motherjones--2020-11-20--He’s Advised Pro-Democracy Activists in 50 Countries. Here’s His Advice for Americans.

He ’ s been called “ the secret architect of global revolution ” ( by the Guardian ) and a “ nonviolent storm trooper ” ( in the pages of our magazine ) .
Now , after two decades traveling the world training pro-democracy activists in more than 50 countries , Serbian revolutionary Srdja Popovic finds himself in the United States , where he ’ s teaching strategic nonviolent struggle to students at Colorado College .
Upon arriving here not long before the election , Popovic was struck by the deluge of headlines questioning whether the upcoming presidential race would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found eerie but unsurprising .
“ Some people get haunted by ex-lovers , or scary movies , or ghosts , ” he told me shortly before the election , in an edifying and hilarious video chat .
“ What haunts me is the spirit of the disputed election.
” Popovic first tasted the “ narcotic collectivism ” of movement-building while studying ecology in Belgrade .
When Serbia ’ s autocratic President Slobodan Milošević refused to recognize opposition victories in local elections in 1996 , Popovic and other activists founded Otpor !
( Resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and strikes until Milošević recognized the election results three months later ; he later resigned from the presidency following another disputed election in 2000 .
Four years later , Popovic founded the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies ( CANVAS ) , based in Belgrade , which seeks to undermine autocrats worldwide by distributing handbooks to activists and consulting with movements fighting regimes from Ukraine and Myanmar to Venezuela and the Maldives .
As the United States endures what , at least for now , feels like a failing slow-motion coup , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy School and rector of Scotland ’ s University of St. Andrews—explains how activists can not only ensure that Trump leaves office , but sustain the popular movements for racial justice , gun control , and climate action that will continue into the Biden years .
Delilah Friedler : What did you learn from Serbia ’ s disputed elections in the 1990s ?
Srdja Popovic : Movements witness exponential growth when things stop being political and start being personal .
I vote Republican , you vote Democrat—that ’ s politics .
Government steals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s like stealing my wallet .
This is where the people who don ’ t traditionally participate in politics come in .
Serbia is a country of 6 million people , and we had 70,000 people mobilized before the elections .
Then it grew into a half million , because people felt somebody stole something from them .
You need organizations that can net that mobilization .
This is a large problem with movements across the globe , and in the United States .
You often misunderstand that successful movements are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the case of the gun control movement , you have these peaks of mobilization when , unfortunately , innocent people get killed .
But you need to recruit the people who are out then , put them into some kind of organization and give them tasks , so next time , when there is a window of opportunity—when there is a law passing your local legislature , or another school shooting—you use this increased organization in order to have bigger-scale results .
Mobilization is like the sea , it comes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there to build on this .
What ’ s different about an election being disputed by someone like Trump , who ’ s supposedly a democratic figure , as opposed to the more authoritarian figures we see in other countries ?
You don ’ t want to look at the politicians or the people in power .
You want to examine the status of the pillars .
What ’ s happening in the US is incomparable with the situations like in Serbia , Georgia , and elsewhere , because you guys , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic institutions : the way your elections are conducted ; the way your media operates .
It ’ s very difficult to expect that that we would witness some kind of major election fraud in the United States .
But when you have disputed elections , there are five main things you want to focus on .
First , if you think elections will be disputed , you need to win , and win big .
The bigger the win , the larger the landslide , the more refutable is the claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what worked in Belarus : huge participation , large turnout , a lot of new voters and young voters .
That gives gravitas to the results that is very difficult to dispute .
Second thing , have a comprehensive plan for putting pressure on pillar after pillar .
In Serbia , demonstrations were held across the country , but it was the general strike that was more important .
Labor unions were involved , citizens were blocking the streets , every Serbian version of a 7-Eleven was closed with a sticker that said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You couldn ’ t buy cigarettes , you couldn ’ t buy gas , you couldn ’ t buy anything .
Milošević called the army and police with orders to intervene and they refused , because they knew their kids were in the crowd .
Number three , to sustain the struggle , you need nonviolent discipline .
Put your strong points against your opponent ’ s weak points .
If you need to defeat Mike Tyson , is the boxing ring the battlefield you would pick ?
No , because your life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probably 37 seconds .
Depends how fast you can run .
But if you pick Scrabble , or chess , or a puzzle , you may win .
Having violence involved in a situation where your opponent , the state , has more weapons and a legal monopoly over violence—that ’ s entering the ring with Mike Tyson .
Then you need to sustain this struggle .
Election defense tends to be a marathon , not a sprint .
It ’ s taken six weeks in Georgia , three months in Serbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is not something that could be resolved if enough people show on the street for one day ; it ’ s always going to be back and forth .
I doubt this scenario is ever possible in the US , but as Ronald Reagan—not my favorite American president—once said , “ Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
” Theoretically , a disputed election can happen anywhere .
Finally , you need to maintain your democracy .
I have to remind my American friends that democracy is like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win by getting married ; you need to make love every day , buy flowers for your wife .
It ’ s not , “ We have a constitution , so we ’ ll have democracy forever.
” You need to nurture this thing .
The fewer people participate in the process , the more you get unorganized , and when the wrong guy comes into power , next thing you know , you live in a dictatorship like Turkey Having worked in dozens of countries , what have you seen that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vision and unity .
Know what you want , not only what you don ’ t want , and have a clear answer to the question : If we win , what will be different ?
Movements never win by mobilizing only like-minded people ; movements win because they are capable of building diversity , figuring out who potential allies are and finding the smallest common denominator between them .
Often that means building weird coalitions with people you wouldn ’ t normally have a coffee with .
Look at the Polish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviet Union in Poland .
It was the urban intelligentsia , blue collar workers led by Lech Wałęsa , and the Roman Catholic Church—very unlikely allies , but they found a way to work together .
When you see millions of people in the streets , it may appear spontaneous , but the truth is there are only two types of nonviolent movements : they ’ re either spontaneous or successful .
And either the mobilization wanes , or it turns into chaos .
That ’ s why we talk about nonviolent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the less a movement is likely to get involved in violence , the more people will participate .
If a protest is going to have rock bands and church singing , I will bring my two kids and wife .
If , however , I think they will burn down a Wendy ’ s , I may still come , but I ’ m not bringing my kids .
The first time they burn a police car , I won ’ t come .
By turning to violence , you lose four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What you want is to be bringing people to your side .
The way movements grow , whether you like it or not , is from the extreme to the mainstream .
That ’ s how you win in football—and I mean the real football , not this game in the US where people wear armor and push each other—you win by controlling the middle ground , and that ’ s the way you win in social change .
People were tying themselves to the fences of nuclear power plants in 60s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached the point of building institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency .
To get into the mainstream , your largest vehicles are staying nonviolent so you don ’ t disrupt people from joining , and finding what speaks to lots of people without being exclusive .
You are going to have people in your movements who are angry , and people that you ’ ve never seen ready to act .
You need the organization to tell them what to do , otherwise , there will be more Wendy ’ s .
Poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wendy ’ s .
How have you seen these kinds of strategies play out in the United States ?
When people think of Rosa Parks , they see a heroic Black woman who decided not to follow the rules of segregation .
The story people don ’ t ask themselves is , Why Montgomery ?
Why not New York ?
Why buses , not planes ?
Because this was strategic thinking .
If you were a Black civil rights organizer in Montgomery , Alabama , one of the most segregated , awful places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you do ?
You get angry , go in front of the City Hall , you march .
Then the police or the white folks come and beat you up .
City Hall ignores you , because they are elected by the very people who love segregation .
So turn your gaze somewhere you have power : public transportation .
The majority of people riding public transportation in the South were African Americans , so this is where they have leverage , the power to deny the companies their money until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are very difficult to suppress .
How can you make me use the bus ?
The kids from Parkland fighting for gun control , they think strategically .
They figured out that the people who can bring gun control legislation don ’ t give a damn about them .
They care more about the money they ’ re getting from the NRA .
Now we see the enemy .
They put pressure on airlines and car rental companies to stop giving discounts to NRA members , and that helps us get to where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaker than before .
The kids try to get background checks at Dick ’ s Sporting Goods and Walmart , chains where people buy guns .
The stores start listening , because they don ’ t care about politics , they care about customers .
This is where people have leverage .
Improvements haven ’ t come from the legislative pillar , they ’ re coming from the pillar of business .
You go after these victories , you win , you proclaim the victory , you empower people , you give them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory .
The road to success is paved with small victories , and determining what we call the “ order of battle ” is really important .
What do you attack first ?
Which institutions do you engage first ?
And I love the word “ engage ” —because it ’ s not always attack .
But the Parkland movement hasn ’ t done much to curtail gun violence in our country .
The civil rights struggle still continues .
Why do you think US movements aren ’ t having more success ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with how they are living—it ’ s not bad enough to get engaged .
People are too busy distracted with football or Wendy ’ s .
They ’ re comfortable , they think the problem is something happening to somebody else , which is why I needed to quote Reagan .
But it ’ s not that it ’ s not working .
Some of the most important achievements of the modern world have happened in the US .
The environmental movement was sparked by people here , the anti-racial movement starts here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Burma using the hashtag # BlackLivesMatter .
There would never be Nelson Mandela if there wasn ’ t Martin Luther King .
We would never have our gay prime minister in Serbia if it wasn ’ t for Harvey Milk .
