thenation--2020-09-21--Packing the Court—or Taming the Courts?

Packing the Court—or Taming the Courts?

With Republicans rushing to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court , America stands on the brink of a legal revolution .
A Trump-nominated judge taking Ginsburg ’ s seat—which could in theory happen even if Trump loses in November and the Democrats regain control of the Senate—would open the door for an unprecedented radical shift to the right .
With Republican-nominated judges possessing a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court , some of the wildest ideas of Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia , hitherto reserved for dissents , could now become the law of the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade worries many liberals , but that would only be the beginning .
Roe is a major target .
Josh Hawley , a Republican senator representing Missouri , was admirably frank about the stakes of the court fight , writing , “ Two months ago , I pledged to vote only for # SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided .
I stand by that commitment , and I call on my fellow Republican senators to take the same stand.
” In the context of the current court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverting to the pre-Roe world where states set abortion law .
Rather , Roe is likely to be overturned in a decision that asserts fetal personhood , which would make it difficult for even the most liberal states to protect reproductive freedom .
In the realm of economic policy , the right-wing legal movement led by the Federalist Society has been champing at the bit to restore the principles of Lochner v. New York ( 1905 ) .
The Lochner decision held that laws against overtime work violated the 14th Amendment .
Long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a reassertion of the validity of Lochner could render vast swaths of the economic and environmental regulations of the last century unconstitutional .
It would mean overturning not just Obamacare but much of the political legacies of Woodrow Wilson , Franklin Delano Roosevelt , and Lyndon Johnson .
Fires Prove the Climate Catastrophe Is a Constitutional Crisis Too This prospective legal revolution is all the more astonishing because it is built on partisan mendacity .
In 2016 , Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland , Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Garland was denied even a hearing .
Now , McConnell is flouting his own stated rule against a president nominating a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his term by promising to ram through anyone Trump nominates .
As galling as it is for Democrats , McConnell ’ s brazen hypocrisy is paying huge dividends for Republicans .
Given the dangers of the present moment , Democrats are scrambling for a response .
One popular idea is to expand the courts to dilute the power of Republican judges .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Mitch McConnell set the precedent .
No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year .
If he violates it , when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress , we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.
” But packing the courts presents some problems .
For one thing , it requires a bold leader who is willing to overturn established norms , someone like Franklin Roosevelt , whose bid to expand the courts failed in 1937 .
But the Democratic nominee Joe Biden is no Franklin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in October 2019 , Biden said , “ I would not get into court packing .
We add three justices ; next time around , we lose control , they add three justices .
We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.
” For court packing to work , Democrats would have to first convince Biden .
Given the stakes , that might be possible .
If he is elected , Biden will soon learn that if he doesn ’ t push back against Republican judges , then his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s objections have some merit .
If court packing sets off a tit-for-tat escalation , then it is only a stopgap measure .
However , his second point , that court packing would undermine the credibility of the judiciary , misses the core political issue : undermining the credibility of the courts is necessary for Democrats if they are to achieve any of their policy goals .
Court packing shouldn ’ t be seen as simply a matter of achieving a partisan balance .
Rather , it is part of larger project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them more responsive to the will of the majority .
In recent decades , Republican judges have returned to the overweening arrogance of the early 20th century , with a willingness to strike down policy reforms that go against right-wing economic theory .
A prime example is the Federal District Court decision in Texas overturning Obamacare , a case the Supreme Court is set to review .
This is not the first time the courts have been at war with majority rule .
As Princeton historian Matt Karp noted , the achievement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era of the Civil War and Reconstruction rested on a willingness to undermine the legitimacy of the courts that affirmed the justness of slavery .
Writing in Jacobin , Karp observes : Franklin Roosevelt ’ s bid to expand the courts in 1937 is often portrayed as a failed attempt at court packing .
This is too narrow a view .
It should be seen as a successful move to tame the courts .
Prior to Roosevelt ’ s gambit , the Supreme Court was regularly overturning New Deal legislation .
In their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Levitsky and Dan Ziblatt are critical of FDR for what they see as an antidemocratic move .
But even in their hostile rendition of the story , it is clear that FDR ’ s willingness to attack the legitimacy of the courts paid off .
Writing in The Atlantic , legal scholars Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn make a compelling case for a politics focused on taming the courts , rather than just expanding the number of judges : “ There are two basic types of reform , ” they argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Supreme Court by adding justices , choosing them differently , or shortening their terms of office .
The second kind disempowers the institution itself—removing certain cases from its jurisdiction , requiring a greater number of justices to agree in order to interfere with democratic choices , or letting Congress override any glaring mistakes.
” Doerfler and Moyn add , “ Since at least the early 20th century , both progressive and conservative groups have called for Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over controversial topics such as labor regulation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal Democrats even proposed eliminating entirely the Court ’ s power to invalidate federal legislation .
These reforms are fundamentally different from efforts to re-staff the Court ; they recognize that the problem is not who serves on the Supreme Court but what power it has.
” A further advantage of taming the courts is that it moves power not just away from the judiciary but also away from the presidency .
