thenation--2020-11-20--It’s Not Just Students Drowning in Debt. Colleges Are Too!

For colleges and universities this year , back to school has been tumultuous .
At the University of North Carolina , administrators defiantly brought students to campus , only to send them home within days as Covid-19 outbreaks ravaged the commons .
The University of Wisconsin pushed ahead with in-person reopening despite outcries from faculty , staffers , and even county health officials ; within weeks , the campus had to shift all instruction online .
Students at the University of Georgia staged die-ins , unwilling to sacrifice their lives for their education .
Notre Dame ’ s student newspaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to print classmates ’ obituaries .
Big Ten football was canceled—and then it wasn ’ t .
By July , more than 51,000 campus workers in the United States had been laid off , furloughed , or did not have their contracts renewed .
Meanwhile , the majority of universities ’ remaining adjunct instructional staffers found themselves without sick leave or employer-sponsored health insurance .
All this mayhem caused many to wonder , “ Exactly who are universities accountable to ?
” 1 For universities , this crisis has been long in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spray of coronavirus-laden droplets unleashed over the past months but also jagged budget lines plunging across decades .
During the past 30 years , per-pupil public funding for higher education has declined more than 30 percent .
Ten years after the Great Recession , annual state funding for public colleges is still $ 6.6 billion below 2008 levels .
As the federal government has dialed back funds , universities have turned to debt financing to keep their doors open.2 Over the past decade , vibrant organizing has forced student debt into the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal , debt cancellation has become part of the mainstream liberal political conversation .
Thanks to efforts by the Debt Collective , the Movement for Black Lives , Rolling Jubilee ( an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street ) , and others , top Democratic presidential candidates rushed to issue plans for addressing student debt , from lowered interest rates to free public college .
This fall , Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer called on Donald Trump to forgive up to $ 50,000 of federal student loans per borrower .
Activists have similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student debt , though so far he has proposed canceling only $ 10,000 worth per student .
Even Trump has ordered Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to stop collecting interest payments on federal student loans during the pandemic.3 But it ’ s not only students who are buried in debt .
Institutions are , too .
Just as decreased state funding has caused students to go into debt to cover tuition and fees , universities have taken on debt to keep their doors open .
Institutional debt at public colleges in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from $ 73 billion in 2003 to $ 151 billion in 2012 .
As schools borrow more , greater proportions of their budgets service that debt through interest and fee payments .
Between 2003 and 2012 , university interest payments jumped from $ 6 billion to $ 11 billion annually .
Similarly , in 2003 , public colleges spent an average of $ 519 on interest payments per full-time student .
By 2012 , they were spending $ 750 on interest payments per student—a nearly 45 percent increase.4 Can the American University Be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are integrally connected .
As Hannah Appel , a professor at UCLA and a co-founder of the Debt Collective , told me , “ Public institutions have been starved of public funding .
Their funding model has been forced to privatize .
And part of what that means is…they ’ re issuing bonds , but they are also tuition funded .
So these are part and parcel of the same thing.
” 5 Whereas student debt load is intimate , determining the work we seek and how much of our wages we take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most students and workers pass through campus unaware of their institution ’ s dependency on debt financing in any of its basic terms , such as the amount their school owes and what the money was borrowed for—much less who lent it and under what conditions .
Lack of budgeting transparency , in combination with complex financing streams , makes these matters intimidating , if not unintelligible , for many , including the workers and students paying the cost.6 Yet institutional debt is the invisible architecture of higher education .
In an era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dorms , staff classrooms , and furnish libraries by taking on debt .
The biggest increases in institutional debt have been used to finance the explosion of shiny new buildings on less wealthy campuses .
Luxury dorms and state-of-the-art gyms serve a common purpose : to lure top-paying students , especially out-of-state and international ones.7 This drive to recruit paying customers ( sometimes called students ) has triggered an amenities arms race to construct the flashiest , poshest accommodations—all financed by borrowing .
Even the wealthiest schools , whose large endowments could easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves in debt .
Why ?
Investment earnings from their bulging endowments more than offset the cost of borrowing .
As UC Berkeley sociologist Charlie Eaton and his colleagues have reported , the financialization of higher education has meant that “ less wealthy public and private colleges are using institutional debt towards maximizing commercial revenues , while at the wealthiest institutions it was oriented toward maximizing financial revenues.
” Universities , in other words , are becoming increasingly more like country clubs ( however aspirational ) with an interest in education or investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a financial arrangement , debt financing creates a power relationship .
The rules of credit govern campuses with more force than virtually any other institutional body .
Debt covenants ( the legally binding conditions of borrowing ) stipulate the payment order : creditors first , everyone and everything else last .
Only after money has been set aside for the banks does a university begin to pay its workers , distribute financial aid to students , or grant sick time and health insurance to employees.9 Frequently , universities take on debt through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IOUs , the bonds pledge that universities will repay their debt , plus interest and fees to the Wall Street banks that secure this financing .
But banks are first and foremost concerned with securing profits for themselves , not the well-being of students , workers , or taxpayers .
Even attempts to curb the banks ’ profiteering at taxpayers ’ expense , such as the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation , excluded municipal bond underwriters .
As a result , banks that secure money for municipal entities , such as institutions of higher learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ interests and can act freely to pursue financial gains without penalty .
Using their role as lenders to act as de facto financial advisers , the banks sell universities complicated financial products that increase borrowers ’ fees while lining their own pockets.10 With universities beholden to creditors , credit rating agencies have become de facto governors .
In theory , these private firms evaluate an institution ’ s likelihood of defaulting on a loan .
But for agencies like Moody ’ s , Standard & Poor ’ s , and Fitch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ideology than reality .
( For example , they routinely downgrade municipal bonds despite their extremely low default rates , suggesting a costly bias against municipalities . )
As universities must increasingly borrow money to operate , their credit ratings have become their lifelines .
Given such influence , the rating agencies not only evaluate institutions ; they also incentivize their behavior.11 What the rating agencies deem important , universities must do .
The firms prize branding strength , so universities pour money into marketing campaigns and targeted brand research .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unilaterally raise tuition , so public universities scramble to seek such authority from state legislatures .
Moody ’ s rating methodology measures a university board of directors ’ fluency in business complexities .
Thus the number of finance executives who chair these boards at research universities more than doubled between 1989 and 2004 , rising from 26 to 56 percent.12 Rating agency algorithms also consider a university ’ s ability to control labor costs , in terms of both employee unions and faculty tenure .
The more unionized and publicly regulated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moody ’ s credit rating methodologies for higher education suggest that political pressures to keep tuition low may limit institutions ’ market strength .
Similarly , pushes to maintain staffing , especially amid an economic downturn , might weaken universities ’ financial power .
When universities keep tuition low , workers securely employed , and are democratically governed by non-investment bankers , Moody ’ s warns , credit ratings may suffer.13 In 2009 , shortly after the University of California announced it was facing an “ extreme financial emergency ” and furloughed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened : Its bond rating jumped .
One month later , the UC system issued $ 1.6 billion in highly rated bonds .
How could a flailing institution that cut $ 170 million in workers ’ pay suddenly raise more than $ 1 billion in bonds ?
The answer was simple : The UC Board of Regents followed the rating agencies ’ playbook , as explained by their rating methodology documents .
The board cut workers ’ pay and raised tuition by a jaw-dropping 32 percent .
Assuaged by the promise of decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s and S & P awarded the UC system a higher rating than even the state of California .
This rating enabled it to easily secure $ 1.6 billion from private banks and lenders .
UC not only used student tuition as collateral for institutional debt ; it also made its bond rating its highest budgetary priority.14 Such financial terrain has proved disorienting for campus activists , who often cite rising administrators ’ pay as the main driver of campus austerity politics .
“ Chop , chop , chop from the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest wage cuts and tuition hikes while administrators continue to collect six-figure salaries .
The allocation of scarce campus resources is a crucial question , but perhaps an equally fundamental issue is why resources have been made scarce in the first place .
