vox--2020-10-16--Gothic novels are obsessed with borders. Mexican Gothic takes full advantage.

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers .
Mexican Gothic wears its genre on its cover .
The title isn ’ t telling you a lie : This book , with its decaying English manor , its psychosexual secrets , its lavish aesthetic , and its sense of deep emotional constraint , is a gothic novel .
And it is specifically a gothic novel set in an English manor in Mexico , which means that it is a gothic novel about colonialism .
That makes sense for the genre , because the gothic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions of colonialism and empire for a long , long time .
One of the standard gothic plots goes like this : There is a country house , a manor .
It ’ s full of the evidence of old money , but that money is gone now , and the house is crumbling .
It is isolated , far away from everyone and everything , a world of its own .
It is hiding something .
And as the novel begins , an intruder is walking into the house .
She is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purity , and its unknowable and dreadful secrets .
That standard gothic story plot is about borders and border crossing , about the terrors of the other , about wealth and exploitation and plunder and shifting power dynamics .
It lends itself naturally to metaphors about colonialism and empire .
So since the 18th century , that ’ s one of the things gothic novelists have used the genre for .
Jane Eyre ’ s gothic madwoman in the attic is a madwoman from the colonies In The Cambridge Companion to Gothic Fiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 18th- and 19th-century gothic novels can be read as responding to England ’ s increasingly polarized debate about slavery and the colonial practices that came with it .
Making colonialism gothic , as the critic Andrew Lachlan McCann put it , reveals “ the ‘ repressed ’ of colonization : collective guilt , the memory of violence and dispossession , and the struggle for mastery in which the insecurity of the settler-colony is revealed.
” Let ’ s use a familiar example here .
Have you read Jane Eyre ?
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ! )
, you probably already know that in Jane Eyre , the mystery that the gothic manor is hiding is Mr. Rochester ’ s mad first wife , Bertha .
Bertha is the obstacle keeping Jane Eyre from marrying Rochester , and she is the madwoman in the attic whom the trope is named after .
Relevant backstory : Rochester met Bertha in Jamaica , where he traveled because that ’ s where his family money comes from .
That ’ s because Rochester is a colonizer , making money from stolen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means her family is of European descent but she was born in Jamaica .
Bertha is freighted with symbolic weight .
The standard feminist reading of Bertha is that she is Jane ’ s shadow self , making her a metaphor for the violence and unruliness that Jane suppresses out of her life .
But there ’ s also a postcolonial reading of Bertha , where Bertha stands in for the consequences of empire .
She is a walking metaphor for what Paravisini-Gebert describes as “ the colonial space , ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the familiar and unfamiliar mingle in an uneasy truce.
” Jane Eyre ’ s Bertha is European , but there ’ s a possibility of racial ambiguity lingering around her .
She is English , but not quite ; she is Other , but not quite .
She is confusing and frightening and probably violent , and the only thing we can do with her is violently repress her , shove her into the attic and hope she doesn ’ t cause too much trouble .
But of course she gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts of trouble ensues .
The colonial gothic is all about these fears and anxieties : We have committed violence , and now we fear violence in return ; groups are mingling , and that is threatening , but isolation will lead only to decay ; what can we do , how can we maintain control ?
But going into the 20th and 21st centuries , we started to see new gothic novels that were written from the point of view not of the colonizer , but of the colonized : the postcolonial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jane Eyre .
That ’ s the tradition that Mexican Gothic is working with .
And it ’ s doing incredibly interesting stuff with it .
In Mexican Gothic , Howard is the imperial past and Noemí is the triumphant cosmopolitan future The postcolonial gothic allows us to treat the British empire as something uncanny .
In these novels , empire is Other and monstrous and deserves to be treated as such .
And god , how creepy is Mexican Gothic ’ s Howard Doyle , the patriarch of High Place , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leering personal questions ; his obsession with the idea of genetics , of when to purify and when to strengthen the line .
( Howard ’ s interest in eugenics is characteristic of the gothic , which is terrified of corruption through outside blood but moreover terrified of the corruption of insularity and incest . )
The character is a classically terrifying gothic villain , and he stands for empire and its violence .
The secret in the house of High Place isn ’ t just Howard ’ s mushrooms , which grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s that Howard ’ s power comes at the expense of the people he claims to serve .
High Place claims that it provides El Triunfo with jobs and enriches the economy , but that ’ s just a pretty lie .
Like Jane Eyre ’ s Rochester , Howard built his wealth and power through the theft of Indigenous resources .
And as he builds his mushroom cult of immortality , he is continuing to profit through corrupting Mayan resources — the mushrooms , remember , were pure before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exploiting the Mexican mine workers he refers to as “ mulch.
” Almost as creepy is Howard ’ s son , Virgil .
Virgil stands for empire , too , but he ’ s also an interesting riff on a classic gothic trope , which is for there to be a sexual attraction tinged with violence between heroine and antihero .
That trope starts to play out in Mexican Gothic when our protagonist Noemí comes to High Place to save her cousin Catalina from her marriage to Virgil , only to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but here , the structure is different .
Noemí takes a creeping , insidious pleasure in the waking dreams she experiences with Virgil , but she ’ s also disgusted by him , and the ambivalence of her reaction becomes a metaphor for the corrupting pleasure that colonialism dangles before those it exploits .
It allows Noemí to acknowledge the reality of her enjoyment while still rejecting it on no uncertain terms .
But Noemí is perhaps the most subversive character in this postcolonial novel .
Next to her , the English @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Mexico City Noémi is widely read , intelligent , and well-traveled .
Noemí is the avatar of cosmopolitan modernity , of liberalism and education — and she ’ s not a hyper-rational white man .
She ’ s not a chaste and virginal white woman , either .
Noemí is a brown woman who has had sex , and she stands for the future .
So when Noemí triumphs in the end , we ’ re witnessing the vindication of the colonized over the colonizer .
The subaltern speaks at last .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What do you think is the appeal of the genre ?
• We didn ’ t even get into the “ Yellow Wallpaper ” stuff !
Remember how the mold on Noémi ’ s wall is yellow and moves ?
How did that allusion work for you ?
• Between the mushrooms in Mexican Gothic , the mushroom omelet in the 2017 movie Phantom Thread , and that mushroom episode of Hannibal , mushrooms are shaping up to be a signifier of the modern gothic .
( They were not , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thing in the 18th- and 19th-century gothic . )
How do you feel about them ?
What do you think makes them work ?
I keep thinking about the idea of mushrooms as a symbol for fecundity and rot and poison , so sex and death , and also the idea of mushrooms as a nervous system , which means you can play with intimacy and the crossing of boundaries .
There ’ s probably more I ’ m not thinking of , though !
• Speaking of the mushrooms : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who found them a letdown after all the buildup , because they seemed kind of silly as a force for evil .
Did they work for you ?
• How are we all feeling about haunted houses after staying in our houses for seven months ?
Good , I bet !
• What was the creepiest moment of Mexican Gothic for you ?
I am haunted by that poor lady at the very end .
You know the one .
• The book ’ s ending suggests the possibility of a hopeful future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they ’ ll make it work ?
You can sound off on these questions in the comments below , or in your own communities .
Or feel free to post your own questions !
Also , be sure to RSVP now for this month ’ s live event with Silvia Moreno-Garcia , on Thursday , October 29 , at 5 pm ET .
In the meantime , sign up for our newsletter to make sure you don ’ t miss anything .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
Mexican Gothic wears its genre on its cover. The title isn’t telling you a lie: This book, with its decaying English manor, its psychosexual secrets, its lavish aesthetic, and its sense of deep emotional constraint, is a gothic novel. And it is specifically a gothic novel set in an English manor in Mexico, which means that it is a gothic novel about colonialism.
That makes sense for the genre, because the gothic novel has been interested in thinking through questions of colonialism and empire for a long, long time.
One of the standard gothic plots goes like this: There is a country house, a manor. It’s full of the evidence of old money, but that money is gone now, and the house is crumbling. It is isolated, far away from everyone and everything, a world of its own. It is hiding something.
And as the novel begins, an intruder is walking into the house. She is a threat to its isolation, its purity, and its unknowable and dreadful secrets.
That standard gothic story plot is about borders and border crossing, about the terrors of the other, about wealth and exploitation and plunder and shifting power dynamics. It lends itself naturally to metaphors about colonialism and empire. So since the 18th century, that’s one of the things gothic novelists have used the genre for.
