thenation--2020-07-07--Trump’s ‘Heroes’ Garden Is a Nationalistic Nightmare

The Noise continues .
As the number of people in the United States confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus approached 3 million this past weekend , Donald Trump held two snarling white nationalist rallies to celebrate the Fourth of July .
At Mount Rushmore on Friday and the White House on Saturday , Trump continued his George-Wallace-meets-Joe-McCarthy rhetorical rampage , claiming that “ left-wing mobs , ” Marxists , anarchists , and run-of-the-mill criminals were out to destroy our American heritage .
He promised to create , in response , a “ National Garden of American Heroes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the late Antonin Scalia and Billy Graham .
The executive order to create this garden even determines the artistic style of the offerings : Each statue must be a “ lifelike or realistic representation of that person , not an abstract or modernist representation.
” This builds on a previous order that the Trump administration drafted earlier this year , which would have dictated the architectural style used for federal buildings .
In other countries , at other times , national leaders have got into the business of determining what makes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The results are not pretty .
Recall Joseph Stalin ’ s bans on the music of composer Dmitri Shostakovich and the writings of Vasily Grossman , or Nikita Khrushchev ’ s censorship of Boris Pasternak ’ s epic book Doctor Zhivago .
Most pertinently , recall Hitler ’ s infamous 1937 exhibition of “ degenerate art , ” which included paintings by artists such as Wassily Kandinsky and Oskar Kokoschka .
Their work was deemed too abstract , too modernist , to meet the realist , heroic needs of Nazi art .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the media for his choice of American “ heroes.
” But his strawman attack on the concept of abstract art should also be called out , for its similarities to the Nazi culture wars .
As I have written before , this isn ’ t the first time Trump has echoed Hitlerian language while stoking nationalist sentiments .
As Infection Rates Soar , Trump Says Virus Could Just ‘ Disappear ’ At the end of the day , though , if it is built , the Garden of Heroes would merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s ego .
It wouldn ’ t actually kill anyone .
Where the Noise blended into the Signal this holiday weekend was when Trump shamelessly claimed that 99 percent of coronavirus cases were “ totally harmless.
” This entirely misleading commentary on the spread of a deadly virus could—and indeed , almost certainly will—have devastating public health implications .
The CDC estimates that as many as 10 times more people in the United States may have contracted the coronavirus than have currently tested positive .
That means the mortality rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers currently being bandied about , but that ’ s very different from saying that non-fatal cases are “ totally harmless.
” Anyone who reads the news should know that many sufferers have needed to be hospitalized , often in ICUs and sometimes on ventilators ; that many face long-term diminution of lung function and other serious health complications ; that many experience brain damage from oxygen deprivation and strokes ; and that some children experience inflammatory flare-ups that can prove fatal .
Anyone who reads the news should also know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totally harmless , ” asymptomatic case , they are still capable of spreading it to more vulnerable individuals who might well end up dying from it .
The president ’ s attempt to score cheap political points by downplaying these risks , and encouraging his followers to ignore the spread of the virus , is a textbook example of a sociopathic lust for power .
And it is made worse by the inability of the government ’ s scientific advisers to hold the line against his mendacity .
When CNN asked FDA commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim on Sunday , Hahn would only say that cases were surging , but that he wasn ’ t going to get into the business of saying who was right and who was wrong about numbers .
No disrespect , Dr. Hahn , but your refusal to respond to Trump ’ s claims is a dereliction of duty—an act of horrifying cowardice , at a moment when the country is crying out for accurate , usable public health information .
Totalitarianism is , at least in part , about using the might of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leader ’ s will .
It is about shaping not just how people behave but even how they perceive reality .
In 1984 , George Orwell writes , “ In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five , and you would have to believe it .
It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later : the logic of their position demanded it .
Not merely the validity of experience , but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologist cum pulmonary specialist , doesn ’ t just want everyone to listen to his claptrap .
He demands that all of society genuinely believe it .
Don ’ t fall for this ugly nonsense .
No matter how much Noise Trump makes , how many Nuremberg-styled rallies he holds , or how much McCarthyite bait-and-switch rhetoric he throws into the ether , two and two still makes four .

The Noise continues. As the number of people in the United States confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus approached 3 million this past weekend, Donald Trump held two snarling white nationalist rallies to celebrate the Fourth of July.
At Mount Rushmore on Friday and the White House on Saturday, Trump continued his George-Wallace-meets-Joe-McCarthy rhetorical rampage, claiming that “left-wing mobs,” Marxists, anarchists, and run-of-the-mill criminals were out to destroy our American heritage. He promised to create, in response, a “National Garden of American Heroes,” with sculptures honoring such American giants as the late Antonin Scalia and Billy Graham. The executive order to create this garden even determines the artistic style of the offerings: Each statue must be a “lifelike or realistic representation of that person, not an abstract or modernist representation.” This builds on a previous order that the Trump administration drafted earlier this year, which would have dictated the architectural style used for federal buildings.
In other countries, at other times, national leaders have got into the business of determining what makes for good art and what makes for bad. The results are not pretty. Recall Joseph Stalin’s bans on the music of composer Dmitri Shostakovich and the writings of Vasily Grossman, or Nikita Khrushchev’s censorship of Boris Pasternak’s epic book Doctor Zhivago. Most pertinently, recall Hitler’s infamous 1937 exhibition of “degenerate art,” which included paintings by artists such as Wassily Kandinsky and Oskar Kokoschka. Their work was deemed too abstract, too modernist, to meet the realist, heroic needs of Nazi art. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Trump has already been called out by much of the media for his choice of American “heroes.” But his strawman attack on the concept of abstract art should also be called out, for its similarities to the Nazi culture wars. As I have written before, this isn’t the first time Trump has echoed Hitlerian language while stoking nationalist sentiments. Related Article As Infection Rates Soar, Trump Says the Virus Could Just ‘Disappear’ Sasha Abramsky
At the end of the day, though, if it is built, the Garden of Heroes would merely be one more garish, hubristic monument to Trump’s ego. It wouldn’t actually kill anyone. Where the Noise blended into the Signal this holiday weekend was when Trump shamelessly claimed that 99 percent of coronavirus cases were “totally harmless.” This entirely misleading commentary on the spread of a deadly virus could—and indeed, almost certainly will—have devastating public health implications.
The CDC estimates that as many as 10 times more people in the United States may have contracted the coronavirus than have currently tested positive. That means the mortality rate for the disease could be lower than the numbers currently being bandied about, but that’s very different from saying that non-fatal cases are “totally harmless.” Anyone who reads the news should know that many sufferers have needed to be hospitalized, often in ICUs and sometimes on ventilators; that many face long-term diminution of lung function and other serious health complications; that many experience brain damage from oxygen deprivation and strokes; and that some children experience inflammatory flare-ups that can prove fatal. Anyone who reads the news should also know that even if an individual has a “totally harmless,” asymptomatic case, they are still capable of spreading it to more vulnerable individuals who might well end up dying from it.
The president’s attempt to score cheap political points by downplaying these risks, and encouraging his followers to ignore the spread of the virus, is a textbook example of a sociopathic lust for power. And it is made worse by the inability of the government’s scientific advisers to hold the line against his mendacity. When CNN asked FDA commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn about Trump’s claim on Sunday, Hahn would only say that cases were surging, but that he wasn’t going to get into the business of saying who was right and who was wrong about numbers. Current Issue View our current issue
No disrespect, Dr. Hahn, but your refusal to respond to Trump’s claims is a dereliction of duty—an act of horrifying cowardice, at a moment when the country is crying out for accurate, usable public health information.
Totalitarianism is, at least in part, about using the might of government to bend people and institutions to a leader’s will. It is about shaping not just how people behave but even how they perceive reality. In 1984, George Orwell writes, “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”
Trump, the art critic cum epidemiologist cum pulmonary specialist, doesn’t just want everyone to listen to his claptrap. He demands that all of society genuinely believe it.
Don’t fall for this ugly nonsense. No matter how much Noise Trump makes, how many Nuremberg-styled rallies he holds, or how much McCarthyite bait-and-switch rhetoric he throws into the ether, two and two still makes four.


