thenation--2020-10-27--Brett Kavanaugh Prepares to Upend Election Rules to Benefit Donald Trump

Civics books tell us the winners of elections are announced after all the votes are cast and counted .
But Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh doesn ’ t have time to consult civics books .
He ’ s too busy doing the political bidding of the man who nominated him for the high court , Donald Trump .
The embattled president , who is grabbing for any procedural straw that might secure him a second term , has for months been peddling nonsense about how and when to count ballots cast in what is likely to be the highest-turnout election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA , ” Trump tweeted Monday evening .
“ Must have final total on November 3rd.
” That false statement amplified a lie Trump and his aides have been telling with the intent of creating confusion about the count .
Twitter duly attached a warning : “ Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about how to participate in an election or another civic process.
” Unfortunately , no warning was attached to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Monday night ’ s 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court to strike down a lower federal court ’ s ruling that Wisconsin had to count absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day .
The five justices had varying rationales for their intervention , which deviated from a stance the high court took regarding Wisconsin ’ s April 7 election .
But Kavanaugh explicitly channeled the false narrative of Trump and his toadies , who have argued that mail-in votes that are postmarked on November 3 ( or even before that date ) but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day will of the voters .
“ What we want election night to look like is…a situation where we know who the President of the United States is on election night .
That ’ s how the system is supposed to work , ” press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told Fox News last month .
In Monday ’ s concurring opinion , Kavanaugh echoed Trump and McEnany : “ States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The justice claimed , “ States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night , or as soon as possible thereafter.
” Justice Elena Kagan used her dissenting opinion to school the Trump appointee on election law : This is not a close call .
Kavanaugh ’ s wrong .
Kagan ’ s right .
Elections are not delegitimized by a long count .
In fact , the careful scrutiny of ballots to ensure that a clear winner is determined is the standard that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to declare winners on election night .
And candidates love to claim their victories .
It ’ s an elaborate ritual that people have gotten used to over the years .
But the rush to declare the process finished before all the votes are counted has a long history of producing “ Dewey Defeats Truman ” headlines .
To avoid that prospect , and to guard against cynical manipulations of the news cycle by Trump and his minions , election law experts have been telling voters and reporters that it ’ s necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will have results on election night .
In some states , they warn , we could be looking at “ election month.
” “ Regardless of what candidates might say , the default has to be a race or a state is ‘ too early to call ’ if there are a lot of uncounted mail-in ballots , ” election law expert Rick Hasen told The Nation last month .
A bipartisan panel Hasen convened urged media outlets to , among other measures , “ emphasize the need for a careful count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicated timeline ] reflects an institutional failure , ” and “ explain why shifts in vote margins are routine as counts of mail ballots are conducted and not indicative of fraud.
” Unfortunately , even if the media gets it , Kavanaugh has signaled that he is prepared to do Trump ’ s bidding as a member of a high-court majority that will be even more inclined to engage in right-wing judicial activism with the addition Monday night of Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
While Justice John Roberts has at times distanced himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he went along with the conservatives on Monday ’ s ruling regarding Wisconsin .
And , now , no matter what Roberts does , there is a chance that a new and more extreme right-wing majority will engage in far more active partisanship—with Trump ’ s most controversial appointee , Kavanaugh , taking the lead .
Kavanaugh signaled where he might go in a disputed election with the most bizarre component of his concurrence , a footnote that embraced an argument made by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the 2000 Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—that the Supreme Court could overturn rulings by state courts regarding state election laws .
This radical view was outlined in a Bush v. Gore concurrence that was not embraced by two members of the conservative majority that decided the case , Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O ’ Connor .
Yet , Kavanaugh appeared to treat it as a precedent , writing in a nearly page-long footnote : The justice ’ s concurrence signals , on the eve of what could be an even more bitterly contested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is quite open to going further than the Bush v. Gore decision when it comes to meddling with vote counting in the states .
Kavanaugh knows a good deal about the Bush v. Gore fight .
Like Roberts , he assisted the Republican legal team .
Kavanaugh advanced arguments that were eventually accepted by the Supreme Court majority in its 5-4 ruling and was an outspoken legal activist who can he heard in an old CNN interview pushing a false narrative about “ the arbitrary , standardless nature of the recount process in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election to Bush , Kavanaugh went to work for the new president , who eventually appointed him to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit .
Kavanaugh will now be able to compare notes about the 2000 fight with one more justice who recalls that “ I did work on Bush v. Gore .
I did work on behalf of the Republican side ” : Amy Coney Barrett .

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?
Civics books tell us the winners of elections are announced after all the votes are cast and counted.
But Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t have time to consult civics books. He’s too busy doing the political bidding of the man who nominated him for the high court, Donald Trump.
The embattled president, who is grabbing for any procedural straw that might secure him a second term, has for months been peddling nonsense about how and when to count ballots cast in what is likely to be the highest-turnout election in more than a century. “Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA,” Trump tweeted Monday evening. “Must have final total on November 3rd.” That false statement amplified a lie Trump and his aides have been telling with the intent of creating confusion about the count. Twitter duly attached a warning: “Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about how to participate in an election or another civic process.”
Unfortunately, no warning was attached to the concurrence filed by Kavanaugh in support of Monday night’s 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court to strike down a lower federal court’s ruling that Wisconsin had to count absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day. The five justices had varying rationales for their intervention, which deviated from a stance the high court took regarding Wisconsin’s April 7 election. But Kavanaugh explicitly channeled the false narrative of Trump and his toadies, who have argued that mail-in votes that are postmarked on November 3 (or even before that date) but arrive afterward will somehow wrongly reverse the Election Day will of the voters. “What we want election night to look like is…a situation where we know who the President of the United States is on election night. That’s how the system is supposed to work,” press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told Fox News last month. Election Month Get Ready for Election Month 2020 Joan Walsh
In Monday’s concurring opinion, Kavanaugh echoed Trump and McEnany: “States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election.” The justice claimed, “States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.” 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
Justice Elena Kagan used her dissenting opinion to school the Trump appointee on election law:
Justice Kavanaugh alleges that “suspicions of impropriety” will result if “absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” But there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more “suspicio[us]” or “improp[er]” than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.
This is not a close call. Kavanaugh’s wrong. Kagan’s right.
Elections are not delegitimized by a long count. In fact, the careful scrutiny of ballots to ensure that a clear winner is determined is the standard that itself ensures legitimacy. Media outlets love to declare winners on election night. And candidates love to claim their victories. It’s an elaborate ritual that people have gotten used to over the years. But the rush to declare the process finished before all the votes are counted has a long history of producing “Dewey Defeats Truman” headlines. To avoid that prospect, and to guard against cynical manipulations of the news cycle by Trump and his minions, election law experts have been telling voters and reporters that it’s necessary to move away from the expectation that we will have results on election night. In some states, they warn, we could be looking at “election month.” Current Issue View our current issue
“Regardless of what candidates might say, the default has to be a race or a state is ‘too early to call’ if there are a lot of uncounted mail-in ballots,” election law expert Rick Hasen told The Nation last month. A bipartisan panel Hasen convened urged media outlets to, among other measures, “emphasize the need for a careful count, rather than reporting that [a complicated timeline] reflects an institutional failure,” and “explain why shifts in vote margins are routine as counts of mail ballots are conducted and not indicative of fraud.”
Unfortunately, even if the media gets it, Kavanaugh has signaled that he is prepared to do Trump’s bidding as a member of a high-court majority that will be even more inclined to engage in right-wing judicial activism with the addition Monday night of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. While Justice John Roberts has at times distanced himself from the excesses of his conservative colleagues, he went along with the conservatives on Monday’s ruling regarding Wisconsin. And, now, no matter what Roberts does, there is a chance that a new and more extreme right-wing majority will engage in far more active partisanship—with Trump’s most controversial appointee, Kavanaugh, taking the lead.
