thenation--2020-11-03--Don’t Just Dump Trump, Ditch Mitch

Don’t Just Dump Trump, Ditch Mitch

This is the day that should mark the beginning of the end of the torturous presidency of Donald John Trump .
But replacing Trump with Joe Biden is an entirely insufficient goal for a moment in history so perilous as the one in which the United States ’ 59th quadrennial presidential election is being conducted .
This is also the day when Mitch McConnell ’ s vice grip on the United States Senate can be broken .
Ending Trumpism is vital for the country ’ s future .
But so is ending McConnellism .
How ?
If Democrats depose Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will begin his presidency as a lame duck .
The former vice president will have the position he ’ s been seeking since the mid-1980s , but he will lack the power to govern in the decisive manner that is required at a critical juncture when the country is wrestling with a resurgent coronavirus pandemic and the mass unemployment that extends from it , when the demand for an end to police violence and systemic racism must finally be addressed , and when the climate crisis grows more severe with each passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all up while he was campaigning Monday in Georgia—the only state that will decide two Senate races today—when he declared : Obama , who knows a thing or two about the extent to which a Republican Senate can obstruct a Democratic president , was reminding voters of a reality that is too frequently neglected in a media calculus that places too much emphasis on the Executive Branch and too little on the Legislative .
The fundamental political truism of this divisive moment is that anyone who imagines a Senate majority leader Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inch is delusional .
It ’ s not just that McConnell is a wild-eyed obstructionist .
Even if the Kentuckian were inclined to negotiate with his former Senate colleague , he leads a Republican Caucus that is now so packed with right-wing extremists that any sign of cooperation would spark an ideological revolt .
So on this Election Day and in the days that follow , I ’ ll be watching the presidential contest that has , necessarily , taken center stage—and that will not be settled until Trump and his supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping just as close an eye on the Senate races that will define the scope and character of a Biden or Trump presidency .
Should Biden prevail , the Senate races could also determine the makeup of the new administration , as the names of a number of Democratic senators have been floated as potential nominees for cabinet posts : Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as labor secretary , Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as Treasury secretary , Delaware Senator Chris Coons or Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy as secretary of state .
Both Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who could appoint interim successors before a special election .
If the Senate is closely divided , their chances of joining the cabinet sink to roughly zero .
For Biden to start thinking about plucking cabinet members from the Senate , McConnell must be well and truly disempowered .
There are many routes , however , to that disempowerment .
Of course , I ’ ll watch tonight to see if , in the upset of upsets , Democrat Amy McGrath might actually convince a sufficient number of Kentuckians to toss McConnell out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not the only way that McConnell could be derailed this year .
If Democrats win the presidency and finish the long count with a net gain of three seats , that will produce a 50-50 split in the chamber .
Then Vice President Kamala Harris , as the new president of the Senate , will tip the balance to the Democrats .
But this , too , would be an insufficient result for those of us who want a swift change of direction—or anything akin to a new New Deal .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , and Harris will not be sworn in until January 20 .
In addition , the California Senate seat that Harris now holds will need to be filled with an interim appointment by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom .
So Democrats are really looking for a net gain of four seats and a clear 51-49 majority—or , because some Senate Democrats are more reliably progressive than others , the wider margin that could give a new majority leader , New York Senator Chuck Schumer , the flexibility he would need to lead on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can they get it ?
Let ’ s start with some numbers .
The current Senate Republican Caucus has 53 members , while the Democratic Caucus has 47 ( 45 Democrats and two independents , Sanders of Vermont and Senator Angus King of Maine ) .
Twenty-three Republicans seats are up for grabs today , while 12 Democratic seats are at stake .
One Democratic senator , Alabama ’ s Doug Jones , is broadly seen as being vulnerable to defeat .
Two others , Michigan ’ s Gary Peters and Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges but look to be ahead .
If Jones gets beat , Democrats will need to win at least four seats .
There are two races that analysts generally point to as likely pickups for the Democrats : the Arizona contest where challenger Mark Kelly has long led appointed incumbent Martha McSally , and the Colorado contest where former presidential candidate John Hickenlooper is ahead of incumbent Cory Gardner .
An additional six toss-up races are possibles for Democrats .
The most likely pickups seem to be in Maine , where instant runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage over Republican incumbent Susan Collins , whose “ moderate ” act hasn ’ t been playing well since she cast the critical vote to seat Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court .
But Democrats could also gain seats in Iowa , Montana , North Carolina , South Carolina , and in those two Georgia contests .
The twist is that the Georgia contests could both end up in runoff elections held on January 5 , 2020—two days after the new Senate is supposed to be seated .
These Are the States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What this means is that the makeup of the next Senate might not be decided until the last stages of the transition process .
That ’ s not good for Biden , or for the country .
On the other hand , if Georgia were to elect Ossoff and Warnock today , a President-elect Biden would in all likelihood be able to forge his administration from a place of strength .
That ’ s why former president Obama was in Atlanta on Monday saying , “ Georgia could be the state .
Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right that Georgia could be the place .
But so , too , could North Carolina or South Carolina , Montana or Iowa .
Or even Kansas or Alaska .
For Democrats tonight , it is less a matter of where Senate seats shift than that a sufficient number of seats are flipped to oust McConnell as majority leader—because ending Donald Trump ’ s presidency isn ’ t enough .
They also have to ditch Mitch .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
This is the day that should mark the beginning of the end of the torturous presidency of Donald John Trump. But replacing Trump with Joe Biden is an entirely insufficient goal for a moment in history so perilous as the one in which the United States’ 59th quadrennial presidential election is being conducted. This is also the day when Mitch McConnell’s vice grip on the United States Senate can be broken.
Ending Trumpism is vital for the country’s future. But so is ending McConnellism.
How? If Democrats depose Trump but McConnell remains Senate majority leader, Biden will begin his presidency as a lame duck. The former vice president will have the position he’s been seeking since the mid-1980s, but he will lack the power to govern in the decisive manner that is required at a critical juncture when the country is wrestling with a resurgent coronavirus pandemic and the mass unemployment that extends from it, when the demand for an end to police violence and systemic racism must finally be addressed, and when the climate crisis grows more severe with each passing hour.
Former President Barack Obama summed it all up while he was campaigning Monday in Georgia—the only state that will decide two Senate races today—when he declared:
Obama, who knows a thing or two about the extent to which a Republican Senate can obstruct a Democratic president, was reminding voters of a reality that is too frequently neglected in a media calculus that places too much emphasis on the Executive Branch and too little on the Legislative.
The fundamental political truism of this divisive moment is that anyone who imagines a Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would give a President Joe Biden an inch is delusional. It’s not just that McConnell is a wild-eyed obstructionist. Even if the Kentuckian were inclined to negotiate with his former Senate colleague, he leads a Republican Caucus that is now so packed with right-wing extremists that any sign of cooperation would spark an ideological revolt. 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 on this Election Day and in the days that follow, I’ll be watching the presidential contest that has, necessarily, taken center stage—and that will not be settled until Trump and his supporters stand back. But I will be keeping just as close an eye on the Senate races that will define the scope and character of a Biden or Trump presidency. Should Biden prevail, the Senate races could also determine the makeup of the new administration, as the names of a number of Democratic senators have been floated as potential nominees for cabinet posts: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as labor secretary, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as Treasury secretary, Delaware Senator Chris Coons or Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy as secretary of state. The Majority Leader Make McConnell Pay for Amy Coney Barrett John Nichols
Both Sanders and Warren come from states with Republican governors who could appoint interim successors before a special election. If the Senate is closely divided, their chances of joining the cabinet sink to roughly zero.
For Biden to start thinking about plucking cabinet members from the Senate, McConnell must be well and truly disempowered.
There are many routes, however, to that disempowerment.
Of course, I’ll watch tonight to see if, in the upset of upsets, Democrat Amy McGrath might actually convince a sufficient number of Kentuckians to toss McConnell out of the Senate. But that’s not the only way that McConnell could be derailed this year.
If Democrats win the presidency and finish the long count with a net gain of three seats, that will produce a 50-50 split in the chamber. Then Vice President Kamala Harris, as the new president of the Senate, will tip the balance to the Democrats. But this, too, would be an insufficient result for those of us who want a swift change of direction—or anything akin to a new New Deal. The next Senate will be organized on January 3, and Harris will not be sworn in until January 20. In addition, the California Senate seat that Harris now holds will need to be filled with an interim appointment by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. Current Issue View our current issue
So Democrats are really looking for a net gain of four seats and a clear 51-49 majority—or, because some Senate Democrats are more reliably progressive than others, the wider margin that could give a new majority leader, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the flexibility he would need to lead on vital issues such as labor law reform.
Can they get it? Let’s start with some numbers. The current Senate Republican Caucus has 53 members, while the Democratic Caucus has 47 (45 Democrats and two independents, Sanders of Vermont and Senator Angus King of Maine). Twenty-three Republicans seats are up for grabs today, while 12 Democratic seats are at stake.
One Democratic senator, Alabama’s Doug Jones, is broadly seen as being vulnerable to defeat. Two others, Michigan’s Gary Peters and Minnesota’s Tina Smith, face serious challenges but look to be ahead.
If Jones gets beat, Democrats will need to win at least four seats. There are two races that analysts generally point to as likely pickups for the Democrats: the Arizona contest where challenger Mark Kelly has long led appointed incumbent Martha McSally, and the Colorado contest where former presidential candidate John Hickenlooper is ahead of incumbent Cory Gardner.
An additional six toss-up races are possibles for Democrats. The most likely pickups seem to be in Maine, where instant runoff voting should give challenger Sara Gideon the advantage over Republican incumbent Susan Collins, whose “moderate” act hasn’t been playing well since she cast the critical vote to seat Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. But Democrats could also gain seats in Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and in those two Georgia contests. The twist is that the Georgia contests could both end up in runoff elections held on January 5, 2020—two days after the new Senate is supposed to be seated. The Senate These Are the States to Focus on to Flip the Senate Steve Phillips
What this means is that the makeup of the next Senate might not be decided until the last stages of the transition process. That’s not good for Biden, or for the country.
On the other hand, if Georgia were to elect Ossoff and Warnock today, a President-elect Biden would in all likelihood be able to forge his administration from a place of strength. That’s why former president Obama was in Atlanta on Monday saying, “Georgia could be the state. Georgia could be the place.”
He’s right that Georgia could be the place. But so, too, could North Carolina or South Carolina, Montana or Iowa. Or even Kansas or Alaska. For Democrats tonight, it is less a matter of where Senate seats shift than that a sufficient number of seats are flipped to oust McConnell as majority leader—because ending Donald Trump’s presidency isn’t enough. They also have to ditch Mitch.