thenation--2020-07-07--The Limits of Trans Representation as We Know It

“ The more we are seen , the more we are violated.
” These are the words of Tiq Milan , a writer and media consultant , which he shares early in the Netflix documentary Disclosure : Trans Lives on Screen .
The paradox is one that trans people know well and one that underlies the contemporary moment .
Despite unprecedented visibility in pop culture , Black and brown trans communities in particular are facing record levels of state violence .
Released in the wake of the killings of Black trans people around the country—including Riah Milton , Dominique “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDade , and Nina Pop—Disclosure is haunted by this contradiction : What does hypervisibility mean in a hostile world ?
Produced by Amy Holder and Laverne Cox and directed by Sam Feder , Disclosure pairs interviews of actors , activists , and cultural critics with television and film clips in order to reinterpret a long legacy of gender nonconformity on-screen—from the racist subtext of D.W. Griffith ’ s 1914 silent Judith of Bethulia to the exploitation of Black queer life by the 1991 documentary Paris Is Burning to the mainstreaming of ballroom culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surveying phenomena such as cis actors playing trans characters ( Boys Don ’ t Cry and The Danish Girl ) and talk show hosts ’ fixation on medical transition ( The Jerry Springer Show and The Oprah Winfrey Show ) , the documentary insists that trans representation is important because trans people ’ s existence is consistently in question .
Refusing any dichotomy of good/bad representation , Disclosure interrogates how trans people internalize , respond to , and identify with the models they are given .
( “ Every trans person carries within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of what they ’ ve seen , ” writer and actor Jen Richards explains .
“ What trans people really need , though , is a sense of a broader history of that representation so that they can kind of find themselves in it.
” ) The documentary would likely not exist without cultural texts such as Tourmaline , Eric A. Stanley , and Johanna Burton ’ s Trap Door—a 2017 anthology that takes up the paradox of trans visibility—and José Esteban Muñoz ’ s Disidentifications—a 1999 book that argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own survival .
While Disclosure insists on the uses of representation , it also , ironically , points to the need to take off-screen projects just as seriously as on-screen ones , like the 15,000 people who rallied for Black trans lives in Brooklyn in June and the advocacy group GLITS working to permanently house Black trans people in New York City .
As attorney Chase Strangio puts it toward the end of the film , trans representation itself is a reminder to move past just “ elevating some people into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start “ working to disrupt the systems that exclude most trans people from material survival.
” We talked to Feder about the limits of representation , the importance of trans employment programs , and why documentary is still a tool for social change .
Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length .
aliah ancini : I came to Disclosure with an immense suspicion of what visibility offers trans people .
Early on in the film , Laverne Cox says , “ At this point we ’ re talking really about unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are being murdered disproportionately still.
” Can you talk about this paradox ?
am eder : We can ’ t lose sight of the fact that visibility in and of itself is not the goal .
The paradox that comes with visibility is something that really needs to be contended with .
When you look in our history , anytime a marginalized community is put into the mainstream , backlash ensues .
That ’ s not to say at all that it ’ s a one-to-one relationship , because there are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I am really curious about how social justice movements can better prepare for that , because visibility is also so essential .
How do you reconcile these two existing truths—that we have witnessed a rise in positive representation alongside the rise of legislative and social violence ?
How do you understand that we need to see ourselves—in whatever capacity there is , however that looks—and also understand that , by being more recognizable , many people , especially trans women and especially Black and brown trans women , become more vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two truths at once ?
It ’ s really hard .
The paradox is always glaring .
It ’ s always there .
TM : I was struck by how many of the interviewees say that it was only looking back that certain representations seemed violent—at one time , they were needed .
You can see this in Cox ’ s connection to Barbra Streisand ’ s Yentl , in that trans people find themselves in representation meant as a mockery or representation that is just not fitting .
Can you talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documentary points to ?
SF : That Yentl story was actually one of the first stories [ Cox ] told me when we first met to talk about the film .
The whole room became silent , and I was just like , “ Wow , that is a trans way of seeing.
” That is so specifically a way that only a trans person is going to experience that .
There are so many examples of how people identity , disidentify , go a little to the left .
The way we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any way possible—because we need to be seen , because we need to be mirrored .
What we see again and again is trans people looking at these images and remembering that they in fact did not identify with these characters that ostensibly were stand-ins for their capital-T Transness .
For their identities .
It says so much about cultural norms and cultural expectations .
TM : The documentary covers such a long , ugly history .
It seems your task , in a lot of ways , was to curate offensive images @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What was your process of sifting through archival footage like ?
SF : I was very concerned with the question , “ Am I perpetuating the violence , the harm , by making this film , by engaging people in these conversations in the interviews ?
” In many of the interviews , I ask people to watch a lot of the footage that I had collected , to take it in and read articles and talk about it .
Ultimately , I came to the conclusion that we have to lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own it and move past it .
And that we need to be doing it together in a community .
We only interviewed trans people , and behind the camera , we prioritized hiring trans people .
When we couldn ’ t hire a trans person for a key role on set , we mentored a trans person .
There was something about having this space .
In the production there was a knowing that is really unique to people who are inside a particular pain and inside a particular trauma .
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that a similar catharsis can happen potentially when you ’ re watching the film and you ’ re seeing all of this in one particular context , held and told by trans people who are being very vulnerable and honest .
TM : The end of the film suggests that representation is part of a much larger project .
The documentary also suggests that a big part of being trans is the ability to imagine new realities .
How have you come to understand documentary as a tool for change ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my own films since 2003 .
I like to identify as an introverted activist , and that ’ s what made me a filmmaker .
I was doing photography as a teenager , and all of my projects were really based on the work I was politicized around .
It was storytelling that allowed me to have a voice .
Part of my conflict in the moment of making this film was—even though I didn ’ t have a mainstream audience at that point—wondering how my work contributed to platforms that I thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I took the wrong path , if pushing for visibility wasn ’ t the way .
I do think it ’ s a powerful tool in such a deeply mediated culture , and the power of the media is only increasing , and we are all so deeply informed by what we see .
If 80 percent of the population is saying the only trans people they know are the ones they see in film and television , then we have to be really responsible with the content we ’ re putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As you move on from Disclosure , what type of responsible representation do you hope to see ?
SF : There are so many more stories to tell about this history , and there are so many ways of telling it .
There are so many more voices that need to be included .
I can ’ t wait to see all that happens next and all the different ways that people will do it .
Angelica Ross has a beautiful line in the film where she says , “ People walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they see , and we need to see that change happen in real life and in real time.
” While I ’ m so deeply invested in how we tell our stories , it really goes back to our lived lives—the endless work fighting against this capitalist , patriarchal , imprisoned culture .
Following an abolition framework in storytelling is something that I really hope to see more of .

