vox--2020-09-21--“It’s kinda like a first date”: Making the most of starting a new job remotely

“ It ’ s kinda like a first date ” : How to make the most of starting a new job remotely Share All sharing options for : “ It ’ s kinda like a first date ” : How to make the most of starting a new job remotely Good news !
You ’ ve landed a new job at a time when the Covid-19 pandemic has put millions of people out of work .
The bad news : You ’ ve landed a new job during a pandemic that ’ s forced millions of people to work remotely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to meet your co-workers for ... quite some time .
That ’ s the scenario many Americans have found themselves in for the past six months , with no clear end in sight .
Major companies such as Google and Facebook told employees they should not expect to return to their offices until July 2021 at the earliest ; other employers haven ’ t made any projections at all .
Work from home is the new normal , which means new hires aren ’ t showing up at the office to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and figure out how to use the coffee maker — they ’ re at home , putting on their best Zoom face .
Maybe you ’ ll end up doing that someday , too .
If so , don ’ t be discouraged : People who ’ ve started new jobs remotely during the pandemic told me their experience working from home is pretty similar to what it ’ s like for their colleagues who knew their coworkers before coronavirus .
It just requires more work , patience , and good humor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company that hires them .
“ It really hasn ’ t been bad , ” says Joy Airaudi , an attorney who showed up to her new job with Chicago Public Schools on March 16 , right before Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker closed all schools in the state .
She has spent every day since then working from home .
“ I work with a really good group of people , and I think they feel really bad for me.
” In my very informal survey of Covid-19-era hires who work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be the most obvious one : You have to work with a lot of people you ’ ve never met before , and seeing them on video calls doesn ’ t mean you ’ re really getting to know them .
As a result , miscommunication happens more easily because you ’ re missing out on forming personal connections .
Another downside is that the in-person exchange of ideas the much-embraced ( and much-loathed ) open office plan is supposed to foster is a lot harder to replicate when you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to simply make a point of chatting with folks before and after a meeting , just like you might in real life .
“ I ’ ve always cared about people , but I ’ ve never been touchy-feely , ” says Jason Kleckner , who in June started heading up user experience at Securian Financial , a financial services company based in St. Paul , Minnesota .
“ Now , when we start a meeting I ask them how they ’ re doing , how their family is doing .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do now.
” But Kleckner says he can do that only when he ’ s talking to people who work for him .
When he ’ s communicating with peers , no one has time for small talk .
“ You say hi , and it ’ s mostly down to business , ” he says .
“ And when it ends , it just ends.
” So you may need a more structured approach : Gather ( or get someone to make you ) a list of everyone you might need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start setting up one-on-one video chats or calls .
As Kleckner noted , this is easier to do when you ’ re a boss , since your employees can ’ t say they ’ re too busy to meet with you .
That ’ s what Sean Cohan did when he started his job as chief growth officer at Nielsen , the marketing research company , in March .
After spending a day at Nielsen ’ s Manhattan office to grab a computer and other equipment , he has been working from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some of the 4,500 people below him in the org chart .
So far he ’ s knocked out 130 of them .
“ I have an informal mental script , ” Cohan says .
“ I tell them ‘ I don ’ t have an agenda , my only agenda is to check in with important team members.
’ And then I ask them about themselves.
” Does that sound awkward ?
It probably is .
“ It ’ s kinda like a first date .
That ’ s the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chad Gutstein , a Los Angeles-based consultant who ’ s been setting up one-on-ones with colleagues for a new assignment he ’ s taken on with a company in Toronto .
“ It ’ s a little bit of a first date/first job interview.
” That mindset has been helpful , Gutstein says , because it leads him to ask the kinds of questions he ’ s used before .
“ There are a lot of questions that I ’ ve used when I ’ ve interviewed people for jobs that I use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like , ‘ Who is the person you ’ re closest to in life ?
’ Okay .
‘ So in their opinion , what makes you good at your job ?
’ Or what would they tell me if I asked that person , ‘ What makes you happy ?
’ ” If the thought of conducting mock dates or interviews with new coworkers makes you cringe , you can try other gambits .
Gutstein has also invited some of his new colleagues to after-hours social events online , such as Quarantunes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series hosted by Hollywood agent Richard Weitz .
Watching a concert on Zoom at the same time as someone else isn ’ t anything like going to a live concert together , he acknowledges .
But at least it gives you a shared experience you can discuss the next time you see them online .
Speaking of seeing each other : You know how weird and discombobulating it ’ s been to have a day full of videoconference meetings with people you used to see in real life ?
It ’ s that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met them before .
So one approach is to shrug and hope everyone else understands what you ’ re going through .
“ At the end of the day , it ’ s about showing up with your true self and really talking to people as you would in person , ” says Jenny Yu , a doctor who works for Healthline , a digital health information website .
Yu knew up front that she ’ d be working for the South Carolina-based publisher from her home in Pittsburgh , since the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But since Yu just started last month , she hasn ’ t been able to do any of the in-person onboarding Healthline would normally provide for her .
She admits that meeting a completely new set of coworkers over the internet was weird .
“ When I first started , it was like , ‘ Is this reality ?
Is this actually happening ?
’ ” Yu says .
“ People were just showing up on a Zoom square.
” Not knowing your new coworkers in 2020 also means taking pains not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accidentally offend someone in a text or live chat than in face-to-face communication that lets you better read nonverbal and emotional cues .
“ You don ’ t want to say anything that could be misinterpreted , ” says Michael Maiello , who moved from New York City to Portland , Maine , over the summer and started working as a proposal writer for Tilson Technology , a networking company .
“ It ’ s a slower curve before you start joking around with people , just because you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Maiello says working with new bosses and coworkers has also prompted him to overcommunicate about what he ’ s working on so people who can ’ t see him know that he ’ s actually working .
“ One thing I tried to do is to be more verbose about what I ’ m doing , especially with my supervisors but also with the rest of the team.
” There is a limit on how much communicating you can do , though , particularly when it comes to online video chats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would in person .
For instance , video chat “ violates our normal use of eye-gaze , ” as journalist Clive Thompson wrote in June .
Think about it : If you were talking with someone in person and stared directly at them the entire time , they could find it off-putting , or worse .
But Zoom forces you to do that .
“ If I was in a conference room , I would never wonder , ‘ What ’ s somebody going to think if I looked off into the corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kleckner .
“ But [ online ] , you have to not only look at them , but make sure that they know that [ you ’ re ] looking at them.
” And that pressure is more heightened when you ’ re the new person .
So Kleckner takes pains to tell coworkers that sometimes he isn ’ t looking at them .
But he ’ s still listening .
“ I had to send a note out saying , ‘ When you see me typing during a chat , know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m taking notes , ’ ” he says .
But let ’ s be honest .
It ’ s a pandemic .
You ’ re navigating the vagaries of a new job while you ’ re missing crucial clues about how things work .
It ’ s going to be stressful — so maybe looking on the bright side will help .
Yes , plowing through 50 one-on-ones is a lot of work , says David Ellner , who started his new job as chief operating officer at New York-based Success Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the charter school system had gone remote .
On the other hand , he says , “ I didn ’ t have to go to the Bronx to meet a principal .
I just did a call from my living room .
