vox--2020-12-14--Georgia Republicans are using Senate candidate Raphael Warnock’s sermons against him

Over the course of the Georgia Senate campaign , Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R ) has repeatedly referred to her Democratic opponent Rev .
Raphael Warnock as “ radical liberal Raphael Warnock.
” She repeated the phrase 13 times in a recent debate ahead of the January 5 runoff .
“ The Democrats want to fundamentally change America , and the agent of change is my opponent , radical liberal Raphael Warnock , ” Loeffler said during the debate , claiming that Warnock has attacked police and the American military “ from the pulpit.
” Warnock is the senior pastor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the church Martin Luther King Jr. preached at in the 1960s .
And Republicans have been using excerpts from Warnock ’ s own sermons to attack him .
This rhetoric carries a specific connotation , Black theological experts told Vox .
It ’ s not just pointing out that Warnock is a Democrat running in a state that ’ s historically more conservative than the nation as a whole ; it ’ s also negatively emphasizing the long tradition of activism and social justice in Southern Black churches .
In interviews with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particularly new tactic .
Republicans used a similar playbook in 2008 when they attempted to tie former President Barack Obama to his former church pastor Rev .
Jeremiah Wright ( Georgia Republicans also ran an ad linking Warnock to Wright , which Politifact rated mostly false ) .
“ Particularly in Georgia , which is struggling between the old South and the new South , Black religion has always been thought of as being potentially a very dangerous political force , ” Rev .
Stephen Ray , the president of the Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think you can talk about the weaponization of Rev .
Warnock ’ s sermons apart from that.
” The runoff elections are all about which party can turn out more of their base , so Republicans are branding Warnock “ radical ” and “ dangerous ” with a clear goal : To motivate the GOP ’ s conservative base to turn out on January 5 .
While Republicans lost the presidency in the 2020 election , they had success in many House and Senate races by launching this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even moderate candidates to socialism and activist-led calls to defund the police ( something Warnock and fellow Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff have repeatedly said they ’ re against ) .
With control in the Senate hanging in the balance in the two Georgia runoffs , Republicans plan to keep hammering that messaging home .
“ Fear will motivate much more strongly than any other emotion in the runoff , ” Republican consultant Brian Robinson told Vox recently .
“ Republican [ voters ] are aggrieved , many have listened to the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ re scared of a Democratic Senate joining Pelosi and Biden.
” As the Senate race enters its final three weeks , Republicans are launching a volley of negative attacks on Warnock in particular .
Warnock has enjoyed a relatively easy campaign up until now , with Loeffler fending off a challenge from Republican Rep. Doug Collins on November 3 .
Polling showed Warnock entered the runoff with relatively high likability numbers .
In particular , Republicans have been circulating a clip from a 2011 sermon where Warnock said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military , ” as he quoted Bible scripture to make a larger point about faith and service to God coming before anything else .
Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , who regularly quotes Bible scripture on his Twitter page , blasted Warnock ’ s sermon in a tweet last month .
Warnock ’ s longer quote was , “ America , nobody can serve God and the military .
You can ’ t serve God and money .
You can ’ t serve God and mammon at the same time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will serve.
” In Biblical scripture , mammon refers to the corrupting influence of money and riches , and Warnock was in part quoting Matthew 6:24 from the Bible .
“ The part I was most disappointed in was them taking sermons out of context to make that connection , ” Justin Giboney , president of Christian civic engagement organization AND Campaign , told Vox .
“ This is supposed to be a group — when it comes to conservatives in Georgia — that has a certain level of respect for religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pulpit means.
” A Warnock campaign spokesperson pushed back on Republican attacks in a statement to Vox , saying , “ Kelly Loeffler ’ s dishonest attacks say a lot about Kelly Loeffler.
” “ Just like he has since he got in this race , Reverend Warnock will continue to talk to Georgians about how he will work for them in the Senate , fighting for affordable health care , for fair wages and the dignity of working people .
That ’ s the kind of Senator that Georgia needs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
When Vox reached out to the Loeffler campaign for comment on whether the attacks against Warnock lacked the necessary context , a campaign spokesperson reiterated that “ Georgians know how radical he is when they hear him.
” “ For decades , Raphael Warnock has used his pulpit to oppose the 2nd Amendment , attack the police , condemn Israel , disparage the military , and embrace communists and Marxists alike , ” Loeffler campaign spokesperson Stephen Lawson told Vox in a statement .
Some say Georgia Republicans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the politics of fear.
” “ Fear that antifa and the socialist left is going to take over and gain control in certain areas , ” said Giboney , who lives in Atlanta .
“ They ’ re doing their best to attach Rev .
Warnock to that fear.
” Georgia will decide who controls the Senate , and Republicans have also been playing up a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talking about flipping Georgia ’ s Senate seats after Biden won the state , where he said , “ Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America !
” To add a dash of reality , even if Democrats manage to win both Georgia Senate seats , they will be at the barest of Senate majorities .
The Senate would then be split between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans , with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris serving as the tie-breaking vote .
Unless Democrats abolish the filibuster ( something conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has unequivocally said no to ) , they ’ ll need 60 votes and vast Republican buy-in to pass most bills .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give Democrats an unfettered ability to change the country .
“ Anybody would agree that Chuck Schumer is a savvy political mind , but he was playing to his audience in New York and he handed Georgia Republicans a huge gift with that clip , ” Robinson , the Republican strategist , told Vox recently .
“ He not only scared fervent Georgia Republicans ; he scared independents with that kind of talk.
” Still , some think that Republicans painting Warnock as “ radical ” could backfire by potentially rallying the base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to win Georgia .
“ The performance by Loeffler was so disconcerting ... that people really are mobilized in a way I hadn ’ t noticed before , ” said Robert Franklin , a professor at Emory University in Atlanta .
“ You ’ re now insulting our most beloved and cherished institution — you ’ re insulting our faith.
” The Black church is rooted in social justice ; white evangelical churches are about personal salvation While the white Christian evangelical church is more concerned with personal salvation , the Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pastors focusing on social and racial justice .
“ At its best , it tries to hold the country to account on morality , ” Anthony Pinn , a professor of religious studies at Rice University , told Vox .
“ Martin Luther King Jr. and others are from a long line of church leaders who understood themselves to have an important role beyond saving souls .
They understood the church as having an obligation to demand justice.
” Several theological experts Vox spoke to agreed the significance of the Black church is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by and for Black people .
Words like “ radical ” have long been used to describe Black ministers , dating back much further than Martin Luther King Jr .
Some see the GOP ’ s laser-like focus on Warnock as having a racial component as well ; experts Vox interviewed said “ radical ” is a coded word .
“ I would argue that what you see here is a continuation of an understanding of Black leadership and Black churches as a threat , that these institutions and these people threaten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pinn .
For instance , in the 1950s and ’ 60s , the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover started monitoring King and went to great lengths to link him to the Communist movement ( King was not a communist ) .
A 1968 FBI document called him “ a whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it ( Marxism ) , believes in it and agrees with it , but because of his being a minister of religion , does not dare to espouse it publicly.
” Pinn and others added the current dialogue in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of the long struggle for racial justice in America .
The existence of the Black church itself also can not be separated from that struggle , as it is “ the only institution in America that has been wholly controlled by Black people , ” according to Ray .
If Warnock manages to win his race , he would bolster Black representation in the Senate ( there are currently just three Black senators , which will fall to two with Vice President-elect Harris going to the White House ) .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while it will be a hard fight , it will not be impossible , ” Ray said .

Over the course of the Georgia Senate campaign, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) has repeatedly referred to her Democratic opponent Rev. Raphael Warnock as “radical liberal Raphael Warnock.” She repeated the phrase 13 times in a recent debate ahead of the January 5 runoff.
“The Democrats want to fundamentally change America, and the agent of change is my opponent, radical liberal Raphael Warnock,” Loeffler said during the debate, claiming that Warnock has attacked police and the American military “from the pulpit.”