“The more we are seen, the more we are violated.” These are the words of Tiq Milan, a writer and media consultant, which he shares early in the Netflix documentary Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen. The paradox is one that trans people know well and one that underlies the contemporary moment. Despite unprecedented visibility in pop culture, Black and brown trans communities in particular are facing record levels of state violence. Released in the wake of the killings of Black trans people around the country—including Riah Milton, Dominique “Rem’Mie” Fells, Tony McDade, and Nina Pop—Disclosure is haunted by this contradiction: What does hypervisibility mean in a hostile world?
Produced by Amy Scholder and Laverne Cox and directed by Sam Feder, Disclosure pairs interviews of actors, activists, and cultural critics with television and film clips in order to reinterpret a long legacy of gender nonconformity on-screen—from the racist subtext of D.W. Griffith’s 1914 silent Judith of Bethulia to the exploitation of Black queer life by the 1991 documentary Paris Is Burning to the mainstreaming of ballroom culture in FX’s series Pose. Surveying phenomena such as cis actors playing trans characters (Boys Don’t Cry and The Danish Girl) and talk show hosts’ fixation on medical transition (The Jerry Springer Show and The Oprah Winfrey Show), the documentary insists that trans representation is important because trans people’s existence is consistently in question.
Refusing any dichotomy of good/bad representation, Disclosure interrogates how trans people internalize, respond to, and identify with the models they are given. (“Every trans person carries within themself a history of trans representation just in terms of what they’ve seen,” writer and actor Jen Richards explains. “What trans people really need, though, is a sense of a broader history of that representation so that they can kind of find themselves in it.”)
The documentary would likely not exist without cultural texts such as Tourmaline, Eric A. Stanley, and Johanna Burton’s Trap Door—a 2017 anthology that takes up the paradox of trans visibility—and José Esteban Muñoz’s Disidentifications—a 1999 book that argues that marginalized people reinterpret mainstream cultural products for their own survival. While Disclosure insists on the uses of representation, it also, ironically, points to the need to take off-screen projects just as seriously as on-screen ones, like the 15,000 people who rallied for Black trans lives in Brooklyn in June and the advocacy group GLITS working to permanently house Black trans people in New York City. As attorney Chase Strangio puts it toward the end of the film, trans representation itself is a reminder to move past just “elevating some people into the sphere of the powerful” and to start “working to disrupt the systems that exclude most trans people from material survival.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
We talked to Feder about the limits of representation, the importance of trans employment programs, and why documentary is still a tool for social change. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
—Taliah Mancini
T aliah M ancini: I came to Disclosure with an immense suspicion of what visibility offers trans people. Early on in the film, Laverne Cox says, “At this point we’re talking really about unprecedented trans visibility, [and] trans people are being murdered disproportionately still.” Can you talk about this paradox?
S am F eder: We can’t lose sight of the fact that visibility in and of itself is not the goal. The paradox that comes with visibility is something that really needs to be contended with. When you look in our history, anytime a marginalized community is put into the mainstream, backlash ensues. That’s not to say at all that it’s a one-to-one relationship, because there are so many other contributing factors to the violence, but I am really curious about how social justice movements can better prepare for that, because visibility is also so essential.
How do you reconcile these two existing truths—that we have witnessed a rise in positive representation alongside the rise of legislative and social violence? How do you understand that we need to see ourselves—in whatever capacity there is, however that looks—and also understand that, by being more recognizable, many people, especially trans women and especially Black and brown trans women, become more vulnerable to violence? How do you hold these two truths at once? It’s really hard. The paradox is always glaring. It’s always there.
TM: I was struck by how many of the interviewees say that it was only looking back that certain representations seemed violent—at one time, they were needed. You can see this in Cox’s connection to Barbra Streisand’s Yentl, in that trans people find themselves in representation meant as a mockery or representation that is just not fitting. Can you talk about this process of disidentification that the documentary points to?
SF: That Yentl story was actually one of the first stories [Cox] told me when we first met to talk about the film. The whole room became silent, and I was just like, “Wow, that is a trans way of seeing.” That is so specifically a way that only a trans person is going to experience that. There are so many examples of how people identity, disidentify, go a little to the left. The way we try to grab onto these representations in any way possible—because we need to be seen, because we need to be mirrored. What we see again and again is trans people looking at these images and remembering that they in fact did not identify with these characters that ostensibly were stand-ins for their capital-T Transness. For their identities. It says so much about cultural norms and cultural expectations. Related Article Harry Dodge’s ‘My Meteorite’ Is Like a Wonderful Sculpture Tal Milovina
TM: The documentary covers such a long, ugly history. It seems your task, in a lot of ways, was to curate offensive images without reiterating the messaging of those images. What was your process of sifting through archival footage like?
SF: I was very concerned with the question, “Am I perpetuating the violence, the harm, by making this film, by engaging people in these conversations in the interviews?” In many of the interviews, I ask people to watch a lot of the footage that I had collected, to take it in and read articles and talk about it. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that we have to lay out our story so that we can own it and move past it. And that we need to be doing it together in a community. We only interviewed trans people, and behind the camera, we prioritized hiring trans people. When we couldn’t hire a trans person for a key role on set, we mentored a trans person. There was something about having this space. In the production there was a knowing that is really unique to people who are inside a particular pain and inside a particular trauma. Having that shared experience was cathartic, and I think that a similar catharsis can happen potentially when you’re watching the film and you’re seeing all of this in one particular context, held and told by trans people who are being very vulnerable and honest.
TM: The end of the film suggests that representation is part of a much larger project. The documentary also suggests that a big part of being trans is the ability to imagine new realities. How have you come to understand documentary as a tool for change?
SF: I’ve been making my own films since 2003. I like to identify as an introverted activist, and that’s what made me a filmmaker. I was doing photography as a teenager, and all of my projects were really based on the work I was politicized around. It was storytelling that allowed me to have a voice. Part of my conflict in the moment of making this film was—even though I didn’t have a mainstream audience at that point—wondering how my work contributed to platforms that I thought were being misused. I really wondered if I took the wrong path, if pushing for visibility wasn’t the way. I do think it’s a powerful tool in such a deeply mediated culture, and the power of the media is only increasing, and we are all so deeply informed by what we see. If 80 percent of the population is saying the only trans people they know are the ones they see in film and television, then we have to be really responsible with the content we’re putting out with really vulnerable lives.
TM: As you move on from Disclosure, what type of responsible representation do you hope to see?
SF: There are so many more stories to tell about this history, and there are so many ways of telling it. There are so many more voices that need to be included. I can’t wait to see all that happens next and all the different ways that people will do it. Angelica Ross has a beautiful line in the film where she says, “People walk into theaters wanting to be changed by what they see, and we need to see that change happen in real life and in real time.” While I’m so deeply invested in how we tell our stories, it really goes back to our lived lives—the endless work fighting against this capitalist, patriarchal, imprisoned culture. Following an abolition framework in storytelling is something that I really hope to see more of.


thenation--2020-07-07--Anthony Fauci: The Last American Hero?

Anthony Fauci: The Last American Hero?

