thenation--2020-07-22--Congress Isn’t Doing the Bare Minimum for Pandemic Relief

This week , Congress returns to Washington with about three weeks to negotiate and pass the next major pandemic rescue package .
It convenes amid the worst public health crisis in a century , the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression , and the largest protest movement in history .
What could go wrong ?
The gap is yawning between the partisan Senate Republican leaders , backing a delusional president , and the House Democrats , yet even the House bill falls short of what is needed .
With elections approaching , standard operating procedure would be to split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lard favors on special interests and deep-pocket lobbies , and get out of town .
But under present conditions , failure to deal with the essentials will cost lives as the pandemic spreads and the economy plummets .
Bold intervention is imperative .
The pandemic is spiking once more , setting records for new cases daily .
Arizona alone has reported more cases than the entire European Union , which has 60 times the population .
States across the country are once more running short of testing capacity , hospital beds , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million have lost health insurance in the economic fallout .
The economic rebound has stalled , yet enhanced unemployment insurance benefits are slated to end on July 25 , with over 30 million Americans still drawing unemployment .
Eviction and foreclosure moratoriums are nearing their end , with some 20 million renters in danger of eviction by the end of September .
States and localities are beginning layoffs—1.5 million to date—in the face of crippling budget crises .
America ’ s communities continue to be roiled by the largest demonstrations in history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesting for Black lives , even as Blacks and Latinos are three times more likely to become infected as their white neighbors and two times more likely to die from the pandemic .
Democrats in the House passed their version of the rescue package—the HEROES bill—two months ago .
It went nowhere , because Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell dismissed it as “ aspirational , ” regally announcing that he had not “ yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.
” Trump and McConnell ’ s initial plan gives new meaning to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president has declared victory over the pandemic , announcing that it is time to open up the economy .
Leaving cities and states desperate for resources forces them to rush the reopening .
The expiration of unemployment benefits gives workers little choice but to take any job available .
Workers who refuse face cutoffs of their benefits .
The administration has offered no national safety standards for reopening , and has gutted the enforcement capacities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) , the agency in charge of workplace health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dangers of reopening , McConnell promises to provide immunity from lawsuits by workers or consumers who get infected because of their negligence—his one “ red line ” for the next rescue package .
The brutal class-based cynicism is apparent .
In the lockdown , the bulk of non-college-educated workers—disproportionately Black and Latino—were either nonessential and at risk of losing their jobs or “ essential , ” forced to work and at risk of infection .
In the “ opening up , ” essential workers began losing the hazard pay some received ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a job , however unsafe , or lose their unemployment benefits .
Virginia alone reported 12,000 cases of unemployment benefits being suspended for workers refusing to go back to work .
In contrast , managers and executives largely can work remotely , and are safeguarded from the loss of health and of wages both in the lockdown and in the opening .
Politically , Trump and McConnell assumed that businesses would reopen , job growth would take off—a “ rocket ship recovery , ” President Trump boasted—and Trump could peddle the momentum in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he told his supporters in Tulsa , “ we will have the single greatest economic year we ’ ve ever had.
” Now the spiking number of cases has given lie to that strategy .
Even the chair of the Federal Reserve , Jerome Powell , warns that “ it would be a concern if Congress were to pull back from the support that it ’ s providing too quickly.
” The $ 3 trillion HEROES bill passed by the House addresses many of the most pressing needs : another check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefits , better paid sick leave provisions , hazard pay for some essential workers .
Importantly , it calls for $ 875 billion to be apportioned to states and localities to avoid debilitating cutbacks of basic public services .
Renters and homeowners would get assistance , while the federal moratorium on foreclosures and evictions would be extended .
It would rescue the Post Office from massive layoffs and provide states the resources needed to gear up for vote-by-mail elections .
Funds would be appropriated to bolster hospitals and provide resources for testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with creating temporary national standards for safe reopening in the pandemic .
Yet even the House bill is at a far remove from how a rational , advanced country would respond to this savage crisis .
After having decided to lock down the economy to suppress the pandemic , a rational course of action would enable businesses to pay their workers rather than forcing workers onto the unemployment rolls , along with the insecurity that comes with losing their jobs and their health insurance .
A sensible government would guarantee universal health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care for any treatment or testing related to the pandemic .
Universal paid sick leave would ensure that no one infected would feel forced to work to support his or her family .
Clear protective measures and safety standards would be defined—negotiated industry by industry in sectoral bargaining between workers and employers and enforced by elected workplace monitors in every workplace .
In exchange , businesses would be reimbursed for the cost of redesigning work and workplaces to make them safe .
The return to work would be coordinated with the opening of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mortgage and rent moratoriums would be extended .
Hazard pay would reward those “ essential workers ” forced to work .
Little of this has been put in place to protect American workers .
The House leadership rejected the push by progressives , led by Representative Pramila Jayapal , for a Paycheck Guarantee Act that would prevent mass layoffs and make it easier for businesses to reopen quickly .
Medicare for All and even Covid treatment for all were rejected .
Instead , the House bill rewards insurance companies by agreeing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their health care after being laid off .
This is directed through COBRA , a measure that doesn ’ t cover co-pays , deductibles , or premiums that the unemployed often find prohibitive .
With unions weakened , we don ’ t have sectoral bargaining or worker-management committees .
While the House bill calls for OSHA standards , there is no hint of effective health and safety enforcement .
There is no national testing regime , and inadequate testing capacities across the states .
Reopening of businesses hasn ’ t been coordinated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools .
As negotiations begin , Republicans are in disarray .
Trump insists on a payroll tax that even many Republican Senators oppose .
He ’ ll support another “ Trump check ” that he can sign in time for the fall campaign , but scorns aid to the states and localities .
He opposes rescue of the Post Office or funds to help states move to vote by mail , claiming the latter is somehow biased toward Democrats .
He is reportedly intent on tying any aid to schools to mandatory reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is exploding .
The administration also balks at Republican efforts to provide resources for expanded testing and for ramping up the Centers for Disease Control—presumably predicated on Trump ’ s lunatic theory that increased testing causes increased cases .
And of course , Trump continues to drive Republican efforts to have Obamacare overturned in the courts .
McConnell , more responsive to Republican senators at risk in the fall elections , will want to do something more .
Current speculation is that McConnell will seek Republican consensus on a smaller bill—about $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-time Trump check , possibly some extension of enhanced unemployment benefits at a much lower level , some aid to states and localities , and , of course , immunity for businesses from being held responsible by employees or consumers .
He ’ ll then negotiate with Pelosi , using the president ’ s veto threat to tilt the scale , while larding the bill with the routine outrageous gifts to special interests and powerful lobbies .
House progressives should organize to disrupt business as usual .
They could demand that the legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final bill to include what is necessary to sustain working people while the pandemic is being suppressed , what is needed for workers and consumers to be protected as the economy reopens , and what is required so Americans can vote in safety .
If 100 progressive members of Congress united on a set of demands , it would upend the expected course of negotiations .
