thenation--2020-10-26--The Labor Movement Isn’t Ready to Expel Police Unions

We do not need symbolic measures from organized labor that supposedly demonstrate opposition to police brutality and extrajudicial killings .
We need concrete steps challenging oppression that are fully integrated into the trade union movement .
The Other Side of the Debate We Must Sever Law Enforcement From the Labor Movement If all we do is exile police unions from our ranks , we won ’ t help rid the United States of white supremacy .
Discussing the role of law enforcement within unions must be part of a deeper conversation about labor ’ s long complicity in racist institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger context , police won ’ t change , labor won ’ t become more united or more progressive , and conservatives can use the left ’ s attacks on police unions to justify their war against public sector unions .
The real goal for organized labor should be to position its whole self against police violence and the state murders of Native Americans , African Americans , Latinos , and Asians .
That is a more difficult task—but also a more crucial one .
The challenge for trade unions regarding law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a historically ambivalent approach to racist oppression , fear of weakening public sector unions , narrow ( though significant ) institutional concerns , and silence on the role of law enforcement in American society .
Trade unions should prioritize confronting these issues before expelling the police unions .
When white organized labor emerged in the United States in the 1830s , it saw itself as an institution within a white republic .
It was racially exclusive and either largely silent on or vocal in support of racial suppression and US annexation .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building this exclusionary state and therefore now finds it difficult , if not impossible , to come to terms with its role in racist oppression and imperial expansion .
As a result , many trade unions have shied away from discussing the facts of racist and state persecution—let alone acknowledging the need to repair the damage created by these systems .
Also , unions are understandably afraid that the expulsion of police from organized labor could expose themselves to a right-wing assault on public sector collective bargaining .
Even though that threat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind this excuse to defend its inaction .
Ejecting the police , however , would be logistically difficult and could make the internal fight bitter and complicated .
The AFL-CIO has a national union of police officers , the International Union of Police Associations , but it ’ s the exception .
In most unions , law enforcement units are part of a larger public sector grouping , like state or municipal workers .
And if a union that contains law enforcement units declines to kick them out , does that mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the national union , state labor federation , or central labor council ?
Additionally , short of determining that law enforcement unions have violated the constitution of the parent union , two questions would have to be asked : On what basis would such an expulsion take place , and would it require some sort of vote at a union convention ?
At the same time , members understand that these units are dependable dues payers , meaning that the dismissal of law enforcement would hurt the financial resources of every member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such a road would need to be taken carefully , or else it could destabilize and weaken the movement .
Finally , and as I wrote in In These Times recently , organized labor has largely been silent on the question of the role of law enforcement in our society .
A sizable minority , by some estimates as high as 40 percent , of union members regularly vote conservatively , so they are not necessarily predisposed to challenging law enforcement .
Law enforcement units tend to be highly organized and disciplined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is a legacy of anti-communism and anti-leftism that discourages radical approaches to social problems , including those concerning law enforcement .
We have to , as the organizing cliché goes , meet members where they ’ re at .
Right now that means promoting a discussion about racial injustice and its implications for the larger trade union movement .
A part of this is figuring out how to mobilize the membership against police brutality and to undertake a rethinking of the nature of law enforcement .
But racial injustice is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it is also about segregated housing , poor health care , exclusion from skilled employment , and an education that prepares particular racial minorities only for prisons and menial work .
Trade unions must define what it means to be part of a labor movement .
This should touch on the attitude of organized labor toward social , political , and economic justice .
It means that unions that deny access to minority workers should have no more place in the labor movement than unions that condone extrajudicial killings .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine what labor can unite around , and those who do not choose an inclusive solidarity can , by their own choice , exit the movement .
To see the other side of The Debate , read Kim Kelly ’ s “ We Must Sever Law Enforcement From the Labor Movement .
”

This article appears in the November 2/9, 2020 issue.
We do not need symbolic measures from organized labor that supposedly demonstrate opposition to police brutality and extrajudicial killings. We need concrete steps challenging oppression that are fully integrated into the trade union movement. The Other Side of the Debate We Must Sever Law Enforcement From the Labor Movement Kim Kelly
If all we do is exile police unions from our ranks, we won’t help rid the United States of white supremacy. Discussing the role of law enforcement within unions must be part of a deeper conversation about labor’s long complicity in racist institutions in the United States. Without that larger context, police won’t change, labor won’t become more united or more progressive, and conservatives can use the left’s attacks on police unions to justify their war against public sector unions. The real goal for organized labor should be to position its whole self against police violence and the state murders of Native Americans, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians. That is a more difficult task—but also a more crucial one.
The challenge for trade unions regarding law enforcement groups is rooted in four factors: a historically ambivalent approach to racist oppression, fear of weakening public sector unions, narrow (though significant) institutional concerns, and silence on the role of law enforcement in American society. Trade unions should prioritize confronting these issues before expelling the police unions.
When white organized labor emerged in the United States in the 1830s, it saw itself as an institution within a white republic. It was racially exclusive and either largely silent on or vocal in support of racial suppression and US annexation. Much of white organized labor took pride in building this exclusionary state and therefore now finds it difficult, if not impossible, to come to terms with its role in racist oppression and imperial expansion. As a result, many trade unions have shied away from discussing the facts of racist and state persecution—let alone acknowledging the need to repair the damage created by these systems. Current Issue View our current issue
Also, unions are understandably afraid that the expulsion of police from organized labor could expose themselves to a right-wing assault on public sector collective bargaining. Even though that threat is real, much of the movement hides behind this excuse to defend its inaction.
Ejecting the police, however, would be logistically difficult and could make the internal fight bitter and complicated. The AFL-CIO has a national union of police officers, the International Union of Police Associations, but it’s the exception. In most unions, law enforcement units are part of a larger public sector grouping, like state or municipal workers. And if a union that contains law enforcement units declines to kick them out, does that mean that it, too, would be expelled from the national union, state labor federation, or central labor council? Additionally, short of determining that law enforcement unions have violated the constitution of the parent union, two questions would have to be asked: On what basis would such an expulsion take place, and would it require some sort of vote at a union convention? At the same time, members understand that these units are dependable dues payers, meaning that the dismissal of law enforcement would hurt the financial resources of every member of the union. Although not impossible, such a road would need to be taken carefully, or else it could destabilize and weaken the movement.
Finally, and as I wrote in In These Times recently, organized labor has largely been silent on the question of the role of law enforcement in our society. A sizable minority, by some estimates as high as 40 percent, of union members regularly vote conservatively, so they are not necessarily predisposed to challenging law enforcement. Law enforcement units tend to be highly organized and disciplined voting blocs. In many trade unions, there is a legacy of anti-communism and anti-leftism that discourages radical approaches to social problems, including those concerning law enforcement.
We have to, as the organizing cliché goes, meet members where they’re at. Right now that means promoting a discussion about racial injustice and its implications for the larger trade union movement. A part of this is figuring out how to mobilize the membership against police brutality and to undertake a rethinking of the nature of law enforcement. But racial injustice is not just about the extinguishing of Black lives; it is also about segregated housing, poor health care, exclusion from skilled employment, and an education that prepares particular racial minorities only for prisons and menial work.
Trade unions must define what it means to be part of a labor movement. This should touch on the attitude of organized labor toward social, political, and economic justice. It means that unions that deny access to minority workers should have no more place in the labor movement than unions that condone extrajudicial killings. Still, before ousting the police, we need to determine what labor can unite around, and those who do not choose an inclusive solidarity can, by their own choice, exit the movement.
To see the other side of The Debate, read Kim Kelly’s “We Must Sever Law Enforcement From the Labor Movement.”