Apart from the conspiracy-crazed Trump hardcore eager to burn him at the stake , Dr. Anthony Fauci generally basks in the admiration of a frightened public desperate for truthful leadership .
For liberals , in particular , he personifies science in shining armor battling the mad dragon in the White House .
But his real role during the first six months of the pandemic has been more ambiguous and far less heroic .
If he has been fact-checker to Trump ’ s ignorance and lies , he has paid for his place at the microphone by repeatedly acting as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutes the administration ’ s response to Covid-19 .
Perhaps it ’ s tongue-in-cheek , but he also continues to insist that he enjoys genuine a rapport with Trump .
In late March , when rumors circulated that he was about to be fired , he scolded the press : “ I have no trouble with the president .
When I talk to him , he listens.
” When Maureen Dowd interviewed him around the same time , he complimented Trump for his openness to criticism .
“ He ’ s a smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dummy .
So he doesn ’ t take it—certainly up to now—he doesn ’ t take in a way that I ’ m confronting him in any way .
He takes it in a good way.
” Fauci , who was appointed director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by Ronald Reagan , has vast experience in Washington politics .
In April , he explained his modus operandi to The New Yorker ’ s Michael Specter : “ You have a job to do .
Even when somebody ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chide them for it .
You ’ ve got to deal with them .
Because if you don ’ t deal with them , then you ’ re out of the picture.
” Having carefully crafted a persona as an apolitical disease expert , Fauci has managed to stay in the picture for 36 years .
Outspoken but deferential at the same time , he built successful relationships with both Bushes , Clinton , and Obama that ensured their support for expanded AIDS research as well as investments in fast-tracked vaccine technology to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His greatest achievement was turning George W. Bush into an impassioned AIDS fighter .
With the president ’ s full support , Fauci designed a multibillion-dollar program called PEPFAR that made lifesaving antiretrovirals available to poor people in Africa and elsewhere .
It is credited with saving hundreds of thousands , perhaps millions , of lives .
Despite the fact that Trump roared into office determined to destroy Obamacare and gut public health projects sponsored by his predecessor , Fauci exuded confidence that he could educate yet another White House about the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would be Pope Leo and save Rome .
For the first three years of the new order , Fauci , who has always had many Republican admirers , sought allies and avenues of persuasion within the administration , but could find little traction in the mire .
Although he hammered away in public about the imminence of a new pandemic , he kept a low profile when John Bolton purged the NSC ’ s directorate for global health security , an Obama-appointed “ dream team ” that monitored catastrophic biological threats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just three months before the outbreak , cut off funding for the Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT program—a much praised early warning system that had identified hundreds of dangerous Asian pathogens , mostly coronaviruses , poised to jump from animals to humans .
Up to this point , Fauci might have argued that he was simply a civil servant and that speaking out on administration policies would imperil his small but critically important agency and its vital research agenda .
But the pandemic has transformed the balance of power and given Fauci exceptional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were fired tomorrow , he would remain center-stage , probably with enhanced authority and prestige .
But instead of grasping the opportunity to openly speak truth to power , the good doctor remains a team player , lending his credibility to the failed and impotent task force of sycophants headed by Vice President Mike Pence ( whom he has several times defended ) .
Despite his famous halo of truthfulness , Fauci has deliberately misled the public on several occasions during the crisis .
At the beginning of the outbreak , he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense and lied about the efficacy of face mask usage .
While news programs were showing entire Asian societies safely masked , we were told that face coverings were unnecessary , useless , and possibly dangerous .
Asked in February about what advice he would give to ordinary Americans , Fauci remained in lockstep with the White House .
“ So the question is , should we do anything different from what we ’ re already doing ?
No .
Should we all be wearing a mask ?
Absolutely not.
” Six weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary ploy to stop panic-buying and conserve existing supplies for hospitals .
But it sowed epic confusion , which still festers , about the utility of masks and ratified the perception that the public had been deceived .
Disinformation was hardly the only alternative .
Washington , following the example of other countries , could have immediately nationalized existing supplies of PPE , while urging the public to improvise surgical masks until N95 stockpiles were replenished .
This would have slowed the spread during crucial weeks in March and ultimately saved thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two voices .
In a January 23 discussion with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner , for instance , he emphasized the imminent danger of a global conflagration , but a week later assured reporters that the “ risk to the American public is low ” —a message he repeated until March .
Moreover , his scientific ethics have recently been questioned .
The BMJ skewered him for hyping Gilead ’ s antiviral remdesivir in April as a coronavirus wonder drug .
“ [ Fauci ] unexpectedly announced preliminary findings from a publicly funded trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s previous promotion of remdesivir as a potential ‘ game-changer , ’ Fauci told the world the trial ’ s results suggested the drug could become the ‘ standard of care ’ for covid-19.
” But , as the British medical journal revealed , “ one of the trial investigators was a Gilead employee , and six other authors declared financial ties to Gilead .
Finally , an additional note disclosed that employees of Gilead ‘ participated in discussion about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial could not be regarded as independent from the manufacturer.
” Thanks to Fauci ’ s and his boss ’ s enthusiasm , the company ’ s stocks immediately soared by 14 percent .
But Fauci ’ s real sin has been his abrogation of advocacy .
Gamely willing to debunk Trump ’ s enthusiasms for chloroquine and disinfectants , as well as to defend the WHO , he has been stunningly silent about the unique chain of disasters that has led us to the edge of catastrophe .
A short and incomplete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed expert dissent includes : • the refusal of the CDC to purchase reliable WHO test kits after its own proved contaminated and useless • the failure to authorize a federal medical task force to stop the viral massacre in nursing homes and prisons • Trump ’ s abdication of centralized federal leadership and the resulting Darwinian competition between states for PPE and ventilators • the cowardice in the HHS that delayed the issuing of social distancing regulations • the refusal of the Labor Department to process the complaints of essential workers or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rushed reopening of businesses without job or income protections for workers and family members with preexisting conditions The White House basically threw away all the strategic planning and tactical guidelines for dealing with an outbreak that Fauci and hundreds of others had laboriously developed over the previous 20 years .
The result is an uncontrollable viral firestorm that may burn for years .
But “ America ’ s Doctor ” remains inexplicably calm .
He has accomplished great things in the past , but his hubris now makes him an accomplice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time of falling statuary , we should be cautious about whom we put on a pedestal .

