thenation--2020-09-29--Should the United States Stay United?

Should the United States Stay United?

The United States has never been an equal , peaceful , or functional nation , despite what the history textbooks say .
It was built from genocide , slavery , and stolen land .
This year , the Black Lives Matter protests and the abolition movement , coupled with a pandemic that preys most on people consistently excluded from the broken health care system , demonstrate the lie of our “ more perfect union ” even more .
Will there ever come a time to abandon this myth and the 50 “ united ” states altogether ?
If so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just some of the questions Richard Kreitner invites with his new book , Break It Up : Secession , Division , and the Secret History of America ’ s Imperfect Union .
While secessionism is probably most commonly associated with the Civil War , Kreitner shows that support for disbanding the union has always been present throughout the country ’ s history and among Americans with contrasting political beliefs , including abolitionists .
As Kreitner notes in the book , abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison considered the Constitution “ a pact with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a union existed even within the original colonies , Donald Trump has highlighted the fault lines and contradictions in federalism significantly over the past four years , causing many , including Kreitner , to reconsider the value in staying together .
We talked to Kreitner about why he thinks the left should stop dismissing secession as a relic of right-wing America and whether collective action through local rather than national channels might be the only way to rehabilitate the country ’ s political , social , and economic landscapes .
This interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
—Jessica Suriano essica uriano : Why did you think it was important in this book to address all of these other separatist movements that have happened in the past and across the political spectrum ?
icky reitner : Of course everybody ’ s heard about the Confederacy and slavery , and it started my historical research , but that ’ s not really where the book came from .
It came from this late-Obama-era moment where the thought occurred to me just based on things I ’ d been reading : What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Would that be such a bad thing ?
Is it possible that the progressive policies and programs that I wanted to see put into place might be easier to enact in a smaller entity than the United States , with its 330 million people and the need to always convince people with very different attitudes and interests ?
So with that question , I was curious if anybody else in American history had favored secession for noble or progressive reasons—not to perpetuate slavery but even to oppose it .
The answer , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were disunion abolitionists who were fiercely against slavery and who wanted the northern states to secede from the union in the 1840s and 1850s as a way not only to protest slavery but to undermine it .
Taking in their arguments and their rhetoric was really , really interesting .
One of the places I started was with this convention that took place in Worcester , Mass.
, in January of 1857 .
It was summoned by a bunch of abolitionists right after the first presidential election in which the Republican Party ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was opposed to slavery .
A lot of Republicans had said that the fate of the Republic , of the union , and then of freedom itself depended on Fremont ’ s victory .
When that didn ’ t occur , the Republicans were ready to just try again in four years , but the hard-core abolitionists said , “ Well , what about everything you were just talking about ?
” They thought the fate of the Republic was at stake ; if so , maybe it was time to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me in the fall of 2016 , when Trump won , and it was like , “ Wow , is a country that elects Trump possibly worth saving ?
” JS : Do you think that people who support the abolition movement today should also at least see the value in having a conversation about secession ?
The Only Thing Stopping Us From Taxing the Rich Is Political Will RK : That ’ s a really good question and a really , really hard one .
The one important moment in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book was when I was researching in the library one day in the fall of 2014 about the union and the founding and the Constitution and slavery and who the country really served .
I was already thinking about this as I walked down Sixth Avenue downtown , and this was right after the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson , Mo.
, was acquitted .
There were protests going on all across the country .
I passed a sign that said , “ The system isn ’ t broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just really lodged in my brain , because it seemed to describe not only the systems of police brutality and white supremacy that the protests were about , but also the Constitution that I was reading about and trying to really grapple with , with its effects on present-day progressive movements and ideas .
It did strike me at that moment that maybe the union is our enemy .
We have this idea—this fantasy , it seems sometimes—that federal power is always going to be on our side .
And I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 , the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , that the federal government is on the side of civil rights .
But I ’ m not so sure .
Especially after 2013 , when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act , and various other instances , it really seems like the Supreme Court is not our friend , and I ’ m not sure that the federal union is , either .
I ’ m not really sure whether the modern abolitionist movement wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that it might be time to start talking about other things like localism or regionalism—the idea of devolving power from the federal government down to a more local level , where perhaps we can more easily enact truly reformist and radical changes to a totally broken so-called justice system .
JS : In the protests this year , you would see a lot of signs along the lines of “ A better world is possible.
” Could the secession of states or a breaking apart be almost contradictory for people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there a way for us to all work together to accomplish that better world , or do we have to separate to do that ?
RK : The idea is kind of predicated on the hypothesis that maybe collectivism and working together is more possible and more feasible at a smaller scale than a national one .
My first choice would be to have an effective national government , a strong united country .
I would abolish the Senate , and I would have a constitutional convention .
That not being likely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 20 years to not be possible , then I think we need to radically reconsider whether a different federal arrangement , a different framework for our politics than arguing over everything in Washington , D.C. , might revive democracy and make collective action more possible , at least in some places .
Is that defeatist ?
Is that pessimistic ?
I suppose so , but I look around and see a lot of cause for pessimism .
You mentioned the signs at the protest , but one that really stood out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kumanyika .
The sign that had the quote from him says , “ We are trying to make this country something it has never been.
” I keep thinking about that because , yeah , that is what we ’ re trying to do—but the problem is , that ’ s how the other side sees it as well .
That ’ s how the white supremacists see it as well .
We ’ re trying to make this country something it has never been , and they want no part of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want to crush them , but I think if you look at the country that we have , I just don ’ t know if that ’ s going to be possible .
So if it ’ s not going to be possible to make this country something it ’ s never been , maybe we need to start a new one .
JS : So the idea is , why not think really big if the country is so broken ?
RK : I ’ m in touch with people all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cooperative movements .
It ’ s kind of a ’ 70s “ small is beautiful ” idea .
But after Trump ’ s election , it really is gaining a lot more adherents in one way or another .
You ’ re kind of landing on the idea of the book , which is essentially an argument for the left to start talking about these things and to embrace ideas—and really a whole worldview—that is largely rejected or relegated to the right .
It is kind of a radical thought , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the only things that we can actually get both sides in this country to agree on , because there are people on the right who also favor secession and devolution or even disunion .
Often , the one thing we have in common is the desire to have nothing to do with one another , and it seems to me that ’ s the case right now .
The modern left , we kind of have these blinders on where we ’ re only thinking about this kind of inherited way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progressive era in the 1910s or so and culminated with the civil rights movement .
We made a lot of progress , but I ’ m not sure that—at least with the present Constitution , which I think is really the problem—we will be able to make much more .
JS : Throughout the book , it seems like capitalism , or at least what we now call capitalism , has always been tied hand in hand with all of these political disagreements .
Do you think devolving into these smaller communities is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our society off from a capitalism dependence ?
RK : I would hope so .
It might be the case that the West Coast or the Northeast could institute certain policies for economic redistribution or even capital controls or something that the country at large is never going to do .
I did find throughout the book that capitalism—it wasn ’ t called that in the 1780s—and the union often go hand in hand .
The union began essentially as a common market that would allow merchants to trade their goods across state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all it was .
Nobody really wanted it to be much more than that .
In the 1780s , the push toward a stronger union , a more perfect union , a stronger Constitution , came from people like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington , who were deeply invested in state securities and western lands and whatnot , and whose investments , they believed , would only appreciate and bring them great profits with a strong federal government in a more closely integrated union .
People who are for economic redistribution and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they ’ re against the stronger union and for states ’ rights and local self-government .
There are some interesting rebellions in the 1780s , of course—Shays ’ s Rebellion most famously—where these people are calling for the state government to see to their demands for debt relief and tax relief .
The more national-minded politicians are totally against that , and that ’ s a major impetus for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia .
Skip ahead almost a century , to the 1870s , and I also find that capitalism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the push for reunion after the Civil War at any cost .
They ’ re basically the ones who pull the plug on Reconstruction and say , “ This isn ’ t worth it .
It ’ s cutting into our profits.
” I wonder if the populists and the egalitarians of our own day will come to see the union as a force of economic oppression .
I should say there ’ s another school of thought , which says that in a dissolved United States , corporations would have even greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government is protecting us from their depredations at all .
That may well be the case .
It ’ s hard stuff to think about .
And honestly , what is the union doing for us , and would we be better off without it ?
I could have written a book about that question .
This is actually not a book about that question ; this is the book that I wrote to avoid having to answer that question .
It ’ s essentially a historical investigation instead of a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will give readers food for thought to decide for themselves what they think of the union and whether it ’ s serving their purposes , and then to ask if they see themselves in any of these movements and people who questioned it before and argued in favor of secession or disunion .
JS : Toward the end of the book , you repeat its central questions : What are we risking by staying together , and what could we be risking ( or gaining ) by separating ?
Now that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any closer to having an answer to those things ?
RK : I don ’ t want the country to break up today—I feel pretty comfortable and confident in saying that .
I don ’ t think the moment has come , but I think that it might .
As I was saying earlier , I think that this needs to be basically a live option that we have available to us .
We need to not dismiss it as solely the province of the Confederacy and of slave owners .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but ideologically , I think that the option of devolution or even of disunion needs to be available for us .
I find it totally conceivable to imagine moments , really in the not too distant future , in which I would wholeheartedly support breaking up the country .
I ’ m basically trying to provide a history that suggests that we shouldn ’ t be so scared of the idea .

