thenation--2020-09-25--Climate Disasters Are Leaving Families With Nowhere to Go

When Carolina ’ s neighbor came to tell her that the fire was coming for her home , she was doubtful .
She didn ’ t see any smoke .
But within half an hour it was there , dark and ugly .
Carolina was caring for her son in the mobile home where she lived south of Medford , Ore. , with her husband , father , and brothers .
( Carolina and her husband are undocumented immigrants from Mexico , and because they are currently pursuing an asylum claim , we are withholding their last names . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning for work picking pears , apples , and grapes on a nearby farm .
When the smoke got thick , Carolina , who doesn ’ t drive , called her husband to pick her up .
By that time , police had arrived in the neighborhood and were telling everyone to leave .
Nearby , Carolina recalls , everything was burning .
She gathered a few legal documents , took her son by the hand , and fled .
There is virtually nothing left now of the mobile home where Carolina lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was home to a number of immigrant families , was swallowed by the Almeda fire , one of more than 2,000 wildfires that ripped across the West Coast in late August and September .
In Oregon they consumed a million acres , double the last decade ’ s average for a fire season .
In California , fires tore through an area almost of the size of Connecticut .
The blazes drove tens of thousands of people from their homes , and the smoke trapped everyone else .
For a week it felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the horizon invisible behind layers of smog , the air the color of dirty sherbet .
In Portland , which for several days had the worst air quality of any city in the world , the haze eventually lifted like a lid off the city .
But for people like Carolina the crisis is hardly over .
Carolina , her husband , Constantino , and her son , Miguel Angel , who is 11 and has developmental delays , came to the United States last year , and moved into the mobile home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in for a decade .
Now that ’ s gone , along with the cars that were parked outside and everything else the family had besides the clothes they were wearing , the car the men had taken to work that morning , and the few documents that Carolina managed to grab .
The Media ’ s Climate Coverage Is Improving , but Time Is Very Short The family of seven spent the first night in the parking lot of the Jackson County Expo Center along with thousands of other evacuees .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the farm where Constantino works and , recently , into a larger camper purchased with donations from a GoFundMe campaign .
Constantino and the other men kept picking fruit in the choking smoke .
Not working wasn ’ t much of an option .
“ No one has gotten sick , thank God , ” Carolina said .
“ They need to work , because now we don ’ t have a house , [ and ] the cars were burned.
” Carolina ’ s family didn ’ t have any kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did most others who lost homes in her neighborhood .
Finding a new one won ’ t be easy .
Affordable housing was already scarce in the Rogue Valley , an agricultural area home to a significant immigrant community .
Before the fires the area had a rental vacancy rate below 2 percent , according to the Los Angeles Times , one of the lowest in the country .
A third of the residents of Talent , a town of 6,500 just south of Medford that was substantially demolished by the Almeda fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their income on rent .
Homelessness was on the rise .
Now , a longtime real estate agent in Jackson County estimates that “ the vast majority ” of what low- and moderately priced housing there was in the area has been destroyed .
“ It ’ s like this fire went after the poorest and most vulnerable people in our community , ” a city councilor in Phoenix , another community wrecked by the flames , told the Times .
September ’ s fires are likely the most intense wildfire event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climate change , the conditions that drove the fire—including a long drought and high winds—are becoming a “ new normal.
” For a rising number of families , so is the colossal task of starting over .
As climate change magnifies ecological risk—making hurricanes stronger , wildfires fiercer and less predictable—it ’ s also amplifying inequity .
Last year , New York Times reporters spent three months reporting from one of the largest homeless encampments in Oakland , Calif. , and found that many people were there because of natural disasters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 wildfire in California ; another lost hers to Hurricane Harvey in Texas .
Undocumented immigrants are particularly vulnerable , according to a forthcoming paper in the journal Geoforum that analyzes the emergency response and recovery effort after a massive 2017 wildfire in California : “ Despite being on the front lines of disaster , ” the paper reads , “ explicit exclusion from recovery and relief efforts leaves undocumented immigrants without a safety net in California ’ s nearly year-round wildfire season.
” In Oregon now , it ’ s easy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of a housing crisis , wage stagnation , and a pandemic , could leave families like Carolina ’ s with nowhere to go .
This problem will only get worse , because in a sense the world is shrinking .
Across the globe , coastlines are disappearing .
Saltwater is seeping inland , deadening agricultural fields .
Deserts are expanding , as an atmospheric circulation pattern called the Hadley cell , which creates a dry , hot band around the middle of the earth roughly from the top of the Sahara down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shifts northward .
Without a dramatic change in global greenhouse gas emissions , extreme heat will become common in the South and Southwestern US , as well as a swath through India , Pakistan , Bangladesh , and China where a fifth of the world ’ s population lives .
According to a recent New York Times/ProPublica analysis , 28 million Americans , not just in the West but also in states like Georgia and Florida , are likely to face mega-fires by 2040 , while 100 million people live in areas projected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working outside will be a health hazard .
As more and more people flee from natural disasters , there will be fewer and fewer decent places to go .
Carolina went back to see what remained of their home a few days after she evacuated .
“ Everything turned to ashes .
Nothing good remained , ” she said .
Her family has gotten some assistance from local organizations—groups like the Unete Center for Farmworker Advocacy and Oregon ’ s Latinx farmworker union , Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste , are distributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or find a new home , she and other families will need a lot more help .
Carolina ’ s father and brothers , who have legal status , could go back to Mexico for a while and then return , but she ’ s still waiting on a court date for her asylum case , and has had trouble finding legal assistance .
“ My son , my husband and I , it will be more difficult for us because we do not have a work permit , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are honorable people and we want to work , to have a better future for our child.
” Asked what about that future she thinks the fire will change , Carolina said , “ Well , everything .
”

