Donald Trump’s five revealing words – CNN

He said it in an interview with Jonathan Swan, of Axios, who asked how Trump could argue that the Covid-19 pandemic was "under control" since "1,000 Americans are dying a day." Trump responded, "They are dying, that's true. And you have it is what it is. But that doesn't mean we aren't doing everything we can. It's under control as much as you can control it. This is a horrible plague that beset us."

But not Trump. In a long career -- in real estate, reality TV and the White House -- Trump has reached often for exaggeration and falsehoods to convince people it is what it isn't.

At another point in the Axios interview, more in character, he praised his administration for doing a "great job" on Covid.

The mystery of Dr. Birx

At key moments, Dr. Deborah Birx has been the face of the White House's effort to fight the coronavirus. Widely respected for her years of work on HIV/AIDS, Birx has lately been the target of criticism from some medical experts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She even drew fire from President Trump, after she acknowledged the "extraordinarily widespread" nature of the pandemic in the US. A fellow expert on infectious disease, Dr. Kent Sepkowitz, wrote, "All of her work shows Birx to be a sophisticated physician-scientist with genuine interest in the health of vulnerable and underserved populations."

But he argued that as response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Birx has made "a real hash out of the entire effort, with a series of poor decisions -- changing hospital data reporting protocols for coronavirus patients to cut out the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and report directly to Health and Human Services, painting a rosy picture of the problem and of the President's engagement and still developing no national plan for testing, tracking, opening schools and businesses."

What's killing us

One of the biggest Covid-related questions facing Americans right now is whether to send children back to school. Biologist Erin Bromage said his are going back but acknowledged that the decision is made easier by the fact they attend private school in an area where community transmission of the disease is low.

Veep search

There's one thing Joe Biden doesn't lack in his search for a running mate: advice.

For more on the 2020 campaign:

Devastation in Beirut

As white smoke billowed out of a warehouse Tuesday at the port of Beirut, an enormous explosion, captured on video as a gigantic red flash, decimated the area, killing at least 158 people, wounding more than 5,000 and forcing half of the city's population out of their homes. The blast was attributed to a huge cache of ammonium nitrate stored at the port.

"Perhaps the shared anger over this event can bring the Lebanese together to push back against the incompetent and the greedy, the functionaries, politicians, and outside players, who have hijacked their country and created conditions for the Lebanese people's never-ending tragedy; admittedly a monumental task."

Where is Congress?

Democrats and Republicans remained far apart last week on the outline of a new pandemic relief bill. The jobless rate in July, although modestly lower than in June, was 10.2% -- a number slightly higher than the peak of the Great Recession. But there was no agreement in Congress on extending any portion of the $600 a week in extra aid for the unemployed. On Saturday, Trump signed executive actions that could provide additional aid and defer payroll taxes for some workers, but they face serious hurdles.

Among the hardest hit industries is restaurants, John Avlon noted: "Independent restaurant owners face an economic apocalypse." The industry employs "11 million Americans, with an economic impact that is felt up and down the supply chain, from farmers to fishermen," he wrote. Often barely eking out a profit pre-pandemic, restaurants faced closure at the beginning of the crisis, and now, in many cases, are trying to survive on takeout or outdoor dining. Restaurants are backing legislation to create a $120 billion federal grant program.

100 years later ...

August marks the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the vote and will be celebrated on Women's Equality Day, August 26.

Today it's viewed widely as the long-delayed but almost inevitable political empowerment of more than half the population. So, it's surprising to read, as Nicole Hemmer recounted, that more than a few of the activists opposing suffrage were women.

"The women who opposed women's right to vote have often been left out of the story of suffrage," Hemmer wrote. "Talk of women's interests, like the interest of other marginalized groups, often trades in flat stereotypes, treating all members of the group as though they think, and vote, the same. But as the anti-suffragist women show, women have been shrewd political actors, understanding -- and protecting -- their sources of power in unexpected ways."

Hemmer sees echoes of the anti-suffrage women in the activists, led by Phyllis Schlafly, who fought off the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, a story told in the recent FX series, "Mrs. America."

Don't miss:

AND...

Michelle Obama and Melinda Gates

In a piece for CNN Opinion, Michelle Obama and Melinda Gates expressed concern about students like Fortunate Ayomirwoth, who lives in a suburb of Kampala, Uganda. Her school has been closed since the pandemic erupted, they wrote. While Fortunate does chores and cares for four younger siblings, she hopes "there will be enough food to eat. Since her mother lost her job, money has been tight -- and for Fortunate, her window of opportunity feels like it, too, is getting tighter."

"We know from past crises, like the 2014 Ebola outbreak, that adolescent girls in low and middle-income countries are particularly at risk of being overlooked and left behind," noted Obama and Gates. "During a crisis like this one, adolescent girls face a heightened threat of physical and sexual violence, early and forced marriage, and unintended pregnancy on top of sustained economic hardship."

Read more here:

Donald Trump's five revealing words - CNN

Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, but a comeback is on the cards – The Guardian

A month ago it looked like curtains for Donald Trump. The number of Covid-19 cases was surging across the US. Consumers were taking the decision to self-isolate and there were fears of a new wave of job losses as people stayed at home rather than going out to eat or shop.

Today the outlook for Trump, while not exactly rosy, is better than it was and good enough to prompt debate about whether the president could pull off a surprise to match that of Harry Truman in 1948 an against the odds victory against which all comebacks are gauged.