thenation--2020-10-26--We Must Sever Law Enforcement From the Labor Movement

The police were never supposed to have a union .
In 1897 the American Federation of Labor , which would merge with the Congress of Industrial Organizations to form the AFL-CIO , rejected a petition from a group of Cleveland officers on the grounds that “ It is not within the province of the trade union movement to especially organize policemen , no more than to organize militiamen , as both policemen and militiamen are often controlled by forces inimical to the labor movement.
” The Other Side of the Debate In the ensuing 123 years , the attitude of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed .
You ’ ll never see cops join a picket line ; instead , they ’ re the force that the bosses call to break the strike .
Over the years , police have killed countless laborers , from coal miners at Blair Mountain , where police shot dozens of striking West Virginia workers dead in 1921 , to Breonna Taylor , an emergency room technician in Louisville , Ky. Report after report reveals the proliferation of white supremacists and far-right rhetoric within the ranks of law enforcement .
On June 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , East , passed a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to disaffiliate with the International Union of Police Associations , citing IUPA ’ s failure to uphold “ the basic principles of free and democratic trade unionism.
” WGA East was soon joined by the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union and the Washington-Baltimore News Guild .
At its 2020 conference , the California Labor Federation resolved to disassociate from police unions and the National Border Patrol Council .
In June the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA called for law enforcement unions that fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be removed from the labor movement , and MLK Labor in Washington ’ s King County voted to expel the Seattle Police Officers Guild because of its failure to do just that .
These calls to chuck out the police are not new , but they have grown louder and more insistent .
A number of rank-and-file groups have started organizing around the issue , from No Cop Unions , which includes labor activists and members from over a dozen unions , to union-specific groups like Cop-Free AFSCME , SEIU Drop the Cops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But so far , the appeals to drop the cops have been brushed aside by labor leaders , who are reluctant to take political chances in an election year and fear alienating members who disagree .
But there can be no justice without sacrifice , and by taking the overdue step of pushing out law enforcement unions , labor will clear a path to the more fundamental missions of confronting racism within its ranks and rectifying mistakes .
It is a daunting task but one that is necessary for the movement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Black lives matter .
We can not stand by and watch as our so-called union brothers continue to brutalize and extinguish working-class lives with impunity .
Given the dire peculiarities of our current moment , let us consider the question in medical terms .
An infection , left untreated , will soon spread throughout the body .
It will rot away the flesh , poison the blood , and when wholly unimpeded , eat its victim alive .
Those who are weak and vulnerable will suffer the most .
Sepsis will set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only one option remains : amputation .
Excising the limb can prevent the infection from spreading further and allow the body time to heal .
In this case , white supremacy is the pathogen , and the police are the diseased limb .
In order to prevent even more harm , we must sever law enforcement from the broader labor movement .
Expelling police from our unions is not an immediate cure for racism within the labor movement , but it is a drastic intervention that will set a course for further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address and eradicate the poison , from rank-and-file members up to the highest levels of leadership .
In 2016 nearly 40 percent of union members voted for Donald Trump , including over 50 percent of white male members , but this problem is not a new one .
Organized labor in this country has a long history of exclusion and discrimination against workers on grounds of gender , race , religion , and national origin .
But it has also made great strides toward equality and justice , saved millions of lives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is power in a union , and that power must be wielded carefully and judiciously .
As an AFL-CIO general board statement noted , it would be “ quick and easy to cut ties with police unions , ” yet the federation has refused to do so .
The board ’ s vision of “ building a better labor movement from within ” leaves out the Black workers , Indigenous workers , and other workers of color , who are disproportionately targeted , harmed , and killed by police , who are shielded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to do the right thing , but that is no reason not to do it .
Unless we operate now , this deadly infection will only spread further .
There is no other option .
Which side are you on ?
To read the other side of The Debate , read Bill Fletcher Jr. ’ s “ The Labor Movement Isn ’ t Ready to Expel Police Unions .
”

This article appears in the November 2/9, 2020 issue.
The police were never supposed to have a union. In 1897 the American Federation of Labor, which would merge with the Congress of Industrial Organizations to form the AFL-CIO, rejected a petition from a group of Cleveland officers on the grounds that “It is not within the province of the trade union movement to especially organize policemen, no more than to organize militiamen, as both policemen and militiamen are often controlled by forces inimical to the labor movement.” The Other Side of the Debate The Labor Movement Isn’t Ready to Expel Police Unions Bill Fletcher Jr.
In the ensuing 123 years, the attitude of police toward the working class has not changed. You’ll never see cops join a picket line; instead, they’re the force that the bosses call to break the strike. Over the years, police have killed countless laborers, from coal miners at Blair Mountain, where police shot dozens of striking West Virginia workers dead in 1921, to Breonna Taylor, an emergency room technician in Louisville, Ky. Report after report reveals the proliferation of white supremacists and far-right rhetoric within the ranks of law enforcement.
On June 8, 2020, the Writers Guild of America, East, passed a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to disaffiliate with the International Union of Police Associations, citing IUPA’s failure to uphold “the basic principles of free and democratic trade unionism.” WGA East was soon joined by the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union and the Washington-Baltimore News Guild. At its 2020 conference, the California Labor Federation resolved to disassociate from police unions and the National Border Patrol Council. In June the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA called for law enforcement unions that fail to address racism and hold officers accountable to be removed from the labor movement, and MLK Labor in Washington’s King County voted to expel the Seattle Police Officers Guild because of its failure to do just that.
These calls to chuck out the police are not new, but they have grown louder and more insistent. A number of rank-and-file groups have started organizing around the issue, from No Cop Unions, which includes labor activists and members from over a dozen unions, to union-specific groups like Cop-Free AFSCME, SEIU Drop the Cops, and IATSE Members for Racial Justice. But so far, the appeals to drop the cops have been brushed aside by labor leaders, who are reluctant to take political chances in an election year and fear alienating members who disagree. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
But there can be no justice without sacrifice, and by taking the overdue step of pushing out law enforcement unions, labor will clear a path to the more fundamental missions of confronting racism within its ranks and rectifying mistakes. It is a daunting task but one that is necessary for the movement to evolve and show that it genuinely believes that Black lives matter. We cannot stand by and watch as our so-called union brothers continue to brutalize and extinguish working-class lives with impunity.
Given the dire peculiarities of our current moment, let us consider the question in medical terms. An infection, left untreated, will soon spread throughout the body. It will rot away the flesh, poison the blood, and when wholly unimpeded, eat its victim alive. Those who are weak and vulnerable will suffer the most. Sepsis will set in, then gangrene. By then, only one option remains: amputation. Excising the limb can prevent the infection from spreading further and allow the body time to heal. In this case, white supremacy is the pathogen, and the police are the diseased limb. In order to prevent even more harm, we must sever law enforcement from the broader labor movement.
Expelling police from our unions is not an immediate cure for racism within the labor movement, but it is a drastic intervention that will set a course for further treatment. It is imperative that labor address and eradicate the poison, from rank-and-file members up to the highest levels of leadership. In 2016 nearly 40 percent of union members voted for Donald Trump, including over 50 percent of white male members, but this problem is not a new one. Organized labor in this country has a long history of exclusion and discrimination against workers on grounds of gender, race, religion, and national origin. But it has also made great strides toward equality and justice, saved millions of lives, and uplifted the working class.
There is power in a union, and that power must be wielded carefully and judiciously. As an AFL-CIO general board statement noted, it would be “quick and easy to cut ties with police unions,” yet the federation has refused to do so. The board’s vision of “building a better labor movement from within” leaves out the Black workers, Indigenous workers, and other workers of color, who are disproportionately targeted, harmed, and killed by police, who are shielded by their unions.
It can be hard to do the right thing, but that is no reason not to do it. Unless we operate now, this deadly infection will only spread further. There is no other option. Which side are you on?
To read the other side of The Debate, read Bill Fletcher Jr.’s “The Labor Movement Isn’t Ready to Expel Police Unions.”


