thenation--2020-05-15--Would You Buy a Used Progressive Agenda From This Man?

Noam Chomsky has accurately described Joe Biden as “ an empty vessel.
” Indeed , it ’ s hard to think of a presidential candidate who has a less clearly defined ideological and policy profile than Biden .
In his decades in politics , he ’ s been the consummate chameleon , quick to take on the coloration of the political moment .
He initially ran for the Senate in 1972 as something of a New Deal Democrat , in the high tide of opposition to Nixon .
That original Biden was a proud union supporter and talked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations .
As the Democrats moved to the right in the 1980s and ’ 90s , so did Biden , rebranding himself as Clintonian centrist .
Now that he ’ s all but certain to be the Democratic nominee , Biden is making clear that he knows the party has moved to the left and he ’ s willing to join that shift .
Biden ’ s malleability can be dismissed as opportunism and evidence of a lack of core principles .
But opportunism can also be an opportunity .
The historian Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the patrician as opportunist.
” Hofstadter meant the epithet not as an insult but rather a way of explaining FDR ’ s success .
The New Deal was the product of a president quick to respond to militant social movements that wanted large-scale solutions to the Great Depression .
Biden is no FDR .
But his flexibility might make him more responsive to popular pressure than most politicians in a political moment of unparalleled danger .
“ With a Biden presidency , the activism of a popular movement will make a big difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Mehdi Hassan .
Faiz Shakir , Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign manager , shares this view .
“ This is not a knock on him , but Joe Biden did not win the nomination with a robust policy platform , ” Shakir told The Washington Post , noting that Biden ’ s association with Barack Obama counted more than ideology .
“ There was a sense of comfort and security about him , as someone who sat in that seat next to Barack Obama .
So he ’ s got of room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Racism Is All Trump Has Left The New Cold War in Asia Is Born of Desperation The most promising sign that Biden is indeed willing to make significant concessions to the left came from the announcement of the members of the “ unity task force ” selected by the Biden and Sanders campaign to advise on the Democratic Party platform .
There are six task forces in all , dealing with climate change , education , criminal justice reform , health care , the economy , and immigration .
It was agreed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members for each task force and Sanders ’ s campaign would select three .
It wasn ’ t surprising that the Sanders campaign picked many outstanding progressives , notably Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal , and Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson .
What is noteworthy is that even many of the Biden selections were closer to the left than to the center .
The economy task force includes Jared Bernstein , Biden ’ s longtime economic adviser and one of the progressive voices from the Obama White House .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitive progressive victory .
The left now has a real chance to shape the party platform .
Yet the selection of the task force is only one indicator of which direction Biden might choose as president .
In other areas , he ’ s shown far greater loyalty to the centrist orthodoxy he ’ s upheld for most of his political career .
As with any president , selection of personnel is key .
Biden has surrounded himself with a mixed bag .
His inner circle includes progressives but also Wall Street insiders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The return of Larry Summers , the neoliberal economist , bodes ill for progressives .
This is not only because of Summers himself but also the network of younger neoliberals Summers is trying to seed in the possible Biden administration .
One of them is Natasha Sarin , who teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania and has participated in Biden policy meetings .
A Progressive Democratic Party is Possible—and Biden Needs It to Win The New Cold War in Asia Is Born of Desperation More in this series Sarin recently co-authored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to access a tiny % of their future Social Security benefits today can provide the liquidity they need to weather this storm.
” This proposal is incredibly dangerous , since it opens the door to the privatization of Social Security .
It creates the terrible precedent that economic relief should be carved out of entitlements .
Joe Biden rightly attacked the Trump White House for floating a similar idea .
Sarin herself , in the wake of progressive criticism of her paper , echoed Biden and seemed to walk back her previous advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sarin affair is a minor matter , but it perhaps illustrates the value of progressives ’ pushing back when Biden ’ s team moves to the right .
American Prospect editor David Dayen describes Biden as being two-faced : “ Dr .
Jekyll or Mr. Biden.
” At times , Biden sounds like a 1990s Clintonian , ready to triangulate his way to the center or even the center right .
But on other occasions , he sounds like he wants to be a Franklin Roosevelt–style progressive .
As Dayen notes , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way Biden will go .
Dayen writes , “ I ’ ve talked to a dozen people inside the campaign and out , those with the ear of the president and those being wooed by his team , and it ’ s too soon to know how this will break .
Not even Biden knows yet .
Judging by his personal record , you could envision his presidency as another round of triangulating disappointment.
” Dayen goes on to add , though , that Biden could possibly follow the progressive path , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll inherit if he wins in November .
Progressives have reason to be both skeptical of Biden and hopeful of what they can push him to do .
Perhaps the wisest course is to follow Ronald Reagan ’ s old adage about arms control : “ Trust but verify.
” In other words , keep working with Biden , but also make sure you hold him accountable .
If he is pushed to the left , it will only be through relentless effort .

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?
Noam Chomsky has accurately described Joe Biden as “an empty vessel.” Indeed, it’s hard to think of a presidential candidate who has a less clearly defined ideological and policy profile than Biden. In his decades in politics, he’s been the consummate chameleon, quick to take on the coloration of the political moment. He initially ran for the Senate in 1972 as something of a New Deal Democrat, in the high tide of opposition to Nixon. That original Biden was a proud union supporter and talked about the need to tax the rich and big corporations. As the Democrats moved to the right in the 1980s and ’90s, so did Biden, rebranding himself as Clintonian centrist. Now that he’s all but certain to be the Democratic nominee, Biden is making clear that he knows the party has moved to the left and he’s willing to join that shift.
Biden’s malleability can be dismissed as opportunism and evidence of a lack of core principles. But opportunism can also be an opportunity. The historian Richard Hofstadter once described Franklin Roosevelt as “the patrician as opportunist.” Hofstadter meant the epithet not as an insult but rather a way of explaining FDR’s success. The New Deal was the product of a president quick to respond to militant social movements that wanted large-scale solutions to the Great Depression.
Biden is no FDR. But his flexibility might make him more responsive to popular pressure than most politicians in a political moment of unparalleled danger. “With a Biden presidency, the activism of a popular movement will make a big difference,” Chomsky told The Intercept’s Mehdi Hassan.
Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, shares this view. “This is not a knock on him, but Joe Biden did not win the nomination with a robust policy platform,” Shakir told The Washington Post, noting that Biden’s association with Barack Obama counted more than ideology. “There was a sense of comfort and security about him, as someone who sat in that seat next to Barack Obama. So he’s got of room now to flesh out his agenda.” 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
The most promising sign that Biden is indeed willing to make significant concessions to the left came from the announcement of the members of the “unity task force” selected by the Biden and Sanders campaign to advise on the Democratic Party platform. There are six task forces in all, dealing with climate change, education, criminal justice reform, health care, the economy, and immigration. It was agreed that Biden’s campaign would select five members for each task force and Sanders’s campaign would select three.
It wasn’t surprising that the Sanders campaign picked many outstanding progressives, notably Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal, and Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson. What is noteworthy is that even many of the Biden selections were closer to the left than to the center. The economy task force includes Jared Bernstein, Biden’s longtime economic adviser and one of the progressive voices from the Obama White House. 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
As The Washington Post notes,
the new task forces often give majorities to people who had disagreed with Biden. Five members of the health-care group support Medicare-for-all: the bill’s House author, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.); Medicare-for-all caucus member Rep. Robin L. Kelly (D-Ill.); SEIU President Mary Kay Henry; and former gubernatorial candidates Don Berwick and Abdul El-Sayed. A sixth member, Sherry Glied, supports an Australia-style universal Medicaid system. Advocacy for Biden’s own primary position—that Medicare-for-all would be too expensive and undermine the gains of the Obama years—is shunted to the margins.
The makeup of the task force is a definitive progressive victory. The left now has a real chance to shape the party platform.
Yet the selection of the task force is only one indicator of which direction Biden might choose as president. In other areas, he’s shown far greater loyalty to the centrist orthodoxy he’s upheld for most of his political career.
As with any president, selection of personnel is key. Biden has surrounded himself with a mixed bag. His inner circle includes progressives but also Wall Street insiders and neoliberal holdovers from previous Democratic administrations.
The return of Larry Summers, the neoliberal economist, bodes ill for progressives. This is not only because of Summers himself but also the network of younger neoliberals Summers is trying to seed in the possible Biden administration. One of them is Natasha Sarin, who teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania and has participated in Biden policy meetings. Biden 2020 “Bidenomics” vs. “Reaganomics” Mike Konczal On Israel and Palestine, US Electeds Are Out of Touch With Their Own Voters Phyllis Bennis Cluster Bombs Are “War-Crime” Weapons John Nichols
Sarin recently co-authored a paper arguing that “allowing workers to access a tiny % of their future Social Security benefits today can provide the liquidity they need to weather this storm.” This proposal is incredibly dangerous, since it opens the door to the privatization of Social Security. It creates the terrible precedent that economic relief should be carved out of entitlements.
Joe Biden rightly attacked the Trump White House for floating a similar idea. Sarin herself, in the wake of progressive criticism of her paper, echoed Biden and seemed to walk back her previous advocacy of pillaging Social Security benefits. The Sarin affair is a minor matter, but it perhaps illustrates the value of progressives’ pushing back when Biden’s team moves to the right.
American Prospect editor David Dayen describes Biden as being two-faced: “Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Biden.” At times, Biden sounds like a 1990s Clintonian, ready to triangulate his way to the center or even the center right. But on other occasions, he sounds like he wants to be a Franklin Roosevelt–style progressive.
As Dayen notes, it’s unusually difficult to know which way Biden will go. Dayen writes, “I’ve talked to a dozen people inside the campaign and out, those with the ear of the [vice] president and those being wooed by his team, and it’s too soon to know how this will break. Not even Biden knows yet. Judging by his personal record, you could envision his presidency as another round of triangulating disappointment.” Dayen goes on to add, though, that Biden could possibly follow the progressive path, particularly given the scale of the problems he’ll inherit if he wins in November.
Progressives have reason to be both skeptical of Biden and hopeful of what they can push him to do. Perhaps the wisest course is to follow Ronald Reagan’s old adage about arms control: “Trust but verify.” In other words, keep working with Biden, but also make sure you hold him accountable. If he is pushed to the left, it will only be through relentless effort.


thenation--2020-05-15--Breonna Taylor Was Murdered for Sleeping While Black

On March 13 , Breonna Taylor was shot to death in her own home by Louisville , Ky. , police officers .
She was sleeping when they broke down her door and invaded her home .
She was 26 and an EMT .
Police claim they announced themselves before using some type of battering ram to force their way in , but witnesses say the police did not identify themselves as police officers .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , says he believed they were being robbed and fired a gun at police , striking one officer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hail of gunfire .
The police shot Taylor , who was unarmed , at least eight times , killing her .
They then arrested and charged Walker with attempted murder of a police officer .
The police say they were looking for evidence against a suspect in an ongoing narcotics investigation .
That suspect lives 10 miles away from Taylor ’ s home .
No drugs were found in Taylor ’ s apartment .
The Taylor case is garnering national attention because Taylor was an EMT , a person helping to fight the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose only crime was sleeping while black .
Her family has retained noted civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump and launched a civil lawsuit against Louisville police .
Crump also represents the family of Ahmaud Abery , last seen being lynched by two white guys in a truck .
Taylor ’ s case is making news because of the unique confluence of her profession , the national mood , and the fact there is a surviving witness to her death who is able to contradict the police ’ s version of events .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case is unique .
Police break into black and brown peoples ’ residences , unannounced , all around the country .
I believe that some number of those residents attempt to defend themselves from what they think is a home invasion .
Police then use that attempted defense as justification for gunning them down .
And only when everybody is dead do the police go back and concoct a version of events that makes their actions seem justified .
That justification is then fed to reporters who reflexively repeat whatever the police want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go about their day thinking that most black people the police shoot to death had it coming for one reason or another .
I believe Breonna Taylor ’ s story happens all the time , and people don ’ t know that because the news usually reports Taylor ’ s story this way : “ A police officer was shot at while attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer .
One suspect was pronounced dead at the scene and another was taken into custody .
The officer is recovering well from his injuries.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Louisville Courier-Journal about Breonna Taylor ’ s death .
It was published March 13 , before national civil rights advocates brought attention to the case , and it was headlined : “ LMPD officer shot , woman killed during drug investigation off St. Andrews Church Road.
” A Louisville Metro Police sergeant was shot and wounded and a woman was killed early Friday during a narcotics investigation near St. Andrews Church Road and Doss High School , according to authorities .
Officers were at an apartment on Springfield Drive about 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the narcotics investigation , according to Assistant Police Chief Josh Judah .
As officers arrived at and entered the residence , suspects shot at the officers , Judah said .
Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly was shot in the leg and taken to University of Louisville Hospital , where he underwent surgery and is expected to survive , LMPD officials said at a Friday afternoon press conference .