Jane Eyre’s gothic madwoman in the attic is a madwoman from the colonies
In The Cambridge Companion to Gothic Fiction, Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert argues that a slew of 18th- and 19th-century gothic novels can be read as responding to England’s increasingly polarized debate about slavery and the colonial practices that came with it. Making colonialism gothic, as the critic Andrew Lachlan McCann put it, reveals “the ‘repressed’ of colonization: collective guilt, the memory of violence and dispossession, and the struggle for mastery in which the insecurity of the settler-colony is revealed.”
Let’s use a familiar example here. Have you read Jane Eyre? Even if you haven’t (you should!), you probably already know that in Jane Eyre, the mystery that the gothic manor is hiding is Mr. Rochester’s mad first wife, Bertha. Bertha is the obstacle keeping Jane Eyre from marrying Rochester, and she is the madwoman in the attic whom the trope is named after.
Relevant backstory: Rochester met Bertha in Jamaica, where he traveled because that’s where his family money comes from. That’s because Rochester is a colonizer, making money from stolen resources. And Bertha is Creole, which means her family is of European descent but she was born in Jamaica.
Bertha is freighted with symbolic weight. The standard feminist reading of Bertha is that she is Jane’s shadow self, making her a metaphor for the violence and unruliness that Jane suppresses out of her life. But there’s also a postcolonial reading of Bertha, where Bertha stands in for the consequences of empire. She is a walking metaphor for what Paravisini-Gebert describes as “the colonial space,” which is “a bifurcated, ambivalent space, where the familiar and unfamiliar mingle in an uneasy truce.”
Jane Eyre’s Bertha is European, but there’s a possibility of racial ambiguity lingering around her. She is English, but not quite; she is Other, but not quite. She is confusing and frightening and probably violent, and the only thing we can do with her is violently repress her, shove her into the attic and hope she doesn’t cause too much trouble. But of course she gets out anyway, and of course all sorts of trouble ensues.
The colonial gothic is all about these fears and anxieties: We have committed violence, and now we fear violence in return; groups are mingling, and that is threatening, but isolation will lead only to decay; what can we do, how can we maintain control?
But going into the 20th and 21st centuries, we started to see new gothic novels that were written from the point of view not of the colonizer, but of the colonized: the postcolonial gothic. Wide Sargasso Sea responding to Jane Eyre.
That’s the tradition that Mexican Gothic is working with. And it’s doing incredibly interesting stuff with it.
In Mexican Gothic, Howard is the imperial past and Noemí is the triumphant cosmopolitan future
The postcolonial gothic allows us to treat the British empire as something uncanny. In these novels, empire is Other and monstrous and deserves to be treated as such.
And god, how creepy is Mexican Gothic’s Howard Doyle, the patriarch of High Place, with his body covered in sores and his leering personal questions; his obsession with the idea of genetics, of when to purify and when to strengthen the line. (Howard’s interest in eugenics is characteristic of the gothic, which is terrified of corruption through outside blood but moreover terrified of the corruption of insularity and incest.) The character is a classically terrifying gothic villain, and he stands for empire and its violence.
The secret in the house of High Place isn’t just Howard’s mushrooms, which grant him immortality and omniscience within High Place: It’s that Howard’s power comes at the expense of the people he claims to serve. High Place claims that it provides El Triunfo with jobs and enriches the economy, but that’s just a pretty lie. Like Jane Eyre’s Rochester, Howard built his wealth and power through the theft of Indigenous resources. And as he builds his mushroom cult of immortality, he is continuing to profit through corrupting Mayan resources — the mushrooms, remember, were pure before he got his hands on them — and exploiting the Mexican mine workers he refers to as “mulch.”
Almost as creepy is Howard’s son, Virgil. Virgil stands for empire, too, but he’s also an interesting riff on a classic gothic trope, which is for there to be a sexual attraction tinged with violence between heroine and antihero. That trope starts to play out in Mexican Gothic when our protagonist Noemí comes to High Place to save her cousin Catalina from her marriage to Virgil, only to find herself plagued by erotic nightmares about him — but here, the structure is different. Noemí takes a creeping, insidious pleasure in the waking dreams she experiences with Virgil, but she’s also disgusted by him, and the ambivalence of her reaction becomes a metaphor for the corrupting pleasure that colonialism dangles before those it exploits. It allows Noemí to acknowledge the reality of her enjoyment while still rejecting it on no uncertain terms.
But Noemí is perhaps the most subversive character in this postcolonial novel. Next to her, the English Doyles are parochial and sorely ignorant, while Mexico City Noémi is widely read, intelligent, and well-traveled. Noemí is the avatar of cosmopolitan modernity, of liberalism and education — and she’s not a hyper-rational white man. She’s not a chaste and virginal white woman, either. Noemí is a brown woman who has had sex, and she stands for the future.
So when Noemí triumphs in the end, we’re witnessing the vindication of the colonized over the colonizer. The subaltern speaks at last.
Discussion questions
What are your favorite gothic novels? What do you think is the appeal of the genre? We didn’t even get into the “Yellow Wallpaper” stuff! Remember how the mold on Noémi’s wall is yellow and moves? How did that allusion work for you? Between the mushrooms in Mexican Gothic, the mushroom omelet in the 2017 movie Phantom Thread, and that mushroom episode of Hannibal, mushrooms are shaping up to be a signifier of the modern gothic. (They were not, as far as I know, much of a thing in the 18th- and 19th-century gothic.) How do you feel about them? What do you think makes them work? I keep thinking about the idea of mushrooms as a symbol for fecundity and rot and poison, so sex and death, and also the idea of mushrooms as a nervous system, which means you can play with intimacy and the crossing of boundaries. There’s probably more I’m not thinking of, though! Speaking of the mushrooms: I’ve talked to a few people who found them a letdown after all the buildup, because they seemed kind of silly as a force for evil. Did they work for you? How are we all feeling about haunted houses after staying in our houses for seven months? Good, I bet! What was the creepiest moment of Mexican Gothic for you? I am haunted by that poor lady at the very end. You know the one. The book’s ending suggests the possibility of a hopeful future for Francis and Noemí. Do you think they’ll make it work?
You can sound off on these questions in the comments below, or in your own communities. Or feel free to post your own questions!
Also, be sure to RSVP now for this month’s live event with Silvia Moreno-Garcia, on Thursday, October 29, at 5 pm ET. In the meantime, sign up for our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.


vox--2020-10-16--The EU and the UK still haven’t reached a post-Brexit agreement. What’s next?

Another Brexit deadline has come and gone .
Well , sort of .
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had set October 15 as the date for the United Kingdom to reach a trade agreement with the European Union .
That self-imposed deadline arrived on Thursday , with both sides still at an impasse over their future relationship .
The October 15 deadline coincided with an EU summit in Brussels , where European leaders said they wanted to continue working toward a deal , but asked the UK to ” make the necessary moves to make an agreement possible.
” Member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparations for the possibility that no agreement will be reached ahead of the actual deadline , which is the end of the year .
Johnson responded on Friday by accusing the EU of being stubborn , saying it has “ refused to negotiate seriously for much of the last few months.
” Because of that , he said , the UK would also , with “ high hearts and complete confidence , ” prepare for a no-deal scenario .
“ And we can do it , because we always knew that there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of relationship we had , ” Johnson said .
“ And so now is the time for our businesses to get ready , and for hauliers to get ready , and for travellers to get ready.
” Johnson , however , did not explicitly walk away from the talks — and negotiations are expected to continue in some form .
Which is pretty much what a lot of observers expected : more tough talk , but no real drastic action on either side .
But even if Brexit talks are not totally dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more precarious phase .
There has been progress in some areas , but both sides remain mired on the major sticking points .
The UK ’ s attempts to try to renege on parts of the original Brexit deal , and the EU ’ s decision to take them to court over it , have also complicated matters .
And , again , there is a very real and very fixed deadline of December 31 that is getting uncomfortably close .
Unlike the first phase of Brexit , this end date can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides really do need to prepare for a future without a deal .
How the EU and UK got here , which feels like a place they ’ ve been before The United Kingdom formally left the European Union in January 2020 , but it continued to follow the rules of the EU under the terms of the Brexit deal , which allowed for a transition period until the end of 2020 .
The point of the transition period was to give both the EU and the UK time to figure out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to come up with a trade arrangement , but they also have to deal with a slew of other issues , from fishing to security cooperation .
Those negotiations have not been going well at all , and both sides are at odds on key issues , specifically state aid and fisheries .
