vox--2020-10-19--It’s always the most important election in our lifetime, and it always will be

“ There ’ s just one month left before the most important election of our lifetime , ” Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden tweeted in early October .
Two days later , Sen. Bernie Sanders backed him up .
“ This is the most important election , not only in our lifetime but in the modern history of our country , ” he said in Michigan .
In 2016 , it was Donald Trump deploying the cliché .
“ This is by far the most important vote you ’ ve ever cast for anyone at any time , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coy with my view : I think the most important election of my lifetime was 2000 , and I ’ ll defend that view in this piece .
But more interesting than the parlor game is the framework of this debate .
What makes something the most important election of a lifetime ?
How would we know ?
Before 2016 , the campaign in which I heard the “ most important election of our lifetime ” talk most often was 2004 , when George W. Bush ran for reelection against John Kerry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a referendum on the Iraq War , which was built on lies , carried out by fools , and left Iraq soaked in blood .
It was also a referendum on the hard right turn Bush had taken in office , away from “ compassionate conservatism ” and toward neoconservatism abroad , and a politics of patriotic paranoia at home .
Kerry lost that election .
And yet , in retrospect , it clearly wasn ’ t the most important election of my lifetime , and it may even have been better that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years forced Bush , and the Republican Party he led , to take responsibility for the disasters they ’ d created .
The catastrophe of the Iraq War became clearer to the country , leading to a Democratic sweep in 2006 .
The financial crisis , which had been building for years , exploded , leading to Barack Obama ’ s election , and the massive congressional majorities that passed the Affordable Care Act .
Perhaps a Kerry administration would ’ ve averted one or both catastrophes , but more likely , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , leading to John McCain ’ s presidency in 2008 , and a resuscitation of the neoconservative brand .
All that is speculative , of course .
But this is an inherently speculative endeavor .
“ The reason to do counterfactuals , ” says Catherine Gallagher , author of Telling It Like It Wasn ’ t : The Counterfactual Imagination in History and Literature , “ is to give yourself a sense of reality about what was possible in the past.
” Here ’ s my theory : The elections that feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually aren ’ t , specifically because that feeling , and the political mobilization it drives , limits their consequence .
One reason reelection campaigns often feel like “ the most important election ” to the party out of power is that the stakes , and the costs , of losing the presidency last time , have been revealed .
But most presidencies wane in their second term , as their agenda is exhausted , their supporters are less inspired , and their opponents are better organized .
It ’ s when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of politician it ’ s dealing with , or misjudges the situation they will face , that presidents can slip loose of the normal checks and balances and govern most consequentially .
Which brings me to the elections of 2000 , and 2014 .
The case for 2000 as the most important election of my lifetime The 2000 election ended in chaos , but it was carried out in confusion .
Ralph Nader ’ s campaign gained so much traction in part because Bush and Al Gore worked so hard to blur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run as a climate hawk determined to save the world from warming ; he ran as a centrist New Democrat , determined to sock away the surplus in a Social Security lockbox .
Bush , for his part , promised to cut taxes , close the educational achievement gap , and eschew nation-building abroad .
“ Tweedledee and Tweedledum , ” Nader called them .
“ There was a chasmic difference between the kind George W. Bush promised and the presidency we got , ” says Robert Draper , author of Dead Certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s not entirely Bush ’ s fault , given 9/11 .
But people voted for Bush believing they ’ d be getting more peace and prosperity with perhaps deeper tax cuts and a more values-driven man in the Oval Office .
They certainly didn ’ t count on the next president going to war against a country that didn ’ t attack us.
” It ’ s not just that 9/11 changed the questions facing the president .
It ’ s that they changed the powers of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or , in other cases , feared opposing him — giving him latitude on foreign policy they ’ d never have permitted on domestic policy .
The focus of the presidency turned from domestic legislation , where the executive has limited sway , to war powers , where the president ’ s authority is vast , and grew more vast under the legal theories the Bush administration pushed .
What ensued was a catastrophe that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead , wasted trillions of American dollars and thousands of American lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation — up to and including paving the way for Donald Trump ’ s takeover of the Republican Party .
Imagining the alternative forces us into the tricky waters of counterfactuals .
It ’ s easy enough to imagine Gore winning in 2000 — he won the popular vote , and many think that , absent the Supreme Court ’ s cynical intervention , he would ’ ve won a fair recount , as well .
Perhaps Gore would ’ ve taken early intelligence warnings more seriously , and 9/11 would ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unlikely .
From there , Gore wouldn ’ t have optionally chosen to invade Iraq , I ’ m confident in that .
The key question then becomes how Gore would ’ ve used the post-9/11 political moment .
Just as many of Bush ’ s advisers had spent a decade obsessing over how to topple Saddam Hussein , and used 9/11 as the rationale for that project , Gore had spent decades obsessing over climate change .
It seems possible , perhaps even probable , that Gore would ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on oil , disentangling us from the Middle East , and so-called allies like Saudi Arabia , where most of the hijackers came from .
And if Gore had been able to push America down the path of serious action on climate change , back when such action was easier and more effective to take , the pain and suffering that could ’ ve been avoided is incalculable .
The seduction of counterfactuals is that it ’ s easy to only imagine the ones you prefer .
Perhaps , as president during 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s inability to disrupt Osama bin Laden , and so he ’ s simply routed in 2004 by Sen , John McCain , who embarks on a course of foreign policy adventurism that leaves the Bush legacy looking modest .
Why it always might be the most important election of our lifetime My confidence in any particular alternative history is low , but my confidence in the underlying principle is high : It is moments of disruption and crisis that drive presidencies , and that ’ s why it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political moment in advance .
The reason the post-9/11 possibilities were so vast is the attacks dissolved the normal constraints of politics , and the personal preferences of the US president became unusually consequential .
We are still living in the catastrophic aftermath of Bush ’ s choices , choices that not only betrayed the promises of his 2000 campaign , but wouldn ’ t have been possible in the context in which the 2000 campaign took place .
Pre-9/11 , there would ’ ve been no support for Bush invading Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
Nor is it just presidential elections that have this feature .
The 2014 midterm election , for instance , struck many as a deadened , dull affair .
President Obama and congressional Republicans were trapped in conflict , and voter turnout was lower than it had been in 72 years .
Mitch McConnell won back the gavel for Senate Republicans , but few suspected much would happen as a consequence — with Republicans in control of the House , gridlock was already the norm .
But then Justice Antonin Scalia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his power to block Merrick Garland from so much as a hearing .
There ’ s a good case to be made that it was the lure of that Supreme Court seat that united Republicans behind Trump ’ s candidacy , leading to his razor-thin victory .
Now Republicans stand on the precipice of a 6-3 majority on the Court , which would reshape constitutional law — and the possibilities of politics — for a generation .
In reprisal , Democrats are considering abolishing the filibuster and reshaping the Court .
Though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as , low-stakes when it happened , it proved to be one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime .
The lesson of all this : By definition , we don ’ t know which elections are unusually important when they occur , because it ’ s unexpected events — events that break the normal rules of politics , that create moments when individual leaders can reshape the course of history — that turn elections into the hinge points of history .
For that reason , I wouldn ’ t dare predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election of my lifetime , but it should be treated that way .
They should all be treated that way , particularly when they feel otherwise .
It ’ s always the most important election in our lifetime , and it always will be .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

“There’s just one month left before the most important election of our lifetime,” Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden tweeted in early October.
Two days later, Sen. Bernie Sanders backed him up. “This is the most important election, not only in our lifetime but in the modern history of our country,” he said in Michigan.
In 2016, it was Donald Trump deploying the cliché. “This is by far the most important vote you’ve ever cast for anyone at any time,” he said.
I won’t be coy with my view: I think the most important election of my lifetime was 2000, and I’ll defend that view in this piece. But more interesting than the parlor game is the framework of this debate. What makes something the most important election of a lifetime? How would we know?
Before 2016, the campaign in which I heard the “most important election of our lifetime” talk most often was 2004, when George W. Bush ran for reelection against John Kerry. It certainly felt pivotal. It was a referendum on the Iraq War, which was built on lies and carried out by fools, and left Iraq soaked in blood. It was also a referendum on the hard right turn Bush had taken in office, away from “compassionate conservatism” and toward neoconservatism abroad, and a politics of patriotic paranoia at home.