thenation--2020-10-26--The Election Isn’t Over Until Trump’s Gone

Donald Trump tells lots of lies .
But he lies most adventurously about elections .
Even when it was clear he had lost the popular vote by millions of ballots and won the Electoral College by a handful of razor-thin margins in battleground states , he claimed on November 27 , 2016 , that “ in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide , I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.
” Both statements were false .
But Trump was determined to control the narrative , and he has maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his supporters imagine him to be far more popular than polls have ever suggested .
So what are the chances that an embattled and desperate Trump will try to control the narrative when the results of the 2020 election begin to trickle in ?
What are the chances that he will cry fraud when none exists ?
What are the chances that he will declare victory even if he ’ s losing ?
The answer to those questions came on August 17 of this year in Oshkosh , Wis. , where he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged .
Remember that .
It ’ s the only way we ’ re going to lose this election.
” He knows this is not true .
Yet he has already proved he will seize every opening to foster the chaos , confusion , and legal malfeasance that might allow him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat .
Like John ’ s writing ?
You ’ ll love him in conversation .
Check out John Nichols and an extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ festival , Nov. 18-21 Don ’ t think it can happen ?
It already has .
In 2000 , during the fight over who would win Florida ’ s electoral votes , George W. Bush and his Republican lieutenants fostered the illusion that he was a winner-in-waiting in the days following a too-close-to-call election .
He formally declared victory on November 26 of that year—at a point when Democrats were legitimately contesting the results .
Twelve days later , Florida ’ s Supreme Court ordered a manual recount that might have confirmed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been upended the next day by a Bush-friendly majority on the US Supreme Court .
Even though avenues existed for fighting on , Karl Rove and the Bush team were so successful in conjuring fantasies of Bush ’ s inevitability and legitimacy that Gore conceded in what looked like a hostage video .
Trump may not be interested in history , but rest assured that he and his aides are well aware of the maneuvers that gave Bush the presidency .
The real issue in 2020 is whether the Democrats will give Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 3 and what comes after .
Dianne Feinstein Demonstrates Why Democratic Challenges to Democratic Incumbents Are Necessary We Need Joe Biden to Deliver the Knockout Trump Deserves Tonight Iowa Could Make Joe Biden President , and Give Him a Democratic Senate to Work With To address it , let ’ s deal in something the president eschews : facts .
November 3 is just a way station on the circuitous route to choosing the next president .
December 14 , 2020 , is the day the Electoral College votes .
On January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress counts the electoral votes , and—if there are no objections—the winners of the presidency and vice presidency are formally announced .
If Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris prevail and if Vice President Mike Pence , as the president of the Senate , announces the name of Trump ’ s successor on that day , the pieces will be in place for the peaceful transfer of power on January 20 .
But the vagaries of the Constitution and the statutes that extend from it leave enormous openings for what is insufficiently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s history suggests that he will respect norms that do not benefit him .
This has led to widespread speculation about the lengths to which he might go to keep the presidency .
Trump has clearly signaled one of the routes he ’ ll take , starting with objecting to voting by mail .
On September 17 he tweeted , “ Because of the new and unprecedented massive amount of unsolicited ballots which will be sent to ‘ voters ’ , or wherever , this year , the Nov 3rd Election result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what some want.
” Wrong .
The result will be determined , though maybe not on a normal timeline .
This is where the question of who controls the narrative before and after Election Day becomes vital .
Fifty-eight percent of likely voters plan to vote early or by mail .
In the roughly 20 states that allow ballots postmarked on or around November 3 to be counted if they arrive after Election Day—including battleground states such as Iowa , Minnesota , Nevada , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known for a week or more .
Even with recounts of close states , that ’ s plenty of time to meet the Electoral College deadline .
Unfortunately , it ’ s also plenty of time for Trump to engage in bad-faith maneuvers throwing a divided country into chaos .
How ?
Democrats are more enthused about voting by mail than Republicans .
For instance , in Wisconsin a Marquette University Law School poll in August found that , of people who said they ’ ll vote by mail , 81 percent supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among those who planned to vote in person on Election Day , 67 percent supported Trump , versus 26 percent for Biden .
But initial returns from battleground states will highlight the sentiments of in-person voters , because many mail ballots arrive after Election Day and ones that arrive before then aren ’ t counted until later .
The fact that in-person votes will shape early results creates the prospect , according to the data and technology firm Hawkfish , that a “ red mirage ” could emerge on election night .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump could lead nationally and in critical battleground states .
“ We can anticipate that the president and at least Fox News , likely , but many others , are going to declare victory at that point , ” Ellen Konar , Hawkfish ’ s vice president of voter research , told USA Today .
“ They ’ re not going to say , ‘ Oh , let ’ s hold off .
We don ’ t have all the ballots in.
’ ” In one Hawkfish scenario , Trump could enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election night—with under 20 percent of the votes counted—only to see Biden win 334-204 .
If the final margin ’ s that wide , Trump ’ s gambit may simply embarrass the president and his gullible supporters .
But what if it ’ s closer ?
What if key states require arduous recounts ?
Then Trump ’ s lies get traction .
Trump could claim headlines , dominate social media , and deliver his victory speech at the start of a process that is destined to turn against him .
In so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a false impression .
He would open space for the same Republican legal teams that worked to make it hard to vote before the election to make it hard to count votes after the election .
With objections to nonexistent voter fraud , he could give allies encouragement to disrupt and discredit the ongoing count .
“ This is what sets up a potential disaster , ” tweeted David Axelrod , who ran Barack Obama ’ s presidential campaigns .
With Election Day voting favoring Trump and mail-in voting favoring Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the count turns against him.
” This is where Republican legislatures and conservative courts could advance Trump ’ s agenda .
The Constitution reads , “ Each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors.
” It ’ s been accepted since the 19th century that voters appoint electors on Election Day .
But that ’ s not always required .
During the Bush v. Gore imbroglio , Republican leaders in the Florida legislature entertained the prospect of short-circuiting the long recount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It didn ’ t come to that in 2000 because the high court closed the deal .
But anyone who doubts that Trump might provoke a constitutional crisis—and all the chaos associated with it , including an Electoral College breakdown that might steer the fight into the halls of Congress—has not been paying attention to this president or to Attorney General Bill Barr .
Is the Trumpocalypse inevitable ?
Not necessarily .
If voters deliver a decisive message , the “ red mirage ” might never appear .
Further , if Democrats flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hands , many possible scenarios after January 3 could be decided by a Congress that is constitutionally empowered to put an end to Trump ’ s nonsense .
If the results are slower to emerge , Biden and the Democrats must grab the narrative from Trump .
That ’ s where Gore failed in 2000 .
He imagined that the courts and the media would do the heavy lifting .
But the Supreme Court was a lost cause in December 2000 , and it will be more of a lost cause in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play hardball before Election Day , with a clear message that the best way to avoid chaos is a decisive result in the presidential and Senate races .
Their campaign and the Democratic Party must defend the count at every turn—placing a greater emphasis on election security than ever before , working with state and local officials to keep the system running , and having lawyers and money at the ready if and when it breaks down .
Above all , Biden must forge the narrative , on every platform and with fierce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic posed by any and every assault Trump will launch on the vote .
No concessions .
No compromises .
No punches pulled .
No rest until January 20 .