Trump is no Truman and has the added disadvantage of seeking re-election during a global pandemic that is proving a lot more stubborn than he blithely assumed six months ago. The damage wrought to the economy on which Trump was depending since then means it is hard to see why anybody who didnt vote for him in 2016 would do so in 2020. Joe Biden leads in all the key swing states.

That said, the polls have started to tighten a bit and are likely to close still further over the coming weeks, because Trump has three things going for him.

The first is that the number of new Covid-19 cases appears to have peaked, with definite signs of progress in some of the bigger states such as Florida, Texas and California. What happens to the virus over the coming months will have a material impact on the state of the economy.

The second somewhat ironically is that activity in China has bounced back more rapidly than expected, and this is keeping global stock markets buoyant. Here, Trump is getting the best of both worlds: he piggybacks on Chinese growth while at the same time getting tough with Beijing over trade and human rights something that plays well with voters.

Finally, he has the benefit of being the incumbent, which allows him to pull off stunts like the signing of executive orders to provide fresh support to the unemployed. Under the separation of powers, Congress holds the purse strings in the US so Trumps initiative is unlikely to amount to much, but thats not the point. This is all about who gets blamed for the impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the next phase of stimulus.

To win, Trump needs nothing to go wrong and everything to go right in the coming months: no surges in Covid-19, no setbacks to the economy, no share price crashes on Wall Street. It is a tall order but Biden should take nothing for granted.

The weather is hot. People are desperate to have a good time after being cooped up for months at home. Best of all, the government is making eating out cheaper by picking up part of the bill. Britons love a bargain and so it is no surprise that Rishi Sunaks eat out to help out is proving a hit.

What has come as a shock, perhaps even to the chancellor, is just how popular the scheme has been. The fact that more than 70,000 outlets from fast food joints to Michelin starred restaurants have signed up gives the initiative critical mass. Moreover, the subsidy of up to 10 per person is big enough to tempt people even against a backdrop of a modest rise in the number of Covid-19 cases.

The Treasury will be especially pleased that the data from the retail analysts Springboard showed that there was a knock-on benefit for retailers and that the demand for the scheme was stronger in smaller market towns than in bigger regional cities. With the furlough scheme being phased out, the timing could hardly have been better. It has distracted attention from the steady stream of redundancy announcements.

Like the good weather, eat out to help out will be short-lived and the hospitality sector awaits the autumn with trepidation. But if only a fraction of the people who have been tempted to head out for a bowl of pasta or a curry get a renewed appetite for going out again Sunak will consider it 500m well spent.

Continue reading here:

Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, but a comeback is on the cards - The Guardian

Yes, of course Donald Trump wants his face added to Mount Rushmore – CNN

Moments later, he tweeted out a sort-of denial of a New York Times report that he had spoken with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem about the possibility of adding his own visage to those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

"This is Fake News by the failing @nytimes & bad ratings @CNN. Never suggested it although, based on all of the many things accomplished during the first 3 1/2 years, perhaps more than any other Presidency, sounds like a good idea to me."

So Trump says a) he has never raised the possibility with Noem of being added to Mount Rushmore but b) thinks it sounds like a great idea!

Let's take the first point, uh, first.

We know that Trump has, in fact, raised the topic with Noem and that he was serious about it.

"Every single president on Mt. Rushmore -- I'd ask whether or not you think I will someday be on Mt. Rushmore. But here's the problem: If i did it, joking, totally joking, the fake news media would say he believes he should be on Mt. Rushmore. So I won't say it."

Don't take my word for it. Take Noem's. Again!

"Introducing Mr. Trump against the floodlit backdrop of his carved predecessors, the governor played to the president's craving for adulation by noting that in just three days more than 125,000 people had signed up for only 7,500 seats; she likened him to Theodore Roosevelt, a leader who "braves the dangers of the arena"; and she mimicked the president's rhetoric by scorning protesters who she said were seeking to discredit the country's founders.

"In private, the efforts to charm Mr. Trump were more pointed, according to a person familiar with the episode: Ms. Noem greeted him with a four-foot replica of Mount Rushmore that included a fifth presidential likeness: his."

She had a Mount Rushmore replica made with Trump's face on it! Repeat: She had a Mount Rushmore replica made with Trump's face on it!

Is that the sort of thing you would do if you thought the President of the United States was kidding? Especially after you had a conversation with him about his "dream" being added to Mount Rushmore, a conversation you told the media was "totally serious?"

Of course not!

Then consider what we already know about Trump:

Now, ask yourself this: Is there ANY chance that Trump was anything but deadly serious when he told Noem that it was his "dream" to be on Mount Rushmore? And that, if there is ANY way it could be made to happen that he would jump at the chance?

Of course, there are other mountains...

In fact, Noem has already told Trump as much.

Here is the original post:

Yes, of course Donald Trump wants his face added to Mount Rushmore - CNN

Donald Trump is losing the culture wars – POLITICO

America has changed, said Frank Luntz, the veteran Republican consultant and pollster. Every person who cares about the NRA is already voting for Trump. Suburban swing voters care about the right to own a gun, but they don't care about the NRA.

A brawl between the NRA and New York state once would've been turnout gold for a Republican president. And some Republicans and Democrats alike on Thursday suggested that Republicans could use the episode to stoke turnout among Trump's base.

But the NRA is not the institution it was in American politics even four years ago, when it spent heavily to help Trump win election. Beset by financial problems and infighting, public support for the NRA has declined during the Trump era, falling below 50 percent last year for the first time since the 1990s, according to Gallup. At the same time, nearly two-thirds of Americans want stricter gun laws.