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?
Apart from the conspiracy-crazed Trump hardcore eager to burn him at the stake, Dr. Anthony Fauci generally basks in the admiration of a frightened public desperate for truthful leadership. For liberals, in particular, he personifies science in shining armor battling the mad dragon in the White House. But his real role during the first six months of the pandemic has been more ambiguous and far less heroic.
If he has been fact-checker to Trump’s ignorance and lies, he has paid for his place at the microphone by repeatedly acting as an apologist for the criminally negligent chaos that constitutes the administration’s response to Covid-19. Perhaps it’s tongue-in-cheek, but he also continues to insist that he enjoys genuine a rapport with Trump.
In late March, when rumors circulated that he was about to be fired, he scolded the press: “I have no trouble with the president. When I talk to him, he listens.” When Maureen Dowd interviewed him around the same time, he complimented Trump for his openness to criticism. “He’s a smart guy. He’s not a dummy. So he doesn’t take it—certainly up to now—he doesn’t take in a way that I’m confronting him in any way. He takes it in a good way.”
Fauci, who was appointed director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by Ronald Reagan, has vast experience in Washington politics. In April, he explained his modus operandi to The New Yorker’s Michael Specter: “You have a job to do. Even when somebody’s acting ridiculous, you can’t chide them for it. You’ve got to deal with them. Because if you don’t deal with them, then you’re out of the picture.”
Having carefully crafted a persona as an apolitical disease expert, Fauci has managed to stay in the picture for 36 years. Outspoken but deferential at the same time, he built successful relationships with both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama that ensured their support for expanded AIDS research as well as investments in fast-tracked vaccine technology to meet the challenge of emergent diseases.
His greatest achievement was turning George W. Bush into an impassioned AIDS fighter. With the president’s full support, Fauci designed a multibillion-dollar program called PEPFAR that made lifesaving antiretrovirals available to poor people in Africa and elsewhere. It is credited with saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives.
Despite the fact that Trump roared into office determined to destroy Obamacare and gut public health projects sponsored by his predecessor, Fauci exuded confidence that he could educate yet another White House about the pandemic threat. If Trump was Atilla, he would be Pope Leo and save Rome. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
For the first three years of the new order, Fauci, who has always had many Republican admirers, sought allies and avenues of persuasion within the administration, but could find little traction in the mire. Although he hammered away in public about the imminence of a new pandemic, he kept a low profile when John Bolton purged the NSC’s directorate for global health security, an Obama-appointed “dream team” that monitored catastrophic biological threats.
Likewise he made no protest when Trump, just three months before the outbreak, cut off funding for the Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT program—a much praised early warning system that had identified hundreds of dangerous Asian pathogens, mostly coronaviruses, poised to jump from animals to humans.
Up to this point, Fauci might have argued that he was simply a civil servant and that speaking out on administration policies would imperil his small but critically important agency and its vital research agenda. But the pandemic has transformed the balance of power and given Fauci exceptional public influence and credibility. If he were fired tomorrow, he would remain center-stage, probably with enhanced authority and prestige.
But instead of grasping the opportunity to openly speak truth to power, the good doctor remains a team player, lending his credibility to the failed and impotent task force of sycophants headed by Vice President Mike Pence (whom he has several times defended).
Despite his famous halo of truthfulness, Fauci has deliberately misled the public on several occasions during the crisis. At the beginning of the outbreak, he and CDC Director Robert Redfield defied medical common sense and lied about the efficacy of face mask usage. While news programs were showing entire Asian societies safely masked, we were told that face coverings were unnecessary, useless, and possibly dangerous.
Asked in February about what advice he would give to ordinary Americans, Fauci remained in lockstep with the White House. “So the question is, should we do anything different from what we’re already doing? No. Should we all be wearing a mask? Absolutely not.”
Six weeks later he explained that this was a necessary ploy to stop panic-buying and conserve existing supplies for hospitals. But it sowed epic confusion, which still festers, about the utility of masks and ratified the perception that the public had been deceived.
Disinformation was hardly the only alternative. Washington, following the example of other countries, could have immediately nationalized existing supplies of PPE, while urging the public to improvise surgical masks until N95 stockpiles were replenished. This would have slowed the spread during crucial weeks in March and ultimately saved thousands of lives.
Fauci also routinely speaks in two voices. In a January 23 discussion with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, for instance, he emphasized the imminent danger of a global conflagration, but a week later assured reporters that the “risk to the American public is low”—a message he repeated until March.
Moreover, his scientific ethics have recently been questioned. The BMJ skewered him for hyping Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir in April as a coronavirus wonder drug. “[Fauci] unexpectedly announced preliminary findings from a publicly funded trial being run in the US. Adding to Trump’s previous promotion of remdesivir as a potential ‘game-changer,’ Fauci told the world the trial’s results suggested the drug could become the ‘standard of care’ for covid-19.”
But, as the British medical journal revealed, “one of the trial investigators was a Gilead employee, and six other authors declared financial ties to Gilead. Finally, an additional note disclosed that employees of Gilead ‘participated in discussion about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls,’ a level of engagement suggesting this drug trial could not be regarded as independent from the manufacturer.” Thanks to Fauci’s and his boss’s enthusiasm, the company’s stocks immediately soared by 14 percent.
But Fauci’s real sin has been his abrogation of advocacy. Gamely willing to debunk Trump’s enthusiasms for chloroquine and disinfectants, as well as to defend the WHO, he has been stunningly silent about the unique chain of disasters that has led us to the edge of catastrophe. A short and incomplete list of occasions when the country urgently needed expert dissent includes:
the refusal of the CDC to purchase reliable WHO test kits after its own proved contaminated and useless
the failure to authorize a federal medical task force to stop the viral massacre in nursing homes and prisons
Trump’s abdication of centralized federal leadership and the resulting Darwinian competition between states for PPE and ventilators
the cowardice in the HHS that delayed the issuing of social distancing regulations
the refusal of the Labor Department to process the complaints of essential workers or issue enforceable guidelines about workplace safety
the rushed reopening of businesses without job or income protections for workers and family members with preexisting conditions
The White House basically threw away all the strategic planning and tactical guidelines for dealing with an outbreak that Fauci and hundreds of others had laboriously developed over the previous 20 years. The result is an uncontrollable viral firestorm that may burn for years.
But “America’s Doctor” remains inexplicably calm. He has accomplished great things in the past, but his hubris now makes him an accomplice of a dangerous and criminal regime. In a time of falling statuary, we should be cautious about whom we put on a pedestal.


thenation--2020-07-07--Donald Trump’s Many Pandemic Blunders

Donald Trump’s Many Pandemic Blunders

Support independent cartooning : join Sparky ’ s List—and don ’ t forget to visit TT ’ s Emporium of @ @ @ @ @ book and plush Sparky !

Support independent cartooning: join Sparky’s List—and don’t forget to visit TT’s Emporium of Fun, featuring the new book and plush Sparky!


thenation--2020-07-07--A New Tonkin Gulf Incident in the Making?