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 Carolina’s neighbor came to tell her that the fire was coming for her home, she was doubtful. She didn’t see any smoke. But within half an hour it was there, dark and ugly.
Carolina was caring for her son in the mobile home where she lived south of Medford, Ore., with her husband, father, and brothers. (Carolina and her husband are undocumented immigrants from Mexico, and because they are currently pursuing an asylum claim, we are withholding their last names.) The men had left at four that morning for work picking pears, apples, and grapes on a nearby farm. When the smoke got thick, Carolina, who doesn’t drive, called her husband to pick her up. By that time, police had arrived in the neighborhood and were telling everyone to leave. Nearby, Carolina recalls, everything was burning. She gathered a few legal documents, took her son by the hand, and fled.
There is virtually nothing left now of the mobile home where Carolina lived. Most of her neighborhood, which was home to a number of immigrant families, was swallowed by the Almeda fire, one of more than 2,000 wildfires that ripped across the West Coast in late August and September. In Oregon they consumed a million acres, double the last decade’s average for a fire season. In California, fires tore through an area almost of the size of Connecticut. The blazes drove tens of thousands of people from their homes, and the smoke trapped everyone else. For a week it felt as if the world had shrunk, the horizon invisible behind layers of smog, the air the color of dirty sherbet.
In Portland, which for several days had the worst air quality of any city in the world, the haze eventually lifted like a lid off the city. But for people like Carolina the crisis is hardly over. Carolina, her husband, Constantino, and her son, Miguel Angel, who is 11 and has developmental delays, came to the United States last year, and moved into the mobile home that her father owned and had lived in for a decade. Now that’s gone, along with the cars that were parked outside and everything else the family had besides the clothes they were wearing, the car the men had taken to work that morning, and the few documents that Carolina managed to grab. Related Article The Media’s Climate Coverage Is Improving, but Time Is Very Short Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope
The family of seven spent the first night in the parking lot of the Jackson County Expo Center along with thousands of other evacuees. Then they moved into a small camper on the farm where Constantino works and, recently, into a larger camper purchased with donations from a GoFundMe campaign. Constantino and the other men kept picking fruit in the choking smoke. Not working wasn’t much of an option. “No one has gotten sick, thank God,” Carolina said. “They need to work, because now we don’t have a house, [and] the cars were burned.” 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
Carolina’s family didn’t have any kind of home insurance, she said, nor did most others who lost homes in her neighborhood. Finding a new one won’t be easy. Affordable housing was already scarce in the Rogue Valley, an agricultural area home to a significant immigrant community. Before the fires the area had a rental vacancy rate below 2 percent, according to the Los Angeles Times, one of the lowest in the country. A third of the residents of Talent, a town of 6,500 just south of Medford that was substantially demolished by the Almeda fire, were already spending more than half of their income on rent. Homelessness was on the rise. Now, a longtime real estate agent in Jackson County estimates that “the vast majority” of what low- and moderately priced housing there was in the area has been destroyed. “It’s like this fire went after the poorest and most vulnerable people in our community,” a city councillor in Phoenix, another community wrecked by the flames, told the Times.
September’s fires are likely the most intense wildfire event in Oregon’s history. Thanks to climate change, the conditions that drove the fire—including a long drought and high winds—are becoming a “new normal.” For a rising number of families, so is the colossal task of starting over. As climate change magnifies ecological risk—making hurricanes stronger, wildfires fiercer and less predictable—it’s also amplifying inequity. Last year, New York Times reporters spent three months reporting from one of the largest homeless encampments in Oakland, Calif., and found that many people were there because of natural disasters. One woman lost her home to a 2014 wildfire in California; another lost hers to Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Undocumented immigrants are particularly vulnerable, according to a forthcoming paper in the journal Geoforum that analyzes the emergency response and recovery effort after a massive 2017 wildfire in California: “Despite being on the front lines of disaster,” the paper reads, “explicit exclusion from recovery and relief efforts leaves undocumented immigrants without a safety net in California’s nearly year-round wildfire season.” In Oregon now, it’s easy to see how climate events, overlaid on top of a housing crisis, wage stagnation, and a pandemic, could leave families like Carolina’s with nowhere to go. Current Issue View our current issue
This problem will only get worse, because in a sense the world is shrinking. Across the globe, coastlines are disappearing. Saltwater is seeping inland, deadening agricultural fields. Deserts are expanding, as an atmospheric circulation pattern called the Hadley cell, which creates a dry, hot band around the middle of the earth roughly from the top of the Sahara down to the bottom of the Kalahari, shifts northward. Without a dramatic change in global greenhouse gas emissions, extreme heat will become common in the South and Southwestern US, as well as a swath through India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China where a fifth of the world’s population lives. According to a recent New York Times/ProPublica analysis, 28 million Americans, not just in the West but also in states like Georgia and Florida, are likely to face mega-fires by 2040, while 100 million people live in areas projected to become so hot and humid that working outside will be a health hazard. As more and more people flee from natural disasters, there will be fewer and fewer decent places to go.
Carolina went back to see what remained of their home a few days after she evacuated. “Everything turned to ashes. Nothing good remained,” she said. Her family has gotten some assistance from local organizations—groups like the Unete Center for Farmworker Advocacy and Oregon’s Latinx farmworker union, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, are distributing aid—but she said that to actually rebuild or find a new home, she and other families will need a lot more help. Carolina’s father and brothers, who have legal status, could go back to Mexico for a while and then return, but she’s still waiting on a court date for her asylum case, and has had trouble finding legal assistance.
“My son, my husband and I, it will be more difficult for us because we do not have a work permit,” she said. “We want to stay here because we are honorable people and we want to work, to have a better future for our child.” Asked what about that future she thinks the fire will change, Carolina said, “Well, everything.”


thenation--2020-09-25--Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think

