thenation--2020-09-10--Our Stutter: Joe Biden, Brayden Harrington—and Me

When 13-year-old Brayden Harrington peered into the camera during the Democratic National Convention and described his February meeting with Joe Biden , virtually everyone I know who stutters felt our hearts crack open .
It took Brayden six seconds to connect the “ s ” to the “ t ” in the word “ stutter.
” In that instant , watching his head cock and his eyes squint , I was teleported back to my own childhood .
I thought about all the times I deflected a bully ’ s ridicule .
Or prayed to be skipped over in class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk normally enough to have a successful adult life .
Brayden ’ s DNC appearance injected stuttering , a neurological condition that affects 1 percent of adults and 5 percent of kids , into the national conversation .
It is likely to remain there , at least through Election Day .
Last week , for example , ABC News reported on a Russian disinformation campaign suggesting that Biden ’ s “ verbal miscues ” resulted from dementia rather than his stutter .
According to the network , the Department of Homeland Security withheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Two days later , Politico reported that President Trump ’ s advisers have discussed whether to try to trigger Biden ’ s stutter on the debate stage .
The Stink and Injustice of Life Next to an Industrial Hog Farm Is the World Bank Group Above the Law ?
Biden , until recently , has had little to say about the stutter that dogged him throughout childhood .
He ’ s even more reticent to acknowledge , as The Atlantic ’ s John Hendrickson convincingly argues , that he still stutters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , for good political reasons .
First , his encounter with Harrington showcased his compassion , and contrasted him to President Trump , who famously mimicked Serge Kovaleski , a reporter with a congenital joint condition .
Second , discussing his stutter portrays Biden as a warrior who faced a daunting obstacle early in his life and vanquished it .
Given how often stuttering is played for laughs in popular culture , the sympathetic media reactions to Biden ’ s and Harrington ’ s stutters feel like a breakthrough and a relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC .
But we shouldn ’ t give Biden the final word on stuttering .
If we let him define it as a beast to be slain , a life-limiting impediment to “ overcome , ” we are missing the opportunity for a deeper conversation—about disability , communication , and the value of human variation .
Stutterers have long considered Biden one of our own .
Toward the end of his Senate career , he began accepting invitations to our events , where he shared relatable stories from his youth .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said during a speech at the National Stuttering Association ’ s 2004 convention , which I attended .
Biden recounted how , in seventh grade , he stormed out of a classroom after a nun imitated his stutter .
He walked home , only to have his mother drive him back to school and confront the instructor .
“ Sister , let me tell you something right now , ” Biden recalled his mother saying .
“ If you ever make fun of my son again , I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off your head.
” The senator capped his 2004 speech with a bit of magical thinking .
He explained that he cured his stutter by taking a public-speaking class in high school .
“ I had people who believed in me , ” he said .
In fact , there is no cure for stuttering .
Embedded in Biden ’ s address that day was a message for children who stutter : They should strive for fluency so they can succeed like him .
“ We can ’ t kid ourselves , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Q & A .
“ The power of the message to persuade relates directly to the willingness of the other person to listen.
” That ’ s been Biden ’ s narrative ever since : conquering his stutter paved the way for his ascent to the Senate and vice presidency .
During a CNN Town Hall in New Hampshire last winter , he suggested , incorrectly , that stuttering stemmed from a lack of confidence .
“ I was determined to overcome it , ” he said .
“ And I basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ script is ultimately rooted in shame .
And it ’ s exhausting .
“ It feels like a good part of our day should focus on rehabilitation or remediation instead of doing the things that all humans like and deserve to be doing , just living as we want , ” writes Nina G , a comedian who stutters openly , on the site Rooted in Rights .
Stuttering doesn ’ t need a cure .
What needs fixing are listeners ’ reactions : the interruptions , telephone hang-ups , and adults who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Have you forgotten your name ?
” Not to mention wage disparities and airport detentions .
“ Sometimes I refer to it as ‘ my stutter , ’ but sometimes I refer to it as ‘ the stutter , ’ ” composer Jerome Ellis said on This American Life in August .
“ Because to me , stuttering is not bound to my body.… It is a phenomenon that occurs between me and whoever I ’ m speaking to.
” This is called the social model of disability .
Other groups figured it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists asserted their power in 1977 , when they occupied San Francisco ’ s federal building , demanding regulations that would increase accessibility .
The deaf community built autonomous cultural institutions , including the deaf-led Gallaudet University .
Autistic people have championed neurodiversity , the idea that society benefits when it accommodates different ways to learn , communicate , and behave .
Stutterers are catching up .
Many of us now say that fluent speech isn ’ t superior speech .
Stuttering has value : For one , it disrupts the expectation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24-7 and present our most carefully groomed social-media selves .
“ By stuttering , we can turn vapid social interactions into potentially deep , intimate , and consequential ones , ” my friend Christopher Constantino , an assistant professor at Florida State University , wrote in the 2019 anthology Stammering Pride and Prejudice .
“ Lowering our guard can cause others to lower theirs.
” Evidence No .
1 is Brayden Harrington .
He might have chosen to rerecord his DNC video until he spoke fluently .
But that would have robbed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone reveals their whole self .
“ The power of the message to persuade relates directly to the willingness of the other person to listen , ” Biden said 16 years ago .
Harrington spoke without shame , and his honest words commanded our attention , stuttering and all .

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 13-year-old Brayden Harrington peered into the camera during the Democratic National Convention and described his February meeting with Joe Biden, virtually everyone I know who stutters felt our hearts crack open.
It took Brayden six seconds to connect the “s” to the “t” in the word “stutter.” In that instant, watching his head cock and his eyes squint, I was teleported back to my own childhood. I thought about all the times I deflected a bully’s ridicule. Or prayed to be skipped over in class. Or wondered if I would ever talk normally enough to have a successful adult life.
Brayden’s DNC appearance injected stuttering, a neurological condition that affects 1 percent of adults and 5 percent of kids, into the national conversation. It is likely to remain there, at least through Election Day. Last week, for example, ABC News reported on a Russian disinformation campaign suggesting that Biden’s “verbal miscues” resulted from dementia rather than his stutter. According to the network, the Department of Homeland Security withheld publication of an intelligence bulletin about the campaign.
Two days later, Politico reported that President Trump’s advisers have discussed whether to try to trigger Biden’s stutter on the debate stage. More From Barry Yeoman Was This Professor Fired for Having Tourette Syndrome? November 15, 2022 The Stink and Injustice of Life Next to an Industrial Hog Farm December 20, 2019 ICE Puts Immigrants Into a Cruel Catch-22 December 6, 2018
Biden, until recently, has had little to say about the stutter that dogged him throughout childhood. He’s even more reticent to acknowledge, as The Atlantic’s John Hendrickson convincingly argues, that he still stutters. But lately the Democrat has opened up, for good political reasons. First, his encounter with Harrington showcased his compassion, and contrasted him to President Trump, who famously mimicked Serge Kovaleski, a reporter with a congenital joint condition. Second, discussing his stutter portrays Biden as a warrior who faced a daunting obstacle early in his life and vanquished it.
Given how often stuttering is played for laughs in popular culture, the sympathetic media reactions to Biden’s and Harrington’s stutters feel like a breakthrough and a relief. We who stutter felt seen during the DNC.
But we shouldn’t give Biden the final word on stuttering. If we let him define it as a beast to be slain, a life-limiting impediment to “overcome,” we are missing the opportunity for a deeper conversation—about disability, communication, and the value of human variation. 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
Stutterers have long considered Biden one of our own. Toward the end of his Senate career, he began accepting invitations to our events, where he shared relatable stories from his youth.
“I shouldn’t tell you this,” he said during a speech at the National Stuttering Association’s 2004 convention, which I attended. Biden recounted how, in seventh grade, he stormed out of a classroom after a nun imitated his stutter. He walked home, only to have his mother drive him back to school and confront the instructor. “Sister, let me tell you something right now,” Biden recalled his mother saying. “If you ever make fun of my son again, I’ll come back and rip that damned bonnet off your head.” Current Issue View our current issue
The senator capped his 2004 speech with a bit of magical thinking. He explained that he cured his stutter by taking a public-speaking class in high school. “I had people who believed in me,” he said. In fact, there is no cure for stuttering.
Embedded in Biden’s address that day was a message for children who stutter: They should strive for fluency so they can succeed like him. “We can’t kid ourselves,” he said when I pushed back during the Q&A. “The power of the message to persuade relates directly to the willingness of the other person to listen.”
That’s been Biden’s narrative ever since: conquering his stutter paved the way for his ascent to the Senate and vice presidency. During a CNN Town Hall in New Hampshire last winter, he suggested, incorrectly, that stuttering stemmed from a lack of confidence. “I was determined to overcome it,” he said. “And I basically did.”
But the “overcoming” script is ultimately rooted in shame. And it’s exhausting. “It feels like a good part of our day should focus on rehabilitation or remediation instead of doing the things that all humans like and deserve to be doing, just living as we want,” writes Nina G, a comedian who stutters openly, on the site Rooted in Rights.
Stuttering doesn’t need a cure. What needs fixing are listeners’ reactions: the interruptions, telephone hang-ups, and adults who find it hilarious to ask, “Have you forgotten your name?” Not to mention wage disparities and airport detentions.
“Sometimes I refer to it as ‘my stutter,’ but sometimes I refer to it as ‘the stutter,’” composer Jerome Ellis said on This American Life in August. “Because to me, stuttering is not bound to my body.… It is a phenomenon that occurs between me and whoever I’m speaking to.”
This is called the social model of disability. Other groups figured it out long before stutterers did. Disabled activists asserted their power in 1977, when they occupied San Francisco’s federal building, demanding regulations that would increase accessibility. The deaf community built autonomous cultural institutions, including the deaf-led Gallaudet University. Autistic people have championed neurodiversity, the idea that society benefits when it accommodates different ways to learn, communicate, and behave.
Stutterers are catching up. Many of us now say that fluent speech isn’t superior speech. Stuttering has value: For one, it disrupts the expectation that we should all run at industrial efficiency 24-7 and present our most carefully groomed social-media selves.
“By stuttering, we can turn vapid social interactions into potentially deep, intimate, and consequential ones,” my friend Christopher Constantino, an assistant professor at Florida State University, wrote in the 2019 anthology Stammering Pride and Prejudice. “Lowering our guard can cause others to lower theirs.”
Evidence No. 1 is Brayden Harrington. He might have chosen to rerecord his DNC video until he spoke fluently. But that would have robbed his viewers of the intimacy that comes when someone reveals their whole self. “The power of the message to persuade relates directly to the willingness of the other person to listen,” Biden said 16 years ago. Harrington spoke without shame, and his honest words commanded our attention, stuttering and all.