It restores power to Congress .
You wouldn ’ t necessarily need a Joe Biden to press for policies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those policies and give Biden the choice to take it or leave it .
Given his longstanding inclination to work with his own party , he ’ s likely to jump on the bandwagon .
Packing the courts , by contrast , would require Biden to take the lead by pushing forward new nominees .
Biden is demonstrably uneasy with any such move .
And if Biden were won over to packing the courts , that could also serve the purpose of taming the courts .
As in the 1930s , court packing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely partisan tactic but also as a deeply ideological one : It is an essential move to assert the power of democracy over the judiciary .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
With Republicans rushing to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, America stands on the brink of a legal revolution. A Trump-nominated judge taking Ginsburg’s seat—which could in theory happen even if Trump loses in November and the Democrats regain control of the Senate—would open the door for an unprecedented radical shift to the right. With Republican-nominated judges possessing a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, some of the wildest ideas of Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia, hitherto reserved for dissents, could now become the law of the land.
The possible overturning of Roe v. Wade worries many liberals, but that would only be the beginning. Roe is a major target. Josh Hawley, a Republican senator representing Missouri, was admirably frank about the stakes of the court fight, writing, “Two months ago, I pledged to vote only for #SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided. I stand by that commitment, and I call on my fellow Republican senators to take the same stand.”
In the context of the current court, overturning Roe wouldn’t just mean reverting to the pre-Roe world where states set abortion law. Rather, Roe is likely to be overturned in a decision that asserts fetal personhood, which would make it difficult for even the most liberal states to protect reproductive freedom.
In the realm of economic policy, the right-wing legal movement led by the Federalist Society has been champing at the bit to restore the principles of Lochner v. New York (1905). The Lochner decision held that laws against overtime work violated the 14th Amendment. Long regarded as obsolete by mainstream legal scholars, a reassertion of the validity of Lochner could render vast swaths of the economic and environmental regulations of the last century unconstitutional. It would mean overturning not just Obamacare but much of the political legacies of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. 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
This prospective legal revolution is all the more astonishing because it is built on partisan mendacity. In 2016, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s choice to replace Antonin Scalia. Garland was denied even a hearing. Now, McConnell is flouting his own stated rule against a president nominating a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his term by promising to ram through anyone Trump nominates. As galling as it is for Democrats, McConnell’s brazen hypocrisy is paying huge dividends for Republicans.
Given the dangers of the present moment, Democrats are scrambling for a response. One popular idea is to expand the courts to dilute the power of Republican judges. On Friday, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey tweeted, “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” 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 packing the courts presents some problems. For one thing, it requires a bold leader who is willing to overturn established norms, someone like Franklin Roosevelt, whose bid to expand the courts failed in 1937. But the Democratic nominee Joe Biden is no Franklin Roosevelt. In a Democratic primary debate in October 2019, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.” Current Issue View our current issue
For court packing to work, Democrats would have to first convince Biden. Given the stakes, that might be possible. If he is elected, Biden will soon learn that if he doesn’t push back against Republican judges, then his presidency will be strangled at birth.
Biden’s objections have some merit. If court packing sets off a tit-for-tat escalation, then it is only a stopgap measure. However, his second point, that court packing would undermine the credibility of the judiciary, misses the core political issue: undermining the credibility of the courts is necessary for Democrats if they are to achieve any of their policy goals.
Court packing shouldn’t be seen as simply a matter of achieving a partisan balance. Rather, it is part of larger project to tame the courts, to make them more responsive to the will of the majority. In recent decades, Republican judges have returned to the overweening arrogance of the early 20th century, with a willingness to strike down policy reforms that go against right-wing economic theory. A prime example is the Federal District Court decision in Texas overturning Obamacare, a case the Supreme Court is set to review.
This is not the first time the courts have been at war with majority rule. As Princeton historian Matt Karp noted, the achievement of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans during the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction rested on a willingness to undermine the legitimacy of the courts that affirmed the justness of slavery. Writing in Jacobin, Karp observes:
Once in power, Lincoln and congressional Republicans “reorganized” the federal judiciary and “packed” the court, adding an additional justice in 1863. More fundamentally, though, they simply ignored the proslavery precedents established in the 1850s. In June 1862, for instance, Congress passed and Lincoln signed a bill banning slavery from the federal territories—a direct violation of the majority ruling in Dred Scott. The court meekly acquiesced, recognizing that its political power was long since broken.
Franklin Roosevelt’s bid to expand the courts in 1937 is often portrayed as a failed attempt at court packing. This is too narrow a view. It should be seen as a successful move to tame the courts. Prior to Roosevelt’s gambit, the Supreme Court was regularly overturning New Deal legislation. In their book How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Dan Ziblatt are critical of FDR for what they see as an antidemocratic move. But even in their hostile rendition of the story, it is clear that FDR’s willingness to attack the legitimacy of the courts paid off.