thenation--2020-11-03--After Philadelphia Police Shot and Killed Walter Wallace

est hiladelphia—My wife and I heard the helicopters hovering over our neighborhood here early in the morning of October 27 before we found out what put them there .
Having chosen to impose another news blackout in our home from Monday afternoon on ( it ’ s been that kind of election season ) , we went to bed without knowing what had happened , and to whom .
And we couldn ’ t have guessed , or imagined , that it was so close to our own home .
It has now been nearly a week since a 27-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatally shot multiple times by two white patrolmen in front of his family home on the 6100 block of Locust Street ( roughly 13 blocks from our apartment building , which in West Philadelphia isn ’ t as far away as it sounds ) .
The process of sorting out exactly what happened is ongoing , even with a cell phone video showing Wallace , who suffered from bipolar disorder , waving a knife at the approaching officers while Wallace ’ s mother could be heard wailing in the background , pleading for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the family had requested in the first place .
By sunset , there were protests and , providing the usual counterpoint , looting and vandalism in a neighborhood that had only recently seemed to recover its security and resolve after last spring ’ s rampage following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
More nights of peaceful protests offset by more looting and vandalism followed .
( For some reason , blowing up ATMs throughout the area has been a recurring motif in the aftermath of both the Floyd and Wallace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called in ; curfews were imposed up till the blue-moon night of Halloween .
Strange days , and yet becoming strangely familiar , too .
And there were still more reasons for outrage .
On the night of October 29 , four nights after Wallace was shot , a woman named Rickia Young , a 28-year-old Black home health aide , was watching TV and saw police near her home battling looters .
Young got into her SUV to retrieve her 16-year-old son from the scene .
She brought along the boy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave him home alone .
When she arrived at the scene , a phalanx of helmeted police told her to move her car away .
As Young attempted a K-turn to comply with their instructions ( as another cell phone video disclosed ) , police broke her car windows , dragged her out of the car , with her 2-year-old inside , and began beating her .
Young was taken into custody , detained , then released without being charged with a crime .
The officer seen in the video smashing the window @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police commissioner Danielle Outlaw says is “ restrictive duty ” pending further investigation .
Change Comes to the Streets of Philadelphia Strange days .
By the end of the week , Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was labeling those days “ perhaps the most unprecedented time in city history.
” Unprecedented ?
In Philadelphia ?
Good thing the mayor added that qualifier .
This is , after all , the same city where , 35 years ago this past spring , a whole block of people ’ s homes on Osage Avenue ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , is blocks away from where we live and where Walter Wallace was shot ) were burned to the ground in an attempt by authorities to forcibly enter a house turned into a fortress for the predominantly Black , back-to-nature cult MOVE .
That was “ unprecedented.
” Even the Wallace shooting had a ( sort of ) precedent : Only a year ago , in March 2019 , a 25-year-old Ethiopian immigrant named Kelab Bey was shot several times in the chest by a Philadelphia police officer after ( according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bushes ” at 49th and Hazel Streets ( roughly four blocks from where we live ) with a knife .
Police were responding to reports of a stabling and the officer repeatedly asked Bey to put down the knife , but he refused .
There was no evidence of a stabbing .
Bey was hospitalized and charged with assault .
One has to resist the impulse to let one ’ s repeated outrage wear down to sullen fatigue .
At some point , anger must yield to seemingly simple questions : Do police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence ?
Has the militarization of police gotten so out of hand that the impulse to defuse rather than confront simply doesn ’ t exist ?
Are we all at war ?
And if so , who declared it and against whom ?
When the incidents edge to one ’ s doorstep , these and other questions take on greater urgency , to say the least .
There may , however , be at least one aspect of the Wallace incident that ’ s as genuinely “ unprecedented ” as the mayor imagines—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far beyond my block and , possibly , everybody else ’ s .
The lawyer representing Walter Wallace Jr. ’ s family said he will not seek murder charges against the two police officers who shot their son .
“ Here ’ s why , ” attorney Shaka Johnson told reporters last week .
“ They were improperly trained and did not have the proper equipment ” to do their jobs effectively .
This was after the family had seen the body camera recording from police showing events leading up to the incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public to see this video , which apparently shows more than the cell phone recording released last week .
Mayor Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner say they will release the video to the public sometime after Election Day .
John McNesby , president of the local police union , hasn ’ t seen the recording , but contends Wallace lunged at the officers with a knife .
Both Johnson and the family beg to differ .
However this plays out over the next several months , there is something encouraging , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers as victims of the same incident .
It cracks open a window into a new way of discriminating , with due vigilance , the specifics of each case of excessive force instead of resorting to the kind of polarities that immobilizes any outside-the-box thinking about law enforcement and due process .
It probably won ’ t keep similar incidents from happening again , in Philadelphia or anywhere else .
But it might lead everybody on either side of this excessive-force debate to think a bit longer and harder before taking action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stranger things have happened , even in West Philadelphia .