The latter is as much a symbolic issue for the UK as an economic one , but the state aid — or so-called “ level playing field ” — is really the crux of the problem .
The EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tariff-free access to its single market , it can ’ t try to undercut the EU by subsidizing industries or businesses , or by lowering standards on things like environmental or labor protections that might give British businesses a boost .
But for the UK , which wanted to Brexit so it could be a rulemaker instead of a rule-taker , adhering to EU standards is the opposite of what Brexit was supposed to deliver as the UK reestablished its own trading regime .
The UK says this can be solved by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the one Canada has with the EU .
But the EU says the UK isn ’ t Canada , not in terms of proximity and access — plus they cooperate on so many other fronts — so that deal can ’ t be replicated .
And back and forth it ’ s been going for months .
The Covid-19 pandemic has also complicated talks , consuming much of the energy in London and other EU capitals earlier this year and forcing negotiators onto videoconferences , where those side discussions that often lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Plus , diplomats on both sides got Covid-19 . )
The two sides have tried to rejuvenate discussions and create target deadlines , including this month , but it didn ’ t generate all that much progress .
Because everything wasn ’ t already difficult enough , in September , Johnson ’ s government introduced legislation called the Internal Market Bill , which would tweak some elements of the withdrawal agreement — a.k.a .
the OG Brexit bill — related to Northern Ireland .
Opponents say this breaks international law ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mounting a legal challenge over the potential violations .
Some experts saw Johnson ’ s play as “ macho brinkmanship ” aimed at forcing the EU to budge in the larger negotiations , but the EU has held firm .
And so the two sides got to mid-October with no big movement on the major issues and both sides blaming the other of being uncompromising on their red lines .
At the EU summit this week , European leaders — who ’ ve continued to display a lot of unity — said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the UK needed to rethink its positions .
The UK responded , of course , by saying that , based on the EU summit , Brussels wasn ’ t willing to give the UK a trade deal that it wanted , and it was prepared to walk away .
But neither side has actually done that , at least not yet .
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday that “ the EU continues to work for a deal , but not at any price.
” She said the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue talks next week .
The top Brexit negotiators — for the EU , Michel Barnier , and for the UK , David Frost — said they would talk early next week , though Frost told Barnier not to come to London unless the EU has a new plan , according to the Guardian .
European leaders have also urged Johnson to keep talking .
This mid-October deadline was largely made up , but time really is running short .
Barnier has previously said that any agreement needs to be reached by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Parliament has time to review and approve this brand new relationship .
This is probably a flexible deadline , too , but the deeper talks go into November or December , the more challenging it will be to implement new arrangements by the end of the year .
And though it might feel like we ’ ve seen this Brexit show before — down-to-the-wire talks with looming deadlines — things really are different this time .
Why the threat of a no-deal Brexit still remains Unlike the first phase of Brexit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delayed and delayed , that possibility is a little less likely here .
The current December 2020 cutoff is written into the Brexit deal between the UK and EU , which is now an international treaty .
The UK could have extended it but had to make that choice by the end of June , and it declined to do so .
And while the possibility of a last-minute fudge can ’ t entirely be ruled out , that only seems likely if there ’ s real movement on the major issues in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides have brought up , again , that they ’ re preparing for the possibility of a no-deal .
All the catastrophically disruptive things that could have happened if the UK left the EU without a plan in place before Brexit could still occur if the two sides reach the end of the transition period without agreements in place .
That ’ s because once the transition period expires , all the trade and regulatory arrangements the UK was following will end .
The two sides will trade under World Trade Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quotas between countries that don ’ t have free trade agreements in place with each other .
Johnson has taken to calling this an “ Australia-style ” deal “ based on simple principles of global free trade.
” Australia does not have a formal free trade agreement with the EU , but it does have a slew of cooperative agreements — which the UK wouldn ’ t have if it left on January 1 without a deal .
Plus , the UK ’ s trading relationship with the EU far outstrips whatever Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some have pointed out , it would actually be more of an “ Afghanistan-style ” deal or a “ Somalia-style ” deal or , well , you get the point .
It ’ s nothing .
Which means checks and controls could create massive , disruptive gridlocks at ports of entry .
Companies and businesses will face new rules and barriers to trade .
It could be a painful adjustment for the EU , but it will be far more damaging to the UK .
In general , a 2020 no-deal could still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicted before Brexit became official — except , of course , businesses are already struggling because of pandemic restrictions , making it harder for them to prepare for the uncertainty .
One firm estimated a no-deal Brexit plus Covid-19 could cost the UK economy $ 174 billion per year over the course of the next decade .
The pandemic-caused economic crisis may give Johnson some political cover to end Brexit talks without a deal — essentially , he can file all economic disruption under the category of Covid-19 , rather than Brexit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not fly , as businesses are already saying they ’ re not prepared for a no-deal amid the pandemic , and the rest of the UK is starting to wake up to the realities of Brexit , including all this new infrastructure going up to prepare for potential post-Brexit border checks .
Both the UK and the EU want to avoid this no-deal scenario , but as more and more self-imposed deadlines pass , the real one is getting closer — without any clear sign of compromise .
Help keep Vox free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Another Brexit deadline has come and gone. Well, sort of.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had set October 15 as the date for the United Kingdom to reach a trade agreement with the European Union. That self-imposed deadline arrived on Thursday, with both sides still at an impasse over their future relationship.
The October 15 deadline coincided with an EU summit in Brussels, where European leaders said they wanted to continue working toward a deal, but asked the UK to ”make the necessary moves to make an agreement possible.” Member states also acknowledged they should step up preparations for the possibility that no agreement will be reached ahead of the actual deadline, which is the end of the year.
Johnson responded on Friday by accusing the EU of being stubborn, saying it has “refused to negotiate seriously for much of the last few months.” Because of that, he said, the UK would also, with “high hearts and complete confidence,” prepare for a no-deal scenario.
“And we can do it, because we always knew that there would be change on January 1 whatever type of relationship we had,” Johnson said. “And so now is the time for our businesses to get ready, and for hauliers to get ready, and for travellers to get ready.”
Johnson, however, did not explicitly walk away from the talks — and negotiations are expected to continue in some form. Which is pretty much what a lot of observers expected: more tough talk, but no real drastic action on either side.
But even if Brexit talks are not totally dead, they’re definitely entering a much more precarious phase.
There has been progress in some areas, but both sides remain mired on the major sticking points. The UK’s attempts to try to renege on parts of the original Brexit deal, and the EU’s decision to take them to court over it, have also complicated matters.
And, again, there is a very real and very fixed deadline of December 31 that is getting uncomfortably close. Unlike the first phase of Brexit, this end date can’t be easily delayed.
So both sides really do need to prepare for a future without a deal.
How the EU and UK got here, which feels like a place they’ve been before
The United Kingdom formally left the European Union in January 2020, but it continued to follow the rules of the EU under the terms of the Brexit deal, which allowed for a transition period until the end of 2020.
The point of the transition period was to give both the EU and the UK time to figure out their post-breakup relationship. The two sides need to come up with a trade arrangement, but they also have to deal with a slew of other issues, from fishing to security cooperation.
Those negotiations have not been going well at all, and both sides are at odds on key issues, specifically state aid and fisheries. The latter is as much a symbolic issue for the UK as an economic one, but the state aid — or so-called “level playing field” — is really the crux of the problem.
The EU is insisting that if the UK wants tariff-free access to its single market, it can’t try to undercut the EU by subsidizing industries or businesses, or by lowering standards on things like environmental or labor protections that might give British businesses a boost.
But for the UK, which wanted to Brexit so it could be a rulemaker instead of a rule-taker, adhering to EU standards is the opposite of what Brexit was supposed to deliver as the UK reestablished its own trading regime.
The UK says this can be solved by a regular, old-school-style free trade agreement, like the one Canada has with the EU. But the EU says the UK isn’t Canada, not in terms of proximity and access — plus they cooperate on so many other fronts — so that deal can’t be replicated.
And back and forth it’s been going for months.
The Covid-19 pandemic has also complicated talks, consuming much of the energy in London and other EU capitals earlier this year and forcing negotiators onto videoconferences, where those side discussions that often lead to breakthroughs can’t happen. (Plus, diplomats on both sides got Covid-19.) The two sides have tried to rejuvenate discussions and create target deadlines, including this month, but it didn’t generate all that much progress.
Because everything wasn’t already difficult enough, in September, Johnson’s government introduced legislation called the Internal Market Bill, which would tweak some elements of the withdrawal agreement — a.k.a. the OG Brexit bill — related to Northern Ireland.