For three years , I have dreaded writing this piece .
Conservatives have been planning for this day since at least 2017 .
And they know Democrats are not prepared for what comes next .
CNN and other news outlets are reporting that Donald Trump is planning to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
Barrett is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and has sat on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since Trump nominated her to that position in 2017 .
She is a star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only 48 years old .
Should Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell succeed in ramming through her appointment—an appointment made , no less , in the midst of the 2020 election—she could serve on the Supreme Court into the 2060s .
Barrett ’ s elevation to this position has been a long time coming .
Her nomination has been made with one issue in mind : abortion .
The conservative men who have been attacking a woman ’ s right to choose for a generation have long pined for a woman to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to their own bodies .
They ’ ve said so : Ramesh Ponnuru , longtime editor at National Review and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute , has written : “ The main reason I favor Barrett , though , is the obvious one : She ’ s a woman… .
If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned—as I certainly hope it will be , as it is an unjust decision with no plausible basis in the Constitution—it would be better if it were not done by only male justices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett will not disappoint conservatives when it comes to abortion .
While other jurists hoping to sit on the Supreme Court have at least attempted to be coy with their opposition to Roe v. Wade , Barrett has not .
She has said that abortion is “ always immoral.
” She has said that Roe creates a framework of “ abortion on demand ” ( a patently false claim given that Roe explicitly created a fetal viability standard after which the state was allowed to limit women ’ s fundamental rights ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against abortion rights generally , and Roe specifically , more than any person I can think of nominated for the Supreme Court after that 1973 decision .
Over the next few weeks , Barrett and her moderate Republican defenders will likely try to tell people that she ’ s been lying all this time .
They ’ ll try to tell us that she hasn ’ t already made up her mind about abortion , that she respects 50 years of Supreme Court precedent , that she ’ s not being elevated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a woman who happens to hate a woman ’ s right to choose .
But no matter how hard Barrett tries to obfuscate her position in the coming days , hard-right conservatives know that her elevation to the court is a reliable vote against women ’ s rights .
Why are they so sure about her legal views ?
Because Barrett herself has argued that she can not and , more important , should not enforce secular laws that go against her religious beliefs .
If you read one thing about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect her ability to serve as a Supreme Court justice , read her own words .
She addressed that matter in an article for the Marquette Law Review titled : “ Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.
” There , Barrett argued that Catholic judges should recuse themselves from cases that involve the death penalty .
She argued that the Catholic Church ’ s moral stance against the death penalty might make it impossible for Catholic judges to dispense the impartial justice citizens are entitled to .
Here ’ s part of the abstract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article is , frankly , a refreshing dose of truth of the sort most aspiring Supreme Court justices assiduously avoid .
Barrett is straight-up explaining that her own religious biases may prevent her , or a judge like her , from upholding secular law .
It is rare to find a would-be justice who is willing to admit that their personal convictions shape how they see the law , because they get trashed by the opposition party for such admissions , even though we all know that a judge ’ s personal beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply the law .
I don ’ t find this article disqualifying .
I ’ m Catholic myself ( “ raised Catholic , ” I think , is the official term for somebody like me who is pretty sure God doesn ’ t exist but baptizes their kids to hedge that bet ) .
I would love to live in a world where judges were honest and self-aware about their own bigotries and recused themselves accordingly .
What ’ s disqualifying is not Barrett ’ s religious beliefs ; it ’ s her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict with the moral teachings of almost any religion .
You can see Barrett ’ s moral hypocrisy all throughout her judicial opinions .
No modern church favors deliberate indifference to human life .
Amy Coney Barrett does .
In 2019 , she dissented from a Seventh Circuit opinion that found that the Eighth Amendment ’ s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protected people in prison from correctional officers ’ firing “ warning shots ” into a cafeteria .
Barrett callously wrote : , “ The guards may have acted with deliberate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots into the ceiling of a crowded cafeteria in the wake of the disturbance.… In the context of prison discipline , however , ‘ deliberate indifference ’ is not enough.
” Moreover , there ’ s no “ Catholic ” right to bear arms .
If you believe the stories , Jesus famously told his followers to put down their weapons .
But Barrett finds no conflict between that teaching and an expansive view of gun rights .
She dissented from a 2019 case where the majority ruled that Wisconsin could disarm felons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” could not be applied to gun rights .
In 2020 , again in dissent , Barrett was the lone voice in favor of the Trump administration ’ s policy of denying entry to immigrants who may in the future require public assistance .
She alone thought it was lawful for the Trump administration to apply the “ public charge ” rule to deny green cards to such people .
I am reminded of Jesus ’ s famous sermon where he says , “ Thou shalt turn away any neighbor who may solicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bread.
” That is Barrett ’ s record .
Her religion is not the source of that record ; it is the shield she uses to blind people to the political extremism it contains .
Donald Trump and the Plot to Take Over the Courts Nobody should care that Barrett is Catholic , or “ very ” Catholic , or “ super ” Catholic .
But people should absolutely care that the woman has herself said that she might and should recuse herself from cases involving one conflict between the laws and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from cases involving others—and seems unlikely to once she gets to the Supreme Court .
Barrett will not recuse herself from cases involving abortion .
In fact , on the Seventh Circuit , she has sought to impose herself on abortion decisions that weren ’ t even on her desk .
In 2018 , a three-judge panel she was not on invalidated an Indiana law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated .
Barrett voted to reconsider the ruling in front of the full circuit .
Her side lost , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2019 , another Indiana law required girls under the age of 18 to receive consent from a parent before getting an abortion , including girls who had already received a court order allowing them to have one .
Again , Barrett was not on the three-judge panel which invalidated the law , but again she voted to have the case reviewed before the full circuit .
These are not the actions of a person trying to keep their personal beliefs out of an abortion debate .
Quite the opposite : Barrett has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abortion case since she got on the circuit .
What this means is that Barrett is unwilling to impose her theocratic views to save a man ’ s life , but she is very likely willing to take dominion over a woman ’ s body for nine months , forcing them to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term .
She ’ ll put herself between a woman and her doctor but won ’ t stand in front of an executioner and a defenseless prisoner .
That incongruity doesn ’ t sound like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it sounds like some bullshit dreamed up by Federalist Society hypocrites more concerned with using that law to control women than with serving God .
If Barrett ruled like a devout Catholic all the time , that would be one thing .
But she doesn ’ t .
She rules like an extremist conservative all the time , and just uses religion to justify those extremist positions when it is convenient for her to do so .
She ignores the moral and ethical underpinnings of her faith when they conflict with the @ @ @ @ @ @

