vox--2020-08-18--The Senate Intelligence Committee’s new Russia report, explained

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the final installment of its years-long investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election on Tuesday , and its report is a strong , bipartisan pushback against the common claim that there was “ nothing there.
” The 966-page report ( technically volume five of a larger series ) contains some new details , and sections redacted for containing classified information imply there ’ s still more to this story we don ’ t know .
But its real value is reminding Americans that the Russian interference scandal is very real .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , multi-faceted effort to influence , or attempt to influence , the outcome of the 2016 presidential election , ” the report , which was co-signed by both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate committee , says .
“ Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president ” to WikiLeaks .
Paul Manafort , the former Trump campaign chair , comes under heavy criticism in the report for his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affiliated with the Russian intelligence services ” — this “ represented a grave counterintelligence threat.
” However , the report goes further than special counsel Robert Mueller did — it claims some information suggests Manafort and a longtime associate of his , Konstantin Kilimnik , were “ connected ” to the Russian government ’ s effort to hack and leak Democrats ’ emails .
These details are redacted , though .
The report also retells the story of how Roger Stone tried to get inside information on WikiLeaks ’ plans at the behest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained information indicating that John Podesta would be a target of an upcoming release , ” the report says .
It also describes Jerome Corsi ’ s claims that Stone tried to get WikiLeaks to time the release of Podesta ’ s emails to distract from the Access Hollywood tape .
There are many other topics addressed in the report , including some criticism for how the FBI handled the “ Steele dossier ” allegations about Trump .
There are also matters that remain murky — most notably , the purpose and extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the exact nature of the information Stone got regarding WikiLeaks .
The Republican senators on the committee insist , in an “ additional views ” section at the end of the report , that there is still “ no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.
” But overall , the bipartisan body of the report does not reflect well on Trump or his team .
The main question has always been about the email hacking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his investigation without criminally charging any Trump campaign officials with conspiring with the Russian government into interference with the 2016 election .
Since then , Trump ’ s defenders have argued that he was right all along that there was “ no collusion , ” and Mueller ’ s critics on both the right and left have questioned what the whole thing was about , anyway .
Indeed , it ’ s true that the most lurid and speculative theories about Trump ’ s connection to Russia — say , that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or that he ’ s being blackmailed with a pee tape — have not been validated and have in some cases been outright debunked to the extent that ’ s possible .
But it ’ s important not to forget that a crime really did unfold in plain sight in 2016 — Democratic officials ’ private and personal correspondence was hacked and posted publicly , leading to a slew of negative news stories about them ( which Trump frequently referred to on the campaign trail ) .
The hacking , Mueller conclusively documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GRU , Russia ’ s military intelligence agency .
The leaked documents were mainly posted by WikiLeaks — the group posted emails from the DNC in July 2016 , and emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in October 2016 .
Trump ’ s team disclaimed any involvement in all this .
But arguably the central question hanging over the Mueller investigation was whether they were , in fact , involved in the hacks or leaks in some way — and if so , whether that involvement amounted to a crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump officials with crimes related to the hack and leak .
He also found that the hacks themselves appear to have been carried out entirely by Russian intelligence officers .
The full story of what happened with the leaks is more complicated — and the new Senate report adds new complications .
Trump ’ s campaign chair Paul Manafort , a globetrotting political consultant who made millions working for Ukraine ’ s pro-Russian political faction , was always a major focus of collusion questions , and of Mueller ’ s investigation .
Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other crimes connected to his Ukraine work .
After being convicted at trial on one set of charges in 2018 , Manafort pleaded guilty to other charges .
But none of these crimes were directly about conspiring with the Russian government to affect the election .
And while Mueller ’ s report did disclose that Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data to his longtime associate , Russian national Konstantin Kilimnik , he did not make any allegations of Manafort being centrally involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long and harsh section on Manafort , both claiming that his presence on the campaign posed “ a grave counterintelligence threat ” and even reopening questions about whether Manafort was involved in the Russian interference campaign itself .
“ Manafort ’ s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over , and acquire confidential information on , the Trump Campaign , ” the report claims .
Most prominently , the report focuses on Kilimnik , who the authors flatly describe as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked with Manafort for over a decade and they stayed in touch during 2016 , often communicating in code .
“ The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services , and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort ’ s access to gain insight info the Campaign , ” the authors write .
Yet the report goes further than Mueller ever did by claiming that “ some information ” suggests Kilimnik himself “ may have been connected to the GRU ’ s hack and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are unfortunately redacted .
The report then goes on to claim that “ two pieces of information ” raise “ the possibility ” that Manafort , too , was connected “ to the hack-and-leak operations ” : Again , the details here are redacted , but the few sentences that we can read make reference to Manafort ’ s former son-in-law , Jeffrey Yohai , who pleaded guilty to fraud charges .
With so many redactions here , we have no idea what the evidence for this actually is , or how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a bipartisan report that both Republicans and Democrats signed on to — senators from both parties agreed this stuff , whatever it is , was worth including .
In a statement by Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) appended to the end of the report , Wyden complains about “ excessive redactions ” and says that he is particularly troubled by “ indications that Kilimnik , and Manafort himself , were connected to Russia ’ s hack-and-leak operations.
” He adds : “ Significant aspects of this story remain hidden from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question about the Trump campaign and the email leaks is about what , exactly , Roger Stone did .
Stone was indicted by Mueller for making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation , and was convicted at trial last year ( though Trump commuted his sentence last month ) .
