vox--2020-07-21--A definitive case against the Electoral College

One of the biggest problems with American democracy is that it ’ s not democratic .
Two of the last five presidents were elected despite losing the popular vote , more than half the Senate is elected by roughly 18 percent of the population , and voting districts are increasingly gerrymandered in ways that disenfranchise the people who live there .
Our process for choosing the president , the Electoral College , is probably the strangest and most explicitly anti-democratic feature of the American political system .
It was conceived in part as a firewall against majority will in case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the office .
( It , uh , didn ’ t work . )
But the history is more complicated than that .
Akhil Reed Amar , a constitutional scholar at Yale , has argued that the Electoral College was a concession to the slave states at the time of the founding .
Another popular theory is that the Electoral College was designed to prevent presidential candidates from ignoring the smaller , less populated states .
Whatever the case , there ’ s no denying that the Electoral College is anti-democratic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The Electoral College bias is now such that realistically [ Democrats ] have to win by 3.5 to 4 percent in order to win presidential elections.
” So why is it still around ?
What purpose does it serve today ?
And more importantly , can we get rid of it ?
Jesse Wegman , an editorial board member at the New York Times , has made a pretty definitive case against the Electoral College in his book Let the People Pick the President .
Among other things , Wegman argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture of a country reduced to red and blue states when , in fact , the United States is a purple country — and Americans pay a huge price for upholding a system that doesn ’ t represent that diversity .
I spoke to Wegman about the shoddy origins of the Electoral College , why the hundreds of attempts to abolish or reform it have failed , and why he thinks the US has to eliminate it .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
You explain in the book how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Electoral College was .
No one really believed in it all that much and it was cobbled together at the last minute and only adopted because every other idea failed to win enough support .
Were there any justifiable reasons for creating it in the first place ?
You can certainly look at things from the framers ’ perspective and say it ’ s understandable that they were concerned about how to elect the president .
It had never been done before .
They were building this out of whole cloth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of the major concerns was that many of the delegates didn ’ t want Congress involved in electing the president since they had just created a system built on a separation of powers .
Another concern was that citizens would never be able to make an informed decision about national candidates because they just wouldn ’ t have the information they needed , given the nature of communications technology back then .
What would you say was the foremost reason they created the Electoral College ?
I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you said , they were scrambling to get this thing done and they debated it endlessly for something like 21 days .
And none of the other proposals , like a national popular vote , had enough support to get into the Constitution .
But I ’ d say the driving force was to get the Constitution finished and sent out for ratification .
Beyond that , the main issues were keeping the election of the president out of Congress ’ s hands and ensuring the electors who made up the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make wise decisions .
And then of course you had the immovable obstacle of slavery and ensuring that the slave-holding states didn ’ t unravel the whole process .
James Madison himself said during the middle of the convention that “ the popular vote is the fittest way to elect a president , ” but that the South wouldn ’ t go for it .
And he says this more than once .
So it ’ s clear that the Founders knew the slave states had a ton of leverage .
We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We know it was the product of brutal compromises .
But has the Electoral College ever operated the way it was intended to operate ?
No — with the possible exception of the first two elections when George Washington was on the ticket .
But after that , we basically had electors who were not operating in what the framers thought of as the best interests of the country .
The electors were just party hacks .
That was clear by 1796 , and it ’ s just as clear today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , neutral , wise men the founders imagined .
Why have all the attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College failed ?
I think that the most common reason is because one or both political parties have seen themselves as benefiting from it in some way .
So it ’ s almost always a short-term political calculus that keeps the college alive .
It ’ s very rare that it ’ s about anything relating to democratic principles or some notion of what ’ s fair or just .
No one thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invention , but it ’ s been preserved over the years for political reasons .
Okay , but the dynamics have changed , right ?
Now the Electoral College benefits the Republican Party almost exclusively .
You ’ re right that the college has typically leaned toward one party or the other — that was true in 2016 and almost certainly true for 2020 .
But I ’ d also say that it ’ s harder than we think to say that definitively in advance of an election .
Republicans won the 2004 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave the Democrats a boost .
If 60,000 votes went the other way in Ohio , George W. Bush would have won the national popular vote by 3 million votes , but John Kerry would ’ ve been elected .
So the advantages aren ’ t so fixed .
But yes , I concede the point you ’ re making : Right now , the Electoral College benefits Republicans pretty clearly , and a split election is much , much more likely to go the Republican candidate .
A lot of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College think it ’ s just sour grapes from liberals who don ’ t like the current outcome of the system .
How do you respond to that ?
I ’ m as upset as anybody who experienced their preferred candidate winning more votes and not being elected .
I think it violates our basic sense of what majority rule means .
All I would say to those people is , look at Trump ’ s tweet in 2012 arguing that the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy .
The circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Night 2012 , early exit polling was suggesting that Mitt Romney might win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College to Obama .
So the mere possibility that that could happen triggered Trump ’ s tweet , and all I ’ ll say is that I sympathize .
And it ’ s actually happened twice in the last 20 years for Democrats — Right !
And I ’ ll bet any amount of money that the moment it happened in the other direction , you would see exactly the same reaction from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s because everybody in their gut feels the unfairness of a system that does not put the person with the most votes in the White House .
What would you say is the biggest myth or misconception about the Electoral College ?
This idea that somehow small states currently have a voice under the Electoral College system , and that they would lose that voice under a popular vote , is just the exact inverse of reality .
Right now , small states have no voice because they , like big states and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not battleground states .
The only states that matter in a winner-take-all Electoral College scenario are battleground states , and those are the states where the candidates spend virtually 100 percent of their time and money trying to win .
There are 13 states with three or four electoral votes .
We call those the small states .
One of those states , New Hampshire , is a battleground state .
New Hampshire gets more attention from both campaigns every four years than all the other 12 small states combined .
The small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What about the claim that big cities would dominate a popular election ?
As a factual mathematical matter , that ’ s just untrue .
The biggest cities in the country don ’ t come close to having enough votes to swing a national election .
They can ’ t even swing elections for governor in their own states .
New York City didn ’ t vote for George Pataki .
Los Angeles didn ’ t vote for Pete Wilson in 1990 .
The 50 biggest cities in the country represent about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fairly big cities with more than 350,000 people or so , roughly 40 percent of the vote goes to Republican candidates — and in any case it ’ s far from zero .
And often in rural areas , the same electoral math holds .
And then just by comparison , the rural areas of America also represent about 15 percent of the population , and they vote about 60/40 in favor of the Republicans .
So big cities and rural America are essentially a wash in every presidential election .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly decide who the president was for everybody else is just wrong on the math .
A central focus of your book is this idea that ending the Electoral College would change the way candidates campaign and therefore the sorts of issues they prioritize .
Why is that a big deal ?
It ’ s a great question , and I think it really gets to the heart of what the problem is here .
When candidates only visit a few states and even a few regions in those few states , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both Democratic and Republican candidates focus on issues that are important to , say , coal miners in Pennsylvania or auto workers in Michigan , but those aren ’ t the only issues in the country .
And if you have a campaign that is forced to pay attention to everyone in the country and has to treat every vote as equally important , which is what a popular vote election would be , this would solve these problems and it would be more fair to the country as a whole .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform , background checks on guns — these are things that the vast majority of the country supports , and it ’ s very hard to get presidential candidates to really get behind them if they aren ’ t the key issues for voters in battleground states .
The most common defense of the Electoral College is that it ’ s a kind of last-resort firewall against a manifestly unfit president .
Now , obviously , our current president proves how useless that firewall is , but is there a case , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College on these grounds ?
No , it ’ s a terrible reason .
And you just explained why : Donald Trump .
If ever there was a candidate who should have been stopped by what we think the Electoral College was designed to do , it was Donald Trump in 2016 .
But the reverse happened .
So the reality is that the Electoral College has never really worked as a firewall against unfit candidates because it ’ s a fundamentally partisan institution .
The 2016 election ought to put an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s at least one way to effectively end the Electoral College without technically abolishing it .
Can you explain what that is ?
It ’ s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , and it ’ s a quite simple way of using the Electoral College that the framers designed as a means to a popular vote .
It ’ s not an end-run around the college , as people like to call it .
It draws on the Constitution , which gives states almost total authority to award their electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that states who join it agree to award all of their electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes in the nation , not in their state , which is how most states do it now .