Kavanaugh signaled where he might go in a disputed election with the most bizarre component of his concurrence, a footnote that embraced an argument made by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the 2000 Bush v. Gore dispute—with the support of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—that the Supreme Court could overturn rulings by state courts regarding state election laws. This radical view was outlined in a Bush v. Gore concurrence that was not embraced by two members of the conservative majority that decided the case, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor. Yet, Kavanaugh appeared to treat it as a precedent, writing in a nearly page-long footnote:
As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in Bush v. Gore, the important federal judicial role in reviewing state-court decisions about state law in a federal Presidential election “does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. To attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.” Only the Beginning The Election Isn’t Over Until Trump’s Gone John Nichols
The justice’s concurrence signals, on the eve of what could be an even more bitterly contested presidential election than 2000, that he is quite open to going further than the Bush v. Gore decision when it comes to meddling with vote counting in the states.
Kavanaugh knows a good deal about the Bush v. Gore fight. Like Roberts, he assisted the Republican legal team. Kavanaugh advanced arguments that were eventually accepted by the Supreme Court majority in its 5-4 ruling and was an outspoken legal activist who can he heard in an old CNN interview pushing a false narrative about “the arbitrary, standardless nature of the recount process in Florida.” After the high court handed the election to Bush, Kavanaugh went to work for the new president, who eventually appointed him to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Kavanaugh will now be able to compare notes about the 2000 fight with one more justice who recalls that “I did work on Bush v. Gore. I did work on behalf of the Republican side”: Amy Coney Barrett.


thenation--2020-10-27--Any True Recovery Must Include US Workers

From March through mid-October , as Covid-19 spread , the wealth of US billionaires collectively increased some $ 931 billion—or @ @ @ @ @ richest grew even richer as more than 225,000 Americans have died and lost work .
@ @ @ @ @ as some expected , a “ great equalizer.
” It has exacerbated the cruel inequities @ @ @ @ @ , preying on the vulnerable while plutocrats profited .
This juxtaposition exposed the falsehood in @ @ @ @ @ to have built the “ greatest economy in the history of the world ” and @ @ @ @ @ that next year will be the best ever .
As the pandemic forced the shutdown @ @ @ @ @ , well-positioned companies and monopolies—in online retail , the pharmaceutical industry , telemedicine , videoconferencing @ @ @ @ @ of some of the world ’ s richest people—including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos ( who @ @ @ @ @ ) and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg—shot up .
But others also profited .
Read the @ @ @ @ @ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
From March through mid-October, as Covid-19 spread, the wealth of US billionaires collectively increased some $931 billion—or nearly one-third. The very richest grew even richer as more than 225,000 Americans have died and lost work. The pandemic is not, as some expected, a “great equalizer.” It has exacerbated the cruel inequities of the US political economy, preying on the vulnerable while plutocrats profited.
This juxtaposition exposed the falsehood in President Trump’s claim to have built the “greatest economy in the history of the world” and the delusion in his promise that next year will be the best ever.
As the pandemic forced the shutdown of much of the economy, well-positioned companies and monopolies—in online retail, the pharmaceutical industry, telemedicine, videoconferencing services—thrived. The net worth of some of the world’s richest people—including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (who owns the The Washington Post) and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg—shot up. But others also profited.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-10-27--Nuclear Weapons Have Always Been Immoral. Now They’re Illegal.

Just over three years after it opened for signature , the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ( TPNW ) reached the 50 national ratifications needed to become international law .
The government of Honduras ratified the antinuclear agreement on October 24 , which means the TPNW will enter into force 90 days later : January 22 , 2021 .
This milestone was reached on United Nations Day , which marks the 75th anniversary of the UN Charter .
The very first resolution of the UN General Assembly called for the elimination of nuclear weapons , making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ratification of a global agreement that prohibits these weapons .
This year is also the 75th anniversary of the horrific atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States and the beginning of the nuclear arms race .
The TPNW shows us what happens when those committed to multilateralism and transnational activism work together to change the world .
Securing these 50 ratifications is a historic moment for nuclear abolition , achieved only by the relentless efforts of generations of activists and diplomats .
For the last decade , the International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) has been working with officials from nonnuclear countries to prohibit these weapons under international law .
Despite incredible pressure from several of the nuclear-armed states , the UN General Assembly adopted the TPNW on July 7 , 2017 , and later that year ICAN went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize .
As a result of those effort , nuclear weapons will soon be unlawful to possess , develop , deploy , test , use , or even threaten to use for TPNW states parties .
These heinous bombs will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chemical weapons , as land mines and cluster munitions .
The TPNW is the first feminist law on nuclear weapons , recognizing the disproportionate impacts of nuclear weapons on women and girls and on Indigenous peoples , urging more equitable participation of women in disarmament , and mandating victim assistance and environmental remediation in relation to nuclear weapon use and testing .
While much work remains to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons , their prohibition is a crucial step .
The imperative of the ban Nuclear weapons are arguably the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriarchal , racist , and capitalist world order .
Even without being launched , they are used to project the power and invincibility of their possessor .
They are the pinnacle of a state ’ s monopoly on violence , the ultimate signifier of domination .
The myth of nuclear deterrence insists that nuclear weapons maintain global security and keep the peace ; the reality is that these weapons have harmed hundreds of thousands of people around the world , particularly Indigenous peoples .
The number of nuclear weapons in the world peaked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 70,000 weapons .
Stockpiles have diminished since then to about 13,400 .
But all nine of the current nuclear-armed states—China , France , India , Israel , Pakistan , North Korea , Russia , United Kingdom , and United States—are building up their arsenals ; modernizing warheads , missiles , bombers , and submarines ; and spending billions to threaten each other and the planet with mass destruction .
Their rhetoric about their commitment to nuclear disarmament is disingenuous .
The five nuclear-armed states that are legally bound to eliminate their nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not complied with this obligation and thus are in violation of international law .
Given the stalemate over nuclear disarmament and the surging reinvestments in nuclear weapons , the majority of countries decided to take matters into their own hands .
Recognizing the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that nuclear weapon production , testing , and use cause throughout the world , activists with ICAN worked alongside governments to ban the bomb .
This meant making international law without the consent of those who believed they held all the power .
The majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the TPNW .
One hundred and twenty-two states voted for its adoption in 2017 ; since then , governments from around the world , particularly Latin America , Southeast Asia , the Pacific , and Africa , have signed and ratified the treaty .
Some have said that the treaty is irrelevant , since none of the countries that have joined so far possess nuclear bombs .
But that doesn ’ t matter right now .
Over time , the treaty will have a normative impact on the behavior of other countries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on financial institutions and other national and local actors .
The changes that the nuclear ban brings to law , politics , and economics will lead us to nuclear disarmament .
As past social movements have taught us , change doesn ’ t happen in instant—it is iterative , contested , and must be constantly defended and built upon .
In Memoriam : The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Dies at 32 Already , more than 1,600 elected officials in countries that have not yet joined the TPNW have pledged to work to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towns around the world have adopted resolutions encouraging their governments to join the treaty , including capitals in nuclear-armed states , like Paris and Washington , D.C. Financial institutions have started divesting from nuclear-weapons-producing companies , including within countries that have not yet joined the treaty .
Public support is also already behind the ban .
Public opinion polls show that 79 percent of Australians , 79 percent of Swedes , 78 percent of Norwegians , 75 percent of Japanese , 84 percent of Finns , 70 percent of Italians , 68 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 65 percent of Americans support their government ’ s joining the TPNW .
The TPNW stigmatizes nuclear weapons , making it more difficult for nuclear-armed states to justify their possession and defend their “ deterrence ” doctrines .
We ’ ve seen this work with other weapons bands , including on land mines and cluster munitions .
We ’ ve seen stigmatization of destructive , unjust policies help change behavior and laws in relation to civil rights , women ’ s rights , and LGBTQ rights .
The nuclear-armed states know this—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Associated Press recently reported , the United States has sent a letter to countries that have ratified the treaty , informing them that they have made a “ strategic error ” and thus “ should withdraw ” their instruments of ratification or accession .