A female was shot and killed during the encounter after three LMPD officers returned fire , and a suspect was arrested at the scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was identified Sunday by the Jefferson County Coroner as Breonna Taylor , 26 .
How many people read that and thought the cop was the victim in this encounter ?
How many people read that and thought that Taylor was either a criminal or mixed up with criminals in some way ?
Notice the report says “ suspects ” were shot , implying that Taylor was not only armed but fired at police officers .
How many people read “ arrived at and entered the residence ” and imagined a cop knocking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the police , ” like they do on a television show , as opposed to a door being bashed open by unidentified assailants like they do in an action movie ?
How many people read that and thought Taylor ’ s death , while possibly tragic , was entirely justified ?
The Louisville Courier-Journal is singing a different tune now .
Here ’ s their story from May 11 .
What a difference two months and national civil rights scrutiny makes .
Breonna Taylor ’ s story keeps happening because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , the reason the Taylor family ’ s civil lawsuit against these police officers is unlikely to succeed is that recent Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that you can not sue the cops when they break into your house and shoot you .
That recent case is called County of Los Angeles v. Mendez .
I wrote about it back in 2017 .
In that case , members of the Los Angeles Police Department entered a shack that was occupied by a homeless couple ; the cops didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not announce themselves as police before breaking in .
The cops were looking for an armed parolee , but they picked the wrong shack .
Inside the shack , Angel Mendez believed he was being robbed and reached for a BB gun .
Cops fired 15 shots at Mendez and his pregnant wife , Jennifer , who was shot in the back .
At a civil trial against the cops , a jury awarded the Mendezes $ 4 million under California ’ s “ provocation ” rule .
The rule said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawful actions resulted in a violent confrontation , victims could recover damages against the police .
But the Supreme Court threw out the verdict , the damage award , and the provocation law itself .
The court said the provocation rule was an unconstitutional interpretation of the Fourth Amendment ’ s protection against illegal searches and seizures .
We Didn ’ t Need Video to Know Ahmaud Arbery Was Lynched Covid Is About to Become the Newest Excuse for Police Brutality SCOTUS May Have Just Decided to Exempt Trump From the Rule of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way .
The conservatives and liberals got together to deny the Mendezes justice or hold the cops accountable for shooting an unarmed pregnant homeless woman in the back .
They then sent the case back down to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration .
In 2019 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , on rehearing , was able to reinstate the damage award on different Fourth Amendment grounds , and the Supreme Court declined to reverse them again .
But the provocation rule is still out , and the bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murders they cause is still nearly impossible to reach .
The Mendezes are unique individuals , just like Breonna Taylor was a unique person , but their stories are common .
Taylor ’ s death is a routine way for black people to die in this country , because the country long ago decided that murdering black people is a legal thing for cops to do .
Taylor ’ s death wasn ’ t a tragic accident ; it was the predictable result of a system that does not value black lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country chooses to let the cops get away with murder .
The media makes this choice every time it decides to reprint a police report , uncritically , as if the cops can be trusted to represent the truth .
Judges make this choice when they sign open-ended search warrants , or retroactively admit evidence obtained without a warrant at all .
Mayors and governors make this choice when they seek the endorsement of police unions and bend over backwards to keep those unions happy .
And prosecutors , juries , and justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold cops criminally or financially accountable for their crimes .
The next time you read about a person killed by cops who were “ executing a search warrant , ” or a person killed by cops while “ resisting arrest , ” remember Breonna Taylor .
Remember that police reports are the version of events most pleasing to the police .
Remember that cops will continue to kill people of color until we choose to hold them accountable .

On March 13, Breonna Taylor was shot to death in her own home by Louisville, Ky., police officers. She was sleeping when they broke down her door and invaded her home. She was 26 and an EMT.
Police claim they announced themselves before using some type of battering ram to force their way in, but witnesses say the police did not identify themselves as police officers. Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, says he believed they were being robbed and fired a gun at police, striking one officer in the leg. Police responded with a hail of gunfire. The police shot Taylor, who was unarmed, at least eight times, killing her. They then arrested and charged Walker with attempted murder of a police officer.
The police say they were looking for evidence against a suspect in an ongoing narcotics investigation. That suspect lives 10 miles from Taylor’s home. No drugs were found in her apartment.
The Taylor case is garnering national attention because she was an EMT, a person helping to fight the coronavirus pandemic on the front lines, whose only crime was sleeping while black. Her family has retained noted civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump and launched a civil lawsuit against Louisville police. Crump also represents the family of Ahmaud Arbery, last seen being lynched by two white guys in a truck. Taylor’s case is making news because of the unique confluence of her profession, the national mood, and the fact there is a surviving witness to her death who is able to contradict the police’s version of events. Current Issue View our current issue
But I do not believe Taylor’s case is unique. Police break into black and brown people’s residences, unannounced, all around the country. I believe that some of those residents attempt to defend themselves from what they think is a home invasion. Police then use that attempted defense as justification for gunning them down. And only when everybody is dead do the police go back and concoct a version of events that makes their actions seem justified. That justification is then fed to reporters who reflexively repeat whatever the police want them to, and white people blithely go about their day thinking that most black people the police shoot to death had it coming for one reason or another.
I believe Taylor’s story happens all the time, and people don’t know that because the news usually reports Taylor’s story this way: “A police officer was shot at while attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer. One suspect was pronounced dead at the scene, and another was taken into custody. The officer is recovering well from his injuries.” 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
Here is the original news report in the Louisville Courier-Journal about Taylor’s death. It was published March 13, before national civil rights advocates brought attention to the case, and it was headlined, “LMPD officer shot, woman killed during drug investigation off St. Andrews Church Road.”
A Louisville Metro Police sergeant was shot and wounded and a woman was killed early Friday during a narcotics investigation near St. Andrews Church Road and Doss High School, according to authorities. Officers were at an apartment on Springfield Drive about 1 a.m. Friday serving a search warrant as part of the narcotics investigation, according to Assistant Police Chief Josh Judah. As officers arrived at and entered the residence, suspects shot at the officers, Judah said. Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly was shot in the leg and taken to University of Louisville Hospital, where he underwent surgery and is expected to survive, LMPD officials said at a Friday afternoon press conference. A female was shot and killed during the encounter after three LMPD officers returned fire, and a suspect was arrested at the scene, Chief Steve Conrad said. She was identified Sunday by the Jefferson County Coroner as Breonna Taylor, 26.