It ’ s an elegant and clever solution to this problem .
Do you think we reach a breaking point where the status quo loses its legitimacy and we ’ re confronted with a genuine political crisis ?
People often say to me , “ Well , how is this ever going to happen ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ re never going to do it.
” Everybody always has a reason for explaining why this isn ’ t going to work .
I think that overestimates the American people ’ s tolerance for a system in which majority rule is violated repeatedly .
If this happens again in 2020 , I think you ’ ll see a much stronger push to get the compact passed in a few other states that are right now either considering it or may soon .
We ’ re in a moment where people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that they rarely do , and there ’ s an openness to changing our basic structures and to question our basic assumptions about how government works .
The way we pick our president is one of the prime places where those new ways of thinking could really lead to concrete change .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

One of the biggest problems with American democracy is that it’s not democratic.
Two of the last five presidents were elected despite losing the popular vote, more than half the Senate is elected by roughly 18 percent of the population, and voting districts are increasingly gerrymandered in ways that disenfranchise the people who live there.
Our process for choosing the president, the Electoral College, is probably the strangest and most explicitly anti-democratic feature of the American political system. It was conceived in part as a firewall against majority will in case the mob ever elected someone grotesquely unqualified for the office. (It, uh, didn’t work.)
But the history is more complicated than that. Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale, has argued that the Electoral College was a concession to the slave states at the time of the founding. Another popular theory is that the Electoral College was designed to prevent presidential candidates from ignoring the smaller, less populated states.
Whatever the case, there’s no denying that the Electoral College is anti-democratic. According to Democratic data scientist David Shor, “The Electoral College bias is now such that realistically [Democrats] have to win by 3.5 to 4 percent in order to win presidential elections.” So why is it still around? What purpose does it serve today? And more importantly, can we get rid of it?
Jesse Wegman, an editorial board member at the New York Times, has made a definitive case against the Electoral College in his book Let the People Pick the President. Among other things, Wegman argues that the Electoral College creates a false picture of a country reduced to red and blue states when, in fact, the United States is a purple country — and Americans pay a huge price for upholding a system that doesn’t represent that diversity.
I spoke to Wegman about the shoddy origins of the Electoral College and why he thinks we have to eliminate it back in July, but the conversation is still relevant. Joe Biden has opened up a wide lead over Donald Trump in the national polls, but the race is by no means over, thanks to the Electoral College. If Trump loses the popular vote by a few million votes and somehow manages to win the election by securing 270 electoral votes, discontent over this antidemocratic relic may well boil over.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
You explain in the book how slipshod and hurried the process of conceiving the Electoral College was. No one really believed in it all that much and it was cobbled together at the last minute and only adopted because every other idea failed to win enough support. Were there any justifiable reasons for creating it in the first place?
Jesse Wegman
You can certainly look at things from the framers’ perspective and say it’s understandable that they were concerned about how to elect the president. It had never been done before. They were building this out of whole cloth and the concerns that they had were real.
One of the major concerns was that many of the delegates didn’t want Congress involved in electing the president since they had just created a system built on a separation of powers. Another concern was that citizens would never be able to make an informed decision about national candidates because they just wouldn’t have the information they needed, given the nature of communications technology back then.
Sean Illing
What would you say was the foremost reason they created the Electoral College?
Jesse Wegman
I don’t think there was a foremost purpose. As you said, they were scrambling to get this thing done and they debated it endlessly for something like 21 days. And none of the other proposals, like a national popular vote, had enough support to get into the Constitution.
But I’d say the driving force was to get the Constitution finished and sent out for ratification. Beyond that, the main issues were keeping the election of the president out of Congress’s hands and ensuring the electors who made up the Electoral College knew who the candidates were and could make wise decisions.
And then of course you had the immovable obstacle of slavery and ensuring that the slave-holding states didn’t unravel the whole process. James Madison himself said during the middle of the convention that “the popular vote is the fittest way to elect a president,” but that the South wouldn’t go for it. And he says this more than once. So it’s clear that the Founders knew the slave states had a ton of leverage.
Sean Illing
We know the process of passing it was flawed. We know it was the product of brutal compromises. But has the Electoral College ever operated the way it was intended to operate?
Jesse Wegman
No — with the possible exception of the first two elections when George Washington was on the ticket. But after that, we basically had electors who were not operating in what the framers thought of as the best interests of the country. The electors were just party hacks. That was clear by 1796, and it’s just as clear today. The electors have never been these disinterested, neutral, wise men the founders imagined.
Sean Illing
Why have all the attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College failed?
Jesse Wegman
I think that the most common reason is because one or both political parties have seen themselves as benefiting from it in some way. So it’s almost always a short-term political calculus that keeps the college alive. It’s very rare that it’s about anything relating to democratic principles or some notion of what’s fair or just. No one thinks the Electoral College was a brilliant constitutional invention, but it’s been preserved over the years for political reasons.
Sean Illing
Okay, but the dynamics have changed, right? Now the Electoral College benefits the Republican Party almost exclusively.
Jesse Wegman
You’re right that the college has typically leaned toward one party or the other — that was true in 2016 and almost certainly true for 2020. But I’d also say that it’s harder than we think to say that definitively in advance of an election.
Republicans won the 2004 election, but the Electoral College actually gave the Democrats a boost. If 60,000 votes went the other way in Ohio, George W. Bush would have won the national popular vote by 3 million votes, but John Kerry would’ve been elected. So the advantages aren’t so fixed.
But yes, I concede the point you’re making: Right now, the Electoral College benefits Republicans pretty clearly, and a split election is much, much more likely to go the Republican candidate.
Sean Illing
A lot of people who hear these sorts of objections to the Electoral College think it’s just sour grapes from liberals who don’t like the current outcome of the system. How do you respond to that?
Jesse Wegman
I’m as upset as anybody who experienced their preferred candidate winning more votes and not being elected. I think it violates our basic sense of what majority rule means. All I would say to those people is, look at Trump’s tweet in 2012 arguing that the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. The circumstances of that tweet is that on Election Night 2012, early exit polling was suggesting that Mitt Romney might win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College to Obama. So the mere possibility that that could happen triggered Trump’s tweet, and all I’ll say is that I sympathize.
Sean Illing
And it’s actually happened twice in the last 20 years for Democrats —
Jesse Wegman
Right! And I’ll bet any amount of money that the moment it happened in the other direction, you would see exactly the same reaction from the other side, and that’s because everybody in their gut feels the unfairness of a system that does not put the person with the most votes in the White House.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
Sean Illing
What would you say is the biggest myth or misconception about the Electoral College?
Jesse Wegman
This idea that somehow small states currently have a voice under the Electoral College system, and that they would lose that voice under a popular vote, is just the exact inverse of reality. Right now, small states have no voice because they, like big states and medium-size states across the country, are not battleground states. The only states that matter in a winner-take-all Electoral College scenario are battleground states, and those are the states where the candidates spend virtually 100 percent of their time and money trying to win.
There are 13 states with three or four electoral votes. We call those the small states. One of those states, New Hampshire, is a battleground state. New Hampshire gets more attention from both campaigns every four years than all the other 12 small states combined. The small states are a complete nonentity right now.
Sean Illing
What about the claim that big cities would dominate a popular election?
Jesse Wegman
As a factual mathematical matter, that’s just untrue. The biggest cities in the country don’t come close to having enough votes to swing a national election. They can’t even swing elections for governor in their own states. New York City didn’t vote for George Pataki. Los Angeles didn’t vote for Pete Wilson in 1990. The 50 biggest cities in the country represent about 15 percent of the population. Even in fairly big cities with more than 350,000 people or so, roughly 40 percent of the vote goes to Republican candidates — and in any case it’s far from zero. And often in rural areas, the same electoral math holds.
And then just by comparison, the rural areas of America also represent about 15 percent of the population, and they vote about 60/40 in favor of the Republicans. So big cities and rural America are essentially a wash in every presidential election. So the idea that big cities would somehow suddenly decide who the president was for everybody else is just wrong on the math.
Sean Illing
A central focus of your book is this idea that ending the Electoral College would change the way candidates campaign and therefore the sorts of issues they prioritize. Why is that a big deal?
