thenation--2020-10-10--It’s Time to Put Some Muscle Behind the 25th Amendment

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin appeared before reporters Friday and proposed a plan to evaluate the mental fitness of presidents , they were peppered with predictable questions about Donald Trump .
The president ’ s Covid-19 diagnosis , his increasingly erratic behavior , and concerns about his response to his prescribed medications , including the powerful steroid dexamethasone , made those questions inevitable at a press conference on legislation to clarify how the 25th Amendment works .
The amendment was added to the Constitution in 1967 to establish contingencies for circumstances in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incapacitated .
Raskin , a constitutional scholar who was a law professor before Maryland voters elected him to Congress , has long advocated for the establishment of an independent and nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office .
Now , the House Speaker is talking up Raskin ’ s legislation that would act on the section of the 25th Amendment that empowers Congress to establish a permanent “ body ” that , with the concurrence of the vice president , can declare that the president is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his office.
” But in the era of Trump , everything is always about Trump .
And with the presidential election less than a month away , the questions about whether Pelosi and Raskin were merely trolling a troubled president framed the discussion even after the speaker explained , “ This legislation applies to future presidents .
But we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president.
” So be it .
If Trump ’ s irrational presidency , and the politics surrounding it , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might finally resolve fundamental questions about presidential incapacity and succession , that ’ s a good thing for the future .
This country leaves too many constitutional questions unanswered until crises develop—and that , Raskin reminds us , is dangerous .
“ Look , we understand that , in politics , people point fingers of blame back and forth , ” the congressman said Friday .
“ But the issues raised are of such gravity and central importance to the nature of our government that we ’ ve got to think of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to set up an institution composed in a bipartisan fashion , in bicameral fashion , that will be able to make judgments , whether it is five months from now , five years from now , 50 years from now , whatever it might be .
We ’ re living in an age of a lot of chaos—and I want to say I appreciate what the speaker has to go through on a daily basis dealing with the chaos of politics , which has been been made especially intense recently—and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create some constitutional and institutional foundations for dealing with the chaos .
Our forebears , who wrote the 25th Amendment , gave us the tools we need to deal with these kinds of crises.
” Trump ’ s presidency has been so chaotic that discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment have arisen numerous times during his tenure .
His recent Covid diagnosis has brought that conversation back , as he ’ s engaged in grandiose and irrational behavior and made pronouncements so contradictory that the commander in chief often seems to be arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about the 25th Amendment at a time when Trump is calling into right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh ’ s radio show and threatening in the midst of a rambling discourse on the Iran nuclear deal , “ If you fuck around with us , if you do something bad to us , we are gon na do things to you that have never been done before.
” In fact , Trump ’ s two-hour call to Limbaugh on Friday was so unfocused , and at times delusional , that the host was actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hints to the president : “ I know you ’ ve got a jam-packed day left on your schedule… ” But anyone who thinks that Raskin is just jumping on the 25th Amendment bandwagon does not know enough about the longtime American University ’ s Washington College of Law professor who now serves as the vice-ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee .
Since 2017 , he has been making a compelling case for consideration of how best to utilize the 25th Amendment—which outlines procedures by which “ the Vice President and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office… ” Raskin has calmly and consistently explained that “ the 25th Amendment , adopted in 1967 , does not leave this judgment solely to the Cabinet.
” “ Under the 25th Amendment , the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such other body as Congress may by law provide ’ can determine that the President is—for reasons of physical or mental incapacity— ’ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , ’ ” the congressman from Maryland said in 2018 .
“ Because an unstable President might fire his own Cabinet , Senator Birch Bayh , who sponsored the 25th Amendment , wanted to empower Congress itself to set up an independent ‘ body ’ to act with the Vice President in the event of presidential inability.
” Three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HR 1987 , the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act , which sought to have Congress define the “ body ” that is outlined in the 25th Amendment .
That legislation proposed to establish a permanent standing body , which would be available to act during any presidential administration .
As Raskin explained , “ this body will consist of a panel of elder statespersons ( former Presidents , Vice Presidents , Secretaries of State , Attorneys General and so on ) , physicians , and psychiatrists—all of them selected in a scrupulously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The body will select an eleventh member as the Chair .
It will only act to conduct a medical examination of the President at the explicit direction of Congress .
And Congress always has the last word under the terms of the 25th Amendment.
” “ Congress has a constitutional duty under the 25th Amendment to define the process by which a judgment of presidential incapacity can be made if circumstances render such a judgment necessary , in this administration or any other , ” Raskin explained two years ago , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the amendment was of “ pressing and enduring importance to the security of our nation.
” Congress did not step up when Raskin raised the issue in 2017 and 2o18 , as it should have .
So Raskin is back to reintroduce his legislation , and he is now appearing at the side of the speaker of the House to speak a necessary truth : “ The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago , but Congress has never set up the body it calls for to determine presidential fitness in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now is the time to do it .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin appeared before reporters Friday and proposed a plan to evaluate the mental fitness of presidents, they were peppered with predictable questions about Donald Trump.
The president’s Covid-19 diagnosis, his increasingly erratic behavior, and concerns about his response to his prescribed medications, including the powerful steroid dexamethasone, made those questions inevitable at a press conference on legislation to clarify how the 25th Amendment works. The amendment was added to the Constitution in 1967 to establish contingencies for circumstances in which presidents die or are physically or mentally incapacitated.
Raskin, a constitutional scholar who was a law professor before Maryland voters elected him to Congress, has long advocated for the establishment of an independent and nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office. Now, the House Speaker is talking up Raskin’s legislation that would act on the section of the 25th Amendment that empowers Congress to establish a permanent “body” that, with the concurrence of the vice president, can declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
But in the era of Trump, everything is always about Trump. And with the presidential election less than a month away, the questions about whether Pelosi and Raskin were merely trolling a troubled president framed the discussion even after the speaker explained, “This legislation applies to future presidents. But we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president.” 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
So be it.
If Trump’s irrational presidency, and the politics surrounding it, have brought us to the point where we might finally resolve fundamental questions about presidential incapacity and succession, that’s a good thing for the future. This country leaves too many constitutional questions unanswered until crises develop—and that, Raskin reminds us, is dangerous.
“Look, we understand that, in politics, people point fingers of blame back and forth,” the congressman said Friday. “But the issues raised are of such gravity and central importance to the nature of our government that we’ve got to think of this in constitutional terms. This is why we need to set up an institution composed in a bipartisan fashion, in bicameral fashion, that will be able to make judgments, whether it is five months from now, five years from now, 50 years from now, whatever it might be. We’re living in an age of a lot of chaos—and I want to say I appreciate what the speaker has to go through on a daily basis dealing with the chaos of politics, which has been been made especially intense recently—and I appreciate her seeing that we need to create some constitutional and institutional foundations for dealing with the chaos. Our forebears, who wrote the 25th Amendment, gave us the tools we need to deal with these kinds of crises.” 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
Trump’s presidency has been so chaotic that discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment have arisen numerous times during his tenure. His recent Covid diagnosis has brought that conversation back, as he’s engaged in grandiose and irrational behavior and made pronouncements so contradictory that the commander in chief often seems to be arguing with himself. It makes sense to talk about the 25th Amendment at a time when Trump is calling into right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and threatening in the midst of a rambling discourse on the Iran nuclear deal, “If you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are gonna do things to you that have never been done before.” In fact, Trump’s two-hour call to Limbaugh on Friday was so unfocused, and at times delusional, that the host was actually trying to wind it down with plaintive hints to the president: “I know you’ve got a jam-packed day left on your schedule…”
But anyone who thinks that Raskin is just jumping on the 25th Amendment bandwagon does not know enough about the longtime American University’s Washington College of Law professor who now serves as the vice-ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Since 2017, he has been making a compelling case for consideration of how best to utilize the 25th Amendment—which outlines procedures by which “the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office…”
Raskin has calmly and consistently explained that “the 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967, does not leave this judgment solely to the Cabinet.”