The United States has never been an equal, peaceful, or functional nation, despite what the history textbooks say. It was built from genocide, slavery, and stolen land. This year, the Black Lives Matter protests and the abolition movement, coupled with a pandemic that preys most on people consistently excluded from the broken health care system, demonstrate the lie of our “more perfect union” even more. Will there ever come a time to abandon this myth and the 50 “united” states altogether? If so, is that moment already here?
These are just some of the questions Richard Kreitner invites with his new book, Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union. While secessionism is probably most commonly associated with the Civil War, Kreitner shows that support for disbanding the union has always been present throughout the country’s history and among Americans with contrasting political beliefs, including abolitionists. As Kreitner notes in the book, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison considered the Constitution “a pact with the devil.” While opposition to the idea of a union existed even within the original colonies, Donald Trump has highlighted the fault lines and contradictions in federalism significantly over the past four years, causing many, including Kreitner, to reconsider the value in staying together.
We talked to Kreitner about why he thinks the left should stop dismissing secession as a relic of right-wing America and whether collective action through local rather than national channels might be the only way to rehabilitate the country’s political, social, and economic landscapes. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
—Jessica Suriano
J essica S uriano: Why did you think it was important in this book to address all of these other separatist movements that have happened in the past and across the political spectrum?
R icky K reitner: Of course everybody’s heard about the Confederacy and slavery, and it started my historical research, but that’s not really where the book came from. It came from this late-Obama-era moment where the thought occurred to me just based on things I’d been reading: What if the United States broke apart? Would that be such a bad thing? Is it possible that the progressive policies and programs that I wanted to see put into place might be easier to enact in a smaller entity than the United States, with its 330 million people and the need to always convince people with very different attitudes and interests? So with that question, I was curious if anybody else in American history had favored secession for noble or progressive reasons—not to perpetuate slavery but even to oppose it. 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 answer, I quickly found, is yes: There were disunion abolitionists who were fiercely against slavery and who wanted the northern states to secede from the union in the 1840s and 1850s as a way not only to protest slavery but to undermine it. Taking in their arguments and their rhetoric was really, really interesting. One of the places I started was with this convention that took place in Worcester, Mass., in January of 1857. It was summoned by a bunch of abolitionists right after the first presidential election in which the Republican Party ran a candidate, John C. Fremont, who was opposed to slavery. A lot of Republicans had said that the fate of the Republic, of the union, and then of freedom itself depended on Fremont’s victory. When that didn’t occur, the Republicans were ready to just try again in four years, but the hard-core abolitionists said, “Well, what about everything you were just talking about?” They thought the fate of the Republic was at stake; if so, maybe it was time to end the union. That rhetoric really appealed to me in the fall of 2016, when Trump won, and it was like, “Wow, is a country that elects Trump possibly worth saving?”
JS: Do you think that people who support the abolition movement today should also at least see the value in having a conversation about secession? Related Article The Only Thing Stopping Us From Taxing the Rich Is Political Will Clio Chang
RK: That’s a really good question and a really, really hard one. The one important moment in the formation of my thoughts that led to the book was when I was researching in the library one day in the fall of 2014 about the union and the founding and the Constitution and slavery and who the country really served. I was already thinking about this as I walked down Sixth Avenue downtown, and this was right after the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., was acquitted. There were protests going on all across the country. I passed a sign that said, “The system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.” That just really lodged in my brain, because it seemed to describe not only the systems of police brutality and white supremacy that the protests were about, but also the Constitution that I was reading about and trying to really grapple with, with its effects on present-day progressive movements and ideas.
It did strike me at that moment that maybe the union is our enemy. We have this idea—this fantasy, it seems sometimes—that federal power is always going to be on our side. And I think that’s kind of an inheritance from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that the federal government is on the side of civil rights. But I’m not so sure. Especially after 2013, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, and various other instances, it really seems like the Supreme Court is not our friend, and I’m not sure that the federal union is, either. I’m not really sure whether the modern abolitionist movement wants to be talking about state secession, but I think that it might be time to start talking about other things like localism or regionalism—the idea of devolving power from the federal government down to a more local level, where perhaps we can more easily enact truly reformist and radical changes to a totally broken so-called justice system.
JS: In the protests this year, you would see a lot of signs along the lines of “A better world is possible.” Could the secession of states or a breaking apart be almost contradictory for people who want to see more collectivism? Is there a way for us to all work together to accomplish that better world, or do we have to separate to do that?
RK: The idea is kind of predicated on the hypothesis that maybe collectivism and working together is more possible and more feasible at a smaller scale than a national one. My first choice would be to have an effective national government, a strong united country. I would abolish the Senate, and I would have a constitutional convention. That not being likely, or should it turn out in 10 to 20 years to not be possible, then I think we need to radically reconsider whether a different federal arrangement, a different framework for our politics than arguing over everything in Washington, D.C., might revive democracy and make collective action more possible, at least in some places. Is that defeatist? Is that pessimistic? I suppose so, but I look around and see a lot of cause for pessimism. You mentioned the signs at the protest, but one that really stood out to me is from a scholar named Chenjerai Kumanyika. The sign that had the quote from him says, “We are trying to make this country something it has never been.”
I keep thinking about that because, yeah, that is what we’re trying to do—but the problem is, that’s how the other side sees it as well. That’s how the white supremacists see it as well. We’re trying to make this country something it has never been, and they want no part of it. I want to defeat them, I want to crush them, but I think if you look at the country that we have, I just don’t know if that’s going to be possible. So if it’s not going to be possible to make this country something it’s never been, maybe we need to start a new one.
JS: So the idea is, why not think really big if the country is so broken?
RK: I’m in touch with people all the time who are talking about localism and cooperative movements. It’s kind of a ’70s “small is beautiful” idea. But after Trump’s election, it really is gaining a lot more adherents in one way or another. You’re kind of landing on the idea of the book, which is essentially an argument for the left to start talking about these things and to embrace ideas—and really a whole worldview—that is largely rejected or relegated to the right. It is kind of a radical thought, but I also think it might be one of the only things that we can actually get both sides in this country to agree on, because there are people on the right who also favor secession and devolution or even disunion. Often, the one thing we have in common is the desire to have nothing to do with one another, and it seems to me that’s the case right now.
The modern left, we kind of have these blinders on where we’re only thinking about this kind of inherited way of looking at things that began with the Progressive era in the 1910s or so and culminated with the civil rights movement. We made a lot of progress, but I’m not sure that—at least with the present Constitution, which I think is really the problem—we will be able to make much more.
JS: Throughout the book, it seems like capitalism, or at least what we now call capitalism, has always been tied hand in hand with all of these political disagreements. Do you think devolving into these smaller communities is a way that we could finally break our society off from a capitalism dependence?
RK: I would hope so. It might be the case that the West Coast or the Northeast could institute certain policies for economic redistribution or even capital controls or something that the country at large is never going to do. I did find throughout the book that capitalism—it wasn’t called that in the 1780s—and the union often go hand in hand. The union began essentially as a common market that would allow merchants to trade their goods across state lines without paying tariffs. That’s all it was. Nobody really wanted it to be much more than that. In the 1780s, the push toward a stronger union, a more perfect union, a stronger Constitution, came from people like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, who were deeply invested in state securities and western lands and whatnot, and whose investments, they believed, would only appreciate and bring them great profits with a strong federal government in a more closely integrated union.
People who are for economic redistribution and the abolition of debts are against that; they’re against the stronger union and for states’ rights and local self-government. There are some interesting rebellions in the 1780s, of course—Shays’s Rebellion most famously—where these people are calling for the state government to see to their demands for debt relief and tax relief. The more national-minded politicians are totally against that, and that’s a major impetus for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Skip ahead almost a century, to the 1870s, and I also find that capitalism and the needs of the wealthy are behind the push for reunion after the Civil War at any cost. They’re basically the ones who pull the plug on Reconstruction and say, “This isn’t worth it. It’s cutting into our profits.” I wonder if the populists and the egalitarians of our own day will come to see the union as a force of economic oppression.
I should say there’s another school of thought, which says that in a dissolved United States, corporations would have even greater sway, and right now only the federal government is protecting us from their depredations at all. That may well be the case.
It’s hard stuff to think about. And honestly, what is the union doing for us, and would we be better off without it? I could have written a book about that question. This is actually not a book about that question; this is the book that I wrote to avoid having to answer that question. It’s essentially a historical investigation instead of a political manifesto. I’m hoping that it will give readers food for thought to decide for themselves what they think of the union and whether it’s serving their purposes, and then to ask if they see themselves in any of these movements and people who questioned it before and argued in favor of secession or disunion.
JS: Toward the end of the book, you repeat its central questions: What are we risking by staying together, and what could we be risking (or gaining) by separating? Now that the book is published, do you feel any closer to having an answer to those things?
RK: I don’t want the country to break up today—I feel pretty comfortable and confident in saying that. I don’t think the moment has come, but I think that it might. As I was saying earlier, I think that this needs to be basically a live option that we have available to us. We need to not dismiss it as solely the province of the Confederacy and of slave owners. I think it would be extremely messy and unfortunate, but ideologically, I think that the option of devolution or even of disunion needs to be available for us. I find it totally conceivable to imagine moments, really in the not too distant future, in which I would wholeheartedly support breaking up the country. I’m basically trying to provide a history that suggests that we shouldn’t be so scared of the idea.