That's when voters are even thinking about gun control. Three months before Election Day, they mostly arent it's all about coronavirus and the economy, stupid. That's a problem for Republicans even the NRA has acknowledged.

Frank Miniter, editor in chief of the NRA publication America's First Freedom, raised the alarm for members in a column last week. Citing research by a firearms trade association, he lamented that only 17% of gun owners in the survey said gun-related issues were one of their three top policy areas going into this election (15% did say crime and 18% said civil rights)."

The culture wars of old, said Paul Maslin, a top Democratic pollster who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean, seem miles away from where this election is right now.

Gun control and other cultural issues, he said, are always a backdrop and a way for Trump to maintain his base. But again, his base is 42 percent. Wheres the other 5 to 6 percent he needs going to come from?

If Republicans have an opening in the developing feud over the NRA, it will likely have less to do with gun control than with a broader effort to paint Joe Biden as beholden to the progressive left. The former vice president, a moderate Democrat, remains ill-defined in many voters minds, pollsters of both parties say. Republicans are spending heavily to depict him as an extremist, and the filing of the NRA lawsuit in New York, a heavily Democratic state, helped Republicans to advance their cause.

The Democrat strategy has seemed to be and I think it was a smart strategy go with Biden, hes a centrist, hes safe, hes nonthreatening, said Greg McNeilly, a Republican strategist in Michigan and longtime adviser to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. While that alternative seemed inviting to a lot of Trump supporters, including older voters, McNeilly said he thinks they'll reconsider when the reality of a potential Biden presidency sets in.

And the lawsuit against the NRA is incredibly tangible, specific attack on a core Republican value This is a gift to the Trump campaign, and its an unforced error on the [Democratic] side. Its a real mistake.

Trump himself pressed the case Thursday when he called the New York action a very terrible thing that just happened.

Evoking his own defection from New York to Florida and drawing a more explicit connection to a state that is unexpectedly competitive, he told reporters, I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life, and Ive told them that for a long time.

Pro-gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety have spent millions of dollars on down-ballot races in recent years, winning victories in a number of swing congressional districts in 2018. And Democrats sense an opportunity to put the NRA down for good.

Whats interesting is that if the NRA truly has to dissolve, there is no far-right organization that is going to take its place, said Mathew Littman, a former Biden speechwriter who works on gun reform. The NRA is not where the American people are on the gun issue So without that, I think you could see rational gun reforms.

Within hours of the lawsuits announcement, some Democrats did raise concerns about the effect that it could have on turnout. One Democratic elected official in Pennsylvania likened it politically to a Republican attorney general suing to dissolve Planned Parenthood, saying, If this is the election of our lifetime, and I believe it is, why risk it?

But given Trump's inability to harness any other cultural issue so far in the campaign, it will likely take a Hail Mary for him to make it work. Trump has been running consistently behind Biden nationally and in most battleground states unaided by issues surrounding civil unrest and the flag. Trump's best chance, most Republicans and Democrats agree, is for the coronavirus or economy to turn around or for his law-and-order rhetoric to gain traction.

The election is about Trumps pandemic response and the answer to the Reagan question: Are you better off now than four years ago, said Doug Herman, a lead mail strategist for former President Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Even in Texas, a relatively gun-loving state, several Democrats said they doubted the NRA issue would resonate.

I just dont really think that many people are paying that much attention to anything other than the pandemic and the economy, said Colin Strother, a veteran Democratic strategist in Texas.

Chris Lippincott, an Austin-based consultant who ran a super PAC opposing Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2016 Senate campaign, said, Its not breaking news that New York Democrats dont like the NRA.

Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.

Read the original:

Donald Trump is losing the culture wars - POLITICO

President Trump signed an executive order and three memoranda over the weekend. Here’s what they do. – Poynter

Covering COVID-19 is a daily Poynter briefing of story ideas about the coronavirus and other timely topics for journalists, written by senior faculty Al Tompkins. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.

The public needs your focused attention right away to help clarify what, if any, help is on the way after President Donald Trump signed orders relating to the pandemic this weekend.

The president did not cut taxes, did not reinstate the federal unemployment program, did not issue new stimulus checks and did not forbid evictions or foreclosures. He signed one Executive Order and three memoranda.

(Screenshot, WhiteHouse.gov)

The presidents memorandum creates a new unemployment benefit, but states will have to come up with money to make it real. The presidents order creates a new program that would pay $400 a week in federal unemployment benefits but would require states to pay $100 per week to the individual at the same time.

The states could request money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is not an unfamiliar requirement for states to use FEMA funds. States generally have to match federal disaster funds 25%. The presidents order directs states to tap into the unspent Coronavirus Relief Fund, which is still largely unspent, but states said they have plans for that money. By some estimates, if the states do use the Coronavirus Relief Fund to pay their 25%, they might have enough money to pay five weeks of benefits.

This whole proposal is significantly more complicated than the relief package that expired. Even if it does not face legal challenges, which are expected, and even if states can come up with the matching money, it may take weeks or even months to get it rolling.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said Sunday that we are looking at it to determine if his state can find the money to supply the 25% match.

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNN Sunday that the administration will be talking with states Monday to find out how many can find a way to come up with the 25% match. He admitted that the states had not agreed to the match prior to President Trump signing the memorandum. Despite that, Kudlow said he thinks the first checks could be in a matter of weeks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that states dont have the matching money.

There is not yet a stimulus check on the way. It is the one stimulus action that touches the most people and, while there probably will be some agreement on sending a second round of checks to Americans, it is still in the air. But it is important that the public understand there is no immediate relief on the way.