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 three years, I have dreaded writing this piece. Conservatives have been planning for this day since at least 2017. And they know Democrats are not prepared for what comes next.
CNN and other news outlets are reporting that Donald Trump is planning to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Barrett is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and has sat on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since Trump nominated her to that position in 2017. She is a star in conservative legal circles, and she is only 48 years old. Should Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell succeed in ramming through her appointment—an appointment made, no less, in the midst of the 2020 election—she could serve on the Supreme Court into the 2060s.
Barrett’s elevation to this position has been a long time coming. Her nomination has been made with one issue in mind: abortion. The conservative men who have been attacking a woman’s right to choose for a generation have long pined for a woman to do the final work of denying women their right to their own bodies. They’ve said so: Ramesh Ponnuru, longtime editor at National Review and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written: “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman…. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned—as I certainly hope it will be, as it is an unjust decision with no plausible basis in the Constitution—it would be better if it were not done by only male justices, with every female justice in dissent.”
Barrett will not disappoint conservatives when it comes to abortion. While other jurists hoping to sit on the Supreme Court have at least attempted to be coy with their opposition to Roe v. Wade, Barrett has not. She has said that abortion is “always immoral.” She has said that Roe creates a framework of “abortion on demand” (a patently false claim given that Roe explicitly created a fetal viability standard after which the state was allowed to limit women’s fundamental rights). Barrett has put herself on the record against abortion rights generally, and Roe specifically, more than any person I can think of nominated for the Supreme Court after that 1973 decision.
Over the next few weeks, Barrett and her moderate Republican defenders will likely try to tell people that she’s been lying all this time. They’ll try to tell us that she hasn’t already made up her mind about abortion, that she respects 50 years of Supreme Court precedent, that she’s not being elevated to the Supreme Court just because she’s a woman who happens to hate a woman’s right to choose. 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
But no matter how hard Barrett tries to obfuscate her position in the coming days, hard-right conservatives know that her elevation to the court is a reliable vote against women’s rights. Why are they so sure about her legal views? Because Barrett herself has argued that she cannot and, more important, should not enforce secular laws that go against her religious beliefs.
If you read one thing about how Amy Coney Barrett’s religion would affect her ability to serve as a Supreme Court justice, read her own words. She addressed that matter in an article for the Marquette Law Review titled: “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” There, Barrett argued that Catholic judges should recuse themselves from cases that involve the death penalty. She argued that the Catholic Church’s moral stance against the death penalty might make it impossible for Catholic judges to dispense the impartial justice citizens are entitled to. Here’s part of the abstract for the whole long article:
Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.
This article is, frankly, a refreshing dose of truth of the sort most aspiring Supreme Court justices assiduously avoid. Barrett is straight-up explaining that her own religious biases may prevent her, or a judge like her, from upholding secular law. It is rare to find a would-be justice who is willing to admit that their personal convictions shape how they see the law, because they get trashed by the opposition party for such admissions, even though we all know that a judge’s personal beliefs and lived experiences must impact how they apply the law.
I don’t find this article disqualifying. I’m Catholic myself (“raised Catholic,” I think, is the official term for somebody like me who is pretty sure God doesn’t exist but baptizes their kids to hedge that bet). I would love to live in a world where judges were honest and self-aware about their own bigotries and recused themselves accordingly.
What’s disqualifying is not Barrett’s religious beliefs; it’s her extremist beliefs—beliefs that would often seem to conflict with the moral teachings of almost any religion.
You can see Barrett’s moral hypocrisy all throughout her judicial opinions. No modern church favors deliberate indifference to human life. Amy Coney Barrett does. In 2019, she dissented from a Seventh Circuit opinion that found that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protected people in prison from correctional officers’ firing “warning shots” into a cafeteria. Barrett callously wrote:,“The guards may have acted with deliberate indifference to inmate safety by firing warning shots into the ceiling of a crowded cafeteria in the wake of the disturbance.… In the context of prison discipline, however, ‘deliberate indifference’ is not enough.”
Moreover, there’s no “Catholic” right to bear arms. If you believe the stories, Jesus famously told his followers to put down their weapons. But Barrett finds no conflict between that teaching and an expansive view of gun rights. She dissented from a 2019 case where the majority ruled that Wisconsin could disarm felons. Barrett found that “virtue-based restrictions” could not be applied to gun rights.
In 2020, again in dissent, Barrett was the lone voice in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of denying entry to immigrants who may in the future require public assistance. She alone thought it was lawful for the Trump administration to apply the “public charge” rule to deny green cards to such people. I am reminded of Jesus’s famous sermon where he says, “Thou shalt turn away any neighbor who may solicit an EBT card to pay for her bread.”
That is Barrett’s record. Her religion is not the source of that record; it is the shield she uses to blind people to the political extremism it contains. More from Mystal Donald Trump and the Plot to Take Over the Courts Elie Mystal
Nobody should care that Barrett is Catholic, or “very” Catholic, or “super” Catholic. But people should absolutely care that the woman has herself said that she might and should recuse herself from cases involving one conflict between the laws and her church but hasn’t recused herself from cases involving others—and seems unlikely to once she gets to the Supreme Court.
Barrett will not recuse herself from cases involving abortion. In fact, on the Seventh Circuit, she has sought to impose herself on abortion decisions that weren’t even on her desk. In 2018, a three-judge panel she was not on invalidated an Indiana law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated. Barrett voted to reconsider the ruling in front of the full circuit. Her side lost, but the Supreme Court eventually reinstated the law. In 2019, another Indiana law required girls under the age of 18 to receive consent from a parent before getting an abortion, including girls who had already received a court order allowing them to have one. Again, Barrett was not on the three-judge panel which invalidated the law, but again she voted to have the case reviewed before the full circuit.
These are not the actions of a person trying to keep their personal beliefs out of an abortion debate. Quite the opposite: Barrett has been trying to get her hands on an abortion case since she got on the circuit.
What this means is that Barrett is unwilling to impose her theocratic views to save a man’s life, but she is very likely willing to take dominion over a woman’s body for nine months, forcing them to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. She’ll put herself between a woman and her doctor but won’t stand in front of an executioner and a defenseless prisoner. That incongruity doesn’t sound like the devout position of a religious adherent; it sounds like some bullshit dreamed up by Federalist Society hypocrites more concerned with using that law to control women than with serving God.
If Barrett ruled like a devout Catholic all the time, that would be one thing. But she doesn’t. She rules like an extremist conservative all the time, and just uses religion to justify those extremist positions when it is convenient for her to do so. She ignores the moral and ethical underpinnings of her faith when they conflict with the cruel requirements of conservative dogma.