People are looking at environmental movement and saying , “ America has left the Paris Climate accord .
We are back to fossil fuels .
The EPA is run by a political climate activist denier.
” But the thing is , every single Friday , students of high schools everywhere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These people will vote in four years .
Sometimes it doesn ’ t work tomorrow , but it will work .
Despite all odds , my kids will live in the world where majority of the energy will be renewable .
For these global challenges of race and environment , it takes time .
It ’ s a marathon .
You ’ re not losing just because you ’ re on the second or third kilometer , you need to keep running , and keep the pace .
You say the pillars of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , we ’ ve seen a rise in dangerous misinformation from unreliable sources .
How can we rebuild the integrity of our media ?
Conspiracy theories like QAnon and such—they ’ re not just attacking the other side , they ’ re destroying the middle .
Autocrats do this in other countries : to socially disenfranchise your opponent , you want to hurt their capability to recruit neutrals .
So the opponent needs to be pedophiles , terrorists , drug dealers , the stooge of the foreign power ; whatever will prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is done with intention , whether through blunt tools like state TV attacks , or with more subtle tools like this mysterious QAnon that doesn ’ t really need to say who you need to support .
It ’ s more subtle , and it can be more brutal .
It ’ s an assault on truth .
You defend your movement by holding on to values , building up your own narrative that sticks to the science , and not getting engaged in relativization of the facts—but also not taking yourself too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I read this amazing piece on how K-pop groups are actually the largest threat to QAnon , which sells its conspiracy theories under mainstream hashtags .
I couldn ’ t recognize a K-pop star if he was driving my car , but with their huge internet firepower , the fans are using these hashtags to post K-pop songs and water down the number of conspiracy stories .
Young , clever people respond to bullshit with wit , and that builds civil resistance .
By watching and engaging in satire , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the fake news vaccine .
In other words , non-traditional attacks need non-traditional responses .
Everything is non-traditional .
We are living in a time where my six-year-old downloads five games on my phone between me going to the café and coming back .
I didn ’ t know how to turn the radio when I was six .
So this is a very non-traditional world , and we need to accommodate .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
He’s been called “the secret architect of global revolution” (by the Guardian) and a “nonviolent storm trooper” (in the pages of our magazine). Now, after two decades traveling the world training pro-democracy activists in more than 50 countries, Serbian revolutionary Srdja Popovic finds himself in the United States, where he’s teaching strategic nonviolent struggle to students at Colorado College. Upon arriving here not long before the election, Popovic was struck by the deluge of headlines questioning whether the upcoming presidential race would be free and fair, which he found eerie but unsurprising.
“Some people get haunted by ex-lovers, or scary movies, or ghosts,” he told me shortly before the election, in an edifying and hilarious video chat. “What haunts me is the spirit of the disputed election.”
Popovic first tasted the “narcotic collectivism” of movement-building while studying ecology in Belgrade. When Serbia’s autocratic President Slobodan Milošević refused to recognize opposition victories in local elections in 1996, Popovic and other activists founded Otpor! (Resistance!), which organized mass demonstrations and strikes until Milošević recognized the election results three months later; he later resigned from the presidency following another disputed election in 2000. Four years later, Popovic founded the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS), based in Belgrade, which seeks to undermine autocrats worldwide by distributing handbooks to activists and consulting with movements fighting regimes from Ukraine and Myanmar to Venezuela and the Maldives.
As the United States endures what, at least for now, feels like a failing slow-motion coup, Popovic—also an instructor at Harvard’s Kennedy School and rector of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews—explains how activists can not only ensure that Trump leaves office, but sustain the popular movements for racial justice, gun control, and climate action that will continue into the Biden years.
Delilah Friedler: What did you learn from Serbia’s disputed elections in the 1990s?
Srdja Popovic: Movements witness exponential growth when things stop being political and start being personal. I vote Republican, you vote Democrat—that’s politics. Government steals my vote—that’s personal. That’s like stealing my wallet. This is where the people who don’t traditionally participate in politics come in. Serbia is a country of 6 million people, and we had 70,000 people mobilized before the elections. Then it grew into a half million, because people felt somebody stole something from them.
“I vote Republican, you vote Democrat—that’s politics. Government steals my vote—that’s personal. That’s like stealing my wallet.”
You need organizations that can net that mobilization. This is a large problem with movements across the globe, and in the United States. You often misunderstand that successful movements are the happily married couple of mobilization and organization. In the case of the gun control movement, you have these peaks of mobilization when, unfortunately, innocent people get killed. But you need to recruit the people who are out then, put them into some kind of organization and give them tasks, so next time, when there is a window of opportunity—when there is a law passing your local legislature, or another school shooting—you use this increased organization in order to have bigger-scale results. Mobilization is like the sea, it comes in waves. Your organization needs to be there to build on this.
What’s different about an election being disputed by someone like Trump, who’s supposedly a democratic figure, as opposed to the more authoritarian figures we see in other countries?
You don’t want to look at the politicians or the people in power. You want to examine the status of the pillars. What’s happening in the US is incomparable with the situations like in Serbia, Georgia, and elsewhere, because you guys, at least in my view, have strong democratic institutions: the way your elections are conducted; the way your media operates. It’s very difficult to expect that that we would witness some kind of major election fraud in the United States. But when you have disputed elections, there are five main things you want to focus on.
First, if you think elections will be disputed, you need to win, and win big. The bigger the win, the larger the landslide, the more refutable is the claim that the elections are stolen. This is what worked in Belarus: huge participation, large turnout, a lot of new voters and young voters. That gives gravitas to the results that is very difficult to dispute.
Second thing, have a comprehensive plan for putting pressure on pillar after pillar. In Serbia, demonstrations were held across the country, but it was the general strike that was more important. Labor unions were involved, citizens were blocking the streets, every Serbian version of a 7-Eleven was closed with a sticker that said “closed because of the fraud.” You couldn’t buy cigarettes, you couldn’t buy gas, you couldn’t buy anything. Milošević called the army and police with orders to intervene and they refused, because they knew their kids were in the crowd.
Number three, to sustain the struggle, you need nonviolent discipline. Put your strong points against your opponent’s weak points. If you need to defeat Mike Tyson, is the boxing ring the battlefield you would pick? No, because your life expectancy in a ring with Mike Tyson is probably 37 seconds. Depends how fast you can run. But if you pick Scrabble, or chess, or a puzzle, you may win. Having violence involved in a situation where your opponent, the state, has more weapons and a legal monopoly over violence—that’s entering the ring with Mike Tyson.
Then you need to sustain this struggle. Election defense tends to be a marathon, not a sprint. It’s taken six weeks in Georgia, three months in Serbia, three months in the Ukrainian winter. This is not something that could be resolved if enough people show on the street for one day; it’s always going to be back and forth. I doubt this scenario is ever possible in the US, but as Ronald Reagan—not my favorite American president—once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Theoretically, a disputed election can happen anywhere.
“Democracy is like a marriage. You didn’t win by getting married; you need to make love every day, buy flowers for your wife.”
Finally, you need to maintain your democracy. I have to remind my American friends that democracy is like a marriage. You didn’t win by getting married; you need to make love every day, buy flowers for your wife. It’s not, “We have a constitution, so we’ll have democracy forever.” You need to nurture this thing. The fewer people participate in the process, the more you get unorganized, and when the wrong guy comes into power, next thing you know, you live in a dictatorship like Turkey
Having worked in dozens of countries, what have you seen that makes movements successful?
You need to have a vision and unity. Know what you want, not only what you don’t want, and have a clear answer to the question: If we win, what will be different? Movements never win by mobilizing only like-minded people; movements win because they are capable of building diversity, figuring out who potential allies are and finding the smallest common denominator between them. Often that means building weird coalitions with people you wouldn’t normally have a coffee with. Look at the Polish Solidarity Movement, which ended domination of the Soviet Union in Poland. It was the urban intelligentsia, blue collar workers led by Lech Wałęsa, and the Roman Catholic Church—very unlikely allies, but they found a way to work together.
When you see millions of people in the streets, it may appear spontaneous, but the truth is there are only two types of nonviolent movements: they’re either spontaneous or successful. And either the mobilization wanes, or it turns into chaos.
That’s why we talk about nonviolent discipline. You win by numbers, and the less a movement is likely to get involved in violence, the more people will participate. If a protest is going to have rock bands and church singing, I will bring my two kids and wife. If, however, I think they will burn down a Wendy’s, I may still come, but I’m not bringing my kids. The first time they burn a police car, I won’t come. By turning to violence, you lose four out of four from our household. What you want is to be bringing people to your side.
The way movements grow, whether you like it or not, is from the extreme to the mainstream. That’s how you win in football—and I mean the real football, not this game in the US where people wear armor and push each other—you win by controlling the middle ground, and that’s the way you win in social change. People were tying themselves to the fences of nuclear power plants in 60s, but the movement became effective when it reached the point of building institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency. To get into the mainstream, your largest vehicles are staying nonviolent so you don’t disrupt people from joining, and finding what speaks to lots of people without being exclusive.
You are going to have people in your movements who are angry, and people that you’ve never seen ready to act. You need the organization to tell them what to do, otherwise, there will be more Wendy’s. Poor Wendy’s. My kids love Wendy’s.
How have you seen these kinds of strategies play out in the United States?