thenation--2020-09-29--What Is Chris Wallace Thinking?

What Is Chris Wallace Thinking?

This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .
At tonight ’ s presidential debate in Cleveland , moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News will doubtless ask Donald Trump about the blockbuster New York Times report that Trump paid only $ 750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017 and no federal income taxes at all in 10 of the last 15 years .
Wallace would be laughed out of the journalistic community if he failed to question a sitting president about such an obviously newsworthy revelation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to ask Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden about an even more urgent , subject : the climate crisis that is well on its way to rendering the earth uninhabitable in our children ’ s lifetimes ?
On September 14 , Trump visited California as the state suffered its worst wildfires in recorded history .
Governor Gavin Newsom and other California officials implored Trump to recognize the scientific consensus that rising temperatures and drought were making such fires worse .
“ It ’ ll start getting cooler , you just watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slip the Industry Ties That Prevent Change ?
These Races Will Shape What the US Elections Mean for Climate Progress The Media ’ s Climate Coverage Is Improving , but Time Is Very Short More in this series “ I wish science agreed with you , ” said Wade Crowfoot , the secretary of California ’ s Natural Resources Agency .
In fact , the science is unequivocal : There is zero chance of the earth “ getting cooler ” anytime soon .
Once emitted , carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if all CO2 emissions were halted overnight , global temperatures would keep rising “ for about 25 to 30 years , ” Sir David King , the former chief science advisor to the British government , has explained .
As the presidential race enters its final weeks , will journalists challenge Trump ’ s dangerous inaccuracies about the intensifying heat waves , wildfires , and other impacts that are locked in for decades to come on this planet ?
Will they help the public understand the facts , perhaps by reporting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a climate emergency ” ?
Will they reference United Nations Secretary General António Guterres ’ s statement that even in this time of a global pandemic , ensuing economic contraction , racial justice protests , and other front page news , “ the climate emergency is the central question facing the world ” ?
The upcoming three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate offer an excellent opportunity to ventilate these questions , but don ’ t hold your breath .
Wallace has made clear that climate change is not one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Biden tonight .
And while climate change is intrinsically connected to each of the six subjects Wallace does plans to address—most obviously , “ the records ” of each candidate—Wallace ’ s ambition to be “ as invisible as possible ” during the debate makes it unlikely he ’ ll ask about those connections .
If climate change is to be discussed , it ’ s Biden who will have to raise it .
It ’ s tempting to ascribe Wallace ’ s omission to the climate denial that pervades Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but unfortunately it ’ s also true that much of the US mainstream media has long maintained a kind of Climate Silence .
Moderators asked not a single question about climate change during the 2016 presidential debates .
Or the 2012 , 2008 , or 2004 debates .
( One must go back to 2000 to find 14 minutes of discussion between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W .
Bush . )
And this summer , US television networks were shamefully reticent about reporting how climate change was contributing to the fires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic and Gulf coasts .
Only one of the 93 news segments that ABC , NBC , CBS , CNN , Fox , and MSNBC aired during the week after Hurricane Laura slammed Louisiana connected the storm to climate change , according to a study by the watchdog group Media Matters .
Of 46 segments ABC , NBC , and CBS aired on the California wildfires between September 5 and 8 , only seven mentioned climate change , though later reporting , especially on NBC as part of a special week of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covering Climate Now , was significantly better .
For years , many journalists have shunned plain-spoken coverage of climate change for fear they will appear partisan .
That fallacy reflects the media ’ s single greatest error in covering climate change : treating it as a political story more than a science story .
But the science of carbon dioxide is indifferent to political partisanship ; it remains true whether presidents—or journalists—accept it or not .
The 2020 elections will shape whether humanity will “ keep driving off the climate cliff or take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in July in Time , one of a growing number of news outlets finally doing justice to the climate story .
Just as Americans deserve to know before they vote whether their president pays his fair share of taxes , so they should know whether all candidates seeking public office—for the presidency , Congress , state , and local offices—respect climate science , understand what ’ s at stake , and have real plans to address this onrushing emergency .
But voters can ’ t easily do that without journalists ’ help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate truth from fiction and the important from the trivial .
The press should be asking the climate question at the presidential debates and every opportunity from now through Election Day .
Anything less is a betrayal of our civic duty as journalists .