As Levitsky and Ziblatt chronicle,
the Supreme Court itself played a major role in defeating Roosevelt’s plan. In a move that has been described as a “masterly retreat” to preserve the Supreme Court’s integrity, the previously anti–New Deal Court quickly reversed itself on a series of decisions. In spring 1937, the Court ruled in quick succession in favor of several pieces of New Deal legislation, including the National Labor Relations Act and Roosevelt’s Social Security legislation. With the New Deal program on more secure constitutional ground, liberal Democrats in Congress could more easily oppose the president’s Court plan.
Writing in The Atlantic, legal scholars Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn make a compelling case for a politics focused on taming the courts, rather than just expanding the number of judges: “There are two basic types of reform,” they argue. “One type adjusts the personnel of the Supreme Court by adding justices, choosing them differently, or shortening their terms of office. The second kind disempowers the institution itself—removing certain cases from its jurisdiction, requiring a greater number of justices to agree in order to interfere with democratic choices, or letting Congress override any glaring mistakes.”
Doerfler and Moyn add, “Since at least the early 20th century, both progressive and conservative groups have called for Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over controversial topics such as labor regulation, flag burning, or gun control. New Deal Democrats even proposed eliminating entirely the Court’s power to invalidate federal legislation. These reforms are fundamentally different from efforts to re-staff the Court; they recognize that the problem is not who serves on the Supreme Court but what power it has.”
A further advantage of taming the courts is that it moves power not just away from the judiciary but also away from the presidency. It restores power to Congress. You wouldn’t necessarily need a Joe Biden to press for policies to delegitimize the courts. Congress could advance those policies and give Biden the choice to take it or leave it. Given his longstanding inclination to work with his own party, he’s likely to jump on the bandwagon.
Packing the courts, by contrast, would require Biden to take the lead by pushing forward new nominees. Biden is demonstrably uneasy with any such move.
And if Biden were won over to packing the courts, that could also serve the purpose of taming the courts. As in the 1930s, court packing needn’t be seen as a merely partisan tactic but also as a deeply ideological one: It is an essential move to assert the power of democracy over the judiciary.


Stephen F. Cohen, 1938–2020

I first “ met ” Steve through his 1977 essay “ Bolshevism and Stalinism.
” His cogent , persuasive , revisionist argument that there are always alternatives in history and politics deeply influenced me .
And his seminal biography , Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution , challenging prevailing interpretations of Soviet history , was to me , and many , a model of how biography should be written : engaged and sympathetically critical .
At the time , I was too accepting of conventional wisdom .
Steve ’ s work—and soon , Steve himself—challenged me to be critical-minded , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay true to my beliefs ( even if they weren ’ t popular ) , and to ask unpopular questions of even the most powerful .
These are values I carry with me to this day as editorial director of The Nation , which Steve introduced me to ( and its editor , Victor Navasky ) and for which he wrote a column ( “ Sovieticus ” ) from 1982 to 1987 , and many articles and essays beginning in 1979 .
His last book , War with Russia ?
was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at thenation.com ) distilled from Steve ’ s weekly radio broadcasts—beginning in 2014–on The John Batchelor Show .
The experiences we shared in Moscow beginning in 1980 are in many ways my life ’ s most meaningful .
Steve introduced me to realms of politics , history , and life I might never have experienced : to Bukharin ’ s widow , the extraordinary Anna Mikhailovna Larina , matriarch of his second family , and to his eclectic and fascinating circle of friends—survivors of the Gulag , ( whom he later wrote about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and freethinkers—both outside and inside officialdom .
From 1985 to 1991 , when we lived frequently in Moscow , we shared the intellectual and political excitement , the hopes and the great achievements of those perestroika years .
We later developed a close friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev , a man we both deeply admired as an individual and as a political leader who used his power so courageously to change his country and the world .
Gorbachev also changed our lives in several ways .
Our marriage coincided with perestroika .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after our wedding , our so-called honeymoon , at the United Nations with Gorbachev and the news anchor Dan Rather ( Steve was consulting for CBS News at the time ) .
Then , on our first anniversary , in 1989 , we were with President Bush ( the first ) and Gorbachev on Malta when they declared the end of the Cold War .
And we think of our daughter , Nika , now 29 years old , as a perestroika baby because she was conceived in Russia during the Gorbachev years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in July 1991 and since then has been back some 40 times .
In a moving moment , a year after Raisa Maksimovna died , Gorbachev remarked to Steve that our marriage and partnership reminded him of his with Raisa because we too seemed inseparable .
Steve has often regretted that many of the Russian friends he made after 1985 did not know about his earlier Moscow life .
He first visited the Soviet Union in 1959 .
But it was those pre-perestroika years , 1975 to 1982 , that gave Steve what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real education.… Not only in Russian society but in Russian politics , because I began to understand the connection between trends in society , trends in the dissident movement , and trends in the nomenklatura.
” They were “ utterly formative years for me.
” They also informed his writings , especially his pathbreaking book Rethinking the Soviet Experience , which was published at the very time Gorbachev came to power .
“ There was a lot of tragedy , ” Steve used to say , “ but also a lot of humor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that personal friendships and ideas to keep them company.