Evidence and testimony presented at Stone ’ s trial made clear that Stone tried to get information from WikiLeaks about their forthcoming releases , and that Stone told the Trump campaign that he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and tried to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that Stone was hearing about Podesta-related leaks nearly two months before news of Podesta ’ s hack was public .
So Stone may have gotten inside information .
There ’ s also been a claim that he went even further — that he urged WikiLeaks to release the Podesta material at a specific time , to distract from the release of the Access Hollywood tape ( in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals ) .
Yet establishing what actually happened here has been difficult , because so much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerome Corsi .
Corsi appears to have been Stone ’ s source of information about WikiLeaks .
And , in an initial interview with Mueller ’ s team , Corsi “ explained ” that while he was traveling in Italy in August 2016 , “ someone told him Assange had the Podesta emails ” ( per the report ) .
Yet he said he couldn ’ t recall who told him , saying only that “ it feels like a man.
” Then , in a later interview with Mueller ’ s team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had simply deduced this information himself .
Corsi also gave a detailed account of how Stone learned in advance that the Washington Post had the Access Hollywood tape story coming out .
Corsi said that Stone wanted to get word to WikiLeaks to “ drop the Podesta emails immediately ” to distract from this coming news .
Much of this information was actually in the Mueller report , but it was initially redacted to avoid prejudicing Stone ’ s trial .
A version containing many fewer redactions was released earlier this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team investigated these claims by Corsi but , per their own report , “ found little corroboration for his allegations about the day.
” Mueller concluded : “ The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks ’ s release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7 , 2016.
” Still , there is a great deal of evidence that Stone very much wanted to hide his communications with Jerome Corsi regarding WikiLeaks .
( He concocted a cover story claiming the only person who gave him information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails show that ’ s flatly false . )
But the Senate report comes to a similar conclusion as Mueller did : “ The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic , non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign.
” That is : whatever happened with Stone and WikiLeaks still remains a mystery .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the final installment of its years-long investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election on Tuesday, and its report is a strong, bipartisan pushback against the common claim that there was “nothing there.”
The 966-page report (technically volume five of a larger series) contains some new details, and sections redacted for containing classified information imply there’s still more to this story we don’t know. But its real value is reminding Americans that the Russian interference scandal is very real.
“The Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the report, which was co-signed by both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate committee, says. “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president” to WikiLeaks.
Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chair, comes under heavy criticism in the report for his “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” — this “represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
However, the report goes further than special counsel Robert Mueller did — it claims some information suggests Manafort and a longtime associate of his, Konstantin Kilimnik, were “connected” to the Russian government’s effort to hack and leak Democrats’ emails. These details are redacted, though.
The report also retells the story of how Roger Stone tried to get inside information on WikiLeaks’ plans at the behest of the Trump campaign. “Stone obtained information indicating that John Podesta would be a target of an upcoming release,” the report says. It also describes Jerome Corsi’s claims that Stone tried to get WikiLeaks to time the release of Podesta’s emails to distract from the Access Hollywood tape.
There are many other topics addressed in the report, including some criticism for how the FBI handled the “Steele dossier” allegations about Trump. There are also matters that remain murky — most notably, the purpose and extent of Manafort’s communications with Kilimnik, and the exact nature of the information Stone got regarding WikiLeaks.
The Republican senators on the committee insist, in an “additional views” section at the end of the report, that there is still “no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.” But overall, the bipartisan body of the report does not reflect well on Trump or his team.
The main question has always been about the email hacking and leaking
Last year, Mueller wrapped up his investigation without criminally charging any Trump campaign officials with conspiring with the Russian government into interference with the 2016 election. Since then, Trump’s defenders have argued that he was right all along that there was “no collusion,” and Mueller’s critics on both the right and left have questioned what the whole thing was about, anyway.
Indeed, it’s true that the most lurid and speculative theories about Trump’s connection to Russia — say, that he’s been a Kremlin asset since 1987 or that he’s being blackmailed with a pee tape — have not been validated and have in some cases been outright debunked to the extent that’s possible.
But it’s important not to forget that a crime really did unfold in plain sight in 2016 — Democratic officials’ private and personal correspondence was hacked and posted publicly, leading to a slew of negative news stories about them (which Trump frequently referred to on the campaign trail).
The hacking, Mueller conclusively documented, was carried out by officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency. The leaked documents were mainly posted by WikiLeaks — the group posted emails from the DNC in July 2016, and emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in October 2016.
Trump’s team disclaimed any involvement in all this. But arguably the central question hanging over the Mueller investigation was whether they were, in fact, involved in the hacks or leaks in some way — and if so, whether that involvement amounted to a crime.
Mueller did not end up charging any Trump officials with crimes related to the hack and leak. He also found that the hacks themselves appear to have been carried out entirely by Russian intelligence officers. The full story of what happened with the leaks is more complicated — and the new Senate report adds new complications.
The curious case of Paul Manafort
Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort, a globetrotting political consultant who made millions working for Ukraine’s pro-Russian political faction, was always a major focus of collusion questions, and of Mueller’s investigation. Mueller eventually charged Manafort with various financial and other crimes connected to his Ukraine work. After being convicted at trial on one set of charges in 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to other charges.
But none of these crimes were directly about conspiring with the Russian government to affect the election. And while Mueller’s report did disclose that Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data to his longtime associate, Russian national Konstantin Kilimnik, he did not make any allegations of Manafort being centrally involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government.