This article appears in the November 2/9, 2020 issue.
Donald Trump tells lots of lies. But he lies most adventurously about elections. Even when it was clear he had lost the popular vote by millions of ballots and won the Electoral College by a handful of razor-thin margins in battleground states, he claimed on November 27, 2016, that “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Both statements were false. But Trump was determined to control the narrative, and he has maintained that determination to such an extent that his supporters imagine him to be far more popular than polls have ever suggested. Like John’s writing? You’ll love him in conversation. Check out John Nichols and an extraordinary group of speakers at the first-ever Nation festival, Nov. 18-21
So what are the chances that an embattled and desperate Trump will try to control the narrative when the results of the 2020 election begin to trickle in? What are the chances that he will cry fraud when none exists? What are the chances that he will declare victory even if he’s losing? The answer to those questions came on August 17 of this year in Oshkosh, Wis., where he told supporters, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election.” He knows this is not true. Yet he has already proved he will seize every opening to foster the chaos, confusion, and legal malfeasance that might allow him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Don’t think it can happen? It already has. In 2000, during the fight over who would win Florida’s electoral votes, George W. Bush and his Republican lieutenants fostered the illusion that he was a winner-in-waiting in the days following a too-close-to-call election. He formally declared victory on November 26 of that year—at a point when Democrats were legitimately contesting the results. Twelve days later, Florida’s Supreme Court ordered a manual recount that might have confirmed an Al Gore victory if it had not been upended the next day by a Bush-friendly majority on the US Supreme Court. Even though avenues existed for fighting on, Karl Rove and the Bush team were so successful in conjuring fantasies of Bush’s inevitability and legitimacy that Gore conceded in what looked like a hostage video.
Trump may not be interested in history, but rest assured that he and his aides are well aware of the maneuvers that gave Bush the presidency. The real issue in 2020 is whether the Democrats will give Trump the space to dictate the story of November 3 and what comes after. 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
To address it, let’s deal in something the president eschews: facts.
November 3 is just a way station on the circuitous route to choosing the next president. December 14, 2020, is the day the Electoral College votes. On January 6, 2021, a joint session of Congress counts the electoral votes, and—if there are no objections—the winners of the presidency and vice presidency are formally announced. If Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris prevail and if Vice President Mike Pence, as the president of the Senate, announces the name of Trump’s successor on that day, the pieces will be in place for the peaceful transfer of power on January 20. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
But the vagaries of the Constitution and the statutes that extend from it leave enormous openings for what is insufficiently described as mischief. Nothing in Trump’s history suggests that he will respect norms that do not benefit him. This has led to widespread speculation about the lengths to which he might go to keep the presidency.
Trump has clearly signaled one of the routes he’ll take, starting with objecting to voting by mail. On September 17 he tweeted, “Because of the new and unprecedented massive amount of unsolicited ballots which will be sent to ‘voters’, or wherever, this year, the Nov 3rd Election result may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED, which is what some want.” Wrong. The result will be determined, though maybe not on a normal timeline. This is where the question of who controls the narrative before and after Election Day becomes vital. Current Issue View our current issue
Fifty-eight percent of likely voters plan to vote early or by mail. In the roughly 20 states that allow ballots postmarked on or around November 3 to be counted if they arrive after Election Day—including battleground states such as Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and perhaps Wisconsin—results may not be known for a week or more.
Even with recounts of close states, that’s plenty of time to meet the Electoral College deadline. Unfortunately, it’s also plenty of time for Trump to engage in bad-faith maneuvers throwing a divided country into chaos. How? Democrats are more enthused about voting by mail than Republicans. For instance, in Wisconsin a Marquette University Law School poll in August found that, of people who said they’ll vote by mail, 81 percent supported Biden and 14 percent favored Trump. Among those who planned to vote in person on Election Day, 67 percent supported Trump, versus 26 percent for Biden. But initial returns from battleground states will highlight the sentiments of in-person voters, because many mail ballots arrive after Election Day and ones that arrive before then aren’t counted until later.
The fact that in-person votes will shape early results creates the prospect, according to the data and technology firm Hawkfish, that a “red mirage” could emerge on election night. At a point when most ballots remain uncounted, Trump could lead nationally and in critical battleground states. “We can anticipate that the president and at least Fox News, likely, but many others, are going to declare victory at that point,” Ellen Konar, Hawkfish’s vice president of voter research, told USA Today. “They’re not going to say, ‘Oh, let’s hold off. We don’t have all the ballots in.’”
In one Hawkfish scenario, Trump could enjoy a projected Electoral College count of 408-130 on election night—with under 20 percent of the votes counted—only to see Biden win 334-204. If the final margin’s that wide, Trump’s gambit may simply embarrass the president and his gullible supporters. But what if it’s closer? What if key states require arduous recounts? Then Trump’s lies get traction.
Trump could claim headlines, dominate social media, and deliver his victory speech at the start of a process that is destined to turn against him. In so doing, he wouldn’t just create a false impression. He would open space for the same Republican legal teams that worked to make it hard to vote before the election to make it hard to count votes after the election. With objections to nonexistent voter fraud, he could give allies encouragement to disrupt and discredit the ongoing count. “This is what sets up a potential disaster,” tweeted David Axelrod, who ran Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. With Election Day voting favoring Trump and mail-in voting favoring Biden, we could see “Trump claiming fraud as the count turns against him.”
This is where Republican legislatures and conservative courts could advance Trump’s agenda. The Constitution reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” It’s been accepted since the 19th century that voters appoint electors on Election Day. But that’s not always required. During the Bush v. Gore imbroglio, Republican leaders in the Florida legislature entertained the prospect of short-circuiting the long recount process and simply naming pro-Bush electors. It didn’t come to that in 2000 because the high court closed the deal. But anyone who doubts that Trump might provoke a constitutional crisis—and all the chaos associated with it, including an Electoral College breakdown that might steer the fight into the halls of Congress—has not been paying attention to this president or to Attorney General Bill Barr. The Long Haul Get Ready for Election Month 2020 Joan Walsh
Is the Trumpocalypse inevitable? Not necessarily. If voters deliver a decisive message, the “red mirage” might never appear. Further, if Democrats flip the Senate out of Mitch McConnell’s hands, many possible scenarios after January 3 could be decided by a Congress that is constitutionally empowered to put an end to Trump’s nonsense.
If the results are slower to emerge, Biden and the Democrats must grab the narrative from Trump. That’s where Gore failed in 2000. He imagined that the courts and the media would do the heavy lifting. But the Supreme Court was a lost cause in December 2000, and it will be more of a lost cause in December 2020.
Biden and Harris must play hardball before Election Day, with a clear message that the best way to avoid chaos is a decisive result in the presidential and Senate races. Their campaign and the Democratic Party must defend the count at every turn—placing a greater emphasis on election security than ever before, working with state and local officials to keep the system running, and having lawyers and money at the ready if and when it breaks down. Above all, Biden must forge the narrative, on every platform and with fierce urgency, about the danger to the republic posed by any and every assault Trump will launch on the vote. No concessions. No compromises. No punches pulled. No rest until January 20.


thenation--2020-10-27--Republicans Have Confirmed Amy Coney Barrett—and Officially Captured the Supreme Court