It would surely strengthen House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s hand—and stiffen her spine .
It would pressure Republican senators who can ’ t afford to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear the stakes involved in what will otherwise be another opaque and smarmy Washington deal .
Progressives would have to be willing to keep Congress in session into the normal August recess .
What ’ s clear is that a tepid compromise won ’ t be adequate .
The administration has bungled both the initial effort to suppress the pandemic and the initial reopening of the economy .
Needless to say , the pandemic isn ’ t listening to Trump ’ s magical musings that it will simply disappear .
And the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safely go back to work .
Now is the real moment for “ the adults in the room.
” Progressives in the House are the only ones in sight .

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?
This week, Congress returns to Washington with about three weeks to negotiate and pass the next major pandemic rescue package. It convenes amid the worst public health crisis in a century, the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the largest protest movement in history. What could go wrong? The gap is yawning between the partisan Senate Republican leaders, backing a delusional president, and the House Democrats, yet even the House bill falls short of what is needed. With elections approaching, standard operating procedure would be to split the difference, use the occasion to lard favors on special interests and deep-pocket lobbies, and get out of town. But under present conditions, failure to deal with the essentials will cost lives as the pandemic spreads and the economy plummets.
Bold intervention is imperative. The pandemic is spiking once more, setting records for new cases daily. Arizona alone has reported more cases than the entire European Union, which has 60 times the population. States across the country are once more running short of testing capacity, hospital beds, and protective equipment, while an estimated 27 million have lost health insurance in the economic fallout. The economic rebound has stalled, yet enhanced unemployment insurance benefits are slated to end on July 25, with over 30 million Americans still drawing unemployment. Eviction and foreclosure moratoriums are nearing their end, with some 20 million renters in danger of eviction by the end of September. States and localities are beginning layoffs—1.5 million to date—in the face of crippling budget crises. America’s communities continue to be roiled by the largest demonstrations in history, with as many as 25 million Americans protesting for Black lives, even as Blacks and Latinos are three times more likely to become infected as their white neighbors and two times more likely to die from the pandemic.
Democrats in the House passed their version of the rescue package—the HEROES bill—two months ago. It went nowhere, because Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell dismissed it as “aspirational,” regally announcing that he had not “yet felt the urgency of acting immediately.”
Trump and McConnell’s initial plan gives new meaning to the phrase “dying to work.” The president has declared victory over the pandemic, announcing that it is time to open up the economy. Leaving cities and states desperate for resources forces them to rush the reopening. The expiration of unemployment benefits gives workers little choice but to take any job available. Workers who refuse face cutoffs of their benefits. The administration has offered no national safety standards for reopening, and has gutted the enforcement capacities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the agency in charge of workplace health and safety. To protect businesses from the dangers of reopening, McConnell promises to provide immunity from lawsuits by workers or consumers who get infected because of their negligence—his one “red line” for the next rescue package. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The brutal class-based cynicism is apparent. In the lockdown, the bulk of non-college-educated workers—disproportionately Black and Latino—were either nonessential and at risk of losing their jobs or “essential,” forced to work and at risk of infection. In the “opening up,” essential workers began losing the hazard pay some received; the nonessential would be forced to take a job, however unsafe, or lose their unemployment benefits. Virginia alone reported 12,000 cases of unemployment benefits being suspended for workers refusing to go back to work. In contrast, managers and executives largely can work remotely, and are safeguarded from the loss of health and of wages both in the lockdown and in the opening.
Politically, Trump and McConnell assumed that businesses would reopen, job growth would take off—a “rocket ship recovery,” President Trump boasted—and Trump could peddle the momentum in his reelection campaign. “Next year,” he told his supporters in Tulsa, “we will have the single greatest economic year we’ve ever had.”
Now the spiking number of cases has given lie to that strategy. Even the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, warns that “it would be a concern if Congress were to pull back from the support that it’s providing too quickly.” Current Issue View our current issue
The $3 trillion HEROES bill passed by the House addresses many of the most pressing needs: another check for every resident, extension of enhanced unemployment benefits, better paid sick leave provisions, hazard pay for some essential workers. Importantly, it calls for $875 billion to be apportioned to states and localities to avoid debilitating cutbacks of basic public services. Renters and homeowners would get assistance, while the federal moratorium on foreclosures and evictions would be extended. It would rescue the Post Office from massive layoffs and provide states the resources needed to gear up for vote-by-mail elections. Funds would be appropriated to bolster hospitals and provide resources for testing and protective materials. OSHA would be charged with creating temporary national standards for safe reopening in the pandemic.
Yet even the House bill is at a far remove from how a rational, advanced country would respond to this savage crisis. After having decided to lock down the economy to suppress the pandemic, a rational course of action would enable businesses to pay their workers rather than forcing workers onto the unemployment rolls, along with the insecurity that comes with losing their jobs and their health insurance. A sensible government would guarantee universal health care, or at least universal paid care for any treatment or testing related to the pandemic. Universal paid sick leave would ensure that no one infected would feel forced to work to support his or her family. Clear protective measures and safety standards would be defined—negotiated industry by industry in sectoral bargaining between workers and employers and enforced by elected workplace monitors in every workplace. In exchange, businesses would be reimbursed for the cost of redesigning work and workplaces to make them safe. The return to work would be coordinated with the opening of universal day care and of public schools. Mortgage and rent moratoriums would be extended. Hazard pay would reward those “essential workers” forced to work.
Little of this has been put in place to protect American workers. The House leadership rejected the push by progressives, led by Representative Pramila Jayapal, for a Paycheck Guarantee Act that would prevent mass layoffs and make it easier for businesses to reopen quickly. Medicare for All and even Covid treatment for all were rejected. Instead, the House bill rewards insurance companies by agreeing to reimburse workers for the cost of retaining their health care after being laid off. This is directed through COBRA, a measure that doesn’t cover co-pays, deductibles, or premiums that the unemployed often find prohibitive. With unions weakened, we don’t have sectoral bargaining or worker-management committees. While the House bill calls for OSHA standards, there is no hint of effective health and safety enforcement. There is no national testing regime, and inadequate testing capacities across the states. Reopening of businesses hasn’t been coordinated with provisions for daycare and the reopening of schools.
As negotiations begin, Republicans are in disarray. Trump insists on a payroll tax that even many Republican Senators oppose. He’ll support another “Trump check” that he can sign in time for the fall campaign, but scorns aid to the states and localities. He opposes rescue of the Post Office or funds to help states move to vote by mail, claiming the latter is somehow biased toward Democrats. He is reportedly intent on tying any aid to schools to mandatory reopening, even in states where the virus is exploding. The administration also balks at Republican efforts to provide resources for expanded testing and for ramping up the Centers for Disease Control—presumably predicated on Trump’s lunatic theory that increased testing causes increased cases. And of course, Trump continues to drive Republican efforts to have Obamacare overturned in the courts.