In some ways it was easier to move around the organization.
” Ellner says that when he started , he was handed a 90-day onboarding plan that included a list of people he should meet .
But he ’ s not under the illusion that video chats are a 100 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s something just tactile , lacking , ” he says .
But “ at the same time , I ’ m as productive as ... ” — and here he uses a word you shouldn ’ t use inside a Success Academy classroom .
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 election of our lifetimes .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

“It’s kinda like a first date”: How to make the most of starting a new job remotely
Share All sharing options for: “It’s kinda like a first date”: How to make the most of starting a new job remotely
Good news! You’ve landed a new job at a time when the Covid-19 pandemic has put millions of people out of work.
The bad news: You’ve landed a new job during a pandemic that’s forced millions of people to work remotely — including you. You’re not going to meet your co-workers for ... quite some time.
That’s the scenario many Americans have found themselves in for the past six months, with no clear end in sight. Major companies such as Google and Facebook told employees they should not expect to return to their offices until July 2021 at the earliest; other employers haven’t made any projections at all.
Work from home is the new normal, which means new hires aren’t showing up at the office to learn the ropes, make work friends, and figure out how to use the coffee maker — they’re at home, putting on their best Zoom face. Maybe you’ll end up doing that someday, too.
If so, don’t be discouraged: People who’ve started new jobs remotely during the pandemic told me their experience working from home is pretty similar to what it’s like for their colleagues who knew their coworkers before coronavirus. It just requires more work, patience, and good humor — from both the new arrivals and the company that hires them.
“It really hasn’t been bad,” says Joy Airaudi, an attorney who showed up to her new job with Chicago Public Schools on March 16, right before Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker closed all schools in the state. She has spent every day since then working from home. “I work with a really good group of people, and I think they feel really bad for me.”
In my very informal survey of Covid-19-era hires who work in office jobs, the key challenge appears to be the most obvious one: You have to work with a lot of people you’ve never met before, and seeing them on video calls doesn’t mean you’re really getting to know them. As a result, miscommunication happens more easily because you’re missing out on forming personal connections. Another downside is that the in-person exchange of ideas the much-embraced (and much-loathed) open office plan is supposed to foster is a lot harder to replicate when you’re remote.
So one solution is to simply make a point of chatting with folks before and after a meeting, just like you might in real life.
“I’ve always cared about people, but I’ve never been touchy-feely,” says Jason Kleckner, who in June started heading up user experience at Securian Financial, a financial services company based in St. Paul, Minnesota. “Now, when we start a meeting I ask them how they’re doing, how their family is doing. It’s something I’m forcing myself to do now.”
But Kleckner says he can do that only when he’s talking to people who work for him. When he’s communicating with peers, no one has time for small talk. “You say hi, and it’s mostly down to business,” he says. “And when it ends, it just ends.”
So you may need a more structured approach: Gather (or get someone to make you) a list of everyone you might need to know at your job, and start setting up one-on-one video chats or calls. As Kleckner noted, this is easier to do when you’re a boss, since your employees can’t say they’re too busy to meet with you.
That’s what Sean Cohan did when he started his job as chief growth officer at Nielsen, the marketing research company, in March. After spending a day at Nielsen’s Manhattan office to grab a computer and other equipment, he has been working from his vacation home and methodically scheduling 30-minute get-to-know-yous with some of the 4,500 people below him in the org chart. So far he’s knocked out 130 of them.
“I have an informal mental script,” Cohan says. “I tell them ‘I don’t have an agenda, my only agenda is to check in with important team members.’ And then I ask them about themselves.”
Does that sound awkward? It probably is.
“It’s kinda like a first date. That’s the best way to describe it,” says Chad Gutstein, a Los Angeles-based consultant who’s been setting up one-on-ones with colleagues for a new assignment he’s taken on with a company in Toronto. “It’s a little bit of a first date/first job interview.”
That mindset has been helpful, Gutstein says, because it leads him to ask the kinds of questions he’s used before.
“There are a lot of questions that I’ve used when I’ve interviewed people for jobs that I use now,” he says. “Like, ‘Who is the person you’re closest to in life?’ Okay. ‘So in their opinion, what makes you good at your job?’ Or what would they tell me if I asked that person, ‘What makes you happy?’”
If the thought of conducting mock dates or interviews with new coworkers makes you cringe, you can try other gambits. Gutstein has also invited some of his new colleagues to after-hours social events online, such as Quarantunes, a buzzy, invite-only virtual concert series hosted by Hollywood agent Richard Weitz. Watching a concert on Zoom at the same time as someone else isn’t anything like going to a live concert together, he acknowledges. But at least it gives you a shared experience you can discuss the next time you see them online.
Speaking of seeing each other: You know how weird and discombobulating it’s been to have a day full of videoconference meetings with people you used to see in real life? It’s that much weirder when you’ve never met them before.
So one approach is to shrug and hope everyone else understands what you’re going through.
“At the end of the day, it’s about showing up with your true self and really talking to people as you would in person,” says Jenny Yu, a doctor who works for Healthline, a digital health information website. Yu knew up front that she’d be working for the South Carolina-based publisher from her home in Pittsburgh, since the position was always intended to be remote.
But since Yu just started last month, she hasn’t been able to do any of the in-person onboarding Healthline would normally provide for her. She admits that meeting a completely new set of coworkers over the internet was weird. “When I first started, it was like, ‘Is this reality? Is this actually happening?’” Yu says. “People were just showing up on a Zoom square.”
Not knowing your new coworkers in 2020 also means taking pains not to upset them — it’s easier to accidentally offend someone in a text or live chat than in face-to-face communication that lets you better read nonverbal and emotional cues.
“You don’t want to say anything that could be misinterpreted,” says Michael Maiello, who moved from New York City to Portland, Maine, over the summer and started working as a proposal writer for Tilson Technology, a networking company. “It’s a slower curve before you start joking around with people, just because you don’t know how things are going to land.”
Maiello says working with new bosses and coworkers has also prompted him to overcommunicate about what he’s working on so people who can’t see him know that he’s actually working. “One thing I tried to do is to be more verbose about what I’m doing, especially with my supervisors but also with the rest of the team.”
There is a limit on how much communicating you can do, though, particularly when it comes to online video chats, which make you communicate differently than you would in person.
For instance, video chat “violates our normal use of eye-gaze,” as journalist Clive Thompson wrote in June. Think about it: If you were talking with someone in person and stared directly at them the entire time, they could find it off-putting, or worse. But Zoom forces you to do that.
“If I was in a conference room, I would never wonder, ‘What’s somebody going to think if I looked off into the corner for a while?’” says Kleckner. “But [online], you have to not only look at them, but make sure that they know that [you’re] looking at them.”
And that pressure is more heightened when you’re the new person. So Kleckner takes pains to tell coworkers that sometimes he isn’t looking at them. But he’s still listening.
“I had to send a note out saying, ‘When you see me typing during a chat, know that I’m paying attention — I’m taking notes,’” he says.
But let’s be honest. It’s a pandemic. You’re navigating the vagaries of a new job while you’re missing crucial clues about how things work. It’s going to be stressful — so maybe looking on the bright side will help.