Now, the new Senate report has an extremely long and harsh section on Manafort, both claiming that his presence on the campaign posed “a grave counterintelligence threat” and even reopening questions about whether Manafort was involved in the Russian interference campaign itself.
“Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign,” the report claims.
Most prominently, the report focuses on Kilimnik, who the authors flatly describe as a “Russian intelligence officer.” Kilimnik had worked with Manafort for over a decade and they stayed in touch during 2016, often communicating in code. “The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort’s access to gain insight info the Campaign,” the authors write.
Yet the report goes further than Mueller ever did by claiming that “some information” suggests Kilimnik himself “may have been connected to the GRU’s hack and leak operation.” The details, though, are unfortunately redacted.
The report then goes on to claim that “two pieces of information” raise “the possibility” that Manafort, too, was connected “to the hack-and-leak operations”:
Again, the details here are redacted, but the few sentences that we can read make reference to Manafort’s former son-in-law, Jeffrey Yohai, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges.
With so many redactions here, we have no idea what the evidence for this actually is, or how strong it may be. Still, this is a bipartisan report that both Republicans and Democrats signed on to — senators from both parties agreed this stuff, whatever it is, was worth including.
In a statement by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) appended to the end of the report, Wyden complains about “excessive redactions” and says that he is particularly troubled by “indications that Kilimnik, and Manafort himself, were connected to Russia’s hack-and-leak operations.” He adds: “Significant aspects of this story remain hidden from the American public.”
Revisiting Roger Stone
The other long-hanging question about the Trump campaign and the email leaks is about what, exactly, Roger Stone did.
Stone was indicted by Mueller for making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, and was convicted at trial last year (though Trump commuted his sentence last month).
Evidence and testimony presented at Stone’s trial made clear that Stone tried to get information from WikiLeaks about their forthcoming releases, and that Stone told the Trump campaign that he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and tried to take credit for their actions. Emails also show that Stone was hearing about Podesta-related leaks nearly two months before news of Podesta’s hack was public.
So Stone may have gotten inside information. There’s also been a claim that he went even further — that he urged WikiLeaks to release the Podesta material at a specific time, to distract from the release of the Access Hollywood tape (in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals).
Yet establishing what actually happened here has been difficult, because so much of it involves conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi.
Corsi appears to have been Stone’s source of information about WikiLeaks. And, in an initial interview with Mueller’s team, Corsi “explained” that while he was traveling in Italy in August 2016, “someone told him Assange had the Podesta emails” (per the report). Yet he said he couldn’t recall who told him, saying only that “it feels like a man.” Then, in a later interview with Mueller’s team, Corsi changed his story, saying he had simply deduced this information himself.
Corsi also gave a detailed account of how Stone learned in advance that the Washington Post had the Access Hollywood tape story coming out. Corsi said that Stone wanted to get word to WikiLeaks to “drop the Podesta emails immediately” to distract from this coming news.
Much of this information was actually in the Mueller report, but it was initially redacted to avoid prejudicing Stone’s trial. A version containing many fewer redactions was released earlier this summer. It reveals that Mueller’s team investigated these claims by Corsi but, per their own report, “found little corroboration for his allegations about the day.” Mueller concluded: “The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks’s release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016.”
Still, there is a great deal of evidence that Stone very much wanted to hide his communications with Jerome Corsi regarding WikiLeaks. (He concocted a cover story claiming the only person who gave him information was radio host Randy Credico, and emails show that’s flatly false.)
But the Senate report comes to a similar conclusion as Mueller did: “The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign.” That is: whatever happened with Stone and WikiLeaks still remains a mystery.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-18--“We can’t let things settle down”: George Floyd and Eric Garner’s families call for racial justice a

“We can’t let things settle down”: George Floyd and Eric Garner’s families call for racial justice at the DNC

The 2020 Democratic National Convention is giving politicians a platform to share their vision for the future of the country , but it ’ s also making room for speakers who , perhaps , belong to an even more important group : the electorate , particularly the families of people who have been slain by police .
The virtual convention kicked off Monday evening with a lineup of speakers featuring Democratic Party stars such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and former first lady Michelle Obama , as well as lifelong Republicans like former Ohio Gov .
John Kasich .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more years of President Donald Trump would mean .
Yet it was the presence of these family members , who have experienced some of the deepest pain imaginable , that brought the Democrats ’ point home : It ’ s time for change .
Philonise Floyd — the brother of George Floyd , the unarmed Black man who was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis in May , and whose death help spark global protests — spoke for almost two minutes on the convention ’ s opening night .
“ George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd said , before mentioning other Black Americans who have lost their lives due to police brutality .
“ Ahmaud Arbery should be alive today .
Eric Garner should be alive today .
Stephon Clark , Atatiana Jefferson , Sandra Bland — they should all be alive today.
” He concluded his list with a call to action before leading viewers in a moment of silence .
“ It ’ s up to us to carry on the fight for justice , ” he added .
Gwen Carr , the mother of Eric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed him in a chokehold in Staten Island , New York , in 2015 — also made an appearance .
Carr , who has sought justice for her son since his death , has become an advocate for many other victims of police brutality .
On Monday evening , she spoke with Joe Biden directly and made the case for systemic reform : “ I ’ m just asking that if you become the president , that you make sure that we get national law as well as state and local law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because that has been an age-old problem.
