motherjones--2020-12-21--5 Tips for How to Actually Change an Anti-Masker’s Mind, According to Experts

Chances are you have someone in your life—an aunt or a cousin or childhood friend or even just someone you once knew and still sometimes see at the grocery store—who doesn ’ t wear a mask .
Maybe they ’ ve posted some false information online , or spoken out against masks , or stopped you to say hello in the frozen food section , bare-faced , and you ’ re left wondering , What do I do ?
What do I say ?
What can I say ?
Figuring out how to handle this interaction became something of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determining how to win an argument with an anti-masker : If rational people are presented with clear , compelling research , I naively assumed , their minds could be changed !
While vaccines are officially on their way , research shows masking continues to be one of the most essential and effective public health tools we have—particularly as people inevitably travel and mingle over holidays .
The vast majority of Americans report wearing masks at least most of the time ( and that number has increased since the start of the pandemic ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still holding out , polls show .
But changing the mind of an anti-masker , it turns out , is not as simple as presenting research and a few statistics .
In fact , after conversations with multiple experts—physicians , science communicators , behavioral scientists , and others—I realized I was thinking about it pretty much all wrong .
These conversations are a delicate art ; there ’ s a right—and a wrong—way to have them , as supported by science .
If you want people to change their behavior , experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , curiosity , and time .
Facts and statistics come later—much later .
As Ashish Jha , a physician and dean of the Brown University School of Public Health , says , “ I ’ m not so interested in winning arguments .
I ’ m interested in helping people do things that are going to be better for them and their families.
” So instead of focusing on how to win an argument , I pivoted .
I listened to what the experts had to say .
The final result may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , but after all , isn ’ t this what science is all about ?
Adapting to new information ?
Embracing being wrong ?
If I can squash my instinct to push up my glasses and declare , Well , actually , there is a robust body of evidence suggesting masks do work to prevent the spread of COVID-19 !
, we all can .
Here are the takeaways from my conversations : Before speaking , actually listen to the other person .
The first step in any conversation about masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicine physician at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and Harvard Medical School , and a columnist at the British Medical Journal who has been outspoken on the issue of mask-wearing , is to “ check yourself ” and ask , “ Can I actually empathize with how the other person is feeling ?
” For instance , he says , can you empathize with the confusion caused by the fact that the CDC changed its initial guidance on masks ?
Can you empathize with the feeling that masks are uncomfortable ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of American culture ?
If you can ’ t see their point of view , he emphasizes , “ you ’ re gon na lose .
You ’ re gon na waste your time , you ’ re gon na waste time of other people , and your efforts would be better used on something else.
” Shaming someone or getting angry may actually make the pandemic worse , Karan says , because it causes people to dig their heels in deeper and could make them even less likely to wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think if everybody in this country became more kind , more empathetic , cared more about their neighbor , the epidemic would stop sooner , ” he adds .
“ And we ’ d all be better for it.
” Research shows that if people feel “ self-affirmed , ” they ’ re more likely to accept new information , says Matthew Facciani , a social scientist and postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University , who focuses on identity , politics , and polarization .
It may boost “ how they see themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and in doing so , people may be “ more open to identity-threatening information.
” That ’ s why genuinely listening to the other person is so important .
“ You definitely want to avoid making them feel defensive .
You want to listen to their concerns with a non-judgmental stance , and try to validate their feelings and build trust , ” he adds .
“ And you can do all this while still ultimately sticking to the facts .
But when you ’ re first building this relationship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jha , he learned this lesson over many years of talking with anti-vaxxers .
“ When I was younger , with less gray hair , I often treated people who didn ’ t take vaccines with contempt : These people are anti-science and they ’ re being dumb .
And I came to realize a ) that ’ s not helpful framing , b ) they ’ re not dumb .
They ’ re actually perfectly smart .
They ’ re often very good people.
” “ The times that I have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s views , ” he adds , “ is when I have engaged them with respect—and not argue about those facts , but help them understand how I think about the problem.
” Have the facts in your back pocket , but keep them there—at least for a little bit .
“ You want to try to resist the urge to start dumping facts on people , ” says Facciani .
Again , he urges , “ You want to validate their feelings .
I know it is kind of simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Relying on straight logic can actually backfire .
Our brains , generally speaking , operate qualitatively , not quantitatively , explains Dominique Brossard , a professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin , Madison , who focuses on risk communication .
In short , that means we tend to think in terms of emotion , not numbers .
For example , Brossard says if someone hears “ eight out of 10 people ” will contract a disease , it feels like a greater risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 800 out of 1,000 , or 80,000 out of 100,0000 , and so on .
Even if the number is the same , we react differently to it depending on how it is presented .
Similarly , our emotions can get in the way even if the risk is low , Brossard says .
Take , for instance , the case of vaccines : If you tell a mother that one out of a million children experienced a negative side effect of a vaccine , “ You know what that mother is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one [ out of a million ] may be my kid.
” In this example , Brossard says , the driving force behind the mother ’ s decision not to vaccinate isn ’ t a number , but her emotional response to it .
In most cases , “ the facts don ’ t convince anyone because they don ’ t relate to anybody , ” Brossard says .
“ They don ’ t mean anything.
” That being said , in conversations with folks who are mask hesitant , Jha says you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
“ It ’ s not about persuasion through logic and facts .
[ But ] logic and facts are important , right ?
” he says .
“ I do use data in my conversations , but I don ’ t lead with them .
I lead with values , and I lead with what matters to people.
” Instead of the facts , frame the conversation around the person ’ s values .
According to the Moral Foundations Theory , a framework developed by behavioral scientists to understand “ why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” there are five main moral values influencing our behavior : caring , fairness , loyalty , authority , and purity .
In general , says Eugene Chan , an associate professor in the Division of Consumer Science at Purdue University whose research focuses on financial , political , and health decision-making , Democrats tend to adhere to the first two values : caring and fairness .
Republicans , meanwhile , tend to find loyalty , authority , and purity most relevant .
Political ideology , of course , isn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In April , Chan conducted a 1,033-person survey about wearing masks , social distancing , and staying home during the pandemic .
He found a surprising driver of people ’ s values : age .