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed this evening as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court .
Her confirmation to a lifetime appointment comes just eight days before an election that could cast out the man who nominated her and many of the people who confirmed her .
Barrett is just 48 .
Assuming she receives excellent socialized medicine—the kind to which she ’ s entitled as a federal employee and which she will soon take away from other Americans—she can be expected to wield power well into her 80s .
Donald Trump has now appointed as many Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wives .
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell highlighted the generation-shaping effect this will have on the country .
After the Republicans broke the Democrats ’ last , desperate filibuster on Sunday , McConnell said , “ A lot of what we ’ ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election .
They won ’ t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.
” McConnell ’ s statement is an amazing admission of guilt .
In two sentences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party has made with Trump : Trump gets to wreck the country and ruin the Republican brand , potentially throwing the upcoming election to the Democrats , but McConnell and Co. get archconservative justices who will spend the next 30 to 40 years thwarting the liberal agenda and the will of a majority of the people .
That deal works for McConnell because he believes he ’ s made elections unnecessary to the furtherance of the Republican political agenda .
He means to use the courts to do that work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they win the election that McConnell has evidently already given up on , is whether they ’ re willing to prove McConnell wrong .
McConnell ’ s strategy makes sense only if Democrats are too weak and fractured to do what is necessary to take back the Supreme Court should they win the current election .
He is clearly betting they are .
He is betting that the Democrats will spend all their time in power making cosmetic changes through popular legislation , without challenging the structure McConnell has fundamentally altered .
Essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a room with some paint cans and assumes Democrats will spend all their time trying to pick a color instead of trying to break the lock .
Democrats could break out of the bind he ’ s put them in .
As I ’ ve written before ( and before and before ) , Democrats could counter the corruption and damage done during McConnell ’ s reign by expanding the court and instituting reforms to make confirmation battles less political .
By adding 10 or 20 justices , a smart court-expansion plan would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depoliticize the fight over their successors when they die .
Democrats could then pass ethics reforms—reforms that would be judged constitutional by the new , expanded court—which could mandate the recusal of , say , a judge appointed in an election year from cases involving that election .
And an expanded court would secure Democratic legislation to protect voting rights , making it unlikely that a Republican Party that speaks only to a white-supremacist base would ever control all of government again .
McConnell ’ s “ success ” at blocking Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s could go down in history as the inciting event for much-needed court reform , in much the same way that the 1857 Dred Scott decision was not the final victory for slavers but rather the last straw for abolitionists .
But instead of fighting Republicans for institutional control of the courts , establishment and elitist forces are already trying to make their peace with what McConnell has done .
Joe Biden has announced that he will establish a commission to study court reform—with a “ bipartisan group of constitutional scholars.
” One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor Noah Feldman , thinks a 6-3 Republican court should be maintained .
I can not explain the elite and establishment resistance to court reform from Democrats without noticing that the people most reluctant to fix things tend to be cis-hetero white men .
The issues on the chopping block in front of a 6-3 Republican court tend to be issues that do not directly affect the rights and dignity of these white men .
These men will continue to be able to marry whom they want to .
They will retain their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote and won ’ t have to wait all that long to do so .
They will not be executed after receiving ineffective counsel .
They will not be sent back to “ where they came from.
” Their children will not be kidnapped and thrown into a cage .
Whenever you hear a white guy , be he a constitutional “ scholar ” or otherwise , telling you that we don ’ t need to reform the courts , what you should hear is : “ It is what it is.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rights and liberties of other people between the lines of their platitudes about institutional respect and civility .
Why in the dhell would I care that the Supreme Court be maintained as a “ legitimate ” institution when that institution has been set against the very idea that my vote should matter and my life should have value ?
There is little McConnell ( should he survive his zombie affliction ) and the Republicans can do in 2024 or 2028 that is worse than what they ’ ve already done from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate ) through today .
Sure , I suppose things can always get worse , but you ’ d have to be white not to see how bad things are now .
Court reform is not “ popular ” right now , according to the polls .
I ’ d argue that is because most Democrats haven ’ t actually attempted to explain it to the American people , while those who have tend to center the argument on fellow cis-hetero white guys who stand to lose the least from a Republican-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way that focuses on reform and not mere vengeance , if anybody is interested .
If Biden ’ s commission wants to explain why this kind of court reform is necessary , as opposed to normalizing permanent Republican control of the courts , there is a lot of work it could do .
More from The Nation Can Georgia ’ s Jon Ossoff Finish the Job This November ?
But even if I ’ m wrong , even if Biden ’ s commission can ’ t change people ’ s minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to recognize that Republicans never even try to win hearts and minds for their Supreme Court machinations .
When Republicans have power , they use it , polls be damned .
Polls wanted to give Merrick Garland a hearing , but McConnell refused anyway .
Polls ran counter to the confirmation of alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh , but McConnell did it anyway .
Polls opposed replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election , but , once again , McConnell did it anyway .
When it comes to conjuring an antidemocratic Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
McConnell doesn ’ t think Democrats have the stomach for all that .
Again , his actions—sacrificing the presidency and possibly even the Senate to seat Barrett—make sense only if he believes that Democrats are weak and will act weak even when they have power .
Democrats must call his bluff .
They must punch the bully in the face .
Otherwise , they ’ re going to spend the next generation being stuffed into a locker by Republicans on the Supreme Court .
The only way to make Republicans stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ ll never respect us if we don ’ t .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed this evening as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. Her confirmation to a lifetime appointment comes just eight days before an election that could cast out the man who nominated her and many of the people who confirmed her. Barrett is just 48. Assuming she receives excellent socialized medicine—the kind to which she’s entitled as a federal employee and which she will soon take away from other Americans—she can be expected to wield power well into her 80s.1
Donald Trump has now appointed as many Supreme Court justices as he’s had wives. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell highlighted the generation-shaping effect this will have on the country. After the Republicans broke the Democrats’ last, desperate filibuster on Sunday, McConnell said, “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”2
McConnell’s statement is an amazing admission of guilt. In two sentences, he explained the entire Faustian bargain the Republican Party has made with Trump: Trump gets to wreck the country and ruin the Republican brand, potentially throwing the upcoming election to the Democrats, but McConnell and Co. get archconservative justices who will spend the next 30 to 40 years thwarting the liberal agenda and the will of a majority of the people. That deal works for McConnell because he believes he’s made elections unnecessary to the furtherance of the Republican political agenda. He means to use the courts to do that work.3
The only question left for Democrats, should they win the election that McConnell has evidently already given up on, is whether they’re willing to prove McConnell wrong. McConnell’s strategy makes sense only if Democrats are too weak and fractured to do what is necessary to take back the Supreme Court should they win the current election. He is clearly betting they are. He is betting that the Democrats will spend all their time in power making cosmetic changes through popular legislation, without challenging the structure McConnell has fundamentally altered. Essentially, McConnell has locked the Democrats in a room with some paint cans and assumes Democrats will spend all their time trying to pick a color instead of trying to break the lock.4
Democrats could break out of the bind he’s put them in. As I’ve written before (and before and before), Democrats could counter the corruption and damage done during McConnell’s reign by expanding the court and instituting reforms to make confirmation battles less political. By adding 10 or 20 justices, a smart court-expansion plan would make each individual justice less important and depoliticize the fight over their successors when they die. Democrats could then pass ethics reforms—reforms that would be judged constitutional by the new, expanded court—which could mandate the recusal of, say, a judge appointed in an election year from cases involving that election. And an expanded court would secure Democratic legislation to protect voting rights, making it unlikely that a Republican Party that speaks only to a white-supremacist base would ever control all of government again. McConnell’s “success” at blocking Barack Obama’s appointments and rushing Trump’s could go down in history as the inciting event for much-needed court reform, in much the same way that the 1857 Dred Scott decision was not the final victory for slavers but rather the last straw for abolitionists.5 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
But instead of fighting Republicans for institutional control of the courts, establishment and elitist forces are already trying to make their peace with what McConnell has done. Joe Biden has announced that he will establish a commission to study court reform—with a “bipartisan group of constitutional scholars.” One such high-profile constitutional scholar, Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, thinks a 6-3 Republican court should be maintained.6
I cannot explain the elite and establishment resistance to court reform from Democrats without noticing that the people most reluctant to fix things tend to be cis-hetero white men. The issues on the chopping block in front of a 6-3 Republican court tend to be issues that do not directly affect the rights and dignity of these white men. These men will continue to be able to marry whom they want to. They will retain their reproductive rights. They will be allowed to vote and won’t have to wait all that long to do so. They will not be executed after receiving ineffective counsel. They will not be sent back to “where they came from.” Their children will not be kidnapped and thrown into a cage.7
Whenever you hear a white guy, be he a constitutional “scholar” or otherwise, telling you that we don’t need to reform the courts, what you should hear is: “It is what it is.” You should read their callous disregard for the rights and liberties of other people between the lines of their platitudes about institutional respect and civility. Why in the hell would I care that the Supreme Court be maintained as a “legitimate” institution when that institution has been set against the very idea that my vote should matter and my life should have value? There is little McConnell (should he survive his zombie affliction) and the Republicans can do in 2024 or 2028 that is worse than what they’ve already done from 2014 (when McConnell took control of the Senate) through today. Sure, I suppose things can always get worse, but you’d have to be white not to see how bad things are now.8
Court reform is not “popular” right now, according to the polls. I’d argue that is because most Democrats haven’t actually attempted to explain it to the American people, while those who have tend to center the argument on fellow cis-hetero white guys who stand to lose the least from a Republican-controlled courts. I can explain court expansion in a way that focuses on reform and not mere vengeance, if anybody is interested. If Biden’s commission wants to explain why this kind of court reform is necessary, as opposed to normalizing permanent Republican control of the courts, there is a lot of work it could do.9 More from The Nation Can Georgia’s Jon Ossoff Finish the Job This November? Joan Walsh
But even if I’m wrong, even if Biden’s commission can’t change people’s minds about this issue, it’s important to recognize that Republicans never even try to win hearts and minds for their Supreme Court machinations. When Republicans have power, they use it, polls be damned. Polls wanted to give Merrick Garland a hearing, but McConnell refused anyway. Polls ran counter to the confirmation of alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, but McConnell did it anyway. Polls opposed replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election, but, once again, McConnell did it anyway. When it comes to conjuring an antidemocratic Supreme Court, McConnell does not care about democracy.10
McConnell doesn’t think Democrats have the stomach for all that. Again, his actions—sacrificing the presidency and possibly even the Senate to seat Barrett—make sense only if he believes that Democrats are weak and will act weak even when they have power.11
Democrats must call his bluff. They must punch the bully in the face. Otherwise, they’re going to spend the next generation being stuffed into a locker by Republicans on the Supreme Court. The only way to make Republicans stop is for Democrats to fight back. They’ll never respect us if we don’t.12


thenation--2020-10-26--A New Constitution: What the United States Can Learn From Chile