Kerry lost that election. And yet, in retrospect, it clearly wasn’t the most important election of my lifetime, and it may even have been better that Kerry lost it. The ensuing four years forced Bush, and the Republican Party he led, to take responsibility for the disasters they’d created. The catastrophe of the Iraq War became clearer to the country, leading to a Democratic sweep in 2006. The financial crisis, which had been building for years, exploded, leading to Barack Obama’s election and the massive congressional majorities that passed the Affordable Care Act.
Perhaps a Kerry administration would have averted one or both catastrophes, but more likely, it would have simply been overwhelmed by them, leading to John McCain’s presidency in 2008 and a resuscitation of the neoconservative brand.
All that is speculative, of course. But this is an inherently speculative endeavor. “The reason to do counterfactuals,” says Catherine Gallagher, author of Telling It Like It Wasn’t: The Counterfactual Imagination in History and Literature, “is to give yourself a sense of reality about what was possible in the past.”
Here’s my theory: The elections that feel like the most important of our lifetime usually aren’t, specifically because that feeling, and the political mobilization it drives, limits their consequence. One reason reelection campaigns often feel like “the most important election” to the party out of power is that the stakes, and the costs, of losing the presidency last time have been revealed. But most presidencies wane in their second term, as their agenda is exhausted, their supporters are less inspired, and their opponents are better organized.
It’s when the opposition party doesn’t understand the kind of politician it’s dealing with, or misjudges the situation they will face, that presidents can slip loose of the normal checks and balances and govern most consequentially. Which brings me to the elections of 2000, and 2014.
The case for 2000 as the most important election of my lifetime
The 2000 election ended in chaos, but it was carried out in confusion. Ralph Nader’s campaign gained so much traction in part because Bush and Al Gore worked so hard to blur their distinctions. Gore didn’t run as a climate hawk determined to save the world from warming; he ran as a centrist New Democrat, determined to sock away the surplus in a Social Security lockbox. Bush, for his part, promised to cut taxes, close the educational achievement gap, and eschew nation-building abroad. “Tweedledee and Tweedledum,” Nader called them.
“There was a chasmic difference between the kind George W. Bush promised and the presidency we got,” says Robert Draper, author of Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. “That’s not entirely Bush’s fault, given 9/11. But people voted for Bush believing they’d be getting more peace and prosperity with perhaps deeper tax cuts and a more values-driven man in the Oval Office. They certainly didn’t count on the next president going to war against a country that didn’t attack us.”
It’s not just that 9/11 changed the questions facing the president. It’s that they changed the powers of the president. Congressional Democrats rallied around Bush — or, in other cases, feared opposing him — giving him latitude on foreign policy they’d never have permitted on domestic policy. The focus of the presidency turned from domestic legislation, where the executive has limited sway, to war powers, where the president’s authority is vast, and grew more vast under the legal theories the Bush administration pushed.
What ensued was a catastrophe that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, wasted trillions of American dollars and thousands of American lives, and reshaped global politics for a generation — up to and including paving the way for Donald Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party.
Imagining the alternative forces us into the tricky waters of counterfactuals. It’s easy enough to imagine Gore winning in 2000 — he won the popular vote, and many think that, absent the Supreme Court’s cynical intervention, he would’ve won a fair recount, as well. Perhaps Gore would have taken early intelligence warnings more seriously, and 9/11 would have been stopped, but I think that’s unlikely. From there, Gore wouldn’t have optionally chosen to invade Iraq, I’m confident in that.
The key question then becomes how Gore would have used the post-9/11 political moment. Just as many of Bush’s advisers had spent a decade obsessing over how to topple Saddam Hussein, and used 9/11 as the rationale for that project, Gore had spent decades obsessing over climate change. It seems possible, perhaps even probable, that Gore would have harnessed the moment to end our dependence on oil, disentangling us from the Middle East and so-called allies like Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from. And if Gore had been able to push America down the path of serious action on climate change, back when such action was easier and more effective to take, the pain and suffering that could have been avoided is incalculable.
The seduction of counterfactuals is that it’s easy to only imagine the ones you prefer. Perhaps, as president during 9/11, Gore is blamed for the Clinton administration’s inability to disrupt Osama bin Laden, and so he’s simply routed in 2004 by Sen, John McCain, who embarks on a course of foreign policy adventurism that leaves the Bush legacy looking modest.
Why it always might be the most important election of our lifetime
My confidence in any particular alternative history is low, but my confidence in the underlying principle is high: It is moments of disruption and crisis that drive presidencies, and that’s why it’s so difficult to predict the importance of a political moment in advance. The reason the post-9/11 possibilities were so vast is the attacks dissolved the normal constraints of politics, and the personal preferences of the US president became unusually consequential.
We are still living in the catastrophic aftermath of Bush’s choices, choices that not only betrayed the promises of his 2000 campaign but wouldn’t have been possible in the context in which the 2000 campaign took place. Pre-9/11, there would have been no support for Bush invading Iraq, even if he’d wanted to.
Nor is it just presidential elections that have this feature. The 2014 midterm election, for instance, struck many as a deadened, dull affair. President Obama and congressional Republicans were trapped in conflict, and voter turnout was lower than it had been in 72 years. Mitch McConnell won back the gavel for Senate Republicans, but few suspected much would happen as a consequence — with Republicans in control of the House, gridlock was already the norm.
But then Justice Antonin Scalia’s heart stopped, and McConnell used his power to block Merrick Garland from so much as a hearing. There’s a good case to be made that it was the lure of that Supreme Court seat that united Republicans behind Trump’s candidacy, leading to his razor-thin victory.
Now Republicans stand on the precipice of a 6-3 majority on the Court, which would reshape constitutional law — and the possibilities of politics — for a generation. In reprisal, Democrats are considering abolishing the filibuster and reshaping the Court. Though the 2014 election felt, and was treated as, low-stakes when it happened, it proved to be one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime.
The lesson of all this: By definition, we don’t know which elections are unusually important when they occur, because it’s unexpected events — events that break the normal rules of politics, that create moments when individual leaders can reshape the course of history — that turn elections into the hinge points of history.
For that reason, I wouldn’t dare predict that 2020 will be the most important election of my lifetime, but it should be treated that way. They should all be treated that way, particularly when they feel otherwise. It’s always the most important election in our lifetime, and it always will be.
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-19--Fitness studios moved outside to stay afloat. Now winter is coming.

In the shadow of the Vessel , the sky-scraping copper honeycomb structure in New York City ’ s Hudson Yards , is a huge tent full of bikes that go nowhere .
In the parking lot of the Beverly Center , the famed Los Angeles shopping center , there ’ s a blocked-off section peppered with treadmills and benches .
And this summer , the Southampton Arts Center ’ s west lawn was transformed into a dance-workout space .
These outdoor gyms are the new normal of group fitness .
Because companies like SoulCycle , Barry ’ s , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been allowed to reopen in major cities like New York and Los Angeles , those companies ( and many others , from CrossFit boxes to local Planets Fitness ) brought the workouts outside .
“ I feel very safe working out outside , ” Anna Lev , a devotee of Forward Space told me .
She says her trainers “ have created a really safe environment for everyone.
” Before the pandemic , Lev was going to Forward Space classes with Rachel , her favorite teacher , every day .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But when Forward Space opened its Southampton outdoor space for the summer , Lev would make the trek from her home in the Rockaways to Southampton every Saturday to take two classes .
If she stayed out East , she ’ d go every day they ’ re held , Thursday to Monday .
Lev ’ s devotion and fidelity to Forward Space isn ’ t unique .
Outdoor classes at Barry ’ s and SoulCycle have been selling out and provide revenue for the companies .
Fitness companies , like restaurants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moving classes outdoors has been a public health strategy to cope with a pandemic that forced everyone into lockdown .
Being outside is safer .
But in embracing outdoor exercise , both enthusiasts and the trainers they love found only a temporary relief .
In the coming months , temperatures will drop , the weather will sour , and winter will be in full effect .
Fitness enthusiasts may have to go back to square one .
Boutique fitness studios have to start over , too , figuring out how to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t open .
And with all the improvisations and compromises , both sides have to deal with the reality that the future is not in their control .
Why fitness studios have to go outside The big motivation behind these outdoor classes is the health of clients .
“ Teaching safe and spacious sweat sessions outside has been truly incredible and an absolute gift , ” Kristin Sudeikis , the founder of Forward Space , told me .
“ Being outside certainly provided an element of safety and we also appreciated giving cues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sky , from the sternum up , to take in the sun and the wind … I had intuited that at some point — and this was pre-Covid — that we would create outdoor sweat sessions similar to that of a music festival vibe , and here we are.