It is extremely rare , if not unprecedented , for a government to demand sovereign states to withdraw from a treaty .
This behavior is not just about preventing the TPNW ’ s entry into force .
It also offensive to the legislative processes within each country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a belligerent move to tell other countries—mostly those of the Global South—that they have made a mistake or did not understand what they were signing up to .
The nuclear-armed states have denied time and again that the treaty will have any legal or political bearing on them .
Yet , time and again , their behavior shows that they know the opposite is true .
All nine nuclear-armed states boycotted the negotiations and urged their allies to do so as well .
The Obama administration instructed countries of the North Atlantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support negotiations , detailing the potential impact of the treaty on US and NATO nuclear operations .
Since the TPNW ’ s adoption , the nuclear-armed states and their supporters have rejected the treaty as simultaneously irrelevant and dangerous .
They have even tried to argue that the TPNW contradicts existing international law on nuclear weapons , particularly the Non-Proliferation Treaty .
But this is patently false .
The norm against nuclear weapons that the TPNW solidifies into law enhances non-proliferation efforts .
It ’ s remarkable to see so-called champions of nonproliferation—governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries from doing what they themselves have already done—try to tear down legally binding rules against nuclear weapon development , possession , and proliferation .
Why waste all this effort trying to stop a treaty if you believe it will have no impact on you ?
In reality , the nuclear-armed states know that the TPNW , to paraphrase Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow at the treaty ’ s adoption , makes weapons that have always been immoral now also illegal .
While we have much work to do in order to achieve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear-armed states are this afraid of the prohibition treaty , we know we ’ re on the right track .
The hope for nuclear abolition , and the resilience of the movement , lies in the efforts of all activists for social justice .
Everyone that is demanding disarmament and abolition of police forces ; calling for a redirection of military spending toward collective care ; envisioning a more equitable , just , and peaceful world order—all of their efforts are complementary to the efforts for nuclear abolition .
Whether deliberately or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economic justice , decolonization , and environmental protection is entangled .
The world we seek to build—a world of solidarity , health , and well-being for all peoples and our shared planet—is not compatible with a world with nuclear weapons viciously safeguarded by our so-called leaders .
“ Nuclear abolitionists everywhere can be incredibly encouraged and empowered by this new legal status ” of the TPNW , said Thurlow at an event for the treaty last week .
While we have a long path to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons , we can be certain that that beautiful day will dawn.
” `

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?
Just over three years after it opened for signature, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) reached the 50 national ratifications needed to become international law. The government of Honduras ratified the antinuclear agreement on October 24, which means the TPNW will enter into force 90 days later: January 22, 2021.
This milestone was reached on United Nations Day, which marks the 75th anniversary of the UN Charter. The very first resolution of the UN General Assembly called for the elimination of nuclear weapons, making it particularly serendipitous that UN Day would see the ratification of a global agreement that prohibits these weapons. This year is also the 75th anniversary of the horrific atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States and the beginning of the nuclear arms race.
The TPNW shows us what happens when those committed to multilateralism and transnational activism work together to change the world. Securing these 50 ratifications is a historic moment for nuclear abolition, achieved only by the relentless efforts of generations of activists and diplomats. For the last decade, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has been working with officials from nonnuclear countries to prohibit these weapons under international law. Despite incredible pressure from several of the nuclear-armed states, the UN General Assembly adopted the TPNW on July 7, 2017, and later that year ICAN went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
As a result of those effort, nuclear weapons will soon be unlawful to possess, develop, deploy, test, use, or even threaten to use for TPNW states parties. These heinous bombs will be on the same legal footing as biological and chemical weapons, as land mines and cluster munitions. The TPNW is the first feminist law on nuclear weapons, recognizing the disproportionate impacts of nuclear weapons on women and girls and on Indigenous peoples, urging more equitable participation of women in disarmament, and mandating victim assistance and environmental remediation in relation to nuclear weapon use and testing.
While much work remains to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons, their prohibition is a crucial step.
The imperative of the ban
Nuclear weapons are arguably the most extreme expression of the violence of the patriarchal, racist, and capitalist world order. Even without being launched, they are used to project the power and invincibility of their possessor. They are the pinnacle of a state’s monopoly on violence, the ultimate signifier of domination. The myth of nuclear deterrence insists that nuclear weapons maintain global security and keep the peace; the reality is that these weapons have harmed hundreds of thousands of people around the world, particularly Indigenous peoples. 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 number of nuclear weapons in the world peaked in 1986 during the Cold War at over 70,000 weapons. Stockpiles have diminished since then to about 13,400. But all nine of the current nuclear-armed states—China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States—are building up their arsenals; modernizing warheads, missiles, bombers, and submarines; and spending billions to threaten each other and the planet with mass destruction. Their rhetoric about their commitment to nuclear disarmament is disingenuous. The five nuclear-armed states that are legally bound to eliminate their nuclear weapons under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have not complied with this obligation and thus are in violation of international law. Current Issue View our current issue
Given the stalemate over nuclear disarmament and the surging reinvestments in nuclear weapons, the majority of countries decided to take matters into their own hands. Recognizing the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that nuclear weapon production, testing, and use cause throughout the world, activists with ICAN worked alongside governments to ban the bomb. This meant making international law without the consent of those who believed they held all the power.
Overcoming the nuclear nightmare
The majority of the world’s countries support the TPNW. One hundred and twenty-two states voted for its adoption in 2017; since then, governments from around the world, particularly Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Africa, have signed and ratified the treaty.
Some have said that the treaty is irrelevant, since none of the countries that have joined so far possess nuclear bombs. But that doesn’t matter right now. Over time, the treaty will have a normative impact on the behavior of other countries, regardless of whether they join, and on financial institutions and other national and local actors. The changes that the nuclear ban brings to law, politics, and economics will lead us to nuclear disarmament. As past social movements have taught us, change doesn’t happen in instant—it is iterative, contested, and must be constantly defended and built upon. Related Article In Memoriam: The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Dies at 32 Matt Korda
Already, more than 1,600 elected officials in countries that have not yet joined the TPNW have pledged to work to get their government on board. Cities and towns around the world have adopted resolutions encouraging their governments to join the treaty, including capitals in nuclear-armed states, like Paris and Washington, D.C. Financial institutions have started divesting from nuclear-weapons-producing companies, including within countries that have not yet joined the treaty. Public support is also already behind the ban. Public opinion polls show that 79 percent of Australians, 79 percent of Swedes, 78 percent of Norwegians, 75 percent of Japanese, 84 percent of Finns, 70 percent of Italians, 68 of Germans, 67 percent of French, and 65 percent of Americans support their government’s joining the TPNW.
The TPNW stigmatizes nuclear weapons, making it more difficult for nuclear-armed states to justify their possession and defend their “deterrence” doctrines. We’ve seen this work with other weapons bands, including on land mines and cluster munitions. We’ve seen stigmatization of destructive, unjust policies help change behavior and laws in relation to civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights.
Nuclear pushback
The nuclear-armed states know this—which is why they are panicking. As the Associated Press recently reported, the United States has sent a letter to countries that have ratified the treaty, informing them that they have made a “strategic error” and thus “should withdraw” their instruments of ratification or accession.
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for a government to demand sovereign states to withdraw from a treaty. This behavior is not just about preventing the TPNW’s entry into force. It also offensive to the legislative processes within each country that decided to ratify the treaty. It is a belligerent move to tell other countries—mostly those of the Global South—that they have made a mistake or did not understand what they were signing up to.
The nuclear-armed states have denied time and again that the treaty will have any legal or political bearing on them. Yet, time and again, their behavior shows that they know the opposite is true. All nine nuclear-armed states boycotted the negotiations and urged their allies to do so as well. The Obama administration instructed countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) not to support negotiations, detailing the potential impact of the treaty on US and NATO nuclear operations. Since the TPNW’s adoption, the nuclear-armed states and their supporters have rejected the treaty as simultaneously irrelevant and dangerous.