thenation--2020-09-10--What ‘The New York Times’ Won’t Tell You About Woman Suffrage

For women around the country , the centennial of the 19th Amendment , which extended the vote to female citizens , was supposed to have been a celebration .
Instead , 2020 is the year that wasn ’ t .
The anniversary has been anything but joyous , a victim of the pandemic—and also an occasion for shaming .
When the virus struck in March , Women ’ s History Month , a lineup of parades , reenactments , exhibits , and presentations scheduled through 2020 was replaced by scholarly online essays , half-finished plays , and panel discussions via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become notable for denunciations of dead white suffragists , who had excluded their Black counterparts from the movement and the history books .
The New York Times took the lead two years ago with a Sunday column skewering the two most famous reformers .
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not only “ a classic liberal racist , ” wrote editorial board member Brent Staples , but she and Susan B. Anthony penned a six-volume history of the suffrage movement that rendered “ nearly invisible the black women who labored in the suffrage vineyard.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Staples ’ s exposé was blistering—and fully justified .
The past is rarely pretty , and history is served by facing it full on .
But although Times readers may have learned about the failings of white suffragists , they have remained in the dark about the paper ’ s own strident , misogynistic , and sometimes hysterical attacks on the very idea of allowing women to vote .
In the final years of the suffrage campaign , from 1913 to 1920 , Times editorialists parroted the standard anti-suffrage arguments : Women did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote as their menfolk did , doubling the cost of elections ; they would be ruled by emotion ; they were ill-equipped for the rough-and-tumble of politics .
These diatribes echoed the views of owner Adolph Ochs , a rabid opponent of women ’ s rights .
The paper ’ s loud opposition began on October 19 , 1912 , during the presidential campaign .
Theodore Roosevelt was on record favoring woman suffrage , but Woodrow Wilson had so far been silent .
Were it not for Maud Malone—a librarian , intrepid suffragist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue altogether .
“ How about votes for women ?
” she called out from the floor of the Brooklyn Academy of Music while Wilson was polishing his progressive credentials with an attack on monopolies .
He shifted gears .
“ Woman suffrage , madam , is not a question that is dealt with by the National Government at all , ” he replied .
“ I am speaking to you as an American , Mr. Wilson , ” Malone answered calmly .
The audience erupted in hoots and titters .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exit .
She spent the night in jail and was charged with a misdemeanor .
Rightly so , the Times editorialized : “ Woman suffrage is not an issue in Gov .
Wilson ’ s campaign for the Presidency.
” Malone had “ impudently interrupted his speech , ” and persisted with “ her irrelevant questioning.
” It called for prompt punishment .
The following January , the Times applauded the lack of progress by British suffragettes : “ It is clear that the day when women will generally be privileged to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both sides of the ocean , and for that we may well be thankful .
A multitude of evils will fall upon all womankind when the comparatively few agitators for the right to vote have won their victory.
” In 1915 , measures enabling women to vote were on the ballot in New York , Massachusetts , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania .
Enfranchisement , the Times insisted in a three-column editorial , would “ stir up discord in society and in the home , and would put obstacles in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance of men , no woman ever ruled a state wisely and well .
The defect is innate and one for which a cure is both impossible and not to be desired.
” Readers took exception .
What about Catherine II of Russia ?
What about Maria Theresa , 40 years at the helm of Austria ?
Spain ’ s Isabella ?
Britain ’ s Elizabeth ?
When suffrage failed in all four states , the Times rejoiced .
Advocates had been “ thoroughly and hopelessly beaten , ” it said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced that woman suffrage would be a weakness or a danger in the State…and politically an irretrievable error.
” The 1915 setback , however , convinced many suffragists to abandon efforts at a state level and work instead for a constitutional amendment .
Such an amendment had been first introduced in the Senate in 1887 , and promptly failed .
Alice Paul , a New Jersey Quaker , just 28 , had breathed new life into the idea with a parade in 1913 , the day before Wilson ’ s inauguration .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the nation ’ s capital , thousands of women marched behind a banner aimed at the new president and Congress : “ We Demand an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Enfranchising the Women of the Country.
” Demand was something nice women didn ’ t do .
Paul is among the white suffragists often cited for racism .
She discouraged Black women , particularly members of a fledgling Howard University sorority , from joining that parade until the national suffrage organization in charge ordered her to admit them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of great courage in the nation ’ s racist capital .
In subsequent meetings and speeches , Wilson , a Virginian by birth and a Democrat , argued that his hands were tied .
Suffrage was a states ’ rights issue .
In private correspondence , he wrote that he was “ strongly against ” it .
The Times agreed .
“ The New York Times does not believe that the achievement of woman suffrage will increase either the happiness or the prosperity of women in America.… it believes that the bestowal upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their contact with men in political matters , will tend to deprive them of certain privileges they now enjoy.
” Moreover , women posed a danger “ of increasing the electorate by a body of citizens who have shown no special aptitude for dealing with the kind of questions that are submitted to voters , and whose view of such questions is likely to be amateurish.
” The result “ might be disastrous.
” As support for the amendment grew , the Times insisted this was the wrong moment .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure to abandon its neutrality .
“ Amid the many pressing vital problems , domestic , foreign , economic , industrial , with which the United States has to deal , the intrusion of feminism is grotesque.
” For Alice Paul , it was precisely the right moment .
She had worked tirelessly since 1913 to try to convert Wilson and his fellow Democrats in Congress , many of them Southerners alarmed at the prospect of voting by Black women .
Nothing had moved the president .
On January 10 , 1917 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women under her command took up positions in front of the White House , the first people ever to do so .
Calling themselves “ Silent Sentinels , ” they held aloft banners pressing Wilson for the vote .
“ Silent , Silly , and Offensive ” was the next day ’ s headline on the Times editorial ; men would never resort to such “ pettiness and monstrosity.
” As weeks then months passed , the pickets ’ signs grew more belligerent .
How dare the president hold America up as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to vote ” ?
One banner was addressed to “ Kaiser Wilson.
” The pickets were attacked by patriotic mobs , arrested , and jailed on trumped-up charges .
“ They are injuring woman suffrage ” with their “ petty whims , ” said the Times in July .
“ They are disgusting the doubtful and making some of the faithful doubt.
” Arrests multiplied .
Sentences grew longer .
Paul and other leaders drew seven months .
Brutalized in prison and fed rotten vegetables , putrid meat , and oatmeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunger strikes and were force-fed .
The Times did not acknowledge their harsh treatment .
It lumped “ suffrage obsession ” with “ witchcraft ” and “ tarantism , ” said to be an irrational desire to dance .
In November , the paper proclaimed , “ Feminine disorder and sedition have been borne with altogether too much politeness and patience.
” The suffragists should no longer “ be humored as petulant children.
” That same month , New York ’ s all-male electorate gave its approval to woman ’ s suffrage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amendment in early 1918 , the Times felt betrayed : “ He sacrificed what seemed to be a reasonable conviction to political expediency : to save his party from defeat in the Congressional elections he disregarded its platform and his own belief that suffrage is a matter for State decision.
” In 1920 , when the amendment passed Congress and ratification was assured , the Times scolded women for resorting to “ methods which the women ought now to drop .
We mean the intolerance , the intense sex-consciousness , the angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a single aim which have too often marked—and marred—the suffrage cause .
With the vote won , there will be no need for the employment of such weapons , if there ever was.
” Fast forward to 2020 .
On Sunday , August 16 , the Times published a 42-page insert containing 11 essays highlighting the movement ’ s neglectful omissions .
There were profiles of Black activists and their descendants , queer women , Native women , and female political cartoonists , among others .
An article on prominent anti-suffragists noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received admiring coverage in The New York Times.
” It was a lame admission .
One would not know that the news pages had been tuned to anti-suffragists ’ every word , while the editorial board cheered them on .
The next day , acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingsbury wrote a weak apologia , headlined “ When The Times Opposed Women ’ s Suffrage.
” Her predecessors had been “ among those hostile to the cause , ” she acknowledged .
There followed two measured quotes as examples , neither of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s years of vitriol and bigotry , the thousands of hateful words spilled to discredit women fighting for their rights .
Kingsbury then took a bow for “ acknowledging our past failings , ” and quickly moved on to a shout-out for Staples ’ s earlier revelations about “ the way the suffrage movement betrayed Black women.
” She shoehorned in another dig at Stanton and Anthony .
How disappointing that the nation ’ s most influential newspaper is willing to substantially overlook its own moral lapses while imposing a self-righteous historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals in mass movements have—and they always do have failings—should not be given equal weight with the failings of the powerful institutions upholding the status quo .
To obsess about individuals and shy away from institutions , with all their cultural and political power , is historically dishonest in the worst way .