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
At tonight’s presidential debate in Cleveland, moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News will doubtless ask Donald Trump about the blockbuster New York Times report that Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017 and no federal income taxes at all in 10 of the last 15 years. Wallace would be laughed out of the journalistic community if he failed to question a sitting president about such an obviously newsworthy revelation. But why isn’t Wallace planning to ask Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden about an even more urgent, subject: the climate crisis that is well on its way to rendering the earth uninhabitable in our children’s lifetimes?
On September 14, Trump visited California as the state suffered its worst wildfires in recorded history. Governor Gavin Newsom and other California officials implored Trump to recognize the scientific consensus that rising temperatures and drought were making such fires worse.
“It’ll start getting cooler, you just watch,” Trump responded.
“I wish science agreed with you,” said Wade Crowfoot, the secretary of California’s Natural Resources Agency. Covering Climate Now How to Stop the Spread of Climate Disinformation Erika Seiber and Michael Khoo A Soundtrack for the Climate Emergency Mark Hertsgaard Can Gen Z Save the Midterms for Democrats? Mark Hertsgaard
“I don’t think science knows, actually,” Trump shot back.
In fact, the science is unequivocal: There is zero chance of the earth “getting cooler” anytime soon. Once emitted, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, trapping heat, for many decades. Even if all CO2 emissions were halted overnight, global temperatures would keep rising “for about 25 to 30 years,” Sir David King, the former chief science advisor to the British government, has explained.
As the presidential race enters its final weeks, will journalists challenge Trump’s dangerous inaccuracies about the intensifying heat waves, wildfires, and other impacts that are locked in for decades to come on this planet? Will they help the public understand the facts, perhaps by reporting that 11,000 scientists have warned that humanity faces “a climate emergency”? Will they reference United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’s statement that even in this time of a global pandemic, ensuing economic contraction, racial justice protests, and other front page news, “the climate emergency is the central question facing the world”? 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 upcoming three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate offer an excellent opportunity to ventilate these questions, but don’t hold your breath. Wallace has made clear that climate change is not one of the subjects he plans to discuss with Trump and Biden tonight. And while climate change is intrinsically connected to each of the six subjects Wallace does plans to address—most obviously, “the records” of each candidate—Wallace’s ambition to be “as invisible as possible” during the debate makes it unlikely he’ll ask about those connections. If climate change is to be discussed, it’s Biden who will have to raise it.
It’s tempting to ascribe Wallace’s omission to the climate denial that pervades Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, but unfortunately it’s also true that much of the US mainstream media has long maintained a kind of Climate Silence. Moderators asked not a single question about climate change during the 2016 presidential debates. Or the 2012, 2008, or 2004 debates. (One must go back to 2000 to find 14 minutes of discussion between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush.) And this summer, US television networks were shamefully reticent about reporting how climate change was contributing to the fires in California and the hurricanes pummeling the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Only one of the 93 news segments that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC aired during the week after Hurricane Laura slammed Louisiana connected the storm to climate change, according to a study by the watchdog group Media Matters. Of 46 segments ABC, NBC, and CBS aired on the California wildfires between September 5 and 8, only seven mentioned climate change, though later reporting, especially on NBC as part of a special week of “Climate Politics 2020” coverage coordinated by Covering Climate Now, was significantly better. Current Issue View our current issue
For years, many journalists have shunned plain-spoken coverage of climate change for fear they will appear partisan. That fallacy reflects the media’s single greatest error in covering climate change: treating it as a political story more than a science story. But the science of carbon dioxide is indifferent to political partisanship; it remains true whether presidents—or journalists—accept it or not.
The 2020 elections will shape whether humanity will “keep driving off the climate cliff or take the last exit,” Justin Worland wrote in July in Time, one of a growing number of news outlets finally doing justice to the climate story. Just as Americans deserve to know before they vote whether their president pays his fair share of taxes, so they should know whether all candidates seeking public office—for the presidency, Congress, state, and local offices—respect climate science, understand what’s at stake, and have real plans to address this onrushing emergency. But voters can’t easily do that without journalists’ help. It’s our job to separate truth from fiction and the important from the trivial. The press should be asking the climate question at the presidential debates and every opportunity from now through Election Day. Anything less is a betrayal of our civic duty as journalists.