Yes, plowing through 50 one-on-ones is a lot of work, says David Ellner, who started his new job as chief operating officer at New York-based Success Academy in April, only a week after the charter school system had gone remote. On the other hand, he says, “I didn’t have to go to the Bronx to meet a principal. I just did a call from my living room. In some ways it was easier to move around the organization.”
Ellner says that when he started, he was handed a 90-day onboarding plan that included a list of people he should meet. But he’s not under the illusion that video chats are a 100 percent effective replacement for real life.
”There’s something just tactile, lacking,” he says. But “at the same time, I’m as productive as ... ” — and here he uses a word you shouldn’t use inside a Success Academy classroom.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-09-21--Noam Chomsky’s Green New Deal

Noam Chomsky’s Green New Deal

This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .
Several books on the Green New Deal have been released in the past year or two , but none boasts a more illustrious set of authors than Climate Crisis and the Green New Deal , out Tuesday from Robert Pollin and Noam Chomsky .
Pollin teaches economics and co-directs the Political Economy Research Institute ( PERI ) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst .
He has been writing about climate economics and green growth for years , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he advised Obama ’ s Energy Department for a few years ) on policy and poverty reduction .
Chomsky , of course , has been a notable intellectual presence on the left since the mid-20th century .
He ’ s an analytic philosopher , one of the founders of cognitive science , and a giant in the field of linguistics , alongside his notable contributions as a historian , essayist , and social critic .
The author of more than 100 books , he is known as one of the most cited authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of questions , prompts , and discussion points from political scientist C.J .
Polychroniou ( credited as a co-author ) , and despite its compact length , it is a sweeping inquiry into the nature of climate change , its relationship to capitalism , what a global Green New Deal might look like , and the effects it may have on politics .
I reached Pollin and Chomsky by Skype to chat about some of the book ’ s themes , including capitalism , green investment , and the prospects for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos .
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
Naomi Klein ’ s climate book This Changes Everything famously argued that consumer capitalism and climate change are effectively one and the same , that the one is the inevitable consequence of the other .
Is that something unique to capitalism , or is it just human nature to be shortsighted ?
We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism , we might as well say goodbye to each other .
I would like to overcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the relevant time scale .
Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions , modifying them as necessary .
That ’ s the problem we face .
When we turn to human nature , the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it .
It ’ s what I work on all the time .
There ’ s a few small areas where there ’ s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term , if that ’ s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized , we can , again , say goodbye to one another .
So let ’ s assume it ’ s not the case .
Then we work within a set of parameters .
The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time .
Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what ’ s going to happen in a couple of decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then we turn to solutions .
And there are solutions within that set of assumptions .
So let ’ s proceed and work on them .
If those assumptions happen to be wrong , tough for the human species .
It ’ s what we have .
What historical analogues demonstrate the ability of capitalism ’ s institutions to reform themselves with the sort of speed and scale we ’ re talking about to limit climate change ?
I know we always go back to World War II , but there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no enemy with a face .
What prompts your optimism that the logic and momentum of capitalism are subject to change this big and fast ?
The analogue to World War II says that we easily have the resources to deal with this within existing institutions .
Then comes the question of , is there an analogue in human history to facing a problem of destruction of the species within several generations ?
Answer : no .
We ’ re in a new situation .
Actually , we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
As soon as the nuclear age began , it was evident that humans had reached the intelligence and capacity to effectively destroy human life on Earth .
That ’ s what we ’ ve been living with for 75 years .
What wasn ’ t known at the time , but is now understood , is that it was also the beginning of what the World Geological Organization calls the Anthropocene , a period in which human activity is having very significant and deleterious effects on the environment .
So for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living with a unique situation in human history .
We have the means to destroy organized human life on Earth .
That ’ s never been true before .
We also have the means to overcome that .
World War II showed that with existing institutions , it was possible to amass resources on a scale well beyond what is required today .
Bob ’ s work shows that very effectively .
So let ’ s use what ’ s available .
And let ’ s make the assumption that human beings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naive view of history might say that as the fruits of science become clear , there ’ s a sort of inevitability to greater democratic organization and complexity .
But the last decade has seen a white revanchist backlash across the developed world , lots of places reverting to crude nationalism and authoritarianism .
It certainly seems to throw a wrench in the notion that we ’ re on a one-way road to greater enlightenment .
What history teaches us is that we have no idea .
There are all kinds of lessons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1920s , Germany was the peak of Western civilization , in the sciences and the arts .
And if you look at political science literature in the 1920s , the Weimar Republic was regarded as the peak of democratic achievement .
Ten years later , it was the worst place in human history .
And years after that , getting back to where it was .
Those are the lessons of history , namely , we don ’ t know .
Now , if you want to ask what ’ s happening now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit by an assault , the neoliberal assault , which has been devastating .
Its basic design leads to high concentrations of wealth and power in unaccountable hands and massive growth of basically predatory institutions , most of them financial .
That ’ s led to feelings across much of the world of anger , resentment , and distrust in institutions , which has some justification .
And it ’ s fertile territory for demagogues ; we ’ ve seen them arise .
But it ’ s also an opportunity to counter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , everywhere from the streets of America to mutual aid groups in Brazil .
Humans are capable of lots of things .
On the left these days , there ’ s a push for more public ownership in energy .
But across the world , it seems like energy markets are already some of the least capitalist .
What ’ s the right level of public involvement in the sector ?
Globally , 90 percent of fossil fuel assets are publicly owned .
So if we say the problem of climate change is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we need to transition to public ownership , well , we ’ re 90 percent of the way there !
So that clearly is not a solution .
The cost of generating a unit of energy from solar power , wind power , and geothermal power is now fully competitive , at parity .
Trump ’ s own Energy Department statistics show that , for a kilowatt of electricity , solar is 6.3 cents .
Onshore wind is 6.0 cents , geothermal 4.7 cents .
Now , coal with carbon capture is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is from the Trump administration .
The issue is , how do we mobilize investments adequately to transition into these already affordable energy-generating processes , and energy efficiency ?
As Noam mentioned , yes , we have a massive challenge , but it is not on the scale of World War II , at least not yet .
My own estimate on a global model , we are looking at something like 2.5 to 3 percent of GDP per year , investing in renewable energy , transitioning to electricity , energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , we don ’ t have time to totally overturn capitalism .
We have to get to net zero emissions in no less than 30 years , and capitalism is still going to be around then .
So we have to think about ways through which we can incentivize this transition that will also be egalitarian , in the sense that it will open up opportunities for small-scale enterprises .
It ’ s going to generate jobs , and we have to make sure those are good jobs , union jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel sector , so we have to create a just transition .
But that ’ s all within the institutions of capitalism .
One longstanding political debate is over how to pay for things , or whether to pay for them .
A lot of progressives these days are pushing the idea that the only limit on federal spending is inflation .
Where do you come down on that question ?
You ’ re talking about modern money theory — I don ’ t know if Noam has any interest in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financing model does make use of printing money , just not 100 percent , all the time .
I had a piece in the American Prospect last December called “ How to pay for zero emissions economy , ” and I combined revenue sources .
I have a carbon tax ; 75 percent of the carbon tax is rebated back to the lower half of the income distribution , so it ’ s egalitarian .
We take money out of the military budget .