A temporary delay in payroll tax liability means you might see more money in your paycheck but, at some point, you will have to pay it back. The president, in this case, issued a memorandum directing the secretary of the treasury to stop collecting some federal taxes on wages from Sept. 1 through the end of the year. It is not a tax cut, it is a deferral meaning whatever you do not pay now you will pay later.

The tax that President Trumps order suspended is what you see on your paystub listed as FICA (which stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

You pay 7.65% of your salary to FICA, which funds both Social Security and Medicare. Your employer matches your withholding, meaning the total withholding is 15.3%. (For Social Security, you pay 6.2% of your earnings up to $137,700 for 2020. If you hit that wage, any further income is not taxed for Social Security. For Medicare, you pay 1.45% of your earnings but there is no wage limit. That means 7.65% is not a universal rate because some people who earn a lot more than average pay a lower overall percentage.)

An earlier relief measure allowed employers to defer their FICA payments until next year.

As an example, a person making $50,000 a year earns $961 a week. 961 times 7.65% equals $73 a week. Kudlow said it would mean about $1,200 per worker by the end of the year, on average. Keep in mind that this deferral would affect people who are working, not those who are out of work. And keep in mind, this is a deferral, meaning it will have to be repaid sometime.

However, the presidents memorandum directs the treasury secretary to explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate the obligation to pay the taxes deferred pursuant to the implementation of this memorandum.

The deferral is different from imposing a tax. That difference is what the Trump administration believes allows the Treasury Department to defer the tax collection. Congress, and only Congress, can levy taxes.

There are lots of opponents of this idea, Democrat and Republican. The two main issues are that it only helps people who are getting a paycheck and that it hurts the Social Security and Medicare budgets, both of which already are under pressure.

The eviction moratorium executive order does not freeze evictions. It is filled with recommendations that the government do all it can to help people who need help. But it does not block evictions.

The order says, The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of CDC shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 from one State or possession into any other State or possession.

Shall consider is not a freeze on evictions.

The order also says, The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall identify any and all available Federal funds to provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners who, as a result of the financial hardships caused by COVID-19, are struggling to meet their monthly rental or mortgage obligations.

Telling a federal agency to find money to help sounds a lot like the government shall do its job and help all it can. But it is not a new program.

And finally, the order says, The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to promote the ability of renters and homeowners to avoid eviction or foreclosure resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19.

Once again, it is not new that the government might do what it can to help prevent foreclosures and evictions.

The president signed an order that defers federal student loan payments through Dec. 31 and does not tack on interest for those loans while they are deferred. Again, it allows debtors to put off paying student loans. It does not forgive loans, but it does not impose a penalty for waiting longer to pay them back. This is one measure that does not appear to have significant opposition or legal questions about whether it will stand.

The orders do not provide new help to small businesses. The Payroll Protection Program expired this weekend. Since April, it has infused a half-trillion dollars into the economy with loans that, for many businesses, became grants to keep them running.

This weekend, Senate Republicans suggested extending the PPP for businesses with fewer than 300 employees that have lost 35% or more of their revenue in the pandemic. The bill would also set aside billions for local lenders to loan to businesses with fewer than 10 employees that have lost more than a third of their business. But for now, these are all ideas, not law.

Journalists will do the public a great service if they read and understand these orders and recommendations. Brevity is your enemy when reporting about nuance and complexity. Be careful not to oversimplify what these orders do and dont do in headlines and social media posts.

Your audiences depend on your reporting to tell them whether they will be able to pay their bills and whether they will have a place to live if they cant. And part of your job is to keep the heat on elected officials to get back to work negotiating real relief measures.

One way to know what is on your viewer/listener/readers minds is to monitor tracking surveys about the most important problems in the U.S. today. Gallup has been tracking this question for years and this months list is informative.

(Gallup)

The biggest issue is, of course, the pandemic. But the issues of government leadership and race relations remain high in peoples minds.

Even more interesting, to me, is how people have become distracted from caring as much about climate change, immigration, student debt and health care reform, which in February were top-of-the-chart issues. This chart may be a guide for you to consider what needs more coverage to be sure that we do not lose track of critically important issues.

The Columbia Tribune tweeted: #Mizzou wont test students at the front end as they arrive by jabbing a swab into their noses; Instead, MU will test at the back end, by monitoring wastewater from residence halls for signs of the virus.

Despite my sophomoric mind, which laughed at testing at the back end, the idea behind the universitys sewage testing is to spot the virus before it starts showing up in clinics days later.

The key to this question is at the end, but there have not been any COVID-19 super-spreader incidents that started with U.S. airlines so far. SO FAR.

Contact tracers have found some limited one-to-one COVID-19 spreading linked to flights but nothing that looks like a super-spreader. In April, we saw several stories of COVID-19 cases and deaths involving airline and security workers. But whether those cases were linked to flying was less certain.

A flurry of research projects in the early days of the pandemic tried to figure out how COVID-19 might spread through a plane. Kaiser Health News pointed out that a grab bag of airline policies add to passenger confusion and distrust that air travel is safe. The U.S. Department of Transportation issued a 44-page set of recommendations for airlines but does not enforce those suggestions.

But the experts say they would consider a couple of factors before flying, like how long the flight is (since longer exposure is riskier than shorter exposure) and whether the airline is leaving middle seats open (since social distancing is a factor in spread as well).