It is not often that a country gets to decide its destiny in one momentous election .
I am thinking , of course , of the United States .
But I am also thinking of the referendum in Chile , where , this past Sunday , the people of that country decided by a landslide—78.27 percent of those who voted—to give themselves a new Constitution and thereby drastically redefine the way they wished to be governed.1 Though a change in its founding document is not on the ballot in the United States , we should , here in America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that distant land at the end of the earth .
Heartened and inspired by the sight of ordinary people forcing a small ruling elite to accept , against all odds , the need for radical reforms , we would do well to learn some valuable lessons from that Chilean experience.2 Sunday ’ s victory in Chile did not come easily or swiftly.3 The Constitution that Chileans have just voted to supplant was installed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet in a fraudulent plebiscite in 1980 , seven years after a lethal coup overthrew the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pinochet ’ s Ley Fundamental—as it was called by those who drafted it—ostensibly established an itinerary for a transition to a restricted form of democracy , as there was to be another plebiscite in 1988 to ask citizens if they wished the general to remain in office for another eight ( endlessly renewable ) years .
In reality , that Constitution guaranteed that no matter who was in charge of the country , there would be no possibility of questioning the oppressive system that the dictator and his allies had built , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had been imposed on workers with unprecedented violence.4 Confronting the Pandemic in a Time of Revolt : Voices From Chile Why Chileans Are Protesting for a New Socioeconomic Order The Walls of Chile Speak of a Suppressed Rage Why Raising the Subway Fare Sparked Chile ’ s Biggest Crisis in Decades And in effect , when Pinochet lost that 1988 plebiscite and was forced to retire as president ( retaining control of the armed forces , of course ) , the Magna Carta he left behind acted as a straitjacket that for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key efforts to create a more just and equitable society .
The center-left coalition that has governed Chile for most of that period was able to negotiate a number of amendments to Pinochet ’ s fascist Constitution—and , significantly , lift a large section of the country ’ s destitute population out of poverty—but none of those amendments altered the ability of a minority of right-wing legislators to undermine any attempt to alter the way in which wealth and power were distributed .
And it was presumed that a populace traumatized by torture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and incessant censorship and persecution would not dare to rebel against such an immoral situation.5 And that is how things would still be today if a startling revolt had not exploded in mid-October of last year .
Sparked initially by groups of students jumping subway turnstiles to protest a small hike in the fares , it soon grew into a nationwide uprising by millions of Chileans who threatened to bring down President Sebastián Piñera ’ s conservative and unpopular government .
Though the demands were wide-ranging—for better salaries , health care , education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water ; for Indigenous , LGBTQ and women ’ s rights ; for reforms to the miserable pension plans and the untrammeled ferocity with which the police operated—the one issue that united all those who had taken over the streets was the urgent need to get rid of Pinochet ’ s Constitution and its stranglehold on Chilean society.6 Alarmed at what such an upheaval might unleash , right-wing leaders who had till then adamantly vetoed any changes to the status quo made up their mind to decompress the situation and avert a full-scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which voters would decide if they wanted a new Constitution , either choosing Apruebo ( approval ) or Rechazo ( rejection ) .7 Many of those hard-core Pinochetistas believed they would be able , as time went by , to derail that referendum .
They insisted that the current Congress was perfectly capable , with much less effort and cost , of instituting some of the most salient transformations being called for .
They used the pandemic to claim that it was too dangerous to carry out an election in those conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about opening malls ! )
.
And when that delaying tactic failed , they ran a vicious campaign of terror against “ socialism , ” warning that those in favor of a new Magna Carta were extremists intent on turning Chile into Venezuela.8 The people repudiated them .
The right-wing proponents of the Rechazo option have garnered a scant 21.73 percent of the vote .
It is true that several major figures on the right , sensing where the wind was blowing , came out in favor of a new Constitution , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era is finally over.9 As a native of Chile , I had planned to fly to Santiago with my wife to participate in this historic event , but we were unable to do so because of the perils posed by Covid-19 .
I would have liked to witness the rebirth of a nation that seemed to have died when the coup destroyed our democracy all those decades ago .
I was 28 years old when Salvador Allende became president , and such a fervent enthusiast that , three years later , when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ La Moneda , the building where he died , and was only saved from sharing his fate by a chain of incredible circumstances .
Along with so many who believed in Allende ’ s dreams of a liberated Chile , I have spent most of my life since then hoping for a moment when those dreams of his would be echoed by future generations .
That has now come to pass .
The road to justice has been opened and , by the middle of 2022 , Chileans will be governed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vast majority.10 If I was unable to travel to Chile to celebrate this triumph of memory and courage over silence and death , I have been struck , as I celebrated this redemptive process from afar , by its significance for the United States , a country where I am also a citizen.11 Indeed , along with my fellow countrymen and women , I am voting under a Constitution that severely curtails the will of the people .
It is a travesty that we must choose our next president through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Electoral College that does not reflect the preference of the majority .
And it is just as much a scandal that we have a profoundly undemocratic Senate , where small states like Rhode Island or Wyoming carry as much weight as gigantic California or Texas .
This is the legislative body that is responsible for approving Supreme Court justices , who have disenfranchised large sections of the population and allowed corporations to influence electoral outcomes with an endless flow of unaccountable dollars .
It is a Constitution , as Alex Keyssar has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do We Still Have the Electoral College ?
, that is tainted by the compromise reached by the founders with Southern slave owners and has remained a staunch bulwark of minority , white-supremacist interests .
It is a Constitution that has been unable to stop a psychopathic , serially mendacious demagogue like Trump from storming the executive office and trashing democracy , its norms , its institutions , its supposedly irreversible restraints of checks and balances .
It has established a shameful system where profits matter more than people , where discrimination and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich can accumulate more wealth than the rest of the country combined.12 There are , of course , many splendid features enshrined in that Constitution .
Its defenders , including many who notice its limitations , point to the ways in which it has often served to expand freedom , maintain stability , and ensure prosperity , and therefore deem it possible to overcome the glaring inadequacies of that 18th century document with more amendments and stopgap remedies , such as abolishing the Electoral College , introducing radical changes to the justice system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , giving statehood to Puerto Rico and senatorial representation to Washington , D.C.13 For my part , I wonder if the current crisis of authority , the sense that the United States has fallen into disarray and madness , could not open the door to a more drastic solution .
Would it not make more sense to engage in a process like the one that Chile has just gone through , where the people have taken upon themselves the right and obligation to determine the fundamental tenets and principles of the system and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we not at least start to envisage the possibility of calling for a constitutional convention as a way of addressing the failure of our country to live up to its promise of a more perfect union ?
Do the problems that beset us , so similar to those that plague our Chilean brothers and sisters—the systemic racism , the police brutality , the ecological disasters , the offensive disparity of income , the increased polarization of our public—not cry out for a radical reimagining of who we are ?
Has not the pestilence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprepared for the challenges ahead ?
14 It could be argued that the economic , political , and historical conditions in Chile and the United States are so different that any comparison between the two is pointless .
The US Constitution , for all its shortcomings , did not originate in a fraud like the one perpetrated by General Pinochet .
And it is unlikely that enough citizens in the 50 states are so dissatisfied with their lot that they would be willing to undergo the sort of intense reexamination of their identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I do not doubt , in fact , that most Americans , fearful of disruption , terrified that their country might crumble under yet more divisiveness , would prefer that alterations to their fundamental laws and institutions be carried out , if at all , by their elected representatives.15 That was precisely how Chileans were told change would happen.16 What they finally decided , after 30 years of waiting and increasing despair , was to use their extraordinary power as a mobilized people to demand action .
What they understood is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily existence , even if they had no say in shaping it .
The only way that it could cease to be an abstract , faraway document , unrepresentative and unresponsive to their concerns— the only way it could fully belong to them—was to fight for it , risk having their bodies bruised and their eyes blinded by police pellets , risk their jobs and their tranquility to create an order that they could recognize as their own and not imposed from above .
What has been most amazing about the year since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place—and what will be yet more amazing in the year and a half ahead—is the vast educational value of discussing and gauging , measuring and weighing , the pros and cons of all manner of questions that are so often left to a select group of remote experts .
The process itself of a joyful , collective reckoning with the past anticipating the sort of country that is envisioned transforms and makes better those who are part of that communal exploration .
17 It is a process that , once begun , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes for the American people to move in that direction—and the protests of the last months and the tradition of struggle for peace and justice that has always been beating in the epic heart of Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s country gives me hope that it will be sooner rather than later—there is one message from Chile that should always be borne in mind.19 My family in Santiago sent me a photo of some words a young man had scribbled on a placard that he was parading around the city on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went out to demand it and the country did not crumble.22 Or , as Salvador Allende—so alive today !
—said , just minutes before dying in defense of democracy and dignity : The future is ours and it is made by the people.23