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?
For women around the country, the centennial of the 19th Amendment, which extended the vote to female citizens, was supposed to have been a celebration. Instead, 2020 is the year that wasn’t. The anniversary has been anything but joyous, a victim of the pandemic—and also an occasion for shaming.
When the virus struck in March, Women’s History Month, a lineup of parades, reenactments, exhibits, and presentations scheduled through 2020 was replaced by scholarly online essays, half-finished plays, and panel discussions via Zoom. Already, the commemoration had become notable for denunciations of dead white suffragists, who had excluded their Black counterparts from the movement and the history books.
The New York Times took the lead two years ago with a Sunday column skewering the two most famous reformers. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not only “a classic liberal racist,” wrote editorial board member Brent Staples, but she and Susan B. Anthony penned a six-volume history of the suffrage movement that rendered “nearly invisible the black women who labored in the suffrage vineyard.” Theirs was a “toxic legacy.” Staples’s exposé was blistering—and fully justified. The past is rarely pretty, and history is served by facing it full on.
But although Times readers may have learned about the failings of white suffragists, they have remained in the dark about the paper’s own strident, misogynistic, and sometimes hysterical attacks on the very idea of allowing women to vote. In the final years of the suffrage campaign, from 1913 to 1920, Times editorialists parroted the standard anti-suffrage arguments: Women did not want the vote; they would vote as their menfolk did, doubling the cost of elections; they would be ruled by emotion; they were ill-equipped for the rough-and-tumble of politics. These diatribes echoed the views of owner Adolph Ochs, a rabid opponent of women’s rights.
The paper’s loud opposition began on October 19, 1912, during the presidential campaign. Theodore Roosevelt was on record favoring woman suffrage, but Woodrow Wilson had so far been silent. Were it not for Maud Malone—a librarian, intrepid suffragist, and labor activist—he might have avoided the issue altogether. “How about votes for women?” she called out from the floor of the Brooklyn Academy of Music while Wilson was polishing his progressive credentials with an attack on monopolies. He shifted gears.
“Woman suffrage, madam, is not a question that is dealt with by the National Government at all,” he replied.
“I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson,” Malone answered calmly. 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
The audience erupted in hoots and titters. Police dragged Malone out and down a fire exit. She spent the night in jail and was charged with a misdemeanor.
Rightly so, the Times editorialized: “Woman suffrage is not an issue in Gov. Wilson’s campaign for the Presidency.” Malone had “impudently interrupted his speech,” and persisted with “her irrelevant questioning.” It called for prompt punishment.
The following January, the Times applauded the lack of progress by British suffragettes: “It is clear that the day when women will generally be privileged to vote is still a long way off, on both sides of the ocean, and for that we may well be thankful. A multitude of evils will fall upon all womankind when the comparatively few agitators for the right to vote have won their victory.”
In 1915, measures enabling women to vote were on the ballot in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Enfranchisement, the Times insisted in a three-column editorial, would “stir up discord in society and in the home, and would put obstacles in the way of progress…. Without the counsel and guidance of men, no woman ever ruled a state wisely and well. The defect is innate and one for which a cure is both impossible and not to be desired.”
Readers took exception. What about Catherine II of Russia? What about Maria Theresa, 40 years at the helm of Austria? Spain’s Isabella? Britain’s Elizabeth?
When suffrage failed in all four states, the Times rejoiced. Advocates had been “thoroughly and hopelessly beaten,” it said, “because the majority of conservative men are convinced that woman suffrage would be a weakness or a danger in the State…and politically an irretrievable error.”
The 1915 setback, however, convinced many suffragists to abandon efforts at a state level and work instead for a constitutional amendment.
Such an amendment had been first introduced in the Senate in 1887, and promptly failed. Alice Paul, a New Jersey Quaker, just 28, had breathed new life into the idea with a parade in 1913, the day before Wilson’s inauguration. In a display of pageantry never before seen in the nation’s capital, thousands of women marched behind a banner aimed at the new president and Congress: “We Demand an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Enfranchising the Women of the Country.” Demand was something nice women didn’t do.
Paul is among the white suffragists often cited for racism. She discouraged Black women, particularly members of a fledgling Howard University sorority, from joining that parade until the national suffrage organization in charge ordered her to admit them. The young women marched, an act of great courage in the nation’s racist capital.
In subsequent meetings and speeches, Wilson, a Virginian by birth and a Democrat, argued that his hands were tied. Suffrage was a states’ rights issue. In private correspondence, he wrote that he was “strongly against” it.
The Times agreed. “The New York Times does not believe that the achievement of woman suffrage will increase either the happiness or the prosperity of women in America.… it believes that the bestowal upon women of the right to vote, and their contact with men in political matters, will tend to deprive them of certain privileges they now enjoy.”
Moreover, women posed a danger “of increasing the electorate by a body of citizens who have shown no special aptitude for dealing with the kind of questions that are submitted to voters, and whose view of such questions is likely to be amateurish.” The result “might be disastrous.”
As support for the amendment grew, the Times insisted this was the wrong moment. There was war in Europe. America was under pressure to abandon its neutrality. “Amid the many pressing vital problems, domestic, foreign, economic, industrial, with which the United States has to deal, the intrusion of feminism is grotesque.”
For Alice Paul, it was precisely the right moment. She had worked tirelessly since 1913 to try to convert Wilson and his fellow Democrats in Congress, many of them Southerners alarmed at the prospect of voting by Black women. Nothing had moved the president. On January 10, 1917, Paul stunned the nation. A dozen women under her command took up positions in front of the White House, the first people ever to do so. Calling themselves “Silent Sentinels,” they held aloft banners pressing Wilson for the vote.
“Silent, Silly, and Offensive” was the next day’s headline on the Times editorial; men would never resort to such “pettiness and monstrosity.”
As weeks then months passed, the pickets’ signs grew more belligerent. How dare the president hold America up as a democracy when “20,000,000 women are denied the right to vote”? One banner was addressed to “Kaiser Wilson.” The pickets were attacked by patriotic mobs, arrested, and jailed on trumped-up charges. “They are injuring woman suffrage” with their “petty whims,” said the Times in July. “They are disgusting the doubtful and making some of the faithful doubt.”
Arrests multiplied. Sentences grew longer. Paul and other leaders drew seven months. Brutalized in prison and fed rotten vegetables, putrid meat, and oatmeal crawling with worms, they went on hunger strikes and were force-fed.
The Times did not acknowledge their harsh treatment. It lumped “suffrage obsession” with “witchcraft” and “tarantism,” said to be an irrational desire to dance.
In November, the paper proclaimed, “Feminine disorder and sedition have been borne with altogether too much politeness and patience.” The suffragists should no longer “be humored as petulant children.”
That same month, New York’s all-male electorate gave its approval to woman’s suffrage. When Wilson suddenly announced his support for the amendment in early 1918, the Times felt betrayed: “He sacrificed what seemed to be a reasonable conviction to political expediency: to save his party from defeat in the Congressional elections he disregarded its platform and his own belief that suffrage is a matter for State decision.”
In 1920, when the amendment passed Congress and ratification was assured, the Times scolded women for resorting to “methods which the women ought now to drop. We mean the intolerance, the intense sex-consciousness, the angry assaults, the resentments, the absorption in a single aim which have too often marked—and marred—the suffrage cause. With the vote won, there will be no need for the employment of such weapons, if there ever was.”
Fast forward to 2020. On Sunday, August 16, the Times published a 42-page insert containing 11 essays highlighting the movement’s neglectful omissions. There were profiles of Black activists and their descendants, queer women, Native women, and female political cartoonists, among others.
An article on prominent anti-suffragists noted that the “antis” had “received admiring coverage in The New York Times.” It was a lame admission. One would not know that the news pages had been tuned to anti-suffragists’ every word, while the editorial board cheered them on.
The next day, acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingsbury wrote a weak apologia, headlined “When The Times Opposed Women’s Suffrage.” Her predecessors had been “among those hostile to the cause,” she acknowledged. There followed two measured quotes as examples, neither of which honestly reflected the extent of the paper’s years of vitriol and bigotry, the thousands of hateful words spilled to discredit women fighting for their rights. Kingsbury then took a bow for “acknowledging our past failings,” and quickly moved on to a shout-out for Staples’s earlier revelations about “the way the suffrage movement betrayed Black women.” She shoehorned in another dig at Stanton and Anthony.
How disappointing that the nation’s most influential newspaper is willing to substantially overlook its own moral lapses while imposing a self-righteous historical reckoning on everyone else. Whatever failings individuals in mass movements have—and they always do have failings—should not be given equal weight with the failings of the powerful institutions upholding the status quo. To obsess about individuals and shy away from institutions, with all their cultural and political power, is historically dishonest in the worst way.


