thenation--2020-07-29--Congrats, Dems: You Just Let Trump’s Chief Henchman Off the Hook

Attorney General William Barr has ignored subpoenas requesting his testimony before Congress and been held in contempt of Congress for ignoring those subpoenas .
But yesterday Barr finally sat down before the House Judiciary Committee to deliver live testimony under oath .
If you watch a lot of congressional hearings ( and congratulations to those who do not ) , the thing that likely struck you was how quickly this much-anticipated event reverted to the familiar melodrama of so many other congressional hearings .
Democrats , who are in control of the Judiciary Committee , made soaring speeches about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of questions at the end .
Republicans made craven speeches in hopes of a presidential retweet .
And Barr answered what questions he liked , ignored what questions he didn ’ t like , and generally stalled or obfuscated during the brief moments representatives stopped speechifying long enough for him to say anything .
This was congressional theater in its purest form , with all sides ( Democrats , Republicans , and Barr ) trying to score “ points ” for some nonexistent scorekeeper .
Liberal Twitter erupted with praise for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter expressed glee every time Representative Jim Jordan speed-talked a Republican conspiracy theory into the record .
Cable news hosts graded the effectiveness of particular representatives .
The only thing missing was Jeff Probst handing out immunity idols to the participants .
I found the entire display disgusting .
We are in a fight to preserve our democracy from authoritarian brutes who think the rule of law does not apply to them .
Barr is one of the chief brutes .
He was finally compelled to sit down and testify to his brutishness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ Big Obvious Lies ” is all the elected representatives of the democracy he wants to destroy had for him ?
The same everybody-gets-to-play format that witnesses have so easily conquered in the past ?
The same political speeches ?
The same bickering with an off-screen time-lord decreeing whose turn it is to hold the conch ?
Barr is directly responsible for organizing pardons or reduced sentences for Trump ’ s political friends , while plotting retribution against former Trump associate Michael Cohen , who eventually came clean .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House so the president could have a photo-op .
He ’ s directly responsible for pushing out a prosecutor who may have been investigating crimes committed by the Trump family .
Barr lied about the Mueller report and continues to spread lies and misinformation about Russian interference in elections , mail-in voting , and the administration ’ s attempt to suppress the Black vote .
He is currently leading investigations into Trump ’ s political rivals , and , as a close confidant of the president , likely has firsthand knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use federal troops either to steal the election or remain in power after he loses .
At this point , there is nary a crime nor an abuse of power committed by this administration that doesn ’ t deeply involve Bill Barr .
Maybe that was part of the problem .
Barr ’ s ledger is bloated with threats to democracy , and the Democrats in Congress tried to touch on all of them instead of homing in on a couple of key transgressions .
But “ he who defends everything defends nothing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr ’ s abuses , Democrats didn ’ t trap Barr into any particular failure that might get him impeached if Trump wins or jailed if Trump loses .
Again , the goal seemed to be to score talking points , instead of , I don ’ t know , bringing a dangerous threat to democracy to justice .
To be clear , Republicans were worse .
The Democrats had better “ points , ” for whatever that is worth .
But just because Republicans have already sold out the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election doesn ’ t mean they get a pass for the total dereliction of their oaths of office to uphold the laws .
The Republicans could care about election integrity and the rule of law and pardoning cronies too .
They have just decided not to as long as a Republican is in the White House .
There were Roman Praetorian guards who were less slavishly devoted to authoritarian strongmen than the modern Republican Party .
The Barr hearing failed for the same reason so many other responses to Trump ’ s rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Barr was able to eat normally for lunch ( even though , in a moment of pettiness masquerading as strength , Chairman Jerry Nadler briefly denied Barr actual lunch ) .
For all of Barr ’ s faults , he ’ s not a dumb man .
He is a smart , highly skilled lawyer .
You can ’ t question him like a “ normal ” person ; he ’ s too good at answering questions .
He listens carefully .
He doesn ’ t say more than he has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying what he wants to say instead of what the questioner wants him to say .
You can ’ t come at a lawyer of Barr ’ s caliber with politicians .
As was discussed at great length during the Mueller hearings , a lot of congresspeople fancy themselves excellent questioners , and many of them were once practicing lawyers and have legal training .
But few of them have experience asking probative legal questions of a hostile witness , and almost none of them can do it well under time pressure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like listening to the best person at your office karaoke party try to sing a live duet with Adele .
It sounds neat for a few bars , but quickly becomes embarrassing and painful and you just want someone to set fire to the rain .
One might have hoped that congressional Democrats had learned their lesson from the Mueller hearings , but no .
They left their most effective lawyers , like Daniel Goldman , on the bench and instead went back to the normal process of having politicians ask open-ended questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr would try to lie about .
The Democrats questioned Barr the same way they might have questioned a misbehaving corporate executive ; at one point , Nadler told Barr , “ Shame on you , ” as if Trump administration officials were capable of feeling shame .
With our democracy at stake , I would not have let Barr walk out of that hearing a free man .
Barr was held in contempt of Congress and has been sued for his role in ordering peaceful citizens to be teargassed .
The country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ d have had the Capitol Police or Congress ’ s sergeant-at-arms arrest him and throw him in a basement of the Capitol , pending a trial for his suspected crimes .
If Trump wanted to free his henchman , he ’ d have to order federal troops to storm the rotunda .
Barr would do it for Trump .
But with Trump , loyalty is a one-way street .
I think Trump would opt for a “ very strong , very powerful ” tweet storm instead of a Civil War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s Abraham Lincoln .
I ’ d demand a receipt .
Of course , the Democrats would never arrest Barr ; that would be abnormal .
Fox News would run some kind of “ alert.
” Tom Cotton would accuse Democrats of “ rebelling ” without keeping the good parts , like slavery .
David Brooks might finally write a column about something other than whether people like reading his columns .
Trump ’ s Secret Police Have Never Been a Secret to Brown People Seriously ?
John Kasich ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed up at the hearing ready to stop Barr .
Elected officials continue to talk about Trump and his administration like it ’ s a unique threat to American democracy , but they never do anything abnormal or unique to stop him .
That was the Barr hearing in a nutshell : some speeches , some clips for TV , but nothing risky or defiant or desperate .
Nothing from Congress came close to matching the intensity , creativity , or courage we ’ ve seen from ordinary citizens who are under attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The latest polling average has Joe Biden up by about eight points over Donald Trump in a general election .
That ’ s good news , so long as Bill Barr allows us to have an election .

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?
Attorney General William Barr has ignored subpoenas requesting his testimony before Congress and been held in contempt of Congress for ignoring those subpoenas. But yesterday Barr finally sat down before the House Judiciary Committee to deliver live testimony under oath.
If you watch a lot of congressional hearings (and congratulations to those who do not), the thing that likely struck you was how quickly this much-anticipated event reverted to the familiar melodrama of so many other congressional hearings.
Democrats, who are in control of the Judiciary Committee, made soaring speeches about the rule of law, and tacked on a couple of questions at the end. Republicans made craven speeches in hopes of a presidential retweet. And Barr answered what questions he liked, ignored what questions he didn’t like, and generally stalled or obfuscated during the brief moments representatives stopped speechifying long enough for him to say anything.
This was congressional theater in its purest form, with all sides (Democrats, Republicans, and Barr) trying to score “points” for some nonexistent scorekeeper. Liberal Twitter erupted with praise for particularly incisive speeches from Democrats. White-wing Twitter expressed glee every time Representative Jim Jordan speed-talked a Republican conspiracy theory into the record. Cable news hosts graded the effectiveness of particular representatives. The only thing missing was Jeff Probst handing out immunity idols to the participants.