thenation--2020-09-25--On Louisville, Breonna Taylor, and Muhammad Ali

I ’ ve been wrestling with the devastating miscarriage of justice that has taken place in Louisville , Ky. , in the case of Breonna Taylor .
I ’ ve been rocked not merely by this obscene decision to hold no one responsible for her death , but also by the fact that Louisville is hallowed ground as the birthplace of Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. , also known as Muhammad Ali .
One city is now marked by both glory and an act of unspeakable evil .
In the same city that Ali called home , Taylor was murdered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of Louisville deserve so much better .
I went to Louisville in 2016 for Ali ’ s funeral .
I saw airport tributes to him as soon as I stepped off the plane .
I watched buses pass me by with flashing signs emblazoned with his face .
I visited the modest home in which he was raised .
I walked the street named after him .
I spoke to a right-wing taxi driver , a white guy and Vietnam vet , who said to me—and I remember his words exactly—that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t agree with him , but dammit he had courage.
” I heard news anchors tell us that his funeral was only Louisville ’ s second to ever have a city procession and day of mourning .
The first , I kid you not , was Col. Sanders… as in the fried chicken .
It was one hell of a sendoff for the son of a frustrated house painter and domestic worker who was raised on the segregated side of town .
I also walked Louisville for hours with those who lined the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ali ’ s hearse rode through the city .
There were thousands of people .
The crowd was almost entirely Black .
( I ’ m saying “ almost ” just because my pod producer Dan Bloom and I were also present . )
Experiencing this overwhelming local outpouring of love , I was reminded of the fact that Ali at the height of his fame would attend demonstrations in Louisville that were fighting redlining , segregated housing , and , yes , police brutality .
He once said , speaking directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In your struggle for freedom , justice and equality I am with you .
I came to Louisville because I could not remain silent while my own people , many I grew up with , many I went to school with , many my blood relatives , were being beaten , stomped and kicked in the streets simply because they want freedom , and justice and equality in housing.
” Why LeBron James Scares the Racist Right Maya Moore and Jonathan Irons : More Than a Love Story Spending the day speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have ever seen Ali fight—about what “ the Champ ” meant to them , irrevocably changed me .
So many had met him over the years , and Ali would make a point through a joke , a magic trick , or an impromptu sparring session , to make the experience forever memorable .
It was a reminder about the ties that bind us to the past and the history that can sustain a community through a difficult present .
There was deep poverty in Louisville .
Legal segregation was gone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and professional classes had moved out of Ali ’ s old neighborhood , creating more immiseration and social crisis for those on the bottom of the ladder .
There was also a deep feeling that this was a place fighting to be heard .
If struggle is truly the secret of joy , then I ’ ll repeat : It felt like hallowed ground .
Daniel Cameron , the Kentucky attorney general , has desecrated this hallowed ground .
In his ambition to remain a Republican rising star , mentored by McConnell and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career over justice and made the decision to use Breonna Taylor ’ s body as a stepping stone to reach even greater heights .
I know what people are saying about Daniel Cameron .
I sure as hell know what Ali would have said about Daniel Cameron .
But to me this is less about the color of Cameron ’ s skin than a naked and grotesque expression of what it takes to rise in GOP circles : You protect the cops , you blame the dead , and you assert , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lives of Black women—simply do not matter .
For the people of Louisville , Taylor ’ s name will be remembered as surely as Ali ’ s .
Maybe someday people will walk Breonna Taylor Boulevard in downtown Louisville and speak her name not merely as a tragedy but as a turning point towards true justice .
Cameron , if remembered at all , will be thought of likethe person who stole young Cassius Clay ’ s bicycle , which inspired the 12-year-old Clay to take up boxing .
He will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose blows didn ’ t put the people of Louisville down for the count but propelled them to rise off the mat .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
I’ve been wrestling with the devastating miscarriage of justice that has taken place in Louisville, Ky., in the case of Breonna Taylor. I’ve been rocked not merely by this obscene decision to hold no one responsible for her death, but also by the fact that Louisville is hallowed ground as the birthplace of Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., also known as Muhammad Ali. One city is now marked by both glory and an act of unspeakable evil. In the same city that Ali called home, Taylor was murdered by the police in her bed. The people of Louisville deserve so much better.
I went to Louisville in 2016 for Ali’s funeral. I saw airport tributes to him as soon as I stepped off the plane. I watched buses pass me by with flashing signs emblazoned with his face. I visited the modest home in which he was raised. I walked the street named after him. I spoke to a right-wing taxi driver, a white guy and Vietnam vet, who said to me—and I remember his words exactly—that he loved Ali because “I didn’t agree with him, but dammit he had courage.” I heard news anchors tell us that his funeral was only Louisville’s second to ever have a city procession and day of mourning. The first, I kid you not, was Col. Sanders… as in the fried chicken. It was one hell of a sendoff for the son of a frustrated house painter and domestic worker who was raised on the segregated side of town.
I also walked Louisville for hours with those who lined the streets to pay their last tributes as Ali’s hearse rode through the city. There were thousands of people. The crowd was almost entirely Black. (I’m saying “almost” just because my pod producer Dan Bloom and I were also present.)
Experiencing this overwhelming local outpouring of love, I was reminded of the fact that Ali at the height of his fame would attend demonstrations in Louisville that were fighting redlining, segregated housing, and, yes, police brutality. He once said, speaking directly to the Black community of his hometown, “In your struggle for freedom, justice and equality I am with you. I came to Louisville because I could not remain silent while my own people, many I grew up with, many I went to school with, many my blood relatives, were being beaten, stomped and kicked in the streets simply because they want freedom, and justice and equality in housing.” More From Dave Zirin “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash August 15, 2023 Why the Right Wanted the USWNT to Lose August 10, 2023 Carli Lloyd’s Attacks on the USWNT Are Personal—and Political August 1, 2023
Spending the day speaking to Louisville’s people—many too young to have ever seen Ali fight—about what “the Champ” meant to them, irrevocably changed me. So many had met him over the years, and Ali would make a point through a joke, a magic trick, or an impromptu sparring session, to make the experience forever memorable. It was a reminder about the ties that bind us to the past and the history that can sustain a community through a difficult present. There was deep poverty in Louisville. Legal segregation was gone, but that meant that the Black middle and professional classes had moved out of Ali’s old neighborhood, creating more immiseration and social crisis for those on the bottom of the ladder. There was also a deep feeling that this was a place fighting to be heard. If struggle is truly the secret of joy, then I’ll repeat: It felt like hallowed ground.
Daniel Cameron, the Kentucky attorney general, has desecrated this hallowed ground. In his ambition to remain a Republican rising star, mentored by McConnell and beloved by Trump, he chose his career over justice and made the decision to use Breonna Taylor’s body as a stepping stone to reach even greater heights. I know what people are saying about Daniel Cameron. I sure as hell know what Ali would have said about Daniel Cameron. But to me this is less about the color of Cameron’s skin than a naked and grotesque expression of what it takes to rise in GOP circles: You protect the cops, you blame the dead, and you assert, no matter the cost, that Black lives—particularly the lives of Black women—simply do not matter.
For the people of Louisville, Taylor’s name will be remembered as surely as Ali’s. Maybe someday people will walk Breonna Taylor Boulevard in downtown Louisville and speak her name not merely as a tragedy but as a turning point towards true justice. Cameron, if remembered at all, will be thought of likethe person who stole young Cassius Clay’s bicycle, which inspired the 12-year-old Clay to take up boxing. He will be the anonymous, ignominious cudgel of immorality whose blows didn’t put the people of Louisville down for the count but propelled them to rise off the mat.


thenation--2020-09-25--Senator Wyden Presses the DHS on ‘Unconstitutional’ Surveillance