In an era of debt-financed universities , administrators , however overpaid , are merely puppets—perhaps more than they themselves realize—with the strings held by Wall Street banks and their guard dogs , the rating agencies.15 Too Many Young Voters Are Drowning in Student Debt Amid pandemic-exacerbated financial peril , students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at campuses across the country have begun to call attention to the rising debt loads at their institutions .
For example , when , with Covid ’ s arrival , the Board of Trustees and administrators at Salem State University in Massachusetts threatened to raise tuition , furlough workers , and postpone faculty promotion and tenure decisions , Rich Levy , Joanna Gonsalves , and other members of the Salem chapter of the Massachusetts State College Association , their union , began to wonder just whom their university was really serving .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common Good , the Debt Collective , and Labor Notes ’ Public Higher Education Network , Levy and a handful of other faculty members and undergraduates began to investigate debt financing on their own campus .
“ We didn ’ t have special skills , ” Levy told me .
“ It was people just reading public documents.
” Although they vaguely understood their university had been slowly privatizing many of its assets , from its workforce to its buildings , these unionists found the school ’ s numbers spelled it out : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of annual tuition and fees—just to service the university ’ s capital debt , a 403 percent increase since 2010 .
“ We knew this was happening , ” Levy said .
“ We just didn ’ t know it was happening like this.
” 16 A similar effort at the University of Wisconsin that I have been involved in has revealed that since 2007 , its debt service payments have increased 63 percent .
In 2019 , UW spent roughly the same amount to service its debt as it distributed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the University of Wisconsin–Madison , where I am a graduate student , almost 3 percent of last year ’ s budget went to servicing its debt .
By comparison , the entire School of Education—the 10 departments that , among other duties , prepare future educators—is allocated slightly more than 4 percent of the revenue budget .
At UC San Diego , faculty discovered the campus ’ s debt obligations have nearly doubled since 2012 , imposing $ 70 million in debt service payments annually ; the UC system as a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019.17 While making institutional debt visible is critical , the real challenge is to organize this knowledge into power .
How can we—students , low-wage workers , adjuncts , beleaguered professors—do anything to stop the financialized machine of higher education ?
The first task : Remember that we have power and then envision how we can use it.18 “ We start to make demands , and that opens up new perspectives and new possibilities , ” said Jason Wozniak , a professor of educational foundations at West Chester University in Pennsylvania and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demands can help students and adjuncts , taxpayers , low-wage workers , and even administrators see themselves in common cause .
More than just a means to achieve immediate wins , demands are tools to bring groups together to envision and articulate long-term aims , however utopian they may seem.19 One such demand would be for public , democratically accountable financing of higher education , via the federal government instead of profiteering banks .
Public financing of universities would weaken credit rating agencies ’ power over universities ’ priorities .
And it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees that universities give to Wall Street .
According to a recent report by the Action Center on Race and the Economy , state and local governments spend more than $ 160 billion a year on interest payments for their debts .
Yet , as the document highlights , the Federal Reserve has the capacity to issue zero-cost , long-term loans directly to public institutions , from state governments to community colleges .
So why doesn ’ t it ?
Because movements have yet to demand it , much less organize for it.20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that demands for justice must reach beyond the boss : They must grab for the invisible hand .
Such acts have precedent .
In the 1990s , when the International Monetary Fund conditioned its willingness to lend to the Bolivian city of Cochabamba on its selling off the city ’ s public water supply , activists launched a general strike .
This movement laid the groundwork for Bolivia ’ s protest movement against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund , arguing that money should go to public services in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly inspired global Jubilee Debt Campaign has won $ 130 billion in debt relief for debtor nations from 2000 to 2015 .
Student activists in Puerto Rico have fought against the debt extraction that has shuttered their universities .
In 2012 the city of Oakland , Calif. , terminated financing with Goldman Sachs for engaging in predatory interest swaps .
In 2011 the Chicago Teachers Union called on Chicago Public Schools to stop doing business with the five banks responsible for the most foreclosures in the city.22 But the invisible hand will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will Congress command the Fed to make zero-interest loans to public institutions without movements demanding them .
Achieving these goals must begin with organized movements .
The goal of organizing : to build unity strong enough such that those involved—educators , basketball players , consumers—can withhold their participation from the system that denies them power.23 Given the right kind of organizing , a university ’ s debt could actually become a source of strength .
To withhold debt servicing payments would be to strike at the jugular of the predatory finance system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street is a million dollars we could use to give adjuncts better pay , to provide benefits to poor students , to keep classes running , ” explained Wozniak .
“ Debt service is a form of extraction that we need to stop immediately , especially during this crisis.
” Even a moratorium on debt servicing could offer a strategic pause , allowing students , faculty members , and other staffers a moment “ to feel what it ’ s like to not have our necks squashed by debts and creditors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalitions of students , workers , faculty members , and even administrators , standing together to demand publicly financed higher education .
Following the lead of graduate workers at UC Santa Cruz , for example , university instructors , in coalition with students and administrators , could refuse to issue grades—higher education ’ s own unique brand of credit rating—to strike against debt-financed universities .
Campus groups could call for debt audits of universities .
Unions could analyze campus debt and organize around it .
The invisibility of universities ’ debt financing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; organizing can bring it to light.25 In some cases , Covid-19 has accomplished decades of movement work in a matter of weeks .
Demands previously written off as far-fetched or impossible have become political realities .
Evictions have been halted .
Prisoners have been released .
Water , heat , and electricity flow freely to homes .
Mutual aid networks have deepened .
Yet on campuses , Covid-19 has only heightened the austerity regimes , not transformed them .
Universities ’ strategy to paper over decades of budget cuts with tuition hikes—i.e.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic .
For many universities , declining enrollment and tuition dollars will mean less collateral for their debt loads .
In March , predicting such a turn of events , Moody ’ s downgraded the outlook of the entire higher education sector from stable to negative .
For cash-strapped schools , bleaker credit ratings mean institutional debt financing will become both more necessary and more expensive .
Some colleges , such as the historic San Francisco Art Institute , have already shuttered their doors because of unmanageable debt loads .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial pressures will undoubtedly accelerate plans to transform universities into profit machines rather than sites of teaching , learning , and reparative community .
The time has passed to merely resist these pressures ; we must dismantle the system that produces them .
And we have power to move toward that goal .
We can begin by demanding that our universities halt debt repayments .
Doing so would withhold our participation in the predatory financing that extorts university workers and students for Wall Street ’ s gains .
Refusing to pay debt service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privatization of universities—and mark the first step toward their public , democratically determined financing.27

This article appears in the November 30/December 7, 2020 issue.