I found the entire display disgusting. We are in a fight to preserve our democracy from authoritarian brutes who think the rule of law does not apply to them. Barr is one of the chief brutes. He was finally compelled to sit down and testify to his brutishness under oath. Yet this five-hour episode of “Big Obvious Lies” is all the elected representatives of the democracy he wants to destroy had for him? The same everybody-gets-to-play format that witnesses have so easily conquered in the past? The same political speeches? The same bickering with an off-screen time-lord decreeing whose turn it is to hold the conch? Current Issue View our current issue
Barr is directly responsible for organizing pardons or reduced sentences for Trump’s political friends, while plotting retribution against former Trump associate Michael Cohen, who eventually came clean. He’s directly responsible for teargassing peaceful protesters outside the White House so the president could have a photo-op. He’s directly responsible for pushing out a prosecutor who may have been investigating crimes committed by the Trump family. Barr lied about the Mueller report and continues to spread lies and misinformation about Russian interference in elections, mail-in voting, and the administration’s attempt to suppress the Black vote. He is currently leading investigations into Trump’s political rivals, and, as a close confidant of the president, likely has firsthand knowledge about whether Trump has any plans to use federal troops either to steal the election or remain in power after he loses. At this point, there is nary a crime nor an abuse of power committed by this administration that doesn’t deeply involve Bill Barr. 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
Maybe that was part of the problem. Barr’s ledger is bloated with threats to democracy, and the Democrats in Congress tried to touch on all of them instead of homing in on a couple of key transgressions. But “he who defends everything defends nothing.” By taking a survey approach to Barr’s abuses, Democrats didn’t trap Barr into any particular failure that might get him impeached if Trump wins or jailed if Trump loses. Again, the goal seemed to be to score talking points, instead of, I don’t know, bringing a dangerous threat to democracy to justice.
To be clear, Republicans were worse. The Democrats had better “points,” for whatever that is worth. But just because Republicans have already sold out the country’s democratic traditions in hopes of stealing another election doesn’t mean they get a pass for the total dereliction of their oaths of office to uphold the laws. The Republicans could care about election integrity and the rule of law and pardoning cronies too. They have just decided not to as long as a Republican is in the White House. There were Roman Praetorian guards who were less slavishly devoted to authoritarian strongmen than the modern Republican Party.
The Barr hearing failed for the same reason so many other responses to Trump’s rule have failed: Everybody behaved normally. And Barr was able to eat normally for lunch (even though, in a moment of pettiness masquerading as strength, Chairman Jerry Nadler briefly denied Barr actual lunch). For all of Barr’s faults, he’s not a dumb man. He is a smart, highly skilled lawyer. You can’t question him like a “normal” person; he’s too good at answering questions. He listens carefully. He doesn’t say more than he has to. He’s an expert at saying what he wants to say instead of what the questioner wants him to say.
You can’t come at a lawyer of Barr’s caliber with politicians. As was discussed at great length during the Mueller hearings, a lot of congresspeople fancy themselves excellent questioners, and many of them were once practicing lawyers and have legal training. But few of them have experience asking probative legal questions of a hostile witness, and almost none of them can do it well under time pressure. Listening to Congress asking Barr questions was like listening to the best person at your office karaoke party try to sing a live duet with Adele. It sounds neat for a few bars, but quickly becomes embarrassing and painful and you just want someone to set fire to the rain.
One might have hoped that congressional Democrats had learned their lesson from the Mueller hearings, but no. They left their most effective lawyers, like Daniel Goldman, on the bench and instead went back to the normal process of having politicians ask open-ended questions without a full command of which facts Barr would try to lie about. The Democrats questioned Barr the same way they might have questioned a misbehaving corporate executive; at one point, Nadler told Barr, “Shame on you,” as if Trump administration officials were capable of feeling shame.
With our democracy at stake, I would not have let Barr walk out of that hearing a free man. Barr was held in contempt of Congress and has been sued for his role in ordering peaceful citizens to be teargassed. The country would be safer with Barr behind bars. I’d have had the Capitol Police or Congress’s sergeant-at-arms arrest him and throw him in a basement of the Capitol, pending a trial for his suspected crimes. If Trump wanted to free his henchman, he’d have to order federal troops to storm the rotunda. Barr would do it for Trump. But with Trump, loyalty is a one-way street. I think Trump would opt for a “very strong, very powerful” tweet storm instead of a Civil War. Trump keeps talking about himself like he’s Abraham Lincoln. I’d demand a receipt.
Of course, the Democrats would never arrest Barr; that would be abnormal. Fox News would run some kind of “alert.” Tom Cotton would accuse Democrats of “rebelling” without keeping the good parts, like slavery. David Brooks might finally write a column about something other than whether people like reading his columns. More from Mystal America Doesn’t Deserve to Have Baseball Back Elie Mystal Trump’s Secret Police Have Never Been a Secret to Brown People Elie Mystal Seriously? John Kasich? What Is the Biden Camp Thinking? Elie Mystal
Nobody showed up at the hearing ready to stop Barr. Elected officials continue to talk about Trump and his administration like it’s a unique threat to American democracy, but they never do anything abnormal or unique to stop him. That was the Barr hearing in a nutshell: some speeches, some clips for TV, but nothing risky or defiant or desperate. Nothing from Congress came close to matching the intensity, creativity, or courage we’ve seen from ordinary citizens who are under attack from Barr and the Trump administration.
The latest polling average has Joe Biden up by about eight points over Donald Trump in a general election. That’s good news, so long as Bill Barr allows us to have an election.


thenation--2020-07-29--Covid-19 Can Change International Politics Forever

Don ’ t take it personally .
It doesn ’ t matter whether you ’ re a friend or a stranger .
I don ’ t care about your identity or your politics , where you work or if you work , whether you wear a mask or carry a gun .
I don ’ t trust you because you are , for the time being , a potential carrier of a deadly virus .
You don ’ t have any symptoms ?
Maybe you ’ re an asymptomatic superspreader .
Show me your negative test results and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no idea what you ’ ve been up to between taking the test and receiving the results .
And can we really trust that the test is accurate ?
Frankly , you shouldn ’ t trust me for the same reasons .
I ’ m not even sure that I can trust myself .
Didn ’ t I just touch my face at the supermarket after palpating the avocados ?
I ’ m learning to live with this mistrust .
I ’ m keeping my distance from other people .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m washing my hands .
I ’ m staying far away from bars .
I ’ m not sure , however , that society can live with this level .
Let ’ s face it : Trust makes the world go around .
Protests break out when our faith in people or institutions is violated : when we can ’ t trust the police ( # BlackLivesMatter ) , can ’ t trust male colleagues ( # MeToo ) , can ’ t trust the economic system to operate with a modicum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t trust our government to do , well , anything properly ( # notmypresident ) .
Now , throw a silent , hidden killer into this combustible mix of mistrust , anger , and dismay .
It ’ s enough to tear a country apart , to set neighbor against neighbor and governor against governor , to precipitate a civil war between the masked and the unmasked .
Such problems only multiply at the global level where mistrust already permeates the system—military conflicts , trade wars , tussles over migration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also been enough trust to keep the global economy going , diplomats negotiating , international organizations functioning , and the planet from spinning out of control .
But the pandemic may just tip this known world off its axis .
I ’ m well aware of the ongoing debate between the “ not much ” and “ everything ” factions .
Once a vaccine knocks it out of our system , the coronavirus might not have much lasting effect on our world .
Even without a vaccine , people can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by jumping into pools , heading to the movie theater , attending parties—even in the United States where cases continue to rise dramatically .
The flu epidemic of 1918-19 , which is believed to have killed at least 50 million people , didn ’ t fundamentally change everyday life , aside from giving a boost to both alternative and socialized medicine .
That flu passed out of mind and into history and so , of course , might Covid-19 .
Or , just as the Black Death in the 14th century separated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic might draw a thick before-and-after line through our history .
Let ’ s imagine that this novel virus keeps circulating and recirculating , that no one acquires permanent immunity , that it becomes a nasty new addition to the cold season except that it just happens to kill a couple of people out of every hundred who get it .