Warnock is the senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta — the church Martin Luther King Jr. preached at in the 1960s. And Republicans have been using excerpts from Warnock’s own sermons to attack him.
This rhetoric carries a specific connotation, Black theological experts told Vox. It’s not just pointing out that Warnock is a Democrat running in a state that’s historically more conservative than the nation as a whole; it’s also negatively emphasizing the long tradition of activism and social justice in Southern Black churches.
In interviews with Vox, experts said this is not a particularly new tactic. Republicans used a similar playbook in 2008 when they attempted to tie former President Barack Obama to his former church pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Georgia Republicans also ran an ad linking Warnock to Wright, which Politifact rated mostly false).
“Particularly in Georgia, which is struggling between the old South and the new South, Black religion has always been thought of as being potentially a very dangerous political force,” Rev. Stephen Ray, the president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, told Vox. “I don’t think you can talk about the weaponization of Rev. Warnock’s sermons apart from that.”
The runoff elections are all about which party can turn out more of their base, so Republicans are branding Warnock “radical” and “dangerous” with a clear goal: To motivate the GOP’s conservative base to turn out on January 5.
While Republicans lost the presidency in the 2020 election, they had success in many House and Senate races by launching this kind of attack on Democratic candidates — tying even moderate candidates to socialism and activist-led calls to defund the police (something Warnock and fellow Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff have repeatedly said they’re against).
With control in the Senate hanging in the balance in the two Georgia runoffs, Republicans plan to keep hammering that messaging home.
“Fear will motivate much more strongly than any other emotion in the runoff,” Republican consultant Brian Robinson told Vox recently. “Republican [voters] are aggrieved, many have listened to the president’s messaging on the election, and they’re scared of a Democratic Senate joining Pelosi and Biden.”
Republican attacks against Warnock, briefly explained
As the Senate race enters its final three weeks, Republicans are launching a volley of negative attacks on Warnock in particular. Warnock has enjoyed a relatively easy campaign up until now, with Loeffler fending off a challenge from Republican Rep. Doug Collins on November 3. Polling showed Warnock entered the runoff with relatively high likability numbers.
In particular, Republicans have been circulating a clip from a 2011 sermon where Warnock said, “America, nobody can serve God and the military,” as he quoted Bible scripture to make a larger point about faith and service to God coming before anything else. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who regularly quotes Bible scripture on his Twitter page, blasted Warnock’s sermon in a tweet last month.
Not shocked #Georgia Democrat Senate candidate Raphael Warnock said “You cannot serve God and the military” at the same time. These & even crazier things is what the radicals who control the Democratic party’s activist & small dollar donor base believepic.twitter.com/bQyBuKLwjb — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 18, 2020
Warnock’s longer quote was, “America, nobody can serve God and the military. You can’t serve God and money. You can’t serve God and mammon at the same time. America, choose ye this day who you will serve.” In Biblical scripture, mammon refers to the corrupting influence of money and riches, and Warnock was in part quoting Matthew 6:24 from the Bible.
“The part I was most disappointed in was them taking sermons out of context to make that connection,” Justin Giboney, president of Christian civic engagement organization AND Campaign, told Vox. “This is supposed to be a group — when it comes to conservatives in Georgia — that has a certain level of respect for religion, for religious freedom, for what the pulpit means.”
A Warnock campaign spokesperson pushed back on Republican attacks in a statement to Vox, saying, “Kelly Loeffler’s dishonest attacks say a lot about Kelly Loeffler.”
“Just like he has since he got in this race, Reverend Warnock will continue to talk to Georgians about how he will work for them in the Senate, fighting for affordable health care, for fair wages and the dignity of working people. That’s the kind of Senator that Georgia needs,” campaign spokesperson Michael Brewer told Vox in a statement.
When Vox reached out to the Loeffler campaign for comment on whether the attacks against Warnock lacked the necessary context, a campaign spokesperson reiterated that “Georgians know how radical he is when they hear him.”
“For decades, Raphael Warnock has used his pulpit to oppose the 2nd Amendment, attack the police, condemn Israel, disparage the military, and embrace communists and Marxists alike,” Loeffler campaign spokesperson Stephen Lawson told Vox in a statement.
Some say Georgia Republicans are playing off heightened political polarization and “the politics of fear.”
“Fear that antifa and the socialist left is going to take over and gain control in certain areas,” said Giboney, who lives in Atlanta. “They’re doing their best to attach Rev. Warnock to that fear.”
Georgia will decide who controls the Senate, and Republicans have also been playing up a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talking about flipping Georgia’s Senate seats after Biden won the state, where he said, “Now we take Georgia, then we change America!”
To add a dash of reality, even if Democrats manage to win both Georgia Senate seats, they will be at the barest of Senate majorities. The Senate would then be split between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris serving as the tie-breaking vote. Unless Democrats abolish the filibuster (something conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has unequivocally said no to), they’ll need 60 votes and vast Republican buy-in to pass most bills. In other words, winning Georgia does not give Democrats an unfettered ability to change the country.
“Anybody would agree that Chuck Schumer is a savvy political mind, but he was playing to his audience in New York and he handed Georgia Republicans a huge gift with that clip,” Robinson, the Republican strategist, told Vox recently. “He not only scared fervent Georgia Republicans; he scared independents with that kind of talk.”
Still, some think that Republicans painting Warnock as “radical” could backfire by potentially rallying the base of Black voters that Democrats need in order to win Georgia.
“The performance by Loeffler was so disconcerting ... that people really are mobilized in a way I hadn’t noticed before,” said Robert Franklin, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta. “You’re now insulting our most beloved and cherished institution — you’re insulting our faith.”
The Black church is rooted in social justice; white evangelical churches are about personal salvation
While the white Christian evangelical church is more concerned with personal salvation, the Black Christian church has a long tradition of pastors focusing on social and racial justice.
“At its best, it tries to hold the country to account on morality,” Anthony Pinn, a professor of religious studies at Rice University, told Vox. “Martin Luther King Jr. and others are from a long line of church leaders who understood themselves to have an important role beyond saving souls. They understood the church as having an obligation to demand justice.”
Several theological experts Vox spoke to agreed the significance of the Black church is that it is an institution wholly created by and for Black people. Words like “radical” have long been used to describe Black ministers, dating back much further than Martin Luther King Jr. Some see the GOP’s laser-like focus on Warnock as having a racial component as well; experts Vox interviewed said “radical” is a coded word.
“I would argue that what you see here is a continuation of an understanding of Black leadership and Black churches as a threat, that these institutions and these people threaten the system as it is,” said Pinn.
For instance, in the 1950s and ’60s, the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover started monitoring King and went to great lengths to link him to the Communist movement (King was not a communist). A 1968 FBI document called him “a whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it (Marxism), believes in it and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly.”
Pinn and others added the current dialogue in Georgia can’t be separated from the context of the long struggle for racial justice in America. The existence of the Black church itself also cannot be separated from that struggle, as it is “the only institution in America that has been wholly controlled by Black people,” according to Ray.
If Warnock manages to win his race, he would bolster Black representation in the Senate (there are currently just three Black senators, which will fall to two with Vice President-elect Harris going to the White House).
“He would be the living embodiment of while it will be a hard fight, it will not be impossible,” Ray said.


vox--2020-12-14--Public transit in the US is already underfunded. The pandemic has made it worse.

In the early days of the pandemic , public transit ridership dropped precipitously .
Americans were urged to stay home , which prompted transit agencies to swiftly implement service cuts to match this declining demand .
Transit networks needed a financial lifeline .
Fare money was drying up , and existing budget gaps were further exacerbated .
Through the CARES Act in March , local agencies received $ 25 billion in aid — bailout money that was crucial to keep networks operating through the summer despite steep declines in revenue from riders , advertisers , and taxes as people stayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transit is that the next round of coronavirus relief is probably coming .
Under the latest bipartisan Senate proposal , the transportation industry would receive $ 45 billion in aid , distributed between airlines , airports , private buses , and transit agencies , for whom $ 15 billion has been earmarked .