” The Democratic Party ’ s decision to put these families front and center is a reminder of politics ’ role in the national reckoning over race — and that although Biden has taken a more moderate stance on police reforms , as president he would continue to face pressure from activists and protesters to enact sweeping change .
And the messages of each family member made explicit something that the ongoing protests have sought to highlight : There ’ s so much more work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first year that family members of police brutality victims have been invited to speak at the DNC .
In 2016 , Geneva Reed-Veal , Sandra Bland ’ s mother , joined six other mothers on stage — each of whom had a child who died as a result of either police actions or gun violence — and said , “ When a young Black life is cut short , it ’ s not just a personal loss .
It is a national loss .
It is a loss that diminishes all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother and brother delivered the same message .
Going forward , activists are calling on Democrats to ensure that these family members aren ’ t just used as props during one of America ’ s biggest political events , but treated as citizens to whom they ’ re willing to listen and learn from , and for whom they ’ re willing to find ways to make policy changes .
There remains debate over what changes should be made and which ones are possible There have been some signs Democrats are willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country have passed police reform legislation in recent months ; the House of Representatives passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 , which would curb qualified immunity , bolstering victims ’ ability to hold police responsible for transgressions including excessive use of force .
The bill would also impose a ban on both chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level .
( A no-knock warrant is the type of warrant used by the officers who killed Breonna Taylor in her own home in March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up by the Republican-controlled Senate , however .
Both Carr and Philonise Floyd ( but especially Carr ) advocated for this approach on Monday , asking Democrats to go beyond symbolic gestures .
How far beyond those gestures the Democratic Party should go , and what advocacy for police brutality victims should look like , has been debated by activists and party officials alike .
Some feel the House bill is a sufficient first step , and others demand more systemic changes , such as the reallocation of policing budgets to social services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as “ defunding the police.
” An example of this debate has emerged around DC Mayor Muriel Bowser , who introduced Philonise Floyd on Monday .
Bowser gained global attention for painting the words “ Black Lives Matter ” on an intersection near the White House , which she named “ Black Lives Matter Plaza.
” Bowser spoke during the DNC livestream from Black Lives Matter Plaza , but was met with criticism from DC residents who said the mayor , because of her opposition to defunding the police , was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter.
” Biden , who is poised to accept the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination later this week , has also said he does not support the idea .
Both Carr and Philonise Floyd were clear about what they want to happen next .
For Floyd , it ’ s seeing people stand up for the people whose deaths didn ’ t go viral .
“ When this moment ends , let ’ s make sure we never stop saying their names , ” he said .
And Carr said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even once police brutality and systemic racism are no longer hot topics .
“ I know when my son was murdered , it was a big uprising , ” Carr said .
“ But then it settled down .
We can ’ t let things settle down .
We have to go to the politicians , and we have to hold their feet to the fire.
” Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The 2020 Democratic National Convention is giving politicians a platform to share their vision for the future of the country, but it’s also making room for speakers who, perhaps, belong to an even more important group: the electorate, particularly the families of people who have been slain by police.
The virtual convention kicked off Monday evening with a lineup of speakers featuring Democratic Party stars such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and former first lady Michelle Obama, as well as lifelong Republicans like former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. All of them issued dire warnings about what four more years of President Donald Trump would mean. Yet it was the presence of these family members, who have experienced some of the deepest pain imaginable, that brought the Democrats’ point home: It’s time for change.
Philonise Floyd — the brother of George Floyd, the unarmed Black man who was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis in May, and whose death help spark global protests — spoke for almost two minutes on the convention’s opening night.
“George should be alive today,” Philonise Floyd said, before mentioning other Black Americans who have lost their lives due to police brutality. “Ahmaud Arbery should be alive today. Eric Garner should be alive today. Stephon Clark, Atatiana Jefferson, Sandra Bland — they should all be alive today.”
He concluded his list with a call to action before leading viewers in a moment of silence. “It’s up to us to carry on the fight for justice,” he added.
Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner — who died after an officer placed him in a chokehold in Staten Island, New York, in 2015 — also made an appearance. Carr, who has sought justice for her son since his death, has become an advocate for many other victims of police brutality. On Monday evening, she spoke with Joe Biden directly and made the case for systemic reform: “I’m just asking that if you become the president, that you make sure that we get national law as well as state and local law, especially when it comes to police brutality because that has been an age-old problem.”
The Democratic Party’s decision to put these families front and center is a reminder of politics’ role in the national reckoning over race — and that although Biden has taken a more moderate stance on police reforms, as president he would continue to face pressure from activists and protesters to enact sweeping change. And the messages of each family member made explicit something that the ongoing protests have sought to highlight: There’s so much more work to be done.
2020 isn’t the first year that family members of police brutality victims have been invited to speak at the DNC. In 2016, Geneva Reed-Veal, Sandra Bland’s mother, joined six other mothers on stage — each of whom had a child who died as a result of either police actions or gun violence — and said, “When a young Black life is cut short, it’s not just a personal loss. It is a national loss. It is a loss that diminishes all of us.”
Four years later, a mother and brother delivered the same message. Going forward, activists are calling on Democrats to ensure that these family members aren’t just used as props during one of America’s biggest political events, but treated as citizens to whom they’re willing to listen and learn from, and for whom they’re willing to find ways to make policy changes.