“Under the 25th Amendment, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet or the Vice President and a majority of ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide’ can determine that the President is—for reasons of physical or mental incapacity—’unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,’” the congressman from Maryland said in 2018. “Because an unstable President might fire his own Cabinet, Senator Birch Bayh, who sponsored the 25th Amendment, wanted to empower Congress itself to set up an independent ‘body’ to act with the Vice President in the event of presidential inability.”
Three years ago, Raskin sponsored a bill, HR 1987, the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, which sought to have Congress define the “body” that is outlined in the 25th Amendment.
That legislation proposed to establish a permanent standing body, which would be available to act during any presidential administration. As Raskin explained, “this body will consist of a panel of elder statespersons (former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and so on), physicians, and psychiatrists—all of them selected in a scrupulously bipartisan and bicameral manner by Congressional leadership. The body will select an eleventh member as the Chair. It will only act to conduct a medical examination of the President at the explicit direction of Congress. And Congress always has the last word under the terms of the 25th Amendment.” Current Issue View our current issue
“Congress has a constitutional duty under the 25th Amendment to define the process by which a judgment of presidential incapacity can be made if circumstances render such a judgment necessary, in this administration or any other,” Raskin explained two years ago, when he observed that getting clarity with regard to the amendment was of “pressing and enduring importance to the security of our nation.”
Congress did not step up when Raskin raised the issue in 2017 and 2o18, as it should have. So Raskin is back to reintroduce his legislation, and he is now appearing at the side of the speaker of the House to speak a necessary truth: “The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago, but Congress has never set up the body it calls for to determine presidential fitness in the event of physical or psychological incapacity. Now is the time to do it.”


thenation--2020-10-12--An October Surprise of a Military Kind

An October Surprise of a Military Kind

With Joe Biden leading in the polls and President Trump ’ s attempts to avoid addressing the Covid danger now undermined by his own encounter with the virus , the White House is scrambling for a new line of attack on his opponent .
Trump ’ s attempt to use “ law and order ” as a wedge in suburban areas has clearly failed , and his drive to shoehorn the Supreme Court appointment of Amy Coney Barrett is at risk because of Covid infections among key Senate Republicans .
What remains , then , as a last-minute game-changer ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can not rule out war as a possible option .
A military crisis of some sort would be a plausible last-ditch move for several reasons .
To begin with , it would dominate the news cycle and take the spotlight away from Trump ’ s numerous shortcomings .
A confrontation with one of America ’ s favorite enemies—be it China , Russia , Iran , or North Korea—would also rally many of those independent voters who are now leaning toward his opponent .
Biden , for his part , would be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else in expressing concern for American men and women in uniform .
A military blowup would also allow Trump to fully assume the role of commander in chief and , conceivably , exercise emergency war powers to silence dissent and cancel the election .
The fact is , it would be surprisingly easy for Trump to ignite a war .
That ’ s because the Pentagon has adopted an offensive stance toward all four of those putative adversaries .
At this very moment , American aircraft carriers with their accompanying cruisers and destroyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China , and North Korea , while other US warships are deployed in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic .
It would not be difficult , in those highly contested areas , to provoke a deadly incident , allowing Trump to order retaliatory strikes and commence the process of escalation .
There are many locales on the borders of Eurasia where such a confrontation might occur .
Here is a brief survey of the five most likely sites .
At their historic February 2018 meeting in Singapore , North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles—a concession Trump has often cited as one of the great diplomatic successes of his presidency .
The United States reciprocated , to a degree , by scaling back its annual joint exercises with the South Korean military .
But nothing of substance has been resolved in the two and a half years since that meeting , and the North Koreans have steadily enhanced their nuclear and missile capabilities .
Several recent developments could provide the justification for a fresh nuclear crisis over North Korea .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his government no longer felt bound by the commitments made in Singapore , and , on June 12 , North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon indicated that Pyongyang is determined to “ build up a more reliable force to cope with the long-term military threats ” from the United States .
In August , CNN reported that a confidential study by a UN panel of experts had concluded that the North has made significant additions to its nuclear weapons stockpile .
And in September , satellite imagery detected signs of preparations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballistic missile .
Should the White House decide that such a test , or some other weapons activity , constituted an unacceptable threat to national security , it could order the Pentagon to take a variety of countermeasures , ranging from the sinking of a North Korean warship to a missile attack on the North ’ s nuclear test facilities .
The North Koreans are bound to respond to any such acts with aggressive measures of their own , producing exactly the crisis atmosphere a desperate White House staff might be looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
America ’ s ties with Taiwan have often proved a source of tension , but until recently US leadership has tried to avert a major blowup by discouraging the Taiwanese from moving too swiftly toward independence as well as by encouraging Beijing to rely on economic rather than military means in seeking to regain dominion over the island .
But now , under President Trump , Washington has abandoned this evenhanded approach and signaled its support for faster moves toward Taiwanese independence—a stance that has naturally infuriated Beijing and increased the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area .
The administration ’ s altered stance on Taiwan has been demonstrated most notably through its dispatch of high-level officials to Taipei and a spate of recent arms agreements .
On August 10 , Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II met with Taiwan ’ s pro-independence President Tsai Ing-wen , in Taipei—becoming the first US cabinet member to visit the island in 41 years .
Other high-level delegations have followed and , on September 17 , the administration announced that it would sell Taiwan advanced AGM-84H/K air-to-ground missiles—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike targets on the Chinese mainland for the first time from “ standoff ” positions beyond China ’ s air defenses .
The Chinese have responded to all this with numerous protest notes and by sending combat planes into Taiwanese-claimed airspace ; this , in turn , has prompted the Taiwanese to scramble their own jet fighters .
Meanwhile , the US Navy has stepped up patrols by its missile destroyers through the Taiwan Strait .
As these military tests of strength escalate , the opportunities for Washington to provoke a crisis—whether by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese into attacking an American ship or plane—are bound to multiply .
South of Taiwan lies another contested area where the ships and planes of the United States and China often encounter each other at close range .
This body of water contains a scattering of small islands and reefs , some of which are thought to sit astride valuable deposits of oil and natural gas .
China , citing historical ownership , says the entire region falls under its sovereignty ; Indonesia , Malaysia , Vietnam , and the Philippines , following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Law of the Sea , have established exclusive economic zones that extend deep into the area claimed by China .
In repudiation of those other countries ’ claims , Beijing has sent its warships to harass their fishing boats and drill-ships and has implanted military installations on some of the islands within the area it claims .
For Washington , China ’ s aggressive activities in the South China Sea pose two challenges : First , its bullying behavior towards the other claimants has raised doubts about America ’ s “ reliability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the militarization of those islands is seen as a threat to the US Navy ’ s historic dominance of the Western Pacific .
Until recently , US leaders have responded to these challenges with diplomatic protests , but now the Trump administration has signaled that it is prepared to assume a more militant stance .
In a statement issued on July 13 , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that China ’ s claims to the entire region are “ completely unlawful ” and that “ America stands with our Southeast Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights to offshore resources.
” As an indication of what this might mean in practice , the US Navy has begun sending its warships to protect the drillships of friendly countries and increased its “ freedom of navigation ” operations—that is , the deliberate sailing of American warships near the islands that have been militarized by Beijing .
With the frequency of these inherently dangerous activities on the rise , it would not be hard for the Trump administration to engineer a clash between US and Chinese gunboats , provoking a major crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been at odds with the current regime in Iran does not need much spelling out .