” But the moves outside go a bit deeper than that and are more connected to how health policy and lawmakers define “ safety.
” Back in March , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and California Gov .
Gavin Newsom were among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shut down gyms , which were seen as high-risk because of the lack of social distancing and factors like heavy breathing and lots of shared-surface contact .
Now , as we know more about the virus and spread , gyms are reopening or have reopened — many of which had to implement new capacity and social distancing rules .
Going outside , social distancing , eliminating shared equipment , and instituting measures like cleaning and temperature checks are all measures that make clients , according to current research , safer than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate the way they had pre-pandemic .
“ We managed to rework the foundations of how we program sessions to adapt everything to body weight , ” Lauren Vickers , F45 Training athletics team manager , told me , explaining how the company adapted to taking its exercise programs outside .
Those programs usually involved equipment like weights and kettlebells , and cardio equipment like bikes or rowers .
Vickers and the team at F45 pointed out that without consistent , across-the-board rules about outside fitness , they ’ ve had to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve figured out by keeping things simple .
“ Members can bring their own equipment if they wish to add progressions , but essentially you just need a towel and a water bottle and you ’ re ready to go , ” Vickers told me .
As Vickers told me , the problem for fitness studios is that in major cities like New York and Los Angeles , they still haven ’ t been given the green light to open .
Even though they provide essentially the same fitness service , companies like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t considered gyms and are often subject to a different set of rules .
Companies like Forward Space and Barry ’ s aren ’ t considered gyms and are often subject to a different set of rules The argument is that boutique fitness classes — often taking place in rooms full of sweaty , heavy-breathing people — might present a higher risk of transmission .
All the things that make group fitness successful — people gathering , socializing , yelling , being in an enclosed studio — are things that make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Korea reported fitness dance classes that infected 112 people over 24 days , and the fear is that something similar could happen in these boutique fitness classes .
More recently , 74 people were infected over a week at a Canadian spin studio earlier this month — the studio had followed rules like cutting capacity and distancing bikes but it did not require riders to wear masks .
To curb potential outbreaks , rules regarding fitness studios were adjusted accordingly .
For example , while gyms in New York City were allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City ’ s health department and Mayor Bill de Blasio were given discretion to keep those establishments closed , which they did .
By taking classes outside and maintaining social distancing rules , boutique fitness companies keep their clients safer — research has shown that outdoor transmission risk is lower than indoor — but also can bypass city mandates about indoor fitness classes .
For fitness companies , it ’ s also provided some much-needed cash .
The health shutdowns across the country gutted the group fitness industry .
Companies bled expenses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening , they aren ’ t making the same money that they used to because of capacity measures and health directives .
Companies like Rowgatta shut down their physical spaces , and Flywheel went out of business .
Others like Solidcore laid off more than 90 percent of their staff .
SoulCycle also furloughed a majority of its instructors .
Group fitness companies innovated by going online .
But online workouts in your living room don ’ t quite replicate the real-life experience .
Outdoor classes are closer to that pre-pandemic workout adventure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studios and companies that can ’ t yet open .
“ Outdoors is definitely a big contributor to the business , ” Chris Hudson , chief curriculum lead at Barry ’ s , told me .
“ The concept has allowed us to safely offer Barry ’ s classes in markets such as Los Angeles and Mexico City where our studios remain closed.
” But , as that popular show once said : Winter is coming The biggest question among people who aren ’ t group fitness enthusiasts about group fitness enthusiasts is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your own ?
Why not just bike outside or go to a gym if you want to work out ?
“ I ’ d say , to each his or her own , ” Lev told me .
“ Some people only want to work out at home [ or at the gym ] .
I will say that Forward Space is the only thing that has ever gotten me to work out at home .
That ’ s it , that ’ s the truth.
” As Lev told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well to the gym or working out alone .
The idea of going back to the gym “ bores her to death.
” Working out with a group of people motivates her in a way that working out solo doesn ’ t .
And being able to work out outside with her favorite program and with her favorite teachers has been a blessing for her fitness and her mental health .
“ Returning to in-person classes has taken away the quarantine isolation cloud for me , so I don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sarah Luetto , an attorney in Los Angeles , goes to Barry ’ s outdoor classes as a way to mix up her routine but also as a way to exercise while still keeping her health in mind .
Like Lev , she was going to fitness classes multiple times per week , but those classes shifted online during the pandemic .
She ’ s been taking Barry ’ s classes at the Beverly Center , whose parking area has been outfitted as an “ outdoor ” Barry ’ s location with social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it ’ s a good alternative for people like me who are not ready to do indoor [ classes ] and hope they keep the option available even when studios reopen indoor in the LA area , ” she told me .
“ I like that they clean the room halfway through class and hope that protocol continues .
I ’ m still taking online classes a few days a week , but it has been nice to have the modified studio experience in person and see some of my Barry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It has been nice to have the modified studio experience in person and see some of my Barry ’ s friends in real life ” The question for Luetto , Lev , and the fitness programs they enjoy is whether these outdoor classes will continue as the weather gets colder and working out outdoors becomes tougher .
Sudeikis said the outdoor Forward Space classes , which ended on September 21 , prompted an increase in demand and made her think about offering a “ handful ” of outdoor classes in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s looking to offer outdoor classes in other cities throughout 2020 and into 2021 .
But the main strategy for Sudeikis and Forward Space is investing in more virtual classes .
She said they launched new eight- and 24-minute classes and are thinking of ways to expand their virtual offerings like making their live classes more interactive .
“ We are passionately committed as teachers , creators , coaches , and team members to be doing and creating everything we can right now to keep all moving and dancing for the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotional health , ” she said .
Hudson said Barry ’ s will continue to offer its classes as long as it can .
That seems to be good news for Luetto in Los Angeles , where it stays warmer longer .
Hudson , like Sudeikis , also mentioned the company ’ s desire to be innovative and that they will follow the safety rules in each city .
“ We strive to offer a premium and safe experience in all our offerings , abiding by all local government mandates , ” Hudson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future group fitness classes is how well the virus is contained .
In New York City , flare-ups of the virus have prompted school and business closures in hot spots .
Indoor dining is still in a touch-and-go stage .
It ’ s hard to see allowing indoor fitness classes if schools and restaurants — which are considered more essential — still aren ’ t fully open .
On the other side of that equation , people might be reluctant to go back to indoor fitness classes , even if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s all a moving target at this point .
“ I think every person should decide what their risk is and what they are okay with.
” Lev said , explaining that she is trying to be positive about the future of Forward Space .
“ And I would be okay with going to class .
I ’ m just keeping my fingers crossed that it will be sooner than later .
Because there ’ s nothing like it.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In the shadow of the Vessel, the sky-scraping copper honeycomb structure in New York City’s Hudson Yards, is a huge tent full of bikes that go nowhere. In the parking lot of the Beverly Center, the famed Los Angeles shopping center, there’s a blocked-off section peppered with treadmills and benches. And this summer, the Southampton Arts Center’s west lawn was transformed into a dance-workout space.
These outdoor gyms are the new normal of group fitness.
Because companies like SoulCycle, Barry’s, and the up-and-coming dance-inspired workout FORWARD__Space haven’t been allowed to reopen in major cities like New York and Los Angeles, those companies (and many others, from CrossFit boxes to local Planets Fitness) brought the workouts outside.
“I feel very safe working out outside,” Anna Lev, a devotee of Forward Space told me. She says her trainers “have created a really safe environment for everyone.”
Before the pandemic, Lev was going to Forward Space classes with Rachel, her favorite teacher, every day. The pandemic put a stop to that. But when Forward Space opened its Southampton outdoor space for the summer, Lev would make the trek from her home in the Rockaways to Southampton every Saturday to take two classes. If she stayed out East, she’d go every day they’re held, Thursday to Monday.
Lev’s devotion and fidelity to Forward Space isn’t unique. Outdoor classes at Barry’s and SoulCycle have been selling out and provide revenue for the companies. Fitness companies, like restaurants and bars, have pivoted to survive, and moving classes outdoors has been a public health strategy to cope with a pandemic that forced everyone into lockdown. Being outside is safer.
But in embracing outdoor exercise, both enthusiasts and the trainers they love found only a temporary relief. In the coming months, temperatures will drop, the weather will sour, and winter will be in full effect. Fitness enthusiasts may have to go back to square one. Boutique fitness studios have to start over, too, figuring out how to make money while their doors still aren’t open. And with all the improvisations and compromises, both sides have to deal with the reality that the future is not in their control.