There remains debate over what changes should be made and which ones are possible
There have been some signs Democrats are willing to advocate for policy changes. Cities across the country have passed police reform legislation in recent months; the House of Representatives passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which would curb qualified immunity, bolstering victims’ ability to hold police responsible for transgressions including excessive use of force. The bill would also impose a ban on both chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level. (A no-knock warrant is the type of warrant used by the officers who killed Breonna Taylor in her own home in March.)
The bill has not been taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate, however.
Both Carr and Philonise Floyd (but especially Carr) advocated for this approach on Monday, asking Democrats to go beyond symbolic gestures.
How far beyond those gestures the Democratic Party should go, and what advocacy for police brutality victims should look like, has been debated by activists and party officials alike. Some feel the House bill is a sufficient first step, and others demand more systemic changes, such as the reallocation of policing budgets to social services and other types of public spending, known as “defunding the police.”
An example of this debate has emerged around DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, who introduced Philonise Floyd on Monday. Bowser gained global attention for painting the words “Black Lives Matter” on an intersection near the White House, which she named “Black Lives Matter Plaza.”
Bowser spoke during the DNC livestream from Black Lives Matter Plaza, but was met with criticism from DC residents who said the mayor, because of her opposition to defunding the police, was not living up to the meaning behind “Black Lives Matter.” Biden, who is poised to accept the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination later this week, has also said he does not support the idea.
Both Carr and Philonise Floyd were clear about what they want to happen next. For Floyd, it’s seeing people stand up for the people whose deaths didn’t go viral. “When this moment ends, let’s make sure we never stop saying their names,” he said.
And Carr said she wants to see Democrats held accountable, even once police brutality and systemic racism are no longer hot topics.
“I know when my son was murdered, it was a big uprising,” Carr said. “But then it settled down. We can’t let things settle down. We have to go to the politicians, and we have to hold their feet to the fire.”
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-18--The next pandemic could come from factory farms

In the past half-century , the global production of meat has undergone a seismic shift .
While meat was once mostly raised on small farms , today almost all the meat we eat comes from industrialized “ factory ” farms , known as “ concentrated animal feeding operations , ” or CAFOs .
More than 90 percent of the world ’ s meat supply comes from CAFOs .
And in the US , that figure is closer to 99 percent .
Animals in CAFOs are often packed closely together , which makes the facilities efficient and , for many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns around these industrial farms .
But infectious disease experts worry about CAFOs for a different reason : They ’ re an ideal environment for virus and bacteria mutations that human immune systems have never seen .
In other words , they ’ re a highly likely source for the next pandemic .
Watch the video above to learn how humans have created the ideal environment for pandemic-causing pathogens .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In the past half-century, the global production of meat has undergone a seismic shift. While meat was once mostly raised on small farms, today almost all the meat we eat comes from industrialized “factory” farms, known as “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs. More than 90 percent of the world’s meat supply comes from CAFOs. And in the US, that figure is closer to 99 percent.
Animals in CAFOs are often packed closely together, which makes the facilities efficient and, for many, ethically dubious. There are also environmental concerns around these industrial farms. But infectious disease experts worry about CAFOs for a different reason: They’re an ideal environment for virus and bacteria mutations that human immune systems have never seen. In other words, they’re a highly likely source for the next pandemic.
Watch the video above to learn how humans have created the ideal environment for pandemic-causing pathogens.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-18--Michelle Obama’s superpower is her ability to connect

The speakers at the 2020 Democratic National Convention this week are faced with a unique challenge .
Traditionally , convention speakers play off an amped-up arena full of screaming supporters .
The speaker looks the audience in their eyes , the audience cheers wildly at every applause line , and both speaker and crowd feed off each other ’ s energy to create something that in the best-case scenario is both dynamic and compelling .
But at this year ’ s socially distanced , all-virtual DNC , the speakers sit or stand alone , mostly in empty rooms .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And they have to try to build a connection with the audience watching at home without the benefit of live applause breaks .
During Monday night ’ s opening programming , former first lady Michelle Obama came closest to making that connection .
Television creates intimacy because it brings its subjects into the living rooms of the audience , and Obama took full advantage of her medium .
While the other speakers delivered their speeches at lecterns in front of flag-strewn backdrops ( or , in John Kasich ’ s case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sat informally in what appeared to be her own living room .
The details of Obama ’ s background were blurred out , but her facial expressions and accessories were clear .
She wore a delicate necklace reminding her audience to vote .
She spoke conversationally to the camera , pitching her voice to individual viewers watching at home rather than to an arena that was not there .
She radiated sincerity .
She made a personal connection without being able to see anyone in her audience in person .
In the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most acclaimed of the night .
CNN declared it proof that Michelle Obama is as gifted an orator as her celebrated husband .
Frank Bruni called the speech “ salvation.
” Even Stephen Colbert couldn ’ t make fun of it .
But Obama ’ s success wasn ’ t a surprise .
Because building intimacy with her audience — no matter its size — has always been Michelle Obama ’ s superpower .
Since leaving the White House , Michelle Obama has gone out of the way to be vulnerable and open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential administration , Michelle Obama made a point of positioning herself as a friendly and non-threatening figure , someone any American could imagine was part of the family .
She declared herself the “ Mom-in-Chief.
” And she devoted herself to the White House vegetable garden because she felt it was the best way that she could use her platform as first lady to get things done without scaring anyone .
“ A garden felt elemental and apolitical , ” Obama wrote in her 2018 memoir Becoming , “ a harmless and innocent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It was a deliberate strategic choice .
The garden gave Obama a way to begin a national conversation about nutrition and childhood obesity , and to do so in a way that gave her political enemies as little ammunition as possible .