How many people read that and thought the cop was the victim in this encounter? How many people read that and thought that Taylor was either a criminal or mixed up with criminals in some way? Notice the report says “suspects” were shot, implying that Taylor was not only armed but fired at police officers. How many people read “arrived at and entered the residence” and imagined a cop knocking and saying, “Open up, it’s the police,” like on a television show, as opposed to a door being bashed open by unidentified assailants like in an action movie?
How many people read that and thought Taylor’s death, while possibly tragic, was entirely justified?
The Louisville Courier-Journal is singing a different tune now. Here’s its story from May 11.
The family of a decorated Louisville EMT who was fatally shot by police has hired a prominent civil rights attorney with the Black Lives Matter movement in their lawsuit against three officers. Breonna Taylor, 26, was shot eight times by Louisville Metro Police officers who entered her apartment around 1 a.m. March 13. Police have said the officers were serving a search warrant as part of a narcotics investigation, but no drugs were found at the home.
What a difference two months and national civil rights scrutiny make.
Taylor’s story keeps happening because the cops keep getting away with it. In fact, the reason the Taylor family’s civil lawsuit against these police officers is unlikely to succeed is that recent Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that you cannot sue the cops when they break into your house and shoot you.
That recent case is called County of Los Angeles v. Mendez. I wrote about it in 2017. In that case, members of the Los Angeles Police Department entered a shack that was occupied by a homeless couple; the cops didn’t have a warrant to enter, and they did not announce themselves as police before breaking in. The cops were looking for an armed parolee, but they picked the wrong shack. Inside the shack, Angel Mendez believed he was being robbed and reached for a BB gun. Cops fired 15 shots at Mendez and his pregnant wife, Jennifer Mendez, who was shot in the back.
At a civil trial against the cops, a jury awarded the Mendezes $4 million under California’s provocation rule. The rule said that if a cop’s reckless or unlawful actions resulted in a violent confrontation, victims may recover damages against the police.
But the Supreme Court threw out the verdict, the damage award, and the provocation law itself. The court said the provocation rule was an unconstitutional interpretation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal searches and seizures. More from Mystal We Didn’t Need Video to Know Ahmaud Arbery Was Lynched Elie Mystal Covid Is About to Become the Newest Excuse for Police Brutality Elie Mystal SCOTUS May Have Just Decided to Exempt Trump From the Rule of Law Elie Mystal
The decision was unanimous, by the way. The conservatives and liberals got together to deny the Mendezes justice or hold the cops accountable for shooting an unarmed pregnant homeless woman in the back. They then sent the case back down to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration.
In 2019 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on rehearing, was able to reinstate the damage award on different Fourth Amendment grounds, and the Supreme Court declined to reverse the lower court again. But the provocation rule is still out, and the bar to hold police departments accountable for the murders they commit is still nearly impossible to reach.
The Mendezes are unique individuals, just as Taylor was a unique person, but their stories are common. Taylor’s death is a routine way for black people to die in this country, because the country long ago decided that murdering black people is a legal thing for cops to do. Taylor’s death wasn’t a tragic accident; it was the predictable result of a system that does not value black lives.
Almost every major institutional actor in this country chooses to let the cops get away with murder. The media makes this choice every time it decides to reprint a police report, uncritically, as if the cops can be trusted to represent the truth. Judges make this choice when they sign open-ended search warrants or retroactively admit evidence obtained without a warrant. Mayors and governors make this choice when they seek the endorsement of police unions and bend over backward to keep those unions happy. And prosecutors, juries, and justices make this choice when they refuse to hold cops criminally or financially accountable for their crimes.
The next time you read about a person killed by cops who were “executing a search warrant,” or a person killed by cops while “resisting arrest,” remember Breonna Taylor. Remember that police reports are the version of events most pleasing to the police. Remember that cops will continue to kill people of color until we choose to hold them accountable.


thenation--2020-05-15--Lame-Duck Injustice: Wisconsin’s Latest Political Horror Story

Madison , Wisconsin—Wisconsin ’ s Republican legislative leaders and their hyper-partisan allies on the state Supreme Court tried to game the April 7 election for a pivotal high-court seat by forcing in-person voting to go forward at the height of the coronavirus pandemic .
The voters pushed back , in a big way .
They rejected right-wing Justice Daniel Kelly , an appointee of former Governor Scott Walker who ran with enthusiastic backing from President Trump , by a 55-45 margin .
Kelly ’ s progressive challenger , Judge Jill Kafofsky , finished with a 163,458-vote mandate .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of July .
And he is exploiting his lame-duck status to thwart the will of the people who did not want him to remain on the bench .
This week , at the behest of the same Republican legislative leaders who demanded pandemic voting in April , the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state ’ s “ Safer at Home ” emergency order for preventing the spread of the virus .
“ Four members of the court who made a decision that wasn ’ t based on statutes , precedents or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos , ” explained Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers on Wednesday night .
Amid the haphazard mayhem of mixed signals , as taverns opened in some areas and local officials issued conflicting orders , Evers warned , “ We ’ re going to have more cases .
We ’ re going to have more deaths .
It ’ s a sad occasion for the state .
I can ’ t tell you how disappointed I am.
” The Democrat who was elected in 2018 to replace Walker did his best to remind Wisconsinites of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Home ” policy , and its popularity—citing a Marquette University Law School poll from this week that found 69 percent of voters ( 90 percent of Democrats , 69 percent of independents , 49 percent of Republicans ) agreed that it was “ appropriate to close schools and businesses and restrict public gatherings.
” A Progressive Democratic Party is Possible—and Biden Needs It to Win But Evers could not hide his frustration .
“ Now we have no plan and no protections for the people of Wisconsin , ” he concluded .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court ruled against Evers ’ s plan to maintain a stay-at-home order that mirrors those of other states for a few more weeks on a 4-3 vote .
Kelly sided with three fellow conservatives to create the majority , while two liberals and a conservative sided with science and common sense .
Had Kelly ’ s replacement , Judge Jill Karofsky , been on the bench , the vote would by all reasonable accounts have been 4-3 in favor of maintaining the emergency order .
So it was an accident of timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cronies—as opposed to a thoughtful consideration of the law or a practical consideration of the science regarding the spread of the virus—that led to the upending of the governor ’ s order .
The court ’ s decision was so convoluted that even its author , Chief Justice Patience Roggensack , managed to reject efforts to maintain public safety and at least a measure of order while at the same time acknowledging “ the concerns raised by COVID-19 and the possibility of throwing the state into chaos.
” In the majority opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor ’ s order would be overturned immediately , despite arguments from lawyers for the Republicans that enforcement of the ruling should be delayed until a new , more narrowly drawn plan could be developed .