When it became evident more than a decade ago that the Iranians were developing the infrastructure to manufacture nuclear weapons , Washington imposed stiff economic sanctions on Tehran and persuaded its European allies to do likewise ; at the same time , talk of military action to destroy that capacity was widely heard in Washington .
In an extraordinary effort to avoid such an outcome , President Obama persuaded the Iranians to dismantle their weapons-related facilities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions—an arrangement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) .
Fulfilling a campaign pledge , Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and imposed even more onerous sanctions in a foolhardy attempt to force Tehran to negotiate a new , more stringent agreement .
The Iranians , however , have yet to agree to fresh negotiations and have taken modest steps to revive their dismantled nuclear program .
Although Tehran remains far from possessing the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons , its moves in this direction have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Aside from its nuclear program , Tehran has also faced friction from Washington over Iranian efforts to extend its geopolitical sway over adjacent areas of the Persian Gulf .
Iran has long been accused of aiding anti-American militias in Iraq and Syria , anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip , and anti-Saudi factions in Yemen .
On September 29 , moreover , Secretary Pompeo threatened to close the American Embassy in Baghdad if Iraqi leaders fail to prevent Iranian-backed militias from firing rockets at the compound , further heightening tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz is patrolling the Persian Gulf , along with its escort fleet of cruisers and destroyers .
With all this going on , it ’ s not hard to imagine a range of scenarios in which the Iranians are accused of endangering US allies or American forces in the area , allowing Trump to order retaliatory strikes of one sort or another .
Ever since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 , the Baltic Sea area—encompassing Poland , the Baltic republics of Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania , southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become the main center of US/NATO-Russian military competition .
That ’ s because the Baltic republics are widely viewed in the West as the next likely target of Russian aggression in the event that Vladimir Putin decides to duplicate his Crimea conquest with further acquisitions—a proposition for which there is scanty evidence—and because the resulting US/NATO buildup in the area has put western Russia at increased risk of attack by superior Western firepower .
The Baltic Sea area is of particular strategic importance because , within its relatively compressed space , it houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baltic republics ) plus two major Russian enclaves—Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg .
Kaliningrad , a sliver of Russian territory on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland , houses Russia ’ s Baltic Fleet and many other military installations .
Given this geography , the military forces of the various parties often maneuver in the same air and water space as their rivals , generating many opportunities for near-collisions and clashes .
This was readily apparent this summer when NATO conducted its annual Baltic Operations naval exercise and , at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombing runs against simulated maritime targets in the same general area .
Intersections like this—some involving dangerously close encounters between US and Russian aircraft—occur all the time in the Baltic Sea area , so it would not be difficult for the Trump administration to engineer a clash of some sort resulting in a major international crisis .
All this shows that it would not be hard for the White House , in a desperate throw of the dice , to ignite a significant crisis or military engagement in any of these potential flashpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them and are ready for combat at a moment ’ s notice .
The US capability to act swiftly would not be affected by the quarantining of the Joint Chiefs , as everything is already in place for a rapid US move .
So , once the order to “ move ” is given , it would be only a few hours before the first bombs were dropped or bullets fired .
In the most favorable of circumstances , a few bombs or bullets might be enough to give Trump a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
But none of these countries is likely to absorb an American attack without striking back , and three of the four are armed with nuclear weapons .
We can only hope , then , that Trump and his aides are sufficiently aware of these risks to exclude war as a campaign-altering option .

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?
With Joe Biden leading in the polls and President Trump’s attempts to avoid addressing the Covid danger now undermined by his own encounter with the virus, the White House is scrambling for a new line of attack on his opponent. Trump’s attempt to use “law and order” as a wedge in suburban areas has clearly failed, and his drive to shoehorn the Supreme Court appointment of Amy Coney Barrett is at risk because of Covid infections among key Senate Republicans. What remains, then, as a last-minute game-changer? Knowing Trump’s impulsive nature, we cannot rule out war as a possible option.
A military crisis of some sort would be a plausible last-ditch move for several reasons. To begin with, it would dominate the news cycle and take the spotlight away from Trump’s numerous shortcomings. A confrontation with one of America’s favorite enemies—be it China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea—would also rally many of those independent voters who are now leaning toward his opponent. Biden, for his part, would be forced to curtail his campaign and join everyone else in expressing concern for American men and women in uniform. A military blowup would also allow Trump to fully assume the role of commander in chief and, conceivably, exercise emergency war powers to silence dissent and cancel the election.
The fact is, it would be surprisingly easy for Trump to ignite a war. That’s because the Pentagon has adopted an offensive stance toward all four of those putative adversaries. At this very moment, American aircraft carriers with their accompanying cruisers and destroyers are patrolling in the vicinity of Iran, China, and North Korea, while other US warships are deployed in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. It would not be difficult, in those highly contested areas, to provoke a deadly incident, allowing Trump to order retaliatory strikes and commence the process of escalation. There are many locales on the borders of Eurasia where such a confrontation might occur. Here is a brief survey of the five most likely sites.
North Korea
At their historic February 2018 meeting in Singapore, North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un promised Donald Trump that Pyongyang would stop testing nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles—a concession Trump has often cited as one of the great diplomatic successes of his presidency. The United States reciprocated, to a degree, by scaling back its annual joint exercises with the South Korean military. But nothing of substance has been resolved in the two and a half years since that meeting, and the North Koreans have steadily enhanced their nuclear and missile capabilities. Coup de grâce The Military’s Role in a Contested Election Andrew J. Bacevich
Several recent developments could provide the justification for a fresh nuclear crisis over North Korea. At the end of 2019, Kim announced that his government no longer felt bound by the commitments made in Singapore, and, on June 12, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon indicated that Pyongyang is determined to “build up a more reliable force to cope with the long-term military threats” from the United States. In August, CNN reported that a confidential study by a UN panel of experts had concluded that the North has made significant additions to its nuclear weapons stockpile. And in September, satellite imagery detected signs of preparations for the test-firing of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile. 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
Should the White House decide that such a test, or some other weapons activity, constituted an unacceptable threat to national security, it could order the Pentagon to take a variety of countermeasures, ranging from the sinking of a North Korean warship to a missile attack on the North’s nuclear test facilities. The North Koreans are bound to respond to any such acts with aggressive measures of their own, producing exactly the crisis atmosphere a desperate White House staff might be looking for in the final days of a losing campaign.
Taiwan
America’s ties with Taiwan have often proved a source of tension, but until recently US leadership has tried to avert a major blowup by discouraging the Taiwanese from moving too swiftly toward independence as well as by encouraging Beijing to rely on economic rather than military means in seeking to regain dominion over the island. But now, under President Trump, Washington has abandoned this evenhanded approach and signaled its support for faster moves toward Taiwanese independence—a stance that has naturally infuriated Beijing and increased the risk of a military clash in the area. Current Issue View our current issue
The administration’s altered stance on Taiwan has been demonstrated most notably through its dispatch of high-level officials to Taipei and a spate of recent arms agreements. On August 10, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II met with Taiwan’s pro-independence President Tsai Ing-wen, in Taipei—becoming the first US cabinet member to visit the island in 41 years. Other high-level delegations have followed and, on September 17, the administration announced that it would sell Taiwan advanced AGM-84H/K air-to-ground missiles—a weapon that would allow Taiwanese fighters to strike targets on the Chinese mainland for the first time from “standoff” positions beyond China’s air defenses.