On Monday , The Nation reported that the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) intercepted protesters ’ phone communications in Portland this summer .
Today , Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the DHS demanding answers .
As Wyden explained to us in an e-mail , “ There are still a lot of questions about what DHS has been doing in Portland , but I ’ m pushing hard for answers .
The bottom line is , it would be totally unacceptable , illegal , and unconstitutional for the Trump administration to spy on people because of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator representing Oregon , serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee , responsible for conducting oversight of the intelligence community .
The letter , addressed to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and signed by both Wyden and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley , contains a list of detailed questions relating to the intelligence operations reported by The Nation earlier this week .
The first question concerns former DHS intelligence chief Brian Murphy , who it says declined to confirm to the committee that his agency “ had neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or detainees , ” as he had stated in a briefing in July .
The letter goes on to ask whether the DHS extracted data from protesters ’ phones , if it later analyzed this data , and whether it obtained authorization from a judge to do so .
The letter begins by stating , “ A recent article in The Nation alleges that an interagency task force involving DHS and the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) conducted surveillance of protesters ’ phones in Portland.
” As we reported on Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack in order to intercept Portland protesters ’ phone communications this summer .
The letter notes that these activities would qualify as unconstitutional .
Congress has enacted strict legal protections that require government agencies to obtain the approval of an independent judge before searching Americans ’ devices and surveilling their communications—absent an emergency .
That is to prevent the government from suppressing legitimate free speech protected by the First Amendment and violating Americans ’ right to privacy , which is protected by the Fourth Amendment .
These recent reports , which allege that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against protesters in Portland , raise serious concerns , which Congress has a responsibility to investigate .
The DHS ’ s deployment to Portland was a controversial one , having taken place against the wishes of many local officials , including Portland ’ s mayor , Ted Wheeler .
Forces mobilized included Border Patrol Tactical Units ( Customs and Border Protection ’ s elite special forces equivalent ) and Justice Department assets like the US Marshals .
While the response was widely criticized as heavy-handed , the Trump administration justified it as necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal property .
“ DHS is not going to back down from our responsibilities , ” Acting Secretary Wolf said in response to criticism in July .
“ We are not escalating , we are protecting .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On Monday, The Nation reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intercepted protesters’ phone communications in Portland this summer. Today, Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the DHS demanding answers.
As Wyden explained to us in an e-mail, “There are still a lot of questions about what DHS has been doing in Portland, but I’m pushing hard for answers. The bottom line is, it would be totally unacceptable, illegal, and unconstitutional for the Trump administration to spy on people because of their political beliefs.”
Wyden, a US Senator representing Oregon, serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, responsible for conducting oversight of the intelligence community. The letter, addressed to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and signed by both Wyden and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, contains a list of detailed questions relating to the intelligence operations reported by The Nation earlier this week. the wire Federal Agencies Tapped Protesters’ Phones in Portland Ken Klippenstein
The first question concerns former DHS intelligence chief Brian Murphy, who it says declined to confirm to the committee that his agency “had neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information obtained from the devices or accounts of protesters or detainees,” as he had stated in a briefing in July. The letter goes on to ask whether the DHS extracted data from protesters’ phones, if it later analyzed this data, and whether it obtained authorization from a judge to do so.
The letter begins by stating, “A recent article in The Nation alleges that an interagency task force involving DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted surveillance of protesters’ phones in Portland.” As we reported on Monday, the DHS conducted a cell phone cloning attack in order to intercept Portland protesters’ phone communications this summer. The letter notes that these activities would qualify as unconstitutional.
Congress has enacted strict legal protections that require government agencies to obtain the approval of an independent judge before searching Americans’ devices and surveilling their communications—absent an emergency. That is to prevent the government from suppressing legitimate free speech protected by the First Amendment and violating Americans’ right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment. These recent reports, which allege that the DHS has deployed high-tech surveillance technologies against protesters in Portland, raise serious concerns, which Congress has a responsibility to investigate. Current Issue View our current issue
The DHS’s deployment to Portland was a controversial one, having taken place against the wishes of many local officials, including Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler. Forces mobilized included Border Patrol Tactical Units (Customs and Border Protection’s elite special forces equivalent) and Justice Department assets like the US Marshals. While the response was widely criticized as heavy-handed, the Trump administration justified it as necessary to respond to civil unrest and protect federal property.
“DHS is not going to back down from our responsibilities,” Acting Secretary Wolf said in response to criticism in July. “We are not escalating, we are protecting.”

N


He Taught Gorbachev

Without Stephen Cohen , it is impossible to imagine perestroika Moscow .
He attended rallies and meetings of former Gulag prisoners , participated in public debates and scholarly symposia , spoke out with equal passion at forums and at friends ’ homes , and he talked and talked with everyone—the “ architects of perestroika , ” young journalists , people on the street .
Without his figure , constant cigarette , and light accent , the picture of the era would be deficient .
Without the evenings he and Katrina spent with friends , Russians and Americans , the perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual openness , the passionate desire on both sides to end the Cold War , to start a new path of cooperation and to be free of the Sword of Damocles of nuclear confrontation .
Without his publications in the magazine Ogonyok , the history of independent journalism and the history of understanding our past and present would be incomplete .
Cohen ’ s significance in historical scholarship is not solely about his important contribution to the Western academic community through his biography of Bukharin—and other figures in the early Soviet leadership who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important was his study of the nature of Stalinist and post-Stalinist repression , bringing the true faces and voices of Gulag prisoners to the world , as well as the faces of the Soviet dissidents with whom he lived side by side for many months throughout his long professional life .
He taught young historians the methodology and approaches of Western research , which gave many of them new perspectives and brought them into the international scholarly community .
He documented daily life and was one of the first to have access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , he was part of the process of democratization and liberation from the Stalinist legacy .
His significance is not only in that he helped establish the Gulag Museum and that he supported many former prisoners and their families , whom he had met back in the Brezhnev era of “ stagnation.
” He essentially offered a new language for talking about the past , reasoned and factual , and he formulated the need for a fundamental evaluation of the past , together with Soviet writers , journalists , and activists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians , including Gorbachev , to articulate their own positions more clearly about the past , at least until 1989 .
Cohen , like many romantics of perestroika , was profoundly idealistic .
He believed in Bukharin .
He believed in the possibility of socialism with a human face , and I think he kept that faith throughout his life .
Millions of Soviet people shared that faith in the late 1980s .
I remember the flood of letters to Ogonyok after the publication of Bukharin ’ s famous “ last letter ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frontline soldiers , former prisoners , bosses , and the most ordinary people wrote to say that they had been waiting for this publication all their lives .
Young people wrote that they had finally seen meaning and direction .
That glasnost period passed rather quickly , and many political figures tried to erase its achievements , but Steve always remembered .
He kept his faith in the possibility of preventing a new Cold War and nuclear catastrophe , which he wrote about frequently in recent years .
I used his book The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , and I am pleased that 20-year-olds studied it with great interest and then used it in their subsequent work on Russian history and the problem of historical memory .
Stephen Cohen was an active participant in the democratic changes in Russia .
He will always be remembered as such .

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?
Without Stephen Cohen, it is impossible to imagine perestroika Moscow. He attended rallies and meetings of former Gulag prisoners, participated in public debates and scholarly symposia, spoke out with equal passion at forums and at friends’ homes, and he talked and talked with everyone—the “architects of perestroika,” young journalists, people on the street.
Without his figure, constant cigarette, and light accent, the picture of the era would be deficient. Without the evenings he and Katrina spent with friends, Russians and Americans, the perception would be inadequate of the atmosphere of mutual openness, the passionate desire on both sides to end the Cold War, to start a new path of cooperation and to be free of the Sword of Damocles of nuclear confrontation.
Without his publications in the magazine Ogonyok, the history of independent journalism and the history of understanding our past and present would be incomplete.
Cohen’s significance in historical scholarship is not solely about his important contribution to the Western academic community through his biography of Bukharin—and other figures in the early Soviet leadership who were opposed to Stalin. Just as important was his study of the nature of Stalinist and post-Stalinist repression, bringing the true faces and voices of Gulag prisoners to the world, as well as the faces of the Soviet dissidents with whom he lived side by side for many months throughout his long professional life. Nation History Stephen F. Cohen, 1938–2020 Katrina vanden Heuvel
He taught young historians the methodology and approaches of Western research, which gave many of them new perspectives and brought them into the international scholarly community. He documented daily life and was one of the first to have access to decades of closed archives. But most importantly, he was part of the process of democratization and liberation from the Stalinist legacy. His significance is not only in that he helped establish the Gulag Museum and that he supported many former prisoners and their families, whom he had met back in the Brezhnev era of “stagnation.” He essentially offered a new language for talking about the past, reasoned and factual, and he formulated the need for a fundamental evaluation of the past, together with Soviet writers, journalists, and activists.
I think his articles and formulations helped politicians, including Gorbachev, to articulate their own positions more clearly about the past, at least until 1989. Cohen, like many romantics of perestroika, was profoundly idealistic. He believed in Bukharin. He believed in the possibility of socialism with a human face, and I think he kept that faith throughout his life. Current Issue View our current issue
Millions of Soviet people shared that faith in the late 1980s. I remember the flood of letters to Ogonyok after the publication of Bukharin’s famous “last letter” warning of Stalin. Elderly people, frontline soldiers, former prisoners, bosses, and the most ordinary people wrote to say that they had been waiting for this publication all their lives. Young people wrote that they had finally seen meaning and direction. That glasnost period passed rather quickly, and many political figures tried to erase its achievements, but Steve always remembered. He kept his faith in the possibility of preventing a new Cold War and nuclear catastrophe, which he wrote about frequently in recent years.
I used his book The Victims Return in my curriculum at journalism school, and I am pleased that 20-year-olds studied it with great interest and then used it in their subsequent work on Russian history and the problem of historical memory.
Stephen Cohen was an active participant in the democratic changes in Russia. He will always be remembered as such.
Translated by Antonina W. Bouis