” From 1980 , when I first traveled to Moscow with Steve , to 1982 when neither of us could get a visa ( until 1985 when Gorbachev became leader ) , we lived in that Russia , spending many nights in friends ’ apartments and kitchens drinking into the night , and listening to uncensored , often pessimistic , thinking about the present and future of Russia .
I later became Steve ’ s collaborator in smuggling samizdat manuscripts out of Russia to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to Russia and distributing them .
By the time I joined him , Steve had managed to send dozens of such books to Moscow , and satisfying friends with a selection ranging from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn , Varlam Shalamov , George Orwell , and Robert Conquest to the Kama Sutra and , of course , the samizdat version of Steve ’ s own book on Bukharin .
I learned from Steve that one had to keep forbidden documents and manuscripts on one ’ s person at all times , knowing that the KGB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At a certain point , Steve ’ s shoulder bag became so heavy that he developed a hernia on his right side .
After surgery , he started carrying his bag on his left side , but developed a second hernia there , as well .
He liked to say that the worst the KGB ever did to him was to cause him two hernias !
In fact , it was samizdat manuscripts that first brought us together .
In 1978 , Steve heard that I had a diplomatic passport , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and was about to travel to Moscow .
( At the time my father was the United States representative to the United Nations in Geneva . )
Through a mutual friend , Steve asked if I would bring out samizdat documents being held for him in Moscow .
I would have been happy to do so , but Steve had been misinformed .
I didn ’ t have a diplomatic passport .
Steve could sometimes seem like a tough guy , but those who won his trust knew he was a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kindness .
He was known in our New York City neighborhood on the Upper West Side as an impresario/organizer and longtime supporter of basketball tournaments for local , often poor , kids .
In the United States and Russia , Steve mentored and supported young scholars .
In the last decade , he set up fellowships for young scholars of Russian history at the several universities where he ’ d he studied and taught : Indiana University , Princeton , New York University , and Columbia .
He lent his support to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the History of the Gulag—and to its young director and team .
Life with Steve was never boring .
He was supremely independent , the true radical in our family , unfailingly going to the root of the problem .
He spoke his mind .
He had a CD with a dozen variations of “ My Way ” —from Billy Bragg to Frank Sinatra .
And as The Chronicle of Higher Education subtitled its 2017 profile of Steve , he “ was the most controversial Russia expert in America.
” Through all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backbone , fortifying me for the battles Nation editors must wage ( often with their own writers , sometimes including Steve ! )
, and giving me the personal and political courage to do the right thing .
But never more so than when we entered what might be called the “ Russiagate era.
” While Steve liked to say it ’ s healthy to rethink , to have more questions than answers , there was a wise consistency to his political analysis .
For example , as is clear from his many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , he unwaveringly opposed American Cold War thinking both during the Cold War and since the end of the Soviet Union .
He was consistent in his refusal to sermonize , lecture , or moralize about what Russia should do .
He preferred to listen rather than preach , to analyze rather than demonize .
This stance was no recipe for popularity , which Steve professed to care little about .
He was courageous and fearless in continuing to question the increasingly rigid orthodoxies about the Soviet Union and Russia .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did take its toll on him .
Along with others who sought to avert a new and more dangerous Cold War , Steve despaired that the public debate so desperately needed had become increasingly impossible in mainstream politics or media .
Until his death he ’ d been working on a short article about what he saw as the “ criminalization of détente.
” The organization he established , the American Committee on East-West Accord , tried mightily to argue for a more sane US policy toward Russia .
He fared better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him since 2014 , in reaction to his views on Ukraine , Putin , election interference , and more .
Positions he took often elicited slurs and scurrilous attacks .
How many times could he be labeled “ Putin ’ s puppet ” ?
“ Putin ’ s No.1 American apologist ” ?
Endlessly , it seemed .
But Steve chose not to respond directly to the attacks , believing—as he told me many times when I urged him to respond—that they offered no truly substantive criticism of his arguments , but were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did write about—he was increasingly concerned about the fate of a younger generation of scholars—was the danger of smearing those who thought differently about US policy toward Russia , thereby silencing skeptics and contributing to the absence of a needed debate in our politics , media , and academy .
Mikhail Gorbachev often told Steve how deeply influenced he was by his writings , especially his biography of Bukharin .
Steve first met Gorbachev in 1987 at the Soviet Embassy in Washington .
It was a reception for America ’ s “ progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he considered himself a maverick and didn ’ t like labels .
But he was there that day , and within a few minutes a Kremlin aide told Steve that the general secretary wanted to talk to him .
Minutes later , Mikhail Sergeevich approached and asked Steve , assuming the author of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution must be eminent and of a “ serious ” age : “ Deistvitelno [ really ] —you wrote the book , or was it your father ?
” Steve finally achieved that “ serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his heart , spirit and mind remained youthful till the very end .
Maybe it ’ s because of his love of Jerry Lee Lewis ’ s rock and roll , or New Orleans blues or Kentucky bluegrass , or his passion for basketball ( shared with our daughter Nika and his 16-year-old grandson , Lucas ) , or his quest for a good anecdote ( his annual anecdote lectures at Princeton and later NYU drew large crowds ) .