McConnell, more responsive to Republican senators at risk in the fall elections, will want to do something more. Current speculation is that McConnell will seek Republican consensus on a smaller bill—about $1 trillion in total—that would include a smaller one-time Trump check, possibly some extension of enhanced unemployment benefits at a much lower level, some aid to states and localities, and, of course, immunity for businesses from being held responsible by employees or consumers. He’ll then negotiate with Pelosi, using the president’s veto threat to tilt the scale, while larding the bill with the routine outrageous gifts to special interests and powerful lobbies.
House progressives should organize to disrupt business as usual. They could demand that the legislation focus on worker security, requiring the final bill to include what is necessary to sustain working people while the pandemic is being suppressed, what is needed for workers and consumers to be protected as the economy reopens, and what is required so Americans can vote in safety.
If 100 progressive members of Congress united on a set of demands, it would upend the expected course of negotiations. It would surely strengthen House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand—and stiffen her spine. It would pressure Republican senators who can’t afford to return home empty-handed. And it would make clear the stakes involved in what will otherwise be another opaque and smarmy Washington deal. Progressives would have to be willing to keep Congress in session into the normal August recess.
What’s clear is that a tepid compromise won’t be adequate. The administration has bungled both the initial effort to suppress the pandemic and the initial reopening of the economy. Needless to say, the pandemic isn’t listening to Trump’s magical musings that it will simply disappear. And the economy can’t recover until people can safely go back to work. Now is the real moment for “the adults in the room.” Progressives in the House are the only ones in sight.


thenation--2020-07-22--When Will the Media Stop Grading Trump on a Curve?

On Tuesday , Donald Trump won widespread applause in the mainstream media for a briefing where he offered kind thoughts to a woman accused of running one of the most horrifying child rape networks in human history .
Trump was asked about Ghislaine Maxwell , arrested earlier this month for her alleged assistance in procuring underage girls for the late Jeffrey Epstein , who died in jail last year .
Trump had long-standing social ties with both Epstein and Maxwell .
In 2002 he told New York magazine Epstein was “ a lot of fun to be with .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women as much as I do , and many of them are on the younger side.
” Answering a question about whether he thought Maxwell would turn in powerful men who might also be guilty of sex crimes , Trump said , “ I wish her well , frankly .
I ’ ve met her numerous times over the years , especially since I lived in Palm Beach , and I guess they lived in Palm Beach .
But I wish her well , whatever it is.
” These bizarre comments were matched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Repeatedly , Trump referred to Covid-19 as “ the China virus.
” At one point he said , “ The median age of those who succumb to the China virus is 78 years old.
” This remark combined xenophobia with an implicit downplaying of the seriousness of the virus .
The argument that the Covid-19 victims are overwhelmingly old people is often trotted out by those who oppose taking drastic measures to slow down the pandemic .
There were a few decent points in the briefing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ half-heartedly .
And he acknowledged that the pandemic is likely to get worse before it gets better .
But he also repeated his oft-stated conviction that “ the virus will disappear.
” Further , he contradicted his own press secretary ’ s claim that he took several Covid-19 tests every day .
Cannibalism Is No Cure for Covid-19 All in all , it was a typical Trump performance of glib bravado hiding a lack of policy knowledge .
Yet it won praise from an array of outlets , all united in the view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious and sober engagement with Covid-19 .
Trip Gabriel of The New York Times tweeted , “ And the Trump virus briefing wrapped up after just about 35 minutes .
POTUS seems to have absorbed—for now—that he needs a major reboot to save his campaign .
His tone was sober , he acknowledged the need for masks , that things will get worse before they get better.
” Reuters described the briefing as showing “ a shift in rhetoric and tone.
” According to The Washington Post , Trump spoke in “ subdued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach.
” The Daily Show compiled a small anthology of clips showing an array of cable news hosts making the same argument .
On MSNB , Chuck Todd said we were seeing “ perhaps a bit more reserved version of President Trump.
” On CNN , Wolf Blitzer said there was “ a different tone coming from the president today.
” The media commendation of Trump completely ignored the many outlandish and outright strange things Trump actually said .
The widespread consensus praising Trump even after his well wishes for Maxwell shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steep curve .
Words that might be scandalous if spoken by another politician are ignored or treated gently when they come from Trump .
This tendency to whitewash Trump dates back to his victory in 2016 and perhaps a bit earlier to his win of the Republican primary .
The mainstream news media in America remains committed to a code of reporting where the highest goal is to be equidistant between the two major political parties .
The aim is to report on both sides in as neutral a manner as possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deferential to the president .
This is a byproduct of the monarchal position the presidency occupies in the American political system and the popular imagination .
The president is both the head of government and the representative of the state .
As head of state , the president is an embodiment of the nation itself .
The fact that Trump is a racist buffoon has tested the limits of both-sides journalism and deference to the presidency .
The secret hope of many in the media has been that Trump would somehow transform himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could treat him with the deference due someone who is both the standard-bearer of a major party and the embodiment of the American state .
In 2017 , after Trump paid homage to the widow of a Navy Seal in an address to Congress , CNN commentator Van Jones said , “ He became president of the United States in that moment , period.
” Van Jones was expressing a fond fantasy of many in the media , that Trump would put away his childish and embarrassing ways so they could abandon the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or opponents of the president .
But Trump is clearly incapable of fulfilling the symbolic presidential duty to act as a unifying head of state .
He is simply too self-centered , too boastful , too aggrieved , and too paranoid .
Trump can never pivot to being president , let alone to being sober .
The media ’ s inability to acknowledge this simple fact shows the power both-sides pseudo-objectivity still has over the press—as well as the strong deference the presidency still commands .
This is actually the second time around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking Covid-19 seriously .
On March 17 , the Associated Press , reporting on an earlier briefing , claimed , “ After weeks of trying to play down the risk posed by the coronavirus pandemic , President Donald Trump struck a more urgent tone Monday as he delivered a sobering message to Americans grappling with a new reality that will dramatically alter their lives for months to come.
” But that sobriety didn ’ t last very long .
Trump was soon speculating on the use of bleach as a cure for Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show he deserves a second chance .
Trump will never change .
He is who he is .
It ’ s not partisan to recognize this truth .
It ’ s a simple acknowledgement of reality .
Due to an editing error , a previous version of this article mistakenly stated that the median age of Covid-19 deaths in the United States is 48 .
Forty-eight is the median age for all of those who have tested positive for the disease .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On Tuesday, Donald Trump won widespread applause in the mainstream media for a briefing where he offered kind thoughts to a woman accused of running one of the most horrifying child rape networks in human history. Trump was asked about Ghislaine Maxwell, arrested earlier this month for her alleged assistance in procuring underage girls for the late Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail last year. Trump had long-standing social ties with both Epstein and Maxwell. In 2002 he told New York magazine Epstein was “a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Answering a question about whether he thought Maxwell would turn in powerful men who might also be guilty of sex crimes, Trump said, “I wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is.”