Jesse Wegman
It’s a great question, and I think it really gets to the heart of what the problem is here. When candidates only visit a few states and even a few regions in those few states, you really see a warping of policy priorities. Both Democratic and Republican candidates focus on issues that are important to, say, coal miners in Pennsylvania or auto workers in Michigan, but those aren’t the only issues in the country. And if you have a campaign that is forced to pay attention to everyone in the country and has to treat every vote as equally important, which is what a popular vote election would be, this would solve these problems and it would be more fair to the country as a whole.
Issues like immigration reform, health care reform, background checks on guns — these are things that the vast majority of the country supports, and it’s very hard to get presidential candidates to really get behind them if they aren’t the key issues for voters in battleground states.
Sean Illing
The most common defense of the Electoral College is that it’s a kind of last-resort firewall against a manifestly unfit president. Now, obviously, our current president proves how useless that firewall is, but is there a case, in principle at least, for keeping the Electoral College on these grounds?
Jesse Wegman
No, it’s a terrible reason. And you just explained why: Donald Trump. If ever there was a candidate who should have been stopped by what we think the Electoral College was designed to do, it was Donald Trump in 2016. But the reverse happened. So the reality is that the Electoral College has never really worked as a firewall against unfit candidates because it’s a fundamentally partisan institution. The 2016 election ought to put an end to this argument forever.
Sean Illing
There’s at least one way to effectively end the Electoral College without technically abolishing it. Can you explain what that is?
Jesse Wegman
It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and it’s a quite simple way of using the Electoral College that the framers designed as a means to a popular vote. It’s not an end-run around the college, as people like to call it. It draws on the Constitution, which gives states almost total authority to award their electors however they want. So the idea is that states who join it agree to award all of their electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes in the nation, not in their state, which is how most states do it now. It’s an elegant and clever solution to this problem.
Sean Illing
Do you think we reach a breaking point where the status quo loses its legitimacy and we’re confronted with a genuine political crisis?
Jesse Wegman
People often say to me, “Well, how is this ever going to happen? Republicans have to get on board, and they’re never going to do it.” Everybody always has a reason for explaining why this isn’t going to work. I think that overestimates the American people’s tolerance for a system in which majority rule is violated repeatedly. If this happens again in 2020, I think you’ll see a much stronger push to get the compact passed in a few other states that are right now either considering it or may soon.
We’re in a moment where people are thinking about constitutional reform in a way that they rarely do, and there’s an openness to changing our basic structures and to question our basic assumptions about how government works. The way we pick our president is one of the prime places where those new ways of thinking could really lead to concrete change.


vox--2020-07-21--The best $129 I ever spent: Baby formula

When I was seven months pregnant with my first ( and only ) child , I found myself sitting in a “ Breastfeeding Basics ” class at a nearby hospital .
For the first part of the three-hour , $ 45 class , I diligently took notes as the nurse talked about the importance of skin-to-skin contact and breast milk antibodies and bonding with your child .
After her feel-good lecture , it was time to use a raggedy doll provided by the hospital to practice the “ football hold ” and the “ rugby hold ” and the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few of the breastfeeding positions that I would later struggle to master .
When the nurse asked us to hold the dolls up to our chests as if we were actually breastfeeding , I stared in horror as the women around me obeyed .
I pinned my doll down on the table with my hand in an act of prenatal rebellion , unable to lift it to my breast and pretend that this plastic baby was anything close to real .
As soon as the bathroom break came , I snuck out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , never to return .
I was still determined to breastfeed , but I drew a line at faking it with plastic dolls .
When I got home from class , inside my Breastfeeding Basics folder I discovered a pamphlet of information about a hospital support group for women struggling to nurse .
Despite this hint of potential trouble ahead , I remained committed , because who wouldn ’ t want to give their child the best possible nutrition ?
The World Health Organization says , “ Breastfed children perform better on intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overweight or obese and less prone to diabetes later in life .
… Inappropriate marketing of breast-milk substitutes continues to undermine efforts to improve breastfeeding rates and duration worldwide.
” It felt like everything I read made breastfeeding versus formula sound like a grave international conflict , and that I , as a childbearing woman , better fight the good fight .
Still , throughout my pregnancy , I proudly declared to friends , family , and strangers in that Breastfeeding Basics class , “ I ’ m not going to kill myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work out , I ’ ll switch to formula.
” To diffuse any incoming scorn , I would add , “ My parents gave me formula and I don ’ t have two heads !
” This go-to joke was my way of covering up anxiety and painting myself as a casual mom-to-be .
Despite my false confidence , I secretly longed to become one of those blissed-out moms who made breastfeeding look like a mystical bonding experience .
I envisioned myself as a mother who could casually cradle a plump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street or eating at a restaurant or running an ultra-marathon or doing yoga .
I wanted to succeed , like the celebrity moms sharing photos of themselves looking blindingly euphoric as they nursed their babies while getting their hair and makeup done by a team of professionals before an event .
I didn ’ t have a glam team or any fancy events to attend , but I would gaze at these photos and think , This is what ’ s in store for me !
It seemed like such a privilege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sure , there were support groups for breastfeeding , but how hard could it really be ?
As the nurse leading my Breastfeeding Basics class had declared , “ It ’ s the most natural thing in the world.
” There was a subtle militance in her tone , which had pierced my chill mom persona and strengthened my secret desire to become a wellspring of nourishment for my child , by any means necessary .
The nurse had also added that , unlike formula , breastfeeding was free .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before all of this , I had spent two years trying to get pregnant .
Two years battling with my body , which refused to do what I so desperately wanted it to .
When I finally did get pregnant , after two pricey IUIs and two rounds of IVF that were not covered by insurance , the fact that my body had stopped revolting and started cooperating felt miraculous .
I was elated to be carrying a child .
While I still occasionally declared that I would be perfectly fine not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formula feeding went from a casual joke to a source of shame .
I had been through so much , and had spent so much , to become a mom .
I think I just wanted the rest of the journey to feel natural and easy , and somewhere along the way , breastfeeding became a symbol of that ease .
My husband didn ’ t care if we fed our son formula .
My mom , who gave formula to all four of her daughters , couldn ’ t understand why any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to breastfeed .
Still , as soon as my son was born , breastfeeding became a battle I was determined to win .
I struggled to get him to latch on in the hospital .
I was terrified , full of nerves and adrenaline , and no amount of coaching and prodding and manhandling from the nurses or the lactation specialists who popped in for visits could save me .
Occasionally my son and I would almost get it , but then we would both end up in tears .
The fear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your child is a powerful force , and during those two days in the hospital a primal sort of mania welled up inside of me .
I was on a mission ; I would defy my body and emerge triumphant , with a healthy child full of vitamins and proteins and precious antibodies .
For three long months , I pushed myself to the mental and physical brink trying to nourish my son .
I barely slept , hardly showered , and I cried my way through painful marathon “ cluster feedings ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on end but still didn ’ t get the nutrition he needed .
I had to supplement with formula occasionally , but I was fiercely determined not to stop breastfeeding , to make it work , to make it seem like “ the most natural thing in the world.
” My stress probably didn ’ t help the situation .
I thought about calling a lactation consultant , but the $ 200- $ 250 an hour price tag scared me away , especially since I calculated that it would take much longer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I sat there day after day , attached to a pale pink torture device also known as a breast pump , I would wonder if my body was failing me , like it had when I was trying to conceive .
My younger sister breastfed all three of her children for a full year each , and she made it look so easy .
She always had a freezer full of bags of breast milk , so why was my body only producing a sad little thimbleful of the stuff ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store in the refrigerator ( never the freezer ) , I would feel elated , like I ’ d just been admitted to the cool girls club in middle school .
Then the milk in the refrigerator would get used up , and there I ’ d go , trudging back to the breast pump to fight another day .
It wasn ’ t all horrible .
Occasionally I would experience a moment of bonded bliss , when things worked out and my son latched on , and I could stare down at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am quiet as oxytocin flooded my body .
Those moments were precious , but for every day of blissful breastfeeding , I experienced five more days of pure hell .
I could run in front of a bus for him , or jump into a burning building , but breastfeeding ?
That turned out to be too much .
One day , three months in , I sat at the mercy of the dreaded breast pump , watching in tedious agony as milk slowly filled the container .
When it was finally filled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the churning pink machine , and the entire container of precious milk spilled onto the floor .
I flopped down onto the floor by the spilled milk , and I cried .