Why fitness studios have to go outside
The big motivation behind these outdoor classes is the health of clients.
“Teaching safe and spacious sweat sessions outside has been truly incredible and an absolute gift,” Kristin Sudeikis, the founder of Forward Space, told me. “Being outside certainly provided an element of safety and we also appreciated giving cues during class to look up to the sky, from the sternum up, to take in the sun and the wind … I had intuited that at some point — and this was pre-Covid — that we would create outdoor sweat sessions similar to that of a music festival vibe, and here we are.”
But the moves outside go a bit deeper than that and are more connected to how health policy and lawmakers define “safety.” Back in March, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were among the first to put their states in lockdown and shut down gyms, which were seen as high risk because of the lack of social distancing and factors like heavy breathing and lots of shared-surface contact. Now, as we know more about the virus and spread, gyms are reopening or have reopened — many of which had to implement new capacity and social distancing rules.
Going outside, social distancing, eliminating shared equipment, and instituting measures like cleaning and temperature checks are all measures that make clients, according to current research, safer than they would be if fitness studios continued to operate the way they had pre-pandemic.
“We managed to rework the foundations of how we program sessions to adapt everything to body weight,” Lauren Vickers, F45 Training athletics team manager, told me, explaining how the company adapted to taking its exercise programs outside. Those programs usually involved equipment like weights and kettlebells, and cardio equipment like bikes or rowers.
Vickers and the team at F45 pointed out that without consistent, across-the-board rules about outside fitness, they’ve had to work within different restrictions — something they’ve figured out by keeping things simple.
“Members can bring their own equipment if they wish to add progressions, but essentially you just need a towel and a water bottle and you’re ready to go,” Vickers told me.
As Vickers told me, the problem for fitness studios is that in major cities like New York and Los Angeles, they still haven’t been given the green light to open. Even though they provide essentially the same fitness service, companies like Forward Space and Barry’s aren’t considered gyms and are often subject to a different set of rules.
Companies like Forward Space and Barry’s aren’t considered gyms and are often subject to a different set of rules
The argument is that boutique fitness classes — often taking place in rooms full of sweaty, heavy-breathing people — might present a higher risk of transmission. All the things that make group fitness successful — people gathering, socializing, yelling, being in an enclosed studio — are things that make it high risk.
One notable study from South Korea reported fitness dance classes that infected 112 people over 24 days, and the fear is that something similar could happen in these boutique fitness classes. More recently, 74 people were infected over a week at a Canadian spin studio earlier this month — the studio had followed rules like cutting capacity and distancing bikes but it did not require riders to wear masks.
To curb potential outbreaks, rules regarding fitness studios were adjusted accordingly. For example, while gyms in New York City were allowed to open their doors, New York City’s health department and Mayor Bill de Blasio were given discretion to keep those establishments closed, which they did.
By taking classes outside and maintaining social distancing rules, boutique fitness companies keep their clients safer — research has shown that outdoor transmission risk is lower than indoor — but also can bypass city mandates about indoor fitness classes.
For fitness companies, it’s also provided some much-needed cash.
The health shutdowns across the country gutted the group fitness industry. Companies bled expenses and continued to pay rent. Even in reopening, they aren’t making the same money that they used to because of capacity measures and health directives. Companies like Rowgatta shut down their physical spaces, and Flywheel went out of business. Others like Solidcore laid off more than 90 percent of their staff. SoulCycle also furloughed a majority of its instructors.
Group fitness companies innovated by going online. But online workouts in your living room don’t quite replicate the real-life experience. Outdoor classes are closer to that pre-pandemic workout adventure, and are a revenue stream for studios and companies that can’t yet open.
“Outdoors is definitely a big contributor to the business,” Chris Hudson, chief curriculum lead at Barry’s, told me. “The concept has allowed us to safely offer Barry’s classes in markets such as Los Angeles and Mexico City where our studios remain closed.”
But, as that popular show once said: Winter is coming
The biggest question among people who aren’t group fitness enthusiasts about group fitness enthusiasts is: Why? Why not just exercise on your own? Why not just bike outside or go to a gym if you want to work out?
“I’d say, to each his or her own,” Lev told me. “Some people only want to work out at home [or at the gym]. I will say that Forward Space is the only thing that has ever gotten me to work out at home. That’s it, that’s the truth.”
As Lev told me, she just doesn’t respond as well to the gym or working out alone. The idea of going back to the gym “bores her to death.” Working out with a group of people motivates her in a way that working out solo doesn’t. And being able to work out outside with her favorite program and with her favorite teachers has been a blessing for her fitness and her mental health.
“Returning to in-person classes has taken away the quarantine isolation cloud for me, so I don’t want to lose that,” she said.
Sarah Luetto, an attorney in Los Angeles, goes to Barry’s outdoor classes as a way to mix up her routine but also as a way to exercise while still keeping her health in mind. Like Lev, she was going to fitness classes multiple times per week, but those classes shifted online during the pandemic. She’s been taking Barry’s classes at the Beverly Center, whose parking area has been outfitted as an “outdoor” Barry’s location with social distancing and cleaning measures implemented.
“I think it’s a good alternative for people like me who are not ready to do indoor [classes] and hope they keep the option available even when studios reopen indoor in the LA area,” she told me. “I like that they clean the room halfway through class and hope that protocol continues. I’m still taking online classes a few days a week, but it has been nice to have the modified studio experience in person and see some of my Barry’s friends in real life.”
“It has been nice to have the modified studio experience in person and see some of my Barry’s friends in real life”
The question for Luetto, Lev, and the fitness programs they enjoy is whether these outdoor classes will continue as the weather gets colder and working out outdoors becomes tougher.
Sudeikis said the outdoor Forward Space classes, which ended on September 21, prompted an increase in demand and made her think about offering a “handful” of outdoor classes in New York City. She also mentioned that she’s looking to offer outdoor classes in other cities throughout 2020 and into 2021.
But the main strategy for Sudeikis and Forward Space is investing in more virtual classes. She said they launched new eight- and 24-minute classes and are thinking of ways to expand their virtual offerings like making their live classes more interactive. “We are passionately committed as teachers, creators, coaches, and team members to be doing and creating everything we can right now to keep all moving and dancing for the people’s overall mental, physical, and emotional health,” she said.
Hudson said Barry’s will continue to offer its classes as long as it can. That seems to be good news for Luetto in Los Angeles, where it stays warmer longer. Hudson, like Sudeikis, also mentioned the company’s desire to be innovative and that they will follow the safety rules in each city.
“We strive to offer a premium and safe experience in all our offerings, abiding by all local government mandates,” Hudson said.
The X-factor that will determine the future of group fitness classes is how well the virus is contained. In New York City, flare-ups of the virus have prompted school and business closures in hot spots. Indoor dining is still in a touch-and-go stage. It’s hard to see allowing indoor fitness classes if schools and restaurants — which are considered more essential — still aren’t fully open. On the other side of that equation, people might be reluctant to go back to indoor fitness classes, even if they’re open, until they feel safe.
It’s all a moving target at this point.
“I think every person should decide what their risk is and what they are okay with,” Lev said, explaining that she is trying to be positive about the future of Forward Space. “And I would be okay with going to class. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed that it will be sooner than later. Because there’s nothing like it.”


vox--2020-10-19--Democrats want to rebuild the State Department. They’re deeply divided over how.

If there ’ s one thing about President Donald Trump ’ s foreign policy Democrats agree on , it ’ s that his decimation of the State Department made America less safe .
But ask party leaders how to rebuild the nation ’ s top diplomatic agency , and their answers differ wildly .
There ’ s no consensus on whether State should be equal to , or more powerful than , the Defense Department .
There ’ s no agreement on how central diplomacy should be in US foreign policy instead of military prowess , economic engagement , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no shared belief on what authorities State should wrest from competing government bodies , including the White House ’ s National Security Council .
That lack of consensus matters , because if left unresolved , Democrats might miss a golden opportunity to remake America ’ s foreign policy-making apparatus should ( as seems increasingly possible ) a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress be in charge .
Without an understood way forward , the party may find itself pontificating more than revamping .
“ Until the entire party commits itself to this fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president or any single Cabinet member could make the case for an empowered State Department with more funding and tools , ” said Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-CT ) , a leading proponent of an empowered State Department who ’ s reportedly under consideration to be secretary of state in a Biden administration .