These bizarre comments were matched by others equally strange in a briefing devoted to the Covid-19 pandemic. Repeatedly, Trump referred to Covid-19 as “the China virus.” At one point he said, “The median age of those who succumb to the China virus is 78 years old.” This remark combined xenophobia with an implicit downplaying of the seriousness of the virus. The argument that the Covid-19 victims are overwhelmingly old people is often trotted out by those who oppose taking drastic measures to slow down the pandemic.
There were a few decent points in the briefing. He did endorse mask wearing, albeit half-heartedly. And he acknowledged that the pandemic is likely to get worse before it gets better. But he also repeated his oft-stated conviction that “the virus will disappear.” Further, he contradicted his own press secretary’s claim that he took several Covid-19 tests every day. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
All in all, it was a typical Trump performance of glib bravado hiding a lack of policy knowledge. Yet it won praise from an array of outlets, all united in the view that Trump had pivoted to a more serious and sober engagement with Covid-19.
Trip Gabriel of The New York Times tweeted, “And the Trump virus briefing wrapped up after just about 35 minutes. POTUS seems to have absorbed—for now—that he needs a major reboot to save his campaign. His tone was sober, he acknowledged the need for masks, that things will get worse before they get better.”
Reuters described the briefing as showing “a shift in rhetoric and tone.” According to The Washington Post, Trump spoke in “subdued tones” and took a “somber approach.” The Daily Show compiled a small anthology of clips showing an array of cable news hosts making the same argument. On MSNB, Chuck Todd said we were seeing “perhaps a bit more reserved version of President Trump.” On CNN, Wolf Blitzer said there was “a different tone coming from the president today.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
The media commendation of Trump completely ignored the many outlandish and outright strange things Trump actually said. The widespread consensus praising Trump even after his well wishes for Maxwell shows that Trump is still being graded on a steep curve. Words that might be scandalous if spoken by another politician are ignored or treated gently when they come from Trump.
This tendency to whitewash Trump dates back to his victory in 2016 and perhaps a bit earlier to his win of the Republican primary. The mainstream news media in America remains committed to a code of reporting where the highest goal is to be equidistant between the two major political parties. The aim is to report on both sides in as neutral a manner as possible.
Further, the mainstream media is traditionally deferential to the president. This is a byproduct of the monarchal position the presidency occupies in the American political system and the popular imagination. The president is both the head of government and the representative of the state. As head of state, the president is an embodiment of the nation itself.
The fact that Trump is a racist buffoon has tested the limits of both-sides journalism and deference to the presidency. The secret hope of many in the media has been that Trump would somehow transform himself into a normal president, so they could treat him with the deference due someone who is both the standard-bearer of a major party and the embodiment of the American state.
In 2017, after Trump paid homage to the widow of a Navy SEAL in an address to Congress, CNN commentator Van Jones said, “He became president of the United States in that moment, period.” Van Jones was expressing a fond fantasy of many in the media, that Trump would put away his childish and embarrassing ways so they could abandon the clearly unwelcome and unfamiliar role of critics or opponents of the president.
But Trump is clearly incapable of fulfilling the symbolic presidential duty to act as a unifying head of state. He is simply too self-centered, too boastful, too aggrieved, and too paranoid. Trump can never pivot to being president, let alone to being sober. The media’s inability to acknowledge this simple fact shows the power both-sides pseudo-objectivity still has over the press—as well as the strong deference the presidency still commands.
This is actually the second time around for the narrative that Trump is finally taking Covid-19 seriously. On March 17, the Associated Press, reporting on an earlier briefing, claimed, “After weeks of trying to play down the risk posed by the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump struck a more urgent tone Monday as he delivered a sobering message to Americans grappling with a new reality that will dramatically alter their lives for months to come.”
But that sobriety didn’t last very long. Trump was soon speculating on the use of bleach as a cure for Covid-19. Trump has done nothing since to show he deserves a second chance.
Trump will never change. He is who he is. It’s not partisan to recognize this truth. It’s a simple acknowledgement of reality.
Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article mistakenly stated that the median age of Covid-19 deaths in the United States is 48. Forty-eight is the median age for all of those who have tested positive for the disease.


thenation--2020-07-23--How an Artist’s Diary Can Teach Us New Ways of Seeing

In 1971 , the artist Rosemary Mayer was 28 and living alone in New York City .
At the time , much of her work took the form of large abstract sculptures made from fabric that was pinned , knotted , draped , and painted , meant to be hung on the wall or from the ceiling .
The bolts of material—voile , burlap , nylon , not necessarily precious stuff—were picked up at Macy ’ s or from her friend Hannah Weiner , who at the time had a day job as a lingerie designer .
Mayer cobbled together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( illegally ) collecting unemployment , all the while daydreaming about other forms of self-support as an artist .
Among the year ’ s events : She participated in a feminist consciousness-raising group with her art-school friend Adrian Piper ; she had a fruitless studio visit with the art critic Lucy Lippard ; she attended a John Cage concert and read Anaïs Nin ’ s diary ; she tried to curb her smoking ; she had a handful of lovers , many disappointing but one promising ; at least once , she ate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting .
Excerpts From the 1971 Journal of Rosemary Mayer All of this was recorded in Mayer ’ s journals , which she kept for decades , and which , following her death in 2014 , were passed on to the artist ’ s niece Marie Warsh .
In 2016 , while working with her brother and the gallerist Maika Pollock on a retrospective exhibition of Mayer ’ s work at Southfirst gallery in Brooklyn , Warsh compiled a slim selection of entries from the year 1971 to publish alongside that show .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ center of the years covered by the artworks on view , Warsh noted in a foreword , 1971 “ seemed in many ways a turning point for Rosemary.
” This as a consolidating idea is at first made murky by the minutiae that abut sincere , lucid reflections on her practice .
But as this new , second edition of the book—with double the number of entries included—underscores , it ’ s thanks to that minutiae that Mayer ’ s records of her everyday actions are perceived as rich with confirmation of growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they make available the strange rhythm of the accumulation of experience that we call living .
Mayer was and remains a lesser-known artist , her name often qualified by that of her sister ( Bernadette ) or her ex-husband ( Vito Acconci ) .
The 2016 exhibition was the first solo exhibition of her work since the 1980s , and it did help place her back into art historical consciousness , cultivating interest among at least a handful of younger historians and critics .
It was the first time I had encountered her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
For me , Mayer ’ s gauzy sculptures ultimately eluded the context of Conceptualism or Minimalism , doing something less clean but more alive ; it seems worth mentioning that this quality struck me at the time as wildly feminine .
Accompanying the sculptures themselves were walls of drawings illustrating the plotting phase for the frame-and-fabric wall hangings and stand-alone works , including notes jotted by Mayer that seemed to me to be both cryptic and beautiful in their own right .
It ’ s not clear to me that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayer ’ s work travels well alongside the written word—striking up a relationship that ’ s poetic and conversational , rather than didactic .
Still , her writing offers us access to the structures , physical and emotional , that give her diaphanous work form .
( Among her late work , little of which has to my knowledge been shown , is a series of paintings charting in a graph of scribbled overlapping color the sounds she hears on the street : a kind of poetics that causes impressions to dissolve between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reduction of that very relationship to call Mayer ’ s artwork diaristic .