For colleges and universities this year, back to school has been tumultuous. At the University of North Carolina, administrators defiantly brought students to campus, only to send them home within days as Covid-19 outbreaks ravaged the commons. The University of Wisconsin pushed ahead with in-person reopening despite outcries from faculty, staffers, and even county health officials; within weeks, the campus had to shift all instruction online. Students at the University of Georgia staged die-ins, unwilling to sacrifice their lives for their education. Notre Dame’s student newspaper published an editorial begging not to have to print classmates’ obituaries. Big Ten football was canceled—and then it wasn’t. By July, more than 51,000 campus workers in the United States had been laid off, furloughed, or did not have their contracts renewed. Meanwhile, the majority of universities’ remaining adjunct instructional staffers found themselves without sick leave or employer-sponsored health insurance. All this mayhem caused many to wonder, “Exactly who are universities accountable to?”1
For universities, this crisis has been long in the making, its vectors not just the spray of coronavirus-laden droplets unleashed over the past months but also jagged budget lines plunging across decades. During the past 30 years, per-pupil public funding for higher education has declined more than 30 percent. Ten years after the Great Recession, annual state funding for public colleges is still $6.6 billion below 2008 levels. As the federal government has dialed back funds, universities have turned to debt financing to keep their doors open.2
Over the past decade, vibrant organizing has forced student debt into the political limelight. Once considered a wild utopian ideal, debt cancellation has become part of the mainstream liberal political conversation. Thanks to efforts by the Debt Collective, the Movement for Black Lives, Rolling Jubilee (an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street), and others, top Democratic presidential candidates rushed to issue plans for addressing student debt, from lowered interest rates to free public college. This fall, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer called on Donald Trump to forgive up to $50,000 of federal student loans per borrower. Activists have similarly pressured Joe Biden to commit to canceling student debt, though so far he has proposed canceling only $10,000 worth per student. Even Trump has ordered Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to stop collecting interest payments on federal student loans during the pandemic.3
But it’s not only students who are buried in debt. Institutions are, too. Just as decreased state funding has caused students to go into debt to cover tuition and fees, universities have taken on debt to keep their doors open. Institutional debt at public colleges in the United States has more than doubled, jumping from $73 billion in 2003 to $151 billion in 2012. As schools borrow more, greater proportions of their budgets service that debt through interest and fee payments. Between 2003 and 2012, university interest payments jumped from $6 billion to $11 billion annually. Similarly, in 2003, public colleges spent an average of $519 on interest payments per full-time student. By 2012, they were spending $750 on interest payments per student—a nearly 45 percent increase.4 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 Related Article Can the American University Be Saved? Daniel Bessner
Student debt and institutional debt are integrally connected. As Hannah Appel, a professor at UCLA and a co-founder of the Debt Collective, told me, “Public institutions have been starved of public funding. Their funding model has been forced to privatize. And part of what that means is…they’re issuing bonds, but they are also tuition funded. So these are part and parcel of the same thing.”5
Whereas student debt load is intimate, determining the work we seek and how much of our wages we take home, institutional debt is opaque. Most students and workers pass through campus unaware of their institution’s dependency on debt financing in any of its basic terms, such as the amount their school owes and what the money was borrowed for—much less who lent it and under what conditions. Lack of budgeting transparency, in combination with complex financing streams, makes these matters intimidating, if not unintelligible, for many, including the workers and students paying the cost.6
Yet institutional debt is the invisible architecture of higher education. In an era of dwindling public revenue, universities build dorms, staff classrooms, and furnish libraries by taking on debt. The biggest increases in institutional debt have been used to finance the explosion of shiny new buildings on less wealthy campuses. Luxury dorms and state-of-the-art gyms serve a common purpose: to lure top-paying students, especially out-of-state and international ones.7 Current Issue View our current issue
This drive to recruit paying customers (sometimes called students) has triggered an amenities arms race to construct the flashiest, poshest accommodations—all financed by borrowing. Even the wealthiest schools, whose large endowments could easily cover capital expansion projects, have submerged themselves in debt. Why? Investment earnings from their bulging endowments more than offset the cost of borrowing. As UC Berkeley sociologist Charlie Eaton and his colleagues have reported, the financialization of higher education has meant that “less wealthy public and private colleges are using institutional debt towards maximizing commercial revenues, while at the wealthiest institutions it was oriented toward maximizing financial revenues.” Universities, in other words, are becoming increasingly more like country clubs (however aspirational) with an interest in education or investment banks that run degree programs.8
More than a financial arrangement, debt financing creates a power relationship. The rules of credit govern campuses with more force than virtually any other institutional body. Debt covenants (the legally binding conditions of borrowing) stipulate the payment order: creditors first, everyone and everything else last. Only after money has been set aside for the banks does a university begin to pay its workers, distribute financial aid to students, or grant sick time and health insurance to employees.9
Frequently, universities take on debt through a version of municipal bonds. Essentially legal IOUs, the bonds pledge that universities will repay their debt, plus interest and fees to the Wall Street banks that secure this financing. But banks are first and foremost concerned with securing profits for themselves, not the well-being of students, workers, or taxpayers. Even attempts to curb the banks’ profiteering at taxpayers’ expense, such as the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation, excluded municipal bond underwriters. As a result, banks that secure money for municipal entities, such as institutions of higher learning, are not required to protect taxpayers’ interests and can act freely to pursue financial gains without penalty. Using their role as lenders to act as de facto financial advisers, the banks sell universities complicated financial products that increase borrowers’ fees while lining their own pockets.10
With universities beholden to creditors, credit rating agencies have become de facto governors. In theory, these private firms evaluate an institution’s likelihood of defaulting on a loan. But for agencies like Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch, their rating scales are far more rooted in ideology than reality. (For example, they routinely downgrade municipal bonds despite their extremely low default rates, suggesting a costly bias against municipalities.) As universities must increasingly borrow money to operate, their credit ratings have become their lifelines. Given such influence, the rating agencies not only evaluate institutions; they also incentivize their behavior.11
What the rating agencies deem important, universities must do. The firms prize branding strength, so universities pour money into marketing campaigns and targeted brand research. The agencies value a school’s ability to unilaterally raise tuition, so public universities scramble to seek such authority from state legislatures. Moody’s rating methodology measures a university board of directors’ fluency in business complexities. Thus the number of finance executives who chair these boards at research universities more than doubled between 1989 and 2004, rising from 26 to 56 percent.12
Rating agency algorithms also consider a university’s ability to control labor costs, in terms of both employee unions and faculty tenure. The more unionized and publicly regulated a university, the weaker its credit rating. Moody’s credit rating methodologies for higher education suggest that political pressures to keep tuition low may limit institutions’ market strength. Similarly, pushes to maintain staffing, especially amid an economic downturn, might weaken universities’ financial power. When universities keep tuition low, workers securely employed, and are democratically governed by non-investment bankers, Moody’s warns, credit ratings may suffer.13
In 2009, shortly after the University of California announced it was facing an “extreme financial emergency” and furloughed thousands of workers, a strange thing happened: Its bond rating jumped. One month later, the UC system issued $1.6 billion in highly rated bonds. How could a flailing institution that cut $170 million in workers’ pay suddenly raise more than $1 billion in bonds? The answer was simple: The UC Board of Regents followed the rating agencies’ playbook, as explained by their rating methodology documents. The board cut workers’ pay and raised tuition by a jaw-dropping 32 percent. Assuaged by the promise of decades of students’ future wages, Moody’s and S&P awarded the UC system a higher rating than even the state of California. This rating enabled it to easily secure $1.6 billion from private banks and lenders. UC not only used student tuition as collateral for institutional debt; it also made its bond rating its highest budgetary priority.14
Such financial terrain has proved disorienting for campus activists, who often cite rising administrators’ pay as the main driver of campus austerity politics. “Chop, chop, chop from the top!” yell students and workers who protest wage cuts and tuition hikes while administrators continue to collect six-figure salaries. The allocation of scarce campus resources is a crucial question, but perhaps an equally fundamental issue is why resources have been made scarce in the first place. In an era of debt-financed universities, administrators, however overpaid, are merely puppets—perhaps more than they themselves realize—with the strings held by Wall Street banks and their guard dogs, the rating agencies.15 Related Article Too Many Young Voters Are Drowning in Student Debt Natalie Ravis
Amid pandemic-exacerbated financial peril, students, faculty members, and other staffers at campuses across the country have begun to call attention to the rising debt loads at their institutions. For example, when, with Covid’s arrival, the Board of Trustees and administrators at Salem State University in Massachusetts threatened to raise tuition, furlough workers, and postpone faculty promotion and tenure decisions, Rich Levy, Joanna Gonsalves, and other members of the Salem chapter of the Massachusetts State College Association, their union, began to wonder just whom their university was really serving. With guidance from groups like Bargaining for the Common Good, the Debt Collective, and Labor Notes’ Public Higher Education Network, Levy and a handful of other faculty members and undergraduates began to investigate debt financing on their own campus. “We didn’t have special skills,” Levy told me. “It was people just reading public documents.” Although they vaguely understood their university had been slowly privatizing many of its assets, from its workforce to its buildings, these unionists found the school’s numbers spelled it out: Each full-time SSU student paid $2,960—11.53 percent of annual tuition and fees—just to service the university’s capital debt, a 403 percent increase since 2010. “We knew this was happening,” Levy said. “We just didn’t know it was happening like this.”16