It was a horrible feeling , like coming to the end of a marathon but my body wouldn ’ t let me take another step , and in that moment , I knew I couldn ’ t do it anymore .
I couldn ’ t pretend to be a selfless maternal goddess who would sacrifice all for her child .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him or jump into a burning building , but breastfeeding ?
That turned out to be too much .
I talked to my son ’ s pediatrician , who thankfully refrained from shaming me , and instead said , “ As long as he ’ s eating , I ’ m happy.
” I immediately bought a one-month supply of the formula I ’ d been using to supplement , for $ 129.86 .
Physically , the transition wasn ’ t difficult since I hadn ’ t been producing much milk anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started on full formula , he was less cranky , helping me realize that maybe the poor kid had been crying all that time because he was starving .
Breastfeeding or not , the mom guilt never ends .
Once the purchase was made and the decision was set , I felt a tinge of sadness , knowing that since I was only having one child , I would never again experience those sweet , rare , 3 am moments of magical bonding , and that once my son was weaned , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss didn ’ t compare to the overwhelming feeling of freedom and bliss that came from knowing that after three months of forcing my body and mind to cooperate , I could become a better mom because I could finally just be myself .
It felt like the most natural thing in the world .
Dina Gachman is an Austin-based writer and the author of Brokenomics .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to @ @ @

When I was seven months pregnant with my first (and only) child, I found myself sitting in a “Breastfeeding Basics” class at a nearby hospital.
For the first part of the three-hour, $45 class, I diligently took notes as the nurse talked about the importance of skin-to-skin contact and breast milk antibodies and bonding with your child. After her feel-good lecture, it was time to use a raggedy doll provided by the hospital to practice the “football hold” and the “rugby hold” and the “cross cradle,” to name just a few of the breastfeeding positions that I would later struggle to master.
When the nurse asked us to hold the dolls up to our chests as if we were actually breastfeeding, I stared in horror as the women around me obeyed. I pinned my doll down on the table with my hand in an act of prenatal rebellion, unable to lift it to my breast and pretend that this plastic baby was anything close to real. As soon as the bathroom break came, I snuck out the door and into the parking lot, never to return. I was still determined to breastfeed, but I drew a line at faking it with plastic dolls.
When I got home from class, inside my Breastfeeding Basics folder I discovered a pamphlet of information about a hospital support group for women struggling to nurse. Despite this hint of potential trouble ahead, I remained committed, because who wouldn’t want to give their child the best possible nutrition? The World Health Organization says, “Breastfed children perform better on intelligence tests, are less likely to be overweight or obese and less prone to diabetes later in life. … Inappropriate marketing of breast-milk substitutes continues to undermine efforts to improve breastfeeding rates and duration worldwide.” It felt like everything I read made breastfeeding versus formula sound like a grave international conflict, and that I, as a childbearing woman, better fight the good fight.
Still, throughout my pregnancy, I proudly declared to friends, family, and strangers in that Breastfeeding Basics class, “I’m not going to kill myself trying to breastfeed. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll switch to formula.” To diffuse any incoming scorn, I would add, “My parents gave me formula and I don’t have two heads!” This go-to joke was my way of covering up anxiety and painting myself as a casual mom-to-be.
Everything I read made breastfeeding versus formula sound like a grave international conflict
Despite my false confidence, I secretly longed to become one of those blissed-out moms who made breastfeeding look like a mystical bonding experience. I envisioned myself as a mother who could casually cradle a plump infant to her breast while walking down the street or eating at a restaurant or running an ultra-marathon or doing yoga. I wanted to succeed, like the celebrity moms sharing photos of themselves looking blindingly euphoric as they nursed their babies while getting their hair and makeup done by a team of professionals before an event. I didn’t have a glam team or any fancy events to attend, but I would gaze at these photos and think, This is what’s in store for me! It seemed like such a privilege and a natural extension of giving birth. Sure, there were support groups for breastfeeding, but how hard could it really be?
As the nurse leading my Breastfeeding Basics class had declared, “It’s the most natural thing in the world.” There was a subtle militance in her tone, which had pierced my chill mom persona and strengthened my secret desire to become a wellspring of nourishment for my child, by any means necessary. The nurse had also added that, unlike formula, breastfeeding was free. It’s hard to argue with that logic.
Before all of this, I had spent two years trying to get pregnant. Two years battling with my body, which refused to do what I so desperately wanted it to. When I finally did get pregnant, after two pricey IUIs and two rounds of IVF that were not covered by insurance, the fact that my body had stopped revolting and started cooperating felt miraculous. I was elated to be carrying a child. While I still occasionally declared that I would be perfectly fine not breastfeeding my son, the idea of formula feeding went from a casual joke to a source of shame. I had been through so much, and had spent so much, to become a mom. I think I just wanted the rest of the journey to feel natural and easy, and somewhere along the way, breastfeeding became a symbol of that ease.
My husband didn’t care if we fed our son formula. My mom, who gave formula to all four of her daughters, couldn’t understand why any woman in her right mind would choose to breastfeed. Still, as soon as my son was born, breastfeeding became a battle I was determined to win. I struggled to get him to latch on in the hospital. I was terrified, full of nerves and adrenaline, and no amount of coaching and prodding and manhandling from the nurses or the lactation specialists who popped in for visits could save me. Occasionally my son and I would almost get it, but then we would both end up in tears. The fear and stress of not being able to feed your child is a powerful force, and during those two days in the hospital a primal sort of mania welled up inside of me. I was on a mission; I would defy my body and emerge triumphant, with a healthy child full of vitamins and proteins and precious antibodies.
For three long months, I pushed myself to the mental and physical brink trying to nourish my son. I barely slept, hardly showered, and I cried my way through painful marathon “cluster feedings” in which my son nursed for hours on end but still didn’t get the nutrition he needed. I had to supplement with formula occasionally, but I was fiercely determined not to stop breastfeeding, to make it work, to make it seem like “the most natural thing in the world.” My stress probably didn’t help the situation. I thought about calling a lactation consultant, but the $200-$250 an hour price tag scared me away, especially since I calculated that it would take much longer than an hour to rectify the situation.
As I sat there day after day, attached to a pale pink torture device also known as a breast pump, I would wonder if my body was failing me, like it had when I was trying to conceive. My younger sister breastfed all three of her children for a full year each, and she made it look so easy. She always had a freezer full of bags of breast milk, so why was my body only producing a sad little thimbleful of the stuff? If I did ever have enough milk to store in the refrigerator (never the freezer), I would feel elated, like I’d just been admitted to the cool girls club in middle school. Then the milk in the refrigerator would get used up, and there I’d go, trudging back to the breast pump to fight another day.
It wasn’t all horrible. Occasionally I would experience a moment of bonded bliss, when things worked out and my son latched on, and I could stare down at his perfect little face in the 3 am quiet as oxytocin flooded my body. Those moments were precious, but for every day of blissful breastfeeding, I experienced five more days of pure hell.
I could run in front of a bus for him, or jump into a burning building, but breastfeeding? That turned out to be too much.
One day, three months in, I sat at the mercy of the dreaded breast pump, watching in tedious agony as milk slowly filled the container. When it was finally filled, I stood up to turn off the churning pink machine, and the entire container of precious milk spilled onto the floor. I flopped down onto the floor by the spilled milk, and I cried. It was a horrible feeling, like coming to the end of a marathon but my body wouldn’t let me take another step, and in that moment, I knew I couldn’t do it anymore. I couldn’t pretend to be a selfless maternal goddess who would sacrifice all for her child. I could run in front of a bus for him or jump into a burning building, but breastfeeding? That turned out to be too much.
I talked to my son’s pediatrician, who thankfully refrained from shaming me, and instead said, “As long as he’s eating, I’m happy.” I immediately bought a one-month supply of the formula I’d been using to supplement, for $129.86. Physically, the transition wasn’t difficult since I hadn’t been producing much milk anyway, and as soon as my son started on full formula, he was less cranky, helping me realize that maybe the poor kid had been crying all that time because he was starving. Breastfeeding or not, the mom guilt never ends.
Once the purchase was made and the decision was set, I felt a tinge of sadness, knowing that since I was only having one child, I would never again experience those sweet, rare, 3 am moments of magical bonding, and that once my son was weaned, there was no going back. But that loss didn’t compare to the overwhelming feeling of freedom and bliss that came from knowing that after three months of forcing my body and mind to cooperate, I could become a better mom because I could finally just be myself. It felt like the most natural thing in the world.