Maybe it ’ s because we continued our walks in nearby Riverside Park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of loving and spirited argument and talk .
Perhaps it ’ s because , while Steve was a very serious person , he didn ’ t take himself seriously .
On Saturday , Mikhail Gorbachev sent these words about Steve : Dear Katrina , Please accept my sincere condolences on Steve ’ s passing .
He was one of the closest people to me in his views and understanding of the enormous events that occurred in the late 1980s in Russia and changed the world .
Steve was a brilliant historian and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , the Russian intelligentsia , and believed in our country ’ s future .
I always considered Steve and you my true friends .
During perestroika and all the subsequent years , I felt your understanding and unwavering support .
I thank you both .
Dear Katrina , I feel deep sympathy for your grief and I mourn together with you and Nika .
Blessed memory for Steve .
I embrace you , Mikhail Gorbachev 19.09.20 For 40 years , Steve was my partner , companion , co-conspirator , best friend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 32 years ) , co-author .
I will be forever grateful to him for introducing me to The Nation , to Russia , for a life that has been full of shared adventure , friendship and passion , and for our beloved daughter , Nika .

This article appears in the October 19/26, 2020 issue.
I first “met” Steve through his 1977 essay “Bolshevism and Stalinism.” His cogent, persuasive, revisionist argument that there are always alternatives in history and politics deeply influenced me. And his seminal biography, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution, challenging prevailing interpretations of Soviet history, was to me, and many, a model of how biography should be written: engaged and sympathetically critical.
At the time, I was too accepting of conventional wisdom. Steve’s work—and soon, Steve himself—challenged me to be critical-minded, to seek alternatives to the status quo, to stay true to my beliefs (even if they weren’t popular), and to ask unpopular questions of even the most powerful. These are values I carry with me to this day as editorial director of The Nation, which Steve introduced me to (and its editor, Victor Navasky) and for which he wrote a column (“Sovieticus”) from 1982 to 1987, and many articles and essays beginning in 1979. His last book, War with Russia? was a collection of dispatches (almost all posted at thenation.com) distilled from Steve’s weekly radio broadcasts—beginning in 2014–on The John Batchelor Show.
The experiences we shared in Moscow beginning in 1980 are in many ways my life’s most meaningful. Steve introduced me to realms of politics, history, and life I might never have experienced: to Bukharin’s widow, the extraordinary Anna Mikhailovna Larina, matriarch of his second family, and to his eclectic and fascinating circle of friends—survivors of the Gulag, (whom he later wrote about in The Victims Return) dissidents, and freethinkers—both outside and inside officialdom.
From 1985 to 1991, when we lived frequently in Moscow, we shared the intellectual and political excitement, the hopes and the great achievements of those perestroika years. We later developed a close friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev, a man we both deeply admired as an individual and as a political leader who used his power so courageously to change his country and the world. Gorbachev also changed our lives in several ways.
Our marriage coincided with perestroika. In fact, Steve spent the very first day after our wedding, our so-called honeymoon, at the United Nations with Gorbachev and the news anchor Dan Rather (Steve was consulting for CBS News at the time). Then, on our first anniversary, in 1989, we were with President Bush (the first) and Gorbachev on Malta when they declared the end of the Cold War. And we think of our daughter, Nika, now 29 years old, as a perestroika baby because she was conceived in Russia during the Gorbachev years, made her first visit to Moscow in July 1991 and since then has been back some 40 times. In a moving moment, a year after Raisa Maksimovna died, Gorbachev remarked to Steve that our marriage and partnership reminded him of his with Raisa because we too seemed inseparable. 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
Steve has often regretted that many of the Russian friends he made after 1985 did not know about his earlier Moscow life. He first visited the Soviet Union in 1959. But it was those pre-perestroika years, 1975 to 1982, that gave Steve what he once told me was his “real education.… Not only in Russian society but in Russian politics, because I began to understand the connection between trends in society, trends in the dissident movement, and trends in the nomenklatura.” They were “utterly formative years for me.”
They also informed his writings, especially his pathbreaking book Rethinking the Soviet Experience, which was published at the very time Gorbachev came to power. “There was a lot of tragedy,” Steve used to say, “but also a lot of humor and warmth when people had little more that personal friendships and ideas to keep them company.” From 1980, when I first traveled to Moscow with Steve, to 1982 when neither of us could get a visa (until 1985 when Gorbachev became leader), we lived in that Russia, spending many nights in friends’ apartments and kitchens drinking into the night, and listening to uncensored, often pessimistic, thinking about the present and future of Russia.
I later became Steve’s collaborator in smuggling samizdat manuscripts out of Russia to the West, and bringing samizdat books back to Russia and distributing them. By the time I joined him, Steve had managed to send dozens of such books to Moscow, and satisfying friends with a selection ranging from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Varlam Shalamov, George Orwell, and Robert Conquest to the Kama Sutra and, of course, the samizdat version of Steve’s own book on Bukharin. I learned from Steve that one had to keep forbidden documents and manuscripts on one’s person at all times, knowing that the KGB frequently searched apartments and hotel rooms. At a certain point, Steve’s shoulder bag became so heavy that he developed a hernia on his right side. After surgery, he started carrying his bag on his left side, but developed a second hernia there, as well. He liked to say that the worst the KGB ever did to him was to cause him two hernias!