Bloomberg Opinion included a piece that said:

Arnold Barnett, a professor of management science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been trying to quantify the odds of catching COVID-19 from flying. Hes factored in a bunch of variables, including the odds of being seated near someone in the infectious stage of the disease, and the odds that the protection of masks (now required on most flights) will fail. Hes accounted for the way air is constantly renewed in airplane cabins, which experts say makes it very unlikely youll contract the disease from people who arent in your immediate vicinity your row, or, to a lesser extent, the person across the aisle, the people ahead of you or the people behind you.

What Barnett came up with was that we have about a 1/4,300 chance of getting COVID-19 on a full 2-hour flight that is, about 1 in 4,300 passengers will pick up the virus, on average. The odds of getting the virus are about half that, 1/7,700, if airlines leave the middle seat empty. Hes posted his results as a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint.

Still, when The Boston Globe quizzed epidemiologists about whether, considering all that they know about COVID-19, they would fly, 13 of 15 of them said they would not.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, Most viruses and other germs do not spread easily on flights because of how air circulates and is filtered on airplanes. However, social distancing is difficult on crowded flights, and sitting within 6 feet of others, sometimes for hours, may increase your risk of getting COVID-19.

Almost all commercial planes have high-grade HEPA filters (high-efficiency particulate air) that can remove up to 99.999% of airborne particles.

A Quartz report pointed out:

While flying, the air coming out of the air vent is actually a mixture of filtered fresh and recirculated air, where the recirculated stuff increases the air humidity and your comfort. It may even be healthier than in most office buildings, schools and residences, according to one 2017 study examining air quality in 69 flights.

If you want an even more detailed tutorial on how an airline air exchange system works, go to Ask The Pilot blogger and pilot Patrick Smith, who also dispels that myth that pilots can tinker with the air system to save fuel. They cant.

I was confused when I saw that health insurance companies like UnitedHealth Group, Anthem, Cigna and others all had bigger profits this year than last year. But Axios said:

This was entirely expected. Insurance premiums were still rolling in, but people didnt go to their doctors or hospitals as often because of stay-at-home orders.

If you are not depressed enough, The Atlantic will send you over the edge with a look at how hard it will be to have much of any public gathering soon. The places where we are gathering now, outdoors, wont be available in a few months as winter moves in. It is worth a read just because it will help you mentally prepare for what is ahead.

Gallup polling also just released new data that shows about one in three Americans say they do not plan to take a COVID-19 vaccine once it is developed and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The implications of this are profound because if 66% of Americans get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if the vaccine is highly effective, there would not be enough herd immunity to control the virus.

Gallup found that people who describe themselves as Republican are far less likely to get the vaccine than those who identify as Democrats.

While Gallup has consistently seen that U.S. party preferences play a strong role in Americans views on COVID-19, the new poll extends that to willingness to be vaccinated. 81% of Democrats are willing to be vaccinated today if a free and FDA-approved vaccine were available. That compares with 59% of independents and just under half of Republicans, 47%.

Interestingly, Gallup said we have seen a big divide over vaccines before.

When Gallup in 1954 asked U.S. adults who had heard or read about the then-new polio vaccine, Would you like to take this new polio vaccine (to keep people from getting polio) yourself? just 60% said they would, while 31% said they would not. So far, willingness to adopt a new vaccine looks similar today. Leaders in favor of a vaccine may be well-served to study what caused the public to ultimately adopt earlier vaccines as they consider how best to influence Americans to take advantage of such an option now.

Well be back tomorrow with a new edition of Covering COVID-19. Sign up hereto get it delivered right to your inbox.

Al Tompkins is senior faculty at Poynter. He can be reached at atompkins@poynter.org or on Twitter, @atompkins.

See original here:

President Trump signed an executive order and three memoranda over the weekend. Here's what they do. - Poynter

The Many Varieties of Donald Trump – The New York Times

DEFENDER IN CHIEFDonald Trumps Fight for Presidential PowerBy John Yoo320 pp. All Points. $29.99.

Defender in Chief lays out Yoos conservative case for an extraordinarily strong president, virtually unchecked by Congress. Readers familiar with Yoo (he served in the George W. Bush administration and has written extensively about presidential power) wont be surprised by the arguments found in this book, except for the fact that here he depicts President Donald Trump as an ardent defender of his originalist vision of the Constitution. Yoo, who didnt support Trump for president in 2016, now concludes that Trump campaigns like a populist but governs like a constitutional conservative.

This dense treatise makes clear how many actions can be justified by proponents of unitary executive power a theory of constitutional law that claims presidents control the entire executive branch and have virtually unchecked powers in the realm of national security. With this analytical framework, Yoo can legitimize almost everything Trump has done. The presidents brazen use of foreign policy for his own self-interest with regard to Ukraine makes constitutional sense, as does the paper-thin firewall separating his global real estate company from his political authority. Somehow, Trump fits neatly into the original vision of founders who feared corrupt and centralized power.

Often, Yoos academic veneer falls away. At the same time that he lambastes Democratic opposition to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he breezes over Senator Mitch McConnells refusal to consider President Obamas Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Yoo is most convincing when he argues that Congress was complicit in expanding presidential power. It is true that partisan considerations have led congressional Republicans to support Trumps flexing his muscle while Democrats have often been afraid to take tougher stands against this runaway administration.

Yoo makes clear that when one accepts a theory of presidential power as grandiose as his, almost anything from the George W. Bush administrations use of enhanced interrogation to Trumps institution-breaking behavior becomes permissible.

WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT COMINGFrom Reagan to Trump A Front-Row Seat to a Political RevolutionBy Gerald F. Seib304 pp. Random House. $28.