This new normal would certainly be better than if Ebola , with a 50 percent case fatality rate if untreated , became a perennial risk everywhere .
But even with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Covid-19 would necessarily change everything .
The media is full of speculation about what a periodic pandemic future will look like .
The end of theater and spectator sports .
The institutionalization of distance learning .
The death of offices and brick-and-mortar retail .
But let ’ s take a look beyond that—at the even bigger picture .
Let ’ s consider for a moment the impact of this new , industrial-strength mistrust on international relations .
The Future of the Nation-State Let ’ s say you live in a country where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 .
Let ’ s say that your government established a reliable testing , contact tracing , and quarantine system .
It either closed down the economy for a painful but short period or its system of testing was so good that it didn ’ t even need to shut everything down .
Right now , your life is returning to some semblance of normal .
The rest of us live in the United States .
Or Brazil .
Or Russia .
Or India .
In these countries , the governments have proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state : protecting the lives of their citizens .
While most of Europe and much of East Asia have suppressed the pandemic sufficiently to restart their economies , Covid-19 continues to rage out of control in those parts of the world that , not coincidentally , are also headed by democratically elected right-wing autocrats .
In these incompetently run countries , citizens have very good reason to mistrust their governments .
In the United States , for instance , the Trump administration botched testing , failed to coordinate lockdowns , removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen the economy over the objections of public health experts .
In the latest sign of early-onset dementia for the Trump administration , White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany declared this month that “ science should not stand in the way ” of reopening schools in the fall .
Voters , of course , could boot Trump out in November and , assuming he actually leaves the White House , restore some measure of sanity to public affairs .
But the pandemic is contributing to an already overwhelming erosion of confidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck , in its 2018 Trust Barometer the public relations firm Edelman registered an unprecedented drop in public trust connected to… what else ?
… the election of Trump .
“ The collapse of trust in the United States is driven by a staggering lack of faith in government , which fell 14 points to 33 percent among the general population , ” the report noted .
“ The remaining institutions of business , media , and NGOs also experienced declines of 10 to 20 points.
” And you won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t shown signs of improvement by 2020 , with American citizens even more mistrustful of their country ’ s institutions than their counterparts in Brazil , Italy , and India .
That institutional loss of faith reflects a longer-term trend .
According to Gallup ’ s latest survey , only 11 percent of Americans now trust Congress , 23 percent big business and newspapers , 24 percent the criminal justice system , 29 percent the public school system , 36 percent the medical system , and 38 percent the presidency .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust—and consider this an irony , given America ’ s endless 21st century wars—is the military ( 73 percent ) .
The truly scary part is that those numbers have held steady , with minor variations , for the last decade across two very different administrations .
How low does a country ’ s trust index have to go before it ceases being a country ?
Commentators have already spent a decade discussing the polarization of the American electorate .
Much ink has been spilled over the impact of social media in creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been 25 years since political scientist Robert Putnam observed that Americans were “ bowling alone ” ( that is , no longer participating in group activities or community affairs in the way previous generations did ) .
The coronavirus has generally proven a major force multiplier of such trends by making spontaneous meetings of unlike-minded people ever less likely .
I suspect I ’ m typical .
I ’ m giving a wide berth to pedestrians , bicyclists , and other joggers when I go out for my runs .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not talking to people in line at the supermarket .
Sure , I ’ m on Zoom a lot , but it ’ s almost always with people I already know and agree with .
Under these circumstances , how will we overcome the enormous gaps of perception now evident in this country to achieve anything like the deeper basic understandings that a nation-state requires ?
Or will Americans lose faith entirely in elections , newspaper stories , hospitals , and public transportation , and so cease being a citizenry altogether ?
Trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run .
And it looks as though we passed Peak Trust long ago and may be on a Covid-19 sled heading downhill fast .
The global economy also runs on trust : in financial transactions , the safety of workplace conditions , the long-distance transport of goods , and the consumer ’ s expectation that the purchased product will work as advertised .
To cause a breakdown in the global assembly line , Covid-19 didn ’ t have to introduce doubt into every step in this supply chain ( though it would , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ) .
It only had to sever one link : the workplace .
When the Chinese government shut down factories in early 2020 to contain the pandemic—leading to a 17 percent decline in exports in January and February compared to the previous year—companies around the world suddenly faced critical shortages of auto parts , smartphone components , and other key goods .
The workplace proved a weak link in the global supply chain for another reason : cost .
Labor has traditionally been the chief expense in manufacturing , which , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outsource work to cheaper locations like Mexico , China , and Vietnam .
Since then , however , the global assembly line has changed and , as the McKinsey consulting firm explains , “ over 80 % of today ’ s global goods trade is [ no longer ] from a low-wage country to a high-wage country.
” Labor ’ s centrality to the location of manufacturing had been further eroded by the growth of automation , which , according to economists , tends to surge during downturns .
As it happens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the rise even before the pandemic hit .
By 2030 , up to 20 million jobs worldwide will be filled by robots .
The World Bank estimates that they will eventually replace an astounding 85 percent of the jobs in Ethiopia , 77 percent in China , and 72 percent in Thailand .
Then there are the environmental costs of that same global assembly line .
Moving freight contributes 7 to 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions , with air transport being the most carbon intensive way to go .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the carbon footprint of the factories themselves . )
If all that doesn ’ t change the minds of CEOs about the benefits of globalization , then national security considerations might .
The pandemic exposed how vulnerable countries are in terms of key commodities .
Because China is responsible for producing more respirators , surgical masks , and protective garments than the rest of the world combined , countries began to panic when Covid-19 first hit because they no longer had sufficient national capacity to produce the basic tools to address the spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential drugs .
The United States stopped producing penicillin , for instance , in 2004 .
The threat of infection , the spread of automation , the environmental impact , the risk of foreign control : The global assembly line just doesn ’ t seem to make much sense any more .
Why not relocate manufacturing back home to a “ dark factory ” that ’ s fully automated , doesn ’ t need lights , heating , or air conditioning , and is practically pandemic-proof ?
The current pandemic won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course .
Corporations , as the McKinsey report points out , will still find compelling reasons to relocate manufacturing and services overseas , including “ access to skilled labor or natural resources , proximity to consumers , and the quality of infrastructure.
” Consumers will still want pineapples in winter and cheap smart phones .
But capitalists eyeing the bottom line , in combination with Trump-style nationalists insisting that capital return home , will increasingly disassemble what we all took for granted as globalization .
The world economy won ’ t simply disappear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the modern era .
It just employs an ever-diminishing segment of the workforce .
The same will likely happen to global trade in a pandemic age .
In the early part of the last century , surplus labor no longer needed on the farms migrated to the cities to work in factories .
The question now is : What will happen to all those workers no longer needed in the global assembly line ?
Neither the international community nor the free market has a ready answer , but authoritarian populists do : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From the moment he descended that Trump Tower escalator into the presidential race , Donald Trump ’ s effort to seal off the US border with Mexico has been his signature policy position .
That “ big , fat , beautiful wall ” of his may be simplistic , anti-immigrant , xenophobic , and mistrustful of the world—and may never really be completed—but unfortunately , he ’ s been anything but alone in his obsession with walls .
Israel pioneered modern wall building in the mid-1990s by sealing off Palestinians in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrier to wall off the West Bank .
In 2005 , responding to a wave of migrants escaping wars and poverty in North Africa and the Middle East , Hungary built new bulwarks along its southern borders to keep out the desperate .
Bulgaria , Greece , Slovenia , and Croatia have done the same .
India has fenced off the Kashmir region from Pakistan .
Saudi Arabia has constructed a 600-mile barrier along its border with Iraq .
In 1989 , there were about a dozen major walls separating countries , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that number has grown to 70 .
In this context , the novel coronavirus proved a godsend to nationalists the world over who believe that if good fences make good neighbors , a great wall is best of all .