Still , there ’ s no question that most Democrats believe the State Department needs all the help it can get .
“ After nearly four years of the president ’ s mismanagement , the agency is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a record number of positions or ambassadorships remain unfilled , and too many positions that have been filled are occupied by political appointees more devoted to the president ’ s personal interests than advancing our national interests and values , ” Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) , a staunch Biden ally also reportedly up for secretary of state , told me .
To bolster the State Department , then , Democrats may require a blueprint to work from .
The problem is they haven ’ t really had one .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , a prominent center-left think tank in Washington , aims to give them just that .
How to revamp the State Department , according to CAP On Monday morning , CAP will release a new report titled “ The First 100 Days : Toward a More Sustainable and Values-Based National Security Approach.
” I reviewed a draft copy of the report before its release , and it ’ s chock-full of specific ideas for what a Biden administration could do in its first three months and beyond , from “ quick win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s support for the US intelligence community to major policy moves like suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia and removing America ’ s nuclear weapons from Turkey .
It also says the next administration should once again value ethical leadership .
But the report ’ s core message is as a clarion call for progressives to finally address what they ’ ve long decried , before and especially during the Trump era : That , for too long , the State Department has been left to wither .
“ By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ’ primary foreign policy tool , we have chronically underinvested in other national security institutions , creating a cycle of overreliance on the armed forces to manage problems that should be handled by civilian agencies , ” the draft report reads .
Changing that “ will require enhancing the status and influence of diplomacy and development in Washington , restoring the US Department of State ’ s overall primacy in foreign policymaking , and reestablishing the State Department as the lead for US engagement around the world.
” How to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Have the secretary of state draft a “ National Diplomacy Strategy ” to dovetail with the Pentagon ’ s National Defense Strategy and inform the White House ’ s National Security Strategy • Take back the Pentagon ’ s security-assistance programs that traditionally were housed at State • Have the State Department chair working-group interagency meetings , making the NSC a vice-chair • Work with Congress to pass the first State Department authorization bill since 2002 , and work toward a consolidated national security budget • Initially hire 1,000 full-time employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ranks , and prioritize naming qualified foreign service officers as ambassadors before looking at others , including major political donors Katrina Mulligan , the managing director for national security and international policy at CAP and who led the project , is aware Democrats and progressives won ’ t agree with all the recommendations in the report .
But the goal , she told me , was to challenge orthodoxies in the party and in US foreign policy in general .
“ We have intentionally gone further .
This isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ It ’ s an intentionally progressive , intentionally provocative plan .
Many elements are familiar in foreign policy circles , and some go further than conventional wisdom would allow .
But we actually believe that diplomacy really needs to be at the center of our foreign policy.
” As I discussed these and other report proposals with Democrats , including party elders , I heard more pushback than initially expected .
Leon Panetta , who served in various senior roles in the Obama administration including CIA director and secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now worse off than when Trump found it .
“ But as a result of that , I wouldn ’ t try to overcompensate by saying that State and diplomacy should be leading everything , ” he told me .
Indeed , there is a party debate brewing around the issues CAP highlighted in its report .
Changing the way US foreign policy operates will require a huge Democratic effort Let ’ s zero in on just two of the report ’ s key recommendations : having the State Department lead interagency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all security assistance going forward .
First , the meetings .
It may seem like a small proposal , but it ’ s actually quite a big ask : Those gatherings inform the options eventually provided to the president on a major foreign policy question .
Whoever leads the meeting in effect controls which options filter upward .
The NSC has traditionally chaired those working-level sessions because it ’ s tasked with coordinating national security decisions across the government and because it reflects how top-level meetings go : The NSC represents the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ultimate call .
Mulligan thinks that process is ripe for an update .
“ It is really important to have State in a substantive-type role at that first stage , ” she told me , noting the NSC can chair meetings again once more senior people are around the table .
“ You ’ re talking about putting State at the forefront of the idea-generating phase , giving it a more diplomatic flavor at the early stage.
” Not everyone is supportive .
“ I do not think that ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who served on the NSC during the Obama administration before becoming ambassador to Russia .
Co-chairs are a bad idea to begin with , he argued , adding the president never shares a leadership role with the secretary of state .
“ It ’ s more logical that you follow that structure down the line.
” There was unanimous agreement on one point , though .
The Pentagon typically gets at least two seats at interagency meetings : one representing the civilian side and another the military side .
But the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means it ’ s outnumbered during deliberations .
Most experts I spoke to said State should be encouraged to have the same number of seats — or perhaps more — than the Pentagon to ensure military options aren ’ t overrepresented .
The security assistance proposal , meanwhile , has the potential to cause a big rift between those wanting to empower State and those who favor a stronger Pentagon .
Security assistance is when the US provides weapons or money to a country so it can better defend itself .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when to provide that help and what kind of help to provide laid with the State Department after the Vietnam War .
But especially over the past decade , the Pentagon built its own security-assistance team with its own budget and bureaucracy .
“ This effort now mirrors the State Department ’ s long-running $ 6 billion security assistance system , ” the draft report states .
“ The dramatic growth and expansion of the DOD ’ s aid programs has eroded the State Department ’ s control and oversight of security assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A new administration should transfer the DOD ’ s $ 8 billion budget over to the State Department.
” That would be quite the challenge .
Every year , Congress passes a bill giving the Pentagon the authority to provide military aid , an authority the Defense Department likes to have .
Returning all security-assistance decisions back to State would therefore require Congress to change its mind .
“ If it was given to DOD it can be taken from DOD , ” said Rep. Tom Malinowski ( D-NJ ) , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top State official in the Obama administration .
“ We could find ourselves in the moment where that ’ s possible ” with a Democrat-led Congress and Democrat as president .
One way to have that conversation would be to have an all-encompassing national security budget , as the report recommends , which would feature funding and authorities for State , the Pentagon , intelligence agencies , and more .
Another is to simply bring congressional panels responsible for oversight of State and Defense together and , line item by line item , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain aspects of US foreign policy .
“ I ’ d welcome a conversation in which we put all of Defense and State Department spending on the table , ” Sen. Murphy told me .
On just those two issues alone , CAP ’ s proposals would already cause a stir .
Pushing for them to become a reality would require a massive , coordinated effort by Democrats — and not all of them are convinced it ’ s a worthwhile one .
Those who do believe it ’ s time for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically told me if not now — with State Department so rundown and Democrats potentially in control of Washington soon — when ?
“ When do you decide to have the fight ?
” Nina Hachigian , who from 2014 to 2017 was the US ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations , asked rhetorically during our interview .
“ It ’ s a reset moment because it has to be .
Let ’ s do it right.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

If there’s one thing about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy Democrats agree on, it’s that his decimation of the State Department made America less safe. But ask party leaders how to rebuild the nation’s top diplomatic agency, and their answers differ wildly.
There’s no consensus on whether State should be equal to, or more powerful than, the Defense Department. There’s no agreement on how central diplomacy should be in US foreign policy instead of military prowess, economic engagement, or values promotion. And there’s no shared belief on what authorities State should wrest from competing government bodies, including the White House’s National Security Council.
That lack of consensus matters, because if left unresolved, Democrats might miss a golden opportunity to remake America’s foreign policymaking apparatus should (as seems increasingly possible) a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress be in charge. Without an understood way forward, the party may find itself pontificating more than revamping.
“Until the entire party commits itself to this fight and debate, I’m unsure the president or any single Cabinet member could make the case for an empowered State Department with more funding and tools,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a leading proponent of an empowered State Department who’s reportedly under consideration to be secretary of state in a Biden administration.
Still, there’s no question that most Democrats believe the State Department needs all the help it can get.
“After nearly four years of the president’s mismanagement, the agency is less diverse than it was four years ago, a record number of positions or ambassadorships remain unfilled, and too many positions that have been filled are occupied by political appointees more devoted to the president’s personal interests than advancing our national interests and values,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a staunch Biden ally also reportedly up for secretary of state, told me.
To bolster the State Department, then, Democrats may require a blueprint to work from. The problem is they haven’t really had one. But the Center for American Progress (CAP), a prominent center-left think tank in Washington, aims to give them just that.
How to revamp the State Department, according to CAP
On Monday morning, CAP will release a new report titled “The First 100 Days: Toward a More Sustainable and Values-Based National Security Approach.”
I reviewed a draft copy of the report before its release, and it’s chock-full of specific ideas for what a Biden administration could do in its first three months and beyond, from “quick win[s]” such as reaffirming the president’s support for the US intelligence community to major policy moves like suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia and removing America’s nuclear weapons from Turkey. It also says the next administration should once again value ethical leadership.