In a well-written if familiar account, Seib, a veteran Wall Street Journal reporter, provides a history of the conservative movement from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Seeking to make sense of Trumpism, he begins by conveying the atmosphere of the Reagan era, tracing the multifaceted political coalition that Reagan stitched together in 1980 as well as the ideology that guided his years in the White House.

Seib argues that the Reagan coalition remained intact through the mid-1990s. Things started to shift when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich introduced America to his blistering style of partisanship: The face and tone of conservative leadership had shifted from the sunny, optimistic and gentle approach of Ronald Reagan to the much harsher, angrier and more pugilistic approach of Newt Gingrich. But the real trouble, according to Seib, began when Reagans coalition was supplanted by nationalist, populist forces that capitalized on middle-class insecurities. The fringe seized control, starting with the vice-presidential nomination of the Alaska governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and moving to the Tea Party victories in the 2010 midterm elections.

Seibs history echoes the outlook of the #NeverTrump movement. If the origins of conservatism were relatively pristine, then there can be a version of Republicanism that doesnt tolerate a president tweeting out videos of a supporter yelling white power! at protesters.

But Seib plays down what was there all along. The decision to stir a white backlash dates back at least to Richard Nixons 1968 law and order campaign. The role of reactionary populism, including nativism and anti-Semitism, was always relevant, even if past politicians used dog whistles instead of bullhorns. Gingrich popularized his smashmouth partisan playbook in the 1980s right in front of the television cameras for all to see. In other words, Donald Trump makes sense because of the history of the Republican Party rather than in spite of it.

IT WAS ALL A LIEHow the Republican Party Became Donald TrumpBy Stuart Stevens256 pp. Knopf. $26.95.

In It Was All a Lie, Stevens, a political consultant, admits there is nothing new under the Republican sun. In his bare-knuckles account, Stevens confesses to the reader that the entire apparatus of his Republican Party is built on a pack of lies. President Trump isnt a freak product of the system, he writes, but a logical conclusion of what the Republican Party became over the last 50 or so years.

This reckoning inspired Stevens to publish this blistering, tell-all history. Viciousness and hypocrisy are everywhere in his story. Stevenss troubling chapter about racism shows clearly how party operatives have capitalized on white resentment for decades. When Lee Atwater admitted in 1981 that Republicans were just using code words to keep talking about race, he was finally being honest. The Republicans whom Stevens worked with championed family values while living Hustler magazine lifestyles. Fiscal conservatism? Republicans never cared about balanced budgets unless a Democrat was in the White House. The one-time party of Lincoln, Stevens explains, is now beholden to a Fox News propaganda network and powerful interest groups. His power-hungry party, Stevens says, is willing to sacrifice the integrity of vital democratic institutions.

Although this book will be a hard read for any committed conservatives, they would do well to ponder it. We see how the modern Republican Party wasnt taken over by Donald Trump. Rather, the party created him. And regardless of what happens in November, it wont look very different unless there are fundamental changes to the coalition that brought conservatism into the halls of power in 1980.

Read the original post:

The Many Varieties of Donald Trump - The New York Times

Donald Trump and his running mate both came to town, 4 summers ago – WIZM NEWS

During the last presidential campaign, in August of 2016, Indiana Governor Mike Pence campaigned at UW-La Crosse as the new Republican vice presidential nominee. Pence led a mid-afternoon rally at the Cartwright Center, saying that Hillary Clinton would continue policies that have run the U-S into an economic ditch. He also claimed that the media were biased in favor of Clinton, suggesting it was as if the Packers played every football game on the road in front of hostile refs who favored their opponents.

Pence was followed to La Crosse the next week by Trump himself. The candidate arrived at the Charmant Hotel on the night of August 15th, and stayed there until about noon the next day, when he traveled to the Cargill Room at LHI to speak at a local fund-raiser. Guests attending the luncheon were asked to donate at least $2700 to the campaign. It was Trumps second visit to La Crosse during the year, following an April speech at the La Crosse Center. By August, Trump was 15 points behind Clinton in Wisconsinbut in November, he won the state by 23,000 votes, although Clinton took La Crosse County.

The Trump and Pence visits to La Crosse occurred during the Summer Olympics, being staged in Rio. And for most of the summer, the #1 song on the radio was One Dance by Drake,four years ago, 2016yesterday in La Crosse.

Go here to see the original:

Donald Trump and his running mate both came to town, 4 summers ago - WIZM NEWS

Republicans have to let Donald Trump lose if they want victory | TheHill – The Hill

Watching Republicans walk off a proverbial cliff is stunning and stupefying at the same time. It is stunning because of their inability to appreciate the future ramifications of their current victories. It is also stupefying because of the national shifts that could transform the party for the worse. There is no real plan from Republicans in Congress, other than to distract from the scandals and dismiss the cries from inside their political house.

The lore of Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump suggests some states may 'pay nothing' as part of unemployment plan Trump denies White House asked about adding him to Mount Rushmore Trump, US face pivotal UN vote on Iran MORE might be that of a survivor who broke every rule imaginable while managing to avoid removal. But to the majority of voters, he is an uninformed, unprepared, and unsteady leader in the midst of our historic crisis. Republicans in Congress are slowly starting to say publicly what many have said privately to me for years. He is a sinking ship that is going to bring the whole crew down if we do nothing about it.

Yet Republicans in Congress continue to do nothing about this. Symbolic gestures such as wearing masks despite erratic action from the president or pushing back on his calls to delay an election that few people think he can win come by every so often. However, the courage and criticism that many had expected in the wake of terrible numbers have failed to surface in any substantial fashion within the party in the recent months.