The bad news is , according to transportation experts and transit advocates , $ 15 billion won ’ t be nearly enough .
Agencies will still have to reduce service , eliminate routes , and lay off employees to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for concern , as economic recovery in major cities and their encompassing regions depend on mass transit to shuttle around office workers , students , tourists , and local residents .
Once a vaccine is distributed , people ’ s old commuting patterns will ideally resume , and businesses are expecting to grow from the reactivation of social activity .
What happens , then , when a transit network doesn ’ t have the budget to boost their service or accommodate an influx of passengers ?
“ All sources of transit revenue are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the larger cities , this budget crisis is not only seen in devastating service cuts , but deferred maintenance , layoffs , and cutbacks that can have long-term problems , ” said Ben Fried of Transit Center , a research and advocacy organization .
The American Public Transportation Association originally called for at least $ 32 billion in emergency transit funding , but as Mitch McConnell and his fellow Senate Republicans mull over the bipartisan proposal , it ’ s uncertain whether transit networks will receive any money at all : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allocate any funding for mass transit .
That ’ s concerning to transit officials , who believe there ’ s no adequate substitute for federal action .
“ Transit is going through a catastrophic moment , and it ’ s hard to overstate how challenging the threats are , ” said Robert Puentes , president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation , an independent nonprofit think tank .
“ Federal money is urgently needed right now .
The CARES Act money helped keep agencies afloat through the summer , and while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package is helpful , it ’ s not nearly enough.
” Transit advocates have reason to worry : Significant service cuts could trap agencies in a downward spiral .
With less reliable service and shortened routes , more people will simply stop taking transit , which means less fare money will be brought in .
As Matthew Yglesias previously wrote for Vox , “ agencies will have no alternative but to respond to financial pressure by scaling back service … but cutting frequency makes a transit network much less useful , ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when restrictions on activity fade away.
” If emergency aid doesn ’ t arrive , it ’ s likely that transit networks will be stuck in a cycle of decline .
“ Once these cuts are triggered , it ’ s not an easy thing to bring back , at least in the next year , ” Fried told me .
“ Once these cuts are triggered , it ’ s not an easy thing to bring back ” Raising fares significantly won ’ t solve the budget gap , either .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large chunk of their annual earnings , but higher prices can drive away commuters , many of whom would rather invest in cars or turn to ride-sharing .
Local budgets are built around how much money officials think they can bring in every year , and the pandemic ’ s unpredictability has thrown projections off course .
For New York City ’ s MTA system , fares account for about 38 percent , or $ 6.2 billion , of its annual revenue .
And while the system also earns money from tolls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertisements , the pandemic has similarly decimated those income streams as well .
Los Angeles officials are projecting an 11 percent decline in sales tax receipts and about a 27 percent drop in grants from gas tax revenue since Californians are driving less overall , the LA Times reported .
These setbacks are arriving at a time when it ’ s actually politically popular to invest in transit services .
Voters in the Bay Area overwhelmingly supported a measure that enacted a sales tax that goes toward funding the Caltrain system .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax hike to build and operate a new rail system , a transit tunnel , and expanded bus service .
Local agencies are proposing major service reductions in next year ’ s budgets .
In cities like DC , New York , Los Angeles , and Boston , officials are prepared to slash service , lay off workers , and delay maintenance projects .
These measures coincide with America ’ s vaccine rollout timeline .
By the spring , a sizable portion of the US population is expecting to be vaccinated .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t sure when a full recovery to pre-pandemic ridership levels will resume and are planning for the possibility of further cuts .
One of the few exceptions is Chicago , which has yet to consider cuts or layoffs because officials are still operating under the assumption that stimulus money will arrive .
However , the president of the Chicago Transit Authority maintains that the agency “ absolutely must receive additional funding from Congress.
” These preemptive budget cuts could be devastating for economic recovery , experts say .
“ Transit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and neither one can survive without the other , ” Puentes said .
“ If we ’ re going to see national economic recovery in this country , we ’ re going to need public transit.
” Service reductions will likely drive away riders who can afford other means of transportation or who can avoid travel altogether .
The drop in ridership has affected rail service more than bus and subway service .
According to the American Public Transportation Association , rail line ridership is down 87 percent in New York City and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , DC , metro area — jurisdictions with a high number of white-collar workers .
Meanwhile , total bus ridership has declined by 65 percent .
“ These numbers show that people who do not have the ability to work from home are dependent on the bus , ” said Puentes of the Eno Center for Transportation .
“ Before the pandemic hit , buses were going through a bit of a renaissance , where transit networks were modernizing them and cities were putting in lanes and traffic signals.
” These service cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , who are reliant on mass transit .
It ’ s crucial that cities understand there are choice riders and dependent riders , Puentes added , which are represented in the rail versus bus dichotomy .
Transit is a lifeline not just for city residents and workers , but the business districts and social hubs that depend on foot traffic to bring customers to their doors .
“ Some agencies have been better than others about where to reallocate service during the pandemic , ” said Fried of the Transit Center .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that bus routes with high ridership are not seeing the worst of these cuts , and while that ’ s good , it only goes so far.
” If bus frequency and reliability decrease over the next year , it will be challenging to win riders back once they ’ ve bought a car , for example .
Dwindling transit service in the United States is not a new problem .
The coronavirus has only made the cracks more visible by worsening its finances .
For years , local agencies have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , state , and local governments have spent decades failing to build good , useful public transit , according to Vice transportation reporter Aaron Gordon .
It ’ s a result of many converging factors — poor transportation and housing policy , highway construction , political roadblock , urban sprawl — and the solution isn ’ t necessarily simple .
Funneling money into a broken system might not resolve its most pressing problems , but without federal investment in public transit , America will further cement itself as a car-dependent society .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while these policies continue to inconvenience low-income , essential workers who depend on mass transit .
Still , transit advocates think there ’ s cause for optimism under the Biden administration .
“ There will be a window coming up for a transportation and infrastructure package , ” Fried said .
“ One of the precedents in the CARES Act was that transit agencies received operating funds from the federal government .
If this becomes a precedent , we can use that money moving forward to invest in extra service .
”

In the early days of the pandemic, public transit ridership dropped precipitously. Americans were urged to stay home, which prompted transit agencies to swiftly implement service cuts to match this declining demand.
Transit networks needed a financial lifeline. Fare money was drying up, and existing budget gaps were further exacerbated. Through the CARES Act in March, local agencies received $25 billion in aid — bailout money that was crucial to keep networks operating through the summer despite steep declines in revenue from riders, advertisers, and taxes as people stayed home.
The good news for mass transit is that the next round of coronavirus relief is probably coming. Under the latest bipartisan Senate proposal, the transportation industry would receive $45 billion in aid, distributed between airlines, airports, private buses, and transit agencies, for whom $15 billion has been earmarked. The bad news is, according to transportation experts and transit advocates, $15 billion won’t be nearly enough. Agencies will still have to reduce service, eliminate routes, and lay off employees to make ends meet.
NEW: Breakdown of the funds today's congressional proposal would send transpo industries (with amounts sectors have requested from federal government in parens)
Airlines: $17b ($25b)
Airports: $4b ($13b)
Transit: $15b (At least $32b)
Private buses: $8b ($10b)
Amtrak: $1b ($5b) — Sam Mintz (@samjmintz) December 1, 2020
That’s cause for concern, as economic recovery in major cities and their encompassing regions depend on mass transit to shuttle around office workers, students, tourists, and local residents. Once a vaccine is distributed, people’s old commuting patterns will ideally resume, and businesses are expecting to grow from the reactivation of social activity. What happens, then, when a transit network doesn’t have the budget to boost their service or accommodate an influx of passengers?
“All sources of transit revenue are down this year, and in some of the larger cities, this budget crisis is not only seen in devastating service cuts, but deferred maintenance, layoffs, and cutbacks that can have long-term problems,” said Ben Fried of Transit Center, a research and advocacy organization.