Conservatives still criticized the initiative , but their efforts were blunted .
Who wants to pile onto the Mom-in-Chief planting wholesome vegetables for children in the White House backyard ?
Despite the best efforts of Fox News et al.
, Obama maintained approval ratings of a near-constant 66 percent throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And after the Obamas left the White House , her reputation only improved .
Obama was the most admired woman in America in both 2018 and 2019 .
That ’ s due , in part , to Obama ’ s decision to get personal with America after she was no longer first lady .
In Becoming , Obama explains that while her husband was in office , she felt a responsibility to the country to project a flawless and aspirational image that her fellow Americans could rely on .
“ When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lady , your job is not to nurture yourself , ” she said during her book tour in 2019 .
“ There ’ s a lot of stuff I would have easily shared , but you don ’ t want the country to have to worry about us going to marriage counseling , for example .
It wasn ’ t about us .
For those eight years , it was about the service to the country.
” But since she has left office , Obama has shared secret after secret , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotionally vulnerable for a former first lady .
She ’ s spoken about her miscarriages , and her struggles with depression .
She ’ s talked about rocky periods in her marriage .
In her memoir , on her book tour , and now on her new podcast , Obama has been shockingly , intimately candid .
Obama ’ s vulnerability has been lucrative for her .
Becoming and its accompanying arena tour made millions .
When she announced her podcast deal with Spotify , Spotify ’ s stock jumped 5 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her candidness is the enormous emotional capital it has won her with the country .
When she sits down for a political stump speech , she can say , “ Let me be as honest and clear as I possibly can , ” and her audience will know that means something .
She ’ s already been so overwhelmingly honest and clear with us .
And when she follows up that statement by saying , “ Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country , ” that means something , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people listen .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The speakers at the 2020 Democratic National Convention this week are faced with a unique challenge.
Traditionally, convention speakers play off an amped-up arena full of screaming supporters. The speaker looks the audience in their eyes, the audience cheers wildly at every applause line, and both speaker and crowd feed off each other’s energy to create something that in the best-case scenario is both dynamic and compelling.
But at this year’s socially distanced, all-virtual DNC, the speakers sit or stand alone, mostly in empty rooms. They deliver their speeches directly to the camera. And they have to try to build a connection with the audience watching at home without the benefit of live applause breaks.
During Monday night’s opening programming, former first lady Michelle Obama came closest to making that connection.
Television creates intimacy because it brings its subjects into the living rooms of the audience, and Obama took full advantage of her medium. While the other speakers delivered their speeches at lecterns in front of flag-strewn backdrops (or, in John Kasich’s case, at a literal crossroads), Obama sat informally in what appeared to be her own living room. The details of Obama’s background were blurred out, but her facial expressions and accessories were clear. She wore a delicate necklace reminding her audience to vote. She spoke conversationally to the camera, pitching her voice to individual viewers watching at home rather than to an arena that was not there. She radiated sincerity. She made a personal connection without being able to see anyone in her audience in person.
In the end, Obama’s speech was the most acclaimed of the night. CNN declared it proof that Michelle Obama is as gifted an orator as her celebrated husband. Frank Bruni called the speech “salvation.” Even Stephen Colbert couldn’t make fun of it.
But Obama’s success wasn’t a surprise. Because building intimacy with her audience — no matter its size — has always been Michelle Obama’s superpower.
Since leaving the White House, Michelle Obama has gone out of the way to be vulnerable and open in public
During her husband’s presidential administration, Michelle Obama made a point of positioning herself as a friendly and non-threatening figure, someone any American could imagine was part of the family. She declared herself the “Mom-in-Chief.” And she devoted herself to the White House vegetable garden because she felt it was the best way that she could use her platform as first lady to get things done without scaring anyone. “A garden felt elemental and apolitical,” Obama wrote in her 2018 memoir Becoming, “a harmless and innocent undertaking by a lady with a spade.”
It was a deliberate strategic choice. The garden gave Obama a way to begin a national conversation about nutrition and childhood obesity, and to do so in a way that gave her political enemies as little ammunition as possible. Conservatives still criticized the initiative, but their efforts were blunted. Who wants to pile onto the Mom-in-Chief planting wholesome vegetables for children in the White House backyard?
Despite the best efforts of Fox News et al., Obama maintained approval ratings of a near-constant 66 percent throughout her husband’s time in office. And after the Obamas left the White House, her reputation only improved. Obama was the most admired woman in America in both 2018 and 2019.
That’s due, in part, to Obama’s decision to get personal with America after she was no longer first lady. In Becoming, Obama explains that while her husband was in office, she felt a responsibility to the country to project a flawless and aspirational image that her fellow Americans could rely on.
“When you’re the president and the first lady, your job is not to nurture yourself,” she said during her book tour in 2019. “There’s a lot of stuff I would have easily shared, but you don’t want the country to have to worry about us going to marriage counseling, for example. It wasn’t about us. For those eight years, it was about the service to the country.”
But since she has left office, Obama has shared secret after secret, and in the process she has made herself unusually emotionally vulnerable for a former first lady. She’s spoken about her miscarriages, and her struggles with depression. She’s talked about rocky periods in her marriage. In her memoir, on her book tour, and now on her new podcast, Obama has been shockingly, intimately candid.
Obama’s vulnerability has been lucrative for her. Becoming and its accompanying arena tour made millions. When she announced her podcast deal with Spotify, Spotify’s stock jumped 5 percent.