But the snapshot provided by this selection of entries introduces the diary as a form she studied as well as produced .
I wonder if this back-and-forth between the visual and the journaled word might have implications for both the art object and the diary as means of expression—how they are made and seen .
In her introduction to the second edition , Warsh traces a shift in the intent behind returning to this material .
If the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into art history , to posthumously fulfill her desire for her work to be known , the expanded book , Warsh writes , responds to readers who were taken with Mayer as an everyday protagonist—perhaps fulfilling one complicated desire bound up with the diary form , to be known oneself .
That is to say , someone with no particular knowledge of or interest in Mayer ’ s artwork as such but with an interest in creative women trying to make sense of their lives would likely enjoy this book .
Even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s oeuvre , I must add that it would be dishonest of me to imply that I read this document at a consistent critical remove .
I ’ m also 28 and live alone and keep an irregular schedule that usually finds its shape via both social engagements and crests of emotion , some of which I keep track of in a cardboard notebook .
I enjoyed the perverse overidentification I felt reading certain passages , something like Sissy Spacek devouring Shelly Duval ’ s diary midway through Three Women .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Why do I always dream of places—bldngs.—rooms— ?
?
” which is a query I ’ m sure I ’ ve written something like myself !
On April 4 : “ …JOB—SEX—LONELINESS—the coming SUMMER.
” On July 16 : “ Man , do I need ideas .
Worse than I need a lover.
” On February 16 : “ TREMORS OF MY FORMER SELVES.
” Mayer , who would go on to publish a translation of the 16th century Mannerist painter Jacopo Pontormo ’ s journals , is a student of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anaïs Nin ’ s diary , at one point recounting a conversation with Hannah Weiner in which the two of them “ tore it apart ” for its “ delicacy ” and Catholic purity .
“ She seldom talks abt .
her body exc .
to regret its delicacy , ” Mayer writes .
“ She never mentions its smells , or aches , or her sex life.
” Mayer ’ s own commitment to noting unattractive particulars—stomachaches , root canals , odd ’ 70s health-food cravings , mediocre sex—takes on an edge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identifies , too , with the ways Nin ’ s Catholic upbringing shaped her relationship to men , and that identification opens up a little space for self-understanding and the capacity for a shift in how Mayer perceives herself .
In the entry following the Nin conversation , some four days later , following a blistering hot bath , “ almost as good as sex ” : “ I ’ ve decided to give freer reign [ sic ] to my feelings .
I ’ m always tucking them away to keep them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this personal information , so much of it in the realm of feeling as a form of knowledge , travel back to the art object ?
In late July , after a phone call with Acconci , whose prolific successes crop up throughout the year , Mayer reflects , “ I ’ m not even that interested in his work as art…much more how it is an expression of him… & how it seems the more he does the more he becomes himself…while he never really changes…his orientation to punish himself carries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers in this moment is not some universal methodology for looking at a performance or sculpture ; it comes from over a decade of irreproducible and vexed intimacy , and is , yes , recorded in a private ledger .
But what if this way of looking is a way of seeing work as art proper ?
It feels a little dangerous , but also somehow true .
What someone makes doesn ’ t have to be an authentic , stable expression of self to contain traces of the experience of living .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ listening , or feeling , seeking those traces can make objects more strange , rather than more simple .
I return to the feeling that Mayer ’ s artworks and personal writings , both for their own reasons a little too tucked away to really feel public , are mutually illuminating .
Mayer ’ s writing here also happens to chart a corner of the downtown New York art world in a very specific time , one that had already passed when these writings were compiled but that feels especially distant today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make even a minor career like Mayer ’ s possible , let alone city life itself , up in the air .
This edition also arrives , by accident , at a moment in which the diary as a media object—that is , the diary written to be a media object—has taken on some new credence .
It comes with its subgenres , and whether heartrending , offbeat , literary , or simply a record of some form of consumption , we read for virtue ( or lack thereof ) as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reiterating that when Mayer made these notes on her life , self-conscious as she was , it wasn ’ t her writing that she meant to make known .
Perhaps doing this kind of reading can help us , saturated as we are with sculpted life narratives , keep better diaries .
The little uneven crevasses that form throughout the document to which her estate has granted us access are what make it especially satisfying to read , a different kind of historical documentation of how an artist comes to be .
Wrestling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about fame , she wrote : “ that ’ s not it though to be famous—it ’ s to be surer of myself & my work—I ’ m beginning to be one of those people who lives & breathes art .
”

In 1971, the artist Rosemary Mayer was 28 and living alone in New York City. At the time, much of her work took the form of large abstract sculptures made from fabric that was pinned, knotted, draped, and painted, meant to be hung on the wall or from the ceiling. The bolts of material—voile, burlap, nylon, not necessarily precious stuff—were picked up at Macy’s or from her friend Hannah Weiner, who at the time had a day job as a lingerie designer. Mayer cobbled together her own living by art modeling and (illegally) collecting unemployment, all the while daydreaming about other forms of self-support as an artist. Among the year’s events: She participated in a feminist consciousness-raising group with her art-school friend Adrian Piper; she had a fruitless studio visit with the art critic Lucy Lippard; she attended a John Cage concert and read Anaïs Nin’s diary; she tried to curb her smoking; she had a handful of lovers, many disappointing but one promising; at least once, she ate a half-pound ball of mozzarella in one sitting. Books in Review Excerpts From the 1971 Journal of Rosemary Mayer By Rosemary Mayer; Edited by Marie Warsh Buy this book
All of this was recorded in Mayer’s journals, which she kept for decades, and which, following her death in 2014, were passed on to the artist’s niece Marie Warsh. In 2016, while working with her brother and the gallerist Maika Pollock on a retrospective exhibition of Mayer’s work at Southfirst gallery in Brooklyn, Warsh compiled a slim selection of entries from the year 1971 to publish alongside that show. In addition to being squarely in the center of the years covered by the artworks on view, Warsh noted in a foreword, 1971 “seemed in many ways a turning point for Rosemary.” This as a consolidating idea is at first made murky by the minutiae that abut sincere, lucid reflections on her practice. But as this new, second edition of the book—with double the number of entries included—underscores, it’s thanks to that minutiae that Mayer’s records of her everyday actions are perceived as rich with confirmation of growth. Also of interest is the way they make available the strange rhythm of the accumulation of experience that we call living.
Mayer was and remains a lesser-known artist, her name often qualified by that of her sister (Bernadette) or her ex-husband (Vito Acconci). The 2016 exhibition was the first solo exhibition of her work since the 1980s, and it did help place her back into art historical consciousness, cultivating interest among at least a handful of younger historians and critics. It was the first time I had encountered her work, and I was taken by it. For me, Mayer’s gauzy sculptures ultimately eluded the context of Conceptualism or Minimalism, doing something less clean but more alive; it seems worth mentioning that this quality struck me at the time as wildly feminine. Accompanying the sculptures themselves were walls of drawings illustrating the plotting phase for the frame-and-fabric wall hangings and stand-alone works, including notes jotted by Mayer that seemed to me to be both cryptic and beautiful in their own right.