The Chinese have responded to all this with numerous protest notes and by sending combat planes into Taiwanese-claimed airspace; this, in turn, has prompted the Taiwanese to scramble their own jet fighters. Meanwhile, the US Navy has stepped up patrols by its missile destroyers through the Taiwan Strait. As these military tests of strength escalate, the opportunities for Washington to provoke a crisis—whether by downing a Chinese plane or goading the Chinese into attacking an American ship or plane—are bound to multiply.
The South China Sea
South of Taiwan lies another contested area where the ships and planes of the United States and China often encounter each other at close range. This body of water contains a scattering of small islands and reefs, some of which are thought to sit astride valuable deposits of oil and natural gas. China, citing historical ownership, says the entire region falls under its sovereignty; Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, following rules set by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, have established exclusive economic zones that extend deep into the area claimed by China. In repudiation of those other countries’ claims, Beijing has sent its warships to harass their fishing boats and drill-ships and has implanted military installations on some of the islands within the area it claims.
For Washington, China’s aggressive activities in the South China Sea pose two challenges: First, its bullying behavior towards the other claimants has raised doubts about America’s “reliability” as a military partner; second, the militarization of those islands is seen as a threat to the US Navy’s historic dominance of the Western Pacific. Until recently, US leaders have responded to these challenges with diplomatic protests, but now the Trump administration has signaled that it is prepared to assume a more militant stance. In a statement issued on July 13, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that China’s claims to the entire region are “completely unlawful” and that “America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources.”
As an indication of what this might mean in practice, the US Navy has begun sending its warships to protect the drillships of friendly countries and increased its “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the deliberate sailing of American warships near the islands that have been militarized by Beijing. With the frequency of these inherently dangerous activities on the rise, it would not be hard for the Trump administration to engineer a clash between US and Chinese gunboats, provoking a major crisis.
The Persian Gulf
That the United States has long been at odds with the current regime in Iran does not need much spelling out. When it became evident more than a decade ago that the Iranians were developing the infrastructure to manufacture nuclear weapons, Washington imposed stiff economic sanctions on Tehran and persuaded its European allies to do likewise; at the same time, talk of military action to destroy that capacity was widely heard in Washington. In an extraordinary effort to avoid such an outcome, President Obama persuaded the Iranians to dismantle their weapons-related facilities in return for a promise to relax the sanctions—an arrangement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Fulfilling a campaign pledge, Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and imposed even more onerous sanctions in a foolhardy attempt to force Tehran to negotiate a new, more stringent agreement. The Iranians, however, have yet to agree to fresh negotiations and have taken modest steps to revive their dismantled nuclear program. Although Tehran remains far from possessing the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons, its moves in this direction have once again sparked talk of military strikes.
Aside from its nuclear program, Tehran has also faced friction from Washington over Iranian efforts to extend its geopolitical sway over adjacent areas of the Persian Gulf. Iran has long been accused of aiding anti-American militias in Iraq and Syria, anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, and anti-Saudi factions in Yemen. On September 29, moreover, Secretary Pompeo threatened to close the American Embassy in Baghdad if Iraqi leaders fail to prevent Iranian-backed militias from firing rockets at the compound, further heightening tensions in the area. At present, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz is patrolling the Persian Gulf, along with its escort fleet of cruisers and destroyers. With all this going on, it’s not hard to imagine a range of scenarios in which the Iranians are accused of endangering US allies or American forces in the area, allowing Trump to order retaliatory strikes of one sort or another.
The Baltic Sea Area
Ever since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the Baltic Sea area—encompassing Poland, the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, southern Sweden and Finland, and western Russia—has become the main center of US/NATO-Russian military competition. That’s because the Baltic republics are widely viewed in the West as the next likely target of Russian aggression in the event that Vladimir Putin decides to duplicate his Crimea conquest with further acquisitions—a proposition for which there is scanty evidence—and because the resulting US/NATO buildup in the area has put western Russia at increased risk of attack by superior Western firepower.
The Baltic Sea area is of particular strategic importance because, within its relatively compressed space, it houses four NATO countries (Poland and the Baltic republics) plus two major Russian enclaves—Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg. Kaliningrad, a sliver of Russian territory on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland, houses Russia’s Baltic Fleet and many other military installations. Given this geography, the military forces of the various parties often maneuver in the same air and water space as their rivals, generating many opportunities for near-collisions and clashes.
This was readily apparent this summer when NATO conducted its annual Baltic Operations naval exercise and, at the same time, the Russian air force conducted bombing runs against simulated maritime targets in the same general area. Intersections like this—some involving dangerously close encounters between US and Russian aircraft—occur all the time in the Baltic Sea area, so it would not be difficult for the Trump administration to engineer a clash of some sort resulting in a major international crisis.
All this shows that it would not be hard for the White House, in a desperate throw of the dice, to ignite a significant crisis or military engagement in any of these potential flashpoints. American forces are positioned close to all of them and are ready for combat at a moment’s notice. The US capability to act swiftly would not be affected by the quarantining of the Joint Chiefs, as everything is already in place for a rapid US move. So, once the order to “move” is given, it would be only a few hours before the first bombs were dropped or bullets fired. In the most favorable of circumstances, a few bombs or bullets might be enough to give Trump a “victory” to brag about at home. But none of these countries is likely to absorb an American attack without striking back, and three of the four are armed with nuclear weapons. We can only hope, then, that Trump and his aides are sufficiently aware of these risks to exclude war as a campaign-altering option.


thenation--2020-10-12--The Hardest Thing About the Green New Deal

Mariana Enriquez grew up on the wrong side of the Riachuelo , the poisoned , lifeless waterway that separates the city of Buenos Aires from the slums to its south .
“ Four million people without sewers or plumbing , ” she tells us .
The river ’ s proper name , Matanzas— “ Slaughter ” —derives from the slaughterhouses that operated along its banks for two centuries , their animal effluence mixing with industrial and human waste to poison the waters .
Among Enriquez ’ s earliest memories is the river ’ s putrid smell , which would wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And she remembers the floods—only they ’ re worse now , and more frequent , with some neighborhoods flooding twice a month : “ The kids go swimming in the streets as if they were pools—the rotten water no longer bothers them.
” Tales of Two Planets : Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal Winning the Green New Deal : Why We Must , How We Can Sulaiman Addonia is a refugee from Eritrea .
As a child he survived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escaping to London with his older brother , who was then only 17 .
Now he lives in Brussels , where he founded a writing academy for fellow refugees , helping them tell their stories .
His partner is a climate activist from a middle-class white family .
He used to tell her : “ Saving the planet you destroyed is your fight and not mine.
” But these days he thinks of his family back in Eritrea , one of the world ’ s poorest countries— “ the scorching heat they faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the decimated workforce , ” and “ the magnificent coral reefs , ” on which so many lives depend , “ dying off ” —and he knows the climate is everyone ’ s fight .
Say their names .
Mariana Enriquez and Sulaiman Addonia are but two of the contributors to Tales of Two Planets : Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World , a new literary anthology edited by John Freeman .
My descriptions come nowhere near doing justice to their stories and the power of their writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their voices yourself—along with those of 34 other contributors , including Edwidge Danticat on Haiti , Mohammed Hanif on Pakistan , Anuradha Roy on India , and Ian Teh on China , to name just a few .
I ’ ll admit that this anthology brought back visceral sensations and emotions that I sometimes fear I ’ ve grown too numbed by my daily consumption of climate news to feel anymore .
But there they were , my familiar companions : the old grief , the old rage .
And , if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s always lurking .
There I am , reading this book on my comfy back porch in an affluent town west of Boston , feeling overwhelmed by my sense of complicity in unspeakable injustices against people , actual human beings , everywhere on Earth—and by my sense of powerlessness as an individual to stop any of it .
I could tear down my solar-paneled house , live in a yurt , and convert my yard into an organic community garden , and it would make absolutely zero difference to the fates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never know and can never say .