“ What I found was that for people who are 30 years of age or younger , they actually care about the purity foundation : To them , it goes against human nature to wear a mask when you ’ re talking with someone , ” he explains .
“ And to them , human beings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to be locked up inside their apartments or homes.
” Older people largely cared about loyalty to others .
“ To stay at home means you ’ re not just protecting yourself , you ’ re protecting the whole community , the whole country.
” The same was true about wearing masks and social distancing , he says : “ You ’ re doing these for the welfare of the entire nation.
” Overall , the survey was evidence that people ’ s values can drastically differ due to a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation with an anti-masker , it is helpful to know where they ’ re coming from .
“ My findings would suggest , ” Chan says , “ that if you ’ re trying to talk to someone about these issues , you really need to understand their moral foundations .
Why is it that you don ’ t wear a mask ?
” Try to connect over a common identity .
As part of his PhD dissertation at the University of South Carolina , completed earlier this year , Facciani conducted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred Democrats and Republicans with a series of short , fictitious stories about bullying .
Some of the stories reported that a Democrat carried out the bullying , and in others it reported that a Republican was the culprit .
Facciani then asked participants how likely they were to believe the report was true .
With no other context , Democrats tended to say it was more plausible that a Republican was the bully , and Republicans were more likely to say Democrats were the bully .
Overall people tended to think their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting the negative behavior .
“ The groups we identify with provide us with a sense of belonging and self-worth , ” Facciani writes in a piece about his research in the Conversation , a nonprofit newsroom that publishes articles from academics .
“ Thus , if we identify with a political group , our psychological motivation is to process information in a way that supports the group we belong to.
” Put another way , information that affirms our identity as part of a group is typically easier for us to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes , Democrats are more likely to support mask-wearing than Republicans : At the start of the coronavirus pandemic , Democratic leaders largely embraced mask-wearing while Republican leaders , namely , the president , resisted it .
By the same token , information that threatens our identity as part of a group may be easier to dismiss .
“ Whenever we challenge [ someone ’ s ] worldview , ” Facciani says , “ they can feel personally threatened .
And so there ’ s this motivation to instead ignore that information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beliefs that help them make sense of their social environments.
” So in a hyper-politicized mask debate , it can help to approach the conversation by establishing a common identity with the other person .
Are you both parents ?
Christians ?
Forty-Niners fans ?
If you can frame a conversation about masks around a common identity , you can use the brain against itself , in a way .
“ With having this common identity , then you ’ re saying , ‘ Oh , well , this person is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my group , ' ” Facciani says .
Jha tells me about talking with a friend ’ s wife “ who refuses to take vaccines and doesn ’ t get the flu shot , and really has lots of concerns about giving vaccines to her children.
” He explains the way they eventually “ made progress ” was pretty simple if slow-moving : “ I talked to her about how I thought about these issues for my family and understood why she was making the decisions for her family—both getting myself to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see my perspective .
And over time , she moved in terms of her own decision making.
” Know you probably aren ’ t going to change someone ’ s mind with one conversation .
So say you ’ ve gone through all these steps .
You listened .
You ’ ve empathized .
You ’ ve framed the conversation around their values and a shared identity .
Now what ?
The next step : repeat .
“ That ’ s the hard part of this , how do you persuade people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you change minds ?
Ultimately , it comes down to a lot of emotional work .
And there ’ s no real shortcut.
” Brossard echoes Facciani , saying if you want to change people ’ s minds you have to do so incrementally .
And remember : Some people are beyond convincing .
“ I pick my battles , ” says Brossard .
“ If I know somebody is really set in their beliefs , at the end of the day , you ’ re not going to change the way @ @ @ @


motherjones--2020-12-21--Instead of a Crisis, Can Biden Treat an Immigration Surge as an Opportunity?

In recent weeks , devastating hurricanes in Central America , a northbound caravan of migrants from Honduras , and a spike in the apprehension of unaccompanied minors at the United States–Mexico border have generated headlines about an imminent immigration “ crisis ” —one , some have claimed , that might be exacerbated by more lenient policies in a Biden administration .
“ If you assume that you don ’ t want any of these people coming in , no matter how many or how few , it obviously seems like a crisis , ” says Yael Schacher , an immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the author of a report released Friday titled “ Building Better , Not Backward : Learning From the Past to Design Sound Border Asylum Policy.
” But there ’ s another way to look at it , she says—as an opportunity to finally fix 30 years of failed , costly , and often cruel deterrence policies .
To end a “ cycle of crises , ” it becomes necessary to change the paradigm .
“ For the first time in decades , ” she says , “ we need to think how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and welcome them in a way that ’ s fair rather than presume from the get-go that our goal is to keep them out.
” Schacher , who is writing a comprehensive history of asylum in the United States , notes in the report that immigration policies for the southern border were by and large conceived to push asylum seekers and migrants away .
She lays out recommendations for the Biden administration on how to adopt screening and admission practices that are both more humane and more effective .
Schacher is not alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for a similar shift in mentality .
“ The policies we are suggesting are ones that would implement a vision of a welcoming approach and that this is about humanitarian protection and not national security , ” says Kennji Kizuka , who researches refugee policy at Human Rights First .
“ These are not just pie-in-the-sky kind of requests , but they are based on US law and treaty obligations and the expectation that the US lives up to what used to be its best traditions.
” It ’ s no small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the damage from the last four years of draconian measures aimed at toughening the immigration system at large and gutting asylum .
Hundreds of parents and children separated at the border as a result of the zero-tolerance policy have yet to be reunited .
More than 67,000 asylum seekers have been forced to wait in Mexico under life-threatening conditions , and the majority of asylum cases that have gotten a hearing have been denied .
Since March , as many as 13,000 arriving unaccompanied minors have been expelled under an emergency decree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the policies of the Trump administration did not occur in a vacuum .
Since the late 1980s , both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought to prevent migration through deterrence , from detention and separation of families to the construction of border fencing .
But there have also been periods of what Schacher calls “ humanitarian and constructive policies.
” She points to 1975 , at the end of the Vietnam War , when US helicopters lifted and then resettled thousands of Southeast Asian refugees , and to the 1990s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create paths to permanent residency for Central Americans fleeing wars .
Following the 1992 election , Democrats broke their promise of a more humanitarian immigration approach .