Opponents say this breaks international law; the EU has said the same and is mounting a legal challenge over the potential violations. Some experts saw Johnson’s play as “macho brinkmanship” aimed at forcing the EU to budge in the larger negotiations, but the EU has held firm.
And so the two sides got to mid-October with no big movement on the major issues and both sides blaming the other of being uncompromising on their red lines.
At the EU summit this week, European leaders — who’ve continued to display a lot of unity — said they wanted to continue talks, but also said the UK needed to rethink its positions. The UK responded, of course, by saying that, based on the EU summit, Brussels wasn’t willing to give the UK a trade deal that it wanted, and it was prepared to walk away.
But neither side has actually done that, at least not yet. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday that “the EU continues to work for a deal, but not at any price.” She said the EU team would still go to London to continue talks next week.
- talks: the EU continues to work for a deal, but not at any price.
As planned, our negotiation team will go to London next week to intensify these negotiations. — Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) October 16, 2020
The top Brexit negotiators — for the EU, Michel Barnier, and for the UK, David Frost — said they would talk early next week, though Frost told Barnier not to come to London unless the EU has a new plan, according to the Guardian. European leaders have also urged Johnson to keep talking.
This mid-October deadline was largely made up, but time really is running short. Barnier has previously said that any agreement needs to be reached by the end of October, so that the European Parliament has time to review and approve this brand new relationship. This is probably a flexible deadline, too, but the deeper talks go into November or December, the more challenging it will be to implement new arrangements by the end of the year.
And though it might feel like we’ve seen this Brexit show before — down-to-the-wire talks with looming deadlines — things really are different this time.
Why the threat of a no-deal Brexit still remains
Unlike the first phase of Brexit, where the deadline kept getting delayed and delayed and delayed, that possibility is a little less likely here. The current December 2020 cutoff is written into the Brexit deal between the UK and EU, which is now an international treaty. The UK could have extended it but had to make that choice by the end of June, and it declined to do so.
And while the possibility of a last-minute fudge can’t entirely be ruled out, that only seems likely if there’s real movement on the major issues in this future relationship. Which is why both sides have brought up, again, that they’re preparing for the possibility of a no-deal.
All the catastrophically disruptive things that could have happened if the UK left the EU without a plan in place before Brexit could still occur if the two sides reach the end of the transition period without agreements in place.
That’s because once the transition period expires, all the trade and regulatory arrangements the UK was following will end. The two sides will trade under World Trade Organization rules, which sets the tariffs and quotas between countries that don’t have free trade agreements in place with each other.
Johnson has taken to calling this an “Australia-style” deal “based on simple principles of global free trade.” Australia does not have a formal free trade agreement with the EU, but it does have a slew of cooperative agreements — which the UK wouldn’t have if it left on January 1 without a deal. Plus, the UK’s trading relationship with the EU far outstrips whatever Australia’s is. So, as some have pointed out, it would actually be more of an “Afghanistan-style” deal or a “Somalia-style” deal or, well, you get the point. It’s nothing.
Which means checks and controls could create massive, disruptive gridlocks at ports of entry. Companies and businesses will face new rules and barriers to trade. It could be a painful adjustment for the EU, but it will be far more damaging to the UK.
In general, a 2020 no-deal could still look a lot like the one experts predicted before Brexit became official — except, of course, businesses are already struggling because of pandemic restrictions, making it harder for them to prepare for the uncertainty. One firm estimated a no-deal Brexit plus Covid-19 could cost the UK economy $174 billion per year over the course of the next decade.
The pandemic-caused economic crisis may give Johnson some political cover to end Brexit talks without a deal — essentially, he can file all economic disruption under the category of Covid-19, rather than Brexit, and hope nobody notices.
But that may not fly, as businesses are already saying they’re not prepared for a no-deal amid the pandemic, and the rest of the UK is starting to wake up to the realities of Brexit, including all this new infrastructure going up to prepare for potential post-Brexit border checks.
Both the UK and the EU want to avoid this no-deal scenario, but as more and more self-imposed deadlines pass, the real one is getting closer — without any clear sign of compromise.


vox--2020-10-16--The many ways we know 2020 will be a banner year for voting

Ahead of this year ’ s presidential election , several states including battlegrounds like Texas , Pennsylvania , and Ohio are approaching or passing voter registration records .
But don ’ t break out the champagne to celebrate democracy just yet .
Voter registration totals are not a very good or meaningful indicator of how many people will actually vote .
There are , however , a number of other indicators that suggest 2020 will be a banner year for voter turnout .
As the country continues to grapple with the pandemic , this election season is proving to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which people are voting , for instance , are far from typical .
Some 80 million Americans could cast their ballots by mail , and already a record 22 million have voted early .
And while the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is attracting the most attention , state and local elections are seeing record levels of fundraising .
An influx of new voters would surely mix things up even more .
Still , the voter registration numbers we ’ re seeing now are more complicated than they look .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to register before you vote .
And unless you sign up to vote elsewhere or the state is notified of your death or imprisonment , you generally stay registered .
So while a state ’ s voter registration numbers include people who have registered for the first time — young people and first-time voters — those figures can , for a limited time , also include people who have moved and aren ’ t going to vote in that state .
The intention of not immediately culling voters , specified in the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people a window of time before they ’ re removed from the rolls without direct confirmation in order to avoid mistakenly disenfranchising voters .
Some states are more aggressive than others in removing voters , so their voter registration totals may be more or less reflective of the voting populace .
“ Let ’ s say you have two states of the same size with a million new voters registered in each , and 500,000 have moved away or died , ” Center for Election Innovation & Research founder David Becker explained to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diligently cleaned the list , they ’ d show a net 500,000 increase in voter registration , while state B might show a net million.
” Kevin Morris , a voting rights researcher at NYU ’ s Brennan Center for Justice , put it another way : “ You can ’ t compare one state to another because different states have different removal practices.
” Instead , these voting experts suggest looking at new voter registrations , rather than total voter registrations , to get an idea of how many people might turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , report this information incrementally , and it ’ s often lagging .
Thanks to the pandemic keeping people away from the DMV and other voter registration places , new voter registrations had been down earlier this year , though the number rebounded this summer It remains to be seen how much new voter registration grew closer to the election , when new voter registration tends to spike , but in many ways that metric no longer matters .
Here are some other reasons to believe that there will be record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day is still nearly three weeks away , but 16 percent of those who voted in the 2016 election have already done so this year , according to the US Elections Project , an effort by election expert and University of Florida professor Michael McDonald to make available timely election data .
In some states , early voting turnout is even higher : 39 percent in Vermont , 30 percent in Virginia , 27 percent in Texas .
High early voting turnout was evidenced by long lines and crashing online voter registration portals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records .
As of last Sunday , early voting numbers were nearly seven times what they were at the same time in 2016 .
At this rate , for the first time ever , the majority of voters might cast their ballots before Election Day .
“ There ’ s no analog in American history to compare this to , ” Becker said .
“ This is history.
” Of the states where partisan data is already available , Election Project found that , so far , early votes were twice as likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A number of polls have shown that voters think this election is more important than ever , meaning they ’ re more likely to actually vote .
“ In spite of numerous challenges facing voters — foreign interference , divisive partisanship , fear of the pandemic — voters are incredibly motivated to show their enthusiasm in this election , ” Becker said .
This summer , the Pew Research Center asked registered voters how much the presidential election “ really matters , ” and this year a whopping 83 percent said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has recorded in 20 years of collecting data .
Similarly , a record 86 percent of registered voters said Trump and Biden have different positions on the issues , suggesting voters perceive a meaningful difference between the candidates .
Americans are also simply saying they ’ re more enthusiastic about this election than usual , according to Gallup .
Some 67 percent of Americans said they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting , tying as the highest rate measured in previous elections .
Fewer undecided voters than the last election People ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicator of high voter turnout .
The share of undecided voters is about half what it was during the 2016 presidential election , according to a variety of polls , including ones from Reuters , Quinnipiac , and Monmouth .
This is another signal that turnout will be higher this year .
People who know who they want to vote for are less likely to sit out an election , according to Morris at the Brennan Center .
“ There are low rates of undecided voters , who are less likely to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people know who they prefer than normal.
” But even if those undecided voters do vote , it seems they ’ re just as likely to vote for Trump as Biden , according to Reuters .
So the undecideds might not affect the outcome of the presidential election much .
Nevertheless , 2020 races are likely to be unpredictable not only at the national level but state and local as well .