More than 135 countries added new restrictions at their borders after the outbreak .
Europe reestablished its internal Schengen area borders for the first time in 25 years and closed its external ones as well .
Some countries—Japan and New Zealand , in particular—practically walled themselves off .
Even as the pandemic fades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of those new border restrictions remain in place .
If you want to travel to Europe this summer , you can only do so if you ’ re from one of a dozen countries on a European Union-approved list ( and that doesn ’ t include Americans ) .
New Zealand has had only a handful of cases over the last few months ( with a high of four new cases on June 27 ) , but its borders remain closed to virtually everyone .
Even a “ travel bubble ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
Japan has banned entry to people from 129 countries , including the United States , but there ’ s an exemption for US soldiers traveling to American military bases .
A recent outbreak of coronavirus at such garrisons on the island of Okinawa may well prompt Tokyo to tighten its already strict rules further .
And such border restrictions are potentially just the beginning .
So far , the pandemic has unleashed an everyone-for-themselves spirit—from export restrictions on essential goods to a feverish competition to develop a vaccine first .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater international cooperation , its secretary general even urging a “ global ceasefire ” among warring parties .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) attempted to organize a global response to the virus at its annual meeting .
However , the Trump administration promptly announced that it would be pulling out of the WHO , very few combatants observed a Covid-19 ceasefire , and there is no coordinated international response to the pandemic outside of the community of scientists sharing research .
So , is this to be the future : each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How long can a sense of internationalism survive in Wall World ?
Conservatives used to make fun of the left for its penchant for relativism , for arguing that everything depends on context .
“ If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is , I ’ m not going to tell you debt , deficits , statistics , economics , ” former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in 2011 , “ I ’ ll tell you it ’ s moral relativism.
” Once upon a time , the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over facts .
What , then , to make of the Republican Party today ?
So many of its leaders , including the president , don ’ t believe in the science behind either climate change or Covid-19 .
Many of them embrace the most lunatic conspiracy theories and some current congressional candidates even believe , by way of the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon , that a cabal of satanic child molesters in Hollywood , the Democratic Party , and various international organizations controls the world .
In July , Trump achieved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies during his tenure as president .
In other words , speaking of relativism , the Republican Party has put its trust in a man untethered from reality .
And then along came that pandemic like lighter fluid to a brushfire .
The resulting conflagration of mistrust threatens to spread out of control until nothing is left , not the nation-state , not the global economy , not the international community .
In this pandemic era , a fire somewhere is a fire everywhere , for the virus cares nothing about borders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin where the trust deficit has grown largest and that certainly is the United States .
Not only have Americans lost faith in their own institutions , so , it seems , has everyone else .
Since 2016 , there has been a 50 percent drop in the world ’ s trust in the United States , the largest decline ever in the U.S. News and World Report ’ s Best Countries survey .
And the reason the United States has the worst record dealing with the coronavirus is quite simple : Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ever-diminishing proportion of the public that continues to believe the coronavirus is a hoax or refuses to comply with basic precautions to prevent its spread .
A scofflaw president who refuses to mandate the use of face masks ( even after officially donning one for his Twitter feed ) inspires a scofflaw minority that puts the majority at risk .
Restoring trust in this country ’ s public health system and governance must begin with a competent system of testing , contact tracing , and quarantine .
Yet the Trump administration still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans have pushed for $ 25 billion to help establish testing and tracing systems at the state level , but the president actually wants to eliminate even this modest amount from the budget ( along with additional funds for government agencies tasked with addressing the pandemic ) .
Americans increasingly mistrust their institutions because growing numbers of us believe that we derive ever fewer benefits from them .
The Trump administration has typically done its best to make matters disastrously worse , only recently , amid the pandemic and with millions unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health insurance provided by the Obama administration ’ s Affordable Care Act .
The bulk of the stimulus funds passed by Congress went to wealthy individuals and corporations—and the president ’ s men didn ’ t even exercise due diligence to prevent nearly $ 1.4 billion in stimulus checks from being mailed to dead people .
The next administration ( assuming there is one ) will have a massive clean-up job restoring faith of any sort in such an unequal , broken system .
After addressing the acute crisis of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law is again functioning .
The most dramatic proof would , of course , be to throw the book at Donald Trump and his closest enablers .
They have violated so many laws that trust in the legal system will be further weakened unless they ’ re tried and punished for their crimes , including their willingness to sacrifice American lives in staggering numbers in pursuit of The Donald ’ s reelection .
In 1996 , Bill Clinton spoke of building a bridge to the 21st century .
Two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively torn down that bridge and replaced it with a ( still largely unbuilt ) wall reminiscent of the fortifications of the Middle Ages .
Covid-19 has only reinforced the insular paranoia of this president and his followers .
The path back to trust , at both a domestic and international level , will be difficult .
There will be monsters to battle along the way .
But in the end , it ’ s possible for us to take this country back , create a just and sustainable global economy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can do this .
Together .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy. This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
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?
I don’t trust you.
Don’t take it personally. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a friend or a stranger. I don’t care about your identity or your politics, where you work or if you work, whether you wear a mask or carry a gun.
I don’t trust you because you are, for the time being, a potential carrier of a deadly virus. You don’t have any symptoms? Maybe you’re an asymptomatic superspreader. Show me your negative test results and I’ll still have my doubts. I have no idea what you’ve been up to between taking the test and receiving the results. And can we really trust that the test is accurate?
Frankly, you shouldn’t trust me for the same reasons. I’m not even sure that I can trust myself. Didn’t I just touch my face at the supermarket after palpating the avocados?
I’m learning to live with this mistrust. I’m keeping my distance from other people. I’m wearing my mask. I’m washing my hands. I’m staying far away from bars.
I’m not sure, however, that society can live with this level. Let’s face it: Trust makes the world go around. Protests break out when our faith in people or institutions is violated: when we can’t trust the police (#BlackLivesMatter), can’t trust male colleagues (#MeToo), can’t trust the economic system to operate with a modicum of fairness (#OccupyWallStreet), or can’t trust our government to do, well, anything properly (#notmypresident).
Now, throw a silent, hidden killer into this combustible mix of mistrust, anger, and dismay. It’s enough to tear a country apart, to set neighbor against neighbor and governor against governor, to precipitate a civil war between the masked and the unmasked. Current Issue View our current issue
Such problems only multiply at the global level where mistrust already permeates the system—military conflicts, trade wars, tussles over migration and corruption. Of course, there’s also been enough trust to keep the global economy going, diplomats negotiating, international organizations functioning, and the planet from spinning out of control. But the pandemic may just tip this known world off its axis.
I’m well aware of the ongoing debate between the “not much” and “everything” factions. Once a vaccine knocks it out of our system, the coronavirus might not have much lasting effect on our world. Even without a vaccine, people can’t wait to get back to normal life by jumping into pools, heading to the movie theater, attending parties—even in the United States where cases continue to rise dramatically. The flu epidemic of 1918-19, which is believed to have killed at least 50 million people, didn’t fundamentally change everyday life, aside from giving a boost to both alternative and socialized medicine. That flu passed out of mind and into history and so, of course, might Covid-19. 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
Or, just as the Black Death in the 14th century separated the medieval world from all that followed, this pandemic might draw a thick before-and-after line through our history. Let’s imagine that this novel virus keeps circulating and recirculating, that no one acquires permanent immunity, that it becomes a nasty new addition to the cold season except that it just happens to kill a couple of people out of every hundred who get it. This new normal would certainly be better than if Ebola, with a 50 percent case fatality rate if untreated, became a perennial risk everywhere. But even with a fatality rate in the low single digits, Covid-19 would necessarily change everything.
The media is full of speculation about what a periodic pandemic future will look like. The end of theater and spectator sports. The institutionalization of distance learning. The death of offices and brick-and-mortar retail.