And then the rest , yeah , I say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just like right now they ’ re printing $ 4 trillion , minimum , at the drop of a hat .
And I ’ m talking about maybe $ 50 billion .
It ’ s a minuscule amount .
When this article was published , one of the main proponents of MMT , Randall Wray , somebody I ’ ve known for a long time , attacked my articles .
“ How dare you talk about paying , even $ 1 !
” I said , I have 50 percent of the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt monetization , but there ’ s limits to that .
If we ’ re going to pay for the green New Deal 100 percent by printing money , and on top of that Medicare-for-all , and on top of that everything else that gets us to full employment , we ’ re talking about a very dangerous policy tool .
When do we know , exactly , we ’ re going to get to high inflation ?
And once we get there , all of a sudden , are we supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax revenue to $ 4 trillion ?
The proposal Noam and I have in the book relies significantly on the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank printing money — just not 100 percent .
Environmental justice has moved to the center of the climate discussion .
What ’ s your degree of hope that , in the face of fear and anxiety and panic , we ’ re going to transition compassionately , in an egalitarian way ?
I don ’ t see any contradiction .
I ’ m old enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the middle-class households and got good jobs in factories for military production .
That had an egalitarian effect .
It wasn ’ t the purpose of it , but it had that consequence .
Now we can make it the purpose of things like , say , developing efficient mass transportation , instead of jamming up highways with cars .
That contributes to justice and makes people ’ s lives better , especially poor people .
The effect of pollution is radically oriented toward harming the poor and deprived .
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who does that hurt ?
It ’ s people living near the polluting factories because they can ’ t afford to live anywhere else .
If we end that , we ’ re helping them .
So there ’ s just a lot of [ egalitarian ] things that happen almost automatically as the result of the Green New Deal policy , and it can be modified to make it more so .
One of the major issues of climate justice is dealing with the global South — the people who didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but are now suffering more from it than anyone else .
That ’ s been discussed since the Paris negotiations , but the Republican Party has refused to provide even minimal aid that would be necessary in poor countries .
In India , the temperatures are going extremely high .
Well , you need air conditioners .
There are cheap , highly polluting air conditioners and there are slightly more expensive , efficient , non-polluting ones .
The amount of money that would be required from the rich countries to provide Indian people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undetectable .
A tiny sum would make enormous difference in people ’ s lives .
There are things like that all over the place .
What do you think about the degrowth movement , the idea that the only way to stabilize the climate in the long term is to cut back on consumption ?
I ’ ve been in debates with these people — I have a lot of respect for them and fundamentally share their values .
I ’ m sure I myself could live much more modestly than I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living a high lifestyle do not represent the standard of living for 95 percent of the world ’ s population .
So when we say we have to live more simply , I don ’ t think it ’ s fair to apply that to everybody on planet Earth .
In addition to that , people are going to keep consuming energy , and we should be in favor of delivering more energy , affordably , so that people can get around and have electricity and have a better standard of living .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrowth is not a solution , just in terms of simple mathematics .
Right now the globe generates about 33 billion tons of CO2 emissions .
Let ’ s say we cut global GDP by 10 percent , which would be a bigger depression than the 1930s .
What happens ?
We cut emissions by 10 percent , from 33 billion tons to 30 billion tons .
It ’ s no solution at all .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine the right responding to the undeniable reality of climate change with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How confident are you that climate change won ’ t spark a global wave of “ green fascism ” ?
I think the number of people who would think like that is so small that they really don ’ t matter .
If they want to build themselves a gated community up in the Rockies , it ’ s not going to change much .
It ’ s not gon na hurt the situation .
It ’ s the general population that has to be reached .
Take a look at polls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 percent think that climate change is an urgent problem .
That ’ s where the problem is , not with a group of reactionaries who think , I ’ ll save myself somehow , I ’ ll take a spaceship and live on Mars .
The problem is the great mass of the population who are being deluded by constant propaganda .
That ’ s a problem that can be solved by education , by organization , by reasonable forms of activism .
That ’ s the way big changes have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own country .
We ’ re a very different country from what we were , say , 50 or 60 years ago .
You go back to the 1960s , the United States had anti-miscegenation laws that were so extreme the Nazis refused to adopt them .
We had federal laws in place that required that federal housing be effectively denied to African Americans .
Women were not legally considered equal peers until 1975 .
Things that were considered normal at that time would be considered so outlandish now , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t happen by a miracle .
And it didn ’ t mean convincing a couple of white supremacist reactionaries .
It meant changing the nature of consciousness in the country .
The Black Lives Matter protests created the biggest social movement in history , quickly , because the background had already been established .
The same kind of background made it imaginable for the New York Times to publish the 1619 series .
...
Awareness and consciousness can change , pretty fast , and that can happen on this too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re all in for it .
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 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Several books on the Green New Deal have been released in the past year or two, but none boasts a more illustrious set of authors than Climate Crisis and the Green New Deal, out Tuesday from Robert Pollin and Noam Chomsky.
Pollin teaches economics and co-directs the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He has been writing about climate economics and green growth for years, as well as consulting with various nonprofits and governments (he advised Obama’s Energy Department for a few years) on policy and poverty reduction.
Chomsky, of course, has been a notable intellectual presence on the left since the mid-20th century. He’s an analytic philosopher, one of the founders of cognitive science, and a giant in the field of linguistics, alongside his notable contributions as a historian, essayist, and social critic. The author of more than 100 books, he is known as one of the most cited authors alive.
The book is structured around a series of questions, prompts, and discussion points from political scientist C.J. Polychroniou (credited as a co-author), and despite its compact length, it is a sweeping inquiry into the nature of climate change, its relationship to capitalism, what a global Green New Deal might look like, and the effects it may have on politics.
I reached Pollin and Chomsky by Skype to chat about some of the book’s themes, including capitalism, green investment, and the prospects for social solidarity in the face of rising chaos.
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
David Roberts
Naomi Klein’s climate book This Changes Everything famously argued that consumer capitalism and climate change are effectively one and the same, that the one is the inevitable consequence of the other. Is that something unique to capitalism, or is it just human nature to be shortsighted?
Noam Chomsky
We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism, we might as well say goodbye to each other. I would like to overcome capitalism, but it’s not in the relevant time scale. Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions, modifying them as necessary. That’s the problem we face.
When we turn to human nature, the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it. It’s what I work on all the time. There’s a few small areas where there’s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest. It’s all surmise.
If it is true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term, if that’s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized, we can, again, say goodbye to one another. So let’s assume it’s not the case.
Then we work within a set of parameters. The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time. Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what’s going to happen in a couple of decades, even centuries. Assume all that.
Then we turn to solutions. And there are solutions within that set of assumptions. So let’s proceed and work on them. If those assumptions happen to be wrong, tough for the human species. It’s what we have.
David Roberts
What historical analogues demonstrate the ability of capitalism’s institutions to reform themselves with the sort of speed and scale we’re talking about to limit climate change? I know we always go back to World War II, but there are obvious disanalogies — for one thing, there’s no enemy with a face. What prompts your optimism that the logic and momentum of capitalism are subject to change this big and fast?
Noam Chomsky
The analogue to World War II says that we easily have the resources to deal with this within existing institutions. Then comes the question of, is there an analogue in human history to facing a problem of destruction of the species within several generations? Answer: no. We’re in a new situation.