thenation--2020-09-10--The US Is a Failed State

The US Is a Failed State

The year was 1991 and the United States was suddenly the globe ’ s lone superpower , its ultimate hyperpower , the last and greatest of its kind , the soon-to-be-indispensable nation .
The only one left—alone , utterly alone and triumphant atop the world .
Who could have asked for more ?
Or better ?
It had been a Cold War fantasy of the first order—until that other superpower , the Soviet Union , imploded .
In fact , even that doesn ’ t catch the true shock of the moment , since Washington ’ s leaders simply hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cold War could ever truly end .
Now , go ahead , blame me .
In this pandemic moment that should perhaps be considered a sign of a burning , sickening future to come , I ’ m stoking your nostalgia for better times .
Admittedly , even that past was , in truth , a fantasy of the first ( or perhaps last ) order .
After all , in retrospect , that mighty , resplendent , lone superpower , victorious beyond the wildest dreams of its political elite , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path of decline .
Enwreathed in triumph , it , too , would be heading for the exits , even if so much more slowly than the Soviet Union .
It ’ s clear enough now that , in 1991 , with Ronald Reagan ’ s former vice president George H.W .
Bush in the White House and his son , George W. , waiting in the wings of history ( while Iraqi autocrat and former US ally Saddam Hussein was still perched in his palace in Baghdad , Iraq ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the path to Donald Trump ’ s America .
No , he didn ’ t know it .
How could he ?
Who could have possibly imagined him as the president of the United States ?
He was still a tabloid phenomenon then ( masquerading that year as his own publicist “ John Miller ” in phone interviews with reporters to laud the attractions and sexual conquests of one “ Donald Trump ” ) .
He was also on the road to bankruptcy court since his five Atlantic City casinos would soon go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future candidate to head an America where life for so many would be in decline and its very greatness in need of being “ made ” great again… well , who coulda dreamt it ?
Not me , that ’ s for sure .
Let me apologize one more time .
Yes , I was playing on your sense of nostalgia in this besieged American moment of ours .
Mission accomplished , I assume .
So much , I ’ m afraid , for such “ Auld Lang Syne ” moments , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century , even if , remarkably enough , that wasn ’ t actually so long ago .
Only 29 years passed from that singular moment of triumph in Washington ( a period that would then be fancied as “ the end of history ” ) to Donald Trump ’ s America-not-First-but-Last world—to , that is , genuine “ American carnage ” ( and I ’ m not just thinking about the almost 190,000 Americans who have already died from Covid-19 , with no end in sight ) .
Less than a quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who asked God to continue to “ bless the United States of America ” in the wake of a historic victory to the man who campaigned for president on the declinist slogan of making America great again .
And don ’ t think Donald Trump was wrong in that 2017 inaugural address of his .
A certain level of American carnage ( particularly in the form of staggering economic inequality , not to speak of the “ forever wars ” still being fought so brainlessly by a military on which this country was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , education , and infrastructure ) had helped bring him to power and he knew it .
He even promised to solve just such problems , including ending those forever wars , as he essentially did again in his recent White House acceptance speech , even as he promised to keep “ rebuilding ” that very military .
Here was the key passage from that long-gone inaugural address of his : Of course , more than three and a half years later , in that seemingly eternal “ now ” of his , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those wars he swore he would get us out of ; the spending on the military and the rest of what ’ s still known as the national security state , which only increased ; the economic inequality , which just grew , thanks in part to a humongous 2017 tax cut , a bonanza for the wealthiest Americans ( and no one else ) , leaving the government and so the rest of us owing far more money than previously imaginable ; and above all , the urge of his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just to deny that climate change exists but to burn this planet down by “ unleashing ” a program of “ American energy dominance ” and taking every imaginable restraint off the exploitation of fossil fuels and opening up yet more areas for those industries to exploit .
In other words , Donald J. Trump has given American carnage new meaning and , in his singular way , lent a remarkable hand to the transformation of this country .
When The Donald descended that Trump Tower escalator in June 2015 to declare himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a promise to the disgruntled citizens of the American heartland .
He would build what he hailed as a “ great wall ” ( that the Mexican government would pay for ) to seal us off from the lesser breeds on this planet ( Mexican rapists ! )
.
Until that moment , of course , there had been just one “ great ” wall on planet Earth and it had been constructed by various Chinese dynasties over untold centuries to keep out nomadic invaders , the armed “ caravans ” of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , being second-best to or only as good as just about anything wasn ’ t , to put it mildly , Donald Trump ’ s signature style .
So in that first speech of his , he instantly doubled the “ greats ” in his wall .
He would create nothing less than a “ great , great ” one .
In the years that followed , it ’ s also become clear that neither spelling , nor pronouncing words is among his special skills or , put another way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great misspeller and mispronouncer .
Given that he managed to produce only 300 miles of wall on the US-Mexico border in almost four years in office , almost all of it replacing already existing barriers ( at the expense of the American taxpayer and a set of private donors cum suckers ) , we have to assume that the candidate on that first day either misspelled or mispronounced one word in that phrase of his .
Given what ’ s happened to this country since , it ’ s hard not to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great , great wall , but a great , great fall .
And in this pandemic hell of a country , with its economy in the kind of tatters that no one has yet faintly come to grips with , its health ( and mental health ) in crisis mode , parts of it burnt to a crisp and others flooded and clobbered by intensifying storms , if that ’ s what he meant to say , his leadership of what remains the world ’ s lone superpower ( despite a rising China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great success .
For such a triumph , however , this country needs some new term , something to replace that old “ indispensable nation ” ( and , for my money , “ dispensable nation ” doesn ’ t quite do the trick ) .
And I have a suggestion .
Once upon a time when I was much , much younger , we spoke of three worlds on planet Earth .
There was the first world ( also known as “ the free world ” ) , which included the developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Japan ( and you could throw in South Korea and Australia , if you wanted ) ; there was the second world , also known as the communist bloc , the Soviet Union and the People ’ s Republic of China ; and , of course , there was the third world , which included all the other poor and underdeveloped countries , many former European colonies , scattered around the globe ’ s south and often in terrible shape .
So many years later , with the first billionaire in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American carnage at home rather than in distant lands like Vietnam , I suspect we need a new “ world ” to capture the nature and state of this country at this moment .
So how about fourth world ?
After all , the United States remains the richest , most powerful nation on the planet ( first world ! )
, but is also afloat in a sea of autocratic , climate-changing , economic , military , and police carnage that should qualify it as distinctly third world as well .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple math problem : What ’ s 1 plus 3 ?
Four , of course , making this country once again a leader on this ever less equal planet of ours ; the United States , that is , is the first official fourth-world country in history .
USA !
USA !
USA !
Or if you prefer , you could simply think of us as potentially the most powerful , wealthiest failed state on the planet .
Humanity has so far ( and I use that phrase advisedly ) managed to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this planet .
In doing so , it has , of course , taken over tasks that it once left to the gods ( Armageddon !
Apocalypse ! )
.
On both counts , Donald Trump is proving himself a master of destruction .
The first way , of course , would be by nuclear weapons , so far , despite close calls , used only twice , 75 years ago .
However , the president and his crew have focused with striking intensity on tearing up nuclear arms pacts signed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Cold War , backing out of the Iranian nuclear deal , pumping up the “ modernization ” of the US nuclear arsenal , and threatening other countries with the actual use of such weaponry .
( Who could forget , for instance , The Donald ’ s threat to release “ fire and fury like the world has never seen ” on North Korea ? )
In the process , the Trump administration has loosed what increasingly looks like a new global nuclear arms race , even as tensions grow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , while promising to end America ’ s “ forever wars ” ( he didn ’ t ) , President Trump has actually pumped up the relatively dim possibility since the Cold War ended of using nuclear weapons , which obviously threatens a flash-bang end to human life as we know it .
And keep in mind that , when it comes to world-ending possibilities , that ’ s the lesser of his two apocalyptic efforts in these years .
While we ’ re still on the first of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , let ’ s not forget to include not just the increased funding devoted to “ modernizing ” those nukes , but more generally the ever greater funding of the Pentagon and what ’ s still called “ the national security state.
” It hardly matters how little of that money goes to true national security in a 21st century moment when we ’ re experiencing a pandemic that could be but the beginning of a new Black Plague–style era and the heating up of the atmosphere , oceans , and seas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already making life increasingly unbearable via ever fiercer storms , ever more frequent wildfires , the ever greater melting of ice sheets , ever more violent flooding , ever greater drought—I mean , you name it , and if it ’ s somewhere between deeply unpleasant and life ( and property ) endangering , it ’ s getting worse in the Trumpian moment .
In that second category when it comes to destroying human life as we ’ ve known it via the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically men ) have shown a particular flair .
I ’ m still alone in doing so , but I continue to refer to the whole lot of them as pyromaniacs , because their simple denial of the reality of global warming is the least of it .
Trump and crew are clearly determined to burn , burn , burn .
And lest you think any of this will ever bother the president or his top officials , think again .
After all , having had an essentially maskless , cheek-by-jowl election rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus and may have killed one of the president ’ s well-known supporters , he then doubled down in his acceptance speech for the presidential nomination .
He gave it in front of the White House before the kind of crowd he glories in : 1,500 enthusiastic followers , almost all maskless , untested for Covid-19 , and jammed together cheering him for an hour .
That should tell you all you need to know about his concern for the lives of others ( even those who adore him ) or anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps we need a new chant for this election season , something like : “ Four more years and this planet will be a hell on earth !
” It was the worst of times , it was… no , wait , in Trumpian terms , it was the worstest of times since no one should ever be able to outdo him .
And as CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite would have said in my youth , you ( and I and the rest of humanity ) were there .
We truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @

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?
The year was 1991 and the United States was suddenly the globe’s lone superpower, its ultimate hyperpower, the last and greatest of its kind, the soon-to-be-indispensable nation. The only one left—alone, utterly alone and triumphant atop the world.
Who could have asked for more? Or better? It had been a Cold War fantasy of the first order—until that other superpower, the Soviet Union, imploded. In fact, even that doesn’t catch the true shock of the moment, since Washington’s leaders simply hadn’t imagined a world in which the Cold War could ever truly end.
Now, go ahead, blame me. In this pandemic moment that should perhaps be considered a sign of a burning, sickening future to come, I’m stoking your nostalgia for better times. Admittedly, even that past was, in truth, a fantasy of the first (or perhaps last) order. After all, in retrospect, that mighty, resplendent, lone superpower, victorious beyond the wildest dreams of its political elite, was already about to embark on its own path of decline. Enwreathed in triumph, it, too, would be heading for the exits, even if so much more slowly than the Soviet Union.
It’s clear enough now that, in 1991, with Ronald Reagan’s former vice president George H.W. Bush in the White House and his son, George W., waiting in the wings of history (while Iraqi autocrat and former US ally Saddam Hussein was still perched in his palace in Baghdad, Iraq), the United States was already launching itself on the path to Donald Trump’s America. No, he didn’t know it. How could he? Who could have possibly imagined him as the president of the United States? He was still a tabloid phenomenon then (masquerading that year as his own publicist “John Miller” in phone interviews with reporters to laud the attractions and sexual conquests of one “Donald Trump”). He was also on the road to bankruptcy court since his five Atlantic City casinos would soon go down in flames. Him as a future candidate to head an America where life for so many would be in decline and its very greatness in need of being “made” great again… well, who coulda dreamt it? Not me, that’s for sure.
Welcome to American Carnage
Let me apologize one more time. Yes, I was playing on your sense of nostalgia in this besieged American moment of ours. Mission accomplished, I assume. 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 much, I’m afraid, for such “Auld Lang Syne” moments, since that one took place in a previous century, even if, remarkably enough, that wasn’t actually so long ago. Only 29 years passed from that singular moment of triumph in Washington (a period that would then be fancied as “the end of history”) to Donald Trump’s America-not-First-but-Last world—to, that is, genuine “American carnage” (and I’m not just thinking about the almost 190,000 Americans who have already died from Covid-19, with no end in sight). Less than a quarter of a century took us from the president who asked God to continue to “bless the United States of America” in the wake of a historic victory to the man who campaigned for president on the declinist slogan of making America great again.
And don’t think Donald Trump was wrong in that 2017 inaugural address of his. A certain level of American carnage (particularly in the form of staggering economic inequality, not to speak of the “forever wars” still being fought so brainlessly by a military on which this country was spending its money rather than on health, education, and infrastructure) had helped bring him to power and he knew it. He even promised to solve just such problems, including ending those forever wars, as he essentially did again in his recent White House acceptance speech, even as he promised to keep “rebuilding” that very military. Current Issue View our current issue
Here was the key passage from that long-gone inaugural address of his:
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
Of course, more than three and a half years later, in that seemingly eternal “now” of his, the carnage seemed eternal—whether in the form of those wars he swore he would get us out of; the spending on the military and the rest of what’s still known as the national security state, which only increased; the economic inequality, which just grew, thanks in part to a humongous 2017 tax cut, a bonanza for the wealthiest Americans (and no one else), leaving the government and so the rest of us owing far more money than previously imaginable; and above all, the urge of his administration, from top to bottom, not just to deny that climate change exists but to burn this planet down by “unleashing” a program of “American energy dominance” and taking every imaginable restraint off the exploitation of fossil fuels and opening up yet more areas for those industries to exploit. In other words, Donald J. Trump has given American carnage new meaning and, in his singular way, lent a remarkable hand to the transformation of this country.
A Simple Math Problem
When The Donald descended that Trump Tower escalator in June 2015 to declare himself a candidate for president, he made a promise to the disgruntled citizens of the American heartland. He would build what he hailed as a “great wall” (that the Mexican government would pay for) to seal us off from the lesser breeds on this planet (Mexican rapists!). Until that moment, of course, there had been just one “great” wall on planet Earth and it had been constructed by various Chinese dynasties over untold centuries to keep out nomadic invaders, the armed “caravans” of that moment.
As Americans would soon learn, however, being second-best to or only as good as just about anything wasn’t, to put it mildly, Donald Trump’s signature style. So in that first speech of his, he instantly doubled the “greats” in his wall. He would create nothing less than a “great, great” one.
In the years that followed, it’s also become clear that neither spelling, nor pronouncing words is among his special skills or, put another way, that he’s a great, great misspeller and mispronouncer. Given that he managed to produce only 300 miles of wall on the US-Mexico border in almost four years in office, almost all of it replacing already existing barriers (at the expense of the American taxpayer and a set of private donors cum suckers), we have to assume that the candidate on that first day either misspelled or mispronounced one word in that phrase of his.
Given what’s happened to this country since, it’s hard not to imagine that what he meant was not a great, great wall, but a great, great fall. And in this pandemic hell of a country, with its economy in the kind of tatters that no one has yet faintly come to grips with, its health (and mental health) in crisis mode, parts of it burnt to a crisp and others flooded and clobbered by intensifying storms, if that’s what he meant to say, his leadership of what remains the world’s lone superpower (despite a rising China) has indeed been a great, great success. For such a triumph, however, this country needs some new term, something to replace that old “indispensable nation” (and, for my money, “dispensable nation” doesn’t quite do the trick).
And I have a suggestion. Once upon a time when I was much, much younger, we spoke of three worlds on planet Earth. There was the first world (also known as “the free world”), which included the developed countries of North America, Europe, and Japan (and you could throw in South Korea and Australia, if you wanted); there was the second world, also known as the communist bloc, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China; and, of course, there was the third world, which included all the other poor and underdeveloped countries, many former European colonies, scattered around the globe’s south and often in terrible shape.
So many years later, with the first billionaire in the Oval Office presiding over an era of American carnage at home rather than in distant lands like Vietnam, I suspect we need a new “world” to capture the nature and state of this country at this moment. So how about fourth world? After all, the United States remains the richest, most powerful nation on the planet (first world!), but is also afloat in a sea of autocratic, climate-changing, economic, military, and police carnage that should qualify it as distinctly third world as well.
So, it’s really just a simple math problem: What’s 1 plus 3? Four, of course, making this country once again a leader on this ever less equal planet of ours; the United States, that is, is the first official fourth-world country in history. USA! USA! USA!
Or if you prefer, you could simply think of us as potentially the most powerful, wealthiest failed state on the planet.
A Hell on Earth?
Humanity has so far (and I use that phrase advisedly) managed to create just two ways of destroying human life on this planet. In doing so, it has, of course, taken over tasks that it once left to the gods (Armageddon! Apocalypse!). On both counts, Donald Trump is proving himself a master of destruction.
The first way, of course, would be by nuclear weapons, so far, despite close calls, used only twice, 75 years ago. However, the president and his crew have focused with striking intensity on tearing up nuclear arms pacts signed with the Soviet Union in the final years of the Cold War, backing out of the Iranian nuclear deal, pumping up the “modernization” of the US nuclear arsenal, and threatening other countries with the actual use of such weaponry. (Who could forget, for instance, The Donald’s threat to release “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea?)
In the process, the Trump administration has loosed what increasingly looks like a new global nuclear arms race, even as tensions grow, especially between China and the United States. In other words, while promising to end America’s “forever wars” (he didn’t), President Trump has actually pumped up the relatively dim possibility since the Cold War ended of using nuclear weapons, which obviously threatens a flash-bang end to human life as we know it.
And keep in mind that, when it comes to world-ending possibilities, that’s the lesser of his two apocalyptic efforts in these years.
While we’re still on the first of those ways of destroying this planet, however, let’s not forget to include not just the increased funding devoted to “modernizing” those nukes, but more generally the ever greater funding of the Pentagon and what’s still called “the national security state.” It hardly matters how little of that money goes to true national security in a 21st century moment when we’re experiencing a pandemic that could be but the beginning of a new Black Plague–style era and the heating up of the atmosphere, oceans, and seas of this world in ways that are already making life increasingly unbearable via ever fiercer storms, ever more frequent wildfires, the ever greater melting of ice sheets, ever more violent flooding, ever greater drought—I mean, you name it, and if it’s somewhere between deeply unpleasant and life (and property) endangering, it’s getting worse in the Trumpian moment.
In that second category when it comes to destroying human life as we’ve known it via the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the president and his men (and they are basically men) have shown a particular flair. I’m still alone in doing so, but I continue to refer to the whole lot of them as pyromaniacs, because their simple denial of the reality of global warming is the least of it. Trump and crew are clearly determined to burn, burn, burn.
And lest you think any of this will ever bother the president or his top officials, think again. After all, having had an essentially maskless, cheek-by-jowl election rally in Tulsa, Okla., which spread the coronavirus and may have killed one of the president’s well-known supporters, he then doubled down in his acceptance speech for the presidential nomination. He gave it in front of the White House before the kind of crowd he glories in: 1,500 enthusiastic followers, almost all maskless, untested for Covid-19, and jammed together cheering him for an hour. That should tell you all you need to know about his concern for the lives of others (even those who adore him) or anyone’s future other than his own.
Perhaps we need a new chant for this election season, something like: “Four more years and this planet will be a hell on earth!”
It was the worst of times, it was… no, wait, in Trumpian terms, it was the worstest of times since no one should ever be able to outdo him. And as CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite would have said in my youth, you (and I and the rest of humanity) were there. We truly were and are. For shame.