But the report’s core message is a clarion call for progressives to finally address what they’ve long decried, before and especially during the Trump era: that, for too long, the State Department has been left to wither.
“By investing disproportionately in the military as the United States’ primary foreign policy tool, we have chronically underinvested in other national security institutions, creating a cycle of overreliance on the armed forces to manage problems that should be handled by civilian agencies,” the draft report reads.
Changing that “will require enhancing the status and influence of diplomacy and development in Washington, restoring the US Department of State’s overall primacy in foreign policymaking, and reestablishing the State Department as the lead for US engagement around the world.”
How to do that? They have some key suggestions:
Have the secretary of state draft a “National Diplomacy Strategy” to dovetail with the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy and inform the White House’s National Security Strategy
Take back the Pentagon’s security-assistance programs that traditionally were housed at State
Have the State Department chair working-group interagency meetings, making the NSC a vice-chair
Work with Congress to pass the first State Department authorization bill since 2002, and work toward a consolidated national security budget
Initially hire 1,000 full-time employees, improve diversity within the agency’s ranks, and prioritize naming qualified foreign service officers as ambassadors before looking at others, including major political donors
Katrina Mulligan, the managing director for national security and international policy at CAP who led the project, is aware Democrats and progressives won’t agree with all the recommendations in the report. But the goal, she told me, was to challenge orthodoxies in the party and in US foreign policy in general.
“We have intentionally gone further. This isn’t a redux of well-trod ground,” she said. “It’s an intentionally progressive, intentionally provocative plan. Many elements are familiar in foreign policy circles, and some go further than conventional wisdom would allow. But we actually believe that diplomacy really needs to be at the center of our foreign policy.”
As I discussed these and other report proposals with Democrats, including party elders, I heard more pushback than initially expected.
Leon Panetta, who served in various senior roles in the Obama administration including CIA director and secretary of defense, agreed that the State Department is now worse off than when Trump found it. “But as a result of that, I wouldn’t try to overcompensate by saying that State and diplomacy should be leading everything,” he told me.
Indeed, there is a party debate brewing around the issues CAP highlighted in its report.
Changing the way US foreign policy operates will require a huge Democratic effort
Let’s zero in on just two of the report’s key recommendations: having the State Department lead interagency meetings and putting the department in charge of all security assistance going forward.
First, the meetings. It may seem like a small proposal, but it’s actually quite a big ask: Those gatherings inform the options eventually provided to the president on a major foreign policy question. Whoever leads the meeting in effect controls which options filter upward.
The NSC has traditionally chaired those working-level sessions because it’s tasked with coordinating national security decisions across the government and because it reflects how top-level meetings go: The NSC represents the White House, and the president makes the ultimate call.
Mulligan thinks that process is ripe for an update. “It is really important to have State in a substantive-type role at that first stage,” she told me, noting the NSC can chair meetings again once more senior people are around the table. “You’re talking about putting State at the forefront of the idea-generating phase, giving it a more diplomatic flavor at the early stage.”
Not everyone is supportive. “I do not think that’s a good idea,” said Michael McFaul, who served on the NSC during the Obama administration before becoming ambassador to Russia. Co-chairs are a bad idea to begin with, he argued, adding the president never shares a leadership role with the secretary of state. “It’s more logical that you follow that structure down the line.”
There was unanimous agreement on one point, though. The Pentagon typically gets at least two seats at interagency meetings: one representing the civilian side and another the military side. But the State Department usually gets just one, which means it’s outnumbered during deliberations. Most experts I spoke to said State should be encouraged to have the same number of seats — or perhaps more — than the Pentagon to ensure military options aren’t overrepresented.
The security assistance proposal, meanwhile, has the potential to cause a big rift between those wanting to empower State and those who favor a stronger Pentagon.
Security assistance is when the US provides weapons or money to a country so it can better defend itself. As the CAP report notes, the decision on when to provide that help and what kind of help to provide laid with the State Department after the Vietnam War. But especially over the past decade, the Pentagon built its own security-assistance team with its own budget and bureaucracy.
“This effort now mirrors the State Department’s long-running $6 billion security assistance system,” the draft report states. “The dramatic growth and expansion of the DOD’s aid programs has eroded the State Department’s control and oversight of security assistance policy and therefore over US foreign policy. A new administration should transfer the DOD’s $8 billion budget over to the State Department.”
That would be quite the challenge. Every year, Congress passes a bill giving the Pentagon the authority to provide military aid, an authority the Defense Department likes to have. Returning all security-assistance decisions back to State would therefore require Congress to change its mind.
“If it was given to DOD it can be taken from DOD,” said Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), a House Foreign Affairs committee member and former top State official in the Obama administration. “We could find ourselves in the moment where that’s possible” with a Democrat-led Congress and Democrat as president.
One way to have that conversation would be to have an all-encompassing national security budget, as the report recommends, which would feature funding and authorities for State, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and more. Another is to simply bring congressional panels responsible for oversight of State and Defense together and, line item by line item, figure out which agency really should lead certain aspects of US foreign policy.
“I’d welcome a conversation in which we put all of Defense and State Department spending on the table,” Sen. Murphy told me.
On just those two issues alone, CAP’s proposals would already cause a stir. Pushing for them to become a reality would require a massive, coordinated effort by Democrats — and not all of them are convinced it’s a worthwhile one.
Those who do believe it’s time for a US foreign policy overhaul, though, basically told me if not now — with State Department so rundown and Democrats potentially in control of Washington soon — when?
“When do you decide to have the fight?” Nina Hachigian, who from 2014 to 2017 was the US ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, asked rhetorically during our interview. “It’s a reset moment because it has to be. Let’s do it right.”


vox--2020-10-19--Democrats are cheering a Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballots. Here’s why it’s worse than it look

Democrats are cheering a Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballots. Here’s why it’s worse than it looks.

The Supreme Court handed down a brief , unsigned order on Monday , which effectively rejected radical arguments by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania that sought to make it harder to vote in that state .
This order , in other words , is a victory for voting rights — but that victory may only last a matter of days .
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar involves a state Supreme Court order holding that many ballots received up to three days after Election Day must be counted .
Monday ’ s order means that this state Supreme Court decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ’ s decision not to grant relief to the GOP in Republican Party is not especially surprising .
What is surprising is the vote breakdown in this case .
The Court voted 4-4 , with Chief Justice John Roberts crossing over to vote with the three liberal justices .
So in the almost certain event that Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to join the Supreme Court , there could be five votes on the Supreme Court who support the GOP ’ s effort to toss out many ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is possible that Republicans will attempt to raise the same issue before the justices after Barrett is confirmed .
The dissenting justices did not explain why they dissented The Supreme Court ’ s order in Republican Party is only two sentences long .
The first sentence states that the GOP ’ s request to stay the state Supreme Court decision is denied .
The second merely states that “ Justice Thomas , Justice Alito , Justice Gorsuch , and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.
” None of the four justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In its brief asking the Supreme Court to block the state court ’ s decision , however , the GOP advanced two legally dubious theories .
The first is that a federal law providing that the election shall take place “ on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.
” Republicans argue that federal law requires “ the 2020 general election to be consummated on Election Day ( November 3 , 2020 ) .
” So any ballots that may have been mailed after this date must be tossed .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is that the provisions of federal law setting an election date should not be enforceable in federal court .
As I ’ ve previously explained , private parties are only allowed to bring a lawsuit seeking to enforce a federal statute if that statute contains particular language .
And the federal law setting the date of the election does not contain such language .
The GOP ’ s other argument is potentially breathtaking in its implications .
The Constitution provides that “ each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Electoral College .
In their brief , the GOP hones in on the word “ Legislature , ” arguing that only the Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state ’ s rules for choosing presidential electors — not the state Supreme Court .
But there ’ s a glaring problem with this argument .
As the Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison ( 1803 ) , “ it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
” In Republican Party , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law says about how ballots should be counted .
Ultimately , the state supreme court resolved that disagreement in a manner that the GOP disagrees with .
The GOP argues in its brief that the state Supreme Court ’ s decision relied on reasoning that is “ tortured at best.
” But so what ?
There was a disagreement between two parties .
Someone had to resolve that dispute .
And , in questions of state law , the state Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word on such disputes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ American law is that the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on questions of federal law , but state supreme courts have the final word on how to interpret the law of their own state .