Dina Gachman is an Austin-based writer and the author of Brokenomics.


vox--2020-07-21--Trump once flirted with white nationalism. Now it’s a centerpiece of his White House.

It ’ s been a constant in nearly every element of his presidency : The white nationalist violence in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , was followed by a pronouncement that there were “ some very fine people on both sides.
” The election of Congress ’ s most diverse class in 2018 ever was met with tweets demonizing women progressives of color , telling them to “ go back ” to the “ crime infested places from which they came.
” Even Covid-19 , a disease spun out of the animal kingdom , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at best the fault of — and , at worst , created by — nonwhite people , with the president insisting on using racist language around it .
And Trump arguably launched his political career by appearing on shows like Fox News ’ s The O ’ Reilly Factor in 2011 to speculate that “ maybe ” President Barack Obama ’ s birth certificate “ says he is a Muslim.
” As president , Trump energizes white nationalists on two levels : with his rhetoric and through his staffing and policy choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him their support .
In doing so , Trump has given an overt platform to white nationalists in a way that is unprecedented in the modern political era .
The issue isn ’ t just Trump ’ s rhetoric .
His administration ’ s immigration policy has led to the separation of families , to children facing risk of exposure to disease like Covid-19 in detention facilities , and to the deaths of immigrants seeking asylum in the US .
His criminal justice policy has led to a more punitive criminal justice system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all of which disproportionately affect communities of color .
His economic policies have rewarded those already holding wealth ( a mostly white group ) , and his much-vaunted “ greatest economy ” was not as great for people of color — particularly Black Americans , whose unemployment rate has been at least 2 percentage points higher than the general unemployment rate for the entirety of Trump ’ s tenure .
In fact , a kinship with white nationalist ideas can be found in just about any part of the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign affairs .
All of this is not to say that the Trump administration has run the country exactly as the leader of a white nationalist group would .
“ But they are doing a lot of things that are ideologically compatible , ” Kathleen Belew , a University of Chicago historian and author of Bring the War Home : The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America , told Vox .
“ And I think it creates a road toward political action for a movement that might not have seen one in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement is a complex one , and it overlaps with other ideologies , particularly those of white power and white supremacy , that are brought up in discussions of racism , history , and the misguided belief that white people are superior to people of color .
But the terms “ white nationalism , ” “ white power , ” and “ white supremacy ” each mean something different .
And to understand how the Trump administration relates to white nationalism , it ’ s important to understand what white nationalism is and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refers to strong support for a country akin to patriotism , as in the nationalists who want to put “ America first.
” But nationalism can also refer to self-determination , such as the Scottish nationalists who want an independent Scottish state .
White nationalism has more in common with this latter form of nationalism : It advocates for a physical or spiritual white state .
“ The nation in white nationalism is imagined as the Aryan nation , ” Belew said .
White nationalism is “ the idea that white people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polity either in a white homeland or a white nation — or even in a white world — through the violent killing or exclusion of other people.
” There are many routes to accomplishing this vision , but Belew stressed white nationalists generally are not “ interested in the United States as a nation.
” Instead , they aspire to replace the United States with something like the white state imagined at the end of The Turner Diaries , a central white nationalist text describing a war against people of color .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When we think about white nationalism , it ’ s important to remember that it is a deeply revolutionary and deeply anti-democratic project.
” The overall white power movement , on the other hand , goes beyond questions of statehood and has little regard for borders .
As Belew told my colleague Jane Coaston , it is what connects New Zealand ’ s Christchurch shooter to white nationalists in the United States , and is primarily a social , rather than strictly political , movement that she says is incredibly diverse “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The white power movement is a broad-based social movement of interconnected groups of people that includes the Klan , Neo-Nazis , radical tax protesters ; it includes some segments of boogaloo now ; it includes some segments of militia groups , ” Belew said .
“ It ’ s all across the country : It ’ s urban and suburban and rural ; it has men and women and children in it , and people across class backgrounds.
” As that list would suggest , white power is a movement that provides a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as political scientists Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith write in Stay Woke : A People ’ s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter , believe “ that white people are inherently superior to people of color and should dominate over people of color.
” This definition , Lopez Bunyasi told Vox , captures the ideological portion of white supremacy , but she noted there is also a structural facet .
Structurally , Lopez Bunyasi and Smith write , white supremacy is “ the systematic provision of political , social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantages to whites , alongside the systematic provisions of burdens and disadvantages to people who are not white.
” White supremacy isn ’ t just an ideology ; it is an actual system that has been used to build government and create policy in the real world .
It ’ s this sort of white supremacy , Stony Brook University sociology professor Crystal Fleming told Jenée Desmond-Harris in a 2016 piece for Vox , that has been “ a constant throughout history.
” The concept provided for the enslavement of Black people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the overall allocation of resources in manners that benefit white Americans .
And it is a system that still exists today , keeping people of color out of jobs , universities , and political power .
Which means everyone — regardless of whether one subscribes to white supremacist beliefs — lives in a white supremacist system .
Trump has embraced this system and has glorified some of its uglier moments , like its production of the Confederate States of America .
He does not advocate for the sort of white nationalism depicted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has certainly elevated white Americans — and sometimes white supremacists and nationalists — over Americans of color .
And as Belew notes , when it comes to the idea of white power , “ there is a lot of very concerning evidence that , if not Trump himself , there are people in his administration who really do understand what it means.
” The Trump administration ’ s relationship with white nationalism goes beyond the president It ’ s not only Trump who gives a voice to white nationalists .
Key people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among them is White House senior adviser Stephen Miller .
A trove of more than 900 emails Miller sent to the alt-right publication Breitbart in 2015 and 2016 — both while an aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions ( R-AL ) and a member of the Trump campaign — suggests Miller has deep ties to the white nationalist movement .
The emails , which were analyzed by the Southern Poverty Law Center , touched on race or immigration .
Some of the messages included links to white nationalist articles , while others included white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Camp of the Saints , a white supremacist book that casts immigrants of color as savages who subsist on feces , as well as praise for the nativist , hard-line immigration policies of the 1920s .
Those emails saw Miller citing in particular the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act .
Historian and author of The Injustice Never Leaves You : Anti-Mexican Violence in Texas Monica Muñoz Martinez notes that act had “ quota systems to restrict immigration from nations deemed to have populations that were racially undesirable.
” Those quotas allowed more immigration of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from other nations , while banning immigration from Asia .
As Muñoz Martinez explains , these policies were designed by eugenicists and are admired not only by Miller but by the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler .
Miller has emulated those eugenicists in his crafting of the Trump administration ’ s immigration policy , and he ’ s doing so with Trump ’ s blessing .
Muñoz Martinez told Vox , “ One hundred years ago , Mexicans were called murderers and rapists and bandits , ” and now , “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug dealers.
” As Vox ’ s Nicole Narea has explained , Miller designed the public charge rule that allows immigrants to be excluded from the US based on whether they are “ likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future.
” More recently , Miller was reportedly involved in creating the executive order that froze certain green card applications and family reunification initiatives due to the coronavirus .
That order was followed in June by another that blocked entry for a wider variety of foreign workers , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expedited removal of immigrants seeking asylum .
But ties to white nationalism go beyond Miller to include figures like Steve Bannon , a former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO who led Breitbart , described in 2016 by Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp as “ a leading light of America ’ s white nationalist movement accused of using misogynistic , anti-Muslim , anti-Semitic , and barely hidden racist language throughout his professional life.
” Bannon was fired in August 2017 , but in his brief tenure , he seeded the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophy , which has been criticized as rebranded white nationalism .
And he helped develop the policies that defined Trump ’ s early days — most notably the Muslim ban .
Bannon ’ s ideas about immigration remain entrenched due to figures like Miller , and his divisive rhetoric on domestic and foreign policy continues to come out of Trump ’ s mouth .
Bannon ’ s thoughts on matters like staffing still hold weight .
For instance , he has helped usher in his ally Michael Pack to run the US government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty .
“ We are going hard on the charge , ” Bannon told Vox ’ s Alex Ward .