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?
W est P hiladelphia—My wife and I heard the helicopters hovering over our neighborhood here early in the morning of October 27 before we found out what put them there. Having chosen to impose another news blackout in our home from Monday afternoon on (it’s been that kind of election season), we went to bed without knowing what had happened, and to whom. And we couldn’t have guessed, or imagined, that it was so close to our own home.
It has now been nearly a week since a 27-year-old Black man named Walter Wallace Jr. was fatally shot multiple times by two white patrolmen in front of his family home on the 6100 block of Locust Street (roughly 13 blocks from our apartment building, which in West Philadelphia isn’t as far away as it sounds). The process of sorting out exactly what happened is ongoing, even with a cell phone video showing Wallace, who suffered from bipolar disorder, waving a knife at the approaching officers while Wallace’s mother could be heard wailing in the background, pleading for medical or psychiatric help—or the ambulance that the family had requested in the first place. By sunset, there were protests and, providing the usual counterpoint, looting and vandalism in a neighborhood that had only recently seemed to recover its security and resolve after last spring’s rampage following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
More nights of peaceful protests offset by more looting and vandalism followed. (For some reason, blowing up ATMs throughout the area has been a recurring motif in the aftermath of both the Floyd and Wallace killings.) The National Guard was called in; curfews were imposed up till the blue-moon night of Halloween. Strange days, and yet becoming strangely familiar, too.
And there were still more reasons for outrage. On the night of October 29, four nights after Wallace was shot, a woman named Rickia Young, a 28-year-old Black home health aide, was watching TV and saw police near her home battling looters. Young got into her SUV to retrieve her 16-year-old son from the scene. She brought along the boy’s 2-year-old brother so as not to leave him home alone. When she arrived at the scene, a phalanx of helmeted police told her to move her car away. As Young attempted a K-turn to comply with their instructions (as another cell phone video disclosed), police broke her car windows, dragged her out of the car, with her 2-year-old inside, and began beating her. Young was taken into custody, detained, then released without being charged with a crime. The officer seen in the video smashing the window is on what the city’s police commissioner Danielle Outlaw says is “restrictive duty” pending further investigation. More From Gene Seymour The Monumental Improvisations of Sonny Rollins July 24, 2023 Philadelphia’s Next Mayor Will Almost Certainly Be a Black Woman May 18, 2023 Pick ’Em: Making Sense of the Free-for-All Primary for Mayor of Philadelphia April 26, 2023
Strange days. By the end of the week, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was labeling those days “perhaps the most unprecedented time in city history.” 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
Unprecedented? In Philadelphia? Good thing the mayor added that qualifier. This is, after all, the same city where, 35 years ago this past spring, a whole block of people’s homes on Osage Avenue (which, not to sound like a broken record, is blocks away from where we live and where Walter Wallace was shot) were burned to the ground in an attempt by authorities to forcibly enter a house turned into a fortress for the predominantly Black, back-to-nature cult MOVE. That was “unprecedented.”
Even the Wallace shooting had a (sort of) precedent: Only a year ago, in March 2019, a 25-year-old Ethiopian immigrant named Kelab Bey was shot several times in the chest by a Philadelphia police officer after (according to published reports) “leaping from the bushes” at 49th and Hazel Streets (roughly four blocks from where we live) with a knife. Police were responding to reports of a stabling and the officer repeatedly asked Bey to put down the knife, but he refused. There was no evidence of a stabbing. Bey was hospitalized and charged with assault. Current Issue View our current issue
One has to resist the impulse to let one’s repeated outrage wear down to sullen fatigue. At some point, anger must yield to seemingly simple questions: Do police have no other response to violence besides violence? Has the militarization of police gotten so out of hand that the impulse to defuse rather than confront simply doesn’t exist? Are we all at war? And if so, who declared it and against whom? When the incidents edge to one’s doorstep, these and other questions take on greater urgency, to say the least.
There may, however, be at least one aspect of the Wallace incident that’s as genuinely “unprecedented” as the mayor imagines—and which could have an impact that stretches far beyond my block and, possibly, everybody else’s. The lawyer representing Walter Wallace Jr.’s family said he will not seek murder charges against the two police officers who shot their son.
“Here’s why,” attorney Shaka Johnson told reporters last week. “They were improperly trained and did not have the proper equipment” to do their jobs effectively. This was after the family had seen the body camera recording from police showing events leading up to the incident. The family says it wants the public to see this video, which apparently shows more than the cell phone recording released last week. Mayor Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner say they will release the video to the public sometime after Election Day. John McNesby, president of the local police union, hasn’t seen the recording, but contends Wallace lunged at the officers with a knife. Both Johnson and the family beg to differ.
However this plays out over the next several months, there is something encouraging, and possibly even somewhat… radical about depicting the police officers as victims of the same incident. It cracks open a window into a new way of discriminating, with due vigilance, the specifics of each case of excessive force instead of resorting to the kind of polarities that immobilizes any outside-the-box thinking about law enforcement and due process.
It probably won’t keep similar incidents from happening again, in Philadelphia or anywhere else. But it might lead everybody on either side of this excessive-force debate to think a bit longer and harder before taking action. A big “if.” But stranger things have happened, even in West Philadelphia.


thenation--2020-11-03--To Repair Our Country, Start by Repairing Our Political Language