And just because more people are likely to vote doesn ’ t mean we ’ ll know for sure how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it , “ It ’ s highly likely those new voters will be more representative of the electorate in that state than the existing registration list .
How much and how that plays out , we ’ re still studying.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Ahead of this year’s presidential election, several states including battlegrounds like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are approaching or passing voter registration records. But don’t break out the champagne to celebrate democracy just yet. Voter registration totals are not a very good or meaningful indicator of how many people will actually vote. There are, however, a number of other indicators that suggest 2020 will be a banner year for voter turnout.
As the country continues to grapple with the pandemic, this election season is proving to be an exceptional one. The ways in which people are voting, for instance, are far from typical. Some 80 million Americans could cast their ballots by mail, and already a record 22 million have voted early. And while the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is attracting the most attention, state and local elections are seeing record levels of fundraising. An influx of new voters would surely mix things up even more.
Still, the voter registration numbers we’re seeing now are more complicated than they look. In the United States, you generally have to register before you vote. And unless you sign up to vote elsewhere or the state is notified of your death or imprisonment, you generally stay registered. So while a state’s voter registration numbers include people who have registered for the first time — young people and first-time voters — those figures can, for a limited time, also include people who have moved and aren’t going to vote in that state.
The intention of not immediately culling voters, specified in the National Voter Registration Act, is to give people a window of time before they’re removed from the rolls without direct confirmation in order to avoid mistakenly disenfranchising voters. Some states are more aggressive than others in removing voters, so their voter registration totals may be more or less reflective of the voting populace.
“Let’s say you have two states of the same size with a million new voters registered in each, and 500,000 have moved away or died,” Center for Election Innovation & Research founder David Becker explained to Recode. “If state A has diligently cleaned the list, they’d show a net 500,000 increase in voter registration, while state B might show a net million.”
Kevin Morris, a voting rights researcher at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, put it another way: “You can’t compare one state to another because different states have different removal practices.”
Instead, these voting experts suggest looking at new voter registrations, rather than total voter registrations, to get an idea of how many people might turn out to vote. Only some states, however, report this information incrementally, and it’s often lagging. Thanks to the pandemic keeping people away from the DMV and other voter registration places, new voter registrations had been down earlier this year, though the number rebounded this summer
It remains to be seen how much new voter registration grew closer to the election, when new voter registration tends to spike, but in many ways that metric no longer matters. Here are some other reasons to believe that there will be record voter turnout in this election.
Early voting turnout
Election Day is still nearly three weeks away, but 16 percent of those who voted in the 2016 election have already done so this year, according to the US Elections Project, an effort by election expert and University of Florida professor Michael McDonald to make available timely election data. In some states, early voting turnout is even higher: 39 percent in Vermont, 30 percent in Virginia, 27 percent in Texas.
High early voting turnout was evidenced by long lines and crashing online voter registration portals.
This early voting turnout has shattered records. As of last Sunday, early voting numbers were nearly seven times what they were at the same time in 2016. At this rate, for the first time ever, the majority of voters might cast their ballots before Election Day.
“There’s no analog in American history to compare this to,” Becker said. “This is history.”
Of the states where partisan data is already available, Election Project found that, so far, early votes were twice as likely to be cast by Democrats than Republicans.
Voter enthusiasm is high
A number of polls have shown that voters think this election is more important than ever, meaning they’re more likely to actually vote.
“In spite of numerous challenges facing voters — foreign interference, divisive partisanship, fear of the pandemic — voters are incredibly motivated to show their enthusiasm in this election,” Becker said.
This summer, the Pew Research Center asked registered voters how much the presidential election “really matters,” and this year a whopping 83 percent said it does — a higher percentage than Pew has recorded in 20 years of collecting data. Similarly, a record 86 percent of registered voters said Trump and Biden have different positions on the issues, suggesting voters perceive a meaningful difference between the candidates.
Americans are also simply saying they’re more enthusiastic about this election than usual, according to Gallup. Some 67 percent of Americans said they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, tying as the highest rate measured in previous elections.
Fewer undecided voters than the last election
People’s heightened partisanship might also be an indicator of high voter turnout.
The share of undecided voters is about half what it was during the 2016 presidential election, according to a variety of polls, including ones from Reuters, Quinnipiac, and Monmouth. This is another signal that turnout will be higher this year. People who know who they want to vote for are less likely to sit out an election, according to Morris at the Brennan Center.
“There are low rates of undecided voters, who are less likely to vote,” Morris said. “Far more people know who they prefer than normal.”
But even if those undecided voters do vote, it seems they’re just as likely to vote for Trump as Biden, according to Reuters. So the undecideds might not affect the outcome of the presidential election much. Nevertheless, 2020 races are likely to be unpredictable not only at the national level but state and local as well. And just because more people are likely to vote doesn’t mean we’ll know for sure how they’ll vote.
As Becker put it, “It’s highly likely those new voters will be more representative of the electorate in that state than the existing registration list. How much and how that plays out, we’re still studying.”


vox--2020-10-16--Which charities do the most good? Charity Navigator joins the effort to answer this crucial question

Which charities do the most good? Charity Navigator joins the effort to answer this crucial question.

The world ’ s largest independent charity evaluator is called Charity Navigator , and it lists hundreds of thousands of US-based charities with programs around the world , providing information to help donors decide whether they want to give money there .
Charity Navigator provides insights into a nonprofit ’ s financial stability and adherence to best practices for accountability and transparency .
But until recently , it ’ s been unable to answer one big question donors frequently want to know : How much good will my money actually do ?
This week , Charity Navigator announced that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller , impact-focused charity evaluator called ImpactMatters , which estimates how far your money goes when you donate it , and is rolling out a new Impact and Results rating that lets people choose charities by how much they get done .
When it comes to giving , what really matters is how much good your money will do .
But until pretty recently , there often wasn ’ t any answer to that question that an average donor could find .
The Charity Navigator acquisition demonstrates that impact is becoming more and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector — and that seems likely to be very good for the world .
Figuring out how much good charities do Charity Navigator ’ s new rating system is the latest move in a growing trend : greater awareness that nonprofits vary immensely in how much good they accomplish .
Even within a specific category , ImpactMatters cofounder Elijah Goldberg told me , some soup kitchens feed far more people with the same amount of money ; some homeless shelters are able to offer quality shelter to far more people .
Donors care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them list effectiveness as one of their top concerns when giving to charity , and many people don ’ t give to charity out of a vague sense that most charities don ’ t work very well .
Stories about ineffective charities are remembered by donors , who often give less — and effective charities that do a lot of good tend to make for less memorable stories .
“ Impact has always been seen as the holy grail , ” Michael Thatcher , the CEO of Charity Navigator , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , we want to know what our money has done , not necessarily where it got spent.
” But that ’ s easier said than done .
Measuring a charity ’ s impact is time intensive and requires answering lots of difficult questions — which of these studies on the effects of education programs on test scores later in life do we believe ?
If the charity has limited data , how far can we generalize from the data it does have ?
If it collects no data on many of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumption about their impact ?
Historically , donors who care about effectiveness haven ’ t had many options .
A decade ago , no charity evaluators that tried to arrive at systematic estimates of impact existed .
Then GiveWell was founded , changing the landscape : It researched which charities get you the most impact for your money in the world , and eventually identified lots of global health and development programs .
( Disclosure : I donate to GiveWell every year . )
Research suggests that it ’ s extraordinarily cost effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malaria and intestinal parasites , and that many programs fail to do as much good as just giving people money .
That ’ s valuable work , Goldberg told me , but it leaves a gap : if a person is determined to donate to ending homelessness in their community , then knowing the world ’ s highest impact charities doesn ’ t help them .
But GiveWell ’ s research-intensive project can ’ t easily be translated to ranking the thousands and thousands of US nonprofits that donors might be looking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ for evaluating impact ] is GiveWell , but they ’ re only naming the top 10 ” best charities , Dean Karlan , ImpactMatters cofounder and a professor of economics at Northwestern University , told me .
“ So for someone who wants to support someone in their local community or education internationally , we saw this big gaping hole.
” ImpactMatters was an attempt to change that .
Their impact evaluation process doesn ’ t involve as much heavy-lifting as GiveWell ’ s .
They don ’ t attempt to compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluated by how many meals they give out and homeless shelters by how many nights of shelter they provide — and they ’ ve tried to build a process that can be used to evaluate thousands of organizations , so that every charity can get a rating for impact and then , ideally , be motivated to improve it .