The American Public Transportation Association originally called for at least $32 billion in emergency transit funding, but as Mitch McConnell and his fellow Senate Republicans mull over the bipartisan proposal, it’s uncertain whether transit networks will receive any money at all: The Republican counterproposal doesn’t appear to allocate any funding for mass transit. That’s concerning to transit officials, who believe there’s no adequate substitute for federal action.
“Transit is going through a catastrophic moment, and it’s hard to overstate how challenging the threats are,” said Robert Puentes, president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, an independent nonprofit think tank. “Federal money is urgently needed right now. The CARES Act money helped keep agencies afloat through the summer, and while the $15 billion in the current package is helpful, it’s not nearly enough.”
Transit advocates have reason to worry: Significant service cuts could trap agencies in a downward spiral. With less reliable service and shortened routes, more people will simply stop taking transit, which means less fare money will be brought in. As Matthew Yglesias previously wrote for Vox, “agencies will have no alternative but to respond to financial pressure by scaling back service … but cutting frequency makes a transit network much less useful, ensuring that ridership doesn’t bounce back even when restrictions on activity fade away.”
If emergency aid doesn’t arrive, it’s likely that transit networks will be stuck in a cycle of decline. “Once these cuts are triggered, it’s not an easy thing to bring back, at least in the next year,” Fried told me.
“Once these cuts are triggered, it’s not an easy thing to bring back”
Raising fares significantly won’t solve the budget gap, either. Most major networks depend on ridership fares for a large chunk of their annual earnings, but higher prices can drive away commuters, many of whom would rather invest in cars or turn to ride-sharing. Local budgets are built around how much money officials think they can bring in every year, and the pandemic’s unpredictability has thrown projections off course.
For New York City’s MTA system, fares account for about 38 percent, or $6.2 billion, of its annual revenue. And while the system also earns money from tolls, taxes, government subsidies, and advertisements, the pandemic has similarly decimated those income streams as well. Los Angeles officials are projecting an 11 percent decline in sales tax receipts and about a 27 percent drop in grants from gas tax revenue since Californians are driving less overall, the LA Times reported.
These setbacks are arriving at a time when it’s actually politically popular to invest in transit services. Voters in the Bay Area overwhelmingly supported a measure that enacted a sales tax that goes toward funding the Caltrain system. In Austin, residents similarly backed a property tax hike to build and operate a new rail system, a transit tunnel, and expanded bus service.
Local agencies are proposing major service reductions in next year’s budgets. In cities like DC, New York, Los Angeles, and Boston, officials are prepared to slash service, lay off workers, and delay maintenance projects. These measures coincide with America’s vaccine rollout timeline. By the spring, a sizable portion of the US population is expecting to be vaccinated. But transportation officials in places like Los Angeles aren’t sure when a full recovery to pre-pandemic ridership levels will resume and are planning for the possibility of further cuts.
One of the few exceptions is Chicago, which has yet to consider cuts or layoffs because officials are still operating under the assumption that stimulus money will arrive. However, the president of the Chicago Transit Authority maintains that the agency “absolutely must receive additional funding from Congress.”
These preemptive budget cuts could be devastating for economic recovery, experts say. “Transit and cities are so fundamentally interwoven together, and neither one can survive without the other,” Puentes said. “If we’re going to see national economic recovery in this country, we’re going to need public transit.”
Service reductions will likely drive away riders who can afford other means of transportation or who can avoid travel altogether. The drop in ridership has affected rail service more than bus and subway service. According to the American Public Transportation Association, rail line ridership is down 87 percent in New York City and Chicago and 93 percent in the Washington, DC, metro area — jurisdictions with a high number of white-collar workers. Meanwhile, total bus ridership has declined by 65 percent.
“These numbers show that people who do not have the ability to work from home are dependent on the bus,” said Puentes of the Eno Center for Transportation. “Before the pandemic hit, buses were going through a bit of a renaissance, where transit networks were modernizing them and cities were putting in lanes and traffic signals.”
These service cuts will predominantly hurt essential workers and low-income communities, who are reliant on mass transit. It’s crucial that cities understand there are choice riders and dependent riders, Puentes added, which are represented in the rail versus bus dichotomy. Transit is a lifeline not just for city residents and workers, but the business districts and social hubs that depend on foot traffic to bring customers to their doors.
“Some agencies have been better than others about where to reallocate service during the pandemic,” said Fried of the Transit Center. “They’ve taken steps to ensure that bus routes with high ridership are not seeing the worst of these cuts, and while that’s good, it only goes so far.”
If bus frequency and reliability decrease over the next year, it will be challenging to win riders back once they’ve bought a car, for example.
Dwindling transit service in the United States is not a new problem. The coronavirus has only made the cracks more visible by worsening its finances. For years, local agencies have been under stress to reduce costs.
Federal, state, and local governments have spent decades failing to build good, useful public transit, according to Vice transportation reporter Aaron Gordon. It’s a result of many converging factors — poor transportation and housing policy, highway construction, political roadblock, urban sprawl — and the solution isn’t necessarily simple. Funneling money into a broken system might not resolve its most pressing problems, but without federal investment in public transit, America will further cement itself as a car-dependent society. It will be difficult to reverse track, while these policies continue to inconvenience low-income, essential workers who depend on mass transit.
Still, transit advocates think there’s cause for optimism under the Biden administration. “There will be a window coming up for a transportation and infrastructure package,” Fried said. “One of the precedents in the CARES Act was that transit agencies received operating funds from the federal government. If this becomes a precedent, we can use that money moving forward to invest in extra service.”


vox--2020-12-14--Police officers are prosecuted for murder in less than 2 percent of fatal shootings

When a grand jury in Kentucky decided not to charge a police officer for the killing of Breonna Taylor earlier this year , it sparked nationwide outrage .
But the decision was , in a sense , typical : In the US , police almost never face serious criminal charges for an on-duty shooting or killing .
Since 2005 , 126 police officers have been arrested for murder or manslaughter due to an on-duty shooting , according to data from Philip Matthew Stinson , a criminal justice expert at Bowling Green State University who has been tracking the data for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight prosecutions a year .
About 1,000 fatal police shootings are reported each year in the US — so the arrest rate is around 1 percent , never higher than 2 percent .
It ’ s a figure that ’ s hard to believe , even for Stinson himself : The number of police officers prosecuted “ seems extremely low to me , ” he told me .
“ In my opinion , it ’ s got to be that more of the fatal shootings are unjustified.
” Of those 126 officers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases still pending ) .
Many of those convictions came on lesser charges : Just seven officers have been convicted of murder in police shootings since 2005 , with their prison sentences ranging from 81 months to life .
The remaining 37 were convicted on charges ranging from manslaughter to official misconduct , in some cases serving no prison time .
After the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri , in August 2014 , as the Black Lives Matter movement grew more prominent , there was an uptick in prosecutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five police officers were prosecuted a year .
Starting with 2015 , the average is up to roughly 13 a year — meaning cops are now prosecuted in less than 2 percent of fatal shootings , up from less than 1 percent .
And convictions have increased from fewer than three a year before 2015 to more than three since 2015 .
But that ’ s still a tiny fraction of fatal police shootings .
“ It ’ s very low , ” Stinson said .
As for the increase in prosecution numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic change.
” Many social and legal factors contribute to the low rates of charges and convictions .
Cops , under cultural pressure , actively protect each other , making it more difficult at virtually every step to investigate a fatal police shooting as an illegal act .
Prosecutors face conflicts of interest , as they risk aggravating police departments they work closely with by pursuing charges .
The public is skeptical of second-guessing police in tense situations .
And the law gives police wide latitude to use force .
Police are protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a standard process for what happens after a murder .
Police gather evidence of a crime , collecting physical materials as well as rounding up and talking to witnesses .
Then prosecutors use that evidence to put together a case for court .
A suspect can at that point make a deal and plead guilty , or take the case to trial .
For a police shooting , things work differently .
That ’ s in part because many police shootings are justified , dealing with a suspect who was a serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a confluence of social and legal forces that protect cops at every step , from investigation to prosecution to trial , even if they actually were in the wrong .