After criticizing George H.W .
Bush ’ s policy of turning away Haitians fleeing widespread violence in the aftermath of a military coup , Bill Clinton continued to intercept arriving boats and sent thousands of refugees to Guantanamo to be repatriated later .
In 1996 , he signed a law that Schacher describes as having “ kept us in the wrong track , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the current immigration system .
The Biden administration has an opportunity to do better , Schacher argues .
So far , the president-elect has promised to end the so-called Remain in Mexico policy but hasn ’ t taken a definitive stance on the Centers for Disease Control order shutting down the southern border during the pandemic .
Although immigration advocates agree that these would be critical first steps , they argue that more action is needed .
Instead of insisting on decades-old policies to block people already on the move , organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from enforcement operations to programs that serve as alternatives to detention , as well as to border shelters and to local and public health authorities receiving and providing services to asylum seekers .
Eventually , Schacher suggests , the government could set up “ humane reception centers ” along the border with appropriately trained immigration officials and social workers providing legal orientation .
There will be other pressing needs , such as fixing the immigration courts and addressing a growing backlog of cases .
But advocates and public health experts have said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the border , and then treating them right , shouldn ’ t be negotiable or politicized .
“ This anxiety about the surge is about disorder and chaos , but there ’ s a fair and orderly way to deal with the border , ” Schacher says .
“ The issue of creating a manageable system is not a matter of can we do it , but do we actually want to ?
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In recent weeks, devastating hurricanes in Central America, a northbound caravan of migrants from Honduras, and a spike in the apprehension of unaccompanied minors at the United States–Mexico border have generated headlines about an imminent immigration “crisis”—one, some have claimed, that might be exacerbated by more lenient policies in a Biden administration.
“If you assume that you don’t want any of these people coming in, no matter how many or how few, it obviously seems like a crisis,” says Yael Schacher, an immigration historian at the global organization Refugees International and the author of a report released Friday titled “Building Better, Not Backward: Learning From the Past to Design Sound Border Asylum Policy.”
But there’s another way to look at it, she says—as an opportunity to finally fix 30 years of failed, costly, and often cruel deterrence policies. To end a “cycle of crises,” it becomes necessary to change the paradigm. “For the first time in decades,” she says, “we need to think how we can actually allow, receive, and welcome them in a way that’s fair rather than presume from the get-go that our goal is to keep them out.”
Schacher, who is writing a comprehensive history of asylum in the United States, notes in the report that immigration policies for the southern border were by and large conceived to push asylum seekers and migrants away. She lays out recommendations for the Biden administration on how to adopt screening and admission practices that are both more humane and more effective.
Schacher is not alone: Other immigration scholars and advocates are pushing for a similar shift in mentality. “The policies we are suggesting are ones that would implement a vision of a welcoming approach and that this is about humanitarian protection and not national security,” says Kennji Kizuka, who researches refugee policy at Human Rights First. “These are not just pie-in-the-sky kind of requests, but they are based on US law and treaty obligations and the expectation that the US lives up to what used to be its best traditions.”
It’s no small task to mitigate, if not reverse, the damage from the last four years of draconian measures aimed at toughening the immigration system at large and gutting asylum. Hundreds of parents and children separated at the border as a result of the zero-tolerance policy have yet to be reunited. More than 67,000 asylum seekers have been forced to wait in Mexico under life-threatening conditions, and the majority of asylum cases that have gotten a hearing have been denied. Since March, as many as 13,000 arriving unaccompanied minors have been expelled under an emergency decree purported to be a public health measure.
But the policies of the Trump administration did not occur in a vacuum. Since the late 1980s, both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought to prevent migration through deterrence, from detention and separation of families to the construction of border fencing. But there have also been periods of what Schacher calls “humanitarian and constructive policies.” She points to 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War, when US helicopters lifted and then resettled thousands of Southeast Asian refugees, and to the 1990s, when public pressure and litigation led Congress to create paths to permanent residency for Central Americans fleeing wars.
Following the 1992 election, Democrats broke their promise of a more humanitarian immigration approach. After criticizing George H.W. Bush’s policy of turning away Haitians fleeing widespread violence in the aftermath of a military coup, Bill Clinton continued to intercept arriving boats and sent thousands of refugees to Guantanamo to be repatriated later. In 1996, he signed a law that Schacher describes as having “kept us in the wrong track,” and helps explain much of what is broken about the current immigration system.
The Biden administration has an opportunity to do better, Schacher argues. So far, the president-elect has promised to end the so-called Remain in Mexico policy but hasn’t taken a definitive stance on the Centers for Disease Control order shutting down the southern border during the pandemic. Although immigration advocates agree that these would be critical first steps, they argue that more action is needed.
Instead of insisting on decades-old policies to block people already on the move, organizations say a new government could shift resources from enforcement operations to programs that serve as alternatives to detention, as well as to border shelters and to local and public health authorities receiving and providing services to asylum seekers. Eventually, Schacher suggests, the government could set up “humane reception centers” along the border with appropriately trained immigration officials and social workers providing legal orientation.
There will be other pressing needs, such as fixing the immigration courts and addressing a growing backlog of cases. But advocates and public health experts have said that allowing people seeking protection to have access to the border, and then treating them right, shouldn’t be negotiable or politicized.
“This anxiety about the surge is about disorder and chaos, but there’s a fair and orderly way to deal with the border,” Schacher says. “The issue of creating a manageable system is not a matter of can we do it, but do we actually want to?”


motherjones--2020-12-19--Trump Loses it Because a Conservative Tabloid Recognizes Biden as the Next President

What was President Donald Trump doing Saturday morning in one of his final days occupying the Oval Office ?
Complaining about an absolutely insane editorial board by the New York Post .
The conservative tabloid , the New York Post , wrote an editorial board piece complaining about Late Show host Stephen Colbert ’ s interview with Joe Biden .
The Post was exceptionally unhappy that Colbert did not press Biden on the right-wing conspiracy theory about his son Hunter Biden and instead tossed “ softballs ” to Biden .
The piece focuses in on the completely unsubstantiated claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president , and complains about the media ’ s “ free pass ” to the president-elect .