Because it evaluated so many charities , its process was a natural fit for Charity Navigator ’ s , which tries to offer a rating for every nonprofit there is available data for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratings on financial indicators , like how much money the charity has in the bank , how responsibly it spends that money , and how much is spent on “ overhead , ” or administrative expenses .
The reason donors care about any of those things , of course , is that they care about how much good their money is doing .
Whether a charity is well run and how it spends its money are easy-to-measure indications that ideally provide a window into the question that really matters : whether your donation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they ’ re very imperfect indicators .
A charity might have high administrative expenses because it works in an area where legal compliance is really important but still be high impact .
A charity might increase its overhead expenses by hiring a secretary , but be significantly more effective as a result of having freed up program officers to spend their time on programs .
ImpactMatters uses those financial indicators but tries to go beyond them .
“ We ’ ve always been focused on understanding the nonprofit ’ s mission and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
Where impact is easiest — and hardest — to measure Evidence Action is one charity highlighted on Charity Navigator ’ s new splash page explaining how its impact evaluations work .
“ $ 0.50 provides clean water to a person for a year , ” the rating reads .
That ’ s clean , straightforward , and easy to understand .
This style of impact evaluation works really well for charities that provide clean water , or medication , or food and shelter .
“ The approach of ImpactMatters — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ton more sense in certain areas of the sector , ” Thatcher told me .
“ We ’ re starting with what they have , which works incredibly well in a services area.
” To be eligible for an impact rating under the current system , a nonprofit has to dedicate the bulk of its resources to programs “ directly delivered to beneficiaries and reasonable to expect impact measurement for.
” Furthermore , the nonprofit must mostly deliver results to beneficiaries who are different from its donors — membership clubs , religious organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not meet this criterion .
Evaluating the impact of charities who do less direct work is important , too .
But it ’ s much harder .
Say an advocacy organization for affordable housing lobbies local politicians , contributes to getting bills introduced which will build more houses , publishes an election slate which hundreds of people refer to when voting , and hires a lobbyist to make the case for housing at the statehouse .
What is their impact ?
ImpactMatter ’ s current approach can ’ t answer that question — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What we ’ ve learned about what makes charities work What does a high-impact charity look like ?
Goldberg said that in ImpactMatter ’ s research , it ’ s found that it ’ s only partially how well run a nonprofit is — much of the difference in impact is a consequence of choices that the nonprofit made about who it will consider as beneficiaries and how it sets eligibility for its programs .
For example , “ Scholarship programs that do need-based scholarships tend to be significantly more effective than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
“ The choice of geography and beneficiary population and program type ends up defining a lot of how effective you are.
” That means that as a donor , going in wanting to work in a specific program type or in a specific area will limit the impact of your donation .
Being willing to consider charities in a different program or geographic area are major ways to have your donation go much further .
But the ImpactMatters and Charity Navigator teams I talked to emphasized that they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just told people “ Your money could go further if you picked a different program.
” Instead , they argue , donors should research the programs that interest and inspire them — keeping an eye on impact while they do so .
The aim of an impact evaluator is two-fold : First , to help donors find charities where their money will do a lot of good , which encourages donors to give more and makes sure that more is accomplished with their money .
Second , ideally an impact evaluator gives charities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate and how to accomplish their mission .
“ This is a journey , and one of the things we ’ re trying to do with the rating system is really work with nonprofits to adjust , adapt , and improve , ” Thatcher told me .
“ There ’ s an interesting problem that we have in giving , which is that we expect everyone to get it right the first time .
The ideal there is that we learn from our mistakes.
” “ The goal is , by having more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start looking and seeing some other food bank is twice as effective and call them up and see how they do that , ” Karlan told me .
Once nonprofits have ways to discuss and compare impact , they can start making more of the choices that make them highly effective .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The world’s largest independent charity evaluator is called Charity Navigator, and it lists hundreds of thousands of US-based charities with programs around the world, providing information to help donors decide whether they want to give money there.
Charity Navigator provides insights into a nonprofit’s financial stability and adherence to best practices for accountability and transparency.
But until recently, it’s been unable to answer one big question donors frequently want to know: How much good will my money actually do?
This week, Charity Navigator announced that will change. It’s acquired a smaller, impact-focused charity evaluator called ImpactMatters, which estimates how far your money goes when you donate it, and is rolling out a new Impact and Results rating that lets people choose charities by how much they get done.
When it comes to giving, what really matters is how much good your money will do. But until pretty recently, there often wasn’t any answer to that question that an average donor could find. The Charity Navigator acquisition demonstrates that impact is becoming more and more of a priority in the nonprofit sector — and that seems likely to be very good for the world.
Figuring out how much good charities do
Charity Navigator’s new rating system is the latest move in a growing trend: greater awareness that nonprofits vary immensely in how much good they accomplish. Even within a specific category, ImpactMatters cofounder Elijah Goldberg told me, some soup kitchens feed far more people with the same amount of money; some homeless shelters are able to offer quality shelter to far more people.
Donors care about that. In surveys, most of them list effectiveness as one of their top concerns when giving to charity, and many people don’t give to charity out of a vague sense that most charities don’t work very well. Stories about ineffective charities are remembered by donors, who often give less — and effective charities that do a lot of good tend to make for less memorable stories.
“Impact has always been seen as the holy grail,” Michael Thatcher, the CEO of Charity Navigator, told me. “At the end of the day, we want to know what our money has done, not necessarily where it got spent.”
But that’s easier said than done. Measuring a charity’s impact is time intensive and requires answering lots of difficult questions — which of these studies on the effects of education programs on test scores later in life do we believe? If the charity has limited data, how far can we generalize from the data it does have? If it collects no data on many of its programs, what should be our base assumption about their impact?
Historically, donors who care about effectiveness haven’t had many options. A decade ago, no charity evaluators that tried to arrive at systematic estimates of impact existed. Then GiveWell was founded, changing the landscape: It researched which charities get you the most impact for your money in the world, and eventually identified lots of global health and development programs. (Disclosure: I donate to GiveWell every year.) Research suggests that it’s extraordinarily cost effective to benefit children by treating them for malaria and intestinal parasites, and that many programs fail to do as much good as just giving people money.
That’s valuable work, Goldberg told me, but it leaves a gap: if a person is determined to donate to ending homelessness in their community, then knowing the world’s highest impact charities doesn’t help them. But GiveWell’s research-intensive project can’t easily be translated to ranking the thousands and thousands of US nonprofits that donors might be looking up.
“The best site out there [for evaluating impact] is GiveWell, but they’re only naming the top 10” best charities, Dean Karlan, ImpactMatters cofounder and a professor of economics at Northwestern University, told me. “So for someone who wants to support someone in their local community or education internationally, we saw this big gaping hole.”
ImpactMatters was an attempt to change that. Their impact evaluation process doesn’t involve as much heavy-lifting as GiveWell’s. They don’t attempt to compare across cause areas — soup kitchens are evaluated by how many meals they give out and homeless shelters by how many nights of shelter they provide — and they’ve tried to build a process that can be used to evaluate thousands of organizations, so that every charity can get a rating for impact and then, ideally, be motivated to improve it.
Because it evaluated so many charities, its process was a natural fit for Charity Navigator’s, which tries to offer a rating for every nonprofit there is available data for. Historically, it has based those ratings on financial indicators, like how much money the charity has in the bank, how responsibly it spends that money, and how much is spent on “overhead,” or administrative expenses.
The reason donors care about any of those things, of course, is that they care about how much good their money is doing. Whether a charity is well run and how it spends its money are easy-to-measure indications that ideally provide a window into the question that really matters: whether your donation makes a difference in the world. But they’re very imperfect indicators. A charity might have high administrative expenses because it works in an area where legal compliance is really important but still be high impact. A charity might increase its overhead expenses by hiring a secretary, but be significantly more effective as a result of having freed up program officers to spend their time on programs.
ImpactMatters uses those financial indicators but tries to go beyond them. “We’ve always been focused on understanding the nonprofit’s mission and then assessing mission success,” Goldberg told me.
Where impact is easiest — and hardest — to measure
Evidence Action is one charity highlighted on Charity Navigator’s new splash page explaining how its impact evaluations work. “$0.50 provides clean water to a person for a year,” the rating reads. That’s clean, straightforward, and easy to understand. This style of impact evaluation works really well for charities that provide clean water, or medication, or food and shelter.