If I ’ ve learned anything over the past decade covering and engaging in the climate justice movement in this country—the same movement that has pushed the concept of , and varying proposals for , a Green New Deal to the very center of American politics—it ’ s that “ solidarity ” is complicated and often elusive .
In movement circles , the word and concept of solidarity is all too often used casually , almost thoughtlessly , as if it ’ s a given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in solidarity with each other and with all of those , the vast majority in the Global South , who are on the front lines of climate catastrophe even now .
We may believe this , and say it to ourselves and others , but most of the time it simply is not so .
Or , at least , not so simple .
At the global level , the only level at which humanity ’ s future can and will be decided , such solidarity is far from certain .
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human solidarity across borders , races , classes , and all the rest—is meaningless without effective action .
That is , without action that has some chance of the desired and necessary effect , politically and economically and environmentally .
And at the global level—if what one wants is climate justice—such action is eventually going to conflict with national and local priorities and politics .
Even if the United States , despite the antidemocratic system standing in the way , somehow gets a government reflecting the solid majority who say they want decisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inevitable tension between the local , national , and global .
The United States ( followed by Europe ) owes by far the largest “ climate debt ” to the developing world : This country ’ s historic , cumulative emissions , and continuing per capita emissions , mean that Americans have used far more than their share of the atmospheric “ carbon budget.
” Again , if justice is what you care about , this means the United States must move faster and more radically than any other nation on Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor and working-class Americans should not bear the burden , even they are better off , and are responsible for higher per capita emissions , than the global poor—who far outnumber them .
This is a hard pill to swallow .
And yet the alternative to the United States paying its global debt is a world without any hope of justice , anywhere .
So , yes , the West Coast is burning at a terrifying and unprecedented rate .
Yes , Houstonians have suffered five 500-year floods in five years , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after ever more devastating storm , with the poor and racially marginalized suffering most , just as they ’ ve long suffered the most from fossil-fuel pollution .
And yet , do any of us really think that Mariana Enriquez ’ s neighbors and their children in the Buenos Aires slums have any less right to a healthy , secure life than Americans lacking health care , food security , and clean air and water ?
At the heart of the case for a Green New Deal , on both the national and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any choice between justice and human survival is a false one .
That is , in order to be politically viable—not to mention ethically defensible—any comprehensive climate strategy to prevent runaway catastrophe must combine rapid decarbonization with economic and social justice , because that ’ s the only way to mobilize and sustain a broad coalition to see the job through .
That ’ s the idea , anyway , and it ’ s endorsed by Noam Chomsky and economist Robert Pollin in their new book , Climate Crisis and the Global Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the climate crisis should be a noteworthy event .
And yet it ’ s an odd and somewhat disappointing fact that Chomsky , although he has published more than 100 books in the course of his long career—a great many of them about global injustice and the threat of war to human survival—didn ’ t get around to writing a book about the existential threat of global warming until the year 2020 , at the age of 91 , when catastrophe on some scale is already assured due to decades of inaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disappointing little book that Chomsky and Pollin have given us .
Presented in the form of an awkward dialogue between the authors , it adds little if anything new to the climate conversation , aside from Chomsky ’ s trademark style .
Its appearance is especially odd considering that the book ’ s publisher , Verso , only a year ago released A Planet to Win , co-authored by Kate Aronoff , Alyssa Battistoni , Daniel Aldana Cohen , and Thea Riofrancos , which mounts the most sophisticated argument I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The best one can say is that Chomsky and Pollin accurately convey the dire emergency and the daunting scale of the challenge we face .
There ’ s no sugarcoating .
And the book ’ s central point—that a global Green New Deal capable of meeting the two-degree Celsius goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) is economically viable—is of course crucial .
Unsurprisingly , Pollin ’ s economic case is clear and convincing , drawing on his many years of work on the subject .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , squeezed into a brief and unfocused final chapter on “ political mobilization to save the planet , ” that ’ s lacking .
Chomsky rails against the denialism of Trump , the Republicans , and the fossil-fuel lobby , and the evils of neoliberalism and encroaching fascism , all of which is rather obvious , conventional fare .
( Even Chomsky ’ s beloved anarcho-syndicalism is nothing new for the climate left , though it ’ s rare to see Bakunin invoked repeatedly in the pages of a sober-minded climate policy book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to say about how to actually mobilize a movement for a global Green New Deal or how to connect the existing movements around the world .
At this late date , it ’ s hard to take any climate policy book seriously if it articulates no coherent political analysis , no theory of change or understanding of social movement strategy and tactics .
Incredibly , Chomsky and Pollin appear unaware of the robust climate justice movement that ’ s been building for more than a decade in the United States and internationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal coalition , which has significantly shifted national climate politics ( as witnessed by Joe Biden ’ s vastly strengthened plan ) .
And while the authors discuss Europe ’ s version of a Green New Deal , there ’ s not even a passing mention of the actually existing Green New Deal resolution in the United States , introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey ; no mention of Bernie Sanders ’ s Green New Deal plan , with its serious global component ( see Tom Athanasiou ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no attempt to explain how their Green New Deal vision differs from others , nor any critique of the various existing proposals .
It seems only fair to ask that a book about the “ Green New Deal ” should address , you know , the Green New Deal and the movement that ’ s actually fighting for it .
Chomsky and Pollin do , however , find space in this slim book to offer their timid , conditional support of civil disobedience as a movement tactic .
For the most part they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate justice movement hasn ’ t already proven its efficacy over the past decade .
Indeed , today ’ s Green New Deal movement in North America was built on years of relentless nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience , from the coal fields to the fracking fields , from coal plants and oil refineries to tar sands and fracked-gas pipelines .
To ignore this central aspect of movement history is to ignore the centrality of frontline communities—Indigenous , Black and brown , poor and working-class white—and young people of all backgrounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ground .
If you want to know why the “ kids ” are angry , and why young people are willing to go to jail to fight for their future , it ’ s because their elders—including intellectuals across the entire political spectrum—have failed them for what is now three decades .
They have every right to be pissed off and to demand the kind of political revolution a Green New Deal requires .
Some of that passion comes through in Winning the Green New Deal : Why We Must , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of essays edited by the Sunrise Movement ’ s Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti .
With strong contributions from a superb cast of contributors—among others , David Wallace-Wells , Kate Aronoff , Naomi Klein , Bill McKibben , Rhiana Gunn-Wright , Joseph Stiglitz , Julian Brave Noisecat , the Rev .
William J. Barber II , and Waleed Shahid—this is the volume that should serve as the definitive introduction to the Green New Deal and the coalition of movements behind it .
Even so , it addresses only the US , not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IPCC makes clear that to have any chance of staying “ well below ” two degrees of warming , preventing huge swaths of the Global South from becoming uninhabitable—and allowing developing countries some shot at a livable future—global greenhouse emissions must fall by half in the next 10 years , and must be all but eliminated by around 2050 .
The speed and scale of that global shift—truly revolutionary—is almost unimaginable , not for economic ( as Pollin shows ) but for political reasons , given the unprecedented level of national and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as noted , it ’ s a necessity that the United States , Europe , and other Global North economies decarbonize much sooner , if only because they have the technological and economic capability , even as they help mobilize and finance the energy transition in the developing world .
This is basic stuff , Climate 101—and it ’ s why the Sunrise-backed Green New Deal calls for a 10-year mobilization to decarbonize the US economy as far as technically possible , a far tighter timeline than Biden ’ s and the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether or not a 10-year time frame is actually feasible—and we won ’ t know until we try—the point is that only an all-out effort on that scale by the United States and Europe will offer the hope of meeting the ultimate global emissions target for mid-century .