When people think of Rosa Parks, they see a heroic Black woman who decided not to follow the rules of segregation. The story people don’t ask themselves is, Why Montgomery? Why not New York? Why buses, not planes? Because this was strategic thinking. If you were a Black civil rights organizer in Montgomery, Alabama, one of the most segregated, awful places to be a Black person, what would you do? You get angry, go in front of the City Hall, you march. Then the police or the white folks come and beat you up. City Hall ignores you, because they are elected by the very people who love segregation.
So turn your gaze somewhere you have power: public transportation. The majority of people riding public transportation in the South were African Americans, so this is where they have leverage, the power to deny the companies their money until the buses get desegregated, using tactics that are very difficult to suppress. How can you make me use the bus?
“You win by numbers, and the less a movement is likely to get involved in violence, the more people will participate.”
The kids from Parkland fighting for gun control, they think strategically. They figured out that the people who can bring gun control legislation don’t give a damn about them. They care more about the money they’re getting from the NRA. Now we see the enemy. They put pressure on airlines and car rental companies to stop giving discounts to NRA members, and that helps us get to where we are now with the NRA being weaker than before. The kids try to get background checks at Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart, chains where people buy guns. The stores start listening, because they don’t care about politics, they care about customers. This is where people have leverage. Improvements haven’t come from the legislative pillar, they’re coming from the pillar of business.
You go after these victories, you win, you proclaim the victory, you empower people, you give them a boost to go off to next victory. The road to success is paved with small victories, and determining what we call the “order of battle” is really important. What do you attack first? Which institutions do you engage first? And I love the word “engage”—because it’s not always attack.
But the Parkland movement hasn’t done much to curtail gun violence in our country. The civil rights struggle still continues. Why do you think US movements aren’t having more success?
In democracies, people are often content with how they are living—it’s not bad enough to get engaged. People are too busy distracted with football or Wendy’s. They’re comfortable, they think the problem is something happening to somebody else, which is why I needed to quote Reagan.
But it’s not that it’s not working. Some of the most important achievements of the modern world have happened in the US. The environmental movement was sparked by people here, the anti-racial movement starts here. You now have the Indian minority in Burma using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. There would never be Nelson Mandela if there wasn’t Martin Luther King. We would never have our gay prime minister in Serbia if it wasn’t for Harvey Milk.
People are looking at environmental movement and saying, “America has left the Paris Climate accord. We are back to fossil fuels. The EPA is run by a political climate activist denier.” But the thing is, every single Friday, students of high schools everywhere in the world are marching for climate. These people will vote in four years. Sometimes it doesn’t work tomorrow, but it will work. Despite all odds, my kids will live in the world where majority of the energy will be renewable. For these global challenges of race and environment, it takes time. It’s a marathon. You’re not losing just because you’re on the second or third kilometer, you need to keep running, and keep the pace.
You say the pillars of US democracy are strong, but under Trump, we’ve seen a rise in dangerous misinformation from unreliable sources. How can we rebuild the integrity of our media?
Conspiracy theories like QAnon and such—they’re not just attacking the other side, they’re destroying the middle. Autocrats do this in other countries: to socially disenfranchise your opponent, you want to hurt their capability to recruit neutrals. So the opponent needs to be pedophiles, terrorists, drug dealers, the stooge of the foreign power; whatever will prevent people from speaking with you. This is done with intention, whether through blunt tools like state TV attacks, or with more subtle tools like this mysterious QAnon that doesn’t really need to say who you need to support. It’s more subtle, and it can be more brutal. It’s an assault on truth.
You defend your movement by holding on to values, building up your own narrative that sticks to the science, and not getting engaged in relativization of the facts—but also not taking yourself too seriously, potentially mocking the other side. I read this amazing piece on how K-pop groups are actually the largest threat to QAnon, which sells its conspiracy theories under mainstream hashtags. I couldn’t recognize a K-pop star if he was driving my car, but with their huge internet firepower, the fans are using these hashtags to post K-pop songs and water down the number of conspiracy stories. Young, clever people respond to bullshit with wit, and that builds civil resistance. By watching and engaging in satire, you’re building your common sense immunity, getting the fake news vaccine.
In other words, non-traditional attacks need non-traditional responses.
Everything is non-traditional. We are living in a time where my six-year-old downloads five games on my phone between me going to the café and coming back. I didn’t know how to turn the radio when I was six. So this is a very non-traditional world, and we need to accommodate.


motherjones--2020-11-20--Progressives Weigh Fight Over Biden’s Defense Secretary Pick

As President-elect Joe Biden prepares to shape a national security team in his image , few choices loom larger than who he will pick to lead the Defense Department .
That decision will help determine how sharply Biden ’ s foreign policy veers from the chaos of Donald Trump ’ s presidency—and how much it diverges from the progressive foreign policy ideals increasingly gaining sway within the Democratic Party .
Michèle Flournoy , an Obama Defense official with decades of experience in Washington national security circles , is the leading candidate for the top job .
Her selection would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first woman leader .
But it would also be divisive among progressives .
She serves on the board of a major defense contractor and co-founded a consulting firm that ’ s done business with companies in the tech and defense industries , raising concerns that her appointment would secure more influence for weapons makers .
Her foreign policy views , especially on China , have also attracted scorn from antiwar leftists , who consider her excessively hawkish .
( A spokesperson for Flournoy declined to comment on the record . )
Mainstream progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but instead have suggested criteria for appointees that would implicitly exclude Flournoy .
Last week , two influential progressive lawmakers , Reps. Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) and Barbara Lee ( D-Calif. ) , wrote Biden a letter urging him to “ commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with no previous ties to defense contractors.
” Kate Kizer , policy director at Win Without War , a progressive foreign policy organization , similarly argued this week for a standard that nominees like Flournoy could not meet .
“ In an ideal world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for or served on the board of a for-profit entity that received money from the agency they would work in , ” she wrote in a piece published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , an organization that advocates for military restraint .
She noted , however , that such a requirement might be “ near impossible ” for some potential Biden appointees to meet and added that in those cases , officials should be required to publicly disclose their past clients and recuse themselves from “ decisions that would affect previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they have a previous financial interest.
” Win Without War and other antiwar advocacy groups—many of which are located in Washington , DC , and interface regularly with Congress and the Defense Department—have avoided taking on Flournoy directly .
Other , more radical , organizers have been more willing to openly oppose her nomination .
Ahead of the Democratic National Convention , Marcy Winograd , a California delegate for Bernie Sanders , distributed an open letter that asked Biden “ not to rely on foreign policy advice from those who may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their relationships and lobbying on behalf of merchants selling weapons and surveillance technology.
” The letter , which was signed by nearly 500 DNC delegates , cited Flournoy by name alongside other veterans of the Obama administration , such as Antony Blinken and Samantha Power , as unsuitable appointees .
Among the harshest of Flournoy ’ s critics is CODEPINK , an antiwar group that rose to prominence in the post-9/11 era by disrupting congressional hearings and building a grassroots network of local activists .
In recent weeks , CODEPINK and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through petitions and a letter-writing campaign to oppose Flournoy ’ s possible nomination .
“ President-elect Joe Biden is expected to select notorious war-hawk Michele Flournoy , who supported the wars in Iraq , Libya and Syria when she worked at the Pentagon and is on the board of military IT contractor Booz Allen Hamilton , as his candidate for Secretary of Defense , ” reads one petition put forward by the group .
“ Contact your Senators right now and tell them : no weapons industry war-hawks in the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy groups , the decision to devote resources and attention to opposing Flournoy is knotty , even if her views and professional background are unpalatable to them .
The apparent likelihood of her nomination is one complicating factor , as is the awkward optics of progressive activists lining up to challenge the first woman nominated to be Defense secretary .
Then there ’ s the question of whether it ’ s worth wrecking relations with the Biden team at such an early moment , when all signs point to the administration being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives .
“ Are you really willing to go scorched earth , use up all the political capital we have on frankly what is , by every indication , a losing battle ?
” one leading progressive activist told me .
The Biden team is certainly aware of concerns about Flournoy .
The Intercept had reported on her consulting work as early as 2018 , and a July story from the American Prospect , headlined , “ How Biden ’ s Foreign-Policy Team Got Rich , ” drew attention to the firm she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign advisers and a contender for a senior national security role in the administration .
In late September , during one of several calls between Blinken and progressive foreign policy activists , Flournoy was mentioned as an example of a nominee who would provoke concerns , according to a participant on the call .
Evidently aware of the need to preempt criticism from the left , Flournoy herself convened a call with leaders from progressive and antiwar groups on October 28 , details of which were first reported by Politico .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ described to me , Flournoy raised the issue of American support for Saudi Arabia ’ s war in Yemen , a conflict that ’ s devolved into the world ’ s worst humanitarian crisis .
The Obama administration started the policy of giving military support to the Saudis as part of the conflict , but several national security officials from that era , including Biden himself , have since repudiated that decision .
During the October call , Flournoy also discussed the military ’ s use of drones , civilian casualties in overseas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which progressives have long campaigned to slim down .
That call portends the start of a civil , if often disagreeable , relationship between Flournoy and antiwar groups in Washington , which grew used to finding much to criticize about the Trump administration and now faces a different , more amenable , Defense Department that will likely still promote policies that are anathema to what the community supports .
Even as grassroots organizers are clamoring to take on Flournoy , progressive leaders seem intent on lowering the temperature of a potential clash .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday night , during a Zoom meeting involving Winograd , CODEPINK , and members of several other peace-focused groups .