In fact, it was samizdat manuscripts that first brought us together. In 1978, Steve heard that I had a diplomatic passport, which would have exempted me from a customs search, and was about to travel to Moscow. (At the time my father was the United States representative to the United Nations in Geneva.) Through a mutual friend, Steve asked if I would bring out samizdat documents being held for him in Moscow. I would have been happy to do so, but Steve had been misinformed. I didn’t have a diplomatic passport.
Steve could sometimes seem like a tough guy, but those who won his trust knew he was a person of great generosity, loyalty, and kindness. He was known in our New York City neighborhood on the Upper West Side as an impresario/organizer and longtime supporter of basketball tournaments for local, often poor, kids. In the United States and Russia, Steve mentored and supported young scholars. In the last decade, he set up fellowships for young scholars of Russian history at the several universities where he’d he studied and taught: Indiana University, Princeton, New York University, and Columbia. He lent his support to the establishment of Moscow’s State Museum of the History of the Gulag—and to its young director and team.
Life with Steve was never boring. He was supremely independent, the true radical in our family, unfailingly going to the root of the problem. He spoke his mind. He had a CD with a dozen variations of “My Way”—from Billy Bragg to Frank Sinatra. And as The Chronicle of Higher Education subtitled its 2017 profile of Steve, he “was the most controversial Russia expert in America.”
Through all our years together, Steve was my backbone, fortifying me for the battles Nation editors must wage (often with their own writers, sometimes including Steve!), and giving me the personal and political courage to do the right thing. But never more so than when we entered what might be called the “Russiagate era.”
While Steve liked to say it’s healthy to rethink, to have more questions than answers, there was a wise consistency to his political analysis. For example, as is clear from his many articles in The Nation in these last decades, he unwaveringly opposed American Cold War thinking both during the Cold War and since the end of the Soviet Union. He was consistent in his refusal to sermonize, lecture, or moralize about what Russia should do. He preferred to listen rather than preach, to analyze rather than demonize.
This stance was no recipe for popularity, which Steve professed to care little about. He was courageous and fearless in continuing to question the increasingly rigid orthodoxies about the Soviet Union and Russia. But in the last months, such criticism did take its toll on him. Along with others who sought to avert a new and more dangerous Cold War, Steve despaired that the public debate so desperately needed had become increasingly impossible in mainstream politics or media. Until his death he’d been working on a short article about what he saw as the “criminalization of détente.” The organization he established, the American Committee on East-West Accord, tried mightily to argue for a more sane US policy toward Russia.
He fared better than I often did confronting the controversies surrounding him since 2014, in reaction to his views on Ukraine, Putin, election interference, and more. Positions he took often elicited slurs and scurrilous attacks. How many times could he be labeled “Putin’s puppet”? “Putin’s No.1 American apologist”? Endlessly, it seemed. But Steve chose not to respond directly to the attacks, believing—as he told me many times when I urged him to respond—that they offered no truly substantive criticism of his arguments, but were merely ad hominem attacks. What he did write about—he was increasingly concerned about the fate of a younger generation of scholars—was the danger of smearing those who thought differently about US policy toward Russia, thereby silencing skeptics and contributing to the absence of a needed debate in our politics, media, and academy.
Mikhail Gorbachev often told Steve how deeply influenced he was by his writings, especially his biography of Bukharin. Steve first met Gorbachev in 1987 at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. It was a reception for America’s “progressive intelligentsia”—which Steve found funny, because he considered himself a maverick and didn’t like labels. But he was there that day, and within a few minutes a Kremlin aide told Steve that the general secretary wanted to talk to him. Minutes later, Mikhail Sergeevich approached and asked Steve, assuming the author of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution must be eminent and of a “serious” age: “Deistvitelno [really]—you wrote the book, or was it your father?”
Steve finally achieved that “serious” age Gorbachev spoke of! But his heart, spirit and mind remained youthful till the very end. Maybe it’s because of his love of Jerry Lee Lewis’s rock and roll, or New Orleans blues or Kentucky bluegrass, or his passion for basketball (shared with our daughter Nika and his 16-year-old grandson, Lucas), or his quest for a good anecdote (his annual anecdote lectures at Princeton and later NYU drew large crowds). Maybe it’s because we continued our walks in nearby Riverside Park for as long as was possible—walks full of loving and spirited argument and talk. Perhaps it’s because, while Steve was a very serious person, he didn’t take himself seriously.
On Saturday, Mikhail Gorbachev sent these words about Steve:
Dear Katrina,
Please accept my sincere condolences on Steve’s passing. He was one of the closest people to me in his views and understanding of the enormous events that occurred in the late 1980s in Russia and changed the world.
Steve was a brilliant historian and a man of democratic convictions. He loved Russia, the Russian intelligentsia, and believed in our country’s future.