thenation--2020-09-10--Trump Lied, Americans Died

Trump Lied, Americans Died

Like presidents before him , Donald Trump says , “ My first duty as President is to protect the American people.
” Yet when he was called upon to answer a threat to Americans so severe that it would in barely three months leave more dead than were killed in World War I , Trump deliberately lied .
He downplayed the danger in the critical early stages of the fight—which the president would eventually describe as “ our big war ” —and he has continued to lie as the death toll has ticked upward , past 100,000 , past 150,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those deaths were preventable .
But Trump ’ s lies made them inevitable .
This is not hyperbole .
This is not election-season exaggeration .
This is the stark fact of Donald Trump ’ s infamy—a deliberate dereliction of duty that in a time of declared war would be identified as “ treasonous.
” Remove Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , by Any Legal or Constitutional Means Necessary Wisconsin ’ s Lieutenant Governor Talks About the Kenosha Protests and What Happens Next On February 7 , 2020 , after he had been briefed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Washington Post ’ s Bob Woodward , “ This is deadly stuff.
” “ You just breathe the air , ” the president explained , “ and that ’ s how it ’ s passed.
” A president who recognized his duty to protect the American people would have moved aggressively to address the threat , as leaders of other countries did .
Instead , Trump denied the danger , with his words and deeds , until the rates of infection and death surged to levels that Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst coronavirus outbreak in the world .
Two weeks after he spoke to Woodward about “ deadly stuff , ” Trump tweeted to the world on February 24 , “ The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.
” On February 27 , he said , “ It ’ s going to disappear .
One day , it ’ s like a miracle , it will disappear.
” On March 10 , he said , “ And we ’ re prepared , and we ’ re doing a great job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
Just stay calm .
It will go away.
” But it did not go away .
It grew into a pandemic , a public health crisis of epic proportions that would quickly leave tens of thousands of Americans dead , millions infected , and tens of millions unemployed as the economy shut down .
Had Trump taken a different tack , if he had taken urgent action to enforce social distancing and other precautions in early March—instead of promising “ It will go away ” —Columbia University analysts have determined that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented .
Why didn ’ t the president protect the American people ?
” I wanted to always play it down , ” he told Woodward on March 19 .
“ I still like playing it down , because I don ’ t want to create a panic.
” That statement—which should have been reported immediately—was not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing .
It was a description of a deliberate strategy .
Trump was lying to the people he had a duty to protect .
And he would keep on lying .
I brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thousands of people a year to the flu .
We don ’ t turn the country off , I mean every year .
Now when I heard the number—you know , we average 37,000 people a year .
Can you believe that ?
And actually this year we ’ re having a bad flu season .
But we lose thousands of people a year to the flu .
We never turn the country off .
We lose much more than that to automobile accidents .
We didn ’ t call up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making cars .
We don ’ t want any cars anymore.
” We have to get back to work .
People took the president seriously .
They believed him as he downplayed the pandemic , week after week , month after month , and engaged in what he admitted Wednesday was cheerleading .
One of the Americans who believed Trump was Mark Anthony Urquiza , a 65-year-old Arizonan who died June 30 after more than three weeks battling Covid-19 .
His daughter , Kristin Urquiza , told last month ’ s Democratic National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Urquiza , should be here today , but he isn ’ t .
He had faith in Donald Trump .
He voted for him , listened to him , believed him and his mouthpieces when they said that coronavirus was under control and going to disappear ; that it was okay to end social distancing rules before it was safe ; and that if you had no underlying health conditions , you ’ d probably be fine.… “ My dad was a healthy 65-year-old .
His only preexisting condition was trusting Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid with his life.
” Mark Anthony Urquiza was not alone .
Trump ’ s deliberate deception and dereliction of duty has led thousands to their deaths .
The toll rises with each passing day , and Trump keeps saying , as he did Thursday , “ Calm , no panic !
” This presidency is America ’ s preexisting condition .
Until it is ended , Donald Trump will continue to lie , and Americans will continue to die .