Though Trump would find much he likes about the Post editorial , he zeroed in on a single line , calling Biden “ the next commander-in-chief.
” Calling Biden the next president is just accepting reality , because winning the popular vote by more than 7 million and the Electoral College 306 to 232 , a margin the Electoral College made official this week , just isn ’ t enough .
In fact , Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protocol : Trump has continued to call on Republican lawmakers to reject the results of the election , something that even Mitch McConnell has opposed .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
What was President Donald Trump doing Saturday morning in one of his final days occupying the Oval Office? Complaining about an absolutely insane editorial board by the New York Post.
The conservative tabloid, the New York Post, wrote an editorial board piece complaining about Late Show host Stephen Colbert’s interview with Joe Biden. The Post was exceptionally unhappy that Colbert did not press Biden on the right-wing conspiracy theory about his son Hunter Biden and instead tossed “softballs” to Biden.
The piece focuses in on the completely unsubstantiated claim that Biden abused his power when he was vice president, and complains about the media’s “free pass” to the president-elect. Though Trump would find much he likes about the Post editorial, he zeroed in on a single line, calling Biden “the next commander-in-chief.” Calling Biden the next president is just accepting reality, because winning the popular vote by more than 7 million and the Electoral College 306 to 232, a margin the Electoral College made official this week, just isn’t enough.
In fact, Twitter flagged the tweet in its new fact-checking protocol:
He didn’t win the Election. He lost all 6 Swing States, by a lot. They then dumped hundreds of thousands of votes in each one, and got caught. Now Republican politicians have to fight so that their great victory is not stolen. Don’t be weak fools! https://t.co/d9Bgu8XPIj — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 19, 2020
Trump has continued to call on Republican lawmakers to reject the results of the election, something that even Mitch McConnell has opposed.


motherjones--2020-12-23--We Asked Some of Our Favorite People What They’d Put in a 2020 Time Capsule

You know it ’ s been a memorable annum when each time people hear the latest dour news , they shake their head , sigh , and mutter , “ 2020 !
” But all of us who survived this terrible , horrible , no good , very bad year ( Alexander had it easy ) will carry certain things with them into the future : moments of sadness , anger , profundity , and inspiration .
Images of masked toddlers and loved ones lost .
People and pets who gave us comfort .
Inspiring books and music .
Memories—many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Odd rituals and items deployed in our scrappy attempts to deal with lives suddenly disrupted .
And so , in addition to asking Mother Jones staffers what they would place into a time capsule as an ode to 2020 , we posed the same question to a variety of notable authors , musicians , and more , some of whom were willing to take a break from their complicated lives to reflect .
Here are their responses .
“ After the Korean War , Uncle John came to the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri .
He didn ’ t have enough money to get a graduate degree so he went to New York to get a job .
At the New York Public Library , he read the classifieds and figured out that computer programmers make good money , so he borrowed books and learned how to write code .
IBM gave him a job .
He invited my parents and me to America and sponsored our immigration .
He passed away from COVID this year .
We couldn ’ t attend the funeral .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a writer because of Uncle John.
” —Min Jin Lee , novelist “ …from Extinction Rebellion and Writers Rebel .
If they succeed , there will be people who will be able to explore the time capsule .
If they fail , there will not.
” —Margaret Atwood , novelist “ The knitting .
The crocheting .
The embroidery .
So many people , women in particular , hunkered down with handiwork in 2020—a year that simultaneously turbocharged our technology use and catapulted us back to a pre-industrial primitivism .
Suddenly there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crafting requires , not to mention a desperate need for its meditative , screen-free focus .
Me ?
I took up spinning and discovered : If my wheel spun , my mind did not.
” —Peggy Orenstein , author & journalist A photo of my wife and dogs .
“ 2020 ’ s madness took me down into a deep , dark blues .
My fierce wife Amy and our dogs Dale and Outlaw Pete pulled me through with a visceral love , strength , and hope I ’ ve never known .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bless life , bless love.
” —Nils Lofgren , musician “ Not just because it ’ s a perfect air mask , but because it was made in South Korea , which took COVID seriously and is leaps and bounds ahead of our own country in terms of keeping the virus in check .
The mask isn ’ t funny , but it attests to the fact that after four years of Trump , we are a joke.
” —Gary Shteyngart , novelist “ Right at the beginning of sheltering in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a discussion about how we could get along while being under the same roof 24/7 .
These two posters were the result .
Versions of both are still hanging on our kitchen wall.
” —Gene Luen Yang , cartoonist & teacher Fried chicken .
Veggie lasagna .
Homemade biscuits .
This past year was filled with anxiety and uncertainty .
I stayed sane by writing .
And cooking .
Virginia Woolf wrote , ‘ One can not think well , love well , sleep well , if one has not dined well.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , poet , author , & educator “ It was gathering dust in the basement for decades , but like the Volkswagen in the old Woody Allen movie , still worked !
Who knew ?
So bizarre that home-baked bread made us feel safe , and self-reliant , as if the pandemic turned our neighborhood into the frontier , and us into characters from Little House on the Prairie.
” —Jane Mayer , author & journalist “ We ’ ve done memorial work and ceremony and prayed , and we lost people we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
I don ’ t want to put my dead in a capsule , or let their images stagnate , even for a moment .
What I would want to encapsulate is something I often forget , which is that we made art in the tragedy—we made things and created , even when we thought we ’ d never get beyond the anxiety in the crisis of making more with less .
My brother ’ s studio and bedroom are next to mine .
When we first started dealing with a death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle , we couldn ’ t make art—we had to mourn and mobilize , but eventually , we stole time and found our way back to something beyond our survival .
This is something he did during the pandemic , two bears and a heart—symmetry made in chaos , a beautiful thing made in sorrow .
I want to remember there ’ s still beauty .
—Terese Marie Mailhot , author “ I read this book while traveling through Iraq as protests roiled Baghdad , protests that shared much with those Greenwell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets of Sofia , Bulgaria—an energetic movement driven by the young , full of disgust at corruption and incompetent governance , though lacking in clear ideas for solutions .
The narrator ’ s reflections on protest and politics , the role of ideas and passions and rage and violence , continued to echo with me throughout 2020 .
But politics , ultimately , is not where this book rests .