Instead, after record unemployment, atrocious death totals, and the kind of behavior reserved for cartoon characters, Republicans have stunningly and stupefyingly decided to stick with the president in their decision that voters will not forgive and forget. Make no mistake, voters are angry. More than 160,000 families will be without a brother, a sister, a mother, a father, or a friend on this Labor Day. Because of the failed White House response to the coronavirus, an estimated 200,000 families will set one less dinner out at Thanksgiving. This was an absolutely avoidable tragedy.

While the campaign of the president would like Republicans to believe it, this election is not like 2016. As some forecasters have noted, Joe Biden is polling better than Hillary Clinton at her peak. There is no magic rabbit for Trump to pull out of his oversize suit and change his political fortunes. The president and the party which he calls home are headed toward a decisive defeat. Republicans are so desperate they have even enlisted the celebrity in the midst of a mental breakdown to drain voters from Biden.

Rather than admit that they overplayed their hand and allowed the cultish character of Trump to take hold of the party, Republicans use diversionary tactics that are simply destined to further turn away suburban women and minorities, the same people who handed Democrats control of the House two years ago. The 2018 midterm election was not some outlier.

It was a warning to the party of Abraham Lincoln. The country is not better off with the outsider candidate from New York as our leader. It has instead become much worse off. Racial divisions are increasing, the economy has been cratering, and faith in institutions is at historic lows. If the president wants America to resemble Russia, his mission was a success. For the life of me, I do not understand why Republicans have allowed this to happen, especially those in the Senate who face election every six years.

If Republicans want to win, they must first lose. It is the only way to shake the stench of the last four years. Manifesting unyielding loyalty to the man whose loyalty is simply to himself seems to me nothing short of a political offense. Much like the response to the coronavirus, things did not have to be this bad for the party. Voters might forgive Republicans for this craven power grab. But what they will not forgive and not forget is their doubling down on this terrible behavior to back the president at all costs.

Walking themselves off a cliff is one thing. Walking the country off a cliff is another. Pain in this election for gain in the future is the only strategy that allows Republicans to come out of this era with their party standing. It will not be pretty, however, it is absolutely necessary to remain alive.

Michael Starr Hopkins is the founder of Northern Starr Strategies and the host of The Starr Report podcast. Follow his updates @TheOnlyHonest.

See more here:

Republicans have to let Donald Trump lose if they want victory | TheHill - The Hill

Dow rally gains steam, now up 300 points as Boeing and Nike lead – CNBC

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied on Monday as gains in economically sensitive stocks offset losses from mega-cap tech stocks like Microsoft.

The 30-stock Dow advanced 300 points, or more than 1%. Boeing and Nike were among the best-performing stocks in the Dow, rising more than 4% each. Caterpillar, considered to be a bellwether for the global economy, climbed more than 4% as well.JPMorgan Chase also contributed to the Dow's gains, rising 1.2%.

Meanwhile, the S&P 500 climbed 0.2% as the energy and industrials sectors rose more than 2% each. Energy is the worst-performing sector in the S&P 500 for 2020, having lost more than 37% of its value. Industrials are down more than 5%.

"This actually suggests investors are turning more sanguine on the broader macro landscape, encouraged by the solid CQ2 earnings season and the bullish July economic data last week," said Adam Crisafulli of Vital Knowledge.

Monday's gain put the S&P 500 about 1.1% below its Feb. 19 record high.

However, the Nasdaq Composite struggled and dropped 0.4% as traders trimmed positions in Big Tech stocks. Facebook and Netflix shares slid at least 1.7% each along with Microsoft. Amazon dipped 0.8% and Alphabet fell 0.4%.

Monday's moves came after President Donald Trump signed several executive orders over the weekend aimed at extending coronavirus relief.

Those orders continue the distribution of expanded unemployment benefits, defer student loan payments through 2020and provide a payroll tax holiday. However, the unemployment benefit will be continued at a reduced rate of $400 per week. Originally, the benefit provided workers impacted by the pandemic with $600 per week.

"While this move by Trump may lead to legal challenges, politically it puts pressure on Congress to reach a deal," wrote Bill Stone,chief investment officer at Stone Investment Partners.

Trump's moves come after congressional leaders failed to make progress on a new coronavirus stimulus package last week. Several benefits from a package signed earlier in the year lapsed at the end of July, raising uncertainty about the U.S. economy moving forward.

Still, Trump's orders face a legal challenge as continuing the programs would require federal funding, which Congress controls.Democrats have insisted they will not support a bill that does not extend the $600 per week benefit.

On Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" he is open to more stimulus talks, noting: "We're prepared to put more money on the table."

"The fiscal cliff still represents downside risk for August," said Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist at Jefferies. Markowska added, however, any weakness from this will be "short-lived."

"By September, another round of fiscal support will create positive momentum. The reopening of schools, even if only in some states, will reinforce the positive momentum by (1) boosting back-to-school shopping and (2) allowing more parents to return to work in September," she said in a note to clients. "Bottom line, all the stars are lining up for another inflection point in activity and a second leg up in the reopening."

Wall Street was coming off a strong weekly performance. The Dow rose 3.8% last week for its biggest weekly gain since June. The S&P 500 climbed 2.5% along with the Nasdaq Composite. Last week's gains come during a historically tough time for the market as August kicks off the worst three-month stretch for the S&P 500.

CNBC's Yun Li and Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Subscribe to CNBC PRO for exclusive insights and analysis, and live business day programming from around the world.