But Obama’s other big gain from her candidness is the enormous emotional capital it has won her with the country. When she sits down for a political stump speech, she can say, “Let me be as honest and clear as I possibly can,” and her audience will know that means something. She’s already been so overwhelmingly honest and clear with us.
And when she follows up that statement by saying, “Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country,” that means something, too. When Michelle Obama says something matters, people listen.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-19--War and Peace — folks, it’s good

War and Peace — folks, it’s good

One Good Thing is Vox ’ s recommendations feature .
In each edition , find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend .
It ’ s 1812 in Moscow .
Napoleon has invaded Russia , and he gets nearer to the city every day .
Emperor Alexander I has left the city behind , and its inhabitants aren ’ t certain of what to do next .
So instead of taking precautions , in the absence of what feels like an authority figure who knows what he is doing , the people of Moscow instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This moment is depicted by Leo Tolstoy in his sprawling , intimidating novel War and Peace , where he writes ( translation by Louise and Aylmer Maude ) : With the enemy ’ s approach to Moscow , the Moscovites ’ view of their situation did not grow more serious but on the contrary became even more frivolous , as always happens with people who see a great danger approaching .
At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul : one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it ; the other , still more reasonably , says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger , since it is not in man ’ s power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events , and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes , and to think about what is pleasant .
In solitude a man generally listens to the first voice , but in society to the second .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Moscow .
It was long since people had been as gay in Moscow as that year .
I read that passage in mid-July , and it stopped me dead in my tracks .
I went back to read it again , then again — it felt so specific to the world of Tolstoy ’ s creation , but also to right now .
What is living in the United States in 2020 but a society of people trying to disregard what is painful until it comes , in favor of thinking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuses people give for why they don ’ t want to read War and Peace — it ’ s crushingly long , it has 5 billion characters , it features long digressions about the nature of history ( including a 35-page subtweet of the historians of Tolstoy ’ s day that ends the novel ) — are fair .
It is a long book , and it does have lots of characters .
It takes a long time to read .
But you might have time right now .
And what you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deeper into the book is that it ’ s wonderfully readable .
At the plot level , War and Peace is an intricately designed soap opera about a handful of Russian families whose lives intersect and explode over the course of several momentous years , culminating in Napoleon ’ s invasion of Russia and the subsequent burning of Moscow in 1812 .
The book has battle scenes .
It has romance .
It has comedy — I was surprised by just how funny Tolstoy is , given the book ’ s reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twists galore .
And in the midst of all of that , you ’ ll find some of the most evocative writing in history — even if Tolstoy follows perhaps the book ’ s most famous passage ( in which death is depicted from the point of view of a major character ) with roughly 20 pages of arguing that Napoleon was totally overrated .
As I read , I felt like I could trace the way Tolstoy ’ s writing in War and Peace went on to influence film and television , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one character ’ s point of view until they meet a different major character , then hands off the narrative .
The book feels , for all the world , like a Steadicam in a flashy movie with lots of long takes , following one actor for a while before it follows another .
And it was all written decades before the invention of cinema .
There are reasons to read War and Peace beyond being able to brag about having read War and Peace .
Those reasons are particularly pointed right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like society might need an unlikely miracle to be saved .
Tolstoy is uniquely preoccupied with the nature of history and the ways in which history is directed not by great men but by large swathes of people , gathered together to assert their will upon the course of human events .
Many times , collective movements fail .
But sometimes , they succeed , and in so doing , they change the world .
Dramatizing the ways in which the small actions of lots of people add up to measurable impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to latch onto singular protagonists .
Tolstoy ’ s solution to this predisposition is brilliant .
Instead of portraying the sweep of history , he portrays the lives of ordinary people in the face of it .
When he needs to zoom all the way out to talk about major events , he takes an extremely wide god ’ s-eye view , one in which the author himself is speaking with the 20/20 hindsight of someone looking at the past .
But he rarely shifts the book ’ s framing into a medium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the movements within an individual battle — if he can not center the knowledge of what ’ s happening within the perspective of one of his many indelible characters .
History , War and Peace argues , is created by human beings , who are in turn limited by history .
You can not entirely escape your circumstances , but you can hope to change them .
The concepts of both free will and determinism are ultimately wrong , because you are a product of the world you live in , but you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
And those tiny changes combine with the tiny changes of others , which adds up to a movement .
And when properly directed by a leader or a government , they might add up to something even greater still .
War and Peace understands that this is true for everyone .
Napoleon is a mythic figure , but also just some guy .
He eats and sleeps and shits like everyone else , and his ambitions and huge successes do not make him necessarily better or even more effective than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite argue that Napoleon ’ s place at the head of a massive army that dominated Europe was a total accident , but he does argue that the army created Napoleon and not vice versa .
We are all caught in the wave of history .
I read this book together with a friend , who remarked during our last discussion of it that right now , when she looks at the world around us , she feels a bitter pessimism mixed with tremendous optimism .
It is so very easy to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our children grow up in might crumble into dust , but it ’ s also increasingly possible to see the ways in which ordinary people might seize an opportunity to build something better .
History is written by no one , because history is written by everyone .
War and Peace has a great many themes , but that might be its central one : We are all people , writing the history that later generations will read about , even if we don ’ t realize it .
Every action we take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if that mark is eventually ( inevitably ) erased .
Nothing is certain , until it is .
And that is when things change , for better or for worse .