thenation--2020-09-29--Justice for Breonna Taylor

Justice for Breonna Taylor

It ’ s been a terrible week for those of us in Kentucky .
After Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced last week that the officers who murdered Breonna Taylor would walk away from their crime essentially without punishment , I and the rest of my community were left reeling .
Breonna Taylor , a Black woman who had devoted her life to taking care of other people , had been resting her head in her own home , guilty of nothing , but died at the hands of police officers whose salaries she helped pay .
I stood at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe to be true : that justice , like it did with Trayvon Martin , and Amadou Diallo , and Sandra Bland , and Eric Garner , failed us .
By which I mean far more than just that Breonna ’ s door was knocked down , because justice has been failing us for generations .
Poverty is pervasive , generational , and heavily criminalized .
Inequity is structural and weighing down communities all across our commonwealth .
As a Black man living in one of the most segregated cities in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorest states in the country , I see injustice every day I wake up .
We know we are more likely to be seen as a deadly weapon before being seen as a human being .
We know due process is something that never seems to come due for us .
We know facts and evidence wont be used to protect us .
We know the agencies and institutions can discriminate and hurt us with impunity .
We Daniel Cameron ’ s announcement on Wednesday was likely to happen , as disgusting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been telling you we can ’ t breathe , so we knew not to hold our breath .
The announcement by the attorney general wasn ’ t anything new or unexpected ; it just reinforced all of the injustice we had come to know .
It is easy this week to feel hopeless ; how can we continue to believe the future will hold anything different , when every week , we watch a new name become a hashtag ?
How can we hope for justice in the future , when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day ?
This week , though , I stood with and embraced Ms. Tamika Palmer , Breonna ’ s mom .
In her , I see my own mother , a remarkable Black woman who has suffered unspeakable loss , but who is still able to show the strength to put an entire nation on her back .
She , more than any of us , has license to want it all burned down .
Her tears , her heartbreak have been broadcast on every channel and covered in every publication .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office of the Kentucky attorney general burned down .
Even through her pain , she ’ s had the incredible fortitude and moral clarity to show us that justice will require system-level change .
It won ’ t happen simply because our humanity deserves it , as her daughter ’ s unconscionable murder shows ; it will come because we refuse to let the light of hope alive within each of our spirits die out .
Within a system that wants to crush us , that wants us to stop resisting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionary thing we can do .
And there is reason for hope .
Public attitudes on racial justice issues have shifted dramatically over the last four years ; the average American now no longer finds the phrase “ Black lives matter ” controversial .
We are witnessing and leading a true shift in our city and this county .
The fight for justice , for Breonna specifically and Black lives generally , is being lifted as the fight for our collective future .
Divisions of race , geography , and class are giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healing .
Change is possible now more than ever , because we realize that we are that change .
We have to continue to look forward .
We must continue to demand justice for Breonna Taylor , and never stop saying her name , for every person fighting to make justice real .
For a family and community facing unyielding trauma .
We must say her name for every Black woman who battles injustice in silence .
Say her name as a declaration to ending structural and institutional racism .
Say her name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
We must not move past Breonna ’ s murder ; we deserve basic transparency , and people should understand what led to the decision to let her killers off the hook .
Kentuckians deserve to see the police file and the evidence presented to the grand jury , and they deserve to see transcripts of the jury ’ s deliberations .
We must demand that justice be made real for Breonna .
And beyond that , we must continue to keep hope alive for a more just future .
That hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As hurt as we are , I have seen a spark of hope grow in our spirit that reminds me of the stories my grandad told me about the civil rights movement .
It makes me think of the ancestors like my own , who had nothing but hope , as they ran their way to freedom on the Underground Railroad .
For periods of our history , all we ’ ve had is the flame of hope , and we ’ ve done a lot with it .
For Breonna Taylor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for future generations , let ’ s never allow Donald Trump and his allies in hate to take it away from us .
Through our love , our organizing , our advocacy , our leadership , and our vote , let ’ s continue to say her name .

It’s been a terrible week for those of us in Kentucky. After Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced last week that the officers who murdered Breonna Taylor would walk away from their crime essentially without punishment, I and the rest of my community were left reeling. Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who had devoted her life to taking care of other people, had been resting her head in her own home, guilty of nothing, but died at the hands of police officers whose salaries she helped pay. I stood at a press conference this week and said what I believe to be true: that justice, like it did with Trayvon Martin, and Amadou Diallo, and Sandra Bland, and Eric Garner, failed us.
By which I mean far more than just that Breonna’s door was knocked down, because justice has been failing us for generations. Poverty is pervasive, generational, and heavily criminalized. Inequity is structural and weighing down communities all across our commonwealth. As a Black man living in one of the most segregated cities in the country, found within one of the poorest states in the country, I see injustice every day I wake up. We know we are more likely to be seen as a deadly weapon before being seen as a human being. We know due process is something that never seems to come due for us. We know facts and evidence wont be used to protect us. We know the agencies and institutions can discriminate and hurt us with impunity. We Daniel Cameron’s announcement on Wednesday was likely to happen, as disgusting and crushing as it was. We’ve been telling you we can’t breathe, so we knew not to hold our breath. The announcement by the attorney general wasn’t anything new or unexpected; it just reinforced all of the injustice we had come to know.
It is easy this week to feel hopeless; how can we continue to believe the future will hold anything different, when every week, we watch a new name become a hashtag? How can we hope for justice in the future, when there’s so much injustice around us every day?
This week, though, I stood with and embraced Ms. Tamika Palmer, Breonna’s mom. In her, I see my own mother, a remarkable Black woman who has suffered unspeakable loss, but who is still able to show the strength to put an entire nation on her back. She, more than any of us, has license to want it all burned down. Her tears, her heartbreak have been broadcast on every channel and covered in every publication. Still, she doesn’t want the office of the Kentucky attorney general burned down. Even through her pain, she’s had the incredible fortitude and moral clarity to show us that justice will require system-level change. It won’t happen simply because our humanity deserves it, as her daughter’s unconscionable murder shows; it will come because we refuse to let the light of hope alive within each of our spirits die out. Within a system that wants to crush us, that wants us to stop resisting, keeping that hope alive is the most revolutionary thing we can do. Breonna Taylor On Louisville, Breonna Taylor, and Muhammad Ali Dave Zirin
And there is reason for hope. Public attitudes on racial justice issues have shifted dramatically over the last four years; the average American now no longer finds the phrase “Black lives matter” controversial. We are witnessing and leading a true shift in our city and this county. The fight for justice, for Breonna specifically and Black lives generally, is being lifted as the fight for our collective future. Divisions of race, geography, and class are giving way to a common cause for true healing. Change is possible now more than ever, because we realize that we are that change.
We have to continue to look forward. We must continue to demand justice for Breonna Taylor, and never stop saying her name, for every person fighting to make justice real. For a family and community facing unyielding trauma. We must say her name for every Black woman who battles injustice in silence. Say her name as a declaration to ending structural and institutional racism. Say her name because Attorney General Daniel Cameron didn’t. We must not move past Breonna’s murder; we deserve basic transparency, and people should understand what led to the decision to let her killers off the hook. Kentuckians deserve to see the police file and the evidence presented to the grand jury, and they deserve to see transcripts of the jury’s deliberations. We must demand that justice be made real for Breonna.
And beyond that, we must continue to keep hope alive for a more just future. That hope must be our inspiration to lead. As hurt as we are, I have seen a spark of hope grow in our spirit that reminds me of the stories my grandad told me about the civil rights movement. It makes me think of the ancestors like my own, who had nothing but hope, as they ran their way to freedom on the Underground Railroad. For periods of our history, all we’ve had is the flame of hope, and we’ve done a lot with it. For Breonna Taylor, for our children, for our neighbors, and for future generations, let’s never allow Donald Trump and his allies in hate to take it away from us. Through our love, our organizing, our advocacy, our leadership, and our vote, let’s continue to say her name.
Justice for Breonna Taylor.


thenation--2020-09-29--If You Think Amy Coney Barrett Is Extreme, Meet Judy Shelton