When I was a child experimenting with language , I pushed the limits of what was allowed and what wasn ’ t .
I remember sitting with my little friend Eddie in the receptionist ’ s office of Victory Baptist Day School and saying , “ If you see Kay… ” Eddie finished the round adding , “ Tell her I love her.
” Sitting at the front desk , Mrs. Perrett called out to us , “ All right now .
Watch your language.
” We giggled silently .
We were experimenting with our words and she was telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
But it wasn ’ t wrong , not exactly .
It was our claim to power .
We had proven that we could work with words as well as anyone .
We understood the complex , arcane power of language and were eager to wield it with dazzling ability .
When I was even younger , I once told my mother that I hated her .
I remember the power I felt proclaiming that enraged emotion , and then later the guilt I had , the fear that my words might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , I see the simple honesty of a child .
I knew something , I felt something , and so I said it .
What could be wrong with that ?
Nothing .
But as time passed , words became a tangle in my emotional mind , and I often used language to hide mischief , to shame , or to inveigle things I wanted out of others .
Words are so powerful .
“ I love you , ” for instance , even if I don ’ t .
All the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solemn oaths that mean nothing at all .
Despite the pitfalls , we are lucky to live in a country that at least professes the belief in freedom of speech .
I am a diehard advocate of those last three words .
I believe that all Americans have the birthright to say anything they wish .
But , along with that almost anarchic independence , I understand that I may be held responsible for my words .
If I call somebody a name that tears at them , I might well have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punch in the nose .
Or the guilt of having caused pain .
If I bear false witness , I may have to answer for my words in the court of public opinion or even in a court of law .
I guess what I ’ m saying is that with a political right like freedom of expression comes both political and social responsibility .
How to Make Defunding the Police a Reality Talking about responsibility in the age of Trump is a delicate thing .
Having a president who bullies his enemies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man who would see tens of thousands die needlessly rather than deal in a straightforward manner with the pandemic—that man raises ire on both sides of our divided country .
He ’ s what they call a rabble-rouser , gathering to his side hate groups who would love nothing better than to return to a day when blacks and browns , anyone who is LGBTQUIA+-identified , and women in general would be stripped of their powers and their dignity .
It ’ s hard not to hate a man like that ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone who sees in his executive rule the possibility of a better world—for them .
The passion for and against this man is so great that both sides have , to one degree or another , adopted his irresponsible rhetoric .
This , I believe , is a monumental mistake .
All Americans have the right to say whatever they believe , but having a right and being right can often be quite different things .
If we use language to express not only our beliefs but also hatred of our political opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making enemies rather than being politic and making friends of our sisters and brothers , no matter where they ’ re from or what they fear .
Burning bridges—more than anything , more than the president himself—is our deepest problem .
This is a delicate argument , its meaning elusive and sometimes seemingly contradictory .
I mean , if someone across the street is yelling at me , cursing me , and carrying a rifle as he does so , don ’ t I have the right to come back at that heckler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t I have the right , maybe even the responsibility , to arm myself and get ready to rumble ?
Of course I do .
And if I don ’ t care about the union that is my nation , if I don ’ t believe in the promise of a new nation , conceived in liberty , and dedicated to the proposition that all humanity is created equal , well , if I don ’ t want this polity to survive , it makes sense that I tear down everything with my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become that child again , damning his mother because of a momentary but deep sense of being wounded .
Who cares if she dies on the way to work ?
Who cares ?
I do .
I do because I know that the people in the trenches on the other side of the Trump DMZ have the same problems that I do .
Our nation is being sold part and parcel to the controlling funders of our elections—the corporations .
Our courts are designed to dole out a better brand of justice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And our bank accounts… our bank accounts are nonexistent .
Retirement is fast becoming a euphemism for what is impossible .
And the future for an ever-growing number of Americans is something to fear .
It doesn ’ t matter what party or gender or race one belongs to .
Our problems are the same .
We want to work hard and realize from that labor a modicum of comfort and security .
That ’ s all .
And for almost everyone in this nation , even just that scrap of certainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the so-called Democrats should love the misnamed Republicans ?
No .
There ’ s no need for us to go to the square dance together—but we should respect each other and express that deference in our language .
How do we manufacture respect when there is so much hatred and fear ?
This is the question that burns me .
How do Black Americans love a nation that has for centuries lorded its so-called whiteness over us ?
How do women , who have had the vote for barely a century , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same jobs as their male counterparts , contort their hearts enough to embrace political parties riddled with sexist convictions ?
I can give a hundred reasons why the citizens on either side of the line can never show sympathy for one another .
But I ’ m not talking about the voters ’ hearts ; I ’ m only talking about their words .
I only expect responsibility and restraint when it comes to what we think and how we express those thoughts .
So , in order to explain why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult linguistic contortion , I will use one bit of language that I believe encompasses the mistakes we make : “ Defund the police.
” Those words mean different things to different people .
Some say that it means closing down police departments across the country , taking the money they had and investing it in social services that will make our cities and their populations safer .
Some think that it means a reimagining of how urban services are offered and laws are enforced .
Some believe that it is a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical , economic , and mental services begin to have a larger impact on our laws and how those laws are enforced .
There are myriad interpretations of what defunding the police might do to our cities .
But I ’ m pretty sure that in any of these understandings , there are few who want anyone to suffer from violence , predation , or unfair treatment in our courts or our jails , on the street , or while sleeping in our beds .
If this is true , why do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a term that some feel threatened by ?
There are many urban dwellers who rely on the police to protect and guard over them .
If they hear someone digging at the lock on their front door or maybe a gunshot in the alley at the side of the house , these justifiably nervous citizens worry that because certain groups have felt abuse at the hands of the cops , now it will be their turn .
This fear comes from guilt , the media , and , I fear , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t we say , instead of “ defund , ” reimagine law enforcement so that it better serves and represents our citizens ?
I believe this is the goal .
I also believe that we , those left-leaning advocates of such changes , are so angry with the police and their supporters that we have to add a little dig in how we express our desire for change .
I understand the anger .
I feel it too .
But our job in the political arena is to make a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree with .
We should always take the high road when entering the political arena , because our laws should be equally applied to everyone and everything we do .
If I ’ m marching down Fifth Avenue yelling “ Black Lives Matter !
” and someone accosts me saying that white lives matter too , I can say , “ Of course they do .
It ’ s just that they ’ re not getting shot down in the street today.
” We can disagree where we do , and also we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common ground .
Our job during this election is nothing less than healing the nation and the world .
We don ’ t have time for petty hissy fits .
Yes , Donald Trump has set a bad example for all Americans .
Yes , he has lowered our credibility in the world and also in our own eyes .
But getting down on his level will not bring our goals any closer .
We have the freedom to say whatever we want , but we have the responsibility to consider every word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word “ reparations ” is to repair .
After four years of Trump , we need to perform reparations on our language and how it works in our mouths , in our minds , and upon the hearts of others .
We need to become better citizens and better people who stand up for what we believe and at the same time do , and say , what we believe .