Greenwell has bigger game in sight , and politics is only one small way characters in this book try to articulate themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express and act on their sometimes self-annihilating desires .
This has been a year of political fervor that at times outpaces careful reflection .
Greenwell articulates new visions of our inner core , something precious at any time , but especially in times like these , with such little respect for the vital , and often deeply private work of being human.
” —Phil Klay , short story author This photo of my daughter .
“ In her mask , seven years old , and trying to figure this pandemic out.
” —Rosie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ My state of near-constant pandemic panic has faded into an anxious tedium .
I have found that both abate somewhat when I distract myself with an audio book and a jigsaw puzzle .
I ’ m listening to Middlemarch right now , which is distracting and delightful .
This puzzle is , as well.
” —Ayelet Waldman , author & screenwriter/executive producer “ This wonky-looking $ 60 device from Conair For Men is something purchased just as Vancouver was going into our first lockdown .
Used it for eight months , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was until I then semi-decided to skip it for a few weeks and see what grow-out from its automatic 3mm looks like .
Yikes !
The Barber Eliminator enables a person of absolute zero haircutting skill to manage a very tidy-looking 3mm all-over on the very first try .
It ’ s sad looking , though—the gadget , not the haircut !
Would have had a much less agreeable barber-free year without it.
” —William Gibson , novelist “ Cohen articulates the challenge and hope of 2020 like nothing else.
” —Craig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Craigslist and Craig Newmark Philanthropies “ I bought this when I began swimming in the San Francisco Bay .
I wasn ’ t searching for a new obsession , but when COVID closed my city ’ s public swimming pools and the world began to feel like it was closing in on me , I accepted a friend ’ s invitation to swim in water I ’ d always assumed was both too cold and too polluted .
The bay turned out to be perfectly clean , thanks to the hard work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the cold is its own kind of drug—an electrifying jolt of visceral sensation in a time when my entire world has become virtual , distanced , subdued , and intangible .
The open vistas of sea and sky , the daily changes of wave and weather , encounters with seals and pelicans , these have been the things that have kept me alert through months that would otherwise have flattened into an indistinguishable haze.
” —Dashka Slater , author & journalist “ I made this with a box fan , a furnace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tape .
I ’ m not particularly handy , but during the weeks in the fall that the California wildfires kept the air officially unbreathable , this homemade device allowed me to keep inhaling and exhaling , a small monument to the human ability to adapt to any extreme.
” —Dashka Slater

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
You know it’s been a memorable annum when each time people hear the latest dour news, they shake their head, sigh, and mutter, “2020!” But all of us who survived this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year (Alexander had it easy) will carry certain things with them into the future: moments of sadness, anger, profundity, and inspiration. Images of masked toddlers and loved ones lost. People and pets who gave us comfort. Inspiring books and music. Memories—many bad, but some good ones, too. Odd rituals and items deployed in our scrappy attempts to deal with lives suddenly disrupted.
And so, in addition to asking Mother Jones staffers what they would place into a time capsule as an ode to 2020, we posed the same question to a variety of notable authors, musicians, and more, some of whom were willing to take a break from their complicated lives to reflect. Here are their responses.
A photo of my Uncle John.
“After the Korean War, Uncle John came to the United States to study history in a college in Missouri. He didn’t have enough money to get a graduate degree so he went to New York to get a job. At the New York Public Library, he read the classifieds and figured out that computer programmers make good money, so he borrowed books and learned how to write code. IBM gave him a job. He invited my parents and me to America and sponsored our immigration. He passed away from COVID this year. We couldn’t attend the funeral. I live and work in the United States as a writer because of Uncle John.” —Min Jin Lee, novelist
This button card…
“…from Extinction Rebellion and Writers Rebel. If they succeed, there will be people who will be able to explore the time capsule. If they fail, there will not.” —Margaret Atwood, novelist
My spinning wheel.
“The knitting. The crocheting. The embroidery. So many people, women in particular, hunkered down with handiwork in 2020—a year that simultaneously turbocharged our technology use and catapulted us back to a pre-industrial primitivism. Suddenly there was time for the diligence and patience crafting requires, not to mention a desperate need for its meditative, screen-free focus. Me? I took up spinning and discovered: If my wheel spun, my mind did not.” —Peggy Orenstein, author & journalist
A photo of my wife and dogs.
“2020’s madness took me down into a deep, dark blues. My fierce wife Amy and our dogs Dale and Outlaw Pete pulled me through with a visceral love, strength, and hope I’ve never known. They truly saved me. Bless them, bless life, bless love.” —Nils Lofgren, musician
This Air Queen mask.
“Not just because it’s a perfect air mask, but because it was made in South Korea, which took COVID seriously and is leaps and bounds ahead of our own country in terms of keeping the virus in check. The mask isn’t funny, but it attests to the fact that after four years of Trump, we are a joke.” —Gary Shteyngart, novelist
Homemade COVID posters.
“Right at the beginning of sheltering in place, my wife led our family in a discussion about how we could get along while being under the same roof 24/7. These two posters were the result. Versions of both are still hanging on our kitchen wall.” —Gene Luen Yang, cartoonist & teacher
A recipe.
Fried chicken. Veggie lasagna. Homemade biscuits. This past year was filled with anxiety and uncertainty. I stayed sane by writing. And cooking. Virginia Woolf wrote, ‘One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.’ I agree, wholeheartedly.” —Kwame Alexander, poet, author, & educator
Our old bread machine.
“It was gathering dust in the basement for decades, but like the Volkswagen in the old Woody Allen movie, still worked! Who knew? So bizarre that home-baked bread made us feel safe, and self-reliant, as if the pandemic turned our neighborhood into the frontier, and us into characters from Little House on the Prairie.” —Jane Mayer, author & journalist
My brother’s artwork.
“We’ve done memorial work and ceremony and prayed, and we lost people we loved. I’ll never forget them. I don’t want to put my dead in a capsule, or let their images stagnate, even for a moment. What I would want to encapsulate is something I often forget, which is that we made art in the tragedy—we made things and created, even when we thought we’d never get beyond the anxiety in the crisis of making more with less. My brother’s studio and bedroom are next to mine. When we first started dealing with a death toll, or seeing our loved ones struggle, we couldn’t make art—we had to mourn and mobilize, but eventually, we stole time and found our way back to something beyond our survival. This is something he did during the pandemic, two bears and a heart—symmetry made in chaos, a beautiful thing made in sorrow. I want to remember there’s still beauty. —Terese Marie Mailhot, author
Cleanness, by Garth Greenwell.