“The approach of ImpactMatters — of cost per outcome — makes a ton more sense in certain areas of the sector,” Thatcher told me. “We’re starting with what they have, which works incredibly well in a services area.”
To be eligible for an impact rating under the current system, a nonprofit has to dedicate the bulk of its resources to programs “directly delivered to beneficiaries and reasonable to expect impact measurement for.” Furthermore, the nonprofit must mostly deliver results to beneficiaries who are different from its donors — membership clubs, religious organizations, and many performing arts groups do not meet this criterion.
Evaluating the impact of charities who do less direct work is important, too. But it’s much harder. Say an advocacy organization for affordable housing lobbies local politicians, contributes to getting bills introduced which will build more houses, publishes an election slate which hundreds of people refer to when voting, and hires a lobbyist to make the case for housing at the statehouse. What is their impact? ImpactMatter’s current approach can’t answer that question — though it’s working on it.
What we’ve learned about what makes charities work
What does a high-impact charity look like? Goldberg said that in ImpactMatter’s research, it’s found that it’s only partially how well run a nonprofit is — much of the difference in impact is a consequence of choices that the nonprofit made about who it will consider as beneficiaries and how it sets eligibility for its programs.
For example, “Scholarship programs that do need-based scholarships tend to be significantly more effective than those that do merit-based,” Goldberg told me. “The choice of geography and beneficiary population and program type ends up defining a lot of how effective you are.”
That means that as a donor, going in wanting to work in a specific program type or in a specific area will limit the impact of your donation. Being willing to consider charities in a different program or geographic area are major ways to have your donation go much further. But the ImpactMatters and Charity Navigator teams I talked to emphasized that they didn’t want to build a tool that just told people “Your money could go further if you picked a different program.” Instead, they argue, donors should research the programs that interest and inspire them — keeping an eye on impact while they do so.
The aim of an impact evaluator is two-fold: First, to help donors find charities where their money will do a lot of good, which encourages donors to give more and makes sure that more is accomplished with their money. Second, ideally an impact evaluator gives charities tools to learn more about how they operate and how to accomplish their mission.
“This is a journey, and one of the things we’re trying to do with the rating system is really work with nonprofits to adjust, adapt, and improve,” Thatcher told me. “There’s an interesting problem that we have in giving, which is that we expect everyone to get it right the first time. The ideal there is that we learn from our mistakes.”
“The goal is, by having more transparent data, you can at least start looking and seeing some other food bank is twice as effective and call them up and see how they do that,” Karlan told me. Once nonprofits have ways to discuss and compare impact, they can start making more of the choices that make them highly effective.


vox--2020-10-16--Poll: College students are ready to call out people who don’t vote

In a new Axios poll , 61 percent of college students revealed that they would definitely or probably shame someone they know if they chose not to vote .
The poll , conducted online by College Reaction for Axios October 6-7 among 872 college students at accredited four-year universities , was specific in its wording .
It asked about “ someone you know [ who ] does not vote even though they can ” — verbiage that acknowledges voting can be prohibitively difficult for people who can ’ t take time off work , may be forced to stand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfairly purged from the voter rolls .
An August report from the Knight Foundation indicates that college students are uncharacteristically motivated to vote this year , 71 percent of them saying they are “ absolutely certain ” of it .
This surge in participation from college students follows a trend reported by several outlets following the 2018 election where “ turnout among college student voters more than doubled from the 2014 to 2018 midterm elections ” according to the Institute of Higher Education .
That enthusiasm was echoed in the Axios poll .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would definitely not “ address , confront , or otherwise convey disappointment ” to the person who did not vote .
College students aren ’ t alone ; “ vote-shaming ” in all its forms is becoming a steady fixture in American politics , from its more gentle forms like former President Obama ’ s famous “ Don ’ t Boo , Vote ” to the explosive aftermath of the 2016 primary when the Democratic Party desperately attempted to knit itself back together .
There has certainly been a backlash to many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily criticized after publishing a story ostensibly about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West separating , only to instead link interested readers to the votings rights group When We All Vote .
The Washington Post detailed several other instances of vote-shaming backfires in a 2018 story , including a tweet by Billy Eichner in which he told his bellhop to vote , prompting backlash that forced him to delete the quip .
Most political conversation — about the need to vote or otherwise — is fraught in hyper-polarized 2020 .
But , research shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively .
What we know about how to have effective political conversations The evidence is mixed on whether vote-shaming as a specific tactic works .
Researchers at the Poverty Action Lab in 2007 found that vote shaming may be an effective strategy .
In a study , they mailed voters a notice detailing their voter history and found that “ disclosing past voting behavior had strong positive effects on voter turnout ” and notably , “ these effects were stronger when voters were told of a recent election in which they failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group noted their failure to vote in a previous election and read “ DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY — VOTE.
” It also noted that the “ list of who votes is public record ” and “ we will note whether you vote or not.
” This group was 28 percent more likely to vote than people who received a nearly identical piece of mail which instead highlighted an election in which they had actually voted .
It ’ s not likely , though , that college students ( or anyone , for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their friends and family about their voting behavior .
And traditional political persuasion might not be the path to pursue .
My colleague Dylan Matthews recently reported on findings that voters in general elections are likely not moved at all by campaign persuasion efforts like “ canvassing , phone calls , direct mail , TV , online ads , or anything else under the sun.
” But talking to people you know to remind them to vote might be effective , some experts say .
There are also ways to effectively change someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people , research shows .
Vox ’ s Brian Resnick has written extensively on “ deep canvassing , ” a tactic that was mired in controversy when Science retracted the initial 2014 study after the researcher was found to have falsified his data .
In a turn of events , David Brookman and Josh Kalla , political scientists at UC Berkeley and Yale , replicated the original study and found that deep canvassing actually worked .
Brian explains Brookman and Kalla ’ s research , detailing that deep canvassing deviates from normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The instructions note the canvasser should ‘ appear genuinely interested in hearing the subject ruminate on the question.
’ ” More from Brian ’ s piece below : The results of this kind of intervention appear to have surprising longevity .
After a 10-minute conversation , voters ’ negative attitudes toward trans people were reduced for at least three months .
There are limitations : The presumption is still that it ’ s really hard to change people ’ s minds at all , let alone for a long time ( Resnick notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even so , the “ non-judgmental ” approach of deep canvassing might be the best option for people at least open to changing their minds , as Resnick explained : Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In a new Axios poll, 61 percent of college students revealed that they would definitely or probably shame someone they know if they chose not to vote.
The poll, conducted online by College Reaction for Axios October 6-7 among 872 college students at accredited four-year universities, was specific in its wording. It asked about “someone you know [who] does not vote even though they can” — verbiage that acknowledges voting can be prohibitively difficult for people who can’t take time off work, may be forced to stand for hours in line, or have been unfairly purged from the voter rolls.
An August report from the Knight Foundation indicates that college students are uncharacteristically motivated to vote this year, 71 percent of them saying they are “absolutely certain” of it. This surge in participation from college students follows a trend reported by several outlets following the 2018 election where “turnout among college student voters more than doubled from the 2014 to 2018 midterm elections” according to the Institute of Higher Education. That enthusiasm was echoed in the Axios poll. Only 16 percent of the students said they would definitely not “address, confront, or otherwise convey disappointment” to the person who did not vote.
College students aren’t alone; “vote-shaming” in all its forms is becoming a steady fixture in American politics, from its more gentle forms like former President Obama’s famous “Don’t Boo, Vote” to the explosive aftermath of the 2016 primary when the Democratic Party desperately attempted to knit itself back together.
There has certainly been a backlash to many of these efforts. Elle magazine was heavily criticized after publishing a story ostensibly about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West separating, only to instead link interested readers to the votings rights group When We All Vote. The Washington Post detailed several other instances of vote-shaming backfires in a 2018 story, including a tweet by Billy Eichner in which he told his bellhop to vote, prompting backlash that forced him to delete the quip.
Most political conversation — about the need to vote or otherwise — is fraught in hyper-polarized 2020. But, research shows, there are ways to do it effectively.
What we know about how to have effective political conversations
The evidence is mixed on whether vote-shaming as a specific tactic works. Researchers at the Poverty Action Lab in 2007 found that vote shaming may be an effective strategy. In a study, they mailed voters a notice detailing their voter history and found that “disclosing past voting behavior had strong positive effects on voter turnout” and notably, “these effects were stronger when voters were told of a recent election in which they failed to vote.”