The event featured Matt Duss , foreign policy adviser to Sanders , and was promoted with the tagline : “ Want to help pressure Biden on foreign policy ?
” Few folks would be better equipped to do that than Duss , who helped organize a bipartisan coalition in Congress to support a war powers resolution , which would have restricted Trump ’ s ability to support the Saudi war in Yemen without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a historic vote , but Trump vetoed it .
During the call , Duss was asked if Sanders , or other lawmakers , had interest in blocking Flournoy ’ s potential nomination .
He deflected , saying he “ really can ’ t comment , ” and urged activists to “ start with the commitments President-elect Biden and the Democratic Party have made ” and “ start with the assumption that that ’ s what they ’ re going to follow through on.
” It ’ s true that Biden has moved left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted progressive ideas like “ ending forever wars ” to enter the party platform .
But he remains at odds with the left on some crucial issues , including how to address Israel ’ s treatment of Palestinians .
Foreign policy is not subject to the same congressional constraints as other domestic issues important to progressives , such as economic policy or health care .
But even as Biden has more sway in that realm in the near future , progressives say they ’ re focused on the long game .
“ When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we realized that the real change we want to see is going to take time , ” Stephen Miles , executive director of Win Without War , told me .
“ And when you ’ re thinking about and building towards the next , next administration , that ’ s going to shape how you approach the next four years , where you choose to fight , where you focus on progress , and ultimately where and how you build power.
” Outstanding questions still remain about Flournoy ’ s ties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and activists will no doubt raise them during any potential confirmation process .
The Prospect reported in July that WestExec Advisers , the firm co-founded by Flournoy and Blinken , has a “ defense prime ” as a client—that is , one of the large defense firms , such as Raytheon or Lockheed Martin , that does business with the federal government .
When I asked WestExec over the summer about disclosing its client list , a spokesperson said that nondisclosure agreements “ prevent us from publicly listing our clients.
” This week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flournoy and Blinken ( who is currently on leave from the firm ) possibly joining the Biden administration , a spokesperson said the firm “ will fully comply with the law and any disclosure requirements.
” Mandy Smithberger , a defense analyst at the Project on Government Oversight , which has criticized the Pentagon ’ s revolving door with industry , said “ it ’ s rare ” for nominees in a similar position to Flournoy to proactively name their clients .
“ That will take pressing through the confirmation process , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re up to the task of pushing Flournoy on this , even if they expect she will ultimately be nominated and confirmed .
“ While many progressive organizations may be reluctant to publicly oppose Michele Flournoy ’ s nomination given the likelihood that she would be confirmed , we do however expect our allies in the Senate during the confirmation process to seek clarity with respect to who her clients were at WestExec , which programs she specifically worked on , and whether she would be willing to recuse herself especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Yasmine Taeb , a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy , said in a statement .
“ It ’ s important to shed light on what Flournoy previously did , and if those former clients will have an expectation that they ’ ll have a leg up with her as Defense Secretary.
” Winograd , for her part , wishes the media would focus on candidates other than Flournoy .
“ I personally called Sen. [ Tammy ] Duckworth ’ s ( D-Ill. ) office to encourage her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t agree with her insistence on keeping US troops in Afghanistan , ” she told me .
“ I simply think the public deserves serious debate on the future of US foreign policy .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As President-elect Joe Biden prepares to shape a national security team in his image, few choices loom larger than who he will pick to lead the Defense Department. That decision will help determine how sharply Biden’s foreign policy veers from the chaos of Donald Trump’s presidency—and how much it diverges from the progressive foreign policy ideals increasingly gaining sway within the Democratic Party.
Michèle Flournoy, an Obama Defense official with decades of experience in Washington national security circles, is the leading candidate for the top job. Her selection would be historic, giving the male-dominated Pentagon its first woman leader. But it would also be divisive among progressives. She serves on the board of a major defense contractor and co-founded a consulting firm that’s done business with companies in the tech and defense industries, raising concerns that her appointment would secure more influence for weapons makers. Her foreign policy views, especially on China, have also attracted scorn from antiwar leftists, who consider her excessively hawkish. (A spokesperson for Flournoy declined to comment on the record.)
“Are you really willing to go scorched earth?”
Mainstream progressive organizations have not attacked her by name, but instead have suggested criteria for appointees that would implicitly exclude Flournoy. Last week, two influential progressive lawmakers, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), wrote Biden a letter urging him to “commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with no previous ties to defense contractors.” Kate Kizer, policy director at Win Without War, a progressive foreign policy organization, similarly argued this week for a standard that nominees like Flournoy could not meet. “In an ideal world, no political appointees would have worked for or served on the board of a for-profit entity that received money from the agency they would work in,” she wrote in a piece published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an organization that advocates for military restraint. She noted, however, that such a requirement might be “near impossible” for some potential Biden appointees to meet and added that in those cases, officials should be required to publicly disclose their past clients and recuse themselves from “decisions that would affect previous clients, employers, or corporations in which they have a previous financial interest.”
Win Without War and other antiwar advocacy groups—many of which are located in Washington, DC, and interface regularly with Congress and the Defense Department—have avoided taking on Flournoy directly. Other, more radical, organizers have been more willing to openly oppose her nomination. Ahead of the Democratic National Convention, Marcy Winograd, a California delegate for Bernie Sanders, distributed an open letter that asked Biden “not to rely on foreign policy advice from those who may have a conflict of interest as a result of their relationships and lobbying on behalf of merchants selling weapons and surveillance technology.” The letter, which was signed by nearly 500 DNC delegates, cited Flournoy by name alongside other veterans of the Obama administration, such as Antony Blinken and Samantha Power, as unsuitable appointees.
Among the harshest of Flournoy’s critics is CODEPINK, an antiwar group that rose to prominence in the post-9/11 era by disrupting congressional hearings and building a grassroots network of local activists. In recent weeks, CODEPINK and its allies have mobilized their network of supporters through petitions and a letter-writing campaign to oppose Flournoy’s possible nomination. “President-elect Joe Biden is expected to select notorious war-hawk Michele Flournoy, who supported the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria when she worked at the Pentagon and is on the board of military IT contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, as his candidate for Secretary of Defense,” reads one petition put forward by the group. “Contact your Senators right now and tell them: no weapons industry war-hawks in the President’s cabinet!”
But for other progressive foreign policy groups, the decision to devote resources and attention to opposing Flournoy is knotty, even if her views and professional background are unpalatable to them. The apparent likelihood of her nomination is one complicating factor, as is the awkward optics of progressive activists lining up to challenge the first woman nominated to be Defense secretary. Then there’s the question of whether it’s worth wrecking relations with the Biden team at such an early moment, when all signs point to the administration being amenable to an exchange of ideas with progressives. “Are you really willing to go scorched earth, use up all the political capital we have on frankly what is, by every indication, a losing battle?” one leading progressive activist told me.
The Biden team is certainly aware of concerns about Flournoy. The Intercept had reported on her consulting work as early as 2018, and a July story from the American Prospect, headlined, “How Biden’s Foreign-Policy Team Got Rich,” drew attention to the firm she co-founded with Blinken, one of Biden’s campaign advisers and a contender for a senior national security role in the administration.
In late September, during one of several calls between Blinken and progressive foreign policy activists, Flournoy was mentioned as an example of a nominee who would provoke concerns, according to a participant on the call. Evidently aware of the need to preempt criticism from the left, Flournoy herself convened a call with leaders from progressive and antiwar groups on October 28, details of which were first reported by Politico. On the call, which a participant described to me, Flournoy raised the issue of American support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, a conflict that’s devolved into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The Obama administration started the policy of giving military support to the Saudis as part of the conflict, but several national security officials from that era, including Biden himself, have since repudiated that decision. During the October call, Flournoy also discussed the military’s use of drones, civilian casualties in overseas conflicts, and the defense budget, which progressives have long campaigned to slim down.
That call portends the start of a civil, if often disagreeable, relationship between Flournoy and antiwar groups in Washington, which grew used to finding much to criticize about the Trump administration and now faces a different, more amenable, Defense Department that will likely still promote policies that are anathema to what the community supports. Even as grassroots organizers are clamoring to take on Flournoy, progressive leaders seem intent on lowering the temperature of a potential clash.
I saw this dynamic play out on Tuesday night, during a Zoom meeting involving Winograd, CODEPINK, and members of several other peace-focused groups. The event featured Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Sanders, and was promoted with the tagline: “Want to help pressure Biden on foreign policy?” Few folks would be better equipped to do that than Duss, who helped organize a bipartisan coalition in Congress to support a war powers resolution, which would have restricted Trump’s ability to support the Saudi war in Yemen without congressional approval. The resolution passed in a historic vote, but Trump vetoed it.
During the call, Duss was asked if Sanders, or other lawmakers, had interest in blocking Flournoy’s potential nomination. He deflected, saying he “really can’t comment,” and urged activists to “start with the commitments President-elect Biden and the Democratic Party have made” and “start with the assumption that that’s what they’re going to follow through on.” It’s true that Biden has moved left on certain foreign policy issues and has permitted progressive ideas like “ending forever wars” to enter the party platform. But he remains at odds with the left on some crucial issues, including how to address Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Foreign policy is not subject to the same congressional constraints as other domestic issues important to progressives, such as economic policy or health care. But even as Biden has more sway in that realm in the near future, progressives say they’re focused on the long game. “When we started thinking about the next Administration, we realized that the real change we want to see is going to take time,” Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, told me. “And when you’re thinking about and building towards the next, next administration, that’s going to shape how you approach the next four years, where you choose to fight, where you focus on progress, and ultimately where and how you build power.”