Indeed , if state supreme courts can not interpret their state ’ s own election law , it ’ s unclear how that law is supposed to function .
There will inevitably be legal disagreements between candidates , parties , and election officials during an election .
Perhaps the Democratic Party believes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Republican Party disagrees .
But someone has to have the power to resolve such disagreements , and , in this country , disputes about the proper meaning of an existing law are resolved by the judiciary .
If the judiciary can not perform this function , we have no way of knowing what the law is — and we may have no way of knowing who won a disputed election .
In any event , because the four dissenting justices did not explain their reasoning , we do not know whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were moved by one or both of the GOP ’ s arguments — or maybe because they came up with their own reason to back their own political party in this case .
What we do know is that four plus one equals five .
Thus , in the likely event that Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett , there will probably be a majority on the Supreme Court to hand a victory to the GOP in cases like this one .
Indeed , the GOP may be able to raise this issue again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day .
If the election is close , that could be enough to change the result .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Supreme Court handed down a brief, unsigned order on Monday, which effectively rejected radical arguments by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania that sought to make it harder to vote in that state. This order, in other words, is a victory for voting rights — but that victory may only last a matter of days.
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar involves a state Supreme Court order holding that many ballots received up to three days after Election Day must be counted. Monday’s order means that this state Supreme Court decision will stand, for now.
The Court’s decision not to grant relief to the GOP in Republican Party is not especially surprising. What is surprising is the vote breakdown in this case. The Court voted 4-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts crossing over to vote with the three liberal justices.
So in the almost certain event that Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to join the Supreme Court, there could be five votes on the Supreme Court who support the GOP’s effort to toss out many ballots in the state of Pennsylvania. Indeed, it is possible that Republicans will attempt to raise the same issue before the justices after Barrett is confirmed.
The dissenting justices did not explain why they dissented
The Supreme Court’s order in Republican Party is only two sentences long. The first sentence states that the GOP’s request to stay the state Supreme Court decision is denied. The second merely states that “Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.” None of the four justices in dissent explained why they dissented.
In its brief asking the Supreme Court to block the state court’s decision, however, the GOP advanced two legally dubious theories.
The first is that a federal law providing that the election shall take place “on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” Republicans argue that federal law requires “the 2020 general election to be consummated on Election Day (November 3, 2020).” So any ballots that may have been mailed after this date must be tossed.
One serious problem with this argument, however, is that the provisions of federal law setting an election date should not be enforceable in federal court. As I’ve previously explained, private parties are only allowed to bring a lawsuit seeking to enforce a federal statute if that statute contains particular language. And the federal law setting the date of the election does not contain such language.
The GOP’s other argument is potentially breathtaking in its implications. The Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” members of the Electoral College. In its brief, the GOP homes in on the word “Legislature,” arguing that only the Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state’s rules for choosing presidential electors — not the state Supreme Court.
But there’s a glaring problem with this argument. As the Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” In Republican Party, two parties had a disagreement about what Pennsylvania law says about how ballots should be counted. Ultimately, the state supreme court resolved that disagreement in a manner that the GOP disagrees with.
The GOP argues in its brief that the state Supreme Court’s decision relied on reasoning that is “tortured at best.” But so what? There was a disagreement between two parties. Someone had to resolve that dispute. And, in questions of state law, the state Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word on such disputes.
One of the most basic principles of American law is that the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on questions of federal law, but state supreme courts have the final word on how to interpret the law of their own state.
Indeed, if state supreme courts cannot interpret their state’s own election law, it’s unclear how that law is supposed to function. There will inevitably be legal disagreements between candidates, parties, and election officials during an election. Perhaps the Democratic Party believes that a particular ballot should be counted, and the Republican Party disagrees.
But someone has to have the power to resolve such disagreements, and, in this country, disputes about the proper meaning of an existing law are resolved by the judiciary. If the judiciary cannot perform this function, we have no way of knowing what the law is — and we may have no way of knowing who won a disputed election.
In any event, because the four dissenting justices did not explain their reasoning, we do not know whether they voted with the GOP because they were moved by one or both of the GOP’s arguments — or maybe because they came up with their own reason to back their own political party in this case.
What we do know is that four plus one equals five. Thus, in the likely event that Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, there will probably be a majority on the Supreme Court to hand a victory to the GOP in cases like this one.
Indeed, the GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Barrett is confirmed, potentially securing a Court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day. If the election is close, that could be enough to change the result.


vox--2020-10-19--A gruesome murder in France rekindles the country’s debate on free speech and Islam

The murder last week of a teacher who used images of the Prophet Muhammad in lessons about freedom of expression — by a teenage Muslim refugee — has sparked a solidarity movement in France and reignited the debate over Islam ’ s role in the country .
History and geography teacher Samuel Paty , 47 , brought scrutiny this month when he showed his 12- to 14-year-old students two caricatures of Muhammad published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo — the same images that in 2015 inspired jihadists to kill 11 staff members at the magazine and six others in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , located just 20 miles outside the capital , said Paty gave his Muslim pupils the opportunity to leave the classroom or look away so as not to anger them .
Idolatry is forbidden in Islam , and many devout Muslims believe any depictions of Mohammed , or any revered prophet , to be taboo .
But many also found the Charlie Hebdo drawings particularly offensive not just because they depicted the prophet , but because they did so in a way that some critics said perpetuated racist , bigoted stereotypes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One student ’ s father called for a “ mobilization ” against Paty — including his firing — and posted the school ’ s address and the teacher ’ s name on social media .
An Islamist militant even accompanied upset parents to the school to push for the instructor ’ s ouster .
But the situation turned deadly last Friday when Abdoullakh Abouyezidovitch , an 18-year-old refugee from Chechnya , beheaded Paty with a butcher knife as the teacher made his way home .
French authorities said the suspected attacker , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , asked students to identify Paty moments before killing him .
The teenager was shot dead after he tried to stab and shoot back at authorities who closed in on him .
Police found a Twitter account suspected of belonging to the attacker since he posted a picture of the severed head along with a message : “ I have executed one of the dogs from hell who dared to put Muhammad down.
” French President Emmanuel Macron , who on Saturday visited the site of the murder , said the beheading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack ” committed because Paty “ taught freedom of expression.
” He added that the terrorist sought to “ attack the republic and its values , ” further noting “ this is our battle and it is existential .
They [ terrorists ] will not succeed .
… They will not divide us.
” On Monday , police raided numerous homes across France as part of its probe into Paty ’ s killing .
About 15 people have been taken into custody and 51 Islamic organizations are under investigation , Interior Minister Gérald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies of the Republic ” won ’ t be given “ a minute ’ s respite , ” he told the Europe 1 radio station .
It ’ s no surprise France is taking the suspected terror attack very seriously .
Since the Charlie Hebdo assault in 2015 , the last few years have seen high-profile knife attacks , strikes against police on the Champs-Élysées , and a coordinated assault in Paris that killed 130 people and injured hundreds more .
But Friday ’ s killing strikes at the core of two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which of late have somewhat fused together : whether there should be limits on freedom of speech , and how Muslims should integrate into French society .
And it ’ s a conversation that could continue to roil the nation ’ s politics for years to come .
For over a year , Macron promised to detail his views on the role of Islam in France ’ s secular culture .
On October 2 , he finally delivered that address .
“ What we must attack is Islamist separatism , ” he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate Muslims in desolate neighborhoods , basically creating anti-French enclaves by spreading their radical Islamic “ ideology ” and “ project.
” “ We built our own separatism ourselves , ” he continued , arguing French authorities made such a situation possible by huddling immigrants together in areas apart from good-paying jobs or French public schools .
To solve the problem , he offered some reforms , like within four years forbidding foreign-trained imams ( Muslim religious leaders ) to preach in France .
Instead , all imams must be certified in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was clear Macron , who has long called for an “ Islam of France ” that seamlessly integrates Muslims into the country ’ s society , aimed to distinguish between extremists and all Muslims .
Still , his speech , and the thinking underlying it , received mixed reviews .
Some said his statements — namely , “ Islam is a religion that is in crisis today , all over the world ” — were incendiary , not measured .
They also accuse Macron , who is up for reelection in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some right-wing bona fides by taking a tougher stance against Islamic extremism .
“ The repression of Muslims has been a threat , now it is a promise , ” tweeted Yasser Louati , a French Muslim activist .
Others , like the Atlantic Council think tank ’ s Benjamin Haddad , said the speech and Macron ’ s views on the issue set the right tone .