Then , in a separate concurrence , she wrote , “ I would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20 , 2020.
” Our responsibility as a court is to write clear decisions that provide guidance to the litigants , courts and the public at large .
I write separately to address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arising from the majority and concurring opinions of Chief Justice Roggensack on the issue .
The majority opinion , authored by Chief Justice Roggensack , does not grant a stay .
Thus , the declaration of rights takes immediate effect , leaving no time for a transitional safety net that a stay could provide… .
However , concurring to her own authored majority opinion , Chief Justice Roggensack writes that she “ would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20 , 2020.
” These positions taken in the majority opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you are confused , you are not alone .
That was fine by Walker , who celebrated with a tweet that declared the decision a victory for his appointment powers .
Calling the decision “ a good reminder of how important judicial picks are , ” the defeated former governor crowed , “ I appointed 2 of the 4 justices on the 4 to 3 majority.
” President Trump was equally delighted , declaring the court ’ s ruling to be “ another win ” because a “ Democrat Governor was forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Open.
” Wisconsin ’ s Pandemic Election Is a Red Alert for Democracy in America For Walker and Trump , winning is the only thing that matters—even if that means chaos is created in a state where 11,275 coronavirus cases have been confirmed and more than 420 people have died .
Their win-at-any-cost politics disregards not just public health and safety but also the rule of law , as was noted by an unexpected dissenter .
While Justice Kelly played the ugliest of political games , another conservative justice refused to go along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hagedorn broke with the party line to do right by the people of Wisconsin and the state ’ s Constitution .
“ It is without doubt that the strictures of the constitution must be diligently defended during this crisis ; the judiciary must never cast aside the law in the name of emergency , ” wrote Hagedorn in a robust dissenting opinion .
“ But just as true , the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty .
The rule of law , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is threatened no less by a tyrannical judiciary than by a tyrannical executive or legislature .
Today ’ s decision may or may not be good policy , but it is not grounded in the law .
”

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?
Madison, Wisconsin—Wisconsin’s Republican legislative leaders and their hyper-partisan allies on the state Supreme Court tried to game the April 7 election for a pivotal high-court seat by forcing in-person voting to go forward at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. The voters pushed back, in a big way. They rejected right-wing Justice Daniel Kelly, an appointee of former Governor Scott Walker who ran with enthusiastic backing from President Trump, by a 55-45 margin. Kelly’s progressive challenger, Judge Jill Kafofsky, finished with a 163,458-vote mandate.
Unfortunately, Kelly’s term runs to the end of July. And he is exploiting his lame-duck status to thwart the will of the people who did not want him to remain on the bench.
This week, at the behest of the same Republican legislative leaders who demanded pandemic voting in April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state’s “Safer at Home” emergency order for preventing the spread of the virus. “Four members of the court who made a decision that wasn’t based on statutes, precedents or the facts, unfortunately…have thrown our state into chaos,” explained Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers on Wednesday night. Amid the haphazard mayhem of mixed signals, as taverns opened in some areas and local officials issued conflicting orders, Evers warned, “We’re going to have more cases. We’re going to have more deaths. It’s a sad occasion for the state. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am.”
The Democrat who was elected in 2018 to replace Walker did his best to remind Wisconsinites of the success of his “Safer at Home” policy, and its popularity—citing a Marquette University Law School poll from this week that found 69 percent of voters (90 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, 49 percent of Republicans) agreed that it was “appropriate to close schools and businesses and restrict public gatherings.” More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
But Evers could not hide his frustration.
“Now we have no plan and no protections for the people of Wisconsin,” he concluded. “It’s the Wild West.”
Thanks to soon-to-be-former Justice Kelly.
The court ruled against Evers’s plan to maintain a stay-at-home order that mirrors those of other states for a few more weeks on a 4-3 vote. Kelly sided with three fellow conservatives to create the majority, while two liberals and a conservative sided with science and common sense.
Had Kelly’s replacement, Judge Jill Karofsky, been on the bench, the vote would by all reasonable accounts have been 4-3 in favor of maintaining the emergency order. So it was an accident of timing and the hyper-partisanship of Kelly and his cronies—as opposed to a thoughtful consideration of the law or a practical consideration of the science regarding the spread of the virus—that led to the upending of the governor’s order. 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
The court’s decision was so convoluted that even its author, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, managed to reject efforts to maintain public safety and at least a measure of order while at the same time acknowledging “the concerns raised by COVID-19 and the possibility of throwing the state into chaos.”
In the majority opinion, Roggensack set up a scenario in which the governor’s order would be overturned immediately, despite arguments from lawyers for the Republicans that enforcement of the ruling should be delayed until a new, more narrowly drawn plan could be developed. Then, in a separate concurrence, she wrote, “I would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20, 2020.”
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley made matters clear in a scathing dissent:
Our responsibility as a court is to write clear decisions that provide guidance to the litigants, courts and the public at large. I write separately to address the issue of a stay and the confusion arising from the majority and concurring opinions of Chief Justice Roggensack on the issue. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roggensack, does not grant a stay. Thus, the declaration of rights takes immediate effect, leaving no time for a transitional safety net that a stay could provide…. However, concurring to her own authored majority opinion, Chief Justice Roggensack writes that she “would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20, 2020.” These positions taken in the majority opinion and the concurrence are fundamentally contradictory. If you are confused, you are not alone.
That was fine by Walker, who celebrated with a tweet that declared the decision a victory for his appointment powers. Calling the decision “a good reminder of how important judicial picks are,” the defeated former governor crowed, “I appointed 2 of the 4 justices on the 4 to 3 majority.” President Trump was equally delighted, declaring the court’s ruling to be “another win” because a “Democrat Governor was forced by the courts to let the State Open.” Wisconsin Elections Wisconsin Voters Defy Suppression to Oust a Trump-Backed Jurist John Nichols Wisconsin’s Pandemic Election Is a Red Alert for Democracy in America John Nichols Wisconsin’s In-Person Voting Threatens Health and Democracy John Nichols
For Walker and Trump, winning is the only thing that matters—even if that means chaos is created in a state where 11,275 coronavirus cases have been confirmed and more than 420 people have died. Their win-at-any-cost politics disregards not just public health and safety but also the rule of law, as was noted by an unexpected dissenter.
While Justice Kelly played the ugliest of political games, another conservative justice refused to go along with the partisan charade. Justice Brian Hagedorn broke with the party line to do right by the people of Wisconsin and the state’s Constitution.