“ Everything is done different ” than in a standard murder , Stinson said .
“ It makes it difficult for prosecutors to figure it out and to make a rational decision , an informed decision , in terms of charging.
” For one , cops might resist treating a police killing as a crime and refuse to gather evidence .
They could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blue wall of silence ” — essentially , a code between officers that they won ’ t snitch on each other or otherwise try to get each other in trouble .
The most obvious effect of this is that cops , who are often the closest witnesses to a fatal shooting , won ’ t give a full , truthful account if it puts their colleagues in danger .
Right away , that eliminates the most likely witnesses — fellow officers — to treating a police killing as a potential crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ push too hard .
They work very closely with police departments on a day-to-day basis — it ’ s , again , how they get a lot of evidence for charges , trials , and convictions .
If prosecutors go after the police , they risk damaging that relationship and , subsequently , making their day-to-day work a lot harder .
This isn ’ t theoretical ; prosecutors have repeatedly complained about this .
Following the 2017 Minneapolis police killing of Justine Damond , Hennepin County prosecutor Mike Freeman brought murder charges against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though Noor was ultimately convicted and sentenced to prison , it wasn ’ t easy .
“ A number of the officers , for reasons we do not understand … refused to come answer questions , ” Freeman said in 2018 .
“ I ’ ve been privileged to have this job nearly 18 years , I ’ ve never had police officers who weren ’ t suspects refuse to do their duty and come forward to talk to us.
” That ’ s an example of a prosecutor who actually tried pursuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors will use their discretion to not bring any charges at all .
That may be because they genuinely find a police killing to be justified , or it may be because they find the case too challenging or politically risky .
( In much of the US , prosecutors are elected into their positions . )
If a case does make it to trial , a major challenge is persuading judges and juries , made up of members of the public , that a cop should be convicted .
Based on Stinson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder or manslaughter due to an on-duty shooting , just 46 percent of police with completed cases have been convicted since 2005 .
” There is a tendency to believe an officer over a civilian , in terms of credibility , ” David Rudovsky , a civil rights lawyer who co-wrote Prosecuting Misconduct : Law and Litigation , previously told Vox .
“ And when an officer is on trial , reasonable doubt has a lot of bite .
A prosecutor needs a very strong case before a jury will say that somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so seriously crossed the line as to be subject to a conviction.
” Stinson put it another way : People are “ very reluctant to second-guess the split-second , life-or-death decisions of a police officer in a potentially violent street encounter .
They just won ’ t do it.
” Then there ’ s the actual law , which gives police wide latitude to use force .
Under the legal standards set by the Supreme Court , police officers can be legally justified in using force if they merely perceive a threat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
State laws can vary , but in general the legal question comes down to whether the officer acted reasonably — in a way other officers would in similar situations , without the benefit of hindsight — which can easily be interpreted by prosecutors , judges , or juries to allow cops to use force in situations in which they didn ’ t really need to .
This is part of the problem that the state ’ s attorney for Baltimore , Marilyn Mosby , ran into when she prosecuted the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freddie Gray .
The question in trial often came down to whether the officers were acting unreasonably , which was simply too hard for Mosby to prove .
Coupled with all the other problems above , Mosby found it impossible to land a conviction .
As she put it , after she decided to drop the cases in 2016 : That was true even for officers in a police department that the US Department of Justice found to be broken at practically every level — concluding in a damning report , “ Racially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of BPD ’ s enforcement actions , from the initial decision to stop individuals on Baltimore streets to searches , arrests , and uses of force.
” And it ’ s likely even more true for police departments that aren ’ t as systemically broken .
The result : Police officers today get away without even an arrest for murder or manslaughter in more than 98 percent of fatal shootings .
Policy can help , but part of the issue is cultural Fixing police accountability will require more than changing policies .
Accountability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police departments and prosecutors ’ offices .
If there ’ s no culture of accountability in these places , it ’ s going to be extremely difficult , if not impossible , for the legal system to do more to hold cops accountable .
No one has a great answer for how , exactly , to make this happen .
Some of that work has started with the recent push to elect more progressive prosecutors , but so far that hasn ’ t led to big changes across America , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .
From a broader cultural perspective , the public needs to be more willing to question cops ’ side of the story — a shift that would ultimately not just trickle down to juries but perhaps spark more systemic changes in how police departments and prosecutors ’ offices function and the kinds of policies lawmakers back to hold police accountable .
Again , some of that work already appears to be underway , with support for Black Lives Matter up compared to recent years , but it ’ s too early to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
Policy changes could help , too .
One potential step is repealing “ qualified immunity , ” which shields individual officers from lawsuits .
But Stinson said it has to go further : “ It would be an inconvenience for officers if they had [ civil ] judgments against them , but it ’ s not a deterrent .
What would deter them is seeing many other officers go to prison .
That ’ s what it takes.
” One common idea is to put independent prosecutors in charge of investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help mitigate any conflict of interest between prosecutors and the police departments they work closely with on a daily basis .
Some cities , counties , and states already do this , but it ’ s far from nationwide .
Another is to change the laws and rules surrounding shootings and use of force .
Police departments could change their own policies , establishing clearer standards for what ’ s reasonable or not .
Local , state , and federal lawmakers get a say here , too .
Last year , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force not be just “ objectively reasonable ” but “ necessary.
” While there are major questions about what “ necessary ” really means , experts are watching the impact of the changes over time as the new law is tested by prosecutors in court , to see if there ’ s a real shift in police accountability .
Some experts also still pin some hope on the spread of cameras .
While the research on whether police-worn cameras have an impact on use of force and accountability overall is very disappointing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense that video of police shootings has at least moved the needle on how the public perceives the police .
After all , it ’ s video of the arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis this year that led to thousands of Black Lives Matter protests , and greater support for those protests , this summer .
But as Stinson said : “ Even when you got good video , you don ’ t necessarily get a conviction out of it , ” such as in the Minnesota police killing of Philando Castile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader changes that could be made to otherwise reduce the number of police shootings .
Better police training and policies could encourage officers to get into fewer situations in which use of force might be necessary — essentially , remove the need for a split-second decision .
More could be done to rebuild trust and police-community relations , which could allow police to not be as guarded , and potentially aggressive , in day-to-day scenarios .
America could tighten restrictions on guns , given that research suggests that more guns leads to more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police are more likely to use lethal force in situations in which they expect a gun to be present .
As all of these problems and solutions indicate , this won ’ t be an easy issue to solve .
It requires a truly systemic shift , from America ’ s culture around policing to how the criminal justice system functions at every level .
If the US wants fewer cases that result in no justice , all of that work and effort will be necessary .

Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing George Floyd, is on trial right now. But Chauvin is a major outlier in a system that very rarely imposes serious criminal charges against cops for an on-duty shooting or killing.
Take shootings, for which Chauvin is not accused of, but for which we have the best data: Since 2005, 139 police officers have been arrested for murder or manslaughter due to an on-duty shooting, according to data from Philip Matthew Stinson, a criminal justice expert at Bowling Green State University who has been tracking the data for years. That amounts to fewer than nine prosecutions a year.
About 1,000 fatal police shootings are reported each year in the US — so the arrest rate is around 1 percent, never higher than 2 percent. Some, perhaps most, shootings are justified. But the number of police officers prosecuted “seems extremely low to me,” Stinson told me. “In my opinion, it’s got to be that more of the fatal shootings are unjustified.”
Of those 139 officers, just 44 were convicted (with 42 cases still pending). Many of those convictions came on lesser charges: Just seven officers have been convicted of murder in police shootings since 2005, with their prison sentences ranging from 81 months to life. The remaining 37 were convicted on charges ranging from manslaughter to official misconduct, in some cases serving no prison time.
After the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, as the Black Lives Matter movement grew more prominent, there was an uptick in prosecutions: From 2005 to 2014, about five police officers were prosecuted a year. Starting with 2015, the average is up to roughly 13 a year — meaning cops are now prosecuted in less than 2 percent of fatal shootings, up from less than 1 percent. But convictions haven’t increased much yet.