I always considered Steve and you my true friends. During perestroika and all the subsequent years, I felt your understanding and unwavering support. I thank you both.
Dear Katrina, I feel deep sympathy for your grief and I mourn together with you and Nika.
Blessed memory for Steve.
I embrace you,
Mikhail Gorbachev
19.09.20
For 40 years, Steve was my partner, companion, co-conspirator, best friend, fellow traveler, mentor, husband (for 32 years), co-author. I will be forever grateful to him for introducing me to The Nation, to Russia, for a life that has been full of shared adventure, friendship and passion, and for our beloved daughter, Nika.


thenation--2020-09-21--Can the Climate Youth Tip the 2020 Election Against Trump?

This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .
Today , The Nation and other Covering Climate Now partners are holding a “ First-Time Voter Youth Day ” to highlight the voices of the generation most affected by climate change as we launch a week of joint coverage of Climate Politics 2020 .
More than any other group , the Sunrise Movement put the Green New Deal on the public agenda .
Compelled by the climate emergency , its members , mostly in their teens and 20s , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi and Republican Mitch McConnel ) but also helped write legislation ( the Green New Deal resolution cosponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey ) .
In a new book , Winning The Green New Deal : Why We Must , How We Can , Varshini Prakash , the group ’ s executive director , says the key to Sunrise ’ s success is the group ’ s use of both protest organizing and electoral organizing to build political power .
ark ertsgaard : The very first line of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have got to rise up.
” Lots of young people have indeed risen up this year with the Sunrise movement to help Green New Deal champions defeat centrists in Democratic primary elections—Jamaal Bowman in New York , Cori Bush in Missouri , and , most famously , Ed Markey beating a Kennedy for the first time ever in Massachusetts .
What ’ s your secret—how are you winning all these races ?
arshini rakash : Teenagers on Zoom !
I kid you not .
In Jamaal Bowman ’ s race [ in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , young people with Sunrise made 800,000 of his 1.3 million calls .
In the Markey race , when Joe Kennedy announced , he was leading in the polls by 17 points .
But Sunrise Movement students ultimately were victorious because we bring movement energy to electoral politics .
We treat elections as an opportunity not just to get another person elected but to build our movement in the process .
For a really long time , we have seen leftists and progressives have a real aversion to political power , a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mucky muck of politics .
For us , we realized that what legislation is passed is based on who [ an elected official ] feels accountable to .
I think that what ’ s made Sunrise different from many climate organizations that proceeded it : We ’ re not afraid to marry civil disobedience and protest organizing with hard-nosed electoral organizing .
MH : Sunrise was not a big fan of Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries , yet when Biden won the nomination , you didn ’ t pick up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re now working hard to elect Biden .
That must have been a tough decision for a lot of your members .
VP : It was a depressing , painful time after Super Tuesday when it became apparent that our endorsed candidate , Bernie Sanders , was not going to be the nominee .
But especially in recent weeks , with all the wildfires , and storms , and frankly criminal negligence of Donald Trump denying climate science , many of our members , particularly in the swing states , are recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ droves to defeat Trump .
Because that is the only way that we have the political terrain we need to make progress on a Green New Deal .
MH : Politicians traditionally have discounted the youth vote because young people in the US tend not to vote as much as older folks do .
In 2016 , only 46 percent of eligible voters under the age of 30 cast a ballot .
How does Sunrise get young people to believe in electoral activism ?
VP : Sunrise activates young people by making electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the political candidate .
Our mission is to enact a 10-year transformation of virtually every part of our society to tackle the climate crisis .
A politician ultimately is a tool towards achieving that end .
We often say that defeating Trump is just the first step to passing a Green New Deal .
And even if Biden is elected , we will need a movement force unparalleled in recent history both to ensure that he keeps his campaign promises and to fight the fossil fuel industry and the GOP , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop us from taking action .
MH : Sunrise is competing on a very different political terrain over the next six weeks .
After your democratic primary victories , now you face not just Democratic voters , but also Independents and Republicans .
How are you adjusting your approach , both for the Biden-Trump race and the 18 congressional candidates you ’ ve endorsed ?
VP : We ’ re planning to make 2.5 million phone calls to voters to help elect Green New Deal champions [ to Congress ] and defeat Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
We will reach out to folks that the Democratic and Republican parties often fail to reach , particularly young voters and voters of color , and make sure they understand how this election could affect their communities .
And there ’ s a few other races that we decided to prioritize from the beginning—for example , Mike Siegel ’ s race [ in Texas ’ s 10th district ] and Cori Bush ’ s race [ in Missouri ’ s 1st district ] .
MH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a strong possibility of voter intimidation and even violence at the polls , along with a president who is openly indicating that he won ’ t accept results showing he lost .
How does Sunrise analyze the situation from now through Inauguration Day in January , and what are you preparing to do ?
VP : It ’ s terrifying .
We ’ re aware that we need to be ready to snap into action if and when the president attempts , essentially , a coup .
We ’ re planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls on Election Day to protect the right to vote .