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?
When I was a child experimenting with language, I pushed the limits of what was allowed and what wasn’t. I remember sitting with my little friend Eddie in the receptionist’s office of Victory Baptist Day School and saying, “If you see Kay…” Eddie finished the round adding, “Tell her I love her.”
Sitting at the front desk, Mrs. Perrett called out to us, “All right now. Watch your language.” We giggled silently. We were experimenting with our words and she was telling us that what we were saying was wrong. But it wasn’t wrong, not exactly. It was our claim to power. We had proven that we could work with words as well as anyone. We understood the complex, arcane power of language and were eager to wield it with dazzling ability.
When I was even younger, I once told my mother that I hated her. I remember the power I felt proclaiming that enraged emotion, and then later the guilt I had, the fear that my words might kill her. Thinking back on those days, I see the simple honesty of a child. I knew something, I felt something, and so I said it. What could be wrong with that? Nothing. But as time passed, words became a tangle in my emotional mind, and I often used language to hide mischief, to shame, or to inveigle things I wanted out of others.
Words are so powerful. “I love you,” for instance, even if I don’t. All the yeses that hide a rock-bottom no. Solemn oaths that mean nothing at all. Despite the pitfalls, we are lucky to live in a country that at least professes the belief in freedom of speech. I am a diehard advocate of those last three words. I believe that all Americans have the birthright to say anything they wish. But, along with that almost anarchic independence, I understand that I may be held responsible for my words. If I call somebody a name that tears at them, I might well have to suffer the consequent vituperation. Or a punch in the nose. Or the guilt of having caused pain. If I bear false witness, I may have to answer for my words in the court of public opinion or even in a court of law. I guess what I’m saying is that with a political right like freedom of expression comes both political and social responsibility. Related Articles Defunding the Police Is a Reparations Issue Dreisen Heath Defund—and Disarm—the Police Start Making Sense and Jon Wiener How to Make Defunding the Police a Reality Bryce Covert
Talking about responsibility in the age of Trump is a delicate thing. Having a president who bullies his enemies, lowers himself to name-calling, a man who would see tens of thousands die needlessly rather than deal in a straightforward manner with the pandemic—that man raises ire on both sides of our divided country. He’s what they call a rabble-rouser, gathering to his side hate groups who would love nothing better than to return to a day when blacks and browns, anyone who is LGBTQUIA+-identified, and women in general would be stripped of their powers and their dignity.
It’s hard not to hate a man like that; and along with hating him, also damning anyone who sees in his executive rule the possibility of a better world—for them. The passion for and against this man is so great that both sides have, to one degree or another, adopted his irresponsible rhetoric. This, I believe, is a monumental mistake. 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
All Americans have the right to say whatever they believe, but having a right and being right can often be quite different things. If we use language to express not only our beliefs but also hatred of our political opponents, then we run the risk of making enemies rather than being politic and making friends of our sisters and brothers, no matter where they’re from or what they fear. Burning bridges—more than anything, more than the president himself—is our deepest problem. Current Issue View our current issue
This is a delicate argument, its meaning elusive and sometimes seemingly contradictory. I mean, if someone across the street is yelling at me, cursing me, and carrying a rifle as he does so, don’t I have the right to come back at that heckler with the same vitriol? Don’t I have the right, maybe even the responsibility, to arm myself and get ready to rumble? Of course I do. And if I don’t care about the union that is my nation, if I don’t believe in the promise of a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all humanity is created equal, well, if I don’t want this polity to survive, it makes sense that I tear down everything with my hatred and my words. I could become that child again, damning his mother because of a momentary but deep sense of being wounded. Who cares if she dies on the way to work?
Who cares? I do. I do because I know that the people in the trenches on the other side of the Trump DMZ have the same problems that I do. Our nation is being sold part and parcel to the controlling funders of our elections—the corporations. Our courts are designed to dole out a better brand of justice to the wealthy. Our schools spread ignorance. And our bank accounts… our bank accounts are nonexistent. Retirement is fast becoming a euphemism for what is impossible. And the future for an ever-growing number of Americans is something to fear.
It doesn’t matter what party or gender or race one belongs to. Our problems are the same. We want to work hard and realize from that labor a modicum of comfort and security. That’s all. And for almost everyone in this nation, even just that scrap of certainty is beyond reach. Does this mean that the so-called Democrats should love the misnamed Republicans? No. There’s no need for us to go to the square dance together—but we should respect each other and express that deference in our language.
How do we manufacture respect when there is so much hatred and fear? This is the question that burns me. How do Black Americans love a nation that has for centuries lorded its so-called whiteness over us? How do women, who have had the vote for barely a century, and who still make lower wages doing the same jobs as their male counterparts, contort their hearts enough to embrace political parties riddled with sexist convictions?
I can give a hundred reasons why the citizens on either side of the line can never show sympathy for one another. But I’m not talking about the voters’ hearts; I’m only talking about their words. I only expect responsibility and restraint when it comes to what we think and how we express those thoughts.
So, in order to explain why I think it is important to achieve this difficult linguistic contortion, I will use one bit of language that I believe encompasses the mistakes we make: “Defund the police.” Those words mean different things to different people. Some say that it means closing down police departments across the country, taking the money they had and investing it in social services that will make our cities and their populations safer. Some think that it means a reimagining of how urban services are offered and laws are enforced. Some believe that it is a form of natural evolution in which social, medical, economic, and mental services begin to have a larger impact on our laws and how those laws are enforced.
There are myriad interpretations of what defunding the police might do to our cities. But I’m pretty sure that in any of these understandings, there are few who want anyone to suffer from violence, predation, or unfair treatment in our courts or our jails, on the street, or while sleeping in our beds.
If this is true, why do we express this cultural evolution of law enforcement with a term that some feel threatened by? There are many urban dwellers who rely on the police to protect and guard over them. If they hear someone digging at the lock on their front door or maybe a gunshot in the alley at the side of the house, these justifiably nervous citizens worry that because certain groups have felt abuse at the hands of the cops, now it will be their turn.
This fear comes from guilt, the media, and, I fear, from our wrongheaded use of language. Why can’t we say, instead of “defund,” reimagine law enforcement so that it better serves and represents our citizens? I believe this is the goal. I also believe that we, those left-leaning advocates of such changes, are so angry with the police and their supporters that we have to add a little dig in how we express our desire for change.
I understand the anger. I feel it too. But our job in the political arena is to make a better world for everyone, even those we disagree with. We should always take the high road when entering the political arena, because our laws should be equally applied to everyone and everything we do. If I’m marching down Fifth Avenue yelling “Black Lives Matter!” and someone accosts me saying that white lives matter too, I can say, “Of course they do. It’s just that they’re not getting shot down in the street today.” We can disagree where we do, and also we can, and should, agree on common ground.
Our job during this election is nothing less than healing the nation and the world. We don’t have time for petty hissy fits. Yes, Donald Trump has set a bad example for all Americans. Yes, he has lowered our credibility in the world and also in our own eyes. But getting down on his level will not bring our goals any closer. We have the freedom to say whatever we want, but we have the responsibility to consider every word before its utterance.
The root of the word “reparations” is to repair. After four years of Trump, we need to perform reparations on our language and how it works in our mouths, in our minds, and upon the hearts of others. We need to become better citizens and better people who stand up for what we believe and at the same time do, and say, what we believe.