“It is without doubt that the strictures of the constitution must be diligently defended during this crisis; the judiciary must never cast aside the law in the name of emergency,” wrote Hagedorn in a robust dissenting opinion. “But just as true, the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty. The rule of law, and therefore the true liberty of the people, is threatened no less by a tyrannical judiciary than by a tyrannical executive or legislature. Today’s decision may or may not be good policy, but it is not grounded in the law.”


thenation--2020-05-16--Can Britain Survive Boris Johnson?

Can Britain Survive Boris Johnson?

Every Thursday at 8 pm , I open my front door , step out , and bang a saucepan .
My neighbors , most of whom I have not seen since the previous Thursday , are there too .
Clapping , clanging , banging garbage can lids .
We come out to cheer the National Health Service .
The lockdowns have spawned many rituals across the globe to show public support for health workers during the coronavirus crisis .
The clapping started in Wuhan .
It took off in Italy .
The Spaniards and French began doing it every night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly different meaning .
The NHS , created in 1948 , is the only entirely nationalized health care system in Europe .
It makes us more proud to be British than the royal family .
It ’ s virtually the only element of the postwar consensus that has survived Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair , even if there ’ s considerable dissatisfaction with the way it is run .
The Conservative prime minister , Boris Johnson , had the chutzpah to come out and clap ; even Prince Charles and Camilla have joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like supporting the troops in America , but instead of applauding the foot soldiers of military might , we celebrate the frontline workers in publicly funded health care .
Each Thursday evening , however hopelessly hopeful , deluded , and contested , our 8 o ’ clock ritual feels like a moment of social democratic hegemony .
During the general election campaign just a few months earlier , the Labour Party tried to make the underfunding of public services in general and the NHS in particular the central issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Tories now enjoy their biggest majority since 1987 .
Labour ’ s left-wing leader , Jeremy Corbyn , had to go .
The race to succeed him was a lackluster affair even before the coronavirus sucked the oxygen out of the news cycle .
The three final candidates all promised to listen harder .
That made sense : During the previous four years , Labour showed little appetite for taking voters or votes seriously .
The nation had chosen to leave the European Union in a referendum .
A significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t know what they were doing and should vote again .
After years of tortuous triangulation and entanglement , this became party policy .
The party membership had also voted overwhelmingly for Corbyn .
Too few in the Labour establishment listened to that , either .
From the moment it was clear he would win , the party establishment tried to delegitimize his leadership .
This not only showed contempt for the membership—which twice delivered Corbyn resounding victories—but also undermined the party ’ s election efforts .
So more listening would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end , though , the race for a new leader did not turn on Brexit or Corbyn at all .
Whether or not to leave the European Union had become an intractable conundrum for a party with a coalition that spanned the metropolitan areas that voted Remain and the former centers of heavy industry that voted Leave .
Meanwhile , Labour ’ s leadership was decided by a party that had grown both in membership numbers and in assertion under Corbyn , even as its ranks had been diminished in Parliament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultish than detractors claimed ; support for the leftward orientation his victory signified was always far less ideological than devotees would have liked .
Corbynism was never a coherent ideology .
But it did leave a legacy : a broad political trajectory toward more fiscal redistribution , party democracy , greater investment in public services—not least the NHS—and an end to austerity .
And that trajectory remains popular .
In the end , the leadership election didn ’ t turn on anything at all .
It just kept on going , even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the candidate who started out as the favorite winning comfortably .
On April 4 , Keir Starmer was elected the Labour Party ’ s leader , easily defeating two women : Rebecca Long-Bailey , who was assumed to be Corbyn ’ s favored successor , and Lisa Nandy , who wasn ’ t .
As the shadow Brexit secretary , Starmer had been the face of Labour ’ s call for a second Brexit referendum , a policy that proved deeply unpopular with Leave voters in the Midlands and northern England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After Labour ’ s loss in December 2019 , it was argued that the party was too London-centered and out of touch with its northern base .
Yet Starmer represented the London constituency adjacent to Corbyn ’ s , while both of his competitors were based in northern England .
Moreover , Labour remains the only national party not to have had a female leader .
Given that women were running from every wing of the party , this seemed like a golden opportunity .
Starmer ’ s credentials hew to the center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in this moment , keep him loosely tethered to the left .
All three contenders had at one time been in Corbyn ’ s shadow cabinet .
Long-Bailey had been loyal throughout , while Starmer and Nandy were both part of a coordinated series of resignations in 2016—the “ chicken coup ” —that failed to depose Corbyn .
Unlike Nandy , Starmer rejoined the fold and gained prominence as Brexit unfolded and unraveled .
Starmer has resolved not to “ oversteer ” away from Corbyn ’ s policies of taxing high-income earners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he has eschewed gratuitous criticism of Corbyn in favor of party unity .
Under ordinary circumstances , given the hole Labour is now in , Starmer would be expected to lead the party back to viability rather than government .
But these are no ordinary circumstances .
British politics is exceptionally volatile .
Party allegiances are weak , and while the Tory victory was broad , it was shallow .
Between 2010 and 2017 , almost half the voters switched parties .
They might switch again .
With just a 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour—or 55 could go to the Tories , consigning Labour to the same fate as other European social democratic parties , from France to Greece , which are now effectively defunct .
Two days after Starmer became Labour ’ s leader , Johnson was hospitalized with Covid-19 , his illness dominating the news .
Starmer made his debut to a national shrug .
The general election felt like a long time ago , even though the questions that shaped it have not gone away .
Brexit remains impervious to any simple solutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ proclaimed from on high .
Under Corbyn , Labour ’ s failure to address widespread accusations of anti-Semitism has led to an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission , a government body .
It has yet to report its findings .
Meanwhile , a recently leaked internal Labour report revealed that party bureaucrats hostile to Corbyn had for years purposely frustrated efforts to expel anti-Semites , knowing it would reflect badly on his leadership .
The report also reveals party workers targeting minority MPs for ridicule—and expressing deep dismay when Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 .
Some , not least those activists who canvassed hard for a Labour victory in the dead of winter , wait eagerly to see if Starmer ’ s warm words about unity are matched by efforts to discipline those who have undermined it .
But most of the country has moved on .
For now , the coronavirus is the only opposition .
Logistically , the government has botched its response to the pandemic horribly , leaving Britain with the highest death toll in Europe , even as it plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could unleash a second wave .
For seven days , the prime minister lay frail in London ’ s St. Thomas ’ Hospital—the enfeebled embodiment of his government ’ s policy toward the virus .