The United States is understandably going through a Supreme Court nomination frenzy .
The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the cynical postures of the Senate , and the prospect of decades of conservative court domination should Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed all provide more than enough drama .
There is , however , another nomination getting much less attention—even though , arguably , it poses at least as much risk : Trump ’ s nomination of Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve board .
As Trump appointees go , Federal Reserve chairman Jerome “ Jay ” Powell has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , he was widely praised for swift and dramatic action when the Covid pandemic emerged , freeing up trillions of dollars to support the economy .
More recently , his decision to abandon decades of Federal Reserve policy by downplaying the 2 percent inflation target was applauded by most liberal and left economists .
As a reward , Powell has found himself constantly attacked by the president , who asked in a 2019 tweet whether Powell or Chinese premier Xi Jinping was a greater enemy of the American people ( although more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ most improved player.
” ) But Powell will not be Fed chair forever , and Trump seems more likely to get a Federal Reserve he can control if Shelton is approved by the Senate for one of the board ’ s seven seats .
Shelton , a longtime research fellow at the Hoover Institute , was an adviser to Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign and until last year was the US envoy to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ( The Wall Street Journal reported that she was absent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during her tenure ) .
To say that Shelton has taken positions outside the economic mainstream is a severe understatement .
Her advocacy for the gold standard and her views on financial regulation place her on the absolute fringe of modern economic thought , and if enacted would lead to economic chaos .
The Federal Reserve is deeply flawed and deserves constant scrutiny and criticism .
Yet , as evidenced by the 2008 financial meltdown and the pandemic-induced financial crisis this year , a central financial authority is an absolute necessity in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse and economies will be destroyed for years , if not permanently .
As bad as the American economy may be right now , if Powell had not this spring authorized the overnight creation of trillions of dollars , there would be millions more Americans out of work and thousands more shuttered businesses .
Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think But Shelton doesn ’ t believe in the idea of a Federal Reserve system , or indeed any power of government to determine the value or supply of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meltdown , Shelton argued that the United States should “ repeal all current federal legal tender laws , ” ( p. 301 ) which would return the US financial system to its crazy-quilt pre–Civil War status , when states , banks , and companies could all issue their own money .
She advocates eliminating the Federal Reserve ’ s open market operations and ending the Fed ’ s ability to hold government debt—the very tools that Powell and previous Fed chairs have used to try to keep and get us out of recessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in service of reinstating a version of the gold standard , in which the dollar is tied to a specific amount of gold ( as was the case in the Bretton Woods international financial system , which ended in 1971 ) and gold coins would be widely circulated .
Every serious examination of an American gold standard over the last century has concluded that it would be unworkable at best , and likely to lead to economic catastrophe .
In a 2012 survey of 40 economists teaching at major American universities , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of returning to a gold standard .
Richard Thaler , an economist at the University of Chicago , quipped , “ Why tie to gold ?
Why not ’ 82 Bordeaux ?
” The gold standard has not been part of the Federal Reserve ’ s thinking for more than half a century .
Even Alan Greenspan , a longtime gold-standard advocate whom Ronald Reagan appointed as Fed chairman in 1987 , admitted in his confirmation hearing that “ fixing the price of gold by central bank intervention seems out of reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a policy goal .
Shelton has also taken the scary position that the US government should not guarantee bank deposits , a confidence-boosting safeguard that dates back to the Great Depression ; some version of deposit insurance exists in every major economy in the world .
To Shelton , federal deposit insurance “ undermines the integrity of the banking industry in the United States by steering it in the direction of excessively risky loan portfolios.
” As for your savings account , Shelton wants to disabuse you of “ the mistaken notion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banking institutions can be thought of as being safe.
” ( pp .
305-6 ) Or at least that ’ s what Shelton wrote in her 1994 book .
When questioned during a February Senate hearing , Shelton said “ I totally support federal deposit insurance .
We ’ ve had it since 1933.
” Little wonder that senators accused her of a “ confirmation conversion.
” Will Shelton be confirmed ?
In July , the Senate Banking Committee voted 13-12 to send her confirmation to the full Senate .
No Democratic senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 , Bloomberg reported that Republicans Mitt Romney and Susan Collins would not vote for her and that Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski were uncertain .
Republicans ’ rubber-stamping Trump ’ s positions and appointees is nothing new , but in the case of Judy Shelton , such complaisance could create long-term economic damage well after Trump leaves office .

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 United States is understandably going through a Supreme Court nomination frenzy. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the cynical postures of the Senate, and the prospect of decades of conservative court domination should Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed all provide more than enough drama. There is, however, another nomination getting much less attention—even though, arguably, it poses at least as much risk: Trump’s nomination of Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve board.
As Trump appointees go, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome “Jay” Powell has been a pleasant surprise. In March and April, he was widely praised for swift and dramatic action when the Covid pandemic emerged, freeing up trillions of dollars to support the economy. More recently, his decision to abandon decades of Federal Reserve policy by downplaying the 2 percent inflation target was applauded by most liberal and left economists. As a reward, Powell has found himself constantly attacked by the president, who asked in a 2019 tweet whether Powell or Chinese premier Xi Jinping was a greater enemy of the American people (although more recently Trump has referred to Powell as the “most improved player.”)
But Powell will not be Fed chair forever, and Trump seems more likely to get a Federal Reserve he can control if Shelton is approved by the Senate for one of the board’s seven seats. Shelton, a longtime research fellow at the Hoover Institute, was an adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and until last year was the US envoy to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The Wall Street Journal reported that she was absent from 12 of the 28 board meetings during her tenure). To say that Shelton has taken positions outside the economic mainstream is a severe understatement. Her advocacy for the gold standard and her views on financial regulation place her on the absolute fringe of modern economic thought, and if enacted would lead to economic chaos.
The Federal Reserve is deeply flawed and deserves constant scrutiny and criticism. Yet, as evidenced by the 2008 financial meltdown and the pandemic-induced financial crisis this year, a central financial authority is an absolute necessity in a crisis. Without it, markets will collapse and economies will be destroyed for years, if not permanently. As bad as the American economy may be right now, if Powell had not this spring authorized the overnight creation of trillions of dollars, there would be millions more Americans out of work and thousands more shuttered businesses. Extremism Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal
But Shelton doesn’t believe in the idea of a Federal Reserve system, or indeed any power of government to determine the value or supply of money. In her 1994 book Money Meltdown, Shelton argued that the United States should “repeal all current federal legal tender laws,” (p. 301) which would return the US financial system to its crazy-quilt pre–Civil War status, when states, banks, and companies could all issue their own money. She advocates eliminating the Federal Reserve’s open market operations and ending the Fed’s ability to hold government debt—the very tools that Powell and previous Fed chairs have used to try to keep and get us out of recessions. 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
All of these extremist views are in service of reinstating a version of the gold standard, in which the dollar is tied to a specific amount of gold (as was the case in the Bretton Woods international financial system, which ended in 1971) and gold coins would be widely circulated.
Every serious examination of an American gold standard over the last century has concluded that it would be unworkable at best, and likely to lead to economic catastrophe. In a 2012 survey of 40 economists teaching at major American universities, a total of zero responded favorably to the idea of returning to a gold standard. Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago, quipped, “Why tie to gold? Why not ’82 Bordeaux?” Current Issue View our current issue
The gold standard has not been part of the Federal Reserve’s thinking for more than half a century. Even Alan Greenspan, a longtime gold-standard advocate whom Ronald Reagan appointed as Fed chairman in 1987, admitted in his confirmation hearing that “fixing the price of gold by central bank intervention seems out of reach,” and never seriously pursued it as a policy goal.
Shelton has also taken the scary position that the US government should not guarantee bank deposits, a confidence-boosting safeguard that dates back to the Great Depression; some version of deposit insurance exists in every major economy in the world. To Shelton, federal deposit insurance “undermines the integrity of the banking industry in the United States by steering it in the direction of excessively risky loan portfolios.” As for your savings account, Shelton wants to disabuse you of “the mistaken notion that funds deposited in interest-bearing accounts at banking institutions can be thought of as being safe.”(pp. 305-6)
Or at least that’s what Shelton wrote in her 1994 book. When questioned during a February Senate hearing, Shelton said “I totally support federal deposit insurance. We’ve had it since 1933.” Little wonder that senators accused her of a “confirmation conversion.”
Will Shelton be confirmed? In July, the Senate Banking Committee voted 13-12 to send her confirmation to the full Senate. No Democratic senator will vote for her. On September 15, Bloomberg reported that Republicans Mitt Romney and Susan Collins would not vote for her and that Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski were uncertain. Republicans’ rubber-stamping Trump’s positions and appointees is nothing new, but in the case of Judy Shelton, such complaisance could create long-term economic damage well after Trump leaves office.