They have even tried to argue that the TPNW contradicts existing international law on nuclear weapons, particularly the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But this is patently false. The norm against nuclear weapons that the TPNW solidifies into law enhances non-proliferation efforts. It’s remarkable to see so-called champions of nonproliferation—governments that have invested billions to stop other countries from doing what they themselves have already done—try to tear down legally binding rules against nuclear weapon development, possession, and proliferation.
Why waste all this effort trying to stop a treaty if you believe it will have no impact on you?
Hope amid fallout
In reality, the nuclear-armed states know that the TPNW, to paraphrase Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow at the treaty’s adoption, makes weapons that have always been immoral now also illegal. While we have much work to do in order to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons, if the nuclear-armed states are this afraid of the prohibition treaty, we know we’re on the right track.
The hope for nuclear abolition, and the resilience of the movement, lies in the efforts of all activists for social justice. Everyone that is demanding disarmament and abolition of police forces; calling for a redirection of military spending toward collective care; envisioning a more equitable, just, and peaceful world order—all of their efforts are complementary to the efforts for nuclear abolition. Whether deliberately or not, our work for peace, social and economic justice, decolonization, and environmental protection is entangled. The world we seek to build—a world of solidarity, health, and well-being for all peoples and our shared planet—is not compatible with a world with nuclear weapons viciously safeguarded by our so-called leaders.
“Nuclear abolitionists everywhere can be incredibly encouraged and empowered by this new legal status” of the TPNW, said Thurlow at an event for the treaty last week. While we have a long path to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons, she noted, but “with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we can be certain that that beautiful day will dawn.”`


thenation--2020-10-28--Make McConnell Pay for Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett has begun her tenure as an illegitimate justice on the Supreme Court , which has been diminished by the antidemocratic charade that saw Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell elevate a right-wing judicial activist in a mad rush to avoid electoral accountability .
These are the facts that should be acknowledged in every media report on the rule-shredding process that concluded Monday evening with the Senate ’ s confirmation of President Trump ’ s third Supreme Court nominee by a 52-48 vote .
The Senate vote hugged party lines .
Every Republican except Maine ’ s Susan Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no ” votes came from 46 Democrats , two independents who caucus with the Democrats , and the embattled Mainer .
But another set of numbers explains Barrett ’ s illegitimacy—and demands a reckoning on November 3 .
The 52 Republicans who voted to confirm Barrett represent states that are home to just 152 million Americans , while the 48 votes against her confirmation represent 170 million Americans .
The Election Isn ’ t Over Until Trump ’ s Gone Dianne Feinstein Demonstrates Why Democratic Challenges to Democratic Incumbents Are Necessary We Need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deserves Tonight The Senate that confirmed Barrett is an unbalanced chamber , and Republicans have exploited that imbalance to impose their will on the country—not for a few months or a few years but for a few decades .
Republicans moved with reckless haste to confirm Barrett because they know the arc of history is bending against them .
In 2016 , 51.5 million voters ( 56 percent ) backed Democrat Senate candidates while just 40.4 million supported Republicans .
In 2018 , 52.3 million voters ( 60 percent ) cast their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican .
There is reason to believe , though , that the 2020 election could rebalance the Senate to better reflect the will of the people .
“ The reason the Republicans were willing to break every rule to jam through an illegitimate nomination eight days before the election is that they have realized a truth that shakes them down to their core : The American people are not on their side , ” explained Senator Elizabeth Warren .
McConnell won ’ t admit it .
But he knows Warren is right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus ” that represents a minority of Americans , McConnell acknowledged Republican infamy on Sunday .
Gleefully celebrating the theft of another court seat , he said , “ A lot of what we have done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election .
It won ’ t be able to do much about for a long time to come.
” Voters were choosing the next Senate as he spoke .
In barely a week , McConnell could be a lame-duck leader .
If Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on November 3 , as polls suggest is possible , they will have clear control of the chamber .
If Biden ’ s elected and Democrats gain three seats , then Vice President Kamala Harris will be able to break ties and give Democrats the upper hand .
McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham of South Carolina know their power is threatened .
That ’ s why they were so desperate to confirm Barrett before Election Day .
But in their rush , McConnell and Graham failed to provide credible advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a system of checks and balances , and delegitimized Barrett .
Instead of waiting for an election that will in short order confer the authority to nominate and confirm a justice who is otherwise unaccountable to the people , a president who lost the popular vote nominated Barrett and a Senate that does not represent the majority of Americans confirmed her .
They took advantage of the fact that the Constitution—despite amendments that have extended the franchise to those who were once enslaved , to women , to people who can not afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aged 18–21—still does not guarantee democratic results .
Even though most Americans vote for Democratic Senate candidates , their will has been thwarted : A Republican senator elected with 136,210 votes from Wyoming is able to cancel out a Democratic senator elected with 7,542,753 votes from California .
That inequity will not be addressed by this election .
But the stark imbalance that empowers McConnell could be—and if it a long-delayed debate about reforming the courts could finally be opened .
This is why Senate races are the essential 2020 contests for Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process that has put Barrett on the Supreme Court but with all of the damage McConnell and his cronies have done to the courts—and to the country—for years .
Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , should incorporate righteous indignation over Barrett ’ s illegitimacy into a closing message about restoring small- “ d ” democratic balance to the Senate .
The way to do this is by talking about specific Senate races and specific candidates .
Biden was in Georgia Tuesday , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Raphael Warnock can seize seats from a pair of Republicans who voted to confirm Barrett .
On Friday , Biden will be in Iowa , where he can talk about why Democrat Theresa Greenfield must unseat Barrett enthusiast Joni Ernst .
That same day , Harris will be in Texas , where Republican Senator John Cornyn could be displaced by Democrat M.J. Hegar .
These Are the States to Focus on to Flip the Senate Georgia , Texas , and Iowa have emerged in recent weeks as presidential battleground states on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those visits by Biden and Harris are strategic on multiple levels .
But the candidates and the party have the chance to turn up the volume on messaging to states that are not necessarily presidential battlegrounds but where Republican Senate seats could be flipped , such as Montana , Kansas , Graham ’ s South Carolina , and McConnell ’ s Kentucky .
Even where Biden and Harris can not make physical stops , they can mobilize potential Democratic voters with media appearances targeted to boost the whole Democratic ticket .
A Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installed Amy Coney Barrett on the high court .
She will serve as an illegitimate justice .
Now , Democrats must channel that frustration into a November 3 result that upends the democratic imbalance that allowed Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham to pack the court .

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?
Amy Coney Barrett has begun her tenure as an illegitimate justice on the Supreme Court, which has been diminished by the antidemocratic charade that saw Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell elevate a right-wing judicial activist in a mad rush to avoid electoral accountability.
These are the facts that should be acknowledged in every media report on the rule-shredding process that concluded Monday evening with the Senate’s confirmation of President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by a 52-48 vote. The Senate vote hugged party lines. Every Republican except Maine’s Susan Collins backed Barrett, while the 48 “no” votes came from 46 Democrats, two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and the embattled Mainer.
But another set of numbers explains Barrett’s illegitimacy—and demands a reckoning on November 3.
The 52 Republicans who voted to confirm Barrett represent states that are home to just 152 million Americans, while the 48 votes against her confirmation represent 170 million Americans. 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
The Senate that confirmed Barrett is an unbalanced chamber, and Republicans have exploited that imbalance to impose their will on the country—not for a few months or a few years but for a few decades. Republicans moved with reckless haste to confirm Barrett because they know the arc of history is bending against them. In 2016, 51.5 million voters (56 percent) backed Democrat Senate candidates while just 40.4 million supported Republicans. In 2018, 52.3 million voters (60 percent) cast their ballots for Democrats while just 34.7 million voted Republican. There is reason to believe, though, that the 2020 election could rebalance the Senate to better reflect the will of the people.