We ’ re looking at what direct actions we could do alongside what I assume will be thousands of other progressive organizations to target in particular Republican governors and elected officials who might comply with a power grab on Trump ’ s part .
We need to make it extremely clear that this isn ’ t a fight just about counting votes but about the future of our democracy .
Will there be equal representation for all in this country or @ @ @ @ @ @

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Today, The Nation and other Covering Climate Now partners are holding a “First-Time Voter Youth Day” to highlight the voices of the generation most affected by climate change as we launch a week of joint coverage of Climate Politics 2020. More than any other group, the Sunrise Movement put the Green New Deal on the public agenda. Compelled by the climate emergency, its members, mostly in their teens and 20s, have organized protests (sit-ins against both Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Mitch McConnel) but also helped write legislation (the Green New Deal resolution cosponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey). In a new book, Winning The Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can, Varshini Prakash, the group’s executive director, says the key to Sunrise’s success is the group’s use of both protest organizing and electoral organizing to build political power.
—Mark Hertsgaard
M ark H ertsgaard: The very first line of your new book says, “Young people have got to rise up.” Lots of young people have indeed risen up this year with the Sunrise movement to help Green New Deal champions defeat centrists in Democratic primary elections—Jamaal Bowman in New York, Cori Bush in Missouri, and, most famously, Ed Markey beating a Kennedy for the first time ever in Massachusetts. What’s your secret—how are you winning all these races?
V arshini P rakash: Teenagers on Zoom! I kid you not. In Jamaal Bowman’s race [in New York’s 16th congressional district], young people with Sunrise made 800,000 of his 1.3 million calls. In the Markey race, when Joe Kennedy announced, he was leading in the polls by 17 points. But Sunrise Movement students ultimately were victorious because we bring movement energy to electoral politics. We treat elections as an opportunity not just to get another person elected but to build our movement in the process.
For a really long time, we have seen leftists and progressives have a real aversion to political power, a real fear of what it means to get in the mucky muck of politics. For us, we realized that what legislation is passed is based on who [an elected official] feels accountable to. I think that what’s made Sunrise different from many climate organizations that proceeded it: We’re not afraid to marry civil disobedience and protest organizing with hard-nosed electoral organizing. 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
MH: Sunrise was not a big fan of Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries, yet when Biden won the nomination, you didn’t pick up your ball and go home. You’re now working hard to elect Biden. That must have been a tough decision for a lot of your members. Current Issue View our current issue
VP: It was a depressing, painful time after Super Tuesday when it became apparent that our endorsed candidate, Bernie Sanders, was not going to be the nominee. But especially in recent weeks, with all the wildfires, and storms, and frankly criminal negligence of Donald Trump denying climate science, many of our members, particularly in the swing states, are recognizing the importance of youth turning out in droves to defeat Trump. Because that is the only way that we have the political terrain we need to make progress on a Green New Deal.
MH: Politicians traditionally have discounted the youth vote because young people in the US tend not to vote as much as older folks do. In 2016, only 46 percent of eligible voters under the age of 30 cast a ballot. How does Sunrise get young people to believe in electoral activism?
VP: Sunrise activates young people by making electoral work about our larger mission, not about the political candidate. Our mission is to enact a 10-year transformation of virtually every part of our society to tackle the climate crisis. A politician ultimately is a tool towards achieving that end. We often say that defeating Trump is just the first step to passing a Green New Deal. And even if Biden is elected, we will need a movement force unparalleled in recent history both to ensure that he keeps his campaign promises and to fight the fossil fuel industry and the GOP, who will do everything in their power to stop us from taking action.
MH: Sunrise is competing on a very different political terrain over the next six weeks. After your democratic primary victories, now you face not just Democratic voters, but also Independents and Republicans. How are you adjusting your approach, both for the Biden-Trump race and the 18 congressional candidates you’ve endorsed?
VP: We’re planning to make 2.5 million phone calls to voters to help elect Green New Deal champions [to Congress] and defeat Donald Trump, particularly in three swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. We will reach out to folks that the Democratic and Republican parties often fail to reach, particularly young voters and voters of color, and make sure they understand how this election could affect their communities. And there’s a few other races that we decided to prioritize from the beginning—for example, Mike Siegel’s race [in Texas’s 10th district] and Cori Bush’s race [in Missouri’s 1st district].
MH: Looking towards Election Day itself, there is a strong possibility of voter intimidation and even violence at the polls, along with a president who is openly indicating that he won’t accept results showing he lost. How does Sunrise analyze the situation from now through Inauguration Day in January, and what are you preparing to do?
VP: It’s terrifying. We’re aware that we need to be ready to snap into action if and when the president attempts, essentially, a coup. We’re planning to send thousands of young people to the polls on Election Day to protect the right to vote. We’re looking at what direct actions we could do alongside what I assume will be thousands of other progressive organizations to target in particular Republican governors and elected officials who might comply with a power grab on Trump’s part. We need to make it extremely clear that this isn’t a fight just about counting votes but about the future of our democracy. Will there be equal representation for all in this country or will we traverse towards authoritarianism?