Actually, we’ve been in a new situation for 75 years. As soon as the nuclear age began, it was evident that humans had reached the intelligence and capacity to effectively destroy human life on Earth. That’s what we’ve been living with for 75 years. What wasn’t known at the time, but is now understood, is that it was also the beginning of what the World Geological Organization calls the Anthropocene, a period in which human activity is having very significant and deleterious effects on the environment.
So for 75 years, we’ve been living with a unique situation in human history. We have the means to destroy organized human life on Earth. That’s never been true before.
We also have the means to overcome that. World War II showed that with existing institutions, it was possible to amass resources on a scale well beyond what is required today. Bob’s work shows that very effectively. So let’s use what’s available. And let’s make the assumption that human beings are capable of looking beyond tomorrow.
David Roberts
A naive view of history might say that as the fruits of science become clear, there’s a sort of inevitability to greater democratic organization and complexity. But the last decade has seen a white revanchist backlash across the developed world, lots of places reverting to crude nationalism and authoritarianism. It certainly seems to throw a wrench in the notion that we’re on a one-way road to greater enlightenment.
Noam Chomsky
What history teaches us is that we have no idea. There are all kinds of lessons. Just take Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the peak of Western civilization, in the sciences and the arts. And if you look at political science literature in the 1920s, the Weimar Republic was regarded as the peak of democratic achievement. Ten years later, it was the worst place in human history. And years after that, getting back to where it was.
Those are the lessons of history, namely, we don’t know.
Now, if you want to ask what’s happening now, I think we’ve been hit by an assault, the neoliberal assault, which has been devastating. Its basic design leads to high concentrations of wealth and power in unaccountable hands and massive growth of basically predatory institutions, most of them financial. That’s led to feelings across much of the world of anger, resentment, and distrust in institutions, which has some justification. And it’s fertile territory for demagogues; we’ve seen them arise.
But it’s also an opportunity to counter, and we’re seeing that too, everywhere from the streets of America to mutual aid groups in Brazil. Humans are capable of lots of things.
David Roberts
On the left these days, there’s a push for more public ownership in energy. But across the world, it seems like energy markets are already some of the least capitalist. What’s the right level of public involvement in the sector?
Robert Pollin
Globally, 90 percent of fossil fuel assets are publicly owned. So if we say the problem of climate change is private ownership of fossil fuel assets, and we need to transition to public ownership, well, we’re 90 percent of the way there! So that clearly is not a solution.
The cost of generating a unit of energy from solar power, wind power, and geothermal power is now fully competitive, at parity. Trump’s own Energy Department statistics show that, for a kilowatt of electricity, solar is 6.3 cents. Onshore wind is 6.0 cents, geothermal 4.7 cents. Now, coal with carbon capture is 13 cents. Nuclear is 9.3 cents. This is from the Trump administration.
The issue is, how do we mobilize investments adequately to transition into these already affordable energy-generating processes, and energy efficiency? As Noam mentioned, yes, we have a massive challenge, but it is not on the scale of World War II, at least not yet. My own estimate on a global model, we are looking at something like 2.5 to 3 percent of GDP per year, investing in renewable energy, transitioning to electricity, energy efficiency, and reforestation.
As Noam said, we don’t have time to totally overturn capitalism. We have to get to net zero emissions in no less than 30 years, and capitalism is still going to be around then. So we have to think about ways through which we can incentivize this transition that will also be egalitarian, in the sense that it will open up opportunities for small-scale enterprises. It’s going to generate jobs, and we have to make sure those are good jobs, union jobs. There will be jobs lost in the fossil fuel sector, so we have to create a just transition. But that’s all within the institutions of capitalism.
David Roberts
One longstanding political debate is over how to pay for things, or whether to pay for them. A lot of progressives these days are pushing the idea that the only limit on federal spending is inflation. Where do you come down on that question?
Robert Pollin
You’re talking about modern money theory — I don’t know if Noam has any interest in this question. [laughs]
My own financing model does make use of printing money, just not 100 percent, all the time. I had a piece in the American Prospect last December called “How to pay for zero emissions economy,” and I combined revenue sources. I have a carbon tax; 75 percent of the carbon tax is rebated back to the lower half of the income distribution, so it’s egalitarian. We take money out of the military budget. And then the rest, yeah, I say the Fed can print the money — just like right now they’re printing $4 trillion, minimum, at the drop of a hat. And I’m talking about maybe $50 billion. It’s a minuscule amount.
When this article was published, one of the main proponents of MMT, Randall Wray, somebody I’ve known for a long time, attacked my articles. “How dare you talk about paying, even $1!”
I said, I have 50 percent of the public money coming out of this pool called debt monetization, but there’s limits to that. If we’re going to pay for the green New Deal 100 percent by printing money, and on top of that Medicare-for-all, and on top of that everything else that gets us to full employment, we’re talking about a very dangerous policy tool. When do we know, exactly, we’re going to get to high inflation? And once we get there, all of a sudden, are we supposed to flip a switch and go from zero tax revenue to $4 trillion?
The proposal Noam and I have in the book relies significantly on the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank printing money — just not 100 percent.
David Roberts
Environmental justice has moved to the center of the climate discussion. What’s your degree of hope that, in the face of fear and anxiety and panic, we’re going to transition compassionately, in an egalitarian way?
Noam Chomsky
I don’t see any contradiction. I’m old enough to remember when the Black maids all disappeared from the middle-class households and got good jobs in factories for military production. That had an egalitarian effect. It wasn’t the purpose of it, but it had that consequence. Now we can make it the purpose of things like, say, developing efficient mass transportation, instead of jamming up highways with cars. That contributes to justice and makes people’s lives better, especially poor people.
The effect of pollution is radically oriented toward harming the poor and deprived. When the Trump administration removes pollution controls from factories, who does that hurt? It’s people living near the polluting factories because they can’t afford to live anywhere else. If we end that, we’re helping them. So there’s just a lot of [egalitarian] things that happen almost automatically as the result of the Green New Deal policy, and it can be modified to make it more so.
One of the major issues of climate justice is dealing with the global South — the people who didn’t really contribute to the problem but are now suffering more from it than anyone else. That’s been discussed since the Paris negotiations, but the Republican Party has refused to provide even minimal aid that would be necessary in poor countries.
In India, the temperatures are going extremely high. Well, you need air conditioners. There are cheap, highly polluting air conditioners and there are slightly more expensive, efficient, non-polluting ones. The amount of money that would be required from the rich countries to provide Indian people with decent air conditioners would be almost undetectable. A tiny sum would make enormous difference in people’s lives. There are things like that all over the place.
David Roberts
What do you think about the degrowth movement, the idea that the only way to stabilize the climate in the long term is to cut back on consumption?
Robert Pollin
I’ve been in debates with these people — I have a lot of respect for them and fundamentally share their values. I’m sure I myself could live much more modestly than I do.
But affluent people in rich countries living a high lifestyle do not represent the standard of living for 95 percent of the world’s population. So when we say we have to live more simply, I don’t think it’s fair to apply that to everybody on planet Earth. In addition to that, people are going to keep consuming energy, and we should be in favor of delivering more energy, affordably, so that people can get around and have electricity and have a better standard of living.