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?
Like presidents before him, Donald Trump says, “My first duty as President is to protect the American people.”
Yet when he was called upon to answer a threat to Americans so severe that it would in barely three months leave more dead than were killed in World War I, Trump deliberately lied. He downplayed the danger in the critical early stages of the fight—which the president would eventually describe as “our big war”—and he has continued to lie as the death toll has ticked upward, past 100,000, past 150,000, past 175,000.
Tens of thousands of those deaths were preventable. But Trump’s lies made them inevitable.
This is not hyperbole.
This is not election-season exaggeration.
This is the stark fact of Donald Trump’s infamy—a deliberate dereliction of duty that in a time of declared war would be identified as “treasonous.” 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
On February 7, 2020, after he had been briefed in detail on Covid-19, Trump told The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, “This is deadly stuff.”
“You just breathe the air,” the president explained, “and that’s how it’s passed.”
A president who recognized his duty to protect the American people would have moved aggressively to address the threat, as leaders of other countries did. Instead, Trump denied the danger, with his words and deeds, until the rates of infection and death surged to levels that Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged in early August had the United States experiencing the worst coronavirus outbreak in the world.
Two weeks after he spoke to Woodward about “deadly stuff,” Trump tweeted to the world on February 24, “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.” On February 27, he said, “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” On March 10, he said, “And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” 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
But it did not go away. It grew into a pandemic, a public health crisis of epic proportions that would quickly leave tens of thousands of Americans dead, millions infected, and tens of millions unemployed as the economy shut down. Had Trump taken a different tack, if he had taken urgent action to enforce social distancing and other precautions in early March—instead of promising “It will go away”—Columbia University analysts have determined that roughly 54,000 Covid-19 deaths would have been prevented.
Why didn’t the president protect the American people?
”I wanted to always play it down,” he told Woodward on March 19. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”
That statement—which should have been reported immediately—was not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. It was a description of a deliberate strategy. Trump was lying to the people he had a duty to protect. And he would keep on lying.
The president told Fox News viewers on March 24:
I brought some numbers here. We lose thousands and thousands of people a year to the flu. We don’t turn the country off, I mean every year. Now when I heard the number—you know, we average 37,000 people a year. Can you believe that? And actually this year we’re having a bad flu season. But we lose thousands of people a year to the flu. We never turn the country off. We lose much more than that to automobile accidents. We didn’t call up the automobile companies, say, “Stop making cars. We don’t want any cars anymore.” We have to get back to work.
People took the president seriously. They believed him as he downplayed the pandemic, week after week, month after month, and engaged in what he admitted Wednesday was cheerleading.
One of the Americans who believed Trump was Mark Anthony Urquiza, a 65-year-old Arizonan who died June 30 after more than three weeks battling Covid-19.
His daughter, Kristin Urquiza, told last month’s Democratic National Convention, “My dad, Mark Anthony Urquiza, should be here today, but he isn’t. He had faith in Donald Trump. He voted for him, listened to him, believed him and his mouthpieces when they said that coronavirus was under control and going to disappear; that it was okay to end social distancing rules before it was safe; and that if you had no underlying health conditions, you’d probably be fine.…
“My dad was a healthy 65-year-old. His only preexisting condition was trusting Donald Trump, and for that, he paid with his life.”
Mark Anthony Urquiza was not alone. Trump’s deliberate deception and dereliction of duty has led thousands to their deaths. The toll rises with each passing day, and Trump keeps saying, as he did Thursday, “Calm, no panic!”
Wrong, panic!
This presidency is America’s preexisting condition. Until it is ended, Donald Trump will continue to lie, and Americans will continue to die.


thenation--2020-09-10--A New Justice Movement Emerges to Defend Steven Donziger

The right to a jury of your peers is a central feature of the American system of justice .
Steven Donziger , the environmentalist lawyer who is being persecuted by Chevron and two New York federal judges , is going on trial , again .
He could be sentenced to six months in prison , and , again , a jury will not decide his fate .
Because of Covid-19 , there has not been an in-person criminal trial in the Southern District of New York federal courts since March .
Donziger ’ s latest trial , for “ contempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 9 .
Back in July , Donziger ’ s attorneys asked for a postponement , arguing that the health risk would prevent them from representing him in person .
Judge Loretta Preska waited until 5 pm on September 4 before ruling that the trial could be delayed , but only until November 3 .
She had already turned down Donziger ’ s request for a jury .
Donziger said that Preska ’ s delay until the last minute had caused him , his family , and his lawyers “ a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 months under house arrest awaiting this trial in his New York City apartment .
Last month , he was disbarred in New York State .
Some six years ago , he was convicted of “ racketeering ” in federal district court .
In none of these cases did Donziger ever get the chance to argue for justice before a jury of his peers .
In 2013 Donziger helped win a landmark legal case in Ecuador against Chevron for contaminating a vast stretch of rain forest in the Amazon headwaters larger than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts awarded the 30,000 plaintiffs , who are poor rural farmers and indigenous people , $ 9.5 billion to clean up the damage .
More on Ecuador 's Battle for Justice How a Human Rights Lawyer Went From Hero to House Arrest Instead of obeying the judgment and starting the cleanup , the oil giant counterattacked .
Chevron had participated in every stage of the judicial process in Ecuador , after fighting to have the case sent there in the first place .
But after it lost , its high-priced lawyers brought a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies in New York under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act , known as RICO , which was originally designed to pursue the Mafia .
Here ’ s where Chevron ’ s billions denied justice to Donziger and the Ecuadoreans .
At the last minute , Chevron dropped its demand for monetary damages , which meant that Donziger was no longer entitled to a jury trial .
In other words , the corporation was willing to keep spending vast sums of money on the case with no hope of financial compensation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has spent $ 2 billion pursuing him ; Chevron has declined to give a figure . )
Respected Harvard law professor Charles Nesson wrote last year , “ Chevron amended its demand to cheat Donziger out of a jury.
” All the corporation wanted now was a judgment that Donziger and the others were guilty , which it could use to thwart their legal efforts to collect for damages in the United States and other nations .
( Chevron had sold its assets in Ecuador years earlier , but the plaintiffs in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Of course , no one from the Ecuadorean rain forest would have served on that jury .
But it would have included ordinary New Yorkers who could have brought their life experiences to bear on judging and weighing the testimony .
Instead , Lewis A. Kaplan , a career corporate lawyer turned federal judge , decided the case alone—and he chose to believe Chevron ’ s star witness , a defrocked former Ecuadorean judge named Alberto Guerra who testified that Donziger and an Ecuadorean lawyer had bribed him to ghostwrite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had paid Guerra to move to the United States—where he is now living incognito—and rehearsed his testimony with him 53 times .
The string of injustices continued after Kaplan ’ s original unjust racketeering verdict .
Chevron demanded access to Donziger ’ s phone and computer ; Donziger declined , contending that handing over his electronics would violate attorney-client privilege .
Kaplan asked federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to charge Donziger with contempt .
After the prosecutors declined , Kaplan took the nearly unprecedented step of appointing a private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecute Donziger .
Legendary human rights lawyer Martin Garbus , who is part of the Donziger defense team , said , “ This is the first case I have seen where a judge let a private corporation take over the prosecutorial power of the US government to silence a critic.
” ( Months later , it turned out that Glavin ’ s corporate law firm , Seward & Kissel , had financial ties to Chevron . )
Judge Loretta Preska , who is hearing the contempt case , put Donziger under house arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his requests to be released on bail .
Preska insinuated preposterously that Donziger , who is married with a 14-year-old son , could flee the country .
( Meanwhile , the former Minneapolis police officer accused of murdering George Floyd is out on bail . )
The onslaught against Donziger continued .
Last month , a New York state court stripped him of his law license .
The Appellate Division , First Department reversed the recommendations of John Horan , a referee appointed by the New York Bar Association , who had found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donziger should be allowed to keep practicing law .
Horan upbraided Chevron for its “ extravagant…unnecessary and punitive ” pursuit of the human rights lawyer .
( Sean Comey , a senior Chevron spokesperson , did not answer e-mailed questions , including a request for a response to Horan ’ s charge . )
On the positive side , an alarmed movement is growing worldwide .
Some 29 Nobel laureates , including nine Peace Prize winners , signed a letter defending Donziger ; 475 lawyers and human rights defenders signed another letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important corporate accountability and human rights cases of our time.
” What ’ s more , a panel of seven distinguished American lawyers formed a Monitoring Committee whose stated goal is to “ ensure ” that Donziger ’ s upcoming trials “ are conducted in a way that upholds due process , judicial ethics and the rule of law.
” The Monitoring Committee includes Michael Tigar , the prominent attorney and law professor , and Nadine Strossen , the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union .
The committee noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often seen in high profile cases around the world , but they ’ re most often employed in developing countries with problematic judiciaries .
Trial monitoring committees are exceedingly rare in the United States , only formed in the most problematic circumstances.
” But much of the mainstream US press continues to ignore the story .
Meanwhile , there ’ s no justice for the more than 30,000 people living in eastern Ecuador who are surrounded by oil-soaked land , streams , and rivers .
Five peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown an increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the area .
( Chevron funded its own peer-reviewed study , which claimed to find no such cancer risk . )
Donziger estimates that approximately 10 people he knew personally have died from cancer in the polluted rain forest zone .
Rosa Moreno , who passed on in 2015 , was his age , and one of his closest friends in Ecuador .
He remembered : “ Rosa was a professional nurse , a strong leader , and she had a warm heart with a great smile .
She ran the clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doctor .
We grew up together on the case .
Rosa kept a spiral notebook in her inimitable script where she wrote out in pencil the name of every person in her community who had died of cancer.
” Two months ago , Oscar Herrera , 65 years old , also died of cancer .
He was a major leader of the Amazon Defense Coalition , the democratic grassroots organization that started campaigning for environmental justice back in the early 1990s .
His home , in Campo Auca , was near several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me he holds Michael Wirth , the CEO of Chevron , responsible for the continuing deaths , because the corporation refuses to obey the judgment in Ecuadorean courts and start cleaning up the poisoned zone .
Donziger said , “ Chevron ’ s active evasion of court judgments under Wirth ’ s leadership makes him the person ultimately responsible for what are certainly hundreds if not thousands of deaths in Ecuador , caused by exposure to the company ’ s toxic contaminants in the water , soils , and air that could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respected .
In any civilized society that respects the rule of law , Mr. Wirth and the other Chevron officials behind this environmental and humanitarian catastrophe would be held legally responsible .
”