But let’s take a look beyond that—at the even bigger picture. Let’s consider for a moment the impact of this new, industrial-strength mistrust on international relations.
The Future of the Nation-State
Let’s say you live in a country where the government responded quickly and competently to Covid-19. Let’s say that your government established a reliable testing, contact tracing, and quarantine system. It either closed down the economy for a painful but short period or its system of testing was so good that it didn’t even need to shut everything down. Right now, your life is returning to some semblance of normal.
Lucky you.
The rest of us live in the United States. Or Brazil. Or Russia. Or India. In these countries, the governments have proven incapable of fulfilling the most important function of the state: protecting the lives of their citizens. While most of Europe and much of East Asia have suppressed the pandemic sufficiently to restart their economies, Covid-19 continues to rage out of control in those parts of the world that, not coincidentally, are also headed by democratically elected right-wing autocrats.
In these incompetently run countries, citizens have very good reason to mistrust their governments. In the United States, for instance, the Trump administration botched testing, failed to coordinate lockdowns, removed oversight from the bailouts, and pushed to reopen the economy over the objections of public health experts. In the latest sign of early-onset dementia for the Trump administration, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany declared this month that “science should not stand in the way” of reopening schools in the fall.
Voters, of course, could boot Trump out in November and, assuming he actually leaves the White House, restore some measure of sanity to public affairs. But the pandemic is contributing to an already overwhelming erosion of confidence in national institutions. Even before the virus struck, in its 2018 Trust Barometer the public relations firm Edelman registered an unprecedented drop in public trust connected to… what else?… the election of Trump. “The collapse of trust in the United States is driven by a staggering lack of faith in government, which fell 14 points to 33 percent among the general population,” the report noted. “The remaining institutions of business, media, and NGOs also experienced declines of 10 to 20 points.”
And you won’t be surprised to learn that the situation hadn’t shown signs of improvement by 2020, with American citizens even more mistrustful of their country’s institutions than their counterparts in Brazil, Italy, and India.
That institutional loss of faith reflects a longer-term trend. According to Gallup’s latest survey, only 11 percent of Americans now trust Congress, 23 percent big business and newspapers, 24 percent the criminal justice system, 29 percent the public school system, 36 percent the medical system, and 38 percent the presidency. The only institution a significant majority of Americans trust—and consider this an irony, given America’s endless 21st century wars—is the military (73 percent). The truly scary part is that those numbers have held steady, with minor variations, for the last decade across two very different administrations.
How low does a country’s trust index have to go before it ceases being a country? Commentators have already spent a decade discussing the polarization of the American electorate. Much ink has been spilled over the impact of social media in creating political echo chambers. It’s been 25 years since political scientist Robert Putnam observed that Americans were “bowling alone” (that is, no longer participating in group activities or community affairs in the way previous generations did).
The coronavirus has generally proven a major force multiplier of such trends by making spontaneous meetings of unlike-minded people ever less likely. I suspect I’m typical. I’m giving a wide berth to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other joggers when I go out for my runs. I’m not visiting cafes. I’m not talking to people in line at the supermarket. Sure, I’m on Zoom a lot, but it’s almost always with people I already know and agree with.
Under these circumstances, how will we overcome the enormous gaps of perception now evident in this country to achieve anything like the deeper basic understandings that a nation-state requires? Or will Americans lose faith entirely in elections, newspaper stories, hospitals, and public transportation, and so cease being a citizenry altogether?
Trust is the fuel that makes such institutions run. And it looks as though we passed Peak Trust long ago and may be on a Covid-19 sled heading downhill fast.
Globalization Unravels
The global economy also runs on trust: in financial transactions, the safety of workplace conditions, the long-distance transport of goods, and the consumer’s expectation that the purchased product will work as advertised.
To cause a breakdown in the global assembly line, Covid-19 didn’t have to introduce doubt into every step in this supply chain (though it would, in the end, do something like that). It only had to sever one link: the workplace. When the Chinese government shut down factories in early 2020 to contain the pandemic—leading to a 17 percent decline in exports in January and February compared to the previous year—companies around the world suddenly faced critical shortages of auto parts, smartphone components, and other key goods.
The workplace proved a weak link in the global supply chain for another reason: cost. Labor has traditionally been the chief expense in manufacturing, which, from the 1990s on, led corporations to outsource work to cheaper locations like Mexico, China, and Vietnam. Since then, however, the global assembly line has changed and, as the McKinsey consulting firm explains, “over 80% of today’s global goods trade is [no longer] from a low-wage country to a high-wage country.”
Labor’s centrality to the location of manufacturing had been further eroded by the growth of automation, which, according to economists, tends to surge during downturns. As it happens, both artificial intelligence and robotization were already on the rise even before the pandemic hit. By 2030, up to 20 million jobs worldwide will be filled by robots. The World Bank estimates that they will eventually replace an astounding 85 percent of the jobs in Ethiopia, 77 percent in China, and 72 percent in Thailand.
Then there are the environmental costs of that same global assembly line. Moving freight contributes 7 to 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with air transport being the most carbon intensive way to go. (Add to that, of course, the carbon footprint of the factories themselves.)
If all that doesn’t change the minds of CEOs about the benefits of globalization, then national security considerations might. The pandemic exposed how vulnerable countries are in terms of key commodities. Because China is responsible for producing more respirators, surgical masks, and protective garments than the rest of the world combined, countries began to panic when Covid-19 first hit because they no longer had sufficient national capacity to produce the basic tools to address the spreading pandemic themselves. The same applied to essential drugs. The United States stopped producing penicillin, for instance, in 2004.
The threat of infection, the spread of automation, the environmental impact, the risk of foreign control: The global assembly line just doesn’t seem to make much sense any more. Why not relocate manufacturing back home to a “dark factory” that’s fully automated, doesn’t need lights, heating, or air conditioning, and is practically pandemic-proof?
The current pandemic won’t spell the end of globalization, of course. Corporations, as the McKinsey report points out, will still find compelling reasons to relocate manufacturing and services overseas, including “access to skilled labor or natural resources, proximity to consumers, and the quality of infrastructure.” Consumers will still want pineapples in winter and cheap smart phones. But capitalists eyeing the bottom line, in combination with Trump-style nationalists insisting that capital return home, will increasingly disassemble what we all took for granted as globalization.
The world economy won’t simply disappear. After all, agriculture has persisted in the modern era. It just employs an ever-diminishing segment of the workforce. The same will likely happen to global trade in a pandemic age. In the early part of the last century, surplus labor no longer needed on the farms migrated to the cities to work in factories. The question now is: What will happen to all those workers no longer needed in the global assembly line?
Neither the international community nor the free market has a ready answer, but authoritarian populists do: stop all those displaced workers from migrating.
Wall World
From the moment he descended that Trump Tower escalator into the presidential race, Donald Trump’s effort to seal off the US border with Mexico has been his signature policy position. That “big, fat, beautiful wall” of his may be simplistic, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and mistrustful of the world—and may never really be completed—but unfortunately, he’s been anything but alone in his obsession with walls.
Israel pioneered modern wall building in the mid-1990s by sealing off Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, followed by a 440-mile-long barrier to wall off the West Bank. In 2005, responding to a wave of migrants escaping wars and poverty in North Africa and the Middle East, Hungary built new bulwarks along its southern borders to keep out the desperate. Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, and Croatia have done the same. India has fenced off the Kashmir region from Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has constructed a 600-mile barrier along its border with Iraq.
In 1989, there were about a dozen major walls separating countries, including the soon-to-fall Berlin Wall. Today, that number has grown to 70.
In this context, the novel coronavirus proved a godsend to nationalists the world over who believe that if good fences make good neighbors, a great wall is best of all. More than 135 countries added new restrictions at their borders after the outbreak. Europe reestablished its internal Schengen area borders for the first time in 25 years and closed its external ones as well. Some countries—Japan and New Zealand, in particular—practically walled themselves off.