Pack , Ward notes , began his tenure by firing four top officials ( after two others quit to protest his hiring ) and by mandating the agencies promote editorial content that reflects the president ’ s worldview , leading to fears his tenure will see official US news networks become mouthpieces for the sorts of white nationalist-adjacent content that populated Breitbart .
Bannon is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains influential .
Perhaps no fired member of the administration ’ s presence is still felt as strongly as that of Miller ’ s old boss , former Attorney General Jeff Sessions , whose tenure atop the Justice Department was marked by the enactment of policies that spoke to the line of thought laid out in The Turner Diaries .
Pursuing a “ tough on crime ” approach , Sessions crafted policies that actively endangered the lives and liberty of Americans of color , particularly Black Americans .
These included mandating federal prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug crimes , which Black Americans are disproportionately more likely to be charged with .
He also pushed a failed attempted to have federal prosecutors more aggressively pursue marijuana cases .
Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for possession than white Americans nationally , again despite marijuana usage being about equal across racial groups .
Sessions successfully limited federal oversight of police departments found to have engaged in civil rights abuses as well as discriminatory and violent policing and , like Miller and Bannon , pursued an aggressively restrictive immigration policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fondly of the 1924 immigration act , in discussing increasing immigration with Bannon on Breitbart Radio in 2015 while still a senator , saying , “ it was good for America.
” Once in the Trump administration , Sessions emulated the policies of the 1920s by “ using every power he possessed as attorney general to ensure that the scales of justice tip toward punishment of unauthorized immigrants as often as possible , ” as Dara Lind wrote for Vox .
As is the case with Miller , Sessions ’ s policies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fed white supremacists ’ narratives about the dangers of Black people .
Through Miller and through other former allies still in the administration like Kathy Nuebel Kovarik , who is currently the chief of staff of US Citizenship and Immigration Services , Sessions ’ s ideas live on in the administration despite his departure .
His policies survive as well .
Adherents of old and new forms of white nationalism can find a hero in Trump Trump tweeted that the phrase “ Black Lives Matter ” is a “ symbol of hate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters demanding equality for Black people and other people of color .
When these actions — and all the other things Trump has done that align with white nationalist thought and values — are taken together , the president begins to appear as someone able to unify traditional forms of white supremacy and more modern modes of white power and white nationalism .
“ The Klan would wrap themselves in Christianity , ” Nell Irvin Painter , a Princeton University historian and author of The History of White People , told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter criticized , in part , because of its association with prominent anti-trans figures and themes . )
“ And in the American flag as well .
So they were patriots and they were Christians in their own eyes .
I don ’ t see any contradiction in Trump ’ s embrace of Confederate monuments and his embrace — literal — of the American flag.
” As the Klan did , the president has cloaked himself in the symbols of Christianity .
He posed with the Bible .
He highlighted virtual church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he has endeavored to signal he is an ally to Christians across the nation , from promising to prioritize Christian refugees to taking strong positions on matters from the celebration of Christmas to abortion , even though he has few personal ties to Christianity or religion in general .
Similarly , Trump has worked to use the flag — sometimes even hugging it — as well as other American symbols like Mount Rushmore , to signal that his policies , white nationalist aligned or not , are American .
And to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even the president ’ s rabid defense of Confederate statues — many of which were erected during periods of Black activism and serve as warnings to people of color to stop striving for equality — is revealing .
This is not to say that Trump is using the monuments as part of a campaign of terror and intimidation .
But positioning himself as a champion of America allows him to cast their concerns as unpatriotic extensions of a “ left-wing cultural revolution ” that wants “ to overthrow the American Revolution.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy the United States with prominent Revolutionary figures like Thomas Jefferson , the president highlights the thing that connects them : the barbaric ways they treated nonwhite people .
“ There is a kind of white nationalism that ’ s about infusing whiteness into the nation , ” Belew said .
“ For the activists that are taking to the streets and training in paramilitary camps , the nation isn ’ t the United States ; they are not at all interested in defending the United States .
They want to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that , often , by overthrowing the United States.
” This impulse mirrors the goals of the radical white nationalists of the Confederate States of America and is reflected in the president ’ s policies — particularly around immigration — and in tendencies his critics would call anti-democratic .
“ To the extent that that ideology has actually crept into governance , it ’ s shocking , ” Belew noted .
“ Because it ’ s a revolutionary thing that is attempting to undo the very government where they sit.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just for the ways it excludes people of color but for how it deems white immigrants the “ right ” type of immigrants .
In 2018 , Trump said he ’ d like the US to have fewer immigrants from “ shithole countries ” in Africa and the Caribbean — instead , he wanted immigrants from the majority-white Norway .
In practice , he has put up barriers to immigration for citizens from countries with majority people of color populations , including those with Muslim majorities , while casting them as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on earth.
” In June , Trump announced a temporary ban on green cards and the suspension of several work visas that are often used by immigrants of color , particularly those from India .
Other countries that have been especially affected by Trump ’ s immigration policy include Vietnam , China , Mexico , and South Korea .
Stuart Anderson , the founder of the immigration think tank National Foundation for American Policy , noted those four countries saw drastic reductions in immigration during Trump ’ s first two years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 21 percentage points in that period .
Amid these declines , Trump reportedly hoped to find ways to “ fast track ” immigration from Europe — with former US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland assigned in 2018 to work on the plan with Miller and Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner .
Through exclusion and the push to recruit white immigrants , the Trump administration has advocated for a rigid border policy for nonwhite immigrants and a more porous , generous one for those who are white .
This advances the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and that suggests the sovereignty of US borders matters less when the Trump administration is thinking of the role the country might play in advancing the global white nation than it does when thinking of the country as a discrete entity .
White nationalist goals can only be achieved by dismantling the US government , and there , too , Trump has appeared to align with a violent element , like when he called on armed groups to “ liberate ” their states .
There are countless other examples , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political unraveling of the United States some modern white nationalists see as necessary to achieve their goals .
He has not done so by violently overthrowing the government .
But he has taken steps in the direction these white nationalists want to go .
As much as he has embraced it , Trump has made some attempts to distance himself from white supremacy and white nationalism .
Following a racist mass shooting in El Paso ( one perpetrated by a shooter whose manifesto mirrored some of Trump ’ s rhetoric on Latinx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In one voice , our nation must condemn racism , bigotry , and white supremacy .
These sinister ideologies must be defeated .
Hate has no place in America.
” But words like these are nothing more than language uttered in between statements hewing closely to white supremacist and white nationalist ideals .
Just weeks before the El Paso shooting , Trump called the majority-Black district of former lawmaker Rep. Elijah Cummings a “ dangerous & filthy place ” and a “ rat and rodent infested mess , ” adding , “ No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s language that mirrors the characterization of people of color in The Camp of the Saints , and it not only casts a popular Black leader as inept , it implies he and his constituents are somehow less than human .
In the weeks directly after , Trump tweeted a campaign video featuring a logo associated with the white supremacist group VDARE , employed the anti-Semitic dual-loyalties trope in speaking about the political opinions of Jewish Americans , and claimed at a rally that sanctuary cities were releasing “ hardened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aliens ... directly into your neighborhoods.
” Just a little over a month after saying “ hate has no place in America , ” Trump said of the gang MS-13 , which was started by Salvadoran immigrants : “ They take young women .
They slice them up with a knife .
They slice them up — beautiful , young.
” All these things , which happened in the span of less than two months , ticked many white supremacist and nationalist boxes — Jewish people as untrustworthy , people of color as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Black people as subhuman — rendering the president ’ s rejections of various white power ideologies meaningless .
It ’ s a cycle Trump has trapped himself in , and one that continues even now .
“ After these atrocities , like when the George Floyd video came out , he didn ’ t say anything for a long time , ” Painter noted .
“ I mean , he said , ‘ Oh that was terrible , ’ and then in the next breath , he went back to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is difficult to escape .
As Muñoz Martinez said , “ We are living in a nation that was inspired by the principles of white supremacy.
” So ingrained are those ideas , she pointed out , that even the first presidential administration run by a Black American reflected them , particularly with respect to immigration , with policies that incarcerated children in harsh conditions that spawned lawsuits .
“ We have to remember that the policies that the Trump administration created , and the kind of inhumanity that we see , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existed , ” Muñoz Martinez said , adding that white nationalist and white supremacist “ ideals shaped our society and shaped our institutions , and shaped our public societies and laws , our policing mindset .