It ’ s one thing to rehearse these numbers and point out that this is what the world ’ s climate scientists tell us is necessary to salvage a habitable planet .
It ’ s another thing entirely to ask poor and working-class Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and faces economic insecurity , to take a giant leap of faith that the Green New Deal ’ s promises of jobs , universal health care , racial and environmental justice , and just-transition policies for workers and communities will be fulfilled .
Given the political system we ’ ve got , why should anyone believe they will ?
The truth is , nobody knows exactly how a comprehensive Green New Deal will play out , or if it ’ s even possible .
And where there are looming unknowns , especially for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear .
Most Americans are still more afraid of losing their paycheck than losing the planet .
As the French Yellow Vest ( gilets jaunes ) movement , rebelling against President Emmanuel Macron ’ s ill-conceived and regressive fuel tax , memorably put it : “ You talk about the end of the world .
We ’ re talking about the end of the month.
” And then there is that vast portion of humanity only trying to get through another day .
It ’ s impossible to predict whether the movement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , with its emerging coalition of labor unions , racial and environmental justice movements , and a galvanized generation of young people , can spearhead a democratic , bottom-up political revolution to overcome the obstacles of our antidemocratic system .
First , there ’ s a make-or-break election to be won—and defended—in November .
Beyond that , all we can say with any degree of certainty is that the struggle for a genuine political revolution in this country , to achieve that radical 10-year mobilization , is what global solidarity must look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be possible unless we ’ re willing to truly level with the public about the dire situation and what those of us in the wealthiest countries owe the rest of the world .
Because it will require more of each of us , a higher level of commitment , than anyone in our national climate politics is yet asking : a willingness to sacrifice , to take risks , to tell the truth no matter how ugly and no matter the consequences .
It ’ s going to take all of this on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all walks of life , than we ’ ve ever seen in our nation ’ s history .
And if there aren ’ t enough of us willing to take that leap , then we ’ ll soon have to acknowledge that “ climate justice ” and “ global solidarity ” are empty phrases—and that Mariana Enriquez ’ s and Sulaiman Addonia ’ s families , and those of countless people like them , are on their own .

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?
Mariana Enriquez grew up on the wrong side of the Riachuelo, the poisoned, lifeless waterway that separates the city of Buenos Aires from the slums to its south. “Four million people without sewers or plumbing,” she tells us. The river’s proper name, Matanzas—“Slaughter”—derives from the slaughterhouses that operated along its banks for two centuries, their animal effluence mixing with industrial and human waste to poison the waters. Among Enriquez’s earliest memories is the river’s putrid smell, which would wake her up some mornings as a child. And she remembers the floods—only they’re worse now, and more frequent, with some neighborhoods flooding twice a month: “The kids go swimming in the streets as if they were pools—the rotten water no longer bothers them.” Books in Review Tales of Two Planets: Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World By John Freeman, ed. Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal By Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin Winning the Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can By Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti, eds.
Sulaiman Addonia is a refugee from Eritrea. As a child he survived war and a Sudanese refugee camp before escaping to London with his older brother, who was then only 17. Now he lives in Brussels, where he founded a writing academy for fellow refugees, helping them tell their stories. His partner is a climate activist from a middle-class white family. He used to tell her: “Saving the planet you destroyed is your fight and not mine.” But these days he thinks of his family back in Eritrea, one of the world’s poorest countries—“the scorching heat they faced, the failed harvests in the region, the decimated workforce,” and “the magnificent coral reefs,” on which so many lives depend, “dying off”—and he knows the climate is everyone’s fight.
Say their names. Mariana Enriquez and Sulaiman Addonia are but two of the contributors to Tales of Two Planets: Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World, a new literary anthology edited by John Freeman. My descriptions come nowhere near doing justice to their stories and the power of their writing. You must read them and encounter their voices yourself—along with those of 34 other contributors, including Edwidge Danticat on Haiti, Mohammed Hanif on Pakistan, Anuradha Roy on India, and Ian Teh on China, to name just a few.
I’ll admit that this anthology brought back visceral sensations and emotions that I sometimes fear I’ve grown too numbed by my daily consumption of climate news to feel anymore. But there they were, my familiar companions: the old grief, the old rage. And, if I’m honest, the old despair that’s always lurking. There I am, reading this book on my comfy back porch in an affluent town west of Boston, feeling overwhelmed by my sense of complicity in unspeakable injustices against people, actual human beings, everywhere on Earth—and by my sense of powerlessness as an individual to stop any of it. I could tear down my solar-paneled house, live in a yurt, and convert my yard into an organic community garden, and it would make absolutely zero difference to the fates of billions whose names I’ll never know and can never say.
If I’ve learned anything over the past decade covering and engaging in the climate justice movement in this country—the same movement that has pushed the concept of, and varying proposals for, a Green New Deal to the very center of American politics—it’s that “solidarity” is complicated and often elusive. In movement circles, the word and concept of solidarity is all too often used casually, almost thoughtlessly, as if it’s a given that all of us fighting for climate justice are in solidarity with each other and with all of those, the vast majority in the Global South, who are on the front lines of climate catastrophe even now. We may believe this, and say it to ourselves and others, but most of the time it simply is not so. Or, at least, not so simple. At the global level, the only level at which humanity’s future can and will be decided, such solidarity is far from certain. 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
Because the idea of global solidarity—any genuine, human solidarity across borders, races, classes, and all the rest—is meaningless without effective action. That is, without action that has some chance of the desired and necessary effect, politically and economically and environmentally. And at the global level—if what one wants is climate justice—such action is eventually going to conflict with national and local priorities and politics. Even if the United States, despite the antidemocratic system standing in the way, somehow gets a government reflecting the solid majority who say they want decisive climate action, there will still be the inevitable tension between the local, national, and global. The United States (followed by Europe) owes by far the largest “climate debt” to the developing world: This country’s historic, cumulative emissions, and continuing per capita emissions, mean that Americans have used far more than their share of the atmospheric “carbon budget.” Again, if justice is what you care about, this means the United States must move faster and more radically than any other nation on Earth, whatever the cost. And while poor and working-class Americans should not bear the burden, even they are better off, and are responsible for higher per capita emissions, than the global poor—who far outnumber them.
This is a hard pill to swallow. And yet the alternative to the United States paying its global debt is a world without any hope of justice, anywhere. Current Issue View our current issue
So, yes, the West Coast is burning at a terrifying and unprecedented rate. Yes, Houstonians have suffered five 500-year floods in five years, and the Gulf Coast is pummeled by storm after ever more devastating storm, with the poor and racially marginalized suffering most, just as they’ve long suffered the most from fossil-fuel pollution. And yet, do any of us really think that Mariana Enriquez’s neighbors and their children in the Buenos Aires slums have any less right to a healthy, secure life than Americans lacking health care, food security, and clean air and water?
At the heart of the case for a Green New Deal, on both the national and global level, is the argument that any choice between justice and human survival is a false one. That is, in order to be politically viable—not to mention ethically defensible—any comprehensive climate strategy to prevent runaway catastrophe must combine rapid decarbonization with economic and social justice, because that’s the only way to mobilize and sustain a broad coalition to see the job through. That’s the idea, anyway, and it’s endorsed by Noam Chomsky and economist Robert Pollin in their new book, Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal.
A Noam Chomsky book about the climate crisis should be a noteworthy event. And yet it’s an odd and somewhat disappointing fact that Chomsky, although he has published more than 100 books in the course of his long career—a great many of them about global injustice and the threat of war to human survival—didn’t get around to writing a book about the existential threat of global warming until the year 2020, at the age of 91, when catastrophe on some scale is already assured due to decades of inaction.