It is not often that a country gets to decide its destiny in one momentous election. I am thinking, of course, of the United States. But I am also thinking of the referendum in Chile, where, this past Sunday, the people of that country decided by a landslide—78.27 percent of those who voted—to give themselves a new Constitution and thereby drastically redefine the way they wished to be governed.1
Though a change in its founding document is not on the ballot in the United States, we should, here in America, pay close attention to what just happened in that distant land at the end of the earth. Heartened and inspired by the sight of ordinary people forcing a small ruling elite to accept, against all odds, the need for radical reforms, we would do well to learn some valuable lessons from that Chilean experience.2
Sunday’s victory in Chile did not come easily or swiftly.3
The Constitution that Chileans have just voted to supplant was installed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet in a fraudulent plebiscite in 1980, seven years after a lethal coup overthrew the democratically elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende. Pinochet’s Ley Fundamental—as it was called by those who drafted it—ostensibly established an itinerary for a transition to a restricted form of democracy, as there was to be another plebiscite in 1988 to ask citizens if they wished the general to remain in office for another eight (endlessly renewable) years. In reality, that Constitution guaranteed that no matter who was in charge of the country, there would be no possibility of questioning the oppressive system that the dictator and his allies had built, particularly the neoliberal economic model of exploitation that had been imposed on workers with unprecedented violence.4 More on Chile Confronting the Pandemic in a Time of Revolt: Voices From Chile Ariel Dorfman Why Chileans Are Protesting for a New Socioeconomic Order Peter Kornbluh The Walls of Chile Speak of a Suppressed Rage Terri Gordon-Zolov and Eric Zolov Why Raising the Subway Fare Sparked Chile’s Biggest Crisis in Decades Francisca Skoknic
And in effect, when Pinochet lost that 1988 plebiscite and was forced to retire as president (retaining control of the armed forces, of course), the Magna Carta he left behind acted as a straitjacket that for the next 30 years, blocked all key efforts to create a more just and equitable society. The center-left coalition that has governed Chile for most of that period was able to negotiate a number of amendments to Pinochet’s fascist Constitution—and, significantly, lift a large section of the country’s destitute population out of poverty—but none of those amendments altered the ability of a minority of right-wing legislators to undermine any attempt to alter the way in which wealth and power were distributed. And it was presumed that a populace traumatized by torture, executions, disappearances, exile, and incessant censorship and persecution would not dare to rebel against such an immoral situation.5
And that is how things would still be today if a startling revolt had not exploded in mid-October of last year. Sparked initially by groups of students jumping subway turnstiles to protest a small hike in the fares, it soon grew into a nationwide uprising by millions of Chileans who threatened to bring down President Sebastián Piñera’s conservative and unpopular government. Though the demands were wide-ranging—for better salaries, health care, education, housing, environmental protection, clean water; for Indigenous, LGBTQ and women’s rights; for reforms to the miserable pension plans and the untrammeled ferocity with which the police operated—the one issue that united all those who had taken over the streets was the urgent need to get rid of Pinochet’s Constitution and its stranglehold on Chilean society.6
Alarmed at what such an upheaval might unleash, right-wing leaders who had till then adamantly vetoed any changes to the status quo made up their mind to decompress the situation and avert a full-scale revolution by agreeing to hold a referendum in which voters would decide if they wanted a new Constitution, either choosing Apruebo (approval) or Rechazo (rejection).7
Many of those hardcore Pinochetistas believed they would be able, as time went by, to derail that referendum. They insisted that the current Congress was perfectly capable, with much less effort and cost, of instituting some of the most salient transformations being called for. They used the pandemic to claim that it was too dangerous to carry out an election in those conditions (though they had no such qualms about opening malls!). And when that delaying tactic failed, they ran a vicious campaign of terror against “socialism,” warning that those in favor of a new Magna Carta were extremists intent on turning Chile into Venezuela.8
The people repudiated them. The right-wing proponents of the Rechazo option have garnered a scant 21.73 percent of the vote. It is true that several major figures on the right, sensing where the wind was blowing, came out in favor of a new Constitution, but the verdict is inescapable. The Pinochet era is finally over.9
As a native of Chile, I had planned to fly to Santiago with my wife to participate in this historic event, but we were unable to do so because of the perils posed by Covid-19. I would have liked to witness the rebirth of a nation that seemed to have died when the coup destroyed our democracy all those decades ago. I was 28 years old when Salvador Allende became president, and such a fervent enthusiast that three years later, when he was overthrown, I was working at La Moneda, the building where he died, and was saved from sharing his fate only by a chain of incredible circumstances. Along with so many who believed in Allende’s dreams of a liberated Chile, I have spent most of my life since then hoping for a moment when those dreams of his would be echoed by future generations. That has now come to pass. The road to justice has been opened and, by the middle of 2022, Chileans will be governed by a Constitution that embodies the wishes and needs of the vast majority.10
If I was unable to travel to Chile to celebrate this triumph of memory and courage over silence and death, I have been struck, as I celebrated this redemptive process from afar, by its significance for the United States, a country where I am also a citizen.11
Indeed, along with my fellow countrymen and women, I am voting under a Constitution that severely curtails the will of the people. It is a travesty that we must choose our next president through a seriously flawed and antiquated system, with an Electoral College that does not reflect the preference of the majority. And it is just as much a scandal that we have a profoundly undemocratic Senate, where small states like Rhode Island or Wyoming carry as much weight as gigantic California or Texas. This is the legislative body that is responsible for approving Supreme Court justices, who have disenfranchised large sections of the population and allowed corporations to influence electoral outcomes with an endless flow of unaccountable dollars. It is a Constitution, as Alex Keyssar has demonstrated in his remarkable book, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, that is tainted by the compromise reached by the founders with Southern slave owners and has remained a staunch bulwark of minority, white-supremacist interests. It is a Constitution that has been unable to stop a psychopathic, serially mendacious demagogue like Trump from storming the executive office and trashing democracy, its norms, its institutions, its supposedly irreversible restraints of checks and balances. It has established a shameful system where profits matter more than people, where discrimination and racism are rampant, where the very rich can accumulate more wealth than the rest of the country combined.12
There are, of course, many splendid features enshrined in that Constitution. Its defenders, including many who notice its limitations, point to the ways in which it has often served to expand freedom, maintain stability, and ensure prosperity, and therefore deem it possible to overcome the glaring inadequacies of that 18th century document with more amendments and stopgap remedies, such as abolishing the Electoral College, introducing radical changes to the justice system, passing legislation that guarantees voting rights, giving statehood to Puerto Rico and senatorial representation to Washington, D.C.13
For my part, I wonder if the current crisis of authority, the sense that the United States has fallen into disarray and madness, could not open the door to a more drastic solution. Would it not make more sense to engage in a process like the one that Chile has just gone through, where the people have taken upon themselves the right and obligation to determine the fundamental tenets and principles of the system and rules that govern their existence? Should we not at least start to envisage the possibility of calling for a constitutional convention as a way of addressing the failure of our country to live up to its promise of a more perfect union? Do the problems that beset us, so similar to those that plague our Chilean brothers and sisters—the systemic racism, the police brutality, the ecological disasters, the offensive disparity of income, the increased polarization of our public—not cry out for a radical reimagining of who we are? Has not the pestilence of Covid-19 revealed that we are woefully unprepared for the challenges ahead?14
It could be argued that the economic, political, and historical conditions in Chile and the United States are so different that any comparison between the two is pointless. The US Constitution, for all its shortcomings, did not originate in a fraud like the one perpetrated by General Pinochet. And it is unlikely that enough citizens in the 50 states are so dissatisfied with their lot that they would be willing to undergo the sort of intense reexamination of their identity that Chileans are about to embark upon. I do not doubt, in fact, that most Americans, fearful of disruption, terrified that their country might crumble under yet more divisiveness, would prefer that alterations to their fundamental laws and institutions be carried out, if at all, by their elected representatives.15
That was precisely how Chileans were told change would happen.16
What they finally decided, after 30 years of waiting and increasing despair, was to use their extraordinary power as a mobilized people to demand action. What they understood is that the Constitution affected every aspect of their daily existence, even if they had no say in shaping it. The only way that it could cease to be an abstract, faraway document, unrepresentative and unresponsive to their concerns— the only way it could fully belong to them—was to fight for it, risk having their bodies bruised and their eyes blinded by police pellets, risk their jobs and their tranquility to create an order that they could recognize as their own and not imposed from above. What has been most amazing about the year since insubordinate Chileans forced a referendum to take place—and what will be yet more amazing in the year and a half ahead—is the vast educational value of discussing and gauging, measuring and weighing, the pros and cons of all manner of questions that are so often left to a select group of remote experts. The process itself of a joyful, collective reckoning with the past anticipating the sort of country that is envisioned transforms and makes better those who are part of that communal exploration. 17
It is a process that, once begun, can be thrilling and emancipatory.18
However long it takes for the American people to move in that direction—and the protests of the last months and the tradition of struggle for peace and justice that has always been beating in the epic heart of Martin Luther King Jr.’s country gives me hope that it will be sooner rather than later—there is one message from Chile that should always be borne in mind.19
(Pedro Sánchez)
My family in Santiago sent me a photo of some words a young man had scribbled on a placard that he was parading around the city on his bike:20
“Lo impensable se volvió posible porque salimos a exigirlo y el país no se vino abajo.”21
The unthinkable became possible because we went out to demand it and the country did not crumble.22
Or, as Salvador Allende—so alive today!—said, just minutes before dying in defense of democracy and dignity: The future is ours and it is made by the people.23
La historia es nuestra y la hacen los pueblos.24


thenation--2020-10-26--What Amy Coney Barrett Means for the Future of Voting Rights