A month earlier , he boasted of going to see Covid patients and shaking their hands .
He ’ d also suggested the government had discussed letting the country “ take it on the chin…and allow the disease…to move through the population.
” Before his hospitalization , Johnson missed important meetings on the growing crisis .
His ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the promised tests and protective gear came too little and too late .
At his daily briefing in March , the NHS England medical director said , “ If we can keep deaths below 20,000 we will have done very well in this epidemic.
” At press time , we are approaching 35,000 deaths , and public confidence in the government ’ s handling of the virus has plummeted .
Not long after Johnson emerged from the hospital , his fiancée gave birth to their child .
For now , public support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are only so many births he can celebrate , and meanwhile the deaths keep coming .
Johnson ’ s public standing is due , in no small part , to recognition that the government ’ s economic response to the pandemic has so far been impressive .
At the end of March it resolved to pay 80 percent of the wages of furloughed workers , up to £2,500 per month , to prevent them from being laid off by their employers .
Around the same time , the government ordered all local authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless during the pandemic .
With the help of over £3.2 billion in funding , most have been moved into hotels .
To rescue the rail companies from imminent collapse , the entire network has effectively been brought back under government control .
Meanwhile , disadvantaged children will be supplied with a free tablet or laptop and 4G mobile or broadband service so they won ’ t fall behind with their education while homeschooling .
But Johnson is standing on fragile ground .
In a televised address to the nation this month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others to avoid using public transport while returning to workplaces that might still be unsafe—invited public derision and conflict with the unions .
Let us not dwell , for the moment , on the fact that when Labour promised to nationalize the railways , offer free broadband , and tackle homelessness , the Tories said it couldn ’ t be done and the commentariat mocked Corbyn ’ s fiscal illiteracy .
The money has been found during what promises to be an extended economic recession .
Where does that leave a center-left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across Europe are either eclipsed by those further left or struggling to transform themselves , the question “ What is Labour for in this moment ?
” is very much alive .
Starmer has assembled an eclectic team , including Long-Bailey , Nandy , and former leader ( and Nation intern ) Ed Miliband .
Considerably to the right of what had come before , it is nonetheless sufficiently progressive to satisfy enough of the faithful .
Starmer also moved quickly to apologize to Britain ’ s Jewish community over the issue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ box have been solid .
He will enjoy a quiet honeymoon because he ’ s not Corbyn and few are paying much attention .
But the job Starmer interviewed for—unthreatening center-left leader of Her Majesty ’ s Opposition , here to steady the ship and quell the mutiny—no longer exists .
A democratic socialist agenda is now a far more plausible response to this crisis and the depression that will follow than a neoliberal one .
Covid has laid bare the inequalities and inequities that have grown under Tory rule and made an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal redistribution .
There will be no clamor for the homeless to be put back out on the streets or for recently connected poor kids to be shoved off the grid .
The Tories enjoyed an electoral victory in December but not an ideological one .
Shortly after announcing the lockdown , Johnson declared , “ There really is such a thing as society.
” It marked as clear a break with Thatcher ’ s rhetoric ( she once said there wasn ’ t ) as his rescue package was with her economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take after this crisis is up for grabs .
The questions of which workers are key to the economy and which are not , of who and what we value and why , of what we can afford and what we should not tolerate , are no longer merely left talking points but burning questions that Labour is well positioned to address .
There is unlikely to be an election for another five years .
But there will definitely be clapping and a banging of pots next Thursday .

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 appears in the June 1/8, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Every Thursday at 8 pm, I open my front door, step out, and bang a saucepan. My neighbors, most of whom I have not seen since the previous Thursday, are there too. Clapping, clanging, banging garbage can lids. We come out to cheer the National Health Service.
The lockdowns have spawned many rituals across the globe to show public support for health workers during the coronavirus crisis. The clapping started in Wuhan. It took off in Italy. The Spaniards and French began doing it every night.
But the British ritual has a slightly different meaning. The NHS, created in 1948, is the only entirely nationalized health care system in Europe. It makes us more proud to be British than the royal family. It’s virtually the only element of the postwar consensus that has survived Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, even if there’s considerable dissatisfaction with the way it is run.
The Conservative prime minister, Boris Johnson, had the chutzpah to come out and clap; even Prince Charles and Camilla have joined in. They have no choice. It’s like supporting the troops in America, but instead of applauding the foot soldiers of military might, we celebrate the frontline workers in publicly funded health care. Each Thursday evening, however hopelessly hopeful, deluded, and contested, our 8 o’clock ritual feels like a moment of social democratic hegemony.
During the general election campaign just a few months earlier, the Labour Party tried to make the underfunding of public services in general and the NHS in particular the central issue. That strategy failed horribly. Brexit predominated, and the Tories now enjoy their biggest majority since 1987.
Labour’s left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbyn, had to go. The race to succeed him was a lackluster affair even before the coronavirus sucked the oxygen out of the news cycle. The three final candidates all promised to listen harder. That made sense: During the previous four years, Labour showed little appetite for taking voters or votes seriously. The nation had chosen to leave the European Union in a referendum. A significant section of the party insisted that people didn’t know what they were doing and should vote again. After years of tortuous triangulation and entanglement, this became party policy.
The party membership had also voted overwhelmingly for Corbyn. Too few in the Labour establishment listened to that, either. From the moment it was clear he would win, the party establishment tried to delegitimize his leadership. This not only showed contempt for the membership—which twice delivered Corbyn resounding victories—but also undermined the party’s election efforts. So more listening would have been a good idea. In the end, though, the race for a new leader did not turn on Brexit or Corbyn at all. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
Whether or not to leave the European Union had become an intractable conundrum for a party with a coalition that spanned the metropolitan areas that voted Remain and the former centers of heavy industry that voted Leave.
Meanwhile, Labour’s leadership was decided by a party that had grown both in membership numbers and in assertion under Corbyn, even as its ranks had been diminished in Parliament. Support for the man was always less cultish than detractors claimed; support for the leftward orientation his victory signified was always far less ideological than devotees would have liked.
Corbynism was never a coherent ideology. But it did leave a legacy: a broad political trajectory toward more fiscal redistribution, party democracy, greater investment in public services—not least the NHS—and an end to austerity. And that trajectory remains popular. In the end, the leadership election didn’t turn on anything at all. It just kept on going, even as everything else around us flipped upside down, with the candidate who started out as the favorite winning comfortably.