And it’s an odd and disappointing little book that Chomsky and Pollin have given us. Presented in the form of an awkward dialogue between the authors, it adds little if anything new to the climate conversation, aside from Chomsky’s trademark style. Its appearance is especially odd considering that the book’s publisher, Verso, only a year ago released A Planet to Win, co-authored by Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and Thea Riofrancos, which mounts the most sophisticated argument I’ve seen for an internationalist Green New Deal. The best one can say is that Chomsky and Pollin accurately convey the dire emergency and the daunting scale of the challenge we face. There’s no sugarcoating. And the book’s central point—that a global Green New Deal capable of meeting the two-degree Celsius goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is economically viable—is of course crucial. Unsurprisingly, Pollin’s economic case is clear and convincing, drawing on his many years of work on the subject.
It’s the authors’ political analysis, squeezed into a brief and unfocused final chapter on “political mobilization to save the planet,” that’s lacking. Chomsky rails against the denialism of Trump, the Republicans, and the fossil-fuel lobby, and the evils of neoliberalism and encroaching fascism, all of which is rather obvious, conventional fare. (Even Chomsky’s beloved anarcho-syndicalism is nothing new for the climate left, though it’s rare to see Bakunin invoked repeatedly in the pages of a sober-minded climate policy book.) But Chomsky and Pollin have little to say about how to actually mobilize a movement for a global Green New Deal or how to connect the existing movements around the world. Related Article Extinction Rebellion’s Long Overdue Reckoning With Race Natasha Hakimi Zapata
At this late date, it’s hard to take any climate policy book seriously if it articulates no coherent political analysis, no theory of change or understanding of social movement strategy and tactics. Incredibly, Chomsky and Pollin appear unaware of the robust climate justice movement that’s been building for more than a decade in the United States and internationally, leading in this country to the Green New Deal coalition, which has significantly shifted national climate politics (as witnessed by Joe Biden’s vastly strengthened plan). And while the authors discuss Europe’s version of a Green New Deal, there’s not even a passing mention of the actually existing Green New Deal resolution in the United States, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey; no mention of Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal plan, with its serious global component (see Tom Athanasiou’s analysis in The Nation); no attempt to explain how their Green New Deal vision differs from others, nor any critique of the various existing proposals. It seems only fair to ask that a book about the “Green New Deal” should address, you know, the Green New Deal and the movement that’s actually fighting for it.
Chomsky and Pollin do, however, find space in this slim book to offer their timid, conditional support of civil disobedience as a movement tactic. For the most part they doubt its “effectiveness”—as if the climate justice movement hasn’t already proven its efficacy over the past decade. Indeed, today’s Green New Deal movement in North America was built on years of relentless nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience, from the coal fields to the fracking fields, from coal plants and oil refineries to tar sands and fracked-gas pipelines. To ignore this central aspect of movement history is to ignore the centrality of frontline communities—Indigenous, Black and brown, poor and working-class white—and young people of all backgrounds in the struggle to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
If you want to know why the “kids” are angry, and why young people are willing to go to jail to fight for their future, it’s because their elders—including intellectuals across the entire political spectrum—have failed them for what is now three decades. They have every right to be pissed off and to demand the kind of political revolution a Green New Deal requires.
Some of that passion comes through in Winning the Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can, a new collection of essays edited by the Sunrise Movement’s Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti. With strong contributions from a superb cast of contributors—among others, David Wallace-Wells, Kate Aronoff, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Brave Noisecat, the Rev. William J. Barber II, and Waleed Shahid—this is the volume that should serve as the definitive introduction to the Green New Deal and the coalition of movements behind it. Even so, it addresses only the US, not the global context.
Lest we forget, the IPCC makes clear that to have any chance of staying “well below” two degrees of warming, preventing huge swaths of the Global South from becoming uninhabitable—and allowing developing countries some shot at a livable future—global greenhouse emissions must fall by half in the next 10 years, and must be all but eliminated by around 2050. The speed and scale of that global shift—truly revolutionary—is almost unimaginable, not for economic (as Pollin shows) but for political reasons, given the unprecedented level of national and international coordination it would require. And as noted, it’s a necessity that the United States, Europe, and other Global North economies decarbonize much sooner, if only because they have the technological and economic capability, even as they help mobilize and finance the energy transition in the developing world. This is basic stuff, Climate 101—and it’s why the Sunrise-backed Green New Deal calls for a 10-year mobilization to decarbonize the US economy as far as technically possible, a far tighter timeline than Biden’s and the Democrats’, who aim for 2050. Whether or not a 10-year time frame is actually feasible—and we won’t know until we try—the point is that only an all-out effort on that scale by the United States and Europe will offer the hope of meeting the ultimate global emissions target for mid-century.
It’s one thing to rehearse these numbers and point out that this is what the world’s climate scientists tell us is necessary to salvage a habitable planet. It’s another thing entirely to ask poor and working-class Americans, or anyone who has lost a job and faces economic insecurity, to take a giant leap of faith that the Green New Deal’s promises of jobs, universal health care, racial and environmental justice, and just-transition policies for workers and communities will be fulfilled. Given the political system we’ve got, why should anyone believe they will? The truth is, nobody knows exactly how a comprehensive Green New Deal will play out, or if it’s even possible. And where there are looming unknowns, especially for economically vulnerable people, there will be fear. Most Americans are still more afraid of losing their paycheck than losing the planet. As the French Yellow Vest (gilets jaunes) movement, rebelling against President Emmanuel Macron’s ill-conceived and regressive fuel tax, memorably put it: “You talk about the end of the world. We’re talking about the end of the month.”
And then there is that vast portion of humanity only trying to get through another day.
It’s impossible to predict whether the movement for a Green New Deal in the United States, with its emerging coalition of labor unions, racial and environmental justice movements, and a galvanized generation of young people, can spearhead a democratic, bottom-up political revolution to overcome the obstacles of our antidemocratic system. First, there’s a make-or-break election to be won—and defended—in November. Beyond that, all we can say with any degree of certainty is that the struggle for a genuine political revolution in this country, to achieve that radical 10-year mobilization, is what global solidarity must look like now.
No such revolution will be possible unless we’re willing to truly level with the public about the dire situation and what those of us in the wealthiest countries owe the rest of the world. Because it will require more of each of us, a higher level of commitment, than anyone in our national climate politics is yet asking: a willingness to sacrifice, to take risks, to tell the truth no matter how ugly and no matter the consequences. It’s going to take all of this on the part of far more people, from all walks of life, than we’ve ever seen in our nation’s history. And if there aren’t enough of us willing to take that leap, then we’ll soon have to acknowledge that “climate justice” and “global solidarity” are empty phrases—and that Mariana Enriquez’s and Sulaiman Addonia’s families, and those of countless people like them, are on their own.


thenation--2020-10-12--It’s Time for Italian Americans to Give Up on Columbus

On June 9 in Richmond , Va.—two weeks into the protests following the police killing of George Floyd—demonstrators gathered at a statue of Christopher Columbus in the city ’ s Near West End .
After a march of about 1,000 people , led by Indigenous activists in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement , protesters threw ropes across the statue , pulled it down , rolled it 200 yards , and threw it into nearby lake .
The next day , demonstrators in Boston , Miami , and St. Paul toppled or defaced other Columbus statues , and over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities followed suit .
The actions were a testament to the depth of the burgeoning movement : This mass mobilization against American racism was taking it back to the beginning , denouncing the false hagiography of the hemisphere ’ s so-called discoverer .
The Columbus statue in Richmond , the first of its kind in the South , was built in 1927—a project of the local Italian community .
Rather than celebrate racism , however , the community erected the monument to combat it : They wanted to show that Italians , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States , were an integral part of America—that one of our ancestors was even responsible for its supposed founding .