The fact of the matter is, degrowth is not a solution, just in terms of simple mathematics. Right now the globe generates about 33 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Let’s say we cut global GDP by 10 percent, which would be a bigger depression than the 1930s. What happens? We cut emissions by 10 percent, from 33 billion tons to 30 billion tons. It’s no solution at all.
David Roberts
It’s not difficult to imagine the right responding to the undeniable reality of climate change with increased nationalism and hostility to immigration. How confident are you that climate change won’t spark a global wave of “green fascism”?
Noam Chomsky
I think the number of people who would think like that is so small that they really don’t matter. If they want to build themselves a gated community up in the Rockies, it’s not going to change much. It’s not gonna hurt the situation. It’s the general population that has to be reached.
Take a look at polls. Turns out that among Republicans, about 20 percent think that climate change is an urgent problem. That’s where the problem is, not with a group of reactionaries who think, I’ll save myself somehow, I’ll take a spaceship and live on Mars. The problem is the great mass of the population who are being deluded by constant propaganda. That’s a problem that can be solved by education, by organization, by reasonable forms of activism. That’s the way big changes have taken place in the world.
Just take our own country. We’re a very different country from what we were, say, 50 or 60 years ago. You go back to the 1960s, the United States had anti-miscegenation laws that were so extreme the Nazis refused to adopt them. We had federal laws in place that required that federal housing be effectively denied to African Americans. Women were not legally considered equal peers until 1975. Things that were considered normal at that time would be considered so outlandish now, you can barely even talk about them.
It didn’t happen by a miracle. And it didn’t mean convincing a couple of white supremacist reactionaries. It meant changing the nature of consciousness in the country. The Black Lives Matter protests created the biggest social movement in history, quickly, because the background had already been established. The same kind of background made it imaginable for the New York Times to publish the 1619 series. ...
Awareness and consciousness can change, pretty fast, and that can happen on this too. It better happen, or we’re all in for it.


vox--2020-09-21--Trump and Biden want you to believe they’re more anti-war than they are

For the first time in years , the foreign policy fight in the 2020 US presidential election isn ’ t about which candidate would best win wars , but rather which would most quickly end them .
President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are both trying to position themselves as the leader who will finally extricate America from its “ forever wars ” and focus more on domestic issues .
In essence , in what has turned into a “ peace election , ” they ’ re both pushing to be the “ peace candidate ” despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to claim such a title .
“ I ’ m bringing our troops back from Afghanistan .
I ’ m bringing our troops back from Iraq .
We ’ re almost out of almost every place , ” Trump said during an ABC News town hall last Tuesday — even though the total number of US troops abroad has slightly increased since his predecessor Barack Obama left office .
Trump also referenced two normalization agreements between Arab Gulf nations and Israel the US helped broker , to convince voters his foreign policy brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , during a CNN town hall , Biden answered an Afghanistan War veteran who asked if the Democrat would bring US troops home from that 19-year conflict .
“ Yes , I would , ” Biden replied , citing his opposition to troop increases during the Obama administration , though he said he ’ d keep a small counterterrorism force behind .
Then he went after Trump : “ This president is the one that has increased the number , not reduced the number ” of soldiers in Afghanistan .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiercely competing on this issue .
A survey by the Eurasia Group Foundation this month found supporters of both candidates prefer they maintain “ a focus on the domestic needs and the health of American democracy , while avoiding unnecessary intervention beyond the borders of the United States.
” After decades of war with little to show for it , Americans of all political stripes appear tired of the deadly , bloody , and costly misadventures — and the leaders of both parties have taken notice .
“ No one should be surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s where most of the voters are , ” said Matthew Duss , Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s foreign policy adviser , who is also consulting Biden ’ s campaign on foreign policy .
“ There ’ s a real base for these ideas : a trans-partisan , restraint-oriented movement making its presence felt.
” The problem , though , is that both Trump and Biden are deeply flawed messengers here .
Trump , for example , must contend with the military ’ s Friday announcement that it would send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend against Russian provocations , even though that same day the president told reporters “ we ’ re out of Syria.
” And Biden must still address why he would never again back a faulty war , like the one in Iraq , and why he doesn ’ t want to make drastic cuts to the defense budget .
Both candidates , then , aren ’ t exactly who they say they are .
“ This may be a peace election without a peace candidate , ” said Stephen Wertheim , author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of US Global Supremacy .
Presidential candidates often promise peace and then reverse course A peace election like 2020 is extremely rare , in part because foreign policy rarely features so prominently in the battle for voters .
That ’ s also the case this time around , but the difference is the grand consensus on what to do about America ’ s wars : End them .
Experts told me there hasn ’ t been an election like this one in a long time .
There was the election of 1940 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential entrance into the European war , or 1968 , when both candidates claimed they knew how to achieve peace in Vietnam .
In both instances , the winning candidate had to appeal to voters worried about the nation embroiling itself in war , even if they ultimately didn ’ t live up to that promise .
In 1940 , Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought a third term against Republican Wendell Willkie .
The nation debated whether it should send troops to fight in what would later be known as World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea .
Willkie presented himself as more anti-war than he was , putting FDR in a tight spot .
So on October 30 , 1940 — a week before Election Day — the incumbent reiterated the bold vow he and others knew he couldn ’ t keep but that he kept promising anyway : “ I have said this before , but I shall say it again , and again , and again : Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars , ” FDR boomed , receiving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7 , 1941 , the US entered the war in Europe at President Roosevelt ’ s direction .
Fighting that war was the right call , in the end , but experts said it still hurt FDR ’ s credibility with some Americans who ’ d believed what he promised them .
Nearly 30 years later , in 1968 , Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran on an unabashedly hawkish anti-communist platform .
But public opposition to the Vietnam War was growing in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ shocking attacks in January 1968 , known as the Tet Offensive , made it painfully clear that President Lyndon Johnson ’ s claims that the war was going well and that US troops might soon be able to withdraw were false .
By the spring of 1968 , Nixon was running against Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey , after Johnson had stunned the nation by announcing he would not run for reelection .
Humphrey was Johnson ’ s vice president , and was thus intimately involved in — and , in the eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Johnson administration ’ s escalation of the war in Vietnam .
So in part to help boost Humphrey ’ s electoral chances , then , the Johnson administration initiated peace negotiations aimed at finally ending the Vietnam War .
Nixon now suddenly needed to somehow make himself look less like the anti-communist hawk he was known to be and more of a peacemaker .
To do this , he pursued a two-pronged strategy : First , he met privately with journalists and told them in background and off-the-record briefings that , contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had a plan to end the war .
Second , he set about trying to secretly sabotage the Johnson administration peace talks .
He wasn ’ t actually planning to end the war if he won , but that didn ’ t matter .
The rumor that Nixon had a “ secret plan ” to do so made its way to the public , just as he ’ d known it would .
After Nixon prolonged America ’ s involvement in Vietnam from the Oval Office , some voters felt duped because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was the peace candidate — a sense of betrayal that contributed to the scale and staying power of years-long anti-war protests .
There ’ s been a recent change to that trajectory .
After the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001 , presidential candidates had to detail how they would command the military to defeat terrorists and all other enemies abroad .