While the American public , the media , and Congress have largely been focused on the Covid pandemic , demands for racial justice , and other domestic concerns in recent months , the US military has been mobilizing all of its capabilities for a massive show of force in waters abutting China .
Every Pacific-based US submarine is now deployed in the area ; two nuclear-powered carriers and their escort ships are conducting naval maneuvers there ; the Air Force has sent B-1 bombers overhead ; and the Army is practicing to seize Chinese-claimed islands .
In the most provocative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ronald Reagan , accompanied by several cruisers and destroyers , have sailed into the South China Sea—an extension of the Pacific that abuts China , Vietnam , Malaysia , Indonesia , and the Philippines and encompasses several clusters of islands claimed in their entirety by China and in part by the others .
The Chinese have installed military facilities on some of the islands , a move said by US officials to violate international law .
In recent months , the Navy has deployed missile-armed destroyers on “ freedom of navigation operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prompting Beijing to send ships of its own to escort American warships out of the area .
Until now , these operations have been limited to probes and taunts , intended to demonstrate Washington ’ s rejection of China ’ s claims to the islands and its emplacement of military facilities upon them .
Its more recent activities , however , suggest something more sinister and dangerous—an intent to reverse China ’ s occupation of the islands by military force .
Consider this : On three separate occasions this spring , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-range demonstration flights over the South China Sea , in some cases deploying them from bases in the United States .
( Originally intended as a nuclear delivery system , the B-1B has been converted into a multipurpose bomber capable of carrying large numbers of bombs and missiles . )
Even more ominously , on June 30 , some 350 paratroopers from the 25th Infantry Division in Alaska flew across the Pacific and conducted a mock “ forcible entry jump ” to secure an air base on the island of Guam , presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers ; the only conceivable real-world targets for such an operation are those Chinese-occupied islands in the South China Sea .
A Full-Blown Cold War With China Could Be Disastrous Protests Force the US Military to Face Its Own Racism We Must Resist the ‘ China Threat ’ Syndrome By far the greatest demonstration of Washington ’ s war-making capacity , however , is the multi-carrier operation now under way .
With each carrier capable of launching 60-plus warplanes , and their accompanying vessels armed with multiple Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
As noted by RAdm .
James Kirk , commander of the Nimitz strike group , “ Our operations demonstrate the resilience and readiness of our naval force and are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect critically important rights , freedoms , and lawful uses of the sea.
” For China ’ s leaders , especially President Xi Jinping , this represents both a crude dismissal of China ’ s ability to defend itself and a harsh repudiation of its claim to having achieved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only produce immense anger and dismay .
How Beijing will respond to this is unclear , but it is obvious that the leadership must evince some muscularity in response to such taunts or lose credibility in the eyes of China ’ s increasingly nationalistic population .
The official website of China ’ s People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) observed that “ by massing these aircraft carriers , the US is attempting to demonstrate to the whole region and even the world that it remains the most powerful naval force.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PLA could hold major drills of its own , possibly including the use of “ aircraft carrier killer weapons like the DF-21D and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles.
” With the PLA Navy also holding maneuvers in the South China Sea at this time , it is not hard to imagine how close encounters between US and Chinese warships could result in an accidental or ambiguous event , precipitating an armed incident and full-scale escalation .
( Given that some of the recent encounters have occurred near the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the infamous “ Tonkin Gulf Incident ” of August 24 , 1964 , when US destroyers deployed off North Vietnam reported radar tracks of enemy torpedoes—an action , later deemed to be illusory , that President Lyndon Johnson seized upon to secure congressional support for full-scale US intervention in Vietnam .
Is the Trump administration actively seeking such an incident to divert attention from its failures at home ?
Is the Pentagon itself hoping to provoke China to justify the forcible expulsion of Chinese forces from those islands in the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications , it is impossible to answer one way or another .
What can be said is that the US military is proceeding down an extremely dangerous path , and one very likely to lead to miscalculation and war—even nuclear war .
It is essential , then , that members of Congress call on senior Pentagon leaders to withdraw the Nimitz and Ronald Reagan from the South China Sea and begin talks with their Chinese counterparts on steps to reduce the risk of conflict there .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
While the American public, the media, and Congress have largely been focused on the Covid pandemic, demands for racial justice, and other domestic concerns in recent months, the US military has been mobilizing all of its capabilities for a massive show of force in waters abutting China. Every Pacific-based US submarine is now deployed in the area; two nuclear-powered carriers and their escort ships are conducting naval maneuvers there; the Air Force has sent B-1 bombers overhead; and the Army is practicing to seize Chinese-claimed islands.
In the most provocative of these efforts, the carriers Nimitz and Ronald Reagan, accompanied by several cruisers and destroyers, have sailed into the South China Sea—an extension of the Pacific that abuts China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines and encompasses several clusters of islands claimed in their entirety by China and in part by the others. The Chinese have installed military facilities on some of the islands, a move said by US officials to violate international law.
In recent months, the Navy has deployed missile-armed destroyers on “freedom of navigation operations” in waters surrounding the Chinese-occupied islands, prompting Beijing to send ships of its own to escort American warships out of the area. Until now, these operations have been limited to probes and taunts, intended to demonstrate Washington’s rejection of China’s claims to the islands and its emplacement of military facilities upon them. Its more recent activities, however, suggest something more sinister and dangerous—an intent to reverse China’s occupation of the islands by military force.
Consider this: On three separate occasions this spring, the Air Force sent B-1B supersonic bombers on long-range demonstration flights over the South China Sea, in some cases deploying them from bases in the United States. (Originally intended as a nuclear delivery system, the B-1B has been converted into a multipurpose bomber capable of carrying large numbers of bombs and missiles.) Even more ominously, on June 30, some 350 paratroopers from the 25th Infantry Division in Alaska flew across the Pacific and conducted a mock “forcible entry jump” to secure an air base on the island of Guam, presumably for use by following waves of American soldiers; the only conceivable real-world targets for such an operation are those Chinese-occupied islands in the South China Sea. More From Michael T. Klare When AI and Robotics Combine August 9, 2023 The Future of AI Is War July 17, 2023 The US Versus China June 14, 2023
By far the greatest demonstration of Washington’s war-making capacity, however, is the multi-carrier operation now under way. With each carrier capable of launching 60-plus warplanes, and their accompanying vessels armed with multiple Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, the combined force poses a massive threat to China. As noted by RAdm. James Kirk, commander of the Nimitz strike group, “Our operations demonstrate the resilience and readiness of our naval force and are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect critically important rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
For China’s leaders, especially President Xi Jinping, this represents both a crude dismissal of China’s ability to defend itself and a harsh repudiation of its claim to having achieved “great power” status—something that can only produce immense anger and dismay. How Beijing will respond to this is unclear, but it is obvious that the leadership must evince some muscularity in response to such taunts or lose credibility in the eyes of China’s increasingly nationalistic population. Current Issue View our current issue
The official website of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) observed that “by massing these aircraft carriers, the US is attempting to demonstrate to the whole region and even the world that it remains the most powerful naval force.” In response, it suggested, the PLA could hold major drills of its own, possibly including the use of “aircraft carrier killer weapons like the DF-21D and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles.”
With the PLA Navy also holding maneuvers in the South China Sea at this time, it is not hard to imagine how close encounters between US and Chinese warships could result in an accidental or ambiguous event, precipitating an armed incident and full-scale escalation. (Given that some of the recent encounters have occurred near the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin, it is not hard to think back to the infamous “Tonkin Gulf Incident” of August 24, 1964, when US destroyers deployed off North Vietnam reported radar tracks of enemy torpedoes—an action, later deemed to be illusory, that President Lyndon Johnson seized upon to secure congressional support for full-scale US intervention in Vietnam.
Is the Trump administration actively seeking such an incident to divert attention from its failures at home? Is the Pentagon itself hoping to provoke China to justify the forcible expulsion of Chinese forces from those islands in the South China Sea? Without access to secret communications, it is impossible to answer one way or another. What can be said is that the US military is proceeding down an extremely dangerous path, and one very likely to lead to miscalculation and war—even nuclear war. It is essential, then, that members of Congress call on senior Pentagon leaders to withdraw the Nimitz and Ronald Reagan from the South China Sea and begin talks with their Chinese counterparts on steps to reduce the risk of conflict there.