thenation--2020-11-03--Why You Should Be Watching the Film ‘Z’ Right Now

A half-century later , I remember the exhilaration .
My Greek boyfriend and I clutched hands in the front-row balcony of Boston ’ s gracious Exeter Theater while convulsive music thundered up through our feet like a shock treatment .
It was Mikos Theodorakis ’ s soundtrack to Costa Gavras ’ s Z , a sexy , high-voltage film that inaugurated a genre : the antifascist thriller .
Z offered backstory to the 1967 junta that had just , with tacit US approval , toppled the democratically elected government in Greece and established post–World War II Europe ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Omarska camp .
Much of the junta ’ s success derived from its creation of ad hoc domestic-terror brigades , its members conscripted from among the country ’ s most economically desperate : underemployed men who might otherwise have been driven to selling their blood or their eyes to stay housed and fed .
The film zeroes in on one savage attack : a charismatic opposition leader known only as The Deputy ( played by Yves Montand and based on progressive legislator Grigoris Lambrakis ) is jumped and bludgeoned by freelance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of the assembled and untroubled police .
The Deputy later dies from his injuries .
Along comes an unlikely movie hero : the buttoned-up , robotically punctilious Magistrate ( Jean-Louis Trintignant ) with Coke-bottle eyeglasses and a just-the-facts manner .
Though we later learn he ’ s the son of an officer in the military police , The Magistrate ’ s icy detachment makes plain he ’ s doing no one any favors , whether the witness he ’ s put in the hot seat is a street bully or a general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternately cursed and whooped at the villains and heroes his motherland had engendered : wincing at the vainglorious imbeciles in uniform who never doubt their impermeable shield of rank , and cheering The Magistrate ’ s pocket-protector nerd so nimbly lining up his ducks for prosecution .
If you already know Z , you ’ ll remember an early scene in which a clutch of top-brass buffoons , their chests bristling with medals and ribbons , sit with upper-level bureaucrats in a government hearing room , ostensibly for an agronomy lecture .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign mildew infestations ” of the country ’ s vineyards with warnings about an alien-ideology attack on the minds of young workers and students .
One security-forces colonel takes the mic to report : “ Scientists have announced a major increase in sunspots ” –a phenomenon that , the colonel claims , is the Almighty ’ s response to anti-war activism .
“ God , ” he intones , “ casts no light upon the communists.
” Extolling the achievements of occidental Christian civilization , the colonel unveils his plan to introduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the honest citizens , the healthy elements of society ” who happen to be that same street-recruited rapid deployment force .
No need for the cops to beat up demonstrators when “ honest citizens ” are happy to do it for them .
How the US and Israel Almost Caused Global Computer Catastrophe The Magistrate does a breathtakingly comprehensive job of getting the goods on all the perps , from the hired muscle to the high-ranking officers , whom he charges with first-degree murder and abuse of authority .
When this good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the late Deputy ’ s inner circle hastens to the house of his widow ( Irène Pappas ) to exult : “ It ’ s as if he were still alive !
It ’ s a real revolution !
The extremists will be swept away !
The elections will be a landslide victory !
” It ’ s what happens right after the lawyer ’ s exuberant announcement that makes Z a must-watch film for 2020 , because nothing in his prophecy turns out to be true .
Seven key witnesses die suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial accidents , and an eighth-story defenestration that the police rule “ an escape attempt.
” The new head of state security offers assurances , in all seven cases , that “ foul play is ruled out.
” The two hands-on assassins end up with wrist-slap sentences , while all charges against the officers are dropped .
The Magistrate is dismissed ; the coup gets underway .
( Christos Sartzetakis , the real-life magistrate , was later tortured and imprisoned . )
For the next seven years , a culture war invaded Greek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quotidian level that , had it not been so savagely enforced , the list would have read like outtakes from a Monty Python script .
As Z chronicles in its final moments , the things outlawed included sociology , miniskirts , modern math , the Beatles , labor unions , long hair , strikes , freedom of the press , Dostoyevsky , Tolstoy , Chekhov , Twain , Beckett , Pinter , Albee—even Aristophanes , Aeschylus , and Euripides .
It likewise became a crime to say that Socrates was gay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no shortage of such lunatic culture-war proclamations from preening heads of state , whether the orator in question is wearing plumes and ceremonial swords or overlong neckties and slogan-stamped baseball hats .
These trappings feel like such obvious components of political opéra bouffe that skeptics breezily dismiss the goals of this bread-and-circus stagecraft .
And on one level they ’ re right : the spectacles are designed to appeal to stadiums full of people for whom belligerent pomp highlighting national character and miracle cures offers momentary surcease of distress from the grim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and children , escalating community suicide rates , an encroaching pandemic , and overall diminished life expectancy .
But that endangered Rust Belt worker enjoying the risky burst of good feeling that a MAGA rally might engender is not the only category of person clinging to good-guy/bad guy magical thinking .
People more educationally and economically fortunate display a troubling assurance about their own virtue as they squander critical-thinking skills on topping one another ’ s bleach-injection jokes , and on clever speculations about cocaine-to-blood ratios in certain unloved adult children of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissipation of focus and purpose derives from the fact that liberals , no less than MAGA adherents , cherish the same delusion as The Deputy ’ s disciples in Z : a residual belief that a savior will lead them to the promised land .
Whether people root for the narcissist in chief at a super-spreader event or keep scrupulous account of his daily Twitter mendacities , they ’ re evading the job of stubborn , ceaseless vigilance that citizen life requires in a plutocracy .
A recent example of the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , multibillionaire Charles Koch had been spreading a luxurious carpet of cash to ensure that his chosen Supreme Court candidate , Amy Coney Barrett , could stroll comfortably to her new job .
The signs were everywhere , but the force field around the Brand Chaos presidential candidate was so irresistible that no one seemed to hear the alarm .
Costa Gavras ’ s film speaks directly to the present situation not only in its depictions of right-wing thuggery but also in its portrayals of intelligent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story .
Consider how in Z , when political violence kills the charismatic Deputy , his followers ’ hopes quickly shift to The Magistrate–the career insider ostensibly operating in apolitical service to principle .
In post-Obamaland , it ’ s embarrassing to consider how often we have been willing to be wooed by that suitor : the good-government guy perceived as having no pony in the race , who just wants to do the right thing .
First it was then–FBI Director James Comey : Yes , he may have thrown the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but people quickly recalibrated their expectations to imagine he would come blazing forward with the awful truth mined from the depths of a corrupt administration .
He didn ’ t .
Then there was Robert Mueller , Comey ’ s predecessor at the Bureau , who excited breathless speculation about his mealymouthed demeanor : that it simply indicated an abundance of caution , because his testimony before Congress was about to scorch so many crooked careers .
It turned out that Mueller ’ s boring surface wasn ’ t a disguise .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we embrace a new career-government hero whose probity , it ’ s claimed , will stand immovable amid the shifting gales of ideology : Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell .
And of course there ’ s the Democratic candidate himself—by virtue both of his own temperament and of the yearnings of his electorate—who supposedly will single-handedly clean up the house , put out the garbage and restore a climate of justice that will allow everyone to sleep soundly in their beds again .
In that critical scene in Z when the elated young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s widow that justice has been served , she reacts to the sunny effusion with a grim , silent gaze straight past the lawyer and into the far horizon .
Whatever the outcome of the 2020 election , the corrupt interests that have profited from the catastrophes of the past four years will still be securely in place .
Z teaches us that the moment of reckoning constitutes not the end of the story , but the beginning .