While the elections featured war-weary skeptics of those endeavors , candidates still had to prove a desire to keep fighting .
Barack Obama rose to prominence partly due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what many forget is that , at the same time , he argued for sending more troops to Afghanistan .
“ For at least a year now , I have called for two additional brigades , perhaps three ” in Afghanistan , then-Sen. Obama said during the 2008 presidential election .
“ I think one of the biggest mistakes we ’ ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here , focus our attention here .
We got distracted by Iraq.
” Today , though , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less war , not more of it .
That ’ s why Trump and Biden are working overtime to make their cases stick , though they clearly have their work cut out for them .
Why Trump and Biden will struggle to be the peace candidate If you take a quick look at Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s records , it becomes clear neither is — or may ever be — the peace candidate .
Under Trump ’ s watch , the US has dropped bombs at a record pace in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran ’ s elite forces ; supported the Saudi-led war in Yemen despite bipartisan congressional opposition ; escalated US attacks on terrorist targets in Somalia without seriously investigating civilian casualties ; and threatened military action in Venezuela and North Korea .
Meanwhile , Biden voted to invade Iraq and authorized airstrikes on Yugoslavia while in the Senate , and backed Obama ’ s failed interventions in Syria and Libya , though the former vice president later said he didn ’ t support the North African operation .
He also told Stars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t foresee making any large cuts to the defense budget , despite its enormity .
Such previous actions and positions explain why Trump and Biden are having to work hard to look more dovish now .
“ Both candidates are particularly weak on this issue , ” said Andrew Johnstone , co-editor of US Presidential Elections and Foreign Policy : Candidates , Campaigns , and Global Politics from FDR to Bill Clinton .
During Tuesday night ’ s ABC News town hall , for example , Trump played up the recent normalization-of-relations agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Israel .
“ You ’ ll have peace in the Middle East , and this is without war and without losing — and I ’ m talking about on both sides — but without losing our great , young soldiers , ” Trump said .
“ Going there ” — the region , he meant — “ was the worst decision in the history of our country .
We ’ ve spent $ 8 trillion and we ’ ve lost thousands of lives but really millions of lives because I view both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two nominations by right-leaning Scandinavian politicians for the Nobel Peace Prize — one for the Middle East deals and another for a new US-brokered pact between Serbia and Kosovo — though it ’ s unclear if he ’ ll win the award .
What ’ s more , he ’ s promising to sign a new Iran nuclear deal in the first month of his second term instead of boasting that he ’ ll bomb the country .
Biden is also using any opportunity he gets to note his opposition to fighting new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at stake .
“ It ’ s past time to end the forever wars , which have cost us untold blood and treasure , ” he said during a major foreign policy address in July 2019 .
“ We should bring the vast majority of our troops home — from the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East — and narrowly focus our mission on al-Qaeda and ISIS .
And we should end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen , ” he continued .
“ Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that require our attention , and it prevents us from rebuilding the other instruments of American power.
” Biden later told the New York Times he ’ d “ bring American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term .
Any residual US military presence in Afghanistan would be focused only on counterterrorism operations.
” Both candidates have the space to say such things , not only because the public is disenchanted with years-long conflicts but also because there just isn ’ t a new , clear war Americans want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World War II or al-Qaeda in 9/11 , there ’ s no enemy the nation can get behind defeating .
Of course , Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s stances could shift over the next two months before the election , or especially during their presidencies .
For instance , Johnstone , at the University of Leicester in the UK , warns that “ if there was an actual attack on America or troops overseas , that might change things quite quickly.
” And Emma Ashford , a US foreign policy expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that when it comes to China , “ we ’ re going to see both sides try to one-up the other on hawkishness.
” Trump has blamed China for the coronavirus pandemic and launched a trade war with the country , while Biden ’ s team has spoken openly about denying Beijing further access to the South China Sea and about how his opponent “ has sold all of us out to China in every way ” — signaling an unwillingness to give Beijing an inch in relations with Washington .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , ” Ashford notes , “ but [ they ’ re ] certainly a more hawkish approach.
” The two questions that arise from all this , then , are 1 ) how much Americans value Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s “ forever war ” promises over their track records , and similarly 2 ) will voters even view the political fight as a peace election ?
If not , the candidates ’ rhetoric may not be that important in the end .
Still , it ’ s noteworthy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Democrat repeatedly say they will do whatever possible to end the wars America is already in and not initiate a new one .
It ’ s certainly a change , and for many like Wertheim , now at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington , a welcome one .
“ Trump and Biden seem to recognize the unpopularity of continued and new wars and are trying to appeal to public sentiment — rightly so , ” he said .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

For the first time in years, the foreign policy fight in the 2020 US presidential election isn’t about which candidate would best win wars, but rather which would most quickly end them.
President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are both trying to position themselves as the leader who will finally extricate America from its “forever wars” and focus more on domestic issues. In essence, in what has turned into a “peace election,” they’re both pushing to be the “peace candidate” despite having track records that make it hard to claim such a title.
“I’m bringing our troops back from Afghanistan. I’m bringing our troops back from Iraq. We’re almost out of almost every place,” Trump said during an ABC News town hall last Tuesday — even though the total number of US troops abroad has slightly increased since his predecessor Barack Obama left office. Trump also referenced two normalization agreements between Arab Gulf nations and Israel the US helped broker, to convince voters his foreign policy brought about harmony without bloodshed.
Two days later, during a CNN town hall, Biden answered an Afghanistan War veteran who asked if the Democrat would bring US troops home from that 19-year conflict. “Yes, I would,” Biden replied, citing his opposition to troop increases during the Obama administration, though he said he’d keep a small counterterrorism force behind. Then he went after Trump: “This president is the one that has increased the number, not reduced the number” of soldiers in Afghanistan.
It’s clear why Trump and Biden are fiercely competing on this issue. A survey by the Eurasia Group Foundation this month found supporters of both candidates prefer they maintain “a focus on the domestic needs and the health of American democracy, while avoiding unnecessary intervention beyond the borders of the United States.”
After decades of war with little to show for it, Americans of all political stripes appear tired of the deadly, bloody, and costly misadventures — and the leaders of both parties have taken notice.
“No one should be surprised that candidates are fighting over this ground. It’s where most of the voters are,” said Matthew Duss, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser, who is also consulting Biden’s campaign on foreign policy. “There’s a real base for these ideas: a trans-partisan, restraint-oriented movement making its presence felt.”
The problem, though, is that both Trump and Biden are deeply flawed messengers here.
Trump, for example, must contend with the military’s Friday announcement that it would send about 100 more troops into Syria to defend against Russian provocations, even though that same day the president told reporters “we’re out of Syria.”
And Biden must still address why he would never again back a faulty war, like the one in Iraq, and why he doesn’t want to make drastic cuts to the defense budget.
Both candidates, then, aren’t exactly who they say they are. “This may be a peace election without a peace candidate,” said Stephen Wertheim, author of Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.
Presidential candidates often promise peace and then reverse course
A peace election like 2020 is extremely rare, in part because foreign policy rarely features so prominently in the battle for voters. That’s also the case this time around, but the difference is the grand consensus on what to do about America’s wars: End them.