It’s not clear to me that it was ever quite her intent, but Mayer’s work travels well alongside the written word—striking up a relationship that’s poetic and conversational, rather than didactic. Still, her writing offers us access to the structures, physical and emotional, that give her diaphanous work form. (Among her late work, little of which has to my knowledge been shown, is a series of paintings charting in a graph of scribbled overlapping color the sounds she hears on the street: a kind of poetics that causes impressions to dissolve between the senses.) It would be a reduction of that very relationship to call Mayer’s artwork diaristic. But the snapshot provided by this selection of entries introduces the diary as a form she studied as well as produced. I wonder if this back-and-forth between the visual and the journaled word might have implications for both the art object and the diary as means of expression—how they are made and seen. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
In her introduction to the second edition, Warsh traces a shift in the intent behind returning to this material. If the first edition was meant to help interject Mayer into art history, to posthumously fulfill her desire for her work to be known, the expanded book, Warsh writes, responds to readers who were taken with Mayer as an everyday protagonist—perhaps fulfilling one complicated desire bound up with the diary form, to be known oneself. That is to say, someone with no particular knowledge of or interest in Mayer’s artwork as such but with an interest in creative women trying to make sense of their lives would likely enjoy this book.
Even as someone with a scholarly investment in Mayer’s oeuvre, I must add that it would be dishonest of me to imply that I read this document at a consistent critical remove. I’m also 28 and live alone and keep an irregular schedule that usually finds its shape via both social engagements and crests of emotion, some of which I keep track of in a cardboard notebook. I enjoyed the perverse overidentification I felt reading certain passages, something like Sissy Spacek devouring Shelly Duval’s diary midway through Three Women. She writes on Friday, March 19: “Why do I always dream of places—bldngs.—rooms—??” which is a query I’m sure I’ve written something like myself! On April 4: “…JOB—SEX—LONELINESS—the coming SUMMER.” On July 16: “Man, do I need ideas. Worse than I need a lover.” On February 16: “TREMORS OF MY FORMER SELVES.”
Mayer, who would go on to publish a translation of the 16th century Mannerist painter Jacopo Pontormo’s journals, is a student of the diary. She parses the entries in Anaïs Nin’s diary, at one point recounting a conversation with Hannah Weiner in which the two of them “tore it apart” for its “delicacy” and Catholic purity. “She seldom talks abt. her body exc. to regret its delicacy,” Mayer writes. “She never mentions its smells, or aches, or her sex life.” Mayer’s own commitment to noting unattractive particulars—stomachaches, root canals, odd ’70s health-food cravings, mediocre sex—takes on an edge of resolve by comparison. But she identifies, too, with the ways Nin’s Catholic upbringing shaped her relationship to men, and that identification opens up a little space for self-understanding and the capacity for a shift in how Mayer perceives herself. In the entry following the Nin conversation, some four days later, following a blistering hot bath, “almost as good as sex”: “I’ve decided to give freer reign [sic] to my feelings. I’m always tucking them away to keep them out of my way.”
How does all this personal information, so much of it in the realm of feeling as a form of knowledge, travel back to the art object? In late July, after a phone call with Acconci, whose prolific successes crop up throughout the year, Mayer reflects, “I’m not even that interested in his work as art…much more how it is an expression of him…& how it seems the more he does the more he becomes himself…while he never really changes…his orientation to punish himself carries through.” Of course, what she offers in this moment is not some universal methodology for looking at a performance or sculpture; it comes from over a decade of irreproducible and vexed intimacy, and is, yes, recorded in a private ledger. But what if this way of looking is a way of seeing work as art proper? It feels a little dangerous, but also somehow true. What someone makes doesn’t have to be an authentic, stable expression of self to contain traces of the experience of living. As a way of looking, or listening, or feeling, seeking those traces can make objects more strange, rather than more simple. I return to the feeling that Mayer’s artworks and personal writings, both for their own reasons a little too tucked away to really feel public, are mutually illuminating.
Mayer’s writing here also happens to chart a corner of the downtown New York art world in a very specific time, one that had already passed when these writings were compiled but that feels especially distant today, the future of the institutions and entities that make even a minor career like Mayer’s possible, let alone city life itself, up in the air. This edition also arrives, by accident, at a moment in which the diary as a media object—that is, the diary written to be a media object—has taken on some new credence. It comes with its subgenres, and whether heartrending, offbeat, literary, or simply a record of some form of consumption, we read for virtue (or lack thereof) as well as personal identification.
It may bear reiterating that when Mayer made these notes on her life, self-conscious as she was, it wasn’t her writing that she meant to make known. Perhaps doing this kind of reading can help us, saturated as we are with sculpted life narratives, keep better diaries. The little uneven crevasses that form throughout the document to which her estate has granted us access are what make it especially satisfying to read, a different kind of historical documentation of how an artist comes to be. Wrestling with herself after a conversation with Weiner about fame, she wrote: “that’s not it though to be famous—it’s to be surer of myself & my work—I’m beginning to be one of those people who lives & breathes art.”


thenation--2020-07-23--It’s Time for the Democratic Party to Mention the Occupation

The Democratic Party often has meaningful debates when putting together its platform on a range of issues—including one often seen as the third rail of American politics : US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
As longtime activists in the American Jewish and Arab American communities , respectively , we believe this year ’ s platform has the opportunity to be groundbreaking and fruitful instead of divisive .
Democratic leaders should unite behind a vision that shows a clear commitment to the rights and security of both Palestinians and Israelis .
They should promote diplomacy to help achieve peace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incitement , violence , and the injustice of occupation .
The first draft of the platform ’ s Israel/Palestine plank revealed last week contains several of these elements—including , for the first time , affirmation of “ the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own.
” Yet , frustratingly , once again the platform draft is missing an indispensable component : acknowledgement that millions of Palestinians continue to live under Israeli military occupation , without the basic civil rights and freedoms enjoyed by Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel and in illegal West Bank settlements .
Including or omitting reference to occupation is not a mere word choice .
It ’ s an indication of whether the Democratic party is truly willing to confront and oppose the systemic injustice that has been at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over 53 years .
Without admitting the existence of occupation , one can not understand how Palestinians are daily deprived of their fundamental rights—or why they demand freedom and independent statehood .
Without admitting occupation , one can not understand why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders warn that the country ’ s unending rule over another people is eroding its democratic institutions and leading it down ( in the words of former prime minister Ehud Barak ) “ a slippery slope toward apartheid.
” It ’ s encouraging that the current draft includes opposition to Israeli settlement expansion and potential unilateral annexation .
This is a major improvement over previous platforms that said nothing on the subject of settlements .
Yet if the next Democratic administration is serious about promoting real peace , the party needs to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only annexation or further expansion of settlements that poses a major obstacle to peace—it is the entire settlement enterprise , which for decades has entrenched occupation , compromising the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel .
Until we confront the settlers ’ agenda head-on , our diplomatic efforts will continue to be stymied—and both Palestinians and Israelis will continue to lose faith that a negotiated solution could ever be possible .
Until we make clear that American taxpayer dollars can not be used as a blank check to help implement illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run counter to US interests and values , the Israeli right will continue to reject all compromise and to believe that it can act with impunity .
Outside of the settlement movement and its apologists , the term “ occupation ” is not and should not be controversial in this country , in Israel/Palestine or anywhere in the world .
Until the Trump administration , it has been the policy of both Republican and Democratic presidents to recognize ( and oppose ) the occupation since it began in 1967 .
In 2008 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end to the occupation that began in 1967.
” In a 2009 speech , President Barack Obama stated that “ the Palestinian people…endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation.
” For decades , even Israeli hard-liners such as former prime minister Ariel Sharon have regularly used the term .
There is no reason for the Democratic Party not to officially recognize occupation in 2020 , at a time when so many Americans are finally grappling with deep systemic issues , like racial injustice and police brutality , that continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to affirm its commitment to the fundamental rights of all people in this country and around the world , it must include a clear commitment to the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians .
It must decisively bring an end to years of obfuscation and denial .
It must confidently call out the occupation as an unacceptable injustice that—in order to achieve a better future for both peoples—can and should be brought to an end .
With the platform still subject to amendment and revision , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this vital step .
If they do , they can help avoid further divisiveness and frustration among their own base voters .
Democrats across the country would rally behind a platform that promoted this vision .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The Democratic Party often has meaningful debates when putting together its platform on a range of issues—including one often seen as the third rail of American politics: US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As longtime activists in the American Jewish and Arab American communities, respectively, we believe this year’s platform has the opportunity to be groundbreaking and fruitful instead of divisive. Democratic leaders should unite behind a vision that shows a clear commitment to the rights and security of both Palestinians and Israelis. They should promote diplomacy to help achieve peace, while strongly opposing settlements, annexation, incitement, violence, and the injustice of occupation.
The first draft of the platform’s Israel/Palestine plank revealed last week contains several of these elements—including, for the first time, affirmation of “the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own.” Yet, frustratingly, once again the platform draft is missing an indispensable component: acknowledgement that millions of Palestinians continue to live under Israeli military occupation, without the basic civil rights and freedoms enjoyed by Israeli citizens living both inside the State of Israel and in illegal West Bank settlements.
Including or omitting reference to occupation is not a mere word choice. It’s an indication of whether the Democratic party is truly willing to confront and oppose the systemic injustice that has been at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over 53 years. Occupation A Summer of Reckoning—for American Racism and Israeli Aggression Yousef Munayyer
Without admitting the existence of occupation, one cannot understand how Palestinians are daily deprived of their fundamental rights—or why they demand freedom and independent statehood. Without admitting occupation, one cannot understand why so many veteran Israeli political and security leaders warn that the country’s unending rule over another people is eroding its democratic institutions and leading it down (in the words of former prime minister Ehud Barak) “a slippery slope toward apartheid.”
It’s encouraging that the current draft includes opposition to Israeli settlement expansion and potential unilateral annexation. This is a major improvement over previous platforms that said nothing on the subject of settlements. Yet if the next Democratic administration is serious about promoting real peace, the party needs to go beyond this. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
It’s not only annexation or further expansion of settlements that poses a major obstacle to peace—it is the entire settlement enterprise, which for decades has entrenched occupation, compromising the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. Current Issue View our current issue
Until we confront the settlers’ agenda head-on, our diplomatic efforts will continue to be stymied—and both Palestinians and Israelis will continue to lose faith that a negotiated solution could ever be possible. Until we make clear that American taxpayer dollars cannot be used as a blank check to help implement illegal annexation and other actions and policies that run counter to US interests and values, the Israeli right will continue to reject all compromise and to believe that it can act with impunity.
Outside of the settlement movement and its apologists, the term “occupation” is not and should not be controversial in this country, in Israel/Palestine or anywhere in the world. Until the Trump administration, it has been the policy of both Republican and Democratic presidents to recognize (and oppose) the occupation since it began in 1967.
In 2008, President George W. Bush called for “an end to the occupation that began in 1967.” In a 2009 speech, President Barack Obama stated that “the Palestinian people…endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation.” For decades, even Israeli hard-liners such as former prime minister Ariel Sharon have regularly used the term.
There is no reason for the Democratic Party not to officially recognize occupation in 2020, at a time when so many Americans are finally grappling with deep systemic issues, like racial injustice and police brutality, that continue to shape our reality.
As the party seeks to affirm its commitment to the fundamental rights of all people in this country and around the world, it must include a clear commitment to the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians. It must decisively bring an end to years of obfuscation and denial. It must confidently call out the occupation as an unacceptable injustice that—in order to achieve a better future for both peoples—can and should be brought to an end.
With the platform still subject to amendment and revision, it’s not too late for party leaders to take this vital step. If they do, they can help avoid further divisiveness and frustration among their own base voters. Democrats across the country would rally behind a platform that promoted this vision.


thenation--2020-07-23--As Legends Like John Lewis Pass Away, Are We Ready to Take Up the Torch?

My mother was born in 1950 in segregated Mississippi .
The first time she met the Rev .
Martin Luther King Jr. , she was at home after church in the late ’ 50s when he visited my grandmother and her young family .
My grandmother was a respected schoolteacher , and a lot of those civil rights leaders understood that getting in good with the teachers was a good way to connect with the young people.1 My mother has a living memory of events I ’ ve only read about .
Periodically , she will read my columns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our history—not the facts of it but the sense of it .
I write in faded tones about what she experienced in vibrant color.2 My father was part of the committee that wrote the national platforms for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the late ’ 60s .
He started a Black-owned newspaper covering Harlem .
Later he was the first Black person elected to the legislature in New York ’ s Suffolk County .
He died a couple of years ago.3 The death of John Lewis on July 17 is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my age are experiencing personally or will experience soon : the death of living memory .
The greatest Black generation , the generation of heroes and heroines who fought fascism and oppression here on American soil , is passing on .
The loss of a national icon like Lewis is devastating , but every day we lose somebody—somebody who integrated a school or boycotted a bus line or broke down a barrier younger people don ’ t even know existed.4 As these elders die and become ancestors , I wonder if my generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think of my Black generation in far more expansive ways than the terms “ boomer , ” “ Gen X , ” and “ millennial , ” which speak primarily to white cultural moments .
My generation is the one that benefited from but did not have to fight for the Civil Rights Act .
We lived through the dismantling of legal discrimination but were also alive to witness the Reagan-era counterattack against such gains .
My generation has had to spend just as much time defending rights that were won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an expansion of social justice for our children.5 My generation will likely die in a less just world than the one we were born into .
While I doubt our world will devolve into the full horrors of the pre-civil-rights days—Lewis ’ s legacy is secure and victorious—on all of the big fights , from segregation to voting rights , people my age have seen more losses than gains.6 And so I wonder if we are ready to tend the flames of justice and equality our parents lit .