“I read this book while traveling through Iraq as protests roiled Baghdad, protests that shared much with those Greenwell’s narrator encounters at one point in the streets of Sofia, Bulgaria—an energetic movement driven by the young, full of disgust at corruption and incompetent governance, though lacking in clear ideas for solutions. The narrator’s reflections on protest and politics, the role of ideas and passions and rage and violence, continued to echo with me throughout 2020. But politics, ultimately, is not where this book rests. Greenwell has bigger game in sight, and politics is only one small way characters in this book try to articulate themselves, find communion with others, and express and act on their sometimes self-annihilating desires. This has been a year of political fervor that at times outpaces careful reflection. Greenwell articulates new visions of our inner core, something precious at any time, but especially in times like these, with such little respect for the vital, and often deeply private work of being human.” —Phil Klay, short story author
This photo of my daughter.
“In her mask, seven years old, and trying to figure this pandemic out.” —Rosie O’Donnell, actor & mom
A jigsaw puzzle and an audiobook.
“My state of near-constant pandemic panic has faded into an anxious tedium. I have found that both abate somewhat when I distract myself with an audio book and a jigsaw puzzle. I’m listening to Middlemarch right now, which is distracting and delightful. This puzzle is, as well.” —Ayelet Waldman, author & screenwriter/executive producer
My Barber Eliminator.
“This wonky-looking $60 device from Conair For Men is something purchased just as Vancouver was going into our first lockdown. Used it for eight months, but didn’t fully appreciate how good it was until I then semi-decided to skip it for a few weeks and see what grow-out from its automatic 3mm looks like. Yikes! The Barber Eliminator enables a person of absolute zero haircutting skill to manage a very tidy-looking 3mm all-over on the very first try. It’s sad looking, though—the gadget, not the haircut! Would have had a much less agreeable barber-free year without it.” —William Gibson, novelist
A mask and a red MAGA hat.
“That about sums up 2020.” —Graham Nash, musician
“Democracy,” by Leonard Cohen
I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean I love the country but I can’t stand the scene. And I’m neither left or right I’m just staying home tonight, Getting lost in that hopeless little screen. But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags That Time cannot decay, I’m junk but I’m still holding up This little wild bouquet: Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
“Cohen articulates the challenge and hope of 2020 like nothing else.” —Craig Newmark, founder & customer service rep, Craigslist and Craig Newmark Philanthropies
Neoprene thermal swim cap
“I bought this when I began swimming in the San Francisco Bay. I wasn’t searching for a new obsession, but when COVID closed my city’s public swimming pools and the world began to feel like it was closing in on me, I accepted a friend’s invitation to swim in water I’d always assumed was both too cold and too polluted. The bay turned out to be perfectly clean, thanks to the hard work of a generation of environmental activists, and the cold is its own kind of drug—an electrifying jolt of visceral sensation in a time when my entire world has become virtual, distanced, subdued, and intangible. The open vistas of sea and sky, the daily changes of wave and weather, encounters with seals and pelicans, these have been the things that have kept me alert through months that would otherwise have flattened into an indistinguishable haze.” —Dashka Slater, author & journalist
DIY air purifier.
“I made this with a box fan, a furnace filter, and a roll of packing tape. I’m not particularly handy, but during the weeks in the fall that the California wildfires kept the air officially unbreathable, this homemade device allowed me to keep inhaling and exhaling, a small monument to the human ability to adapt to any extreme.” —Dashka Slater


motherjones--2020-12-23--Heroes of 2020: My Cat—the Smartest, Best Cat. He Is Named Smarty Cat.

Before 2020 , here ’ s how I would ’ ve described my cat , Smarty Cat : “ His paws have never touched pavement.
” And it was true : Despite being a 12-year-old rescue , Smarty Cat embodied all of the privileges of a kept kitty .
He ’ s particular in his tastes : the afternoon sunshine must hit him just right , he will only eat food that ’ s slathered in gravy , and he screamed bloody murder any time he was moved from the relative stability of his normal routine .
So when I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer , my biggest concern was how he ’ d handle it all .
Would he meow his way across America ?
Would he file for emancipation with the powers that be ?
Would he even survive ?
Turns out I have a really chill cat .
He spent days upon days cooped up in a car and he mostly slept .
He can adapt to whatever circumstances you throw at him , and he ’ s still not afraid to like nice things .
But mostly he kept me sane and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ description still holds : His paws still haven ’ t touched pavement .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Before 2020, here’s how I would’ve described my cat, Smarty Cat: “His paws have never touched pavement.”
And it was true: Despite being a 12-year-old rescue, Smarty Cat embodied all of the privileges of a kept kitty. He’s particular in his tastes: the afternoon sunshine must hit him just right, he will only eat food that’s slathered in gravy, and he screamed bloody murder any time he was moved from the relative stability of his normal routine.
So when I embarked on a cross-country road trip this summer, my biggest concern was how he’d handle it all. Would he meow his way across America? Would he file for emancipation with the powers that be? Would he even survive?
Turns out I have a really chill cat. He spent days upon days cooped up in a car and he mostly slept. He can adapt to whatever circumstances you throw at him, and he’s still not afraid to like nice things. But mostly he kept me sane and for that I am grateful.
And the description still holds: His paws still haven’t touched pavement.


motherjones--2020-12-23--Monsters of 2020: The United States Senate

As coronavirus infection rates are rising and the death toll is climbing to horrific heights every day , millions of people are facing eviction , hunger , poverty , and illness .
Meanwhile , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) seems completely unbothered by the widespread misery engulfing the country .
After agreeing to a COVID relief package in March at the beginning of the public health crisis , which included $ 1,200 stimulus checks for more than 127 million people , and $ 600 a week unemployment insurance for the people out of work , nine months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Kentucky spent months resisting passing any more aid .