Still, even the cases that result in charges are a tiny fraction of fatal police shootings. “It’s very low,” Stinson said. As for the increase in prosecution numbers: “I don’t see systemic change.”
Many social and legal factors contribute to the low rates of charges and convictions. Cops, under cultural pressure, actively protect each other, making it more difficult at virtually every step to investigate a fatal police shooting as an illegal act. Prosecutors face conflicts of interest, as they risk aggravating police departments they work closely with by pursuing charges. The public is skeptical of second-guessing police in tense situations. And the law gives police wide latitude to use force.
Police are protected by social and legal forces
There’s a standard process for what happens after a murder. Police gather evidence of a crime, collecting physical materials as well as rounding up and talking to witnesses. Then prosecutors use that evidence to put together a case for court. A suspect can at that point make a deal and plead guilty, or take the case to trial.
For a police shooting, things work differently. That’s in part because many police shootings are justified, dealing with a suspect who was a serious threat. But there’s also a confluence of social and legal forces that protect cops at every step, from investigation to prosecution to trial, even if they actually were in the wrong.
“Everything is done different” than in a standard murder, Stinson said. “It makes it difficult for prosecutors to figure it out and to make a rational decision, an informed decision, in terms of charging.”
For one, cops might resist treating a police killing as a crime and refuse to gather evidence. They could follow what’s known as the “blue wall of silence,” essentially a code between officers that they won’t snitch on each other or otherwise try to get each other in trouble. The most obvious effect of this is that cops, who are often the closest witnesses to a fatal shooting, won’t give a full, truthful account if it puts their colleagues in danger. Right away, that eliminates the most likely witnesses — fellow officers — to treating a police killing as a potential crime.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have incentives not to push too hard. They work very closely with police departments on a day-to-day basis — it’s, again, how they get a lot of evidence for charges, trials, and convictions. If prosecutors go after the police, they risk damaging that relationship and, subsequently, making their day-to-day work a lot harder.
This isn’t theoretical; prosecutors have repeatedly complained about this. Following the 2017 Minneapolis police killing of Justine Damond, Hennepin County prosecutor Mike Freeman brought murder charges against the shooting officer, Mohamed Noor. Though Noor was ultimately convicted and sentenced to prison, it wasn’t easy.
“A number of the officers, for reasons we do not understand … refused to come answer questions,” Freeman said in 2018. “I’ve been privileged to have this job nearly 18 years, I’ve never had police officers who weren’t suspects refuse to do their duty and come forward to talk to us.”
That’s an example of a prosecutor who actually tried pursuing the case. In many cases, prosecutors will use their discretion to not bring any charges at all. That may be because they genuinely find a police killing to be justified, or it may be because they find the case too challenging or politically risky. (In much of the US, prosecutors are elected into their positions.)
If a case does make it to trial, a major challenge is persuading judges and juries, made up of members of the public, that a cop should be convicted. Based on Stinson’s data for officers charged with murder or manslaughter due to an on-duty shooting, just 46 percent of police with completed cases have been convicted since 2005.
”There is a tendency to believe an officer over a civilian, in terms of credibility,” David Rudovsky, a civil rights lawyer who co-wrote Prosecuting Misconduct: Law and Litigation, previously told Vox. “And when an officer is on trial, reasonable doubt has a lot of bite. A prosecutor needs a very strong case before a jury will say that somebody we generally trust to protect us has so seriously crossed the line as to be subject to a conviction.”
Stinson put it another way: People are “very reluctant to second-guess the split-second, life-or-death decisions of a police officer in a potentially violent street encounter. They just won’t do it.”
Then there’s the actual law, which gives police wide latitude to use force. Under the legal standards set by the Supreme Court, police officers can be legally justified in using force if they merely perceive a threat, even if a threat isn’t there. State laws can vary, but in general the legal question comes down to whether the officer acted reasonably — in a way other officers would in similar situations, without the benefit of hindsight — which can easily be interpreted by prosecutors, judges, or juries to allow cops to use force in situations in which they didn’t really need to.
This is part of the problem that the state’s attorney for Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby, ran into when she prosecuted the police officers involved in the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray. The question in trial often came down to whether the officers were acting unreasonably, which was simply too hard for Mosby to prove. Coupled with all the other problems above, Mosby found it impossible to land a conviction. As she put it, after she decided to drop the cases in 2016:
After much thought and prayer, it has become clear that without being able to work with an independent investigatory agency from the very start, without having a say in the election of whether cases proceed in front of a judge or jury, without communal oversight of police in this community, without substantive reforms to the current criminal justice system, we could try this case 100 times just like it and we would still end up with the same result.
That was true even for officers in a police department that the US Department of Justice found to be broken at practically every level — concluding in a damning report, “Racially disparate impact is present at every stage of BPD’s enforcement actions, from the initial decision to stop individuals on Baltimore streets to searches, arrests, and uses of force.” And it’s likely even more true for police departments that aren’t as systemically broken.
The result: Police officers today get away without even an arrest for murder or manslaughter in more than 98 percent of fatal shootings.
Policy can help, but part of the issue is cultural
Fixing police accountability will require more than changing policies.
Accountability for officers needs to better ingrained within police departments and prosecutors’ offices. If there’s no culture of accountability in these places, it’s going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the legal system to do more to hold cops accountable. No one has a great answer for how, exactly, to make this happen. Some of that work has started with the recent push to elect more progressive prosecutors, but so far that hasn’t led to big changes across America, and it’s too early to say if it will.
From a broader cultural perspective, the public needs to be more willing to question cops’ side of the story — a shift that would ultimately not just trickle down to juries but perhaps spark more systemic changes in how police departments and prosecutors’ offices function and the kinds of policies lawmakers back to hold police accountable. Again, some of that work already appears to be underway, with support for Black Lives Matter up compared to recent years, but it’s too early to say if that’s enough so far.
Policy changes could help, too.
One potential step is repealing “qualified immunity,” which shields individual officers from lawsuits. But Stinson said it has to go further: “It would be an inconvenience for officers if they had [civil] judgments against them, but it’s not a deterrent. What would deter them is seeing many other officers go to prison. That’s what it takes.”
One common idea is to put independent prosecutors in charge of investigations of police use of force. This could help mitigate any conflict of interest between prosecutors and the police departments they work closely with on a daily basis. Some cities, counties, and states already do this, but it’s far from nationwide.
Another is to change the laws and rules surrounding shootings and use of force. Police departments could change their own policies, establishing clearer standards for what’s reasonable or not.
Local, state, and federal lawmakers get a say here, too. Last year, for example, California lawmakers required that deadly force not be just “objectively reasonable” but “necessary.” While there are major questions about what “necessary” really means, experts are watching the impact of the changes over time as the new law is tested by prosecutors in court, to see if there’s a real shift in police accountability.
Some experts also still pin some hope on the spread of cameras. While the research on whether police-worn cameras have an impact on use of force and accountability overall is very disappointing, it’s hard to shake the sense that video of police shootings has at least moved the needle on how the public perceives the police. After all, it’s video of the arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis this year that led to thousands of Black Lives Matter protests, and greater support for those protests, this summer.
But as Stinson said: “Even when you got good video, you don’t necessarily get a conviction out of it,” such as in the Minnesota police killing of Philando Castile.
Beyond police accountability, there are broader changes that could be made to otherwise reduce the number of police shootings. Better police training and policies could encourage officers to get into fewer situations in which use of force might be necessary — essentially, remove the need for a split-second decision. More could be done to rebuild trust and police-community relations, which could allow police to not be as guarded, and potentially aggressive, in day-to-day scenarios. America could tighten restrictions on guns, given that research suggests that more guns lead to more police shootings as well, perhaps because police are more likely to use lethal force in situations in which they expect a gun to be present.
As all of these problems and solutions indicate, this won’t be an easy issue to solve. It requires a truly systemic shift, from America’s culture around policing to how the criminal justice system functions at every level. If the US wants fewer cases that result in no justice, all of that work and effort will be necessary.