A similar effort at the University of Wisconsin that I have been involved in has revealed that since 2007, its debt service payments have increased 63 percent. In 2019, UW spent roughly the same amount to service its debt as it distributed in financial aid. At its flagship campus, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where I am a graduate student, almost 3 percent of last year’s budget went to servicing its debt. By comparison, the entire School of Education—the 10 departments that, among other duties, prepare future educators—is allocated slightly more than 4 percent of the revenue budget. At UC San Diego, faculty discovered the campus’s debt obligations have nearly doubled since 2012, imposing $70 million in debt service payments annually; the UC system as a whole paid $767 million in interest expenses in 2019.17
While making institutional debt visible is critical, the real challenge is to organize this knowledge into power. How can we—students, low-wage workers, adjuncts, beleaguered professors—do anything to stop the financialized machine of higher education? The first task: Remember that we have power and then envision how we can use it.18
“We start to make demands, and that opens up new perspectives and new possibilities,” said Jason Wozniak, a professor of educational foundations at West Chester University in Pennsylvania and a member of the Debt Collective. Demands can help students and adjuncts, taxpayers, low-wage workers, and even administrators see themselves in common cause. More than just a means to achieve immediate wins, demands are tools to bring groups together to envision and articulate long-term aims, however utopian they may seem.19
One such demand would be for public, democratically accountable financing of higher education, via the federal government instead of profiteering banks. Public financing of universities would weaken credit rating agencies’ power over universities’ priorities. And it would eliminate millions of dollars in interest and fees that universities give to Wall Street. According to a recent report by the Action Center on Race and the Economy, state and local governments spend more than $160 billion a year on interest payments for their debts. Yet, as the document highlights, the Federal Reserve has the capacity to issue zero-cost, long-term loans directly to public institutions, from state governments to community colleges. So why doesn’t it? Because movements have yet to demand it, much less organize for it.20
The reality of today’s economy means that demands for justice must reach beyond the boss: They must grab for the invisible hand. Such acts have precedent. In the 1990s, when the International Monetary Fund conditioned its willingness to lend to the Bolivian city of Cochabamba on its selling off the city’s public water supply, activists launched a general strike. This movement laid the groundwork for Bolivia’s protest movement against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, arguing that money should go to public services in the country instead of private financial conglomerates elsewhere.21
A similarly inspired global Jubilee Debt Campaign has won $130 billion in debt relief for debtor nations from 2000 to 2015. Student activists in Puerto Rico have fought against the debt extraction that has shuttered their universities. In 2012 the city of Oakland, Calif., terminated financing with Goldman Sachs for engaging in predatory interest swaps. In 2011 the Chicago Teachers Union called on Chicago Public Schools to stop doing business with the five banks responsible for the most foreclosures in the city.22
But the invisible hand will not release its grip by itself. Nor will Congress command the Fed to make zero-interest loans to public institutions without movements demanding them. Achieving these goals must begin with organized movements. The goal of organizing: to build unity strong enough such that those involved—educators, basketball players, consumers—can withhold their participation from the system that denies them power.23
Given the right kind of organizing, a university’s debt could actually become a source of strength. To withhold debt servicing payments would be to strike at the jugular of the predatory finance system. “Every million dollars that goes to Wall Street is a million dollars we could use to give adjuncts better pay, to provide benefits to poor students, to keep classes running,” explained Wozniak. “Debt service is a form of extraction that we need to stop immediately, especially during this crisis.” Even a moratorium on debt servicing could offer a strategic pause, allowing students, faculty members, and other staffers a moment “to feel what it’s like to not have our necks squashed by debts and creditors,” he said.24
Such organizing would necessitate coalitions of students, workers, faculty members, and even administrators, standing together to demand publicly financed higher education. Following the lead of graduate workers at UC Santa Cruz, for example, university instructors, in coalition with students and administrators, could refuse to issue grades—higher education’s own unique brand of credit rating—to strike against debt-financed universities. Campus groups could call for debt audits of universities. Unions could analyze campus debt and organize around it. The invisibility of universities’ debt financing is what enables its power to operate undetected; organizing can bring it to light.25
In some cases, Covid-19 has accomplished decades of movement work in a matter of weeks. Demands previously written off as far-fetched or impossible have become political realities. Evictions have been halted. Prisoners have been released. Water, heat, and electricity flow freely to homes. Mutual aid networks have deepened. Yet on campuses, Covid-19 has only heightened the austerity regimes, not transformed them. Universities’ strategy to paper over decades of budget cuts with tuition hikes—i.e., student debt—is no longer viable amid the pandemic. For many universities, declining enrollment and tuition dollars will mean less collateral for their debt loads. In March, predicting such a turn of events, Moody’s downgraded the outlook of the entire higher education sector from stable to negative. For cash-strapped schools, bleaker credit ratings mean institutional debt financing will become both more necessary and more expensive. Some colleges, such as the historic San Francisco Art Institute, have already shuttered their doors because of unmanageable debt loads. And the worst is likely still to come.26
These financial pressures will undoubtedly accelerate plans to transform universities into profit machines rather than sites of teaching, learning, and reparative community. The time has passed to merely resist these pressures; we must dismantle the system that produces them. And we have power to move toward that goal. We can begin by demanding that our universities halt debt repayments. Doing so would withhold our participation in the predatory financing that extorts university workers and students for Wall Street’s gains. Refusing to pay debt service would strike a crucial blow against the privatization of universities—and mark the first step toward their public, democratically determined financing.27


thenation--2020-11-20--Why Georgia’s Unscientific Recount ‘Horrified’ Experts

This week , thousands of Georgians sat at tables in rooms large and small across the state ’ s 159 counties and counted nearly 5 million paper ballots by hand , in what officials called a statewide audit of the general election outcome .
Though the process ended by confirming President-elect Joe Biden ’ s lead , certified by the state on Friday , expert observers across the nation familiar with the state and its history with election technology looked on , feeling what one described as “ horrified.
” These observers included computer scientists , cybersecurity analysts , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the statistician who invented the method of auditing elections that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the state was carrying out .
Their reactions to the noble efforts of exhausted election workers were not , they underlined , due to evidence of wrongdoing , or fraud , or challenges to the election ’ s legitimacy .
Their concerns owed to the process being used , what state officials were calling it , and what this could mean for future attempts to build public trust in election results—including on January 5 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in the national spotlight , as a special election decides the balance of power in the US Senate .
The series of events leading to the “ audit ” began with a flurry of attacks leveled at Raffensperger from within the GOP , launched not even a week after Election Day , urging everything from his resignation to a complete hand recount of all ballots from the November 3 election .
In a surprise move , Raffensperger announced on November 11 that he would order the count .
He used what Gregory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute , a nonprofit organization that researches and develops election technology , called “ pretzel logic.
” The state was obligated by law to perform a “ risk-limiting audit ” —a means of determining accuracy by counting a random sample chosen according to mathematical formulas .
The technique has been tried in a small but growing number of states in recent years , and the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine concluded in a 2018 report that all states “ should mandate risk-limiting audits.
” But Raffensperger decided to forgo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead that counting all of the nearly 5 million ballots by hand , in less than a week , would be necessary to fulfill the obligation .
Georgia came to the idea of conducting risk-limiting audits last year , after US District Judge Amy Totenberg ordered the state to overhaul its entire election system because of outdated technology plagued by computing vulnerabilities .
The state is one of only a handful that uses the same system statewide , whereas most states use a patchwork of voting methods ; in addition , the voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out paper ballots .
But as state officials debated how to comply with the judge ’ s order , experts urged the state to abandon digital voting altogether , to adopt voting by hand-marked paper ballots , and to follow up elections with risk-limiting audits .
The latter received the imprimatur of the National Academies for a reason .
For decades , many states have performed audits by hand-counting ballots in a fixed percentage of precincts .
But a fixed percentage “ may not provide adequate assurance with regard to the outcome of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 report .
Risk-limiting audits , on the other hand , examine “ randomly selected paper ballots until sufficient statistical assurance is obtained , ” as the report ’ s authors wrote .
The so-called risk limit refers to the largest possible chance that the audit will not correct an inaccurate result .
For example , a 10 percent risk limit means an audit has a 90 percent chance of identifying the correct result of an election .
The formulas underpinning the audit determine how many ballots will need to counted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Georgia lawmakers decided to ignore most expert advice , and spent $ 107 million on a new computerized voting system , including voting machines that print out paper ballots—the object of this week ’ s count .