Outstanding questions still remain about Flournoy’s ties to the defense industry, and some lawmakers and activists will no doubt raise them during any potential confirmation process. The Prospect reported in July that WestExec Advisers, the firm co-founded by Flournoy and Blinken, has a “defense prime” as a client—that is, one of the large defense firms, such as Raytheon or Lockheed Martin, that does business with the federal government. When I asked WestExec over the summer about disclosing its client list, a spokesperson said that nondisclosure agreements “prevent us from publicly listing our clients.” This week, in response to a question about Flournoy and Blinken (who is currently on leave from the firm) possibly joining the Biden administration, a spokesperson said the firm “will fully comply with the law and any disclosure requirements.” Mandy Smithberger, a defense analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, which has criticized the Pentagon’s revolving door with industry, said “it’s rare” for nominees in a similar position to Flournoy to proactively name their clients. “That will take pressing through the confirmation process,” Smithberger said.
Some progressive groups say they’re up to the task of pushing Flournoy on this, even if they expect she will ultimately be nominated and confirmed.
“While many progressive organizations may be reluctant to publicly oppose Michele Flournoy’s nomination given the likelihood that she would be confirmed, we do however expect our allies in the Senate during the confirmation process to seek clarity with respect to who her clients were at WestExec, which programs she specifically worked on, and whether she would be willing to recuse herself especially if she worked on major weapons programs,” Yasmine Taeb, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said in a statement. “It’s important to shed light on what Flournoy previously did, and if those former clients will have an expectation that they’ll have a leg up with her as Defense Secretary.”
Winograd, for her part, wishes the media would focus on candidates other than Flournoy. “I personally called Sen. [Tammy] Duckworth’s (D-Ill.) office to encourage her to go on television, though I certainly don’t agree with her insistence on keeping US troops in Afghanistan,” she told me. “I simply think the public deserves serious debate on the future of US foreign policy.”


motherjones--2020-11-20--Biden Supports Some Student Loan Forgiveness. The Left Is Demanding Much More.

President-elect Joe Biden wanted to talk about “ good-paying union jobs ” after his meeting with some of the country ’ s top CEOs and union leaders on Monday .
The Online Left wanted to talk about canceling student loan debt .
And the internet discourse became real life after Biden finished his remarks , when a reporter asked Biden whether forgiving the more than $ 1.6 trillion in outstanding loans figured into his economic recovery plans .
“ It does figure in my plan , ” Biden said .
He reiterated his campaign promises to strengthen the public service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repayment program more generous , and immediately cancel $ 10,000 in student loan debt when he assumes office in January .
“ People are in trouble , ” he said .
“ They ’ re having to make choices between paying loans and paying rent.
” But Biden ’ s ideas don ’ t go far enough for many Democrats , and his response on Monday renewed debate on whether he should push for more .
Many want to see Biden heed a resolution introduced in September by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ( D-Mass . )
that calls on the next president to cancel up to $ 50,000 in student loan debt through executive order , an idea that originated in Warren ’ s presidential campaign .
Progressives say the pandemic and its attendant economic and racial justice crises have made the case for why these debilitating sums should be forgiven for the roughly 44 million borrowers whose debt loads would be eased .
There isn ’ t any question of whether Biden has the authority to forgive the loans : Trump himself used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt burdens for 25,000 permanent disabled veterans .
And even if a GOP-controlled Senate blocked Biden ’ s nominee to be Education secretary , Toby Merrill , the director of Harvard ’ s Project on Predatory Student Lending who did the original analysis for Warren , told me that an acting secretary should have the same authority to cancel debate .
Instead of logistics , the real issue facing it is political—mainly , the party ’ s own will .
Polling suggests that canceling a wide swath of debt wouldn ’ t cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of voters backed canceling up to $ 50,000 in student loans for people who make less than $ 250,000 year .
Progressive think tank Data for Progress found a similar result in a September 2020 survey—including support for the issue among a slight majority of Republican voters .
Even so , canceling such a high amount of student debt has generally been relegated to liberal pipe dream status alongside Medicare for All and the Green New Deal .
Its champions have been Warren , who proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) who , not to be outflanked , later promised to cancel all of it .
And the COVID-19 recession that forced laid-off workers to choose between essential payments and debt burdens further highlighted one of the points Warren stressed when introducing her plan : The burden falls disproportionately on Black borrowers .
A 2016 study from the Brookings Institution found that Black graduates hold on average $ 53,000 in student loan debt four years after graduation—an amount nearly twice as high as their white peers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden moving forward with the most ambitious forgiveness ?
It ’ s partially about spending priorities .
It would cost at least $ 1 trillion to cancel the amount of debt Warren and Schumer are calling for .
Biden has expressed little fear in running a federal deficit in getting the country out of financial straits , a position he reaffirmed during his remarks on Monday .
But he ’ s already committed to ambitious economic recovery plans with big price tags to match , including $ 2 trillion in clean energy spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both Biden and some in his inner circle of economic advisers have concerns about the long tail of deficits among his own proposals , let alone those he hasn ’ t committed to yet .
Biden himself made it through the primary without any student debt cancellation proposal , adopting the $ 10,000 cancellation proposal only after he became the presumptive nominee and within the context of the pandemic-induced recession .
Ben Harris , who served as Biden ’ s chief economist in the White House and has been a key aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy platform , co-wrote an op-ed in 2014 that argued “ attending college is a good investment and that a significant portion of the ultimate costs can and should be borne by the student or his/her family.
” Instead , he argued for greater investment at the state and local level to make higher education more affordable .
That view is shared by a number of economists with ties to the Democratic party , who have cautioned against additional federally-backed debt relief .
For example , Adam Looney , an Obama administration alum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week supporting Biden ’ s proposal while condemning Warren ’ s , calling it “ wildly out of synch ” with progressive policymaking since “ its largest effect would be to improve the finances of college-educated workers , who have already tended to be winners in an economy marked by ever-rising inequality.
” And it ’ s not just the wonks : The Democrat-held House included the $ 10,000 in immediate debt cancellation in their second COVID-19 relief bill—which passed only with Democratic support , as the House ’ s most moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators this year , meanwhile , shied away from mentioning even Biden ’ s more modest $ 10,000 cancellation proposal on the trail .
Marshall Steinbaum , a left-leaning economist at the University of Utah whose research has endorsed full student debt cancellation , countered Looney ’ s assertion .
He takes particular issue with Biden ’ s promise to automatically enroll students in income-based repayment programs .
In Steinbaum ’ s analysis , that style of repayment program just solves “ a liquidity problem ” without tackling the underlying wealth disparities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
Keeping borrowers on the hook for the sums , Steinbaum says , further hurts their ability to build wealth—an assertion bolstered by his analysis showing that more than half of borrowers have balances exceeding their original principals more than a decade out from graduation .
A coalition of more than 200 progressive groups sent a letter to the Biden-Harris transition on Wednesday calling on the president–elect to cancel student loan debt via executive order ( without calling for a specific dollar figure for forgiveness ) , reiterating claims that doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of a struggling economy and would help the coming administration meet its commitment to addressing the racial wealth gap .
Other progressives have said they plan to use the recommendations from the Biden-Sanders unity task forces to hold Biden ’ s feet to the fire .
Those suggestions , developed jointly between surrogates from both campaigns , prescribed forgiving up to $ 50,000 in student debt for those working in public service and all undergraduate student debt for those who attended two- and four-year public colleges for borrowers earning less than $ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President-elect Joe Biden wanted to talk about “good-paying union jobs” after his meeting with some of the country’s top CEOs and union leaders on Monday. The Online Left wanted to talk about canceling student loan debt. And the internet discourse became real life after Biden finished his remarks, when a reporter asked Biden whether forgiving the more than $1.6 trillion in outstanding loans figured into his economic recovery plans.
“It does figure in my plan,” Biden said. He reiterated his campaign promises to strengthen the public service loan forgiveness program, make the income-based repayment program more generous, and immediately cancel $10,000 in student loan debt when he assumes office in January. “People are in trouble,” he said. “They’re having to make choices between paying loans and paying rent.”
But Biden’s ideas don’t go far enough for many Democrats, and his response on Monday renewed debate on whether he should push for more. Many want to see Biden heed a resolution introduced in September by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that calls on the next president to cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt through executive order, an idea that originated in Warren’s presidential campaign. Progressives say the pandemic and its attendant economic and racial justice crises have made the case for why these debilitating sums should be forgiven for the roughly 44 million borrowers whose debt loads would be eased.
There isn’t any question of whether Biden has the authority to forgive the loans: Trump himself used his executive authority last August to cancel debt burdens for 25,000 permanent disabled veterans. And even if a GOP-controlled Senate blocked Biden’s nominee to be Education secretary, Toby Merrill, the director of Harvard’s Project on Predatory Student Lending who did the original analysis for Warren, told me that an acting secretary should have the same authority to cancel debate. Instead of logistics, the real issue facing it is political—mainly, the party’s own will.