vox--2020-12-14--The single biggest foreign policy decision Joe Biden faces

When I spoke last week with Gérard Araud , France ’ s ambassador in Washington from 2014 to 2019 , I expected to hear about the world ’ s reaction to President-elect Joe Biden and his Cabinet .
My aim was to understand the decisions global leaders faced and the effects they ’ d have on the world .
But in the course of our conversation , Araud made me realize the most important decision wouldn ’ t be made in some far-off capital .
It ’ d be made in Washington , DC , almost as soon as Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question is what will his foreign policy be : Restoration , reformation , or revolution ?
” the retired diplomat asked me .
“ That will be one of the main tensions of his earliest days .
Will Biden be able to articulate a new foreign policy , and what would it mean ?
” ( He then tweeted out this thought after we hung up . )
It ’ s the single biggest foreign policy choice Biden faces heading into his presidency .
Opting for “ revolution ” can almost certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re talking about , not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren .
But deciding between “ restoration , ” reverting to traditional statecraft after a four-year diversion , and “ reformation , ” changing the old ways of America ’ s global relations to tackle today ’ s problems , will set the new team ’ s course for at least a year , if not longer .
Most suspect Biden will select the restoration option .
He talked on the campaign trail about putting America back on its post-1945 path — reassuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote democracy , free trade , and human rights — and for decades has championed such a worldview .
Plus , with an economic crisis to curb and a pandemic to quash , dusting off the old playbook consumes less effort than rewriting it .
“ You can ’ t divorce the president from the moment or who he or she follows , ” said Elizabeth Saunders , a US foreign policy expert at Georgetown University .
“ After Trump , I think all goes back to basics.
” But a back-to-the-future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newer generation of experts who say we face new problems that past practice can ’ t fully solve .
They ’ re pushing Biden ’ s team to update US foreign policy ’ s software .
“ The old way wasn ’ t working for us .
That ’ s true of domestic policy , and it ’ s true of foreign policy , ” said Desirée Cormier Smith , senior policy adviser at Open Society Foundations , a global advocacy group .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility , that we reform how we engage in the world and repurpose for the world of 2021 , which is not the same world of 2017 when [ Biden ] left office as vice president.
” Biden thus faces a fork in the road , and he ’ ll have to decide whether to opt for the path most traveled or blaze a new trail .
Whichever he chooses will help define America ’ s place in the world at this moment in history .
For better or for worse , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We know who he is very well , ” Araud said .
“ But who will he be ?
” In August , I asked Derek Chollet , a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration and now a Biden transition team member , how the then-Democratic nominee planned to deal with the world he might inherit .
His answer was instructive : “ He ’ s looking at an across-the-board restoration project.
” Since the end of World War II , Democrats and Republicans have pursued largely similar approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both parties have used US power to underwrite and maintain what ’ s called the “ liberal international order , ” which basically means a set of economic and political rules and values that major democratic powers believe help the world function .
The US never did this out of the goodness of its heart .
Promoting free trade and liberal democracy was meant to provide America with markets to sell goods to and countries with which to build alliances against adversaries .
It was never a perfect system , and the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
But overall , that grand strategy helped the US maintain its position as the world ’ s preeminent power .
That , in a nutshell , is the world Biden wants to restore and protect .
“ For the past seven decades , the choices we have made — particularly the United States and our allies in Europe — have steered our world down a clear path , ” Biden said in a speech at the World Economic Forum in January 2017 , just three days before leaving office as vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become evident that the consensus upholding this system is facing increasing pressures , from within and from without , ” he continued .
“ It ’ s imperative that we act urgently to defend the liberal international order.
” The best way to do that , Biden contended , is to maintain and bolster America ’ s system of alliances that form the heart of that order .
He hit that theme in a July 2019 foreign policy address at the City University of New York .
“ The Biden foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the table , working with our allies and partners — to mobilize global action on global threats , especially those unique to our century , ” he said .
That worldview is about as traditional as it gets , but it ’ s unsurprising that Biden has long felt this way , said Paul Musgrave , a US foreign policy expert at the University of Massachusetts Amherst .
Biden is 78 years old and has been in public life for nearly 50 years .
He ’ s “ a guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Musgrave said .
That US-led system helped America win the Cold War , bolster its middle class , spread democracy , and build history ’ s strongest military .
That an incoming president with the most Washington experience since George H.W .
Bush would embody the most sacrosanct Washington perspective is par for the course .
That ’ s why when Biden looks at the world and the mess Trump left him , his instinct is to believe that “ things are fundamentally great , and we just need to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
To no one ’ s surprise , then , Biden has selected a Cabinet with a worldview mostly reflecting his own .
“ Joe Biden would reassert American leadership , leading with our diplomacy .
We ’ d actually show up again , day in , day out , ” Blinken , Biden ’ s pick for secretary of state , told CBS News ’ s Michael Morell on his podcast in September .
Considering the state of the world and America ’ s current predicament , Georgetown ’ s Saunders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hewing to the nation ’ s foreign policy traditions .
In many ways , they ’ re comforting and stable .
“ Most of what he wants to do that is ‘ traditional ’ would have been completely uncontroversial under any president except Trump , ” she told me .
“ Trump attacked everything for four years , so conventional doesn ’ t seem that odd.
” But there are forces pushing for change , and they ’ ll weigh on Biden ’ s decision .
Few in the Democratic Party would balk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working with allies , ending the forever wars , promoting democracy , and safeguarding the most vulnerable .
What ’ s in question is whether America must maintain its seat at the head of the world ’ s table in order to accomplish those goals .
“ In the post-Trump age , ‘ leadership ’ is a misguided , and even dangerous , vision for America ’ s relationship with the rest of the globe , ” liberal columnist Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times earlier this month .
His main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ lead ” really means the US should be in charge , and should act like the world ’ s CEO .
But the US doesn ’ t necessarily have the resources or standing — especially after the past four years — to claim such a mantle , he maintained .
“ Most of the time , America best serves these efforts less by dictating the rules than by agreeing to them , ” he wrote .
In other words , the US would do less harm if it kept mostly to itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That sentiment is growing among a segment of both the left and right .
Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( as well as less advertised military engagements elsewhere ) , rebuilding America ’ s economy , and rethinking its relationships with less-than-savory regimes is part of the hope .
But even all that ’ s not enough : Those decisions are “ important but ultimately marginal to our general strategic posture as a whole , ” said Daniel Bessner , a US foreign policy expert at the University of Washington .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more humble global player , and not the unquestioned superpower that runs roughshod on the world .
“ The US doesn ’ t always have the answers or resources to solve every problem , ” Open Society Foundations ’ Smith told me .
Biden seems somewhat sympathetic to this argument .
As vice president , for example , he advocated for a smaller troop presence in Afghanistan than many other Obama-era officials around him .
Despite having voted for the Iraq War , Biden has shown signs of believing the US needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like pulling back from wars in the Middle East , and invest those resources in the American economy .
He ’ s not alone .
Incoming National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has shown again and again that he ’ s taken the critiques of traditional US foreign policy — which he championed for years — to heart .
“ Even if you get a president coming after [ Trump ] who is somewhat of a restorationist who says we have to get back to some fundamental principles around allies , around values , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re still going to have an undercurrent in the United States that is going to press against that pretty hard , ” he told an audience at Dartmouth College in January 2019 .
“ Anyone who works on foreign policy in the United States or in the rest of the world is going to have to account for that.
” It ’ s therefore possible that Biden and his team may be more open to reform than they ’ ve let on .
But few experts are convinced that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden from his recent predecessors — namely Obama and Trump — is that he ’ s coming to the office with clear views of keeping things as they are .
“ All those presidents wanted to make their marks by changing US foreign policy .
Biden wants to make his mark by restoring US foreign policy , ” said UMass ’ s Musgrave .
Whether that ’ s the right bet — that he ’ ll be able to overcome the obstacles on the road he chooses to travel — will shape not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also America ’ s role in the world in the coming years .