A few points of contention existed with several items in the various bills—one gnarly issue was that the Dems wanted funds to go to states and cities while the Republicans viewed local aid as bailouts for liberal enclaves—but McConnell and his party ’ s recalcitrance boiled down to much more than a few dollar signs .
The majority leader had bigger interests to protect : namely making sure that corporations would have liability shields over coronavirus lawsuits .
Not only would McConnell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repercussions for failing to keep workers safe , the Senate ’ s inability to pass a bill meant that the Biden administration would have an even more difficult job in trying to fix the economy .
Then , McConnell could argue , since the economy is in such bad shape , the government couldn ’ t afford to spend money to help the public .
Win , win—if you ’ re a Republican senator .
When another coronavirus aid package finally passed three days before Christmas , it was nine months into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to what the public actually needs .
And since it ’ s worth keeping score , six Republican Senators voted against it .
The Republicans ’ refusal to act on a meaningful coronavirus relief package is part of their larger pattern of either ignoring or trampling on the common good .
Whether it ’ s trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act or passing tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy , this year has revealed that not only are their priorities backwards , many of them seem perfectly fine with untold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the systematic undermining of democratic institutions .
And while the GOP certainly doesn ’ t hold a monopoly on grotesque self-interest—though they seem determined to prove that they ’ re the best at it—as far as I ’ m concerned , the US Senate , especially Republicans in the so-called world ’ s greatest deliberative body , has been unique in displaying monstrous contempt for the common good .
And it ’ s not just coronavirus relief they made close to impossible .
As the Black Lives Matter protest movement , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in cities , suburbs , and small towns , exploded earlier this year , some senators concluded that this era was the perfect time to open a new front in the battle against civil rights .
Exhibit A could be Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
, who wrote an incendiary and controversial op-ed for the New York Times entitled “ Send In The Troops.
” ( After criticism from readers and NYT employees , an editors note was attached , the top Opinion ’ s editor was fired and another one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much like the military needed to force a high school in Little Rock , Arkansas , to integrate its schools , it also needed to quash protest movements .
“ One thing above all else will restore order to our streets : an overwhelming show of force to disperse , detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers , ” Cotton wrote .
“ But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup , while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what ’ s necessary to uphold the rule of law.
” Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the American military be deployed on American streets , he failed to mention that the troops were sent to his home state in 1957 because racist whites refused to let Black students inside .
The military was sent to protect Black students .
But it was not just protesters demanding rights that drew Cotton ’ s ire this summer .
He was also singularly obsessed with arguing against statehood and representation in Congress for Washington , DC .
Cotton once posited that sure , the District may have a bigger population than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-rounded , working-class state.
” I ’ m sorry , could you repeat that Senator ?
I couldn ’ t hear you over the sound of your racist bullhorn .
But despite the many controversies surrounding Trump and his administration—when he shut down the federal government over funding for a border wall , his years-long refusal to release his tax returns , or his incessant and incendiary tweets that would have had Republicans calling for Barack Obama ’ s resignation—the GOP Senators stood beside him , terrified of his sway over the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks and balances , the Senate was there to defend Trump and ignore his misdeeds while working to please corporate interests at the expense of everyone else .
Donald Trump ’ s absurd , long-shot and yet still terrifying attempt to reverse the outcome of the presidential election might not have gained so much traction without some friends in high places .
Before the electoral college vote , the Washington Post only found 27 Republicans in Congress who would acknowledge that Biden had won the election .
Sens .
Ted Cruz ( R-Tex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) are the best examples of Republicans whose towers of convictions can be toppled by the gentle winds of political convenience .
Remember , they were both once representatives of the NeverTrumpers , and had very good reasons for their positions .
Cruz , still upset over Trump ’ s obscene insults to both his wife and father , pointedly refused to endorse Trump at the Republican National Convention in 2016 .
And Graham , still smarting from Trump ’ s publicizing his personal cell phone number , warned that if the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve it .
Ah , how times have changed .
Over the last four years , both men seem to be fighting over the spout to see who can guzzle more Trump Kool-Aid .
( Graham was the source of mockery in 2017 after tweeting about Trump ’ s spectacular golf game . )
After Trump lost the presidential election by more than 6 million votes and 74 electoral college votes , they still couldn ’ t find their principles .
Graham tried to get election officials in Georgia to toss out ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president argue his baseless case in front of the Supreme Court , should the new conservative majority yield to the president ’ s demands and grant a hearing .
Fortunately , despite Trump ’ s confidence that appointing three new justices during his term meant they would rollover like the Republican Party , the nine justices declined to hear the suit .
Though I ’ ve singled out a few individuals , the problem of the Senate won ’ t be solved by simply voting McConnell , Graham , and Cruz out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institution is a dysfunctional mess .
Because each state gets two senators regardless of size , and the two major parties have divided themselves along rural and urban lines , Republican Senators often only compete in smaller and less-populated states .
As a result , in the incoming Congress ( excluding the Georgia runoffs ) , the Democrats will represent at least 20 million more people than the Republicans .
But if Republicans win at least one of the Senate seats in Georgia , they ’ ll have the ability to obstruct any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t like—which is to say , all of it .
It ’ s been a deeply terrible year .
The pandemic , the killings of Black people that sparked racial justice uprisings , climate disasters , and a slow-motion coup attempt—destined to fail , but designed to undermine democracy—have all combined to form sort of a rolling nightmare for the United States .
In November , Donald Trump ’ s loss offered a moment of hope , but now that Biden has secured the electoral college vote and even McConnell managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five weeks after it happened , the threat of a Republican-led Senate looms large .
Any short-term solutions , economic aid , or a competent pandemic response , are likely to be hampered by McConnell ’ s greed , partisan blindness , and utter disregard for the welfare of the American people .
Any long-term solutions , fighting climate change or expanding healthcare access , would be dead-on-arrival .
The GOP has already signaled that the party plans to obstruct the Biden administration any chance they get .
As bad as 2020 has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are poised to make 2021 just as bad—or , hard to imagine but it ’ s possible , even worse .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As coronavirus infection rates are rising and the death toll is climbing to horrific heights every day, millions of people are facing eviction, hunger, poverty, and illness. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seems completely unbothered by the widespread misery engulfing the country. After agreeing to a COVID relief package in March at the beginning of the public health crisis, which included $1,200 stimulus checks for more than 127 million people, and $600 a week unemployment insurance for the people out of work, nine months into the pandemic, the Republican senator from Kentucky spent months resisting passing any more aid. A few points of contention existed with several items in the various bills—one gnarly issue was that the Dems wanted funds to go to states and cities while the Republicans viewed local aid as bailouts for liberal enclaves—but McConnell and his party’s recalcitrance boiled down to much more than a few dollar signs.