thenation--2020-07-07--Cooperative Ownership: A Covid Recovery Strategy

The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis is full of lessons about what not to do in the face of the ongoing pandemic .
Some policy lessons seem to have caught on ( like why we need to send money directly to struggling people ) , while others have been quickly forgotten ( like why we need to stop propping up the inflated financial sector ) .
Last time around , Black Americans lost half their wealth within a few years , further enabling the impunity of police violence and exacerbating the fragility of Black life .
As Michelle Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve racial justice and create a secure and thriving democracy without also transforming our economic systems.
” African Americans from W.E.B .
Du Bois to the leaders of the Movement for Black Lives have pointed to a vital strategy for this transformation : community ownership .
Before Covid-19 came around , US stock prices and unemployment rates had recovered since 2008 .
But what that recovery left behind was a simmering crisis of ownership .
Corporate mergers and acquisitions accelerated after the crisis and the subsequent bailout , and single-family housing—the hallmark of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for corporate speculation , siphoning wealth from the working and middle class .
Corporate profits skyrocketed ; wages did not .
Black homeownership , in particular , plummeted at record rates .
Now , small business is next in line for the consolidation treatment , with millions of those cultural and economic bulwarks on the verge of a shutdown or a fire sale .
Amazon and its ilk , meanwhile , are ready and willing to take their place .
They say we are headed toward a depression , so I have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
In the 1930s , my grandfather and his siblings were growing up as the children of immigrant tenant farmers in Colorado .
Their homes had no electricity .
The power companies of the time didn ’ t see fit to invest in most of rural America ; not until the 1936 Rural Electrification Act did communities like his have the means to change that—with public financing for locally owned cooperative electric companies .
Even today , the area where my grandfather grew up gets its power from a co-op .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Black Neighborhoods in Chicago The New Deal was a deal with the devil in certain ways—secured at the cost of excluding women and nonwhite Americans from key benefits of its programs .
But several of the period ’ s most enduring legacies hinged on turning regular people into owners of the assets they helped make valuable .
The electric co-ops that still power much of rural America were part of the New Deal project , along with the federal infrastructure for member-owned credit unions and the 30-year mortgage .
Ironically , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that marginalized Americans of many backgrounds had been using to survive , and it scaled them up with public investment .
As political economist Jessica Gordon Nembhard illustrates in her book Collective Courage , Black fraternal societies prefigured the social safety net , generated “ Black Wall Street ” commercial districts like the one destroyed in the 1921 Tulsa massacre , and supported human rights struggles .
This kind of broad-based , participant ownership makes a lot of sense—then and now .
When people have a real stake in a business or local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , sacrifice for it , and make it thrive .
Owners hold greater leverage over issues their communities face , from education to policing .
So what forms of ownership could confront the crisis we ’ re now facing ?
In the current phase of the Covid-19 struggle , what ’ s needed is relief .
Lots of us have been ordering takeout from local restaurants that we know are struggling .
That ’ s something , but what if we could do more—beyond gift cards and GoFundMe ?
Imagine if contributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a co-owner in it—a partner in its future , alongside the people running it .
A little-known trick called a direct public offering enables businesses to sell shares to their customers and local community members who believe in them ; it is now also possible to do this kind of “ equity crowdfunding ” on a national scale .
Using these tools can be cumbersome and expensive , but that could change .
The SEC has already begun easing barriers to equity crowdfunding in response to the crisis .
Until the feds do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Native Women Lead , and other groups in communities of color are doing it themselves , harnessing their communities ’ capital so they can collectively determine their own outcomes .
Greater community control over local economies can help to stave off the predators that—as we learned during the 2008 crisis—start to circle the most marginalized populations when disaster strikes .
Co-ownership can also encourage neighbors to start buying at local businesses again , even when it might be easier to stay home and order from Amazon .
The White Left Needs to Embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workplaces could have similar effects—inviting workers into a full partnership in the challenges and sacrifices that the current moment may require .
Studies suggest that transitioning to full or partial employee ownership improves workers ’ productivity and resilience .
And it just so happens that , back in 2018 , President Trump ( whether knowingly or not ) signed a historic , bipartisan employee-ownership law originally introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand , the Main Street Employee Ownership Act .
Now would be an excellent time for his Small Business Administration to actually implement it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Main Street Phoenix Project and the Democracy Collaborative are finding ways to help deliver troubled businesses into the hands of their workers .
Whether we eliminate Covid-19 or learn to live with it , the time for relief will turn into a time for recovery .
We need to act now if we want that recovery to steer us toward a fairer economy than the one that has made this crisis so painful .
Laying the groundwork for a new ownership explosion can help .
A shortcoming of America ’ s past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have been .
Down the road from me , on the south end of Denver , there ’ s a $ 130 billion cooperative bank for farmer co-ops , CoBank .
Thanks to generations of farmer organizing , federal policy helped create its forerunners during the New Deal—but if your co-op isn ’ t rural , CoBank can ’ t help you .
In recent years I have been working with a new generation of entrepreneurs trying to build the participant-owned startups of the future—for online platforms , for gig workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been easy ; the New Deal–era frameworks for farmer co-ops and credit unions don ’ t apply to these new challenges .
The coming recovery can take those narrow success stories and spread them across the economy to green energy , local food systems , and user-owned online platforms .
This can also be the start of the reparations for slavery , Native genocide , and other forms of mass deprivation that we so obviously need .
The promised “ 40 acres and a mule ” for former slaves never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to co-own the economy they have done so much to build .
What Does It Really Mean to Invest In Black Communities ?
With the help of a federal loan guarantee , or a secondary market akin to the mortgage system , policy could encourage lending to groups of people with a common mission—whether they are neighbors who want a local grocery store , workers who want to buy out a retiring owner , or a rural community waiting in vain for the telecom industry to bring them broadband .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost-saving retrofits .
Groups of small businesses could band together in co-ops for joint purchasing and services .
Tenants in a building could offer their landlord an early retirement , while a tech start-up ’ s users could take their data back , and pay back the founders , with an “ exit to community ” that matures into shared ownership rather than aiming for corporate acquisition .
Such programs should serve everyone but prioritize people who have had the least access to the wealth that comes from ownership .
Some people seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we were pre-Covid .
We could try , I suppose .
But the old regime was standing on a shaky foundation , as we learned from the uprisings and supply chain failures that emerged as soon as there was a crack .
A “ silver tsunami ” of owner retirements was already threatening as many small businesses as the virus now does .
Pre-Covid , the economy already needed the transformation Alexander calls for ; now we need it fast .
As the investor class cowers behind its bailouts , communities need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their own terms .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis is full of lessons about what not to do in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Some policy lessons seem to have caught on (like why we need to send money directly to struggling people), while others have been quickly forgotten (like why we need to stop propping up the inflated financial sector). Last time around, Black Americans lost half their wealth within a few years, further enabling the impunity of police violence and exacerbating the fragility of Black life. As Michelle Alexander recently wrote, “We cannot achieve racial justice and create a secure and thriving democracy without also transforming our economic systems.” African Americans from W.E.B. Du Bois to the leaders of the Movement for Black Lives have pointed to a vital strategy for this transformation: community ownership.
Before Covid-19 came around, US stock prices and unemployment rates had recovered since 2008. But what that recovery left behind was a simmering crisis of ownership. Corporate mergers and acquisitions accelerated after the crisis and the subsequent bailout, and single-family housing—the hallmark of widely dispersed property ownership—emerged as a field for corporate speculation, siphoning wealth from the working and middle class. Corporate profits skyrocketed; wages did not. Black homeownership, in particular, plummeted at record rates. Now, small business is next in line for the consolidation treatment, with millions of those cultural and economic bulwarks on the verge of a shutdown or a fire sale. Amazon and its ilk, meanwhile, are ready and willing to take their place.
They say we are headed toward a depression, so I have been thinking a lot lately about the last one.
In the 1930s, my grandfather and his siblings were growing up as the children of immigrant tenant farmers in Colorado. Their homes had no electricity. The power companies of the time didn’t see fit to invest in most of rural America; not until the 1936 Rural Electrification Act did communities like his have the means to change that—with public financing for locally owned cooperative electric companies. Even today, the area where my grandfather grew up gets its power from a co-op. Related Article Why JPMorgan Chase Should Give $1 Billion to Black Neighborhoods in Chicago Daniel Fernandez
The New Deal was a deal with the devil in certain ways—secured at the cost of excluding women and nonwhite Americans from key benefits of its programs. But several of the period’s most enduring legacies hinged on turning regular people into owners of the assets they helped make valuable. The electric co-ops that still power much of rural America were part of the New Deal project, along with the federal infrastructure for member-owned credit unions and the 30-year mortgage. Ironically, the New Deal drew lessons from grassroots experiments that marginalized Americans of many backgrounds had been using to survive, and it scaled them up with public investment. As political economist Jessica Gordon Nembhard illustrates in her book Collective Courage, Black fraternal societies prefigured the social safety net, generated “Black Wall Street” commercial districts like the one destroyed in the 1921 Tulsa massacre, and supported human rights struggles. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
This kind of broad-based, participant ownership makes a lot of sense—then and now. When people have a real stake in a business or local infrastructure, they will want to protect it, sacrifice for it, and make it thrive. Owners hold greater leverage over issues their communities face, from education to policing. So what forms of ownership could confront the crisis we’re now facing?
In the current phase of the Covid-19 struggle, what’s needed is relief. Current Issue View our current issue
Lots of us have been ordering takeout from local restaurants that we know are struggling. That’s something, but what if we could do more—beyond gift cards and GoFundMe? Imagine if contributing to a local business also meant becoming a co-owner in it—a partner in its future, alongside the people running it. A little-known trick called a direct public offering enables businesses to sell shares to their customers and local community members who believe in them; it is now also possible to do this kind of “equity crowdfunding” on a national scale. Using these tools can be cumbersome and expensive, but that could change.
The SEC has already begun easing barriers to equity crowdfunding in response to the crisis. Until the feds do more, the Boston Ujima Project, Native Women Lead, and other groups in communities of color are doing it themselves, harnessing their communities’ capital so they can collectively determine their own outcomes. Greater community control over local economies can help to stave off the predators that—as we learned during the 2008 crisis—start to circle the most marginalized populations when disaster strikes. Co-ownership can also encourage neighbors to start buying at local businesses again, even when it might be easier to stay home and order from Amazon. Related Article The White Left Needs to Embrace Black Leadership Barbara Ransby
Enabling employees to co-own their workplaces could have similar effects—inviting workers into a full partnership in the challenges and sacrifices that the current moment may require. Studies suggest that transitioning to full or partial employee ownership improves workers’ productivity and resilience. And it just so happens that, back in 2018, President Trump (whether knowingly or not) signed a historic, bipartisan employee-ownership law originally introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand, the Main Street Employee Ownership Act. Now would be an excellent time for his Small Business Administration to actually implement it. In the meantime, groups including the Main Street Phoenix Project and the Democracy Collaborative are finding ways to help deliver troubled businesses into the hands of their workers.
Whether we eliminate Covid-19 or learn to live with it, the time for relief will turn into a time for recovery. We need to act now if we want that recovery to steer us toward a fairer economy than the one that has made this crisis so painful. Laying the groundwork for a new ownership explosion can help.
A shortcoming of America’s past programs for widespread ownership is how piecemeal they have been. Down the road from me, on the south end of Denver, there’s a $130 billion cooperative bank for farmer co-ops, CoBank. Thanks to generations of farmer organizing, federal policy helped create its forerunners during the New Deal—but if your co-op isn’t rural, CoBank can’t help you. In recent years I have been working with a new generation of entrepreneurs trying to build the participant-owned startups of the future—for online platforms, for gig workers, for cleaning and care work. This hasn’t been easy; the New Deal–era frameworks for farmer co-ops and credit unions don’t apply to these new challenges. The coming recovery can take those narrow success stories and spread them across the economy to green energy, local food systems, and user-owned online platforms. This can also be the start of the reparations for slavery, Native genocide, and other forms of mass deprivation that we so obviously need. The promised “40 acres and a mule” for former slaves never came, but their descendants should have the right to co-own the economy they have done so much to build. Related Article What Does It Really Mean to Invest In Black Communities? Destin Jenkins
With the help of a federal loan guarantee, or a secondary market akin to the mortgage system, policy could encourage lending to groups of people with a common mission—whether they are neighbors who want a local grocery store, workers who want to buy out a retiring owner, or a rural community waiting in vain for the telecom industry to bring them broadband. It could help communities finance green energy and cost-saving retrofits. Groups of small businesses could band together in co-ops for joint purchasing and services. Tenants in a building could offer their landlord an early retirement, while a tech start-up’s users could take their data back, and pay back the founders, with an “exit to community” that matures into shared ownership rather than aiming for corporate acquisition. Such programs should serve everyone but prioritize people who have had the least access to the wealth that comes from ownership.
Some people seem to be longing to go back to where we were pre-Covid. We could try, I suppose. But the old regime was standing on a shaky foundation, as we learned from the uprisings and supply chain failures that emerged as soon as there was a crack. A “silver tsunami” of owner retirements was already threatening as many small businesses as the virus now does. Pre-Covid, the economy already needed the transformation Alexander calls for; now we need it fast. As the investor class cowers behind its bailouts, communities need the tools to get their economies going on their own terms.