When I spoke last week with Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador in Washington from 2014 to 2019, I expected to hear about the world’s reaction to President-elect Joe Biden and his Cabinet. My aim was to understand the decisions global leaders faced and the effects they’d have on the world.
But in the course of our conversation, Araud made me realize the most important decision wouldn’t be made in some far-off capital. It’d be made in Washington, DC, almost as soon as Biden walks into the White House.
“The question is what will his foreign policy be: Restoration, reformation, or revolution?” the retired diplomat asked me. “That will be one of the main tensions of his earliest days. Will Biden be able to articulate a new foreign policy, and what would it mean?” (He then tweeted out this thought after we hung up.)
It’s the single biggest foreign policy choice Biden faces heading into his presidency. Opting for “revolution” can almost certainly be discarded — this is Biden we’re talking about, not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. But deciding between “restoration,” reverting to traditional statecraft after a four-year diversion, and “reformation,” changing the old ways of America’s global relations to tackle today’s problems, will set the new team’s course for at least a year, if not longer.
Most suspect Biden will select the restoration option. He talked on the campaign trail about putting America back on its post-1945 path — reassuming global leadership, but working with allies to promote democracy, free trade, and human rights — and for decades has championed such a worldview. Plus, with an economic crisis to curb and a pandemic to quash, dusting off the old playbook consumes less effort than rewriting it.
“You can’t divorce the president from the moment or who he or she follows,” said Elizabeth Saunders, a US foreign policy expert at Georgetown University. “After Trump, I think all goes back to basics.”
But a back-to-the-future operation likely won’t satisfy a newer generation of experts who say we face new problems that past practice can’t fully solve. They’re pushing Biden’s team to update US foreign policy’s software.
“The old way wasn’t working for us. That’s true of domestic policy, and it’s true of foreign policy,” said Desirée Cormier Smith, senior policy adviser at Open Society Foundations, a global advocacy group. “I don’t think it’s radical, as we restore our alliances and credibility, that we reform how we engage in the world and repurpose for the world of 2021, which is not the same world of 2017 when [Biden] left office as vice president.”
Biden thus faces a fork in the road, and he’ll have to decide whether to opt for the path most traveled or blaze a new trail. Whichever he chooses will help define America’s place in the world at this moment in history. For better or for worse, that’s Biden’s charge now.
“We know who he is very well,” Araud said. “But who will he be?”
Biden the restorationist
In August, I asked Derek Chollet, a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration and now a Biden transition team member, how the then-Democratic nominee planned to deal with the world he might inherit. His answer was instructive: “He’s looking at an across-the-board restoration project.”
Since the end of World War II, Democrats and Republicans have pursued largely similar approaches to US foreign policy. Presidents from both parties have used US power to underwrite and maintain what’s called the “liberal international order,” which basically means a set of economic and political rules and values that major democratic powers believe help the world function.
The US never did this out of the goodness of its heart. Promoting free trade and liberal democracy was meant to provide America with markets to sell goods to and countries with which to build alliances against adversaries. It was never a perfect system, and the US made many, many errors along the way. But overall, that grand strategy helped the US maintain its position as the world’s preeminent power.
That, in a nutshell, is the world Biden wants to restore and protect.
“For the past seven decades, the choices we have made — particularly the United States and our allies in Europe — have steered our world down a clear path,” Biden said in a speech at the World Economic Forum in January 2017, just three days before leaving office as vice president.
“In recent years it has become evident that the consensus upholding this system is facing increasing pressures, from within and from without,” he continued. “It’s imperative that we act urgently to defend the liberal international order.”
The best way to do that, Biden contended, is to maintain and bolster America’s system of alliances that form the heart of that order.
He hit that theme in a July 2019 foreign policy address at the City University of New York. “The Biden foreign policy agenda will place America back at the head of the table, working with our allies and partners — to mobilize global action on global threats, especially those unique to our century,” he said.
That worldview is about as traditional as it gets, but it’s unsurprising that Biden has long felt this way, said Paul Musgrave, a US foreign policy expert at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Biden is 78 years old and has been in public life for nearly 50 years. He’s “a guy who really experienced the system working for decades,” Musgrave said. That US-led system helped America win the Cold War, bolster its middle class, spread democracy, and build history’s strongest military.
That an incoming president with the most Washington experience since George H.W. Bush would embody the most sacrosanct Washington perspective is par for the course.
That’s why when Biden looks at the world and the mess Trump left him, his instinct is to believe that “things are fundamentally great, and we just need to build from where we are,” Musgrave continued.
To no one’s surprise, then, Biden has selected a Cabinet with a worldview mostly reflecting his own. “Joe Biden would reassert American leadership, leading with our diplomacy. We’d actually show up again, day in, day out,” Blinken, Biden’s pick for secretary of state, told CBS News’s Michael Morell on his podcast in September.
Considering the state of the world and America’s current predicament, Georgetown’s Saunders understands why Biden sees real value in hewing to the nation’s foreign policy traditions. In many ways, they’re comforting and stable. “Most of what he wants to do that is ‘traditional’ would have been completely uncontroversial under any president except Trump,” she told me. “Trump attacked everything for four years, so conventional doesn’t seem that odd.”
But there are forces pushing for change, and they’ll weigh on Biden’s decision.
Biden the reformer?
Few in the Democratic Party would balk at focusing on problems at home, working with allies, ending the forever wars, promoting democracy, and safeguarding the most vulnerable. What’s in question is whether America must maintain its seat at the head of the world’s table in order to accomplish those goals.
“In the post-Trump age, ‘leadership’ is a misguided, and even dangerous, vision for America’s relationship with the rest of the globe,” liberal columnist Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times earlier this month.
His main critique was that saying the US should “lead” really means the US should be in charge, and should act like the world’s CEO. But the US doesn’t necessarily have the resources or standing — especially after the past four years — to claim such a mantle, he maintained. “Most of the time, America best serves these efforts less by dictating the rules than by agreeing to them,” he wrote.
In other words, the US would do less harm if it kept mostly to itself and reeled in its adventurism overseas.
That sentiment is growing among a segment of both the left and right. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as less advertised military engagements elsewhere), rebuilding America’s economy, and rethinking its relationships with less-than-savory regimes is part of the hope.
But even all that’s not enough: Those decisions are “important but ultimately marginal to our general strategic posture as a whole,” said Daniel Bessner, a US foreign policy expert at the University of Washington.
Real change would mean the US becomes a more humble global player, and not the unquestioned superpower that runs roughshod on the world. “The US doesn’t always have the answers or resources to solve every problem,” Open Society Foundations’ Smith told me.
Biden seems somewhat sympathetic to this argument. As vice president, for example, he advocated for a smaller troop presence in Afghanistan than many other Obama-era officials around him. Despite having voted for the Iraq War, Biden has shown signs of believing the US needs to restrain some of its impulses, like pulling back from wars in the Middle East, and invest those resources in the American economy.
He’s not alone. Incoming National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has shown again and again that he’s taken the critiques of traditional US foreign policy — which he championed for years — to heart.
“Even if you get a president coming after [Trump] who is somewhat of a restorationist who says we have to get back to some fundamental principles around allies, around values, around the rules-based order for the world, you’re still going to have an undercurrent in the United States that is going to press against that pretty hard,” he told an audience at Dartmouth College in January 2019. “Anyone who works on foreign policy in the United States or in the rest of the world is going to have to account for that.”
It’s therefore possible that Biden and his team may be more open to reform than they’ve let on. But few experts are convinced that will be the case, as what separates Biden from his recent predecessors — namely Obama and Trump — is that he’s coming to the office with clear views of keeping things as they are.
“All those presidents wanted to make their marks by changing US foreign policy. Biden wants to make his mark by restoring US foreign policy,” said UMass’s Musgrave.
Whether that’s the right bet — that he’ll be able to overcome the obstacles on the road he chooses to travel — will shape not just the early days of his presidency, but also America’s role in the world in the coming years.