I wonder if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in a defensive crouch , can be good guides along the road to the mountaintop.7 My panic at being handed the baton is tempered by looking at the community of Black excellence that is already here and more visible than ever .
The next generation of Black leaders and thinkers and elders is with us , and it is leading .
The Rev .
Dr. William J. Barber II teaches a clinic on moral clarity every time he opens his mouth .
Anytime I wonder what James Baldwin would have said about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look to what Nikole Hannah-Jones is saying right now .
I don ’ t need to pull out a Ouija board to ask Thurgood Marshall how to fight for legal equality , because Sherrilyn Ifill has an e-mail address .
And while I have to share him with white people , Barack Hussein Obama is a Black elder 400 years in the making.8 One area in which my generation has surpassed our parents is in recognizing women so that they can lead from the front .
Black women have always been leaders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not always been honored as such .
My generation has done at least somewhat better than all the previous ones ( a low bar ) at not standing in their way .
From Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi to Patrisse Cullors and so many others , women are defining the terms of social justice for this generation .
The movement is finally removing impediments so that all available warriors can be their full selves in this fight.9 Still , when it comes to visionary leadership and righteous impatience , my generation has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The violence and oppression of the Jim Crow era forged the greatest generation , and right now the brutality and bigotry of the Trump era are forging a whole generation of superheroes on our streets and in our classrooms.10 Seriously ?
John Kasich ?
What Is the Biden Camp Thinking ?
Young people today have the energy and vitality my parents once did .
They are unwilling to accept injustice , whether it comes from the police , the media , or the fossil fuel titans destroying the earth .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will soon have the votes to reshape this country in whatever ways they deem necessary .
They don ’ t remember what the world was like in 1945—or even 1985—and thus are unencumbered by it .
The future is theirs , and they have leaders who are ready to seize it.11 My generation , most likely , is merely an interstitial one , existing between two great social justice movements .
Our job is maybe not to coach the young people but to cut up some orange slices and cheer them on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe , when they ask us , we can do what all elders do : Tell stories .
I do not have a lived experience of the civil rights era .
But I have stayed up way past my bedtime listening to those who do .
Other people collect recipes from their mothers ; I collect stories .
So I can ’ t tell you how to make her potato salad , but I can tell you that Brown v. Board of Education didn ’ t do squat to help a Black woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the South .
It will be my job to tell her grandchildren about that when they learn about the case in school.12 So much is lost when our heroes pass away .
It is now on my generation to remember.13

This article appears in the August 10/17, 2020 issue.
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 mother was born in 1950 in segregated Mississippi. The first time she met the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., she was at home after church in the late ’50s when he visited my grandmother and her young family. My grandmother was a respected schoolteacher, and a lot of those civil rights leaders understood that getting in good with the teachers was a good way to connect with the young people.1
My mother has a living memory of events I’ve only read about. Periodically, she will read my columns and tell me that I got something wrong about our history—not the facts of it but the sense of it. I write in faded tones about what she experienced in vibrant color.2
My father was part of the committee that wrote the national platforms for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the late ’60s. He started a Black-owned newspaper covering Harlem. Later he was the first Black person elected to the legislature in New York’s Suffolk County. He died a couple of years ago.3
The death of John Lewis on July 17 is a national example of what many Black people my age are experiencing personally or will experience soon: the death of living memory. The greatest Black generation, the generation of heroes and heroines who fought fascism and oppression here on American soil, is passing on. The loss of a national icon like Lewis is devastating, but every day we lose somebody—somebody who integrated a school or boycotted a bus line or broke down a barrier younger people don’t even know existed.4
As these elders die and become ancestors, I wonder if my generation is ready to become the new elders. I think of my Black generation in far more expansive ways than the terms “boomer,” “Gen X,” and “millennial,” which speak primarily to white cultural moments. My generation is the one that benefited from but did not have to fight for the Civil Rights Act. We lived through the dismantling of legal discrimination but were also alive to witness the Reagan-era counterattack against such gains. My generation has had to spend just as much time defending rights that were won by our parents as it has fighting for an expansion of social justice for our children.5 Current Issue View our current issue
My generation will likely die in a less just world than the one we were born into. While I doubt our world will devolve into the full horrors of the pre-civil-rights days—Lewis’s legacy is secure and victorious—on all of the big fights, from segregation to voting rights, people my age have seen more losses than gains.6
And so I wonder if we are ready to tend the flames of justice and equality our parents lit. I wonder if we, who have spent so much time in a defensive crouch, can be good guides along the road to the mountaintop.7 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
My panic at being handed the baton is tempered by looking at the community of Black excellence that is already here and more visible than ever. The next generation of Black leaders and thinkers and elders is with us, and it is leading. The Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II teaches a clinic on moral clarity every time he opens his mouth. Anytime I wonder what James Baldwin would have said about a current issue, I need only look to what Nikole Hannah-Jones is saying right now. I don’t need to pull out a Ouija board to ask Thurgood Marshall how to fight for legal equality, because Sherrilyn Ifill has an e-mail address. And while I have to share him with white people, Barack Hussein Obama is a Black elder 400 years in the making.8
One area in which my generation has surpassed our parents is in recognizing women so that they can lead from the front. Black women have always been leaders in the civil rights movement, but they have not always been honored as such. My generation has done at least somewhat better than all the previous ones (a low bar) at not standing in their way. From Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi to Patrisse Cullors and so many others, women are defining the terms of social justice for this generation. The movement is finally removing impediments so that all available warriors can be their full selves in this fight.9
Still, when it comes to visionary leadership and righteous impatience, my generation has nothing on the next group up. The violence and oppression of the Jim Crow era forged the greatest generation, and right now the brutality and bigotry of the Trump era are forging a whole generation of superheroes on our streets and in our classrooms.10 More from Mystal Seriously? John Kasich? What Is the Biden Camp Thinking? Elie Mystal
Young people today have the energy and vitality my parents once did. They are unwilling to accept injustice, whether it comes from the police, the media, or the fossil fuel titans destroying the earth. They’re building multiethnic, intersectional coalitions, and they will soon have the votes to reshape this country in whatever ways they deem necessary. They don’t remember what the world was like in 1945—or even 1985—and thus are unencumbered by it. The future is theirs, and they have leaders who are ready to seize it.11
My generation, most likely, is merely an interstitial one, existing between two great social justice movements. Our job is maybe not to coach the young people but to cut up some orange slices and cheer them on as they take the field. And maybe, when they ask us, we can do what all elders do: Tell stories. I do not have a lived experience of the civil rights era. But I have stayed up way past my bedtime listening to those who do. Other people collect recipes from their mothers; I collect stories. So I can’t tell you how to make her potato salad, but I can tell you that Brown v. Board of Education didn’t do squat to help a Black woman check out a book from a library in the South. It will be my job to tell her grandchildren about that when they learn about the case in school.12
So much is lost when our heroes pass away. It is now on my generation to remember.13