thenation--2020-09-29--Amid Trump’s Wreckage, Democrats Have New Opportunities—if They Seize Them

It is ironic that for someone who built his fortune on real estate construction , Donald Trump ’ s singular “ achievement ” as president has been as a wrecker .
He has shattered virtually every single presidential norm in American politics .
Paradoxically , the sheer magnitude of this wreckage presents Joe Biden and the Democratic Party with an excellent opportunity to reconstruct the American economy in a way fundamentally different from anything that has been tried over the past 40 years .
That means going beyond “ Never Trumpism ” and embracing a positive vision of national developmentalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has neglected for decades .
Back in 2016 , in marked contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee of the past half-century , Trump attacked Wall Street , free trade , international financiers ( especially Goldman Sachs ) .
Even more striking , he critiqued the entire basis of post–World War II economic development that was largely constructed on the failed promises of globalization : Ironically , this is the very message that also animated the Bernie Sanders campaigns of 2016 and 2020 .
Trump ’ s Tax Evasion Is an Indictment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to highlight the gaps between Trump ’ s 2016 rhetoric and the underlying reality of his presidency .
Not only has the president failed to “ drain the swamp ” ; he has turned his administration into a cesspool of corporate cronyism and rent-seeking .
Former vice president Biden , however , must also combine this with a positive message of national regeneration if he is to reduce the “ enthusiasm gap ” now evident in polling—the kind of message that resonated with those same working-class Rust Belt voters , enough of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give him his slender margin of victory .
A national industrial policy that promises to “ level up ” hitherto depressed regions can be a winner for Biden .
Consider the recent example in the UK , where Boris Johnson ’ s Conservative Party secured a huge election victory last December , largely by creating a powerful new coalition that promised to regenerate economic growth , especially in regions that have long drawn the short end of the stick in the globalization sweepstakes .
These proposals included significant investments in public infrastructure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional research hubs funded in large part by the state .
This aid would be overwhelmingly focused in the economically depressed North and Midlands , bringing together private finance , universities , vocational colleges , and business associations , to reduce the heavy financialization of the British economy , as well as minimizing regional wealth disparities .
Today , America ’ s two dominant political parties are in flux .
However , that creates opportunities for Biden , much as the Great Depression of the 1930s temporarily incapacitated the country ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fundamentally alter the American economic landscape and create a dominant new governing coalition in the process .
That coalition served Democrats well for decades .
But it is now in shambles , as Democrats have increasingly come to rely on big money from new power centers , which has in turn shifted their policy priorities .
The problem is that these new policy priorities have increasingly alienated the party from its traditional base , which culminated in the 2016 election fiasco .
The party ’ s historic constituencies , especially organized labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in turn , become more receptive to Trump ’ s message on trade , immigration , and nationalism , while the technocratic elites and neocons , who increasingly are migrating to the Democratic Party , in turn have blithely led us from one major policy failure to the next : disastrous wars of choice , numerous financial crises , growing inequality , and a lackluster response to a climate crisis that is currently incinerating the country ’ s West Coast .
Winning back working-class voters , while concomitantly sustaining enthusiasm among progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the smokestack industries of the 1950s but rather a Green New Deal that reconfigures our outdated public infrastructure .
Biden ’ s proposals , as outlined by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph , feature “ hydrogen for road freight , shipping , and aviation ; 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines , with 500,000 charging stations for electric vehicles ; the installation of 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines ; and a federal blitz to drive down the cost of grid-scale energy storage tenfold.
” That represents a good first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
Biden must also build on the shoulders of his great progressive predecessors who occupied the White House .
FDR ’ s New Deal and LBJ ’ s Great Society are both signature Democratic Party achievements .
Instead of running away from them , or trying to cut them , Biden should be building on them .
Imagine how a New Deal type of program today could have substantially cushioned today ’ s coronavirus-induced unemployment crisis .
Likewise , Medicare for All ( as opposed to having health care be a condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of lives and mitigated the worst impacts of Covid-19 .
Even here , industrial policy becomes key .
Biden must address key gaps in our supply chains , which the pandemic highlighted—notably crucial face mask shortages , and inadequate quantities of hospital personal protection equipment .
Senator Elizabeth Warren ’ s introduction last July of her sweeping Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense and Enhancement Act demonstrates that Washington is beginning to reach a consensus on this issue—this is no longer the sole province of Trump ’ s “ America First ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 crisis and better equip the United States against future pandemics , we must boost our country ’ s manufacturing capacity , ” Warren said , recasting the consequences of decades of policy to offshore our economic production as an “ overreliance on foreign countries.
” Warren ’ s warnings take on new force in light of Beijing ’ s threat to restrict American access to medical supplies in retaliation for intensifying US regulations on Huawei .
Perversely , the Biden campaign is downplaying its reformist impulses , for example cynically suggesting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some publicly mooted financial proposals that undermined the power of the banks would not be central to a Biden presidency .
That smacks too much of the Wall Street appeasement that ultimately doomed Obama ’ s attempted bank reforms and contributed to much of today ’ s prevailing disillusionment among voters .
With Trump now narrowing Biden ’ s lead in the polls , championing weak incrementalism and making sure nothing fundamentally changes is potentially disastrous .
As Robert Kuttner argues , the United States faces the twin challenges of “ restoring a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deeply corrupted economy.
” Given the non-stop 24 hour circus that pervades the Trump presidency , it is understandable why some believe that voters simply crave a “ return to normalcy.
” But “ normalcy ” brought Warren Harding , hardly an inspiring totem for the Democrats .
Great leaders don ’ t anesthetize ; they lead and inspire .
Tepid managerial technocracy of the sort being offered by recent Democratic administrations won ’ t address today ’ s massive challenges .
A great coalition predicated on social solidarity and national industrial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term success .