“The reason the Republicans were willing to break every rule to jam through an illegitimate nomination eight days before the election is that they have realized a truth that shakes them down to their core: The American people are not on their side,” explained Senator Elizabeth Warren.
McConnell won’t admit it. But he knows Warren is right.
As the leader of a “majority caucus” that represents a minority of Americans, McConnell acknowledged Republican infamy on Sunday. Gleefully celebrating the theft of another court seat, he said, “A lot of what we have done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. It won’t be able to do much about for a long time to come.” It’s Official Republicans Have Confirmed Amy Coney Barrett—and Officially Captured the Supreme Court Elie Mystal
Voters were choosing the next Senate as he spoke. In barely a week, McConnell could be a lame-duck leader. If Democrats secure a net gain of four seats on November 3, as polls suggest is possible, they will have clear control of the chamber. If Biden’s elected and Democrats gain three seats, then Vice President Kamala Harris will be able to break ties and give Democrats the upper hand.
McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham of South Carolina know their power is threatened. That’s why they were so desperate to confirm Barrett before Election Day. But in their rush, McConnell and Graham failed to provide credible advice and consent, rejected basic premises of a system of checks and balances, and delegitimized Barrett. Instead of waiting for an election that will in short order confer the authority to nominate and confirm a justice who is otherwise unaccountable to the people, a president who lost the popular vote nominated Barrett and a Senate that does not represent the majority of Americans confirmed her.


thenation--2020-10-28--Paul Gilroy: ‘Whiteness Just Ain’t Worth What it Used to Be’

In 1987 , the historian and academic Paul Gilroy published There Ain ’ t No Black in the Union Jack , a searching examination of racism and nationalism in the United Kingdom in the second half of the 20th century .
Its dissection of the fictions that contribute to ideas about “ Englishness ” —and the emphasis given at the time to a white , Christian frame for recognizing Englishness—as well as its examination of the ongoing accommodation of racist ideas by the British political and media establishment , were received at the time with great enthusiasm on one side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gilroy , 31 at the time of the book ’ s release , quickly became a prominent figure in conversations around race and identity in the United Kingdom .
Six years later , in The Black Atlantic , he looked at the effects of the “ double consciousness ” that results from an inability among diasporic communities to easily inhabit a single “ national culture , ” whether it be Euro-American , Afro-Caribbean , or any other .
The book , which served as a powerful critique of the idea that within a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate , is considered now to be a seminal work in the field of Black diasporic studies , and of Black political thought more broadly .
Gilroy was born in London ’ s East End in 1956 to a Guyanese mother and an English father .
He completed his PhD at Birmingham University , where he became friendly with the late British-Jamaican cultural studies theorist Stuart Hall .
Against Race , published in 2000 ( in the United Kingdom under the title Between Camps ) , argued that a “ crisis of raciology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a crisis because…the elaborate cultural and ideological work that goes into producing and reproducing [ race ] is more visible than ever before , because [ the study of race ] has been stripped of its moral and intellectual integrity , and because there is a chance to prevent its rehabilitation.
” I spoke with Gilroy , who is founding director of the Sarah Parker Remond Centre for the Study of Racism & Racialisation at University College London , after a summer of upheaval on both sides of the Atlantic , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and status of nonwhite communities in the Western world .
rancis ade : Two decades ago , in Against Race , you wrote that popular thinking about race as a principle of power and differentiation had “ lost much of its common-sense credibility.
” Do you feel that view has held up ?
aul ilroy : That book was really written as a warning about the enduring significance of the fascist revolution of the 20th century .
It tried to alert people to the idea that its legacy was alive and waiting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that some of what ’ s happened in the intervening two decades indicates its prescience .
There was an opportunity—I think it was an opportunity to disaggregate the terms and the order of racial politics .
In the US , one might say that something of that flowered briefly , inadequately and insubstantially , in Barack Obama .
This is complex .
In the United Kingdom , we have had the most right-wing government probably since the 1920s , yet it is entirely populated by and habituated to the presence of diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have extreme far-right politics who are part of this particular moment .
That might be thought of as a slightly complicating factor in identifying the modern-day political geography of anxieties , fears , and resentments .
If we look back a few years to the Brexit vote and the breakdown of the Leave vote by ethnicity , or whatever you want to call it , of course there was a white majority who voted to leave , but I think I ’ m right in saying that a quarter of Black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK voted to leave the EU ; mixed people about a third , I think ; those classified as South Asian about a third ; and Chinese about a third .
Those sorts of numbers , and the numbers of Black and brown people not only inside the Conservative Party but who vote Conservative , suggests that there have been some fundamental realignments taking place .
People who look at what ’ s happening in Britain and want to impose some sort of dualistic analytic which sees uniformly oppressed Black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to go back to do a bit more thinking about what ’ s actually happening here .
FW : This realignment seems to confound many people .
What then are Black and brown voters voting for when they support a party like the Conservatives , whose leadership—one that repeatedly expresses Islamophobic and racist tendencies—appears unwilling to ensure their security and equal place in British society ?
PG : Their commitment to the Conservative electoral option , and the neofascist common sense that is now entangled with it , can not be dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and distortions that follow from carefully targeted psychographic interventions .
There are forms of vernacular neoliberalism alive in our Black cultures .
They ’ ve been there for ages , largely unchallenged .
The bootstrapping , self-reliance and something-for-nothing mythologies might even appear , in a certain light , to offer an answer to how people manage the impact of racism in their lives .
Think back 40 years to the old Conservative election poster that said : “ Labour say he ’ s Black , Conservatives say he ’ s British.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that intervention has fostered new right-wing life .
The hyper-individuation of neoliberal life might resonate with the idea that racism never lets Blacks be individuals .
FW : You ’ ve claimed that race as a regressive organizing principle can be renounced without entailing a loss of pride , even for communities who cleave tightly to a racial identity amid an onslaught of majoritarian prejudices .
How might that be possible ?
PG : It all depends on what is coming in the other direction .
If you ask people to renounce their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what do they get in exchange for that renunciation ?
And what is the geography of that whiteness they invest in ?
Some would say it ’ s a way of anchoring themselves amid the turbulence of austerity ; that they return to a space of certainty , guaranteed by a notion of racial attachment .
So we should look at what ’ s available once that renunciation is made .
It could be a local identity , for example .
Look at this pandemic , which has revealed with an appalling clarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routinely lived in Britain .
If you ’ re in one of those places in the north of England which at the moment are characterized by explosions of disease , maybe there are ways of managing Covid-19 that would blur the lines of identitarian thinking .
In these scenarios—or , even , look at the many Sikhs , Muslims , Christians and so on who did the work the government should have been doing in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire [ in London in 2016 ] —you will find an alternative : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t simply roll over and conform to the identity categories that existed before ; where they ’ ll be able to hear the call of suffering and respond to it .
There will always be another story you can tell if you want to tell it .
You do not have to be content with the Manichaean bullshit that streams out of our computers as generic racial commentary .
In the political emergency we inhabit , there are lots of inducements to renounce that kind of facile thinking .
It ’ s catastrophic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm that ’ s being done .
FW : Thatcherism served as a key period in solidifying a rather white conception of “ Englishness ” and birthing the kind of culturally oriented nationalistic racism you ’ ve examined so closely .
PG : Yes , there are areas of Britain where people have a relationship with themselves , culturally speaking , that allows a political identity and a civic identity to mesh .
I think of parts of Wales or Scotland or Ireland that have languages and identities that they are attached to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and neo-fascists in those parts of Britain too , but the English pathology of racism is quite specific .
There ’ s a peculiar deficit that the English suffer from—they don ’ t know , culturally speaking , who they are , and that makes them very anxious .
It gives rise to the idea that if you can purify your polity and get rid of all those contaminating alien bits that come in from the outside and that don ’ t really belong , you ’ ll be okay .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things in England , from the early years of the 20th century through to , and beyond , Winston Churchill and the Conservative Party ’ s debate in the post-1945 phase over whether to use the slogan “ Keep Britain White ” as part of their election pitch .