Polling suggests that canceling a wide swath of debt wouldn’t cause political harm for Biden. A May 2019 Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of voters backed canceling up to $50,000 in student loans for people who make less than $250,000 year. Progressive think tank Data for Progress found a similar result in a September 2020 survey—including support for the issue among a slight majority of Republican voters. Even so, canceling such a high amount of student debt has generally been relegated to liberal pipe dream status alongside Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Its champions have been Warren, who proposed canceling up to $50,000 per student, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who, not to be outflanked, later promised to cancel all of it. And the COVID-19 recession that forced laid-off workers to choose between essential payments and debt burdens further highlighted one of the points Warren stressed when introducing her plan: The burden falls disproportionately on Black borrowers. A 2016 study from the Brookings Institution found that Black graduates hold on average $53,000 in student loan debt four years after graduation—an amount nearly twice as high as their white peers.
What stands in the way of Biden moving forward with the most ambitious forgiveness? It’s partially about spending priorities. It would cost at least $1 trillion to cancel the amount of debt Warren and Schumer are calling for. Biden has expressed little fear in running a federal deficit in getting the country out of financial straits, a position he reaffirmed during his remarks on Monday. But he’s already committed to ambitious economic recovery plans with big price tags to match, including $2 trillion in clean energy spending and $700 billion to boost manufacturing. Both Biden and some in his inner circle of economic advisers have concerns about the long tail of deficits among his own proposals, let alone those he hasn’t committed to yet. Biden himself made it through the primary without any student debt cancellation proposal, adopting the $10,000 cancellation proposal only after he became the presumptive nominee and within the context of the pandemic-induced recession. Ben Harris, who served as Biden’s chief economist in the White House and has been a key aide in crafting his campaign’s economic policy platform, co-wrote an op-ed in 2014 that argued “attending college is a good investment and that a significant portion of the ultimate costs can and should be borne by the student or his/her family.” Instead, he argued for greater investment at the state and local level to make higher education more affordable.
That view is shared by a number of economists with ties to the Democratic party, who have cautioned against additional federally-backed debt relief. For example, Adam Looney, an Obama administration alum and fellow at Brookings wrote an op-ed this week supporting Biden’s proposal while condemning Warren’s, calling it “wildly out of synch” with progressive policymaking since “its largest effect would be to improve the finances of college-educated workers, who have already tended to be winners in an economy marked by ever-rising inequality.” And it’s not just the wonks: The Democrat-held House included the $10,000 in immediate debt cancellation in their second COVID-19 relief bill—which passed only with Democratic support, as the House’s most moderate Democrats abstained. Democrats who challenged GOP senators this year, meanwhile, shied away from mentioning even Biden’s more modest $10,000 cancellation proposal on the trail.
Marshall Steinbaum, a left-leaning economist at the University of Utah whose research has endorsed full student debt cancellation, countered Looney’s assertion. He takes particular issue with Biden’s promise to automatically enroll students in income-based repayment programs. In Steinbaum’s analysis, that style of repayment program just solves “a liquidity problem” without tackling the underlying wealth disparities that lead students to borrow in the first place. Keeping borrowers on the hook for the sums, Steinbaum says, further hurts their ability to build wealth—an assertion bolstered by his analysis showing that more than half of borrowers have balances exceeding their original principals more than a decade out from graduation.
A coalition of more than 200 progressive groups sent a letter to the Biden-Harris transition on Wednesday calling on the president–elect to cancel student loan debt via executive order (without calling for a specific dollar figure for forgiveness), reiterating claims that doing so would provide-much needed economic stimulus in the face of a struggling economy and would help the coming administration meet its commitment to addressing the racial wealth gap. Other progressives have said they plan to use the recommendations from the Biden-Sanders unity task forces to hold Biden’s feet to the fire. Those suggestions, developed jointly between surrogates from both campaigns, prescribed forgiving up to $50,000 in student debt for those working in public service and all undergraduate student debt for those who attended two- and four-year public colleges for borrowers earning less than $125,000 a year.


motherjones--2020-11-20--Science Has Learned So Much About COVID—and the Trump Administration Hasn’t Learned Anything at All

We are in the throes of the coronavirus ’ deadly third surge .
Daily cases in the United States are getting dangerously close to 200,000 , and a map with each state ’ s case count basically looks like one big hot spot .
New stay-at-home advisories and mask mandates have been issued in some communities in the Midwest .
California is putting the brakes on its reopening plans .
ICUs are filling up fast .
In North Dakota , health care workers who test positive but aren ’ t showing symptoms are being asked to report to work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional 200,000 people could die of COVID by the spring if we don ’ t get things under control soon .
How did we get to such a dark place ?
In part , it ’ s the fault of the cold weather driving people indoors , where the virus spreads much more efficiently .
At Mother Jones , we ’ ve charted the abject failure of the Trump administration to do anything about the spread of the coronavirus—you can see its sweep in our timeline , which is called Superspreader in Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as our leaders sat back and let a quarter of a million Americans die , promoting dangerous misinformation .
The Great Barrington Declaration , embraced by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas , basically suggests letting the virus run its course—a plan that would lead to millions of unnecessary deaths , mostly in vulnerable communities .
For many reasons , it ’ s looking like Americans are just giving up .
Our leaders ’ attitude of indifference is contagious , and as a result , there ’ s an all-or-nothing kind of mentality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can hole up in your house alone—or blithely ignore the disease and host a rager with 50 members of your extended family .
Indeed , a new Ohio State poll out this week found that 38 percent of people surveyed planned to attend holiday gatherings of 10 or more people .
When looking around for others to blame , the Trump administration has cast public health officials as the enemies—bloodless , liberal data wonks who want to enforce draconian lockdowns while destroying what ’ s left of the economy .
Nothing could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are working overtime to figure out how we can reduce our risk so we can continue to live our lives .
( If we had an effective public health messaging system , we ’ d know that , but I digress . )
Here ’ s the secret that the Trump administration doesn ’ t want you to know : Science can set us free .
Though the pandemic may seem to be dragging on indefinitely , we ’ re learning about the coronavirus at an unbelievable clip .
Scientists know so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March about how the virus spreads—and how to stop it in its tracks .
One of my son ’ s favorite books is Boy , Were We Wrong About Dinosaurs !
It ’ s all about how paleontologists have revised their hypotheses over the years as they uncover more fossils to learn from .
It ’ s kind of been the same experience for epidemiologists , virologists , and infectious disease experts over these last nine months .
Here ’ s a far from comprehensive list of some of the leaps they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it Boy , Were We Wrong About the Coronavirus !
Back in March , we thought : that the virus was transmitted on surfaces like doorknobs , counters , and food packaging .
Now we know : that while the virus can survive on surfaces , it ’ s mostly transmitted through respiratory droplets from breathing , talking , laughing , singing , coughing , and sneezing .
What that means : Most public health experts still emphasize the importance of hand-washing and regular surface cleaning , but they don ’ t recommend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March , we thought : that masks weren ’ t effective in preventing the spread of the virus .
Now we know : that cloth face coverings can protect both the wearer and those around them .
One recent University of Washington study estimated that universal mask-wearing could save 130,000 lives by February .
Masks may even act as a crude vaccine , exposing wearers to just enough virus to trigger an immune response .
What that means : You can feel pretty safe running to the grocery store , the doctor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spaces if you and others are wearing masks .
You can minimize your risk of transmitting the virus during a holiday gathering if everyone wears masks and stays outside .
Back in March , we thought : that only people who showed symptoms could transmit the coronavirus .
Now we know : that asymptomatic people can and do spread the virus .
What that means : Health care professionals can now tell patients who have been exposed to someone with the virus to isolate right away , even if they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back in March , we thought : that we ’ d never be able to scale up testing enough to make a difference .
Now we know : that while we still have a long way to go , testing is free , quick , and readily available in many places .
Just this week , there was more good news on the testing front : The FDA has authorized the first at-home rapid test for the virus .
What that means : We now have the ability to catch cases early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to spread the virus to many others .
The key now is convincing people to be tested and investing in systems to warn people who have been in close contact with those who test positive .
Back in March , we thought : that air filtration systems might not help limit the spread of the virus .
Now we know : that while they ’ re not enough on their own to protect us , when used correctly and in combination with masks , HEPA filters can help .
What that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ layer of protection for essential spaces like hospitals and classrooms .
Back in March , we thought : that schools would be the main way that the coronavirus spreads .
Now we know : that while school outbreaks do occur , indoor spaces where adults congregate are much more likely to lead to outbreaks .
A recent study in the journal Nature found that in urban areas , restaurants , gyms , hotels , cafes , and houses of worship were the source of most superspreader events .
Schools , meanwhile , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially feared , especially at the elementary level .
What that means : We can prioritize reopening schools with appropriate safety measures—and putting more restrictions on restaurants , bars , gyms , and other adult-centered businesses .
To explain the power of these measures , public health experts like to use the analogy of layers of slices of Swiss cheese .
In one slice , there are many holes .
If you add another slice , it covers up a few of those holes , and so on .
The more layers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunk of cheese .
The more virus-protection strategies you layer on , the less likely it is the virus will sneak through .
Of course there are more layers should infection occur : Coronavirus treatments have improved immensely—back in March the ventilator was basically the only tool doctors had , and it wasn ’ t a very good one .
Now we know that “ proning ” —placing patients on their stomach—can help them breathe better .