Even as the pandemic fades in certain parts of the world, many of those new border restrictions remain in place. If you want to travel to Europe this summer, you can only do so if you’re from one of a dozen countries on a European Union-approved list (and that doesn’t include Americans). New Zealand has had only a handful of cases over the last few months (with a high of four new cases on June 27), but its borders remain closed to virtually everyone. Even a “travel bubble” with nearby Australia is off the table for now. Japan has banned entry to people from 129 countries, including the United States, but there’s an exemption for US soldiers traveling to American military bases. A recent outbreak of coronavirus at such garrisons on the island of Okinawa may well prompt Tokyo to tighten its already strict rules further.
And such border restrictions are potentially just the beginning. So far, the pandemic has unleashed an everyone-for-themselves spirit—from export restrictions on essential goods to a feverish competition to develop a vaccine first. The United Nations has made various pleas for greater international cooperation, its secretary general even urging a “global ceasefire” among warring parties. The World Health Organization (WHO) attempted to organize a global response to the virus at its annual meeting. However, the Trump administration promptly announced that it would be pulling out of the WHO, very few combatants observed a Covid-19 ceasefire, and there is no coordinated international response to the pandemic outside of the community of scientists sharing research.
So, is this to be the future: each country transformed into a gated community? How long can a sense of internationalism survive in Wall World?
Rebuilding Trust
Conservatives used to make fun of the left for its penchant for relativism, for arguing that everything depends on context. “If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics,” former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in 2011, “I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.” Once upon a time, the right wing railed against deconstructionists who emphasized interpretation over facts.
What, then, to make of the Republican Party today? So many of its leaders, including the president, don’t believe in the science behind either climate change or Covid-19. Many of them embrace the most lunatic conspiracy theories and some current congressional candidates even believe, by way of the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon, that a cabal of satanic child molesters in Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and various international organizations controls the world. In July, Trump achieved the dubious milestone of telling more than 20,000 lies during his tenure as president. In other words, speaking of relativism, the Republican Party has put its trust in a man untethered from reality.
And then along came that pandemic like lighter fluid to a brushfire. The resulting conflagration of mistrust threatens to spread out of control until nothing is left, not the nation-state, not the global economy, not the international community.
In this pandemic era, a fire somewhere is a fire everywhere, for the virus cares nothing about borders. But the key to restoring trust must begin where the trust deficit has grown largest and that certainly is the United States. Not only have Americans lost faith in their own institutions, so, it seems, has everyone else. Since 2016, there has been a 50 percent drop in the world’s trust in the United States, the largest decline ever in the U.S. News and World Report’s Best Countries survey.
And the reason the United States has the worst record dealing with the coronavirus is quite simple: Donald Trump. He is the leader of an ever-diminishing proportion of the public that continues to believe the coronavirus is a hoax or refuses to comply with basic precautions to prevent its spread. A scofflaw president who refuses to mandate the use of face masks (even after officially donning one for his Twitter feed) inspires a scofflaw minority that puts the majority at risk.
Restoring trust in this country’s public health system and governance must begin with a competent system of testing, contact tracing, and quarantine. Yet the Trump administration still refuses to take this necessary step. Senate Republicans have pushed for $25 billion to help establish testing and tracing systems at the state level, but the president actually wants to eliminate even this modest amount from the budget (along with additional funds for government agencies tasked with addressing the pandemic).
Americans increasingly mistrust their institutions because growing numbers of us believe that we derive ever fewer benefits from them. The Trump administration has typically done its best to make matters disastrously worse, only recently, amid the pandemic and with millions unemployed, demanding that the Supreme Court gut the health insurance provided by the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. The bulk of the stimulus funds passed by Congress went to wealthy individuals and corporations—and the president’s men didn’t even exercise due diligence to prevent nearly $1.4 billion in stimulus checks from being mailed to dead people.
The next administration (assuming there is one) will have a massive clean-up job restoring faith of any sort in such an unequal, broken system. After addressing the acute crisis of the pandemic, it will have to demonstrate that the rule of law is again functioning. The most dramatic proof would, of course, be to throw the book at Donald Trump and his closest enablers. They have violated so many laws that trust in the legal system will be further weakened unless they’re tried and punished for their crimes, including their willingness to sacrifice American lives in staggering numbers in pursuit of The Donald’s reelection.
In 1996, Bill Clinton spoke of building a bridge to the 21st century. Two decades into this century, Donald Trump has effectively torn down that bridge and replaced it with a (still largely unbuilt) wall reminiscent of the fortifications of the Middle Ages. Covid-19 has only reinforced the insular paranoia of this president and his followers. The path back to trust, at both a domestic and international level, will be difficult. There will be monsters to battle along the way. But in the end, it’s possible for us to take this country back, create a just and sustainable global economy, and rebuild the international community.
You and I can do this. Together.
Trust me.


thenation--2020-07-30--The Enduring Wisdom of John Lewis

The Enduring Wisdom of John Lewis

Representative John Lewis carried bananas and water as he walked into Hillary Clinton ’ s Waterloo , Iowa , headquarters on the bitterly cold night before the 2016 caucus .
He knew from experience that exhausted activists , campaign staff and volunteers needed fruit , hydration , and inspiration .
This wasn ’ t a normal “ celebrity ” appearance at a campaign office , though .
Lewis mingled with the crowd for hugs , selfies , and private conversations before he spoke .
He stayed and did the same after .
Waterloo is Iowa ’ s most multiracial city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters—roughly 16 percent—in that overwhelmingly white state .
Lewis bonded with everyone , but particularly with a Waterloo precinct captain ( who later became the county Democratic Party chair ) , Vikki Brown , from Birmingham , Ala. At age 11 she joined the 1963 Children ’ s Crusade that answered Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s call from jail in that cruel , segregated city .
Dogs leapt at them , and fire hoses scattered them in Kelly Ingraham Park , Brown recalled .
Lewis got misty and grabbed her hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into that park , I cried , ” he told her softly .
“ We ’ re here to build the beloved community , and redeem the soul of America , ” he told the crowd .
“ Hang in there , keep the faith , continue to work .
Your children , grandchildren , and great grandchildren will be very proud of you .
I really feel blessed to be here ; you inspire me.
” We palpably felt that—that Lewis felt blessed to be with us , that we inspired him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an exaggeration ; I was there as a journalist and also as the mother of a local Clinton staffer ) .
I was literally blessed : Though it wasn ’ t on his schedule , he gave me a 20-minute interview .
He was thrilled to learn about the film I was trying to make about the week in 1968 that his friend Harry Belafonte hosted The Tonight Show , featuring two men he loved and worked for , Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy , who would both be murdered just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform with Belafonte .
What struck me the first time I met Lewis , a year before , then again in Waterloo , and at ( sadly too few ) later meetings : He created time and space around everyone he spoke to .
Everyone .
The clock seemed to stop .
In a crowded room , no one else was around .
It was you and him .
I remember how warm his hands felt , how his face beamed up at me ( I ’ m 5 ’ 11 ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember his eyes looking to my eyes .
And I also remember the shiny dent on his head inflicted by the state police in 1965 on the Edmund Pettus Bridge .
Looking into his eyes , every time , I felt—I knew—we were in the “ beloved community ” he and King and Belafonte and so many others tried to create .
And that we will create , eventually , with Lewis ’ s blessing .
I felt that same warmth when I read Lewis ’ s op-ed in The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we all felt it : the sense that he was talking to us personally .
Especially to young people : “ Emmett Till was my George Floyd .
He was my Rayshard Brooks , Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor.… I will never ever forget the moment when it became so clear that he could easily have been me.… When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century , let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggression and war .
So I say to you , walk with the wind , brothers and sisters , and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.
” At his funeral on Thursday , at Dr. King ’ s Ebenezer Baptist Church , which its leader , the Rev .