thenation--2020-09-25--Mueller’s Failure Exposes the Limits of Prosecutorial Liberalism

Historians of the far future will be puzzled by many of the events in the Trump presidency , perhaps none more baffling than the bizarre cult that sprang up around Robert Mueller , the special counsel who from 2017 to 2019 investigated Russian election interference .
During those years , there was a significant number of liberals who thought Mueller was the savior who would deliver America from Trump .
As The New York Times noted shortly after the Mueller report was filed , fans of the special counsel “ elevated Mr. Mueller , a former F.B.I .
director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with T-shirts , scented candles and holiday-themed songs like ‘ We Wish You a Mueller Christmas.
’ ” Saturday Night Live did a running series of skits featuring Alec Baldwin as a cowering Donald Trump living in fear of Mueller , played by Robert De Niro as a tough , laconic , and menacing cop .
Two prominent online “ Resistance ” liberals , Ed and Brian Krassenstein , produced a children ’ s book that , according to The New York Times , “ depicted Mueller as a superhero—complete with a shirtless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to mockery of their book by claiming it was a “ parody.
” ) The Mueller cult now looks ridiculous—and not just because the special counsel came to the ambiguous conclusion that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election but there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy .
Rather , what makes the Mueller cult feel hopelessly naïve is the strong evidence that has emerged that the special counsel , far from scaring Trump , was cowed by the president .
Former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann , who helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head Paul Manafort , reflects on the failure of the Mueller team in his forthcoming book , Where Law Ends : Inside the Mueller Investigation , set to be released next week .
As New York Times reporter Charlie Savage details , the new book shows a number of significant areas where the Mueller investigation pulled its punches , notably the fact that a hush fund used to pay off adult film actress Stormy Daniels received , according to Weissmann , “ payments linked to a Russian oligarch.
” Another significant episode involves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bank to uncover details about possible Ukrainian funds sent to Manafort .
Although the subpoenas were supposed to be secret , news of them leaked to the White House , which strenuously opposed this line of inquiry .
The White House seems to have feared that loans from Deutsche Bank to the Trump Organization could also be targeted for investigation .
The upshot of the dispute was that Mueller ’ s team retreated from any inquiry into Deutsche Bank ’ s ties to Trump .
“ Had we used all available tools to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onslaught of the president ’ s unique powers to undermine our efforts ?
” Weissmann asks , “ I know the hard answer to that simple question : We could have done more.
” The reasons for this failure to mount a full investigation are manifold .
The Manafort team was under constant attack not just from the White House but also from right-wing media outlets like Fox News .
This seems to have given some of them , notably Mueller ’ s deputy Aaron M. Zebley , pause .
Mueller , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the Republican establishment that has been his lifelong milieu .
Reviewing Where Law Ends for The New York Times , Jennifer Szalai observes that Weissmann finds “ Mueller ’ s fundamental flaw “ to have been “ a persistent faith in a Justice Department headed by his old friend William Barr .
The Mueller team had meticulously laid out their findings in their 448-page , antiseptically worded report , only to be ‘ blindsided ’ by Barr ’ s four-page self-styled summary , which Weissmann depicts as a nakedly cynical distortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just been played by the attorney general.
’ ” The cult of Mueller was based on the dubious idea that a Republican and lifelong member of the Washington elite would pursue a relentless and scorched-earth investigation into a GOP president .
This belief , in turn , rested on an idealization of federal law enforcement , seen as uncorrupted and rigorously loyal to the law .
The liberals who joined the Mueller cult gave as much credence as any conservative in the cultural myths J. Edgar Hoover created in the early 20th century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paint federal lawmen as uniquely worthy : crew-cut upholders of justice who could be trusted more than politicians .
This is not the first time liberals have overestimated the ability of law enforcement to check political corruption .
The Watergate scandal hinged on the persistent probing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox , whose firing by the Nixon White House itself became part of the scandal .
In the wake of Watergate , successive political scandals have seen liberals look for a new Archibald Cox , a prosecutor or law enforcement hero who could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been variously played by Lawrence Walsh ( during Iran/Contra ) , Patrick Fitzgerald ( during George W. Bush ’ s presidency ) , and an array of figures in the Trump era : Sally Yates , James Comey , and Robert Mueller .
Some of these figures have done their job well .
Walsh ’ s investigation of Iran/Contra , done in the face of a hostile administration , was exemplary .
But it ’ s notable that they all yielded nugatory results .
Watergate remains the exception : a scandal that resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other subsequent presidential scandal , including those involving Bill Clinton , the commander in chief was able to put up a successful blockade , relying on either a promise of pardons , deference from investigators , or partisan loyalty from congressional allies .
Prosecutorial liberalism is a fantasy , one that weakens other ways of checking presidential corruption .
The more figures like Mueller are idealized , the less pressure there is on Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch .
It also absolves citizens of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump , a president is demonstrably corrupt .
The Mueller investigation has been combined with a Congress that impeached Trump on the narrowest possible grounds and avoided the difficult work of enforcing subpoenas in the face of White House stonewalling .
But to pick a fight with Trump on these grounds , congressional Democrats would have to take real political risks , including shutting down the government if the White House remained recalcitrant .
Would it be worthwhile to shut down the government , with the risk of alienating many voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is a thorny political question , with no easy answer .
But it ’ s a question congressional Democrats have been able to avoid because the party ’ s liberal base was too focused on the false promise of Mueller to push for congressional action .
Prosecutorial liberalism is a safety valve that releases popular anger while allowing the status quo to continue unchanged .
The Trump era has tested the health of the American political system , and it ’ s impossible to offer a cheering diagnosis .
Even if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s shown how much corruption a president can get away with so long as he has the unwavering support of his own party and an opposition that is unwilling to risk a government shutdown .
Political corruption is ultimately more a political problem than a legal one .
It thus requires a political solution .
In theory , Congress could assert itself to check the imperial presidency that allowed Trump to get away with so much .
It could require presidents to be open about their finances ; it could formalize the principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with penalties for disobedience ) ; it could end the principle that presidents can ’ t be charged for their crimes while in office .
But there ’ s little evidence that Democrats are interested in any sweeping rollback of the imperial presidency .
America is likely to remain a nation whose political system can ’ t restrain presidential corruption .
This leaves the United States ripe picking for future Trumps .