On April 4, Keir Starmer was elected the Labour Party’s leader, easily defeating two women: Rebecca Long-Bailey, who was assumed to be Corbyn’s favored successor, and Lisa Nandy, who wasn’t. As the shadow Brexit secretary, Starmer had been the face of Labour’s call for a second Brexit referendum, a policy that proved deeply unpopular with Leave voters in the Midlands and northern England, where the party hemorrhaged seats.
After Labour’s loss in December 2019, it was argued that the party was too London-centered and out of touch with its northern base. Yet Starmer represented the London constituency adjacent to Corbyn’s, while both of his competitors were based in northern England. Moreover, Labour remains the only national party not to have had a female leader. Given that women were running from every wing of the party, this seemed like a golden opportunity.
Starmer’s credentials hew to the center, even as his loyalties and ambition, in this moment, keep him loosely tethered to the left. All three contenders had at one time been in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Long-Bailey had been loyal throughout, while Starmer and Nandy were both part of a coordinated series of resignations in 2016—the “chicken coup”—that failed to depose Corbyn. Unlike Nandy, Starmer rejoined the fold and gained prominence as Brexit unfolded and unraveled.
Starmer has resolved not to “oversteer” away from Corbyn’s policies of taxing high-income earners and increasing public spending and nationalization, and he has eschewed gratuitous criticism of Corbyn in favor of party unity.
Under ordinary circumstances, given the hole Labour is now in, Starmer would be expected to lead the party back to viability rather than government. But these are no ordinary circumstances.
British politics is exceptionally volatile. Party allegiances are weak, and while the Tory victory was broad, it was shallow. Between 2010 and 2017, almost half the voters switched parties. They might switch again. With just a 5 percent swing, 56 seats could go to Labour—or 55 could go to the Tories, consigning Labour to the same fate as other European social democratic parties, from France to Greece, which are now effectively defunct.
Two days after Starmer became Labour’s leader, Johnson was hospitalized with Covid-19, his illness dominating the news. Starmer made his debut to a national shrug. The general election felt like a long time ago, even though the questions that shaped it have not gone away. Brexit remains impervious to any simple solutions.
And party unity cannot just be proclaimed from on high. Under Corbyn, Labour’s failure to address widespread accusations of anti-Semitism has led to an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a government body. It has yet to report its findings.
Meanwhile, a recently leaked internal Labour report revealed that party bureaucrats hostile to Corbyn had for years purposely frustrated efforts to expel anti-Semites, knowing it would reflect badly on his leadership. The report also reveals party workers targeting minority MPs for ridicule—and expressing deep dismay when Labour gained seats and vote share under Corbyn in 2017. Some, not least those activists who canvassed hard for a Labour victory in the dead of winter, wait eagerly to see if Starmer’s warm words about unity are matched by efforts to discipline those who have undermined it.
But most of the country has moved on. For now, the coronavirus is the only opposition. Logistically, the government has botched its response to the pandemic horribly, leaving Britain with the highest death toll in Europe, even as it plans to ease the lockdown despite warnings that this could unleash a second wave. For seven days, the prime minister lay frail in London’s St. Thomas’ Hospital—the enfeebled embodiment of his government’s policy toward the virus. A month earlier, he boasted of going to see Covid patients and shaking their hands. He’d also suggested the government had discussed letting the country “take it on the chin…and allow the disease…to move through the population.”
Before his hospitalization, Johnson missed important meetings on the growing crisis. His ministers ignored warnings; austerity imperiled preparations; the promised tests and protective gear came too little and too late. At his daily briefing in March, the NHS England medical director said, “If we can keep deaths below 20,000 we will have done very well in this epidemic.”
At press time, we are approaching 35,000 deaths, and public confidence in the government’s handling of the virus has plummeted. Not long after Johnson emerged from the hospital, his fiancée gave birth to their child. For now, public support for Johnson remains fairly stable. But there are only so many births he can celebrate, and meanwhile the deaths keep coming.
Johnson’s public standing is due, in no small part, to recognition that the government’s economic response to the pandemic has so far been impressive. At the end of March it resolved to pay 80 percent of the wages of furloughed workers, up to £2,500 per month, to prevent them from being laid off by their employers.
Around the same time, the government ordered all local authorities in England to find accommodations for the homeless during the pandemic. With the help of over £3.2 billion in funding, most have been moved into hotels. To rescue the rail companies from imminent collapse, the entire network has effectively been brought back under government control. Meanwhile, disadvantaged children will be supplied with a free tablet or laptop and 4G mobile or broadband service so they won’t fall behind with their education while homeschooling. But Johnson is standing on fragile ground. In a televised address to the nation this month, his confused messaging—encouraging construction and manufacturing workers and others to avoid using public transport while returning to workplaces that might still be unsafe—invited public derision and conflict with the unions.
Let us not dwell, for the moment, on the fact that when Labour promised to nationalize the railways, offer free broadband, and tackle homelessness, the Tories said it couldn’t be done and the commentariat mocked Corbyn’s fiscal illiteracy. The money has been found during what promises to be an extended economic recession.
Where does that leave a center-left opposition now? As social democratic parties across Europe are either eclipsed by those further left or struggling to transform themselves, the question “What is Labour for in this moment?” is very much alive.
Starmer has assembled an eclectic team, including Long-Bailey, Nandy, and former leader (and Nation intern) Ed Miliband. Considerably to the right of what had come before, it is nonetheless sufficiently progressive to satisfy enough of the faithful.
Starmer also moved quickly to apologize to Britain’s Jewish community over the issue of anti-Semitism. His appearances at the dispatch box have been solid. He will enjoy a quiet honeymoon because he’s not Corbyn and few are paying much attention.
But the job Starmer interviewed for—unthreatening center-left leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, here to steady the ship and quell the mutiny—no longer exists. A democratic socialist agenda is now a far more plausible response to this crisis and the depression that will follow than a neoliberal one. Covid has laid bare the inequalities and inequities that have grown under Tory rule and made an unanswerable case for massive state intervention and fiscal redistribution. There will be no clamor for the homeless to be put back out on the streets or for recently connected poor kids to be shoved off the grid.
The Tories enjoyed an electoral victory in December but not an ideological one. Shortly after announcing the lockdown, Johnson declared, “There really is such a thing as society.” It marked as clear a break with Thatcher’s rhetoric (she once said there wasn’t) as his rescue package was with her economics. The shape that our politics will take after this crisis is up for grabs. The questions of which workers are key to the economy and which are not, of who and what we value and why, of what we can afford and what we should not tolerate, are no longer merely left talking points but burning questions that Labour is well positioned to address.
There is unlikely to be an election for another five years. But there will definitely be clapping and a banging of pots next Thursday.