Raphael Warnock , called “ America ’ s freedom church , ” three former presidents paid tribute .
Warnock , running for a Georgia Senate seat this year , promoted bipartisan love for Lewis , calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ the conscience of the Congress.
” Former president George W. Bush gave the best speech of his life in that pulpit .
So did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Former president Bill Clinton , generally a good if digressive speaker , shared remarkable memories .
Barack Obama called Lewis “ a man of pure joy , ” and while he said more profound things , that might just boil it down to what we all should remember .
“ We may no longer have to guess the number of jelly beans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Obama added , “ but even as we sit here there are those in power that are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting.
” Just hours earlier , Trump had suggested on Twitter that the November election be delayed because of the possibility—entirely undemonstrated—for fraud in voting by mail .
Is Our Generation Ready to Take Up the Torch That John Lewis Lit ?
John Lewis Never Stopped Bending the Arc Toward Justice The star of the day might have been the Rev .
James Lawson , 91 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis back in the day , who denounced “ plantation capitalism ” to great applause .
“ We will not be quiet as long as women and children are the largest poverty group in our country , ” Lawson said , channeling Lewis .
If you haven ’ t already , please read Lewis ’ s amazing memoir , Walking With the Wind , maybe the best civil rights autobiography of its time .
I ’ m not going to grab it from my shelf ; I ’ m just going to share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hope I ’ m right ) : The night before the final 1965 march to Montgomery ( they ’ d left Selma days before , their third try ) , Harry Belafonte , Leon Bibb , Joan Baez , and other stars danced on a stage made out of coffins—collected from black undertakers , the only wood that could be quickly put together .
I both love that image and find it literally chilling .
I will also always love a scene where Lewis , still a shy , short young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our documentary , but couldn ’ t find the footage ) , finds himself unexpectedly dancing with glamorous actress Shirley MacLaine .
And I love the chapter where he meets his life ’ s love , Lillian Miles .
How can Lewis be as great a writer as a leader ?
I ’ m a slacker , and so are you .
One of Lewis ’ s last acts was going to see the new Black Lives Matter Plaza , in Washington , D.C .
But he always found his ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Occupy Wall Street movement that spread to his hometown of Atlanta .
I almost hate summoning this memory , but it was really the best of John Lewis : He was turned away by the young , lefty Atlanta crowd for being a Democratic officeholder ( I saw similar things happen in my hometowns at the time , San Francisco and Oakland , sadly ) .
I learned about it when Twitter exploded in fury on Lewis ’ s behalf .
But Lewis accepted it .
He noted he hadn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy to just observe .
“ It is the right time and the right place to be.… It is the will of the people .
When I was young we did similar actions .
It is grassroots democracy at its best .
I think something good will come of the moment.
” I will admit : I used to literally stare at John Lewis to try to understand his drive and , mainly , his optimism .
I don ’ t have it , naturally .
But I will acquire it , whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president Lewis refused to honor with his presence at the inauguration .
We all owe him no less .

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?
Representative John Lewis carried bananas and water as he walked into Hillary Clinton’s Waterloo, Iowa, headquarters on the bitterly cold night before the 2016 caucus. He knew from experience that exhausted activists, campaign staff and volunteers needed fruit, hydration, and inspiration.
This wasn’t a normal “celebrity” appearance at a campaign office, though. Lewis mingled with the crowd for hugs, selfies, and private conversations before he spoke. He stayed and did the same after.
Waterloo is Iowa’s most multiracial city, with the highest proportion of Black voters—roughly 16 percent—in that overwhelmingly white state. Lewis bonded with everyone, but particularly with a Waterloo precinct captain (who later became the county Democratic Party chair), Vikki Brown, from Birmingham, Ala. At age 11 she joined the 1963 Children’s Crusade that answered Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call from jail in that cruel, segregated city. Dogs leapt at them, and fire hoses scattered them in Kelly Ingraham Park, Brown recalled. Lewis got misty and grabbed her hands. “The first time I walked into that park, I cried,” he told her softly.
“We’re here to build the beloved community, and redeem the soul of America,” he told the crowd. “Hang in there, keep the faith, continue to work. Your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will be very proud of you. I really feel blessed to be here; you inspire me.”
We palpably felt that—that Lewis felt blessed to be with us, that we inspired him (“we” is something of an exaggeration; I was there as a journalist and also as the mother of a local Clinton staffer). I was literally blessed: Though it wasn’t on his schedule, he gave me a 20-minute interview. He was thrilled to learn about the film I was trying to make about the week in 1968 that his friend Harry Belafonte hosted The Tonight Show, featuring two men he loved and worked for, Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy, who would both be murdered just a few months after they appeared on that shining platform with Belafonte.
What struck me the first time I met Lewis, a year before, then again in Waterloo, and at (sadly too few) later meetings: He created time and space around everyone he spoke to. Everyone. The clock seemed to stop. In a crowded room, no one else was around. It was you and him. I remember how warm his hands felt, how his face beamed up at me (I’m 5’11” to his 5’4″). I remember his eyes looking to my eyes. And I also remember the shiny dent on his head inflicted by the state police in 1965 on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Looking into his eyes, every time, I felt—I knew—we were in the “beloved community” he and King and Belafonte and so many others tried to create. 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
And that we will create, eventually, with Lewis’s blessing. Current Issue View our current issue
I felt that same warmth when I read Lewis’s op-ed in The New York Times the morning of his funeral. I think we all felt it: the sense that he was talking to us personally. Especially to young people:
“Emmett Till was my George Floyd. He was my Rayshard Brooks, Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor.… I will never ever forget the moment when it became so clear that he could easily have been me.… When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.”
At his funeral on Thursday, at Dr. King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, which its leader, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, called “America’s freedom church,” three former presidents paid tribute. Warnock, running for a Georgia Senate seat this year, promoted bipartisan love for Lewis, calling him “the boy from Troy” and “the conscience of the Congress.”
Former president George W. Bush gave the best speech of his life in that pulpit. So did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Former president Bill Clinton, generally a good if digressive speaker, shared remarkable memories. Barack Obama called Lewis “a man of pure joy,” and while he said more profound things, that might just boil it down to what we all should remember.
“We may no longer have to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar to cast a ballot,” Obama added, “but even as we sit here there are those in power that are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting.” Just hours earlier, Trump had suggested on Twitter that the November election be delayed because of the possibility—entirely undemonstrated—for fraud in voting by mail. Related Articles Is Our Generation Ready to Take Up the Torch That John Lewis Lit? Elie Mystal John Lewis Never Stopped Bending the Arc Toward Justice John Nichols
The star of the day might have been the Rev. James Lawson, 91, himself a young civil rights activist alongside Lewis back in the day, who denounced “plantation capitalism” to great applause. “We will not be quiet as long as women and children are the largest poverty group in our country,” Lawson said, channeling Lewis.
If you haven’t already, please read Lewis’s amazing memoir, Walking With the Wind, maybe the best civil rights autobiography of its time. I’m not going to grab it from my shelf; I’m just going to share two vivid images from memory (let’s hope I’m right): The night before the final 1965 march to Montgomery (they’d left Selma days before, their third try), Harry Belafonte, Leon Bibb, Joan Baez, and other stars danced on a stage made out of coffins—collected from black undertakers, the only wood that could be quickly put together. I both love that image and find it literally chilling. I will also always love a scene where Lewis, still a shy, short young man (we tried to recreate that in our documentary, but couldn’t find the footage), finds himself unexpectedly dancing with glamorous actress Shirley MacLaine. And I love the chapter where he meets his life’s love, Lillian Miles. How can Lewis be as great a writer as a leader? I’m a slacker, and so are you.