This has accelerated during my life , and Thatcherism represented its self-conscious political expression .
It has a particularly vicious edge to it in England , that idea of purging all that has intruded , but this is also found in other places in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resurgent .
FW : Has that conception of “ Englishness ” ever really left us ?
You explored its shape and character more than 20 years ago in There Ain ’ t No Black in the Union Jack , and in the intervening time you ’ ve seen how similar racially oriented nationalisms manifest themselves—in the US , for example , where you taught for several years .
PG : I came back from the United States to live in Europe because I wanted to be part of the making of a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU and the racism that has been rising in every other country .
I like to think I don ’ t have any illusions about racism in Britain .
Do I think that what happened to the so-called Windrush generation is about to happen to the EU residents here as we move towards a Brexit Britain in which the idea that “ the wogs begin at Calais ” is commonplace ?
Yes , I do .
Do I think that the Labour Party has been as implicated as the Conservatives in creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These people have for generations thought that they could play with this symbolism ; make it mean anything they want it to mean .
Well , what ’ s going on in the north of this country , in the mill towns and in the “ Red Wall ” areas where not just the “ alt-right ” but a real neo-Nazi right is working very hard to build a violent movement that people aren ’ t even noticing is happening—these are the things that concern me .
If my work says anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in insisting that there is a close relationship between nationalism and racism .
They couldn ’ t really be separated out and allocated to different disciplines of research .
If we really wanted to understand what racism did to the UK , we had to see how closely racism was entwined with nationalism , and how much , in enunciating one , there was an enunciation of the other .
That connection corresponds to this notion of a cultural deficit , that there is a real crisis over what it is to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the appetite for shiny , hypermodern American culture that is imported here .
In terms of race politics , those imports offer people the comfort of what I call generic racial attachments : generic whiteness , generic Blackness .
The cultural deficit , the lack of cultural comfort in knowing who you are and where you ’ re headed , that English people suffer from so painfully can summon and generate swift and intense violence .
A large part of what ’ s now at stake in Brexit is the idea that American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it provides an alternative filling or content which mediates the gnawing pain of cultural emptiness or anaesthetizes the anxieties arising from cultural disorientation .
FW : You ’ ve said this cultural deficit in Britain has deepened in your lifetime and has likely accelerated even more so in the past few years .
This aligns with a continued “ melancholic ” view of multiculturalism , as you ’ ve put it .
What psychosocial drivers are at work here ?
PG : I think it corresponds in many ways to the departure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics that correspond to improving the lives of workers ; the decline of the Labour Party , and so on .
There are a number of elements that have been connected to the transformation of the political culture .
The impact of immigration is another factor that gets exaggerated .
Let ’ s think about this .
People might be a little less inclined to be fervently nationalistic if they actually owned something , and if the levels of inequality in our country hadn ’ t accelerated and deepened .
They wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards those who they imagine place their interests in jeopardy if they had a sense of their land or opportunities and education .
The answer to your question really arises from the peculiarly damaging hold that the oligarchs of Britain now maintain on the life of this polity .
It might help to have a state like every other kind of ideal bourgeois social democratic state where citizenship means something and there ’ s a constitution and we don ’ t have pantomime elites telling us what to do .
How many shelves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is the ailment that cramps and paralyzes this country ?
FW : Du Bois wrote of the “ psychological wages ” that sustain the sense of privilege and opportunity felt by white people even when subjected to the same level of exploitation as the minorities they live and work alongside .
But you ’ ve written eloquently of the way that raciological thinking actually harms those whom it “ privileges ” —the estrangement they suffer , the “ amputation of a common humanity.
” PG : The problem is really to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language of humanity adequate to the task .
There ’ s a poverty of imagination compounded by anxiety and depression .
Let ’ s face it , whiteness isn ’ t worth what it used to be worth .
Its value is falling globally .
Chinese and other workers in remote parts of the world are coming up to meet our declining socioeconomic order as it plummets downwards .
Whiteness just ain ’ t worth what it used to be .

In 1987, the historian and academic Paul Gilroy published There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, a searching examination of racism and nationalism in the United Kingdom in the second half of the 20th century. Its dissection of the fictions that contribute to ideas about “Englishness”—and the emphasis given at the time to a white, Christian frame for recognizing Englishness—as well as its examination of the ongoing accommodation of racist ideas by the British political and media establishment, were received at the time with great enthusiasm on one side and great ire on the other.
Gilroy, 31 at the time of the book’s release, quickly became a prominent figure in conversations around race and identity in the United Kingdom. Six years later, in The Black Atlantic, he looked at the effects of the “double consciousness” that results from an inability among diasporic communities to easily inhabit a single “national culture,” whether it be Euro-American, Afro-Caribbean, or any other. The book, which served as a powerful critique of the idea that within a country any single national identity should ever dominate, is considered now to be a seminal work in the field of Black diasporic studies, and of Black political thought more broadly.
Gilroy was born in London’s East End in 1956 to a Guyanese mother and an English father. He completed his PhD at Birmingham University, where he became friendly with the late British-Jamaican cultural studies theorist Stuart Hall. Against Race, published in 2000 (in the United Kingdom under the title Between Camps), argued that a “crisis of raciology” was then underway: “It is a crisis because…the elaborate cultural and ideological work that goes into producing and reproducing [race] is more visible than ever before, because [the study of race] has been stripped of its moral and intellectual integrity, and because there is a chance to prevent its rehabilitation.”
I spoke with Gilroy, who is founding director of the Sarah Parker Remond Centre for the Study of Racism & Racialisation at University College London, after a summer of upheaval on both sides of the Atlantic, and amid an intensifying focus on the security and status of nonwhite communities in the Western world.
—Francis Wade
F rancis W ade: Two decades ago, in Against Race, you wrote that popular thinking about race as a principle of power and differentiation had “lost much of its common-sense credibility.” Do you feel that view has held up?
P aul G ilroy: That book was really written as a warning about the enduring significance of the fascist revolution of the 20th century. It tried to alert people to the idea that its legacy was alive and waiting to be accessed. I would like to think that some of what’s happened in the intervening two decades indicates its prescience. There was an opportunity—I think it was an opportunity to disaggregate the terms and the order of racial politics. In the US, one might say that something of that flowered briefly, inadequately and insubstantially, in Barack Obama. 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
This is complex. In the United Kingdom, we have had the most right-wing government probably since the 1920s, yet it is entirely populated by and habituated to the presence of diversity. There are Black and brown people who have extreme far-right politics who are part of this particular moment. That might be thought of as a slightly complicating factor in identifying the modern-day political geography of anxieties, fears, and resentments. If we look back a few years to the Brexit vote and the breakdown of the Leave vote by ethnicity, or whatever you want to call it, of course there was a white majority who voted to leave, but I think I’m right in saying that a quarter of Black people, or people classified as Black, in the UK voted to leave the EU; mixed people about a third, I think; those classified as South Asian about a third; and Chinese about a third.
Those sorts of numbers, and the numbers of Black and brown people not only inside the Conservative Party but who vote Conservative, suggests that there have been some fundamental realignments taking place. People who look at what’s happening in Britain and want to impose some sort of dualistic analytic which sees uniformly oppressed Black people victimized by the uniform power of whiteness have to go back to do a bit more thinking about what’s actually happening here.
FW: This realignment seems to confound many people. What then are Black and brown voters voting for when they support a party like the Conservatives, whose leadership—one that repeatedly expresses Islamophobic and racist tendencies—appears unwilling to ensure their security and equal place in British society?
PG: Their commitment to the Conservative electoral option, and the neofascist common sense that is now entangled with it, cannot be dismissed as a passing result of the lies and distortions that follow from carefully targeted psychographic interventions. There are forms of vernacular neoliberalism alive in our Black cultures. They’ve been there for ages, largely unchallenged. The bootstrapping, self-reliance and something-for-nothing mythologies might even appear, in a certain light, to offer an answer to how people manage the impact of racism in their lives.