War and Peace is available everywhere books are sold .
Most people swear by the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation , which my friend read , but I had a fine old time with the Constance Garnett translation , which has fallen out of favor .
In any translation , it is a good book !
Will you become our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

One Good Thing is Vox’s recommendations feature. In each edition, find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend.
It’s 1812 in Moscow. Napoleon has invaded Russia, and he gets nearer to the city every day. Emperor Alexander I has left the city behind, and its inhabitants aren’t certain of what to do next. So instead of taking precautions, in the absence of what feels like an authority figure who knows what he is doing, the people of Moscow instead decide to just have a good time.
This moment is depicted by Leo Tolstoy in his sprawling, intimidating novel War and Peace, where he writes (translation by Louise and Aylmer Maude):
With the enemy’s approach to Moscow, the Moscovites’ view of their situation did not grow more serious but on the contrary became even more frivolous, as always happens with people who see a great danger approaching. At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul: one very reasonably tells a man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it; the other, still more reasonably, says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger, since it is not in man’s power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events, and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes, and to think about what is pleasant. In solitude a man generally listens to the first voice, but in society to the second. So it was now with the inhabitants of Moscow. It was long since people had been as gay in Moscow as that year.
I read that passage in mid-July, and it stopped me dead in my tracks. I went back to read it again, then again — it felt so specific to the world of Tolstoy’s creation, but also to right now. What is living in the United States in 2020 but a society of people trying to disregard what is painful until it comes, in favor of thinking about what is pleasant?
All of the excuses people give for why they don’t want to read War and Peace — it’s crushingly long, it has 5 billion characters, it features long digressions about the nature of history (including a 35-page subtweet of the historians of Tolstoy’s day that ends the novel) — are fair. It is a long book, and it does have lots of characters. It takes a long time to read.
But you might have time right now. And what you’ll likely find as you get deeper and deeper into the book is that it’s wonderfully readable. At the plot level, War and Peace is an intricately designed soap opera about a handful of Russian families whose lives intersect and explode over the course of several momentous years, culminating in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and the subsequent burning of Moscow in 1812. The book has battle scenes. It has romance. It has comedy — I was surprised by just how funny Tolstoy is, given the book’s reputation as a bore. It has plot twists galore.
And in the midst of all of that, you’ll find some of the most evocative writing in history — even if Tolstoy follows perhaps the book’s most famous passage (in which death is depicted from the point of view of a major character) with roughly 20 pages of arguing that Napoleon was totally overrated.
As I read, I felt like I could trace the way Tolstoy’s writing in War and Peace went on to influence film and television, especially in the way that Tolstoy writes from one character’s point of view until they meet a different major character, then hands off the narrative. The book feels, for all the world, like a Steadicam in a flashy movie with lots of long takes, following one actor for a while before it follows another. And it was all written decades before the invention of cinema.
There are reasons to read War and Peace beyond being able to brag about having read War and Peace. Those reasons are particularly pointed right now, at a time when it feels like society might need an unlikely miracle to be saved. Tolstoy is uniquely preoccupied with the nature of history and the ways in which history is directed not by great men but by large swathes of people, gathered together to assert their will upon the course of human events. Many times, collective movements fail. But sometimes, they succeed, and in so doing, they change the world.
Dramatizing the ways in which the small actions of lots of people add up to measurable impact is difficult, because our brains like to latch onto singular protagonists. Tolstoy’s solution to this predisposition is brilliant. Instead of portraying the sweep of history, he portrays the lives of ordinary people in the face of it. When he needs to zoom all the way out to talk about major events, he takes an extremely wide god’s-eye view, one in which the author himself is speaking with the 20/20 hindsight of someone looking at the past. But he rarely shifts the book’s framing into a medium range — say, depicting all of the movements within an individual battle — if he cannot center the knowledge of what’s happening within the perspective of one of his many indelible characters.
History, War and Peace argues, is created by human beings, who are in turn limited by history. You cannot entirely escape your circumstances, but you can hope to change them. The concepts of both free will and determinism are ultimately wrong, because you are a product of the world you live in, but you also can make tiny changes to that world. And those tiny changes combine with the tiny changes of others, which adds up to a movement. And when properly directed by a leader or a government, they might add up to something even greater still.
War and Peace understands that this is true for everyone. Napoleon is a mythic figure, but also just some guy. He eats and sleeps and shits like everyone else, and his ambitions and huge successes do not make him necessarily better or even more effective than any of us. Tolstoy doesn’t quite argue that Napoleon’s place at the head of a massive army that dominated Europe was a total accident, but he does argue that the army created Napoleon and not vice versa. We are all caught in the wave of history.
I read this book together with a friend, who remarked during our last discussion of it that right now, when she looks at the world around us, she feels a bitter pessimism mixed with tremendous optimism. It is so very easy to see all of the ways that the world our children grow up in might crumble into dust, but it’s also increasingly possible to see the ways in which ordinary people might seize an opportunity to build something better. History is written by no one, because history is written by everyone.
War and Peace has a great many themes, but that might be its central one: We are all people, writing the history that later generations will read about, even if we don’t realize it. Every action we take makes some small mark upon it, even if that mark is eventually (inevitably) erased. Nothing is certain, until it is. And that is when things change, for better or for worse.
War and Peace is available everywhere books are sold. Most people swear by the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation, which my friend read, but I had a fine old time with the Constance Garnett translation, which has fallen out of favor. In any translation, it is a good book!
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.