They did , however , agree to carry out a version of risk-limiting audits , with the guidance of a nonprofit organization called Voting Works .
Raffensperger ’ s surprise announcement claimed that the race was so close that mathematical formulas suggested that up to 1.5 million ballots would need to be randomly pulled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand would be easier .
This appeared to satisfy GOP critics , while also complying with state law regarding risk-limiting audits .
One problem : State law also doesn ’ t allow for changing the election outcome based on the audit results .
The secretary of state called it “ an audit , recount and recanvass , all at once.
” The issue , Miller noted in a widely read essay , was that each of these concepts has a different definition , and different legal and technical implications .
( A recount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scanners , not by hand . )
Philip B. Stark , the University of California–Berkeley statistics professor widely recognized as the creator of risk-limiting audits , called the state ’ s decision a “ FrankenCount ” in an e-mail .
“ Part of me is delighted that the idea has caught on , ” he added in a call .
“ Part of me is horrified—they ’ re misrepresenting what it can do.
” Stark told me that a risk-limiting audit , to be effective , must have “ trustworthy ballots.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each county would have canvassed its results , and ensured that the number of ballots tallied before uploading results to the state matched the number of voters who turned up at the polls .
This would have avoided the “ discovery ” of thousands of ballots in several counties during the hand count that had not been included in statewide results .
In the current climate , this has added fuel to allegations of wrongdoing—even though it didn ’ t change the election ’ s outcome .
After all was said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 12,284 votes—less than 500 votes different from the tally compiled by machine .
Stark also questioned Raffensperger ’ s claim regarding the necessary sample size , which Voting Works had estimated at 1.5 million .
Stark said a risk-limiting audit “ could have been done with 2,500 ballots , according to my methods and my calculations.
” On-the-ground observers of the count included Harri Hursti , an election cybersecurity expert who has studied elections in five countries , including the United States .
“ This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then an audit—I don ’ t know what it is ; I don ’ t think anyone else knows , ” he said .
Hursti noted that he had looked at the software being used to manage the hand count , an easy thing to do , given that Voting Works uses open-source code .
He had seen more than a dozen changes to the code since the count began—a security concern , he said , since no entity had approved the original software or the changes .
Hursti also noted that staffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same county—were following different procedures for counting the ballots .
“ Hand recounts only work when people are trained in and apply consistent methodologies , ” said Richard DeMillo , computer science professor and interim chairman of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech .
“ You could look at live feeds [ of the hand count ] and see that this is not the case.
” As Miller wrote in his essay , “ Audits must be sufficiently well-organized and rigorous that they do not potentially risk becoming yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to argue over ; the whole point of a post-election audit is to produce clear evidence that reduces uncertainty—not to give politicians a fresh set of new ‘ irregularities ’ to argue about.
” By Tuesday , the state appeared to have done a legal analysis of its effort ; Gabriel Sterling , the state ’ s voting system manager , announced that the hand count would not in any way change the election ’ s results , for legal reasons .
“ What was the exercise about ?
” asked Marilyn Marks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Coalition for Good Governance , an organization whose ongoing lawsuit against the state led to Judge Totenberg ’ s 2019 order .
“ Why take a week to do this , at a high cost and exposing so many workers to Covid ?
” Calls and e-mails requesting comment from the secretary of state , Sterling , and Voting Works were not returned .
On Thursday evening , with the hand count done , a federal judge denied a petition by attorney L. Lin Wood for a temporary restraining order on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , which took place Friday .
After certification , President Trump can legally ask for a recount , which again means tallying up all votes by scanner .
In the end , the path Georgia has taken is a loss for the concept of a genuine risk-limiting audit , said Miller .
“ This may not matter—except to those who want to preserve risk-limiting audits as an important means of trusting the vote , ” he said .
“ On January 5 , we will undoubtedly see incredibly close races—with attendant calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure verification , accuracy and , ideally , transparent elections—or will it fuel the same sort of distractions they ’ re seeing now ?
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
This week, thousands of Georgians sat at tables in rooms large and small across the state’s 159 counties and counted nearly 5 million paper ballots by hand, in what officials called a statewide audit of the general election outcome. Though the process ended by confirming President-elect Joe Biden’s lead, certified by the state on Friday, expert observers across the nation familiar with the state and its history with election technology looked on, feeling what one described as “horrified.”
These observers included computer scientists, cybersecurity analysts, an adviser to Congress on election integrity, and the statistician who invented the method of auditing elections that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the state was carrying out.
Their reactions to the noble efforts of exhausted election workers were not, they underlined, due to evidence of wrongdoing, or fraud, or challenges to the election’s legitimacy. Their concerns owed to the process being used, what state officials were calling it, and what this could mean for future attempts to build public trust in election results—including on January 5, when voters in Georgia will once again be in the national spotlight, as a special election decides the balance of power in the US Senate.
The series of events leading to the “audit” began with a flurry of attacks leveled at Raffensperger from within the GOP, launched not even a week after Election Day, urging everything from his resignation to a complete hand recount of all ballots from the November 3 election. a state of transition How Georgia Went Blue Katrina vanden Heuvel
In a surprise move, Raffensperger announced on November 11 that he would order the count. He used what Gregory Miller, chief operating officer of OSET Institute, a nonprofit organization that researches and develops election technology, called “pretzel logic.” The state was obligated by law to perform a “risk-limiting audit”—a means of determining accuracy by counting a random sample chosen according to mathematical formulas. The technique has been tried in a small but growing number of states in recent years, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in a 2018 report that all states “should mandate risk-limiting audits.” But Raffensperger decided to forgo choosing a sample of ballots, insisting instead that counting all of the nearly 5 million ballots by hand, in less than a week, would be necessary to fulfill the obligation.
Georgia came to the idea of conducting risk-limiting audits last year, after US District Judge Amy Totenberg ordered the state to overhaul its entire election system because of outdated technology plagued by computing vulnerabilities. The state is one of only a handful that uses the same system statewide, whereas most states use a patchwork of voting methods; in addition, the voting machines then in use did not print out paper ballots. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
But as state officials debated how to comply with the judge’s order, experts urged the state to abandon digital voting altogether, to adopt voting by hand-marked paper ballots, and to follow up elections with risk-limiting audits. Current Issue View our current issue
The latter received the imprimatur of the National Academies for a reason. For decades, many states have performed audits by hand-counting ballots in a fixed percentage of precincts. But a fixed percentage “may not provide adequate assurance with regard to the outcome of a close election,” according to the 2018 report. Risk-limiting audits, on the other hand, examine “randomly selected paper ballots until sufficient statistical assurance is obtained,” as the report’s authors wrote. The so-called risk limit refers to the largest possible chance that the audit will not correct an inaccurate result. For example, a 10 percent risk limit means an audit has a 90 percent chance of identifying the correct result of an election. The formulas underpinning the audit determine how many ballots will need to counted to reach that limit.
In the end, Georgia lawmakers decided to ignore most expert advice, and spent $107 million on a new computerized voting system, including voting machines that print out paper ballots—the object of this week’s count. They did, however, agree to carry out a version of risk-limiting audits, with the guidance of a nonprofit organization called Voting Works.
Raffensperger’s surprise announcement claimed that the race was so close that mathematical formulas suggested that up to 1.5 million ballots would need to be randomly pulled, and that counting all 5 million by hand would be easier. This appeared to satisfy GOP critics, while also complying with state law regarding risk-limiting audits. One problem: State law also doesn’t allow for changing the election outcome based on the audit results.
The secretary of state called it “an audit, recount and recanvass, all at once.” The issue, Miller noted in a widely read essay, was that each of these concepts has a different definition, and different legal and technical implications. (A recount, for example, is conducted by scanners, not by hand.)
Philip B. Stark, the University of California–Berkeley statistics professor widely recognized as the creator of risk-limiting audits, called the state’s decision a “FrankenCount” in an e-mail. “Part of me is delighted that the idea has caught on,” he added in a call. “Part of me is horrified—they’re misrepresenting what it can do.”