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?
A half-century later, I remember the exhilaration. My Greek boyfriend and I clutched hands in the front-row balcony of Boston’s gracious Exeter Theater while convulsive music thundered up through our feet like a shock treatment. It was Mikos Theodorakis’s soundtrack to Costa Gavras’s Z, a sexy, high-voltage film that inaugurated a genre: the antifascist thriller. Z offered backstory to the 1967 junta that had just, with tacit US approval, toppled the democratically elected government in Greece and established post–World War II Europe’s most gruesome torture regime until the Republika Srpska’s Omarska camp.
Much of the junta’s success derived from its creation of ad hoc domestic-terror brigades, its members conscripted from among the country’s most economically desperate: underemployed men who might otherwise have been driven to selling their blood or their eyes to stay housed and fed. The film zeroes in on one savage attack: a charismatic opposition leader known only as The Deputy (played by Yves Montand and based on progressive legislator Grigoris Lambrakis) is jumped and bludgeoned by freelance goons on a public square in full view of the assembled and untroubled police. The Deputy later dies from his injuries.
Along comes an unlikely movie hero: the buttoned-up, robotically punctilious Magistrate (Jean-Louis Trintignant) with Coke-bottle eyeglasses and a just-the-facts manner. Though we later learn he’s the son of an officer in the military police, The Magistrate’s icy detachment makes plain he’s doing no one any favors, whether the witness he’s put in the hot seat is a street bully or a general. In the dark theater my boyfriend alternately cursed and whooped at the villains and heroes his motherland had engendered: wincing at the vainglorious imbeciles in uniform who never doubt their impermeable shield of rank, and cheering The Magistrate’s pocket-protector nerd so nimbly lining up his ducks for prosecution.
If you already know Z, you’ll remember an early scene in which a clutch of top-brass buffoons, their chests bristling with medals and ribbons, sit with upper-level bureaucrats in a government hearing room, ostensibly for an agronomy lecture. But the lecturer lards his words about “foreign mildew infestations” of the country’s vineyards with warnings about an alien-ideology attack on the minds of young workers and students. One security-forces colonel takes the mic to report: “Scientists have announced a major increase in sunspots”–a phenomenon that, the colonel claims, is the Almighty’s response to anti-war activism. “God,” he intones, “casts no light upon the communists.” Extolling the achievements of occidental Christian civilization, the colonel unveils his plan to introduce the “antibodies in the fight against infection: the honest citizens, the healthy elements of society” who happen to be that same street-recruited rapid deployment force. No need for the cops to beat up demonstrators when “honest citizens” are happy to do it for them. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From Margaret Spillane Sinéad O’Connor (1966–2023): Premature Anti-Fascist August 1, 2023 How Paula Rego's Abortion Pictures Changed the Conversation July 1, 2022 Eavan Boland, Pillar of Irish Poetry: 1944–2020 May 6, 2020
The Magistrate does a breathtakingly comprehensive job of getting the goods on all the perps, from the hired muscle to the high-ranking officers, whom he charges with first-degree murder and abuse of authority. When this good news breaks, a young lawyer from the late Deputy’s inner circle hastens to the house of his widow (Irène Pappas) to exult: “It’s as if he were still alive! It’s a real revolution! The extremists will be swept away! The elections will be a landslide victory!”
It’s what happens right after the lawyer’s exuberant announcement that makes Z a must-watch film for 2020, because nothing in his prophecy turns out to be true. Seven key witnesses die suddenly of heart attacks, car crashes, industrial accidents, and an eighth-story defenestration that the police rule “an escape attempt.” The new head of state security offers assurances, in all seven cases, that “foul play is ruled out.” The two hands-on assassins end up with wrist-slap sentences, while all charges against the officers are dropped. The Magistrate is dismissed; the coup gets underway. (Christos Sartzetakis, the real-life magistrate, was later tortured and imprisoned.)
For the next seven years, a culture war invaded Greek citizens’ lives at such a banal, quotidian level that, had it not been so savagely enforced, the list would have read like outtakes from a Monty Python script. As Z chronicles in its final moments, the things outlawed included sociology, miniskirts, modern math, the Beatles, labor unions, long hair, strikes, freedom of the press, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Twain, Beckett, Pinter, Albee—even Aristophanes, Aeschylus, and Euripides. It likewise became a crime to say that Socrates was gay. Current Issue View our current issue
Across the world right now, there is no shortage of such lunatic culture-war proclamations from preening heads of state, whether the orator in question is wearing plumes and ceremonial swords or overlong neckties and slogan-stamped baseball hats. These trappings feel like such obvious components of political opéra bouffe that skeptics breezily dismiss the goals of this bread-and-circus stagecraft. And on one level they’re right: the spectacles are designed to appeal to stadiums full of people for whom belligerent pomp highlighting national character and miracle cures offers momentary surcease of distress from the grim reality of disappearing jobs, addicted spouses and children, escalating community suicide rates, an encroaching pandemic, and overall diminished life expectancy.
But that endangered Rust Belt worker enjoying the risky burst of good feeling that a MAGA rally might engender is not the only category of person clinging to good-guy/bad guy magical thinking. People more educationally and economically fortunate display a troubling assurance about their own virtue as they squander critical-thinking skills on topping one another’s bleach-injection jokes, and on clever speculations about cocaine-to-blood ratios in certain unloved adult children of the White House. Ironically, this wasteful dissipation of focus and purpose derives from the fact that liberals, no less than MAGA adherents, cherish the same delusion as The Deputy’s disciples in Z: a residual belief that a savior will lead them to the promised land.
Whether people root for the narcissist in chief at a super-spreader event or keep scrupulous account of his daily Twitter mendacities, they’re evading the job of stubborn, ceaseless vigilance that citizen life requires in a plutocracy. A recent example of the cost of that distractedness: Well in advance of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, multibillionaire Charles Koch had been spreading a luxurious carpet of cash to ensure that his chosen Supreme Court candidate, Amy Coney Barrett, could stroll comfortably to her new job. The signs were everywhere, but the force field around the Brand Chaos presidential candidate was so irresistible that no one seemed to hear the alarm.
Costa Gavras’s film speaks directly to the present situation not only in its depictions of right-wing thuggery but also in its portrayals of intelligent, honorable people who cherish the virtuous-leader rescue story. Consider how in Z, when political violence kills the charismatic Deputy, his followers’ hopes quickly shift to The Magistrate–the career insider ostensibly operating in apolitical service to principle. In post-Obamaland, it’s embarrassing to consider how often we have been willing to be wooed by that suitor: the good-government guy perceived as having no pony in the race, who just wants to do the right thing. First it was then–FBI Director James Comey: Yes, he may have thrown the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee under the bus, but people quickly recalibrated their expectations to imagine he would come blazing forward with the awful truth mined from the depths of a corrupt administration. He didn’t. Then there was Robert Mueller, Comey’s predecessor at the Bureau, who excited breathless speculation about his mealymouthed demeanor: that it simply indicated an abundance of caution, because his testimony before Congress was about to scorch so many crooked careers. It turned out that Mueller’s boring surface wasn’t a disguise. And just last week, New York proposed we embrace a new career-government hero whose probity, it’s claimed, will stand immovable amid the shifting gales of ideology: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
And of course there’s the Democratic candidate himself—by virtue both of his own temperament and of the yearnings of his electorate—who supposedly will single-handedly clean up the house, put out the garbage and restore a climate of justice that will allow everyone to sleep soundly in their beds again.
In that critical scene in Z when the elated young lawyer brings the news to The Deputy’s widow that justice has been served, she reacts to the sunny effusion with a grim, silent gaze straight past the lawyer and into the far horizon. Whatever the outcome of the 2020 election, the corrupt interests that have profited from the catastrophes of the past four years will still be securely in place. Z teaches us that the moment of reckoning constitutes not the end of the story, but the beginning.


thenation--2020-11-03--How Many Cameras Does One Protest Need?

How Many Cameras Does One Protest Need?