Think back 40 years to the old Conservative election poster that said: “Labour say he’s Black, Conservatives say he’s British.” Four decades later, the compost from that intervention has fostered new right-wing life. The hyper-individuation of neoliberal life might resonate with the idea that racism never lets Blacks be individuals.
FW: You’ve claimed that race as a regressive organizing principle can be renounced without entailing a loss of pride, even for communities who cleave tightly to a racial identity amid an onslaught of majoritarian prejudices. How might that be possible?
PG: It all depends on what is coming in the other direction. If you ask people to renounce their investments in whiteness, for example, what do they get in exchange for that renunciation? And what is the geography of that whiteness they invest in? Some would say it’s a way of anchoring themselves amid the turbulence of austerity; that they return to a space of certainty, guaranteed by a notion of racial attachment. So we should look at what’s available once that renunciation is made. It could be a local identity, for example.
Look at this pandemic, which has revealed with an appalling clarity the nature of the inequalities that are routinely lived in Britain. If you’re in one of those places in the north of England which at the moment are characterized by explosions of disease, maybe there are ways of managing Covid-19 that would blur the lines of identitarian thinking. In these scenarios—or, even, look at the many Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and so on who did the work the government should have been doing in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire [in London in 2017]—you will find an alternative: a complex politics where people don’t simply roll over and conform to the identity categories that existed before; where they’ll be able to hear the call of suffering and respond to it.
There will always be another story you can tell if you want to tell it. You do not have to be content with the Manichaean bullshit that streams out of our computers as generic racial commentary. In the political emergency we inhabit, there are lots of inducements to renounce that kind of facile thinking. It’s catastrophic because it is complicit with the great harm that’s being done.
FW: Thatcherism served as a key period in solidifying a rather white conception of “Englishness” and birthing the kind of culturally oriented nationalistic racism you’ve examined so closely.
PG: Yes, there are areas of Britain where people have a relationship with themselves, culturally speaking, that allows a political identity and a civic identity to mesh. I think of parts of Wales or Scotland or Ireland that have languages and identities that they are attached to. Of course, there is racism there and neo-fascists in those parts of Britain too, but the English pathology of racism is quite specific. There’s a peculiar deficit that the English suffer from—they don’t know, culturally speaking, who they are, and that makes them very anxious. It gives rise to the idea that if you can purify your polity and get rid of all those contaminating alien bits that come in from the outside and that don’t really belong, you’ll be okay.
There’s a hidden tradition of these things in England, from the early years of the 20th century through to, and beyond, Winston Churchill and the Conservative Party’s debate in the post-1945 phase over whether to use the slogan “Keep Britain White” as part of their election pitch. This has accelerated during my life, and Thatcherism represented its self-conscious political expression. It has a particularly vicious edge to it in England, that idea of purging all that has intruded, but this is also found in other places in Europe where fascist movements are reborn and resurgent.
FW: Has that conception of “Englishness” ever really left us? You explored its shape and character more than 20 years ago in There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, and in the intervening time you’ve seen how similar racially oriented nationalisms manifest themselves—in the US, for example, where you taught for several years.
PG: I came back from the United States to live in Europe because I wanted to be part of the making of a new Europe. I have no illusions about the EU and the racism that has been rising in every other country. I like to think I don’t have any illusions about racism in Britain. Do I think that what happened to the so-called Windrush generation is about to happen to the EU residents here as we move towards a Brexit Britain in which the idea that “the wogs begin at Calais” is commonplace? Yes, I do. Do I think that the Labour Party has been as implicated as the Conservatives in creating this situation? Yes, I do. These people have for generations thought that they could play with this symbolism; make it mean anything they want it to mean. Well, what’s going on in the north of this country, in the mill towns and in the “Red Wall” areas where not just the “alt-right” but a real neo-Nazi right is working very hard to build a violent movement that people aren’t even noticing is happening—these are the things that concern me.
If my work says anything useful about Britain, it’s in insisting that there is a close relationship between nationalism and racism. They couldn’t really be separated out and allocated to different disciplines of research. If we really wanted to understand what racism did to the UK, we had to see how closely racism was entwined with nationalism, and how much, in enunciating one, there was an enunciation of the other. That connection corresponds to this notion of a cultural deficit, that there is a real crisis over what it is to be English. That anxiety comes through in the appetite for shiny, hypermodern American culture that is imported here. In terms of race politics, those imports offer people the comfort of what I call generic racial attachments: generic whiteness, generic Blackness. The cultural deficit, the lack of cultural comfort in knowing who you are and where you’re headed, that English people suffer from so painfully can summon and generate swift and intense violence. A large part of what’s now at stake in Brexit is the idea that American culture will be embraced here again so that it provides an alternative filling or content which mediates the gnawing pain of cultural emptiness or anaesthetizes the anxieties arising from cultural disorientation.
FW: You’ve said this cultural deficit in Britain has deepened in your lifetime and has likely accelerated even more so in the past few years. This aligns with a continued “melancholic” view of multiculturalism, as you’ve put it. What psychosocial drivers are at work here?
PG: I think it corresponds in many ways to the departure of organized socialism and other forms of politics that correspond to improving the lives of workers; the decline of the Labour Party, and so on. There are a number of elements that have been connected to the transformation of the political culture. The impact of immigration is another factor that gets exaggerated.
Let’s think about this. People might be a little less inclined to be fervently nationalistic if they actually owned something, and if the levels of inequality in our country hadn’t accelerated and deepened. They wouldn’t feel so impelled to be violent towards those who they imagine place their interests in jeopardy if they had a sense of their land or opportunities and education. The answer to your question really arises from the peculiarly damaging hold that the oligarchs of Britain now maintain on the life of this polity.
It might help to have a state like every other kind of ideal bourgeois social democratic state where citizenship means something and there’s a constitution and we don’t have pantomime Etonian elites telling us what to do. How many shelves of books are needed to tell you that this is the ailment that cramps and paralyzes this country?
FW: Du Bois wrote of the “psychological wages” that sustain the sense of privilege and opportunity felt by white people even when subjected to the same level of exploitation as the minorities they live and work alongside. But you’ve written eloquently of the way that raciological thinking actually harms those whom it “privileges”—the estrangement they suffer, the “amputation of a common humanity.”
PG: The problem is really to do with our inability to find a language of humanity adequate to the task. There’s a poverty of imagination compounded by anxiety and depression. Let’s face it, whiteness isn’t worth what it used to be worth. Its value is falling globally. Chinese and other workers in remote parts of the world are coming up to meet our declining socioeconomic order as it plummets downwards. Whiteness just ain’t worth what it used to be.


thenation--2020-10-28--For Black Americans, Being Voters Is Who We Are

My paternal grandmother , Ida Mingo , left Mississippi and fled north as a young woman in the 1920s to escape the Jim Crow violence and oppression that kept black people from voting and made us second-class citizens .
As a political science professor at Columbia University , I drew on that family history .
I wanted to help students learn that the struggle against the racist structures that prevented—and still prevent—Black people from voting is fundamental to the question of who we are as a people .
Voting is not merely one right among many , an act reducible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an identity that is a marker of full citizenship .
This is why years later , my organization calls on people not merely to vote but to be voters .
For Black Americans , who have faced generations of authoritarian rule under Jim Crow regimes , the right to vote is central to how we see our place in this democracy and whether we are equal members in this society .
To paraphrase the voting rights champion Lani Guinier , Black voters are the “ miner ’ s canary ” of our entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t registering people in Mississippi to vote—she was fighting to end the unfair literacy tests and the violent obstruction that kept black people from being voters .
Hamer ’ s—and countless other grassroots organizers whose names we don ’ t know—accomplishment was immeasurable .
In fact , the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act signaled a sea change in black participation in democracy .