Stark told me that a risk-limiting audit, to be effective, must have “trustworthy ballots.” This means, among other things, that each county would have canvassed its results, and ensured that the number of ballots tallied before uploading results to the state matched the number of voters who turned up at the polls. This would have avoided the “discovery” of thousands of ballots in several counties during the hand count that had not been included in statewide results. In the current climate, this has added fuel to allegations of wrongdoing—even though it didn’t change the election’s outcome. After all was said and done, Biden was still the winner, by 12,284 votes—less than 500 votes different from the tally compiled by machine.
Stark also questioned Raffensperger’s claim regarding the necessary sample size, which Voting Works had estimated at 1.5 million. Stark said a risk-limiting audit “could have been done with 2,500 ballots, according to my methods and my calculations.”
On-the-ground observers of the count included Harri Hursti, an election cybersecurity expert who has studied elections in five countries, including the United States. “This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting audit, then a hand recount, then an audit—I don’t know what it is; I don’t think anyone else knows,” he said.
Hursti noted that he had looked at the software being used to manage the hand count, an easy thing to do, given that Voting Works uses open-source code. He had seen more than a dozen changes to the code since the count began—a security concern, he said, since no entity had approved the original software or the changes.
Hursti also noted that staffers and volunteers in different counties—and sometimes in the same county—were following different procedures for counting the ballots. “Hand recounts only work when people are trained in and apply consistent methodologies,” said Richard DeMillo, computer science professor and interim chairman of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech. “You could look at live feeds [of the hand count] and see that this is not the case.”
As Miller wrote in his essay, “Audits must be sufficiently well-organized and rigorous that they do not potentially risk becoming yet another ‘political football’ for partisans to argue over; the whole point of a post-election audit is to produce clear evidence that reduces uncertainty—not to give politicians a fresh set of new ‘irregularities’ to argue about.”
By Tuesday, the state appeared to have done a legal analysis of its effort; Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager, announced that the hand count would not in any way change the election’s results, for legal reasons. “What was the exercise about?” asked Marilyn Marks in response. Marks is executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, an organization whose ongoing lawsuit against the state led to Judge Totenberg’s 2019 order. “Why take a week to do this, at a high cost and exposing so many workers to Covid?” Calls and e-mails requesting comment from the secretary of state, Sterling, and Voting Works were not returned.
On Thursday evening, with the hand count done, a federal judge denied a petition by attorney L. Lin Wood for a temporary restraining order on the state’s certifying its election results, which took place Friday. After certification, President Trump can legally ask for a recount, which again means tallying up all votes by scanner.
In the end, the path Georgia has taken is a loss for the concept of a genuine risk-limiting audit, said Miller. “This may not matter—except to those who want to preserve risk-limiting audits as an important means of trusting the vote,” he said. “On January 5, we will undoubtedly see incredibly close races—with attendant calls for recounts.… Will they apply regulations to ensure verification, accuracy and, ideally, transparent elections—or will it fuel the same sort of distractions they’re seeing now?”


thenation--2020-11-20--Wisconsin’s Recount Will Only Serve to Confirm Donald Trump’s Humiliating Defeat

Donald Trump is staking his hopes for overturning the results of the 202o presidential election in Wisconsin on a crudely transparent strategy that seeks to disenfranchise minority voters and students .
But it won ’ t work .
Trump is going to be embarrassed in dramatic fashion when the results of the recount he has demanded confirm a humiliating defeat for the soon-to-be-former president .
Trump ’ s recount gambit deliberately , and dishonestly , refuses to recognize Wisconsin for what it is : a state closely divided between Democrats and Republicans .
It ’ s a political battleground where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 1 percent of the vote , and where election officials know how to produce accurate vote counts .
In 2000 , Democrat Al Gore beat Republican George W. Bush in Wisconsin by 5,708 votes—a 0.22 percent margin of victory .
In 2004 , Democrat John Kerry beat Bush by 11,384 votes—a 0.38 percent margin of victory .
In 2016 , Republican Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton by 22,748 votes—a 0.77 percent margin of victory .
Biden ’ s lead is not particularly small by Wisconsin standards .
In 2020 , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast in the state , Biden has beaten Trump by 20,608 votes—a 0.63 percent margin of victory .
Should Biden Hire Rahm Emanuel ?
Chicago Says , ‘ Never !
Never !
Never !
’ Georgia Senator David Perdue Is Terrified That Jon Ossoff Will Shred Him in Another Debate What Bernie Sanders Could Do as Secretary of Labor The Democrat ’ s winning margin is well above the 0.25 percent threshold that Wisconsin set several years ago—at the behest of the governor then , Republican Scott Walker , and his legislative allies—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have an outside chance of succeeding .
The state doesn ’ t cover the cost for a review of results outside that range .
So Trump and his lawyers have now demanded and paid for a recount , which began Friday morning .
They ’ re peddling the delusional claim that enough “ irregularities ” will be identified to flip the state into his column .
It ’ s part of a multistate initiative by the defeated president and his slow-witted enablers to foster the fantasy that—despite his having lost the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceed 6 million votes and having lost five states that he carried in 2016—he is somehow being robbed of a second term .
From the start of the 2020 campaign , Trump staked his reelection bid on a trio of states—Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania—that he narrowly won in 2016 , as well as states such as Minnesota , Georgia , and Arizona , where he looked vulnerable this year .
He lost them all , in a humiliating result that he refuses to accept .
Instead of conceding Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fraud , ” and now he ’ s trying to find evidence of it in Wisconsin with a much-hyped recount .
The problem for Trump is that , because Wisconsin has had so many close elections for national and statewide posts , its county clerks are very good at counting votes .
When the recount is done , it ’ s not going to reveal massive mistakes , let alone the sort of fraudulent activity the president wants people to imagine occurred .
And it ’ s certainly not going to direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his column .
Everyone , Democrats and Republicans , liberals and conservatives , recognizes what ’ s going on .
Noting that Republican lawyers have failed to produce credible evidence of wrongdoing or ineptitude , Wisconsin Elections Commission member Mark Thomsen says of Trump , “ Instead of manning up and saying ‘ I lost , ’ now he ’ s saying all the clerks are illegal.
” The Trump campaign effectively acknowledged the absurdity of its claim by filing for recounts in only two of the state ’ s 72 counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his team some money—a statewide recount would have cost $ 7.9 million , while a narrower one will only cost around $ 3 million—but it also exposed the ugly truth of the president ’ s strategy .
The two large counties that will conduct recounts—Milwaukee , the state ’ s major urban center , and Dane , the home of the state capitol and the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus—were chosen to amplify the lie that large pro-Biden votes from historically Democratic counties were somehow fraudulent .
The petition seeking the recount claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of Wisconsin , including particularly in the City of Madison , the City of Milwaukee and throughout Dane County and Milwaukee County in the counting and return of votes cast in the election for President of the United States.
” If “ mistakes and fraud ” were a problem throughout the state , why force a recount only in Dane and Milwaukee counties ?
The answer to that question is all too obvious .
Newly elected Wisconsin Democratic state Representative Francesca Hong of Madison noted the focus of the recount and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this view .
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett describes the recount as a “ futile attempt to destroy democracy ” and says , “ Everybody knows this is an attack on cities , on minorities , on places that historically have voted Democratic .
Don ’ t let anybody fool you that this is about irregularities .
This is flat-out an attack on democracy in cities and places where people of color live.
” Imagining that a recount will overturn a 20,608-vote margin in Wisconsin is a fool ’ s mission .
Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and committed to holding free and fair elections .
Trump recognized that reality in 2016 when , after the Green Party forced a statewide recount of presidential votes , Trump celebrated a favorable result—his winning margin improved by a net 131 votes—from a review conducted by many of the same officials he and his aides now criticize .
Two years later , in 2018 , after Governor Walker lost his reelection bid by 29,227 votes out of almost 2.7 million cast—one of the closest results in the modern history of the state—the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceded that he had been beaten by Democrat Tony Evers .
In an even closer race for state attorney general that year , Republican incumbent Brad Schimel chose not to seek a recount and conceded to Democrat Josh Kaul .