“ It underlined the urgency to fight separatism , ” Haddad , who has defended Macron ’ s policies in Washington , DC , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really more about certain neighborhoods and areas that aren ’ t necessarily violent ... but will progressively socialize radical ideology as French republican ideals can ’ t get through anymore.
” It ’ s more than an ideological fight , he added .
“ We ’ re talking about losing territory.
” “ If you go to Paris , everyone will tell you there ’ s a problem .
It ’ s one of the deepest societal problems in France today , ” he concluded .
But what the disagreement over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France has struggled to accept Muslims as they come .
For example , the country has banned headscarves in public schools and for government employees while at work .
The government says such measures are meant to help Muslims integrate with France ’ s secular culture , while critics say the focus on Islamic garb stems from bigotry .
This issue burst out into the open after the terrorist attack following the Charlie Hebdo cartoons .
Local debate roiled over whether outlets should refrain from producing images of Mohammad , as Islamic teaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a celebration of France ’ s history of criticizing all religions .
After all , the magazine often lampoons religious leaders like the pope .
Thousands took to France ’ s streets to defend that history .
On Sunday , they rallied in major cities like Paris , Lyon , and Marseille in defiance of the attack , in Paty ’ s memory , and to bolster the notion that freedom of expression in France has no limits — even if that leads one to show images of the Islamic prophet .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : These values of liberty , secularism and democracy can not remain just words , ” a demonstrator in Paris told French media .
“ We have to keep them alive , and being here helps do that.
” Politicians who attended the rallies made similar comments .
“ I want teachers to know that , after this ignoble act , the whole country is behind them , ” French Prime Minister Jean Castex said on Sunday .
“ This tragedy affects each and every one of us because , through this teacher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked.
” Importantly , the number of racist attacks in France , including against Muslims , has dropped in recent years .
Such statistics offer hope that the potential scapegoating of Muslims in the coming weeks and months may not lead to a rise in hate crimes .
But Macron ’ s policies and the aftermath of the attack indicate that Muslims are once again under a national microscope .
That , at the very least , won ’ t help with the assimilation problems the country aims to solve .
Help keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The murder last week of a teacher who used images of the Prophet Muhammad in lessons about freedom of expression — by a teenage Muslim refugee — has sparked a solidarity movement in France and reignited the debate over Islam’s role in the country.
History and geography teacher Samuel Paty, 47, brought scrutiny this month when he showed his 12- to 14-year-old students two caricatures of Muhammad published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo — the same images that in 2015 inspired jihadists to kill 11 staff members at the magazine and six others in Paris. Parents and teachers at the school, located just 20 miles outside the capital, said Paty gave his Muslim pupils the opportunity to leave the classroom or look away so as not to anger them.
Idolatry is forbidden in Islam, and many devout Muslims believe any depictions of Mohammed, or any revered prophet, to be taboo. But many also found the Charlie Hebdo drawings particularly offensive not just because they depicted the prophet, but because they did so in a way that some critics said perpetuated racist, bigoted stereotypes of Muslims.
A weeks-long uproar ensued. One student’s father called for a “mobilization” against Paty — including his firing — and posted the school’s address and the teacher’s name on social media. An Islamist militant even accompanied upset parents to the school to push for the instructor’s ouster.
But the situation turned deadly last Friday when Abdoullakh Abouyezidovitch, an 18-year-old refugee from Chechnya, beheaded Paty with a butcher knife as the teacher made his way home. French authorities said the suspected attacker, who lived about 40 miles away from the school, asked students to identify Paty moments before killing him. The teenager was shot dead after he tried to stab and shoot back at authorities who closed in on him.
Police found a Twitter account suspected of belonging to the attacker since he posted a picture of the severed head along with a message: “I have executed one of the dogs from hell who dared to put Muhammad down.”
French President Emmanuel Macron, who on Saturday visited the site of the murder, said the beheading appeared to be an “Islamist terrorist attack” committed because Paty “taught freedom of expression.” He added that the terrorist sought to “attack the republic and its values,” further noting “this is our battle and it is existential. They [terrorists] will not succeed. … They will not divide us.”
On Monday, police raided numerous homes across France as part of its probe into Paty’s killing. About 15 people have been taken into custody and 51 Islamic organizations are under investigation, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin said on Monday. The “enemies of the Republic” won’t be given “a minute’s respite,” he told the Europe 1 radio station.
It’s no surprise France is taking the suspected terror attack very seriously. Since the Charlie Hebdo assault in 2015, the last few years have seen high-profile knife attacks, strikes against police on the Champs-Élysées, and a coordinated assault in Paris that killed 130 people and injured hundreds more.
But Friday’s killing strikes at the core of two of France’s most turbulent debates, which of late have somewhat fused together: whether there should be limits on freedom of speech, and how Muslims should integrate into French society.
And it’s a conversation that could continue to roil the nation’s politics for years to come.
France and “Islamist separatism”
For over a year, Macron promised to detail his views on the role of Islam in France’s secular culture. On October 2, he finally delivered that address.
“What we must attack is Islamist separatism,” he told the nation, saying extremists preyed upon desperate Muslims in desolate neighborhoods, basically creating anti-French enclaves by spreading their radical Islamic “ideology” and “project.”
“We built our own separatism ourselves,” he continued, arguing French authorities made such a situation possible by huddling immigrants together in areas apart from good-paying jobs or French public schools. To solve the problem, he offered some reforms, like within four years forbidding foreign-trained imams (Muslim religious leaders) to preach in France. Instead, all imams must be certified in the country in order to lead a congregation.
It was clear Macron, who has long called for an “Islam of France” that seamlessly integrates Muslims into the country’s society, aimed to distinguish between extremists and all Muslims. Still, his speech, and the thinking underlying it, received mixed reviews.
Some said his statements — namely, “Islam is a religion that is in crisis today, all over the world” — were incendiary, not measured. They also accuse Macron, who is up for reelection in 18 months, of trying to garner some right-wing bona fides by taking a tougher stance against Islamic extremism. “The repression of Muslims has been a threat, now it is a promise,” tweeted Yasser Louati, a French Muslim activist.
Macron no longer hiding his feelings about Islam. No longer radical Islam, now it’s just Islam that is the problem https://t.co/ljRK3LuNMM — Bruno Maçães (@MacaesBruno) October 2, 2020
Others, like the Atlantic Council think tank’s Benjamin Haddad, said the speech and Macron’s views on the issue set the right tone.
“It underlined the urgency to fight separatism,” Haddad, who has defended Macron’s policies in Washington, DC, since 2017, told me. “It’s really more about certain neighborhoods and areas that aren’t necessarily violent ... but will progressively socialize radical ideology as French republican ideals can’t get through anymore.” It’s more than an ideological fight, he added. “We’re talking about losing territory.”
“If you go to Paris, everyone will tell you there’s a problem. It’s one of the deepest societal problems in France today,” he concluded.
But what the disagreement over Macron’s speech underscores is how France has struggled to accept Muslims as they come. For example, the country has banned headscarves in public schools and for government employees while at work. The government says such measures are meant to help Muslims integrate with France’s secular culture, while critics say the focus on Islamic garb stems from bigotry.
This issue burst out into the open after the terrorist attack following the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Local debate roiled over whether outlets should refrain from producing images of Mohammad, as Islamic teaching forbids, or whether doing so is a celebration of France’s history of criticizing all religions. After all, the magazine often lampoons religious leaders like the pope.
Thousands took to France’s streets to defend that history. On Sunday, they rallied in major cities like Paris, Lyon, and Marseille in defiance of the attack, in Paty’s memory, and to bolster the notion that freedom of expression in France has no limits — even if that leads one to show images of the Islamic prophet.
“We are the result of our history: These values of liberty, secularism and democracy cannot remain just words,” a demonstrator in Paris told French media. “We have to keep them alive, and being here helps do that.”
Politicians who attended the rallies made similar comments. “I want teachers to know that, after this ignoble act, the whole country is behind them,” French Prime Minister Jean Castex said on Sunday. “This tragedy affects each and every one of us because, through this teacher, it is the republic that was attacked.”
Importantly, the number of racist attacks in France, including against Muslims, has dropped in recent years. Such statistics offer hope that the potential scapegoating of Muslims in the coming weeks and months may not lead to a rise in hate crimes.
But Macron’s policies and the aftermath of the attack indicate that Muslims are once again under a national microscope. That, at the very least, won’t help with the assimilation problems the country aims to solve.