Noise Here’s What We’re Doing With Your Check, Donald Sasha Abramsky Is Trump Encouraging Paramilitary Violence? Sasha Abramsky
This death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to immigration, using regulatory changes in lieu of congressional law, is already having a calamitous effect on the lives of millions of would-be immigrants and their families. Some of these men, women, and children simply won’t be able to apply for visas and residency rights. Those who were already in the process of doing so are seeing their applications put into deep freeze. Some are seeing their legal status change overnight; others are simply being deported with zero due process.
America is currently admitting no new refugees and has locked down the border with Mexico against pretty much all asylum seekers too.
The rationale is essentially that the pandemic is too dangerous to honor normal procedures and protections. Yet this same administration, attempting to shore up a crashing economy, is trying to convince millions of Americans to go out in public and interact, with no respect for social distancing. If, as now seems likely, this leads to a second peak in Covid-19 infections and deaths, it will have everything to do with Trump’s crude and irresponsible messaging and nothing to do with immigrants and refugees. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
“We see the humanitarian system being decimated, at least regarding the US-Mexico border,” Olga Byrne, the New York City–based director of US immigration for the International Rescue Committee, told me. “The laws we have on the books—US laws—unequivocally provide for the right to seek asylum. It’s undebatable.”
Byrne doesn’t buy the administration’s argument that the pandemic makes it impossible to admit asylum-seekers while still protecting Americans’ health. After all, the IRC already runs a welcome center in Phoenix for asylum-seekers. It already has health protocols, screenings, and temperature checks; has the ability to run in-depth medical-history interviews with skilled staff; and has isolation facilities for those with contagious diseases.
But instead of utilizing facilities such as the IRC’s, the administration is simply dumping asylum seekers back into Mexico, where they often end up in overwhelmed camps that have no ability to monitor the spread of Covid-19.
Meanwhile, as the country nears 100,000 fatalities from the pandemic, Trump’s master class in distraction continues. Some examples of this week’s Noise include Trump retweeting a particularly coarse tweet calling Hillary Clinton “the Skank” and, with zero evidence to substantiate his claim, accusing TV host Joe Scarborough of being a murderer.
Don’t get sucked into these distractions. Focus on the important stuff, be it the administration’s disastrous handling of the pandemic and its increasingly overt cheerleading for the anti–social distancing brigade; or the anti-immigrant policies being rolled out on a near-daily basis; or the ongoing efforts to prevent Americans from voting by mail; or the deranged idea, touted last week—shortly after Trump had announced that the US military is developing a new “super-duper missile”—that Washington might renew nuclear testing for the first time since 1992.
This isn’t idle chatter. It’s super-duper dangerous and super-duper irresponsible.
That’s the Signal. Stay healthy, and stay focused on removing this loathsome man and his gargoyle administration from power in November.