And we haven ’ t replaced that.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Donald Trump has a symbiotic relationship with white nationalists.
It’s been a constant in nearly every element of his presidency: The white nationalist violence in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was followed by a pronouncement that there were “some very fine people on both sides.”
The election of Congress’s most diverse class in 2018 ever was met with tweets demonizing women progressives of color, telling them to “go back” to the “crime infested places from which they came.” Even Covid-19, a disease spun out of the animal kingdom, has been cast as a foreign foe that was at best the fault of — and, at worst, created by — nonwhite people, with the president insisting on using racist language around it. And Trump arguably launched his political career by appearing on shows like Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor in 2011 to speculate that “maybe” President Barack Obama’s birth certificate “says he is a Muslim.”
As president, Trump energizes white nationalists on two levels: with his rhetoric and through his staffing and policy choices. In turn, many have given him their support. In doing so, Trump has given an overt platform to white nationalists in a way that is unprecedented in the modern political era.
The issue isn’t just Trump’s rhetoric. His administration’s immigration policy has led to the separation of families, to children facing risk of exposure to disease like Covid-19 in detention facilities, and to the deaths of immigrants seeking asylum in the US. His criminal justice policy has led to a more punitive criminal justice system and to the weakening of police oversight, all of which disproportionately affect communities of color.
His economic policies have rewarded those already holding wealth (a mostly white group), and his much-vaunted “greatest economy” was not as great for people of color — particularly Black Americans, whose unemployment rate has been at least 2 percentage points higher than the general unemployment rate for the entirety of Trump’s tenure. In fact, a kinship with white nationalist ideas can be found in just about any part of the Trump administration’s policy, from health care to foreign affairs.
All of this is not to say that the Trump administration has run the country exactly as the leader of a white nationalist group would. “But they are doing a lot of things that are ideologically compatible,” Kathleen Belew, a University of Chicago historian and author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, told Vox. “And I think it creates a road toward political action for a movement that might not have seen one in an earlier historical moment.”
White nationalism, white supremacy, and white power, briefly explained
The white nationalist movement is a complex one, and it overlaps with other ideologies, particularly those of white power and white supremacy, that are brought up in discussions of racism, history, and the misguided belief that white people are superior to people of color. But the terms “white nationalism,” “white power,” and “white supremacy” each mean something different. And to understand how the Trump administration relates to white nationalism, it’s important to understand what white nationalism is and what it is not.
Nationalism typically refers to strong support for a country akin to patriotism, as in the nationalists who want to put “America first.” But nationalism can also refer to self-determination, such as the Scottish nationalists who want an independent Scottish state.
White nationalism has more in common with this latter form of nationalism: It advocates for a physical or spiritual white state.
“The nation in white nationalism is imagined as the Aryan nation,” Belew said. White nationalism is “the idea that white people are going to unify together as one national polity either in a white homeland or a white nation — or even in a white world — through the violent killing or exclusion of other people.”
There are many routes to accomplishing this vision, but Belew stressed white nationalists generally are not “interested in the United States as a nation.” Instead, they aspire to replace the United States with something like the white state imagined at the end of The Turner Diaries, a central white nationalist text describing a war against people of color.
This is why, Belew said, “When we think about white nationalism, it’s important to remember that it is a deeply revolutionary and deeply anti-democratic project.”
The overall white power movement, on the other hand, goes beyond questions of statehood and has little regard for borders. As Belew told my colleague Jane Coaston, it is what connects New Zealand’s Christchurch shooter to white nationalists in the United States, and is primarily a social, rather than strictly political, movement that she says is incredibly diverse “in all ways other than race.”
“The white power movement is a broad-based social movement of interconnected groups of people that includes the Klan, Neo-Nazis, radical tax protesters; it includes some segments of boogaloo now; it includes some segments of militia groups,” Belew said. “It’s all across the country: It’s urban and suburban and rural; it has men and women and children in it, and people across class backgrounds.”
As that list would suggest, white power is a movement that provides a home for white supremacists — people who, as political scientists Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith write in Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter, believe “that white people are inherently superior to people of color and should dominate over people of color.”
This definition, Lopez Bunyasi told Vox, captures the ideological portion of white supremacy, but she noted there is also a structural facet.
Structurally, Lopez Bunyasi and Smith write, white supremacy is “the systematic provision of political, social, economic, and psychological benefits and advantages to whites, alongside the systematic provisions of burdens and disadvantages to people who are not white.” White supremacy isn’t just an ideology; it is an actual system that has been used to build government and create policy in the real world.
It’s this sort of white supremacy, Stony Brook University sociology professor Crystal Fleming told Jenée Desmond-Harris in a 2016 piece for Vox, that has been “a constant throughout history.” The concept provided for the enslavement of Black people, the genocide of Native Americans, and the overall allocation of resources in manners that benefit white Americans. And it is a system that still exists today, keeping people of color out of jobs, universities, and political power. Which means everyone — regardless of whether one subscribes to white supremacist beliefs — lives in a white supremacist system.
Trump has embraced this system and has glorified some of its uglier moments, like its production of the Confederate States of America. He does not advocate for the sort of white nationalism depicted in The Turner Diaries, but his rhetoric has certainly elevated white Americans — and sometimes white supremacists and nationalists — over Americans of color. And as Belew notes, when it comes to the idea of white power, “there is a lot of very concerning evidence that, if not Trump himself, there are people in his administration who really do understand what it means.”
The Trump administration’s relationship with white nationalism goes beyond the president
It’s not only Trump who gives a voice to white nationalists. Key people in his administration champion their beliefs. Chief among them is White House senior adviser Stephen Miller.
A trove of more than 900 emails Miller sent to the alt-right publication Breitbart in 2015 and 2016 — both while an aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and a member of the Trump campaign — suggests Miller has deep ties to the white nationalist movement.
The emails, which were analyzed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, touched on race or immigration. Some of the messages included links to white nationalist articles, while others included white nationalist slang. Miller also promoted The Camp of the Saints, a white supremacist book that casts immigrants of color as savages who subsist on feces, as well as praise for the nativist, hard-line immigration policies of the 1920s.
Those emails saw Miller citing in particular the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. Historian and author of The Injustice Never Leaves You: Anti-Mexican Violence in Texas Monica Muñoz Martinez notes that act had “quota systems to restrict immigration from nations deemed to have populations that were racially undesirable.” Those quotas allowed more immigration of people from Western Europe and fewer people coming from other nations, while banning immigration from Asia. As Muñoz Martinez explains, these policies were designed by eugenicists and are admired not only by Miller but by the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler.
Miller has emulated those eugenicists in his crafting of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, and he’s doing so with Trump’s blessing. Muñoz Martinez told Vox, “One hundred years ago, Mexicans were called murderers and rapists and bandits,” and now, “Trump says Mexicans are murderers and rapists and drug dealers.”
As Vox’s Nicole Narea has explained, Miller designed the public charge rule that allows immigrants to be excluded from the US based on whether they are “likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future.”
More recently, Miller was reportedly involved in creating the executive order that froze certain green card applications and family reunification initiatives due to the coronavirus. That order was followed in June by another that blocked entry for a wider variety of foreign workers, as well as a Supreme Court decision allowing for expedited removal of immigrants seeking asylum.
But ties to white nationalism go beyond Miller to include figures like Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO who led Breitbart, described in 2016 by Vox’s Zack Beauchamp as “a leading light of America’s white nationalist movement accused of using misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and barely hidden racist language throughout his professional life.”
Bannon was fired in August 2017, but in his brief tenure, he seeded the White House with his “economic nationalism” philosophy, which has been criticized as rebranded white nationalism. And he helped develop the policies that defined Trump’s early days — most notably the Muslim ban. Bannon’s ideas about immigration remain entrenched due to figures like Miller, and his divisive rhetoric on domestic and foreign policy continues to come out of Trump’s mouth.
Bannon’s thoughts on matters like staffing still hold weight. For instance, he has helped usher in his ally Michael Pack to run the US government’s global news agencies, which include Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. “We are going hard on the charge,” Bannon told Vox’s Alex Ward.
Pack, Ward notes, began his tenure by firing four top officials (after two others quit to protest his hiring) and by mandating the agencies promote editorial content that reflects the president’s worldview, leading to fears his tenure will see official US news networks become mouthpieces for the sorts of white nationalist-adjacent content that populated Breitbart.