We have a fleet of promising medications , including , as of last week , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in preventing severe disease .
The brass ring , of course , is the promise of several highly effective vaccines expected to begin distribution before year ’ s end .
But as I ’ ve written before , medical breakthroughs on their own won ’ t stop this virus .
What ’ s more , despite what our leaders say , we don ’ t have to sit around and wait for a miracle cure , nor must we throw our hands up in despair and let the virus run loose .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have the power to protect ourselves and our loved ones , thanks to the dazzlingly fast and careful work of scientists .
The best way to honor that work is by letting it empower us .

We are in the throes of the coronavirus’ deadly third surge. Daily cases in the United States are getting dangerously close to 200,000, and a map with each state’s case count basically looks like one big hot spot. New stay-at-home advisories and mask mandates have been issued in some communities in the Midwest. California is putting the brakes on its reopening plans. ICUs are filling up fast. In North Dakota, health care workers who test positive but aren’t showing symptoms are being asked to report to work. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently warned that an additional 200,000 people could die of COVID by the spring if we don’t get things under control soon.
How did we get to such a dark place? In part, it’s the fault of the cold weather driving people indoors, where the virus spreads much more efficiently. At Mother Jones, we’ve charted the abject failure of the Trump administration to do anything about the spread of the coronavirus—you can see its sweep in our timeline, which is called Superspreader in Chief. We’ve watched in horror as our leaders sat back and let a quarter of a million Americans die, promoting dangerous misinformation. The Great Barrington Declaration, embraced by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas, basically suggests letting the virus run its course—a plan that would lead to millions of unnecessary deaths, mostly in vulnerable communities. For many reasons, it’s looking like Americans are just giving up.
Our leaders’ attitude of indifference is contagious, and as a result, there’s an all-or-nothing kind of mentality as we go into the holidays: You can hole up in your house alone—or blithely ignore the disease and host a rager with 50 members of your extended family. Indeed, a new Ohio State poll out this week found that 38 percent of people surveyed planned to attend holiday gatherings of 10 or more people.
When looking around for others to blame, the Trump administration has cast public health officials as the enemies—bloodless, liberal data wonks who want to enforce draconian lockdowns while destroying what’s left of the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth: Scientists are working overtime to figure out how we can reduce our risk so we can continue to live our lives. (If we had an effective public health messaging system, we’d know that, but I digress.)
Here’s the secret that the Trump administration doesn’t want you to know: Science can set us free. Though the pandemic may seem to be dragging on indefinitely, we’re learning about the coronavirus at an unbelievable clip. Scientists know so much more now than they did back in March about how the virus spreads—and how to stop it in its tracks.
One of my son’s favorite books is Boy, Were We Wrong About Dinosaurs! It’s all about how paleontologists have revised their hypotheses over the years as they uncover more fossils to learn from. It’s kind of been the same experience for epidemiologists, virologists, and infectious disease experts over these last nine months. Here’s a far from comprehensive list of some of the leaps they’ve made. Let’s call it Boy, Were We Wrong About the Coronavirus!
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Back in March, we thought: that the virus was transmitted on surfaces like doorknobs, counters, and food packaging.
Now we know: that while the virus can survive on surfaces, it’s mostly transmitted through respiratory droplets from breathing, talking, laughing, singing, coughing, and sneezing.
What that means: Most public health experts still emphasize the importance of hand-washing and regular surface cleaning, but they don’t recommend wiping down your groceries.
Back in March, we thought: that masks weren’t effective in preventing the spread of the virus.
Now we know: that cloth face coverings can protect both the wearer and those around them. One recent University of Washington study estimated that universal mask-wearing could save 130,000 lives by February. Masks may even act as a crude vaccine, exposing wearers to just enough virus to trigger an immune response.
What that means: You can feel pretty safe running to the grocery store, the doctor’s office, or other public indoor spaces if you and others are wearing masks. You can minimize your risk of transmitting the virus during a holiday gathering if everyone wears masks and stays outside.
Back in March, we thought: that only people who showed symptoms could transmit the coronavirus.
Now we know: that asymptomatic people can and do spread the virus.
What that means: Health care professionals can now tell patients who have been exposed to someone with the virus to isolate right away, even if they don’t feel sick, thereby preventing additional infections.
Back in March, we thought: that we’d never be able to scale up testing enough to make a difference.
Now we know: that while we still have a long way to go, testing is free, quick, and readily available in many places. Just this week, there was more good news on the testing front: The FDA has authorized the first at-home rapid test for the virus.
What that means: We now have the ability to catch cases early, before the infected person has a chance to spread the virus to many others. The key now is convincing people to be tested and investing in systems to warn people who have been in close contact with those who test positive.
Back in March, we thought: that air filtration systems might not help limit the spread of the virus.
Now we know: that while they’re not enough on their own to protect us, when used correctly and in combination with masks, HEPA filters can help.
What that means: Installing filters can offer an additional layer of protection for essential spaces like hospitals and classrooms.
Back in March, we thought: that schools would be the main way that the coronavirus spreads.
Now we know: that while school outbreaks do occur, indoor spaces where adults congregate are much more likely to lead to outbreaks. A recent study in the journal Nature found that in urban areas, restaurants, gyms, hotels, cafes, and houses of worship were the source of most superspreader events. Schools, meanwhile, have not seen as many outbreaks as experts initially feared, especially at the elementary level.
What that means: We can prioritize reopening schools with appropriate safety measures—and putting more restrictions on restaurants, bars, gyms, and other adult-centered businesses.
To explain the power of these measures, public health experts like to use the analogy of layers of slices of Swiss cheese. In one slice, there are many holes. If you add another slice, it covers up a few of those holes, and so on. The more layers, the closer you get to an opaque hunk of cheese. The more virus-protection strategies you layer on, the less likely it is the virus will sneak through.
Of course there are more layers should infection occur: Coronavirus treatments have improved immensely—back in March the ventilator was basically the only tool doctors had, and it wasn’t a very good one. Now we know that “proning”—placing patients on their stomach—can help them breathe better. We have a fleet of promising medications, including, as of last week, an antibody treatment that seems to be effective in preventing severe disease. The brass ring, of course, is the promise of several highly effective vaccines expected to begin distribution before year’s end.
But as I’ve written before, medical breakthroughs on their own won’t stop this virus. What’s more, despite what our leaders say, we don’t have to sit around and wait for a miracle cure, nor must we throw our hands up in despair and let the virus run loose. We do have agency in this situation. We have the power to protect ourselves and our loved ones, thanks to the dazzlingly fast and careful work of scientists. The best way to honor that work is by letting it empower us.


motherjones--2020-11-19--Giuliani Alleges a Vast International Conspiracy to Steal the Election From Trump

President Donald Trump ’ s legal team escalated its false claims of election fraud Thursday to a full-blown , unsubstantiated allegation of a vast international conspiracy to fix the election for Joe Biden , featuring George Soros , Antifa , the media , and the dead Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez .
Rudy Giuliani , who is leading Trump ’ s legal efforts to challenge his election loss , was sweating with brown hair dye apparently running down both of his cheeks as he spouted these claims at a press conference .
He was joined by Sidney Powell , another Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Trump conspiracy theories on behalf of her client Michael Flynn , the former national security adviser .
They left few parties out of the incomprehensible plot they sketched , allegedly perpetrated by the likes of Germany , Cuba , China , leading technology and social media companies , two voting technology firms , Biden ’ s campaign , and local Democratic officials , especially in cities with mostly Black voters .
“ Globalist dictators , corporations , you name it , ” Powell said .
“ Everybody is against us.
” Giuliani said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations , would inform impending lawsuits challenging Biden ’ s electoral wins in Georgia , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Arizona , New Mexico , and Virginia .
This news conference was more evidence that Trump and his last ditch-defenders are attempting to subvert the results of a Democratic election in which Biden has earned 306 electoral votes and at least six million more votes than Trump .
Like Trump , his attorneys asserted the president won the election but was thwarted by fraud .
“ President Trump won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding , “ We are going to take this country back.
” The press conference followed reports Thursday that Trump had personally called two Republican members of the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County , Michigan , after they first refused to certify the results the county ’ s election results , then reversed those votes .
After Trump ’ s calls , the two Republicans issued affidavits asserting they wished to rescind their certification votes .
This appears to be part of a push to create arguments for Republican legislators in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to certify Biden ’ s wins and instead appoint electors who will cast Electoral College votes for Trump .
Many prominent Republicans , without endorsing this effort , are abetting it by suggesting it is part of a normal legal challenge to election results rather than an unprecedented bid by a US president to use his power to steal an election he lost .
Trump has been lying about the election since before it took place , laying the groundwork to undermine the results by baselessly asserting that mail-in votes allow fraud .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he had prevailed , and since then he has maintained that he won even as Biden ’ s lead grows .
But Thursday ’ s presser marked an escalation of his team ’ s claims .
Giuliani opened the press conference with a rambling 45 minutes of commentary that blended a series of conspiracy theories .
He assailed Detroit and Philadelphia , both cities with large Black populations , as corrupt .
“ The only surprise I would have found in this is if Philadelphia hadn ’ t cheated , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same thing about Detroit.
” Giuliani said that in Philadelphia , voters from Camden , a heavily Black and Latino city across the river in New Jersey , illegally cast votes for Biden .
In Michigan , it was a truck full of ballots marked for Biden that arrived after observers thought all the Republican poll watchers had gone home , Giuliani said .