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?
Historians of the far future will be puzzled by many of the events in the Trump presidency, perhaps none more baffling than the bizarre cult that sprang up around Robert Mueller, the special counsel who from 2017 to 2019 investigated Russian election interference. During those years, there was a significant number of liberals who thought Mueller was the savior who would deliver America from Trump. As The New York Times noted shortly after the Mueller report was filed, fans of the special counsel “elevated Mr. Mueller, a former F.B.I. director, into an anti-Trump cultural icon, complete with T-shirts, scented candles and holiday-themed songs like ‘We Wish You a Mueller Christmas.’”
Saturday Night Live did a running series of skits featuring Alec Baldwin as a cowering Donald Trump living in fear of Mueller, played by Robert De Niro as a tough, laconic, and menacing cop. Two prominent online “Resistance” liberals, Ed and Brian Krassenstein, produced a children’s book that, according to The New York Times, “depicted Mueller as a superhero—complete with a shirtless, muscular pose.” (The Krassensteins responded to mockery of their book by claiming it was a “parody.”)
The Mueller cult now looks ridiculous—and not just because the special counsel came to the ambiguous conclusion that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election but there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Rather, what makes the Mueller cult feel hopelessly naïve is the strong evidence that has emerged that the special counsel, far from scaring Trump, was cowed by the president.
Former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who helped oversee the investigation into onetime Trump campaign head Paul Manafort, reflects on the failure of the Mueller team in his forthcoming book, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, set to be released next week. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
As New York Times reporter Charlie Savage details, the new book shows a number of significant areas where the Mueller investigation pulled its punches, notably the fact that a hush fund used to pay off adult film actress Stormy Daniels received, according to Weissmann, “payments linked to a Russian oligarch.” Another significant episode involves the issuance of secret subpoenas to Deutsche Bank to uncover details about possible Ukrainian funds sent to Manafort. Although the subpoenas were supposed to be secret, news of them leaked to the White House, which strenuously opposed this line of inquiry. The White House seems to have feared that loans from Deutsche Bank to the Trump Organization could also be targeted for investigation. The upshot of the dispute was that Mueller’s team retreated from any inquiry into Deutsche Bank’s ties to Trump.
“Had we used all available tools to uncover the truth, undeterred by the onslaught of the president’s unique powers to undermine our efforts?” Weissmann asks, “I know the hard answer to that simple question: We could have done more.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
The reasons for this failure to mount a full investigation are manifold. The Manafort team was under constant attack not just from the White House but also from right-wing media outlets like Fox News. This seems to have given some of them, notably Mueller’s deputy Aaron M. Zebley, pause. Mueller, a Washington fixture, proved incapable of standing up to the Republican establishment that has been his lifelong milieu.
Reviewing Where Law Ends for The New York Times, Jennifer Szalai observes that Weissmann finds “Mueller’s fundamental flaw“ to have been “a persistent faith in a Justice Department headed by his old friend William Barr. The Mueller team had meticulously laid out their findings in their 448-page, antiseptically worded report, only to be ‘blindsided’ by Barr’s four-page self-styled summary, which Weissmann depicts as a nakedly cynical distortion of the truth: ‘We had just been played by the attorney general.’”
The cult of Mueller was based on the dubious idea that a Republican and lifelong member of the Washington elite would pursue a relentless and scorched-earth investigation into a GOP president. This belief, in turn, rested on an idealization of federal law enforcement, seen as uncorrupted and rigorously loyal to the law. The liberals who joined the Mueller cult gave as much credence as any conservative in the cultural myths J. Edgar Hoover created in the early 20th century to legitimize the FBI. These myths paint federal lawmen as uniquely worthy: crew-cut upholders of justice who could be trusted more than politicians.
This is not the first time liberals have overestimated the ability of law enforcement to check political corruption. The Watergate scandal hinged on the persistent probing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, whose firing by the Nixon White House itself became part of the scandal. In the wake of Watergate, successive political scandals have seen liberals look for a new Archibald Cox, a prosecutor or law enforcement hero who could fight Republican corruption. The role has been variously played by Lawrence Walsh (during Iran/Contra), Patrick Fitzgerald (during George W. Bush’s presidency), and an array of figures in the Trump era: Sally Yates, James Comey, and Robert Mueller.
Some of these figures have done their job well. Walsh’s investigation of Iran/Contra, done in the face of a hostile administration, was exemplary. But it’s notable that they all yielded nugatory results. Watergate remains the exception: a scandal that resulted in a president resigning. In every other subsequent presidential scandal, including those involving Bill Clinton, the commander in chief was able to put up a successful blockade, relying on either a promise of pardons, deference from investigators, or partisan loyalty from congressional allies. Current Issue View our current issue
Prosecutorial liberalism is a fantasy, one that weakens other ways of checking presidential corruption. The more figures like Mueller are idealized, the less pressure there is on Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. It also absolves citizens of the duty to organize protests when, as with Trump, a president is demonstrably corrupt. The Mueller investigation has been combined with a Congress that impeached Trump on the narrowest possible grounds and avoided the difficult work of enforcing subpoenas in the face of White House stonewalling. But to pick a fight with Trump on these grounds, congressional Democrats would have to take real political risks, including shutting down the government if the White House remained recalcitrant.
Would it be worthwhile to shut down the government, with the risk of alienating many voters, to challenge Trump’s corruption? That is a thorny political question, with no easy answer. But it’s a question congressional Democrats have been able to avoid because the party’s liberal base was too focused on the false promise of Mueller to push for congressional action.
Prosecutorial liberalism is a safety valve that releases popular anger while allowing the status quo to continue unchanged.
The Trump era has tested the health of the American political system, and it’s impossible to offer a cheering diagnosis. Even if Trump is defeated in November, he’s shown how much corruption a president can get away with so long as he has the unwavering support of his own party and an opposition that is unwilling to risk a government shutdown.
Political corruption is ultimately more a political problem than a legal one. It thus requires a political solution. In theory, Congress could assert itself to check the imperial presidency that allowed Trump to get away with so much. It could require presidents to be open about their finances; it could formalize the principle that congressional subpoenas must be obeyed (with penalties for disobedience); it could end the principle that presidents can’t be charged for their crimes while in office. But there’s little evidence that Democrats are interested in any sweeping rollback of the imperial presidency. America is likely to remain a nation whose political system can’t restrain presidential corruption. This leaves the United States ripe picking for future Trumps.