Bannon is not the only former official whose ideology remains influential. Perhaps no fired member of the administration’s presence is still felt as strongly as that of Miller’s old boss, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose tenure atop the Justice Department was marked by the enactment of policies that spoke to the line of thought laid out in The Turner Diaries.
Pursuing a “tough on crime” approach, Sessions crafted policies that actively endangered the lives and liberty of Americans of color, particularly Black Americans. These included mandating federal prosecutors to push for maximum punishment for low-level drug crimes, which Black Americans are disproportionately more likely to be charged with. He also pushed a failed attempted to have federal prosecutors more aggressively pursue marijuana cases. Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for possession than white Americans nationally, again despite marijuana usage being about equal across racial groups.
Sessions successfully limited federal oversight of police departments found to have engaged in civil rights abuses as well as discriminatory and violent policing and, like Miller and Bannon, pursued an aggressively restrictive immigration policy.
He, too, has spoken fondly of the 1924 immigration act, in discussing increasing immigration with Bannon on Breitbart Radio in 2015 while still a senator, saying, “it was good for America.”
Once in the Trump administration, Sessions emulated the policies of the 1920s by “using every power he possessed as attorney general to ensure that the scales of justice tip toward punishment of unauthorized immigrants as often as possible,” as Dara Lind wrote for Vox.
As is the case with Miller, Sessions’s policies have achieved exclusionary white supremacist aims — and fed white supremacists’ narratives about the dangers of Black people. Through Miller and through other former allies still in the administration like Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, who is currently the chief of staff of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Sessions’s ideas live on in the administration despite his departure. His policies survive as well.
Adherents of old and new forms of white nationalism can find a hero in Trump
Trump tweeted that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is a “symbol of hate” weeks after overseeing armed forces gassing peaceful protesters demanding equality for Black people and other people of color.
When these actions — and all the other things Trump has done that align with white nationalist thought and values — are taken together, the president begins to appear as someone able to unify traditional forms of white supremacy and more modern modes of white power and white nationalism.
“The Klan would wrap themselves in Christianity,” Nell Irvin Painter, a Princeton University historian and author of The History of White People, told Vox. (Painter is also a signee of a letter criticized, in part, because of its association with prominent anti-trans figures and themes.) “And in the American flag as well. So they were patriots and they were Christians in their own eyes. I don’t see any contradiction in Trump’s embrace of Confederate monuments and his embrace — literal — of the American flag.”
As the Klan did, the president has cloaked himself in the symbols of Christianity. He posed with the Bible. He highlighted virtual church services on Sundays throughout the pandemic. And he has endeavored to signal he is an ally to Christians across the nation, from promising to prioritize Christian refugees to taking strong positions on matters from the celebration of Christmas to abortion, even though he has few personal ties to Christianity or religion in general.
Similarly, Trump has worked to use the flag — sometimes even hugging it — as well as other American symbols like Mount Rushmore, to signal that his policies, white nationalist aligned or not, are American. And to argue criticism of those policies is anti-American.
Even the president’s rabid defense of Confederate statues — many of which were erected during periods of Black activism and serve as warnings to people of color to stop striving for equality — is revealing. This is not to say that Trump is using the monuments as part of a campaign of terror and intimidation. But positioning himself as a champion of America allows him to cast their concerns as unpatriotic extensions of a “left-wing cultural revolution” that wants “to overthrow the American Revolution.”
In connecting and conflating white men who tried to destroy the United States with prominent Revolutionary figures like Thomas Jefferson, the president highlights the thing that connects them: the barbaric ways they treated nonwhite people.
“There is a kind of white nationalism that’s about infusing whiteness into the nation,” Belew said. “For the activists that are taking to the streets and training in paramilitary camps, the nation isn’t the United States; they are not at all interested in defending the United States. They want to defend the white nation. And they want to do that, often, by overthrowing the United States.”
This impulse mirrors the goals of the radical white nationalists of the Confederate States of America and is reflected in the president’s policies — particularly around immigration — and in tendencies his critics would call anti-democratic. “To the extent that that ideology has actually crept into governance, it’s shocking,” Belew noted. “Because it’s a revolutionary thing that is attempting to undo the very government where they sit.”
Trump’s immigration policy is notable not just for the ways it excludes people of color but for how it deems white immigrants the “right” type of immigrants.
In 2018, Trump said he’d like the US to have fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” in Africa and the Caribbean — instead, he wanted immigrants from the majority-white Norway. In practice, he has put up barriers to immigration for citizens from countries with majority people of color populations, including those with Muslim majorities, while casting them as “some of the most vicious and dangerous people on earth.”
In June, Trump announced a temporary ban on green cards and the suspension of several work visas that are often used by immigrants of color, particularly those from India. Other countries that have been especially affected by Trump’s immigration policy include Vietnam, China, Mexico, and South Korea. Stuart Anderson, the founder of the immigration think tank National Foundation for American Policy, noted those four countries saw drastic reductions in immigration during Trump’s first two years in office, with immigration from China falling about 21 percentage points in that period.
Amid these declines, Trump reportedly hoped to find ways to “fast track” immigration from Europe — with former US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland assigned in 2018 to work on the plan with Miller and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Through exclusion and the push to recruit white immigrants, the Trump administration has advocated for a rigid border policy for nonwhite immigrants and a more porous, generous one for those who are white. This advances the aims of white nationalism that transcends border — and that suggests the sovereignty of US borders matters less when the Trump administration is thinking of the role the country might play in advancing the global white nation than it does when thinking of the country as a discrete entity.
White nationalist goals can only be achieved by dismantling the US government, and there, too, Trump has appeared to align with a violent element, like when he called on armed groups to “liberate” their states.
There are countless other examples, but the point is, Trump has contributed to the political unraveling of the United States some modern white nationalists see as necessary to achieve their goals. He has not done so by violently overthrowing the government. But he has taken steps in the direction these white nationalists want to go.
Trump’s rejections of white nationalism are meaningless
As much as he has embraced it, Trump has made some attempts to distance himself from white supremacy and white nationalism. Following a racist mass shooting in El Paso (one perpetrated by a shooter whose manifesto mirrored some of Trump’s rhetoric on Latinx immigration), Trump said, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America.”
But words like these are nothing more than language uttered in between statements hewing closely to white supremacist and white nationalist ideals.
Just weeks before the El Paso shooting, Trump called the majority-Black district of former lawmaker Rep. Elijah Cummings a “dangerous & filthy place” and a “rat and rodent infested mess,” adding, “No human being would want to live there.” It’s language that mirrors the characterization of people of color in The Camp of the Saints, and it not only casts a popular Black leader as inept, it implies he and his constituents are somehow less than human.
In the weeks directly after, Trump tweeted a campaign video featuring a logo associated with the white supremacist group VDARE, employed the anti-Semitic dual-loyalties trope in speaking about the political opinions of Jewish Americans, and claimed at a rally that sanctuary cities were releasing “hardened” and “horrible” “criminal aliens ... directly into your neighborhoods.”
Just a little over a month after saying “hate has no place in America,” Trump said of the gang MS-13, which was started by Salvadoran immigrants: “They take young women. They slice them up with a knife. They slice them up — beautiful, young.”
All these things, which happened in the span of less than two months, ticked many white supremacist and nationalist boxes — Jewish people as untrustworthy, people of color as predators with a predilection for young women, and Black people as subhuman — rendering the president’s rejections of various white power ideologies meaningless.
It’s a cycle Trump has trapped himself in, and one that continues even now.
“After these atrocities, like when the George Floyd video came out, he didn’t say anything for a long time,” Painter noted. “I mean, he said, ‘Oh that was terrible,’ and then in the next breath, he went back to his race-baiting.”
And it is a cycle that is difficult to escape. As Muñoz Martinez said, “We are living in a nation that was inspired by the principles of white supremacy.”
So ingrained are those ideas, she pointed out, that even the first presidential administration run by a Black American reflected them, particularly with respect to immigration, with policies that incarcerated children in harsh conditions that spawned lawsuits.
“We have to remember that the policies that the Trump administration created, and the kind of inhumanity that we see, built upon the infrastructure that had already existed,” Muñoz Martinez said, adding that white nationalist and white supremacist “ideals shaped our society and shaped our institutions, and shaped our public societies and laws, our policing mindset. And we haven’t replaced that.”