Turnout among blacks in once-Confederate states in the late 1950s was some 50 percentage points lower than whites .
In the years since , Black turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in four presidential elections .
Black democratic participation led to substantive governance outcomes : more economic gains and material well-being for all .
But , as always in the wake of this country ’ s racist past , we move two steps forward and one back .
Today , similar obstacles are aimed at suppressing the vote of Black—and Latinx , Asian , and Indigenous—voters .
This time , the brigade to suppress voters of color is coming from the president , the GOP , and their right-wing accomplices .
Trump openly disparages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters to intimidate poll watchers and voters at polling stations , efforts aimed at corrupting the election process .
As poll after poll shows Trump losing by wide margins , the GOP is trying to subvert the election by making it hardest to vote for the people they know are most likely to cast a ballot the other way .
Consider the case of Michigan , where right-wing provocateurs were arrested for allegedly calling Black Detroit voters and spreading misinformation to keep them from voting .
And Georgia and Florida , where voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waited hours in line because state elections officials won ’ t provide enough polling places .
Time and again , we see the GOP work to suppress the votes of Black Americans and other people of color , undermining the core of our democracy : the right to participate in our political process .
This has been an essential feature , not a bug , of our voting system from the founding .
For over 200 years , elites have always feared majority rule that comes with electoral democracy .
Social science research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycle that voting is an intellectual exercise for white voters , but that for Black and Latinx voters , casting a ballot is about their lived experience .
Research in this area has long shown that asking a person to be a voter is more effective in convincing them to participate than just asking them to vote .
The distinction is no technicality ; it ’ s the difference between voting as character , aspiration , and responsibility , versus a mere chore of adulthood .
As a college professor , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a period right after the Civil War when the 15th Amendment gave Black men the right to vote .
( Black women , and yes , all women wouldn ’ t be able to vote for another 50 years . )
But Southern whites resentful of the economic and political rise of formerly enslaved people passed Jim Crow laws to keep Black Americans as second-class citizens .
Sound familiar ?
Fast forward to the Obama era , followed by the white resentment and backlash of Trumpism .
Southern Redemption , 21st-century style @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .
The difference this time is far-reaching movements led by Black Americans , Latinx people , women , immigrants , LGBTQ folks , people with disabilities , and other people who have been marginalized are claiming their right to participate .
We remember the historic Women ’ s March after Trump ’ s election , followed by demonstrators at airports across America to protest the Muslim ban .
Later , the immigrant rights movement sparked more nationwide protests to Trump ’ s family separation policies .
These movements opened the way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP out of power in the US House of Representatives and ushered in the most diverse—and progressive—group of Congress members ever .
This summer , a core call to action in the nationwide racial justice protests has been to be a voter for Black and brown lives .
Now , in a twist to the quest for full citizenship , we need to not just be voters but also make sure every vote is counted .
The president refuses to commit to abiding by the results of the election .
That means we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more ways than casting a ballot—we must make our voices heard with our friends and neighbors , on social media , and if necessary , in the streets .
We ’ ve done it before , and we will do it again this election season , whether we vote by mail or in person .
It is the only way to deliver our democracy and realize the promise that we are all equal participants .
I am a black man whose grandparents fled the South so they can live free .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of the fragility of our progress .
I ’ m a voter , and I vote to defend our democracy for my past and future .

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?
My paternal grandmother, Ida Mingo, left Mississippi and fled north as a young woman in the 1920s to escape the Jim Crow violence and oppression that kept black people from voting and made us second-class citizens.
As a political science professor at Columbia University, I drew on that family history. I wanted to help students learn that the struggle against the racist structures that prevented—and still prevent—Black people from voting is fundamental to the question of who we are as a people. Voting is not merely one right among many, an act reducible to pulling a lever. It is an identity that is a marker of full citizenship. This is why years later, my organization calls on people not merely to vote but to be voters.
For Black Americans, who have faced generations of authoritarian rule under Jim Crow regimes, the right to vote is central to how we see our place in this democracy and whether we are equal members in this society. To paraphrase the voting rights champion Lani Guinier, Black voters are the “miner’s canary” of our entire system of democracy.
Fannie Lou Hamer wasn’t registering people in Mississippi to vote—she was fighting to end the unfair literacy tests and the violent obstruction that kept black people from being voters. Hamer’s—and countless other grassroots organizers whose names we don’t know—accomplishment was immeasurable. In fact, the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act signaled a sea change in black participation in democracy. Turnout among blacks in once-Confederate states in the late 1950s was some 50 percentage points lower than whites. In the years since, Black turnout has exceeded white turnout in those states in four presidential elections. Black democratic participation led to substantive governance outcomes: more economic gains and material well-being for all. Toward justice From Uprising to Reconstruction K. Sabeel Rahman and Dorian T. Warren
But, as always in the wake of this country’s racist past, we move two steps forward and one back. Today, similar obstacles are aimed at suppressing the vote of Black—and Latinx, Asian, and Indigenous—voters. 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
This time, the brigade to suppress voters of color is coming from the president, the GOP, and their right-wing accomplices. Trump openly disparages vote by mail ballots and urges his supporters to intimidate poll watchers and voters at polling stations, efforts aimed at corrupting the election process. As poll after poll shows Trump losing by wide margins, the GOP is trying to subvert the election by making it hardest to vote for the people they know are most likely to cast a ballot the other way.
Consider the case of Michigan, where right-wing provocateurs were arrested for allegedly calling Black Detroit voters and spreading misinformation to keep them from voting. And Georgia and Florida, where voters in predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods have waited hours in line because state elections officials won’t provide enough polling places. Current Issue View our current issue
Time and again, we see the GOP work to suppress the votes of Black Americans and other people of color, undermining the core of our democracy: the right to participate in our political process. This has been an essential feature, not a bug, of our voting system from the founding. For over 200 years, elites have always feared majority rule that comes with electoral democracy.
Social science research firm Olson Zaltman found in surveys this election cycle that voting is an intellectual exercise for white voters, but that for Black and Latinx voters, casting a ballot is about their lived experience. Research in this area has long shown that asking a person to be a voter is more effective in convincing them to participate than just asking them to vote. The distinction is no technicality; it’s the difference between voting as character, aspiration, and responsibility, versus a mere chore of adulthood.
As a college professor, I taught my students about the first Reconstruction, a period right after the Civil War when the 15th Amendment gave Black men the right to vote. (Black women, and yes, all women wouldn’t be able to vote for another 50 years.) But Southern whites resentful of the economic and political rise of formerly enslaved people passed Jim Crow laws to keep Black Americans as second-class citizens. Sound familiar?
Fast forward to the Obama era, followed by the white resentment and backlash of Trumpism. Southern Redemption, 21st-century style. Two steps forward, one step back. The difference this time is far-reaching movements led by Black Americans, Latinx people, women, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, people with disabilities, and other people who have been marginalized are claiming their right to participate.
We remember the historic Women’s March after Trump’s election, followed by demonstrators at airports across America to protest the Muslim ban. Later, the immigrant rights movement sparked more nationwide protests to Trump’s family separation policies.
These movements opened the way to the 2018 wave when voters swept the GOP out of power in the US House of Representatives and ushered in the most diverse—and progressive—group of Congress members ever.
This summer, a core call to action in the nationwide racial justice protests has been to be a voter for Black and brown lives.
Now, in a twist to the quest for full citizenship, we need to not just be voters but also make sure every vote is counted. The president refuses to commit to abiding by the results of the election. That means we must stand up and be voters in more ways than casting a ballot—we must make our voices heard with our friends and neighbors, on social media, and if necessary, in the streets.
We’ve done it before, and we will do it again this election season, whether we vote by mail or in person. It is the only way to deliver our democracy and realize the promise that we are all equal participants.
I am a black man whose grandparents fled the South so they can live free. I am also a new father filled with a sense of the fragility of our progress. I’m a voter, and I vote to defend our democracy for my past and future.