My grandparents grew up in Jim Crow Virginia .
Back then , Black folks like them faced poll taxes , literacy tests , and intimidation that kept them from exercising their right to vote .
The white ruling class successfully kept Black people from fully participating in the political process .
It was unthinkable that two generations later , their grandson , a 33-year-old openly gay , Black man , would be the Democratic nominee for Congress in the predominantly white , affluent suburbs of New York City .
But my grandparents ’ generation changed the course of history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ embarked on the project of realizing this country ’ s highest ideals .
They organized boycotts , sit-ins , and marches that made the plight of Black Americans impossible to ignore .
Confronted with indelible images of Black humanity and white oppression , the Supreme Court and Congress had no choice but to finally extend the civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution .
The passage of the Voting Rights Act was a hard-won victory decades in the making .
Blood was shed .
But in the end , my grandparents and millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and within a decade , elected Black candidates to public office at a rate not seen since the dawn of Reconstruction .
Nearly 60 years later , Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation threatens to return Black people to an era that our grandparents had reduced to memory .
Jim Crow will be reborn , unraveling democracy as we know it .
This is not hyperbole .
Barrett ’ s record as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit makes this clear .
In one decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting .
In her view , voting is not a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of this country ; it is a privilege that states can revoke when they see fit .
This harkens back to the “ morals ” tests southern states once deployed to disenfranchise Black voters .
In her contempt for Black voters , Barrett follows in the footsteps of her self-professed idol , the late Justice Antonin Scalia , for whom she clerked and of whom she has said , “ his judicial philosophy is mine.
” Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation as a “ perpetuation of racial entitlement.
” Asked in her recent confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she agreed with her former boss ’ characterization of civil rights legislation , Barrett refused to say .
Her testimony made clear that Barrett will complete the project Scalia started .
In 2013 , the Supreme Court killed off the core of the Voting Rights Act—the crown jewel of the civil rights movement—when it struck down a provision that allowed the federal government to intervene before Southern states made changes to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , with Amy Coney Barrett in the fold , the conservative majority will succeed in dealing the Voting Right Act a final , fatal blow by making it effectively impossible for disempowered voters who challenge discriminatory rules to prevail in court .
The fight for voting rights will be set back nearly a century , and the idea of a multiracial democracy will return to the realm of impossibility .
At a time when our democracy is hanging on by a thread , we can not afford to go backward .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect and expand a democracy that empowers all Americans .
A democracy where every vote matters—in presidential elections , because the contest won ’ t come down to a handful of swing states , and in congressional elections , because we ’ ll have ended the scourge of partisan gerrymandering .
Where people never have to worry about whether their friends and family are registered to vote , because everyone is registered automatically .
Where working people don ’ t have to worry about having their pay docked in order to head to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national holiday and voting by mail is universally available .
Democrats in Congress are prepared to realize that vision .
That ’ s why the current House of Representatives made fixing democracy its first order of business after the 116th Congress constituted in January 2019 by passing the For the People Act ( HR1 ) , which would bring about a transformative , wholesale restoration of our democracy .
The next Congress will once again honor its promise to the American people by passing HR1—and this time , if democracy prevails , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will sign it .
But the right-wing bloc on the Supreme Court , which has shown hostility to similar provisions passed at the state level , will almost certainly strike it down .
But we don ’ t have to accept that fate .
Congress can adjust the size of the court , and it has done so seven times before .
Like the right to vote , the practice of court expansion—which would save our ailing democracy—has deep roots in American history .
In his posthumous essay to the American people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a state .
It is an act.
” We must heed his words .
We must act—before Amy Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court do .
There is no other practical choice .
We must expand the court .
If we don ’ t , a return to the Jim Crow regime under which my grandparents and tens of millions of Black people suffered is inevitable .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
My grandparents grew up in Jim Crow Virginia. Back then, Black folks like them faced poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation that kept them from exercising their right to vote. The white ruling class successfully kept Black people from fully participating in the political process. It was unthinkable that two generations later, their grandson, a 33-year-old openly gay, Black man, would be the Democratic nominee for Congress in the predominantly white, affluent suburbs of New York City.
But my grandparents’ generation changed the course of history. Refusing to accept their station, they embarked on the project of realizing this country’s highest ideals. They organized boycotts, sit-ins, and marches that made the plight of Black Americans impossible to ignore. Confronted with indelible images of Black humanity and white oppression, the Supreme Court and Congress had no choice but to finally extend the civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
The passage of the Voting Rights Act was a hard-won victory decades in the making. Blood was shed. But in the end, my grandparents and millions of others secured their right to vote, and within a decade, elected Black candidates to public office at a rate not seen since the dawn of Reconstruction.
Nearly 60 years later, Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation threatens to return Black people to an era that our grandparents had reduced to memory. Jim Crow will be reborn, unraveling democracy as we know it. This is not hyperbole. Barrett’s record as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit makes this clear. In one decision, she supported “virtue-based restrictions” on voting. In her view, voting is not a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of this country; it is a privilege that states can revoke when they see fit. This harkens back to the “morals” tests Southern states once deployed to disenfranchise Black voters.
In her contempt for Black voters, Barrett follows in the footsteps of her self-professed idol, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked and of whom she has said, “his judicial philosophy is mine.” Scalia notoriously denounced America’s civil rights legislation as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Asked in her recent confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she agreed with her former boss’ characterization of civil rights legislation, Barrett refused to say. 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 Voting Rights The Enduring Wisdom of John Lewis Joan Walsh
Her testimony made clear that Barrett will complete the project Scalia started. In 2013, the Supreme Court killed off the core of the Voting Rights Act—the crown jewel of the civil rights movement—when it struck down a provision that allowed the federal government to intervene before Southern states made changes to their election laws that disenfranchised Black voters. Now, with Amy Coney Barrett in the fold, the conservative majority will succeed in dealing the Voting Right Act a final, fatal blow by making it effectively impossible for disempowered voters who challenge discriminatory rules to prevail in court. The fight for voting rights will be set back nearly a century, and the idea of a multiracial democracy will return to the realm of impossibility.
At a time when our democracy is hanging on by a thread, we cannot afford to go backward. This moment urges us to work harder to protect and expand a democracy that empowers all Americans. A democracy where every vote matters—in presidential elections, because the contest won’t come down to a handful of swing states, and in congressional elections, because we’ll have ended the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. Where people never have to worry about whether their friends and family are registered to vote, because everyone is registered automatically. Where working people don’t have to worry about having their pay docked in order to head to the polls, because Election Day is a national holiday and voting by mail is universally available. Current Issue View our current issue
Democrats in Congress are prepared to realize that vision. That’s why the current House of Representatives made fixing democracy its first order of business after the 116th Congress convened in January 2019 by passing the For the People Act (HR1), which would bring about a transformative, wholesale restoration of our democracy.
The next Congress will once again honor its promise to the American people by passing HR1—and this time, if democracy prevails, we’ll have a president who will sign it. But the right-wing bloc on the Supreme Court, which has shown hostility to similar provisions passed at the state level, will almost certainly strike it down.
But we don’t have to accept that fate. Congress can adjust the size of the court, and it has done so seven times before. Like the right to vote, the practice of court expansion—which would save our ailing democracy—has deep roots in American history.
In his posthumous essay to the American people, Representative John Lewis wrote, “Democracy is not a state. It is an act.”
We must heed his words. We must act—before Amy Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court do. There is no other practical choice. We must expand the court. If we don’t, a return to the Jim Crow regime under which my grandparents and tens of millions of Black people suffered is inevitable.