He presented no real evidence for these claims , which take advantage of a phenomenon that journalists , election officials , and experts had warned of for months : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mirage ” on election night followed by a “ blue shift ” once all the Democratic-leaning mail-in votes were counted .
The mail-ins were largely Democratic because the Democratic Party encouraged voting by mail to maintain safety during the pandemic , while Trump and many Republicans spent the fall alleging that mail voting was a source of fraud .
Giuliani took this expected occurrence and turned it into a vast conspiracy about Democratic Party bosses , corruption , and , of course , the dog whistle of supposedly suspiciously large numbers of Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities are cities that are controlled by Democrats , which means they can get away with anything they want to do , ” he claimed .
These claims are almost tame compared to the voting machine conspiracy he cited next .
( Trump is reportedly “ obsessed ” with this bogus theory . )
Giuliani left most of that explanation to Powell , a Texas appeals court attorney who has used her representation of Flynn to bolster Trump ’ s false claims about the origin of the Trump-Russia scandal , in the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his legal team .
Since Election Day , Powell has appeared extensively on Fox News to push an increasingly elaborate conspiracy theory : that Biden backers used a secret algorithm to switch votes compiled by electronic voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems .
Powell has said that votes may have been altered remotely from Venezuela and Germany .
She suggested the CIA knows the machines are vulnerable to fraud but ignored the issue because the agency itself has used them itself .
( Ron Watkins , an administrator of 8kun , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hub for the baseless QAnon conspiracy that Trump is battling a pedophile ring run by liberal elites , is a key proponent of the false claims about Dominion voting machines . )
Powell escalated her claim further Thursday .
She alleged “ massive influence of communist money through Venezuela , Cuba , and likely China ” used for “ interference with our elections.
” It is not clear what she ’ s talking about , and she ’ s offered zero support for the claim .
Powell claims to have affidavits from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But she has not released any , and the only affidavit she ’ s specifically cited deals with alleged use by Venezuelan officials of election software made by a London-based firm , Smartmatic , to alter votes in that country .
Powell has a personal interest in advancing these claims .
She ’ s attempting to raise “ millions of dollars ” for a nonprofit she says will support litigation challenging Biden ’ s victory , but which offers no indication so far of how much it has raised or what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times reported that Giuliani is seeking $ 20,000 per day to represent Trump .
He denied he sought that much .
Jenna Ellis , another member of Trump ’ s legal team , berated members of the media for snapping pictures of Giuliani during the presser , presumably to note the hair dye cascading down his face .
Ellis also preemptively attacked the press for focusing on that detail instead of the evidence she claimed Trump ’ s lawyers are marshaling .
But the attorneys have offered no legitimate evidence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liquid dripping down Giuliani ’ s face , in contrast , was real , evidence of a small deceit by the former New York City mayor .
In that sense it may have been the most honest part of the presser .
The Trump team ’ s legal efforts will probably fail .
They are comically false .
But they are also unprecedented and dangerous .
Polls show a large majority of likely Republican voters believe alleged voter fraud calls Biden ’ s victory into question .
Trump ’ s lawyers are hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in American democracy .
Ellis , lecturing reporters Thursday , stated , “ This matters to election integrity and matters to the future of our country.
” She ’ s right about that .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump’s legal team escalated its false claims of election fraud Thursday to a full-blown, unsubstantiated allegation of a vast international conspiracy to fix the election for Joe Biden, featuring George Soros, Antifa, the media, and the dead Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez.
Rudy Giuliani, who is leading Trump’s legal efforts to challenge his election loss, was sweating with what appeared to be brown hair dye running down both of his cheeks as he spouted these claims at a press conference. He was joined by Sidney Powell, another Trump lawyer who has gained prominence by pushing pro-Trump conspiracy theories on behalf of her client Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. They left few parties out of the incomprehensible plot they sketched, allegedly perpetrated by the likes of Germany, Cuba, China, leading technology and social media companies, two voting technology firms, Biden’s campaign, and local Democratic officials, especially in cities with mostly Black voters. “Globalist dictators, corporations, you name it,” Powell said. “Everybody is against us.”
Giuliani said these claims, and other alleged and unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations, would inform impending lawsuits challenging Biden’s electoral wins in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, and Virginia.
This news conference was more evidence that Trump and his last ditch-defenders are attempting to subvert the results of a Democratic election in which Biden has earned 306 electoral votes and at least six million more votes than Trump. Like Trump, his attorneys asserted the president won the election but was thwarted by fraud. “President Trump won by a landslide,” Powell said, adding, “We are going to take this country back.”
The press conference followed reports Thursday that Trump had personally called two Republican members of the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County, Michigan, after they first refused to certify the results the county’s election results, then reversed those votes. After Trump’s calls, the two Republicans issued affidavits asserting they wished to rescind their certification votes. This appears to be part of a push to create arguments for Republican legislators in Michigan and other key states to refuse to certify Biden’s wins and instead appoint electors who will cast Electoral College votes for Trump. Many prominent Republicans, without endorsing this effort, are abetting it by suggesting it is part of a normal legal challenge to election results rather than an unprecedented bid by a US president to use his power to steal an election he lost.
That press conference was the most dangerous 1hr 45 minutes of television in American history. And possibly the craziest. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re lucky. — Chris Krebs (@C_C_Krebs) November 19, 2020
Trump has been lying about the election since before it took place, laying the groundwork to undermine the results by baselessly asserting that mail-in votes allow fraud. On election night, he falsely claimed that he had prevailed, and since then he has maintained that he won even as Biden’s lead grows. But Thursday’s presser marked an escalation of his team’s claims.
Giuliani opened the press conference with a rambling 45 minutes of commentary that blended a series of conspiracy theories. He assailed Detroit and Philadelphia, both cities with large Black populations, as corrupt. “The only surprise I would have found in this is if Philadelphia hadn’t cheated,” he said. “You could say the same thing about Detroit.” Giuliani said that in Philadelphia, voters from Camden, a heavily Black and Latino city across the river in New Jersey, illegally cast votes for Biden. In Michigan, it was a truck full of ballots marked for Biden that arrived after observers thought all the Republican poll watchers had gone home, Giuliani said.
He presented no real evidence for these claims, which take advantage of a phenomenon that journalists, election officials, and experts had warned of for months: Many states would experience a “red mirage” on election night followed by a “blue shift” once all the Democratic-leaning mail-in votes were counted. The mail-ins were largely Democratic because the Democratic Party encouraged voting by mail to maintain safety during the pandemic, while Trump and many Republicans spent the fall alleging that mail voting was a source of fraud. Giuliani took this expected occurrence and turned it into a vast conspiracy about Democratic Party bosses, corruption, and, of course, the dog whistle of supposedly suspiciously large numbers of Black voters. “Each one of these cities are cities that are controlled by Democrats, which means they can get away with anything they want to do,” he claimed.
These claims are almost tame compared to the voting machine conspiracy he cited next. (Trump is reportedly “obsessed” with this bogus theory.) Giuliani left most of that explanation to Powell, a Texas appeals court attorney who has used her representation of Flynn to bolster Trump’s false claims about the origin of the Trump-Russia scandal, in the process gaining access to Trump and a spot on his legal team. Since Election Day, Powell has appeared extensively on Fox News to push an increasingly elaborate conspiracy theory: that Biden backers used a secret algorithm to switch votes compiled by electronic voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems. Powell has said that votes may have been altered remotely from Venezuela and Germany. She suggested the CIA knows the machines are vulnerable to fraud but ignored the issue because the agency has used them itself. (Ron Watkins, an administrator of 8kun, a message board that is the main hub for the baseless QAnon conspiracy that Trump is battling a pedophile ring run by liberal elites, is a key proponent of the false claims about Dominion voting machines.)
Powell escalated her claim further Thursday. She alleged “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China” used for “interference with our elections.” It is not clear what she’s talking about, and she’s offered zero support for the claim. Powell claims to have affidavits from “whistleblowers” supporting some of her assertions. But she has not released any, and the only affidavit she’s specifically cited deals with alleged use by Venezuelan officials of election software made by a London-based firm, Smartmatic, to alter votes in that country.
Powell has a personal interest in advancing these claims. She’s attempting to raise “millions of dollars” for a nonprofit she says will support litigation challenging Biden’s victory, but which offers no indication so far of how much it has raised or what the money is being used for. The New York Times reported that Giuliani is seeking $20,000 per day to represent Trump. He denied he sought that much.
Jenna Ellis, another member of Trump’s legal team, berated members of the media for snapping pictures of Giuliani during the presser, presumably to note the hair dye cascading down his face. Ellis also preemptively attacked the press for focusing on that detail instead of the evidence she claimed Trump’s lawyers are marshaling. But the attorneys have offered no legitimate evidence at all for their theories. The brown liquid dripping down Giuliani’s face, in contrast, was real, evidence of a small deceit by the former New York City mayor. In that sense it may have been the most honest part of the presser.
The Trump team’s legal efforts will probably fail. They are comically false. But they are also unprecedented and dangerous. Polls show a large majority of likely Republican voters believe alleged voter fraud calls Biden’s victory into question. Trump’s lawyers are hard at work using lies to permanently undermine faith in American democracy.
Ellis, lecturing reporters Thursday, stated, “This matters to election integrity and matters to the future of our country.” She’s right about that.