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?
The right to a jury of your peers is a central feature of the American system of justice. Steven Donziger, the environmentalist lawyer who is being persecuted by Chevron and two New York federal judges, is going on trial, again. He could be sentenced to six months in prison, and, again, a jury will not decide his fate.
Because of Covid-19, there has not been an in-person criminal trial in the Southern District of New York federal courts since March. Donziger’s latest trial, for “contempt,” was set to begin on September 9. Back in July, Donziger’s attorneys asked for a postponement, arguing that the health risk would prevent them from representing him in person. Judge Loretta Preska waited until 5 pm on September 4 before ruling that the trial could be delayed, but only until November 3. She had already turned down Donziger’s request for a jury. Donziger said that Preska’s delay until the last minute had caused him, his family, and his lawyers “a great deal of stress.”
Donziger has already served 13 months under house arrest awaiting this trial in his New York City apartment. Last month, he was disbarred in New York State. Some six years ago, he was convicted of “racketeering” in federal district court.
In none of these cases did Donziger ever get the chance to argue for justice before a jury of his peers.
In 2013 Donziger helped win a landmark legal case in Ecuador against Chevron for contaminating a vast stretch of rain forest in the Amazon headwaters larger than the state of Rhode Island. The Ecuadorean courts awarded the 30,000 plaintiffs, who are poor rural farmers and indigenous people, $9.5 billion to clean up the damage. More on Ecuador's Battle for Justice Chevron Tightens the Screws on Steven Donziger James North How a Human Rights Lawyer Went From Hero to House Arrest James North Ecuador’s Battle for Environmental Justice Against Chevron James North
Instead of obeying the judgment and starting the cleanup, the oil giant counterattacked. Chevron had participated in every stage of the judicial process in Ecuador, after fighting to have the case sent there in the first place. But after it lost, its high-priced lawyers brought a new case against Donziger and his Ecuadoran allies in New York under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, which was originally designed to pursue the Mafia.
Here’s where Chevron’s billions denied justice to Donziger and the Ecuadoreans. At the last minute, Chevron dropped its demand for monetary damages, which meant that Donziger was no longer entitled to a jury trial. In other words, the corporation was willing to keep spending vast sums of money on the case with no hope of financial compensation. (Donziger estimates that the oil giant has spent $2 billion pursuing him; Chevron has declined to give a figure.) Respected Harvard law professor Charles Nesson wrote last year, “Chevron amended its demand to cheat Donziger out of a jury.” 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
All the corporation wanted now was a judgment that Donziger and the others were guilty, which it could use to thwart their legal efforts to collect for damages in the United States and other nations. (Chevron had sold its assets in Ecuador years earlier, but the plaintiffs in that country are seeking damages in other jurisdictions.)
Of course, no one from the Ecuadorean rain forest would have served on that jury. But it would have included ordinary New Yorkers who could have brought their life experiences to bear on judging and weighing the testimony. Instead, Lewis A. Kaplan, a career corporate lawyer turned federal judge, decided the case alone—and he chose to believe Chevron’s star witness, a defrocked former Ecuadorean judge named Alberto Guerra who testified that Donziger and an Ecuadorean lawyer had bribed him to ghostwrite the decision. It later emerged that Chevron had paid Guerra to move to the United States—where he is now living incognito—and rehearsed his testimony with him 53 times.
The string of injustices continued after Kaplan’s original unjust racketeering verdict. Chevron demanded access to Donziger’s phone and computer; Donziger declined, contending that handing over his electronics would violate attorney-client privilege. Kaplan asked federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to charge Donziger with contempt. After the prosecutors declined, Kaplan took the nearly unprecedented step of appointing a private attorney, one Rita Glavin, to prosecute Donziger. Legendary human rights lawyer Martin Garbus, who is part of the Donziger defense team, said, “This is the first case I have seen where a judge let a private corporation take over the prosecutorial power of the US government to silence a critic.” (Months later, it turned out that Glavin’s corporate law firm, Seward & Kissel, had financial ties to Chevron.)
Judge Loretta Preska, who is hearing the contempt case, put Donziger under house arrest, 13 months ago, and denied his requests to be released on bail. Preska insinuated preposterously that Donziger, who is married with a 14-year-old son, could flee the country. (Meanwhile, the former Minneapolis police officer accused of murdering George Floyd is out on bail.)
The onslaught against Donziger continued. Last month, a New York state court stripped him of his law license. The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the recommendations of John Horan, a referee appointed by the New York Bar Association, who had found after presiding over several open hearings that Donziger should be allowed to keep practicing law. Horan upbraided Chevron for its “extravagant…unnecessary and punitive” pursuit of the human rights lawyer. (Sean Comey, a senior Chevron spokesperson, did not answer e-mailed questions, including a request for a response to Horan’s charge.)
On the positive side, an alarmed movement is growing worldwide. Some 29 Nobel laureates, including nine Peace Prize winners, signed a letter defending Donziger; 475 lawyers and human rights defenders signed another letter, which called the struggle “one of the most important corporate accountability and human rights cases of our time.” What’s more, a panel of seven distinguished American lawyers formed a Monitoring Committee whose stated goal is to “ensure” that Donziger’s upcoming trials “are conducted in a way that upholds due process, judicial ethics and the rule of law.” The Monitoring Committee includes Michael Tigar, the prominent attorney and law professor, and Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union. The committee noted wryly, “Trial monitoring committees are often seen in high profile cases around the world, but they’re most often employed in developing countries with problematic judiciaries. Trial monitoring committees are exceedingly rare in the United States, only formed in the most problematic circumstances.”
But much of the mainstream US press continues to ignore the story.
Meanwhile, there’s no justice for the more than 30,000 people living in eastern Ecuador who are surrounded by oil-soaked land, streams, and rivers. Five peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown an increased risk of cancer and other health risks in the area. (Chevron funded its own peer-reviewed study, which claimed to find no such cancer risk.)
Donziger estimates that approximately 10 people he knew personally have died from cancer in the polluted rain forest zone. Rosa Moreno, who passed on in 2015, was his age, and one of his closest friends in Ecuador. He remembered: “Rosa was a professional nurse, a strong leader, and she had a warm heart with a great smile. She ran the clinic in the town of San Carlos with no doctor. We grew up together on the case. Rosa kept a spiral notebook in her inimitable script where she wrote out in pencil the name of every person in her community who had died of cancer.”
Two months ago, Oscar Herrera, 65 years old, also died of cancer. He was a major leader of the Amazon Defense Coalition, the democratic grassroots organization that started campaigning for environmental justice back in the early 1990s. His home, in Campo Auca, was near several polluted oil well sites. Donziger told me he holds Michael Wirth, the CEO of Chevron, responsible for the continuing deaths, because the corporation refuses to obey the judgment in Ecuadorean courts and start cleaning up the poisoned zone.
Donziger said, “Chevron’s active evasion of court judgments under Wirth’s leadership makes him the person ultimately responsible for what are certainly hundreds if not thousands of deaths in Ecuador, caused by exposure to the company’s toxic contaminants in the water, soils, and air that could have been properly remediated had the judgment been respected. In any civilized society that respects the rule of law, Mr. Wirth and the other Chevron officials behind this environmental and humanitarian catastrophe would be held legally responsible.”