One of Lewis’s last acts was going to see the new Black Lives Matter Plaza, in Washington, D.C. But he always found his ways to protest, including, memorably, attending the Occupy Wall Street movement that spread to his hometown of Atlanta. I almost hate summoning this memory, but it was really the best of John Lewis: He was turned away by the young, lefty Atlanta crowd for being a Democratic officeholder (I saw similar things happen in my hometowns at the time, San Francisco and Oakland, sadly). I learned about it when Twitter exploded in fury on Lewis’s behalf. But Lewis accepted it.
He noted he hadn’t asked to speak, and he was happy to just observe. “It is the right time and the right place to be.… It is the will of the people. When I was young we did similar actions. It is grassroots democracy at its best. I think something good will come of the moment.”
I will admit: I used to literally stare at John Lewis to try to understand his drive and, mainly, his optimism. I don’t have it, naturally. But I will acquire it, whatever it takes, to rid this country of the president Lewis refused to honor with his presence at the inauguration. We all owe him no less.


thenation--2020-07-30--How the DHS Can Still Arrest Journalists in Portland

While issues of press freedom are widely debated in abstract terms , the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) recently instructed employees on how to arrest journalists and expose them to crowd suppressants like tear gas without being legally liable , according to a copy of the instructions provided to The Nation by a DHS source .
It also delineates which legal protections are not extended to “ normal protestors.
” The document , marked attorney-client work product law enforcement sensitive , instructs DHS officials on how to interpret a temporary restraining order issued last week by US District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit filed by the ACLU alleging that DHS officers had been attacking journalists in Portland .
The same district court denied a separate lawsuit from the Oregon attorney general for a broader restraining order , which would have blocked federal agents from detaining any individual without a warrant or probable cause .
While the existing restraining order does mandate several restrictions , there were qualifications—which the DHS ’ s legal guidance appears keen to stress .
For example , while the court order forbids the DHS from using crowd control devices like tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the National Lawyers Guild or ACLU present to act as independent monitors—it provides an exemption for “ incidental exposure.
” “ If a journalist or legal observer is incidentally exposed to crowd-control devices after remaining in the area , you will not [ be ] held liable , ” the DHS document states [ emphasis in original ] .
“ Incidentally means that the journalists or legal observers , while not the target of the crowd-control devices , still end up being exposed to the crowd-control devices because of where they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Extends Far Beyond Portland Federal forces ’ use of crowd control munitions in Portland has stirred controversy , particularly after police shot a 26-year-old protester in the head with a “ less-lethal ” munition , fracturing his skull and seriously injuring him .
A Federal Aviation Administration official told The Nation use of tear gas was so pervasive that clouds of it were getting picked up on their radar .
Even Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was gassed after talking to protesters .
Videos surfaced on Twitter appearing to show federal law enforcement picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This may have been to conceal the originating agency , according to one former senior DHS intelligence official The Nation spoke to .
“ I guess they don ’ t want any nosy folks trying to see the lot numbers and stuff of the ammo , because ammo buys are public info , ” the former intelligence officer said .
“ Someone smart could look up what agency bought that ammo.
” Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced yesterday , following discussions with Vice President Pence , that Customs and Border Protection as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , starting today .
However , shortly after Brown ’ s statement , DHS Secretary Chad Wolf made clear that the withdrawal would be gradual and conditioned on the security of federal properties in the area .
“ We will maintain our current , augmented federal law enforcement personnel in Portland until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked and that the seat of justice in Portland will remain secure , ” Wolf tweeted .
“ DHS will not back down from our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers and federal properties in the face of violent criminal behavior.
” A Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) source told The Nation yesterday that additional CBP personnel , including BORTAC—elite tactical units that have played a significant role in the Portland deployment—were en route to Portland and had not been turned back .
The DHS document also distinguishes journalists and legal observers from “ normal protestors.
” While the former can not be arrested for failure to disperse , they can still be arrested for probable cause in the case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seized , so long as a list of items seized is provided to them .
Journalists and legal observers are prohibited from access to federal properties like the Hatfield Courthouse .
It also states that anyone can be treated as a “ normal protestor ” unless they are clearly marked as a journalist or legal observer .
Ironically , the DHS came under heavy criticism for its use of unmarked cars and unclear uniform markings .
“ Again , if the person does not have at least one indicator that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you may treat them as a normal protestor while dispersing the crowd , ” the document states .
The document leaves open the targeted use of tear gas and other crowd control devices , as well as arrest for failure to disperse , for anyone its agents have identified as a “ normal protestor .
”

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?
While issues of press freedom are widely debated in abstract terms, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently instructed employees on how to arrest journalists and expose them to crowd suppressants like tear gas without being legally liable, according to a copy of the instructions provided to The Nation by a DHS source. It also delineates which legal protections are not extended to “normal protestors.”
The document, marked attorney-client work product law enforcement sensitive, instructs DHS officials on how to interpret a temporary restraining order issued last week by US District Judge Michael Simon in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU alleging that DHS officers had been attacking journalists in Portland. The same district court denied a separate lawsuit from the Oregon attorney general for a broader restraining order, which would have blocked federal agents from detaining any individual without a warrant or probable cause.
While the existing restraining order does mandate several restrictions, there were qualifications—which the DHS’s legal guidance appears keen to stress. For example, while the court order forbids the DHS from using crowd control devices like tear gas against journalists and legal observers—like members of the National Lawyers Guild or ACLU present to act as independent monitors—it provides an exemption for “incidental exposure.”
“If a journalist or legal observer is incidentally exposed to crowd-control devices after remaining in the area, you will not [be] held liable,” the DHS document states [emphasis in original]. “Incidentally means that the journalists or legal observers, while not the target of the crowd-control devices, still end up being exposed to the crowd-control devices because of where they are located.” Homeland Security The Federal Response to Protests Extends Far Beyond Portland Ken Klippenstein
Federal forces’ use of crowd control munitions in Portland has stirred controversy, particularly after police shot a 26-year-old protester in the head with a “less-lethal” munition, fracturing his skull and seriously injuring him. A Federal Aviation Administration official told The Nation use of tear gas was so pervasive that clouds of it were getting picked up on their radar. Even Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was gassed after talking to protesters.
Videos surfaced on Twitter appearing to show federal law enforcement picking up and removing less-lethal shell casings. This may have been to conceal the originating agency, according to one former senior DHS intelligence official The Nation spoke to. 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
“I guess they don’t want any nosy folks trying to see the lot numbers and stuff of the ammo, because ammo buys are public info,” the former intelligence officer said. “Someone smart could look up what agency bought that ammo.” Current Issue View our current issue
Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced yesterday, following discussions with Vice President Pence, that Customs and Border Protection as well as ICE officers will leave downtown Portland, starting today. However, shortly after Brown’s statement, DHS Secretary Chad Wolf made clear that the withdrawal would be gradual and conditioned on the security of federal properties in the area.
“We will maintain our current, augmented federal law enforcement personnel in Portland until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked and that the seat of justice in Portland will remain secure,” Wolf tweeted. “DHS will not back down from our legal duty to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal properties in the face of violent criminal behavior.”
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) source told The Nation yesterday that additional CBP personnel, including BORTAC—elite tactical units that have played a significant role in the Portland deployment—were en route to Portland and had not been turned back.
The DHS document also distinguishes journalists and legal observers from “normal protestors.” While the former cannot be arrested for failure to disperse, they can still be arrested for probable cause in the case of other crimes. Their equipment can also be seized, so long as a list of items seized is provided to them. Journalists and legal observers are prohibited from access to federal properties like the Hatfield Courthouse. It also states that anyone can be treated as a “normal protestor” unless they are clearly marked as a journalist or legal observer. Ironically, the DHS came under heavy criticism for its use of unmarked cars and unclear uniform markings.
“Again, if the person does not have at least one indicator that they are a journalist or legal observer, then you may treat them as a normal protestor while dispersing the crowd,” the document states. The document leaves open the targeted use of tear gas and other crowd control devices, as well as arrest for failure to disperse, for anyone its agents have identified as a “normal protestor.”
N