The ongoing struggle for racial justice .
The future for immigrant families .
The health and well-being of all Americans .
The very fate of our fragile planet .
The United States faces a crossroads in this year ’ s elections .
Seeking out the stories flying under the national radar , The Nation and Magnum Foundation are partnering on What ’ s At Stake , a series of photo essays from across the country through the lenses of independent imagemakers .
Follow the whole series here .
This installment was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last several months uncomfortably thrust into the national spotlight .
After the killing of George Floyd , protests erupted here just as they did across the country , with thousands of people flooding the streets , demanding police accountability and racial justice .
But when federal police began clearing the streets around a federal courthouse downtown in July , making arrests and shooting off wave after wave of tear-gas canisters , Portland became an epicenter in a battle over freedom of protest and government might , with the whole country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started photographing the protests on May 29 , and I wasn ’ t alone : Besides the professional news media , the protests have been documented by amateur photographers , YouTubers , indie filmmakers , and smartphone-wielding activists sporting homemade “ PRESS ” badges .
At times , it feels like half the people at any given event are carrying cameras , steadily streaming or documenting for their audiences .
The arrival of federal police only intensified this : The population of photographers ballooned , and their nightmarish visuals of camo-clad agents taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media and across the Internet .
News crews often couldn ’ t get close enough to the action because of safety concerns , so a lot of the footage we saw from the summer ’ s pitched street battles was that of citizen participants , activist streamers , or local freelancers—a tangle of masked observers that made it hard to determine who was who .
A cottage industry of semiprofessional streamer crews with names like Concrete Reporting and AssfaultPirates emerged , along with paranoia as word spread that the feds were using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protesters considered to have a conservative bias , or suspected of being police informants , were routinely set upon and ejected from demonstrations .
Members of the press struggled to reconcile subjects ’ privacy concerns with the demands of breaking news reporting .
The visual nature of the protests combined with the sheer number of cameras contributed to a layering effect , as if every image were now a picture about how pictures were being made .
One night in late July , I found myself on the other side of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by an overeager US marshal .
An Associated Press photographer was there , and his dramatic photo of my hunched frame rising from a cloud of tear gas ran in newspapers and magazines around the world .
By August , Portland was an unlikely epicenter of the national conversation around racial justice , and images were part of the reason .
The pictures depicted spirited resistance to police aggression , but they also recorded far darker moments .
When Patriot Prayer supporter Aaron J. Danielson was shot dead in late August , cell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reinoehl , in the act .
I had seen Reinoehl at previous protests and had photographed him on several occasions .
Reinoehl was eventually tracked down and killed by US marshals after giving an interview to Vice News .
In 1961 , historian Daniel J. Boorstin coined the term “ pseudo-event ” to describe how politicians and the media were using spectacle to compensate for consumers ’ shrinking attention spans .
People didn ’ t want to wait for news to happen anymore—they wanted it ready to go when they sat down with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the radio as they drove to work .
Boorstin noted these “ extravagant expectations ” while lamenting the way culture had responded with a fog of news and information designed less to inform than to fill space .
Media events—those concocted for easy visuals and quick publicity—were those that blurred the lines between performance and truth .
Sixty years later , everyone knows that images manipulate , and technology continues to provide new and easier means for their delivery .
While the unmediated nature of independent journalism and the immediacy of livestreaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media gatekeepers , the type of information that reaches us is increasingly shaped by algorithms outside our control .
Whereas Boorstin was contending with the postwar designs of corporate media and advertising , today ’ s multilayered “ thicket of unreality ” is far harder to parse .
Social feeds have splintered the news into infinite versions of itself , each tailor-made and customizable for individual viewers .
Modern political demonstrations to some extent exist to provide content for the parallel battle online , and everyone—from the left to the right , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of the story .
Livestreamers , tweeters , and others of their ilk are seen by their followers as intrepid reporters who take on the mantle of truth to bring back pictures the mainstream won ’ t show .
In Boorstin ’ s prescient words , “ The story of the making of our illusions— ‘ the news behind the news ’ —has become the most appealing news of the world .
”

This article appears in the November 30/December 7, 2020 issue.
The ongoing struggle for racial justice. The future for immigrant families. The health and well-being of all Americans. The very fate of our fragile planet. The United States faces a crossroads in this year’s elections. Seeking out the stories flying under the national radar, The Nation and Magnum Foundation are partnering on What’s At Stake, a series of photo essays from across the country through the lenses of independent imagemakers. Follow the whole series here. This installment was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.
Portland, Ore., has spent the last several months uncomfortably thrust into the national spotlight. After the killing of George Floyd, protests erupted here just as they did across the country, with thousands of people flooding the streets, demanding police accountability and racial justice. But when federal police began clearing the streets around a federal courthouse downtown in July, making arrests and shooting off wave after wave of tear-gas canisters, Portland became an epicenter in a battle over freedom of protest and government might, with the whole country’s attention turned to its streets.
I started photographing the protests on May 29, and I wasn’t alone: Besides the professional news media, the protests have been documented by amateur photographers, YouTubers, indie filmmakers, and smartphone-wielding activists sporting homemade “PRESS” badges. At times, it feels like half the people at any given event are carrying cameras, steadily streaming or documenting for their audiences.
Members of the media photograph as a pro-cop billboard, paid for by a conservative news network, is vandalized and set on fire by protesters outside the Portland Police Association, October 19. (Rian Dundon)
The arrival of federal police only intensified this: The population of photographers ballooned, and their nightmarish visuals of camo-clad agents taking aim at unarmed protesters were shared on social media and across the Internet. News crews often couldn’t get close enough to the action because of safety concerns, so a lot of the footage we saw from the summer’s pitched street battles was that of citizen participants, activist streamers, or local freelancers—a tangle of masked observers that made it hard to determine who was who. A cottage industry of semiprofessional streamer crews with names like Concrete Reporting and AssfaultPirates emerged, along with paranoia as word spread that the feds were using livestreams to identify protesters. Filmers that the protesters considered to have a conservative bias, or suspected of being police informants, were routinely set upon and ejected from demonstrations. Members of the press struggled to reconcile subjects’ privacy concerns with the demands of breaking news reporting. The visual nature of the protests combined with the sheer number of cameras contributed to a layering effect, as if every image were now a picture about how pictures were being made.
An activist videographer during demonstrations outside a ICE detention center, August 19. (Rian Dundon)
A group of protest photographers gather on the corner of SE Stark and 117th Street while police deploy tear gas nearby, September 5. (Rian Dundon)
A protester in a gas mask trains a cell phone camera on DHS officers outside the Edith Green–Wendell Wyatt Federal Building, July 7. (Rian Dundon)
One night in late July, I found myself on the other side of the lens after being knocked to the ground by an overeager US marshal. An Associated Press photographer was there, and his dramatic photo of my hunched frame rising from a cloud of tear gas ran in newspapers and magazines around the world. By August, Portland was an unlikely epicenter of the national conversation around racial justice, and images were part of the reason. The pictures depicted spirited resistance to police aggression, but they also recorded far darker moments. When Patriot Prayer supporter Aaron J. Danielson was shot dead in late August, cell phone footage captured the shooter, Michael Reinoehl, in the act. I had seen Reinoehl at previous protests and had photographed him on several occasions. Reinoehl was eventually tracked down and killed by US marshals after giving an interview to Vice News.
In 1961, historian Daniel J. Boorstin coined the term “pseudo-event” to describe how politicians and the media were using spectacle to compensate for consumers’ shrinking attention spans. People didn’t want to wait for news to happen anymore—they wanted it ready to go when they sat down with the morning paper, with regular updates on the radio as they drove to work. Boorstin noted these “extravagant expectations” while lamenting the way culture had responded with a fog of news and information designed less to inform than to fill space. Media events—those concocted for easy visuals and quick publicity—were those that blurred the lines between performance and truth.
Indigenous rights activists toppled a bronze sculpture of Teddy Roosevelt. (Rian Dundon)
This photographer was injured in the knee after police fired impact munitions at a Black Lives Matter protest on July 30. (Rian Dundon)
Sixty years later, everyone knows that images manipulate, and technology continues to provide new and easier means for their delivery. While the unmediated nature of independent journalism and the immediacy of livestreaming aim to provide information unfiltered by traditional media gatekeepers, the type of information that reaches us is increasingly shaped by algorithms outside our control. Whereas Boorstin was contending with the postwar designs of corporate media and advertising, today’s multilayered “thicket of unreality” is far harder to parse. Social feeds have splintered the news into infinite versions of itself, each tailor-made and customizable for individual viewers. Modern political demonstrations to some extent exist to provide content for the parallel battle online, and everyone—from the left to the right, and even the police—use images to support their side of the story. Livestreamers, tweeters, and others of their ilk are seen by their followers as intrepid reporters who take on the mantle of truth to bring back pictures the mainstream won’t show. In Boorstin’s prescient words, “The story of the making of our illusions—‘the news behind the news’—has become the most appealing news of the world.”