Experts told me there hasn’t been an election like this one in a long time. There was the election of 1940, when debate raged over America’s potential entrance into the European war, or 1968, when both candidates claimed they knew how to achieve peace in Vietnam. In both instances, the winning candidate had to appeal to voters worried about the nation embroiling itself in war, even if they ultimately didn’t live up to that promise.
In 1940, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought a third term against Republican Wendell Willkie. The nation debated whether it should send troops to fight in what would later be known as World War II, with most Americans opposed to the idea. Willkie presented himself as more anti-war than he was, putting FDR in a tight spot.
So on October 30, 1940 — a week before Election Day — the incumbent reiterated the bold vow he and others knew he couldn’t keep but that he kept promising anyway: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again, and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” FDR boomed, receiving a large ovation from the Boston crowd.
After the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the US entered the war in Europe at President Roosevelt’s direction. Fighting that war was the right call, in the end, but experts said it still hurt FDR’s credibility with some Americans who’d believed what he promised them.
Nearly 30 years later, in 1968, Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran on an unabashedly hawkish anti-communist platform. But public opposition to the Vietnam War was growing in the US, particularly after the North Vietnamese forces’ shocking attacks in January 1968, known as the Tet Offensive, made it painfully clear that President Lyndon Johnson’s claims that the war was going well and that US troops might soon be able to withdraw were false.
By the spring of 1968, Nixon was running against Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey, after Johnson had stunned the nation by announcing he would not run for reelection.
Humphrey was Johnson’s vice president, and was thus intimately involved in — and, in the eyes of some voters, tainted by — the Johnson administration’s escalation of the war in Vietnam. So in part to help boost Humphrey’s electoral chances, then, the Johnson administration initiated peace negotiations aimed at finally ending the Vietnam War.
Nixon now suddenly needed to somehow make himself look less like the anti-communist hawk he was known to be and more of a peacemaker. To do this, he pursued a two-pronged strategy: First, he met privately with journalists and told them in background and off-the-record briefings that, contrary to his more publicly hawkish statements, he had a plan to end the war. Second, he set about trying to secretly sabotage the Johnson administration peace talks.
He wasn’t actually planning to end the war if he won, but that didn’t matter. The rumor that Nixon had a “secret plan” to do so made its way to the public, just as he’d known it would.
After Nixon prolonged America’s involvement in Vietnam from the Oval Office, some voters felt duped because they’d bought the idea that he was the peace candidate — a sense of betrayal that contributed to the scale and staying power of years-long anti-war protests.
There’s been a recent change to that trajectory. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, presidential candidates had to detail how they would command the military to defeat terrorists and all other enemies abroad. While the elections featured war-weary skeptics of those endeavors, candidates still had to prove a desire to keep fighting.
Barack Obama rose to prominence partly due to his Iraq War opposition, yes. But what many forget is that, at the same time, he argued for sending more troops to Afghanistan. “For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three” in Afghanistan, then-Sen. Obama said during the 2008 presidential election. “I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.”
Today, though, it seems the debate has shifted back to promising less war, not more of it. That’s why Trump and Biden are working overtime to make their cases stick, though they clearly have their work cut out for them.
Why Trump and Biden will struggle to be the peace candidate
If you take a quick look at Trump’s and Biden’s records, it becomes clear neither is — or may ever be — the peace candidate.
Under Trump’s watch, the US has dropped bombs at a record pace in Afghanistan; killed the leaders of ISIS and Iran’s elite forces; supported the Saudi-led war in Yemen despite bipartisan congressional opposition; escalated US attacks on terrorist targets in Somalia without seriously investigating civilian casualties; and threatened military action in Venezuela and North Korea.
Meanwhile, Biden voted to invade Iraq and authorized airstrikes on Yugoslavia while in the Senate, and backed Obama’s failed interventions in Syria and Libya, though the former vice president later said he didn’t support the North African operation. He also told Stars and Stripes last week that he doesn’t foresee making any large cuts to the defense budget, despite its enormity.
Such previous actions and positions explain why Trump and Biden are having to work hard to look more dovish now. “Both candidates are particularly weak on this issue,” said Andrew Johnstone, co-editor of US Presidential Elections and Foreign Policy: Candidates, Campaigns, and Global Politics from FDR to Bill Clinton.
During Tuesday night’s ABC News town hall, for example, Trump played up the recent normalization-of-relations agreements between the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain with Israel.
“You’ll have peace in the Middle East, and this is without war and without losing — and I’m talking about on both sides — but without losing our great, young soldiers,” Trump said. “Going there” — the region, he meant — “was the worst decision in the history of our country. We’ve spent $8 trillion and we’ve lost thousands of lives but really millions of lives because I view both sides.”
Trump is also touting his two nominations by right-leaning Scandinavian politicians for the Nobel Peace Prize — one for the Middle East deals and another for a new US-brokered pact between Serbia and Kosovo — though it’s unclear if he’ll win the award. What’s more, he’s promising to sign a new Iran nuclear deal in the first month of his second term instead of boasting that he’ll bomb the country.
Trump nominated for Nobel Peace Prize following Israel-UAE accord https://t.co/hYElcJX9j6 via @nypost — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 9, 2020
Biden is also using any opportunity he gets to note his opposition to fighting new and old wars unless core US interests are at stake. “It’s past time to end the forever wars, which have cost us untold blood and treasure,” he said during a major foreign policy address in July 2019.
“We should bring the vast majority of our troops home — from the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East — and narrowly focus our mission on al-Qaeda and ISIS. And we should end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen,” he continued. “Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other instruments of American power.”
Biden later told the New York Times he’d “bring American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term. Any residual US military presence in Afghanistan would be focused only on counterterrorism operations.”
Both candidates have the space to say such things, not only because the public is disenchanted with years-long conflicts but also because there just isn’t a new, clear war Americans want to fight. Unlike with the Nazis in World War II or al-Qaeda in 9/11, there’s no enemy the nation can get behind defeating.
Of course, Trump’s and Biden’s stances could shift over the next two months before the election, or especially during their presidencies. For instance, Johnstone, at the University of Leicester in the UK, warns that “if there was an actual attack on America or troops overseas, that might change things quite quickly.”
And Emma Ashford, a US foreign policy expert at the CATO Institute think tank, said that when it comes to China, “we’re going to see both sides try to one-up the other on hawkishness.”
Trump has blamed China for the coronavirus pandemic and launched a trade war with the country, while Biden’s team has spoken openly about denying Beijing further access to the South China Sea and about how his opponent “has sold all of us out to China in every way” — signaling an unwillingness to give Beijing an inch in relations with Washington. Neither stance “is quite the same as war,” Ashford notes, “but [they’re] certainly a more hawkish approach.”
The two questions that arise from all this, then, are 1) how much Americans value Trump’s and Biden’s “forever war” promises over their track records, and similarly 2) will voters even view the political fight as a peace election? If not, the candidates’ rhetoric may not be that important in the end.
Still, it’s noteworthy that, time after time, the Republican and the Democrat repeatedly say they will do whatever possible to end the wars America is already in and not initiate a new one. It’s certainly a change, and for many like Wertheim, now at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, a welcome one.
“Trump and Biden seem to recognize the unpopularity of continued and new wars and are trying to appeal to public sentiment — rightly so,” he said.