Kaul won by 17,190 votes , for a 0.6 percent margin of victory—the same as Biden ’ s margin this year .
While Republicans in the past accepted the legitimacy of Wisconsin elections and vote counts , Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin says Trump and his lawyers are now “ pumping out misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole point of the recount .
But the president has miscalculated .
This recount won ’ t reveal fraud .
What it will reveal , when all the ballots from Milwaukee and Dane counties have been reviewed—again—is that Donald Trump has well and truly lost the swing state of Wisconsin and the 2020 presidential 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?
Donald Trump is staking his hopes for overturning the results of the 202o presidential election in Wisconsin on a crudely transparent strategy that seeks to disenfranchise minority voters and students. But it won’t work. Trump is going to be embarrassed in dramatic fashion when the results of the recount he has demanded confirm a humiliating defeat for the soon-to-be-former president.
Trump’s recount gambit deliberately, and dishonestly, refuses to recognize Wisconsin for what it is: a state closely divided between Democrats and Republicans. It’s a political battleground where presidential elections are often decided by less than 1 percent of the vote, and where election officials know how to produce accurate vote counts.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Republican George W. Bush in Wisconsin by 5,708 votes—a 0.22 percent margin of victory. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry beat Bush by 11,384 votes—a 0.38 percent margin of victory. In 2016, Republican Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton by 22,748 votes—a 0.77 percent margin of victory.
Biden’s lead is not particularly small by Wisconsin standards. In 2020, according to the canvass of November 3 ballots cast in the state, Biden has beaten Trump by 20,608 votes—a 0.63 percent margin of victory. 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
The Democrat’s winning margin is well above the 0.25 percent threshold that Wisconsin set several years ago—at the behest of the governor then, Republican Scott Walker, and his legislative allies—to identify the range in which a recount might have an outside chance of succeeding. The state doesn’t cover the cost for a review of results outside that range. So Trump and his lawyers have now demanded and paid for a recount, which began Friday morning. They’re peddling the delusional claim that enough “irregularities” will be identified to flip the state into his column. It’s part of a multistate initiative by the defeated president and his slow-witted enablers to foster the fantasy that—despite his having lost the popular balloting by a margin that will easily exceed 6 million votes and having lost five states that he carried in 2016—he is somehow being robbed of a second term.
From the start of the 2020 campaign, Trump staked his reelection bid on a trio of states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—that he narrowly won in 2016, as well as states such as Minnesota, Georgia, and Arizona, where he looked vulnerable this year. He lost them all, in a humiliating result that he refuses to accept. Instead of conceding Biden’s victory, the president keeps griping about “fraud,” and now he’s trying to find evidence of it in Wisconsin with a much-hyped recount. 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 problem for Trump is that, because Wisconsin has had so many close elections for national and statewide posts, its county clerks are very good at counting votes. When the recount is done, it’s not going to reveal massive mistakes, let alone the sort of fraudulent activity the president wants people to imagine occurred. And it’s certainly not going to direct the state’s 10 electoral votes into his column. Everyone, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, recognizes what’s going on. Noting that Republican lawyers have failed to produce credible evidence of wrongdoing or ineptitude, Wisconsin Elections Commission member Mark Thomsen says of Trump, “Instead of manning up and saying ‘I lost,’ now he’s saying all the clerks are illegal.” Current Issue View our current issue
The Trump campaign effectively acknowledged the absurdity of its claim by filing for recounts in only two of the state’s 72 counties. That saved the cash-strapped president and his team some money—a statewide recount would have cost $7.9 million, while a narrower one will only cost around $3 million—but it also exposed the ugly truth of the president’s strategy. The two large counties that will conduct recounts—Milwaukee, the state’s major urban center, and Dane, the home of the state capitol and the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus—were chosen to amplify the lie that large pro-Biden votes from historically Democratic counties were somehow fraudulent.
The petition seeking the recount claims that “mistakes and fraud were committed throughout the state of Wisconsin, including particularly in the City of Madison, the City of Milwaukee and throughout Dane County and Milwaukee County in the counting and return of votes cast in the election for President of the United States.”
If “mistakes and fraud” were a problem throughout the state, why force a recount only in Dane and Milwaukee counties? The answer to that question is all too obvious.
Newly elected Wisconsin Democratic state Representative Francesca Hong of Madison noted the focus of the recount and pointed out:
This is coincidentally where 74 percent of the Black population in Wisconsin lives. This is the most blatant and racist form of voter suppression. For the Wisconsin GOP to continue congratulating and thanking 45 [Trump] is sickening. There will be no evidence of voter fraud, only voter suppression.
Hong is not alone in this view. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett describes the recount as a “futile attempt to destroy democracy” and says, “Everybody knows this is an attack on cities, on minorities, on places that historically have voted Democratic. Don’t let anybody fool you that this is about irregularities. This is flat-out an attack on democracy in cities and places where people of color live.”
Imagining that a recount will overturn a 20,608-vote margin in Wisconsin is a fool’s mission. Wisconsin election official are professional, orderly, and committed to holding free and fair elections. Trump recognized that reality in 2016 when, after the Green Party forced a statewide recount of presidential votes, Trump celebrated a favorable result—his winning margin improved by a net 131 votes—from a review conducted by many of the same officials he and his aides now criticize. One-Term President Donald Trump Has Suffered a Defeat of Historic Proportions John Nichols
Two years later, in 2018, after Governor Walker lost his reelection bid by 29,227 votes out of almost 2.7 million cast—one of the closest results in the modern history of the state—the Republican firebrand declined to seek a recount and conceded that he had been beaten by Democrat Tony Evers. In an even closer race for state attorney general that year, Republican incumbent Brad Schimel chose not to seek a recount and conceded to Democrat Josh Kaul. Kaul won by 17,190 votes, for a 0.6 percent margin of victory—the same as Biden’s margin this year.
While Republicans in the past accepted the legitimacy of Wisconsin elections and vote counts, Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin says Trump and his lawyers are now “pumping out misinformation to undermine democracy.”
That’s the whole point of the recount. But the president has miscalculated. This recount won’t reveal fraud. What it will reveal, when all the ballots from Milwaukee and Dane counties have been reviewed—again—is that Donald Trump has well and truly lost the swing state of Wisconsin and the 2020 presidential election.


thenation--2020-11-20--The Perils of Not Prosecuting Trump

The Perils of Not Prosecuting Trump

As he gears up for his presidency , one of the biggest dilemmas confronting Joe Biden is what to do with the sitting commander in chief .
Donald Trump ’ s refusal to concede and his fomenting of a farcical coup attempt are just his latest crimes against American democracy .
As president , Trump can not be charged with any crimes .
But after January 20 , when Biden assumes the presidency , Trump ’ s protected status will end and he ’ ll be no more and no less than an ordinary citizen .
As such , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Already , there is an array of offenses that he can plausibly be charged with .
Trump ’ s impeachment amply demonstrated that he used the office of presidency for corrupt ends .
The Mueller report , and Trump ’ s own words on many occasions , documented clear obstruction of justice .
Trump ’ s former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced and jailed for using campaign funds to buy the silence of the actress Stephanie Clifford ( who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels ) over her sexual liaison with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be charged for his own role in this matter .
The New York Times has documented that the Trump Organization has engaged in creative accounting that perhaps oversteps the law .
As the newspaper reported on Thursday , “ Two separate New York State fraud investigations into President Trump and his businesses , one criminal and one civil , have expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees , some of which appear to have gone to Ivanka Trump , according to people with knowledge of the matter.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous acts Trump committed as president , such as his business deals with the Saudi government , that haven ’ t been sufficiently investigated because Trump was able to stonewall congressional oversight .
Trump ’ s ability to fend off legislative scrutiny will also end with his presidency and one can expect an avalanche of revelations about wrongdoing .
Even a Clownish Coup Can Still Hurt Democracy But will congressional Democrats have the nerve to follow through with investigating Trump ?
Will the incoming Biden administration set loose the Department of Justice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think this won ’ t happen .