The majority leader had bigger interests to protect: namely making sure that corporations would have liability shields over coronavirus lawsuits. Not only would McConnell’s wealthy friends and funders not face repercussions for failing to keep workers safe, the Senate’s inability to pass a bill meant that the Biden administration would have an even more difficult job in trying to fix the economy. Then, McConnell could argue, since the economy is in such bad shape, the government couldn’t afford to spend money to help the public. Win, win—if you’re a Republican senator.
When another coronavirus aid package finally passed three days before Christmas, it was nine months into the crisis and didn’t even come close to what the public actually needs. And since it’s worth keeping score, six Republican Senators voted against it.
The Republicans’ refusal to act on a meaningful coronavirus relief package is part of their larger pattern of either ignoring or trampling on the common good. Whether it’s trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act or passing tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy, this year has revealed that not only are their priorities backwards, many of them seem perfectly fine with untold economic ruin, unimaginable human suffering, and the systematic undermining of democratic institutions. And while the GOP certainly doesn’t hold a monopoly on grotesque self-interest—though they seem determined to prove that they’re the best at it—as far as I’m concerned, the US Senate, especially Republicans in the so-called world’s greatest deliberative body, has been unique in displaying monstrous contempt for the common good.
And it’s not just coronavirus relief they made close to impossible. As the Black Lives Matter protest movement, a multiracial and generational demonstration that took root in cities, suburbs, and small towns, exploded earlier this year, some senators concluded that this era was the perfect time to open a new front in the battle against civil rights.
Exhibit A could be Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who wrote an incendiary and controversial op-ed for the New York Times entitled “Send In The Troops.” (After criticism from readers and NYT employees, an editors note was attached, the top Opinion’s editor was fired and another one was demoted.) Cotton argued that much like the military needed to force a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas, to integrate its schools, it also needed to quash protest movements. “One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers,” Cotton wrote. “But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.”
Of course, in his rush to demand that the American military be deployed on American streets, he failed to mention that the troops were sent to his home state in 1957 because racist whites refused to let Black students inside. The military was sent to protect Black students.
But it was not just protesters demanding rights that drew Cotton’s ire this summer. He was also singularly obsessed with arguing against statehood and representation in Congress for Washington, DC. Cotton once posited that sure, the District may have a bigger population than Wyoming, but Wyoming was a “well-rounded, working-class state.” I’m sorry, could you repeat that Senator? I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your racist bullhorn.
I’m sorry, could you repeat that Senator? I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your racist bullhorn.
But despite the many controversies surrounding Trump and his administration—when he shut down the federal government over funding for a border wall, his years-long refusal to release his tax returns, or his incessant and incendiary tweets that would have had Republicans calling for Barack Obama’s resignation—the GOP Senators stood beside him, terrified of his sway over the conservative base. Instead of a system of checks and balances, the Senate was there to defend Trump and ignore his misdeeds while working to please corporate interests at the expense of everyone else.
Donald Trump’s absurd, long-shot and yet still terrifying attempt to reverse the outcome of the presidential election might not have gained so much traction without some friends in high places. Before the electoral college vote, the Washington Post only found 27 Republicans in Congress who would acknowledge that Biden had won the election. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are the best examples of Republicans whose towers of convictions can be toppled by the gentle winds of political convenience. Remember, they were both once representatives of the NeverTrumpers, and had very good reasons for their positions. Cruz, still upset over Trump’s obscene insults to both his wife and father, pointedly refused to endorse Trump at the Republican National Convention in 2016. And Graham, still smarting from Trump’s publicizing his personal cell phone number, warned that if the GOP nominated Trump, they would get destroyed—and deserve it.
Ah, how times have changed. Over the last four years, both men seem to be fighting over the spout to see who can guzzle more Trump Kool-Aid. (Graham was the source of mockery in 2017 after tweeting about Trump’s spectacular golf game.) After Trump lost the presidential election by more than 6 million votes and 74 electoral college votes, they still couldn’t find their principles. Graham tried to get election officials in Georgia to toss out ballots, and Cruz agreed to help the president argue his baseless case in front of the Supreme Court, should the new conservative majority yield to the president’s demands and grant a hearing. Fortunately, despite Trump’s confidence that appointing three new justices during his term meant they would rollover like the Republican Party, the nine justices declined to hear the suit.
Though I’ve singled out a few individuals, the problem of the Senate won’t be solved by simply voting McConnell, Graham, and Cruz out of office—and people have tried! The entire institution is a dysfunctional mess. Because each state gets two senators regardless of size, and the two major parties have divided themselves along rural and urban lines, Republican Senators often only compete in smaller and less-populated states. As a result, in the incoming Congress (excluding the Georgia runoffs), the Democrats will represent at least 20 million more people than the Republicans. But if Republicans win at least one of the Senate seats in Georgia, they’ll have the ability to obstruct any part of the Biden agenda they don’t like—which is to say, all of it.
It’s been a deeply terrible year. The pandemic, the killings of Black people that sparked racial justice uprisings, climate disasters, and a slow-motion coup attempt—destined to fail, but designed to undermine democracy—have all combined to form sort of a rolling nightmare for the United States. In November, Donald Trump’s loss offered a moment of hope, but now that Biden has secured the electoral college vote and even McConnell managed to acknowledge Biden’s victory a mere five weeks after it happened, the threat of a Republican-led Senate looms large. Any short-term solutions, economic aid, or a competent pandemic response, are likely to be hampered by McConnell’s greed, partisan blindness, and utter disregard for the welfare of the American people. Any long-term solutions, fighting climate change or expanding healthcare access, would be dead-on-arrival. The GOP has already signaled that the party plans to obstruct the Biden administration any chance they get. As bad as 2020 has been, the Republicans in the Senate are poised to make 2021 just as bad—or, hard to imagine but it’s possible, even worse.