The mailing to one treatment group noted their failure to vote in a previous election and read “DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY — VOTE.” It also noted that the “list of who votes is public record” and “we will note whether you vote or not.” This group was 28 percent more likely to vote than people who received a nearly identical piece of mail which instead highlighted an election in which they had actually voted.
It’s not likely, though, that college students (or anyone, for that matter) are sending anonymous mailers to their friends and family about their voting behavior. And traditional political persuasion might not be the path to pursue. My colleague Dylan Matthews recently reported on findings that voters in general elections are likely not moved at all by campaign persuasion efforts like “canvassing, phone calls, direct mail, TV, online ads, or anything else under the sun.” But talking to people you know to remind them to vote might be effective, some experts say.
There are also ways to effectively change someone’s mind, at least for some people, research shows. Vox’s Brian Resnick has written extensively on “deep canvassing,” a tactic that was mired in controversy when Science retracted the initial 2014 study after the researcher was found to have falsified his data. In a turn of events, David Brookman and Josh Kalla, political scientists at UC Berkeley and Yale, replicated the original study and found that deep canvassing actually worked.
Brian explains Brookman and Kalla’s research, detailing that deep canvassing deviates from normal door-to-door canvassing by “listening nonjudgmentally ... The instructions note the canvasser should ‘appear genuinely interested in hearing the subject ruminate on the question.’” More from Brian’s piece below:
“Instead of pelting voters with facts, “we ask open-ended questions and then we listen,” Dave Fleischer, the LGBTQ rights organizer who developed the technique, told me in 2016. “And then we continue to ask open-ended questions based on what they just told us.” The idea is that people learn lessons more durably when they come to the conclusion themselves, not when someone “bitch-slaps you with a statistic,” Fleischer said. It is stories, not facts, that are most compelling to people when they’re changing their minds.”
The results of this kind of intervention appear to have surprising longevity. After a 10-minute conversation, voters’ negative attitudes toward trans people were reduced for at least three months.
There are limitations: The presumption is still that it’s really hard to change people’s minds at all, let alone for a long time (Resnick notes other research showing just that). Even so, the “non-judgmental” approach of deep canvassing might be the best option for people at least open to changing their minds, as Resnick explained:


vox--2020-10-16--Trump’s fake news crisis, illustrated by two episodes over the last 24 hours

Two embarrassing episodes over the past 24 hours highlighted the depth of President Donald Trump ’ s credibility crisis as time runs short for him to turn around his flailing reelection campaign .
From refusing to denounce an absurd , obviously false online conspiracy theory during a high-profile town hall on NBC to retweeting a satirical website as if it ’ s breaking news , it ’ s becoming increasingly difficult to tell if Trump can separate fact from fiction .
While Trump campaigns on misleading messages about the coronavirus ( which he insists is going away despite rising case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says is strong even as he ’ s poised to become the first president in modern history to oversee a net shrinkage in jobs ) , he ’ s behaving online like that far-right family member we ’ ve all had to mute on Facebook .
And he doesn ’ t feel any shame about it .
At this late date , everyone , whether they ’ re on social media or not , understands that Trump isn ’ t above lying .
But an exchange during his NBC town hall with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t on Twitter just how off the rails his posting has become .
Trump is media illiterate : He can ’ t discern the difference between good information and bad Guthrie grilled Trump about a retweet he posted on Wednesday evening of a conspiracy theory promoted by a QAnon account .
The tweet accused Biden of pulling strings to take out the group of Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden — a theory refuted by the fact that every Navy SEAL involved in the bin Laden raid is in fact still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend himself , Trump suggested to Guthrie that because he read it on the internet it might be true , describing the conspiracy theory as “ an opinion of somebody and that was a retweet .
I ’ ll put it out there .
People can decide for themselves .
I don ’ t take a position.
” It ’ s obviously reckless and irresponsible for the president to amplify incendiary conspiracy theories that are clearly false , not to mention defend QAnon , which he did during the same town hall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments of the evening , Guthrie hit back , admonishing Trump , “ You ’ re the president .
You ’ re not someone ’ s crazy uncle who can retweet whatever.
” But if you thought Guthrie drawing blood on national TV would be enough to chasten Trump , he quickly demonstrated otherwise .
On Friday morning , Trump embarrassed himself for the second time within a day by retweeting an article from the satirical Babylon Bee website ( the site ’ s motto is “ Fake news you can trust ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter and Hunter Biden .
Suffice it to say , Twitter did not shut down in order to suppress bad Hunter Biden news .
But instead of admitting his error or even deleting the tweet , Trump followed up with another , clarifying that by “ Big T ” he wasn ’ t referring to himself , but rather “ Big Tech.
” The CEO of the Babylon Bee , Seth Dillon , responded to Trump by tweeting , sarcastically , that his satire site is “ the president ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear whether Trump has anybody in his orbit at this point who ’ s willing to point out to him that he ’ s tweeting out satire as though it ’ s breaking news .
It ’ s also possible he simply has no shame about amplifying egregious fake news if he thinks getting people to believe lies is in his self-interest .
Whatever the case , it ’ s clear that this president ’ s truth barometer is broken beyond repair .
He has access to the best intelligence in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s liable to believe anything he reads on the internet so long as it ’ s useful for his political ends .
And his fake news problem only seems to be getting worse .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Two embarrassing episodes over the past 24 hours highlighted the depth of President Donald Trump’s credibility crisis as time runs short for him to turn around his flailing reelection campaign.
From refusing to denounce an absurd, obviously false online conspiracy theory during a high-profile town hall on NBC to retweeting a satirical website as if it’s breaking news, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell if Trump can separate fact from fiction.
While Trump campaigns on misleading messages about the coronavirus (which he insists is going away despite rising case numbers) and the economy (which he says is strong even as he’s poised to become the first president in modern history to oversee a net shrinkage in jobs), he’s behaving online like that far-right family member we’ve all had to mute on Facebook. And he doesn’t feel any shame about it.
At this late date, everyone, whether they’re on social media or not, understands that Trump isn’t above lying. But an exchange during his NBC town hall with Savannah Guthrie showcased for viewers who aren’t on Twitter just how off the rails his posting has become.
Trump is media illiterate: He can’t discern the difference between good information and bad
Guthrie grilled Trump about a retweet he posted on Wednesday evening of a conspiracy theory promoted by a QAnon account. The tweet accused Biden of pulling strings to take out the group of Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden — a theory refuted by the fact that every Navy SEAL involved in the bin Laden raid is in fact still alive.
Instead of even trying to defend himself, Trump suggested to Guthrie that because he read it on the internet it might be true, describing the conspiracy theory as “an opinion of somebody and that was a retweet. I’ll put it out there. People can decide for themselves. I don’t take a position.”
It’s obviously reckless and irresponsible for the president to amplify incendiary conspiracy theories that are clearly false, not to mention defend QAnon, which he did during the same town hall. And in one of the more memorable moments of the evening, Guthrie hit back, admonishing Trump, “You’re the president. You’re not someone’s crazy uncle who can retweet whatever.”
Watch:
The President provides a strange defense of his retweeting of a Seal Team Six conspiracy theory pic.twitter.com/3TrCRwF5Au — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 16, 2020
But if you thought Guthrie drawing blood on national TV would be enough to chasten Trump, he quickly demonstrated otherwise.
On Friday morning, Trump embarrassed himself for the second time within a day by retweeting an article from the satirical Babylon Bee website (the site’s motto is “Fake news you can trust”) as part of a failed attack on Twitter and Hunter Biden.
Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News https://t.co/JPmjOrKPcr via @TheBabylonBee Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2020
Suffice it to say, Twitter did not shut down in order to suppress bad Hunter Biden news. But instead of admitting his error or even deleting the tweet, Trump followed up with another, clarifying that by “Big T” he wasn’t referring to himself, but rather “Big Tech.”
Big T was not a reference to me, but rather to Big Tech, which should have been properly pointed out in Twitter’s Fake Trending Section! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2020
The CEO of the Babylon Bee, Seth Dillon, responded to Trump by tweeting, sarcastically, that his satire site is “the president’s most trusted news source.”
It’s unclear whether Trump has anybody in his orbit at this point who’s willing to point out to him that he’s tweeting out satire as though it’s breaking news. It’s also possible he simply has no shame about amplifying egregious fake news if he thinks getting people to believe lies is in his self-interest.
Whatever the case, it’s clear that this president’s truth barometer is broken beyond repair. He has access to the best intelligence in the world, yet all too often he’s liable to believe anything he reads on the internet so long as it’s useful for his political ends. And his fake news problem only seems to be getting worse.