On Tuesday , NBC News reported , “ President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesn ’ t want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor , according to five people familiar with the discussions , despite pressure from some Democrats who want inquiries into President Donald Trump , his policies and members of his administration.
” The report added , “ Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump.
” There are serious political reasons for a Biden Department of Justice to refrain from prosecuting Trump .
As NBC reports , “ One of the reasons [ Biden ] has given aides is that he believes investigations would alienate the more than 73 million Americans who voted for Trump.
” Beyond that , there ’ s little reason to believe that legal punishment would do anything to blunt Trump as a political force .
Trump is an anti-system politician , which means that his supporters see any clash between him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shaking up the status quo .
Democrats have often expressed amazement and exasperation that scandals that would destroy a normal politician have not tarnished Trump ’ s appeal at all .
But as an anti-system politician , he ’ s not expected to obey the rules of the game .
In fact , evidence that he cuts corners is favorably reinterpreted as defiance .
Pro-system politicians like Hillary Clinton and Biden are much more likely to be held accountable by voters .
Anti-system politicians have sometimes gotten away with lurid corruption .
Consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Curley ( who won reelection after serving jail time for fraud ) and Washington , D.C. , Mayor Marion Barry ( who regained public office , including that of mayor , after a drug conviction ) .
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Louisiana Governor Huey Long had similarly flamboyant careers .
Ford was felled not by the law but by a health crisis that ultimately killed him .
If Trump is convicted of crimes , he ’ s likely to follow the path of these anti-system politicians .
One can even imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1920 , running for president from prison .
Legal prosecution will do nothing to fight the popularity of Trump and Trumpism .
Indeed , given his anti-system persona , it is likely to bind him closer to his followers .
He ’ ll be seen as a martyr .
Having said that , not prosecuting Trump will also come with a cost .
The United States is a nation of elite impunity , as the history of recent decades demonstrates .
Nixon had to resign for Watergate , but he also received an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford , which covered all crimes Nixon might have committed as president , even those yet undiscovered .
It ’ s hard to interpret this pardon as affirming anything other than the idea that an American president can never face legal liability , no matter what .
Iran/Contra should be seen as a successful cover-up , with underlings taking the fall for actions that were almost certainly sanctioned by President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W .
Bush .
Subsequently , many of those underlings , notably Caspar W. Weinberger and Elliott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A similar code of criminal silence , or omertà , could be seen in the George W. Bush administration , with vice presidential aide Scooter Libby serving as the patsy in the case of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson .
Libby also subsequently received a pardon .
Barack Obama , though his presidency was free of major scandals , contributed to the tradition of elite impunity by refusing to punish the crimes of the George W. Bush administration .
As NBC News notes , Trump and the GOP Intensify Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impunity has done nothing to heal America .
Rather , it has served to foster a culture of corruption that grows worse every decade .
Trump ’ s sordid administration is no break from history but a culmination of corruption indulged for decades .
The only way the festering criminality in Washington will end is if the Biden administration breaks with history and holds Trump accountable .
A failure to do so is a recipe for a new and even more criminal Trump gaining the White House in the future .

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?
As he gears up for his presidency, one of the biggest dilemmas confronting Joe Biden is what to do with the sitting commander in chief. Donald Trump’s refusal to concede and his fomenting of a farcical coup attempt are just his latest crimes against American democracy. As president, Trump cannot be charged with any crimes. But after January 20, when Biden assumes the presidency, Trump’s protected status will end and he’ll be no more and no less than an ordinary citizen.
As such, Trump will be vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Already, there is an array of offenses that he can plausibly be charged with. Trump’s impeachment amply demonstrated that he used the office of presidency for corrupt ends. The Mueller report, and Trump’s own words on many occasions, documented clear obstruction of justice. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced and jailed for using campaign funds to buy the silence of the actress Stephanie Clifford (who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels) over her sexual liaison with Trump. As a private citizen, Trump can be charged for his own role in this matter.
The New York Times has documented that the Trump Organization has engaged in creative accounting that perhaps oversteps the law. As the newspaper reported on Thursday, “Two separate New York State fraud investigations into President Trump and his businesses, one criminal and one civil, have expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to Ivanka Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter.”
Beyond these cases, there are numerous acts Trump committed as president, such as his business deals with the Saudi government, that haven’t been sufficiently investigated because Trump was able to stonewall congressional oversight. Trump’s ability to fend off legislative scrutiny will also end with his presidency and one can expect an avalanche of revelations about wrongdoing. 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
But will congressional Democrats have the nerve to follow through with investigating Trump? Will the incoming Biden administration set loose the Department of Justice to target Trump? There’s reason to think this won’t happen. On Tuesday, NBC News reported, “President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesn’t want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor, according to five people familiar with the discussions, despite pressure from some Democrats who want inquiries into President Donald Trump, his policies and members of his administration.” The report added, “Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump.” 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
There are serious political reasons for a Biden Department of Justice to refrain from prosecuting Trump. As NBC reports, “One of the reasons [Biden] has given aides is that he believes investigations would alienate the more than 73 million Americans who voted for Trump.”
Beyond that, there’s little reason to believe that legal punishment would do anything to blunt Trump as a political force. Trump is an anti-system politician, which means that his supporters see any clash between him and legal authorities as proof that he is shaking up the status quo. Democrats have often expressed amazement and exasperation that scandals that would destroy a normal politician have not tarnished Trump’s appeal at all. But as an anti-system politician, he’s not expected to obey the rules of the game. In fact, evidence that he cuts corners is favorably reinterpreted as defiance. Pro-system politicians like Hillary Clinton and Biden are much more likely to be held accountable by voters. Current Issue View our current issue
Anti-system politicians have sometimes gotten away with lurid corruption. Consider the fabled careers of Boston Mayor James Michael Curley (who won reelection after serving jail time for fraud) and Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry (who regained public office, including that of mayor, after a drug conviction). Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Louisiana Governor Huey Long had similarly flamboyant careers. Ford was felled not by the law but by a health crisis that ultimately killed him. If Trump is convicted of crimes, he’s likely to follow the path of these anti-system politicians. One can even imagine him, like socialist Eugene Debs in 1920, running for president from prison.
Legal prosecution will do nothing to fight the popularity of Trump and Trumpism. Indeed, given his anti-system persona, it is likely to bind him closer to his followers. He’ll be seen as a martyr.
Having said that, not prosecuting Trump will also come with a cost. The United States is a nation of elite impunity, as the history of recent decades demonstrates. Nixon had to resign for Watergate, but he also received an expansive pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, which covered all crimes Nixon might have committed as president, even those yet undiscovered. It’s hard to interpret this pardon as affirming anything other than the idea that an American president can never face legal liability, no matter what.
Iran/Contra should be seen as a successful cover-up, with underlings taking the fall for actions that were almost certainly sanctioned by President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. Subsequently, many of those underlings, notably Caspar W. Weinberger and Elliott Abrams, received pardons and commutations. A similar code of criminal silence, or omertà, could be seen in the George W. Bush administration, with vice presidential aide Scooter Libby serving as the patsy in the case of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Libby also subsequently received a pardon.
Barack Obama, though his presidency was free of major scandals, contributed to the tradition of elite impunity by refusing to punish the crimes of the George W. Bush administration. As NBC News notes, Damage to Democracy Trump and the GOP Intensify Their Assault on Democracy Sasha Abramsky
The dilemma facing Biden is similar to the one Obama faced when he took office in 2009. Democrats were demanding the prosecution of Bush administration officials who were involved in policies that allowed enhanced interrogations, or torture, of terrorism suspects. To appease those Democrats, Obama released memos about the controversial program and then publicly said he didn’t support prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised or carried out the policies. He also rejected calls for a 9/11-style commission or a truth and reconciliation commission, like the one that examined apartheid in South Africa, to review the policies.
This tradition of elite impunity has done nothing to heal America. Rather, it has served to foster a culture of corruption that grows worse every decade. Trump’s sordid administration is no break from history but a culmination of corruption indulged for decades. The only way the festering criminality in Washington will end is if the Biden administration breaks with history and holds Trump accountable. A failure to do so is a recipe for a new and even more criminal Trump gaining the White House in the future.