It was part of a campaign among Italians in the United States to use Columbus to escape the plight of otherness—that is , to gain access to American whiteness , otherwise reserved for Protestant Anglos .
President Benjamin Harrison established the first Columbus Day in 1892 to quell Italian outrage after a mass lynching in New Orleans resulted in the deaths of 11 Sicilians—a subgroup that endured particularly brutal racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived Africanness .
Columbus Day was supposed to be a one-time event , but Italian communities saw an opportunity to , as The New York Times ’ Brent Staples put it in a review of scholarship on Italian American whiteness , “ write themselves into the American origin story , in a fashion that piled myth upon myth.
” Throughout the early and mid-20th century , as Italians gained greater access to the racialized top of American society , communities retained Columbus as a mainstay of Italian American identity : Columbus Day parades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American civil service fraternities were founded as “ Columbia Associations ” ; monuments to Columbus popped up in Italian neighborhoods across the country .
It is perhaps safe to assume that most of the Italian Americans who so idolized Columbus in those early decades only knew the mythologized character : the pioneer whose boldness and daring led him to discover the Americas .
And if they did know anything of the Genoan explorer ’ s crimes , they likely justified it with their own racist ideas about the inferiority of Indigenous peoples .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Any ignorance that Columbus massacred , tortured , enslaved , and traded Indigenous American and African people is willful .
Despite this , many Americans of Italian descent still hold up Columbus as an Italian American idol .
In response to attacks on Columbus statues this summer , the National Italian American Foundation released a lengthy statement extolling Columbus ’ s “ courageous voyage , ” which “ represents an opportunity to celebrate our collective contributions to the United States.
” The president of the Italian Sons and Daughters of America called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebration of the Italian immigrant heritage , ” and “ a public expression of our pride , our culture , our history , and our identity.
” Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that while “ some of [ Columbus ’ s ] acts ” should be denounced , he supports the existence of the statue at Columbus Circle in Manhattan because it “ has come to represent and signify appreciation for the Italian American contributions to New York.
” What these Columbus defenders are saying , in essence , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Italian Americans over a century ago decided to build a mythology around him .
They take a play from the Confederate apologists ’ book in arguing that a historical figure like Columbus shouldn ’ t be judged by contemporary standards—as if mass killing , slavery , pillaging , and human trafficking were acceptable during certain time periods .
These arguments are more egregious considering that reactionary Italians—like many formerly maltreated white subgroups in the United States—eagerly hearken back to the eras of their own oppression to dismiss other racism : Italians used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They unsubtly present Italian Americans ’ trajectory from persecuted pariah to barely recognizable subclass as a bootstraps success story of an enterprising ethnic group ; in reality , Italians escaped persecution in the United States by—both passively and actively—becoming part of the ruling caste .
For Italian Americans today , the reckoning over Columbus presents an opportunity to right these wrongs—to use our history as a way to fight racist hierarchy , rather than to ascend it .
The ongoing protest movement against racism and policing is perhaps the largest and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black leaders , white supporters , Indigenous activists , and other racial and ethnic groups are forming a broad coalition that , in addition to fighting for policies to make the nation more just for the marginalized , are seeking to further set the record straight on this country ’ s oppressive past .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On June 9 in Richmond, Va.—two weeks into the protests following the police killing of George Floyd—demonstrators gathered at a statue of Christopher Columbus in the city’s Near West End. After a march of about 1,000 people, led by Indigenous activists in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, protesters threw ropes across the statue, pulled it down, rolled it 200 yards, and threw it into a nearby lake.
The next day, demonstrators in Boston, Miami, and St. Paul toppled or defaced other Columbus statues, and over the next few weeks, several more cities followed suit. The actions were a testament to the depth of the burgeoning movement: This mass mobilization against American racism was taking it back to the beginning, denouncing the false hagiography of the hemisphere’s so-called discoverer.
The Columbus statue in Richmond, the first of its kind in the South, was built in 1927—a project of the local Italian community. Rather than celebrate racism, however, the community erected the monument to combat it: They wanted to show that Italians, who had for decades faced prejudice and derision in the United States, were an integral part of America—that one of our ancestors was even responsible for its supposed founding. It was part of a campaign among Italians in the United States to use Columbus to escape the plight of otherness—that is, to gain access to American whiteness, otherwise reserved for Protestant Anglos.
President Benjamin Harrison established the first Columbus Day in 1892 to quell Italian outrage after a mass lynching in New Orleans resulted in the deaths of 11 Sicilians—a subgroup that endured particularly brutal racism for their “swarthy” complexions and perceived Africanness. Columbus Day was supposed to be a one-time event, but Italian communities saw an opportunity to, as The New York Times’ Brent Staples put it in a review of scholarship on Italian American whiteness, “write themselves into the American origin story, in a fashion that piled myth upon myth.” Throughout the early and mid-20th century, as Italians gained greater access to the racialized top of American society, communities retained Columbus as a mainstay of Italian American identity: Columbus Day parades doubled as Italian pride festivals; Italian American civil service fraternities were founded as “Columbia Associations”; monuments to Columbus popped up in Italian neighborhoods across the country. 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
It is perhaps safe to assume that most of the Italian Americans who so idolized Columbus in those early decades only knew the mythologized character: the pioneer whose boldness and daring led him to discover the Americas. And if they did know anything of the Genoan explorer’s crimes, they likely justified it with their own racist ideas about the inferiority of Indigenous peoples. But today, the history is well-established. Any ignorance that Columbus massacred, tortured, enslaved, and traded Indigenous American and African people is willful. Related Article The Invention of Christopher Columbus, American Hero Ed Burmila
Despite this, many Americans of Italian descent still hold up Columbus as an Italian American idol. In response to attacks on Columbus statues this summer, the National Italian American Foundation released a lengthy statement extolling Columbus’s “courageous voyage,” which “represents an opportunity to celebrate our collective contributions to the United States.” The president of the Italian Sons and Daughters of America called Columbus statues “a deeply rooted public celebration of the Italian immigrant heritage,” and “a public expression of our pride, our culture, our history, and our identity.” Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that while “some of [Columbus’s] acts” should be denounced, he supports the existence of the statue at Columbus Circle in Manhattan because it “has come to represent and signify appreciation for the Italian American contributions to New York.”
What these Columbus defenders are saying, in essence, is that the idolization of a genocidaire is excusable because Italian Americans over a century ago decided to build a mythology around him. They take a play from the Confederate apologists’ book in arguing that a historical figure like Columbus shouldn’t be judged by contemporary standards—as if mass killing, slavery, pillaging, and human trafficking were acceptable during certain time periods. Current Issue View our current issue
These arguments are more egregious considering that reactionary Italians—like many formerly maltreated white subgroups in the United States—eagerly hearken back to the eras of their own oppression to dismiss other racism: Italians used to not be white, you know. They unsubtly present Italian Americans’ trajectory from persecuted pariah to barely recognizable subclass as a bootstraps success story of an enterprising ethnic group; in reality, Italians escaped persecution in the United States by—both passively and actively—becoming part of the ruling caste.
For Italian Americans today, the reckoning over Columbus presents an opportunity to right these wrongs—to use our history as a way to fight racist hierarchy, rather than to ascend it. The ongoing protest movement against racism and policing is perhaps the largest and most diverse the country has ever seen. Black leaders, white supporters, Indigenous activists, and other racial and ethnic groups are forming a broad coalition that, in addition to fighting for policies to make the nation more just for the marginalized, are seeking to further set the record straight on this country’s oppressive past.
There are few myths more harmful and ingrained in American folklore than that of Christopher Columbus. And if Italian Americans want to get on the right side of history, we need to be at the forefront of dismantling it.