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?
It is ironic that for someone who built his fortune on real estate construction, Donald Trump’s singular “achievement” as president has been as a wrecker. He has shattered virtually every single presidential norm in American politics. Paradoxically, the sheer magnitude of this wreckage presents Joe Biden and the Democratic Party with an excellent opportunity to reconstruct the American economy in a way fundamentally different from anything that has been tried over the past 40 years. That means going beyond “Never Trumpism” and embracing a positive vision of national developmentalism, especially in regions that the market has neglected for decades.
Back in 2016, in marked contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee of the past half-century, Trump attacked Wall Street, free trade, international financiers (especially Goldman Sachs). Even more striking, he critiqued the entire basis of post–World War II economic development that was largely constructed on the failed promises of globalization:
Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.
Ironically, this is the very message that also animated the Bernie Sanders campaigns of 2016 and 2020. Related Article Trump’s Tax Evasion Is an Indictment of American Plutocracy Jeet Heer
A positive presidential campaign today needs to highlight the gaps between Trump’s 2016 rhetoric and the underlying reality of his presidency. Not only has the president failed to “drain the swamp”; he has turned his administration into a cesspool of corporate cronyism and rent-seeking. Former vice president Biden, however, must also combine this with a positive message of national regeneration if he is to reduce the “enthusiasm gap” now evident in polling—the kind of message that resonated with those same working-class Rust Belt voters, enough of whom voted for Trump last time to give him his slender margin of victory.
A national industrial policy that promises to “level up” hitherto depressed regions can be a winner for Biden. Consider the recent example in the UK, where Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party secured a huge election victory last December, largely by creating a powerful new coalition that promised to regenerate economic growth, especially in regions that have long drawn the short end of the stick in the globalization sweepstakes. These proposals included significant investments in public infrastructure, expanding internet broadband access, and creating regional research hubs funded in large part by the state. This aid would be overwhelmingly focused in the economically depressed North and Midlands, bringing together private finance, universities, vocational colleges, and business associations, to reduce the heavy financialization of the British economy, as well as minimizing regional wealth disparities. 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
Today, America’s two dominant political parties are in flux. However, that creates opportunities for Biden, much as the Great Depression of the 1930s temporarily incapacitated the country’s “economic royalists,” thereby enabling FDR to fundamentally alter the American economic landscape and create a dominant new governing coalition in the process. That coalition served Democrats well for decades. But it is now in shambles, as Democrats have increasingly come to rely on big money from new power centers, which has in turn shifted their policy priorities. Current Issue View our current issue
The problem is that these new policy priorities have increasingly alienated the party from its traditional base, which culminated in the 2016 election fiasco. The party’s historic constituencies, especially organized labor, are increasingly disenfranchised. They have, in turn, become more receptive to Trump’s message on trade, immigration, and nationalism, while the technocratic elites and neocons, who increasingly are migrating to the Democratic Party, in turn have blithely led us from one major policy failure to the next: disastrous wars of choice, numerous financial crises, growing inequality, and a lackluster response to a climate crisis that is currently incinerating the country’s West Coast.
Winning back working-class voters, while concomitantly sustaining enthusiasm among progressives, does not entail a nostalgic return to the smokestack industries of the 1950s but rather a Green New Deal that reconfigures our outdated public infrastructure. Biden’s proposals, as outlined by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph, feature “hydrogen for road freight, shipping, and aviation; 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, with 500,000 charging stations for electric vehicles; the installation of 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines; and a federal blitz to drive down the cost of grid-scale energy storage tenfold.”
That represents a good first step, but it’s not enough. Biden must also build on the shoulders of his great progressive predecessors who occupied the White House. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society are both signature Democratic Party achievements. Instead of running away from them, or trying to cut them, Biden should be building on them. Imagine how a New Deal type of program today could have substantially cushioned today’s coronavirus-induced unemployment crisis. Likewise, Medicare for All (as opposed to having health care be a condition of employment) could well have saved tens of thousands of lives and mitigated the worst impacts of Covid-19.
Even here, industrial policy becomes key. Biden must address key gaps in our supply chains, which the pandemic highlighted—notably crucial face mask shortages, and inadequate quantities of hospital personal protection equipment. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s introduction last July of her sweeping Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense and Enhancement Act demonstrates that Washington is beginning to reach a consensus on this issue—this is no longer the sole province of Trump’s “America First” movement. “To defeat the current Covid-19 crisis and better equip the United States against future pandemics, we must boost our country’s manufacturing capacity,” Warren said, recasting the consequences of decades of policy to offshore our economic production as an “overreliance on foreign countries.” Warren’s warnings take on new force in light of Beijing’s threat to restrict American access to medical supplies in retaliation for intensifying US regulations on Huawei.
Perversely, the Biden campaign is downplaying its reformist impulses, for example cynically suggesting to the party’s donor base that some publicly mooted financial proposals that undermined the power of the banks would not be central to a Biden presidency. That smacks too much of the Wall Street appeasement that ultimately doomed Obama’s attempted bank reforms and contributed to much of today’s prevailing disillusionment among voters. With Trump now narrowing Biden’s lead in the polls, championing weak incrementalism and making sure nothing fundamentally changes is potentially disastrous. As Robert Kuttner argues, the United States faces the twin challenges of “restoring a badly impaired democracy [and] redeeming a deeply corrupted economy.”
Given the non-stop 24 hour circus that pervades the Trump presidency, it is understandable why some believe that voters simply crave a “return to normalcy.” But “normalcy” brought Warren Harding, hardly an inspiring totem for the Democrats. Great leaders don’t anesthetize; they lead and inspire. Tepid managerial technocracy of the sort being offered by recent Democratic administrations won’t address today’s massive challenges. A great coalition predicated on social solidarity and national industrial policy is the real ticket to long term success.


thenation--2020-09-29--How to Brazenly, Publicly, Out-in-the-Openly Steal an Election

Support independent cartooning : join Sparky 's List—and do n't forget to visit TT 's Emporium of Fun , featuring @ @ @ @ @ 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--2020-09-30--Watch the First Presidential Debate With ‘The Nation’

And so we ’ ve finally arrived : the first of three presidential debates in what feels like—if in fact it isn ’ t—the longest election cycle in American history .
It ’ s been at least eleventy-thousand years .
( Fact check : true and , at the same time , false . )
For the first time , former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and President Donald Trump will be on stage together .
And the anticipation is killing us .
No , really , the official US death toll from Covid-19 topped 200,000 last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on fire .
Will Chris Wallace ask about Trump ’ s taxes ?
Did he add climate to his list of debate topics after an online uproar ?
Will Wallace ignore demands that Trump ’ s people reportedly made not to mention the Covid death toll ?
Time and patience , dear readers .
To ease the anxiety and maybe the sense of isolation , our correspondents will be live-tweeting the debate ; scroll down to see their commentary .
And , if you ’ re up for it , you can watch @ @ @ @ @

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?
And so we’ve finally arrived: the first of three presidential debates in what feels like—if in fact it isn’t—the longest election cycle in American history. It’s been at least eleventy-thousand years. (Fact check: true and, at the same time, false.) For the first time, former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and President Donald Trump will be on stage together. And the anticipation is killing us. No, really, the official US death toll from Covid-19 topped 200,000 last week, and the West Coast is on fire. Will Chris Wallace ask about Trump’s taxes? Did he add climate to his list of debate topics after an online uproar? Will Wallace ignore demands that Trump’s people reportedly made not to mention the Covid death toll? Time and patience, dear readers. To ease the anxiety and maybe the sense of isolation, our correspondents will be live-tweeting the debate; scroll down to see their commentary. And, if you’re up for it, you can watch the debate here too.
Post-debate update: Follow our debate night crew on Twitter. And come back next week, Wednesday, Oct. 7, for the first and only vice presidential debate.
— Anna Hiatt