thenation--2020-07-07--Our Nation Needs a Wake-Up Call to the Nuclear Threat

In 1982 , the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union had reached a fever pitch .
That June , as many as 1 million people braved the New York City summer , flooding Central Park and the streets outside the United Nations as it hosted a special session on disarmament .
I was there .
The energy was palpable and urgent as protesters called for a nuclear freeze .
And the event , the largest political demonstration in US history to that point , commanded the world ’ s attention .
Today , the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great as it was nearly 40 years ago .
But the sense of urgency has since waned .
We need a wake-up call , and former defense secretary William J. Perry , together with leading nuclear policy maker Tom Collina , has given us just that .
Their new book , The Button : The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump , is the alarm our nation needs—especially now .
Over the past four years , President Trump systematically undermined international arms treaties .
He has pulled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev .
Over the strident objection of our allies , his administration announced the United States ’ withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty , which helps ensure that signatories comply with arms-control measures .
Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
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?
In 1982, the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union had reached a fever pitch. That June, as many as 1 million people braved the New York City summer, flooding Central Park and the streets outside the United Nations as it hosted a special session on disarmament. I was there. The energy was palpable and urgent as protesters called for a nuclear freeze. And the event, the largest political demonstration in US history to that point, commanded the world’s attention.
Today, the threat posed by nuclear weapons is just as great as it was nearly 40 years ago. But the sense of urgency has since waned. We need a wake-up call, and former defense secretary William J. Perry, together with leading nuclear policy maker Tom Collina, has given us just that. Their new book, The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump, is the alarm our nation needs—especially now.
Over the past four years, President Trump systematically undermined international arms treaties. He has pulled out from the Iran nuclear agreement and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Over the strident objection of our allies, his administration announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty, which helps ensure that signatories comply with arms-control measures.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.