Visit link:

Dow rally gains steam, now up 300 points as Boeing and Nike lead - CNBC

Donald Trump Has the Sole Authority to Blow Up the World. It is Madness to Let Him Keep It. – POLITICO

This week is the 75th anniversary of the explosions on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9), ending World War II with the only two nuclear bombs ever deployed as instruments of war. This naturally invites a measure of historical reflection. But a more productive way to mark the occasion is with contemporary agitation: Are you comfortable with the fact that Donald Trump has the unilateral authority to launch the third nuclear bomb? Or the 30th? Or the 300th?

With a power that is like that of all presidents since Truman -- but with a temper and temperament more volatile than any predecessor has put on public display -- Trump could decide late this evening that missiles are a better way to make a point than Twitter and they would be flying without delay.

No evidentiary thresholds would need to be met. No congressional consultation required. The system is designed to be immediately responsive to presidential judgmentor misjudgment. Only a coordinated, widespread mutiny could stop this process from reaching its grim end, write William J. Perry and Tom Z. Collina, in a newly released book, The Button. The whole process, from presidential order to launch and an irrevocable step over the brink into a new chapter of history, would take just minutes.

Trumps erratic personal style sharpens the point his blustery rhetoric about the U.S. nuclear arsenal is more truculent than his generally dovish instincts about military intervention but that point is the same even if one accepts his self-appraisal as a very stable genius. There are proposals in Congress to alter the chain of command and require congressional authorization before any use of nuclear weapons. For now, however, the reality that any president can order nuclear annihilation on his or her sole authority is madness. Yet it is the kind of madness that is illustrative of the still-distorted psychology of the still-very-much-with-us Nuclear Age.

Most people who follow the news or watch television dramas know that the president is followed at all times by a military aide with the football, carrying communications equipment and codes needed to order bombs. They probably understand vaguely that there are still a lot of bombs in the world (around 13,000 worldwide, down from over 70,000 in the Cold War, with the United States and Russia each still possessing over 6,000.)

But for nearly all people this knowledge is an abstraction. It is in approximately the same mental category as an asteroid. We know they have struck in the past (A drag what happened to the dinosaurs) and perhaps we ponder in some theoretical way that one could strike again (Could we maybe, you know, figure out some way with technology to divert the course or blow it up before impact?). Yet most of us devote scant mental or emotional energy to worrying about something that is basically beyond the comprehension or control of any average citizen.

The great crusade of the past couple decades of Bill Perrys life is to try to make nuclear catastrophe seem less abstractnot beyond comprehension or control. His is one of the most arresting stories of the original Cold War and what he believes is now an indefensible second Cold War unfolding in our midst.

The former Defense secretary under Bill Clinton is now a couple months shy of 93, and has spent his entire life immersed in different dimensions of the nuclear dilemma. The war was just ended and he was still in his late teens when Army service took him to occupied Japan. He found the mathematics of destruction astounding: The firebombing that left Tokyo ravaged had been caused by thousands of bombs dropped in many hundreds of missions. Hiroshima was reduced to radioactive rubble by a single bomb.

In the 1950s, Perry developed an expertise in defense electronics, and it was in this capacity, in 1962, that he played an in-the-shadows role during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was a pro bono consultant on a team that each night analyzed the latest imagery of a Soviet missile site under construction in Cuba. The teams analysis would be on JFKs desk the next morning. In a memoir three years ago, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, Perry recounted that for two weeks he went to work believing nuclear conflict was imminent and each day was possibly his last on earth.

During the Carter administration, he was a committed Cold Warrior, overseeing the Pentagons research division that produced breakthroughs like stealth aircraft and smart bombs and such now familiar technology as GPS.

The theme of his memoir, and also The Button (co-author Collina is a longtime nuclear policy analyst now at the Ploughshares Fund), is how often the past 75 years has been shadowed by accident and improvisation. Military and civilian leaders maneuvered with generally sound intentions but usually with fragmentary information and frail judgment.

JFK never knew during the Cuban crisis that operating tactical nuclear weapons were already on the island and commanders had authority to use thema fact learned only decades later. His assessment that there had been a one-in-three chance the crisis ended in nuclear war was likely far too optimistic. Richard Nixon was a heavy drinker at critical moments in his presidency. Ronald Reagan by the end of his tenure was showing signs of mental decline. On at least three occasions during the Cold War, there were reports on radar of incoming nuclear missiles from the Soviet Unionthe result of technical failures that, under different circumstances, might have provoked a retaliatory response. As Perry often says, nuclear catastrophe was averted more through good luck than good management.

Rising tensions with Vladimir Putins Russia, the threat of terrorists succeeding in long-time efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, and other scenarios have caused Perry and others to warn that the odds of some kind of civilization-altering nuclear incident, if not necessarily an all-out war, are just as high now as they were during the Cold War. He has become a prophet of doom, Perry told me a few years ago, with a rueful smile.

The Button has a roster of tangible ideas to reduce the chances the prophecy comes true. In addition to ending unilateral presidential control of the arsenal (and retiring the around-the-clock nuclear football) the United States should officially foreswear first-use of nuclear weapons. Other key parts of traditional nuclear doctrine are more likely to lead to war by accident or miscalculation than to actually deter aggression. They include the policy of launch on warning, which could lead to a retaliatory strike to a perceived incoming missiles strike that might be a figment of a technical glitch or a malicious computer hack. The land-based leg of the so-called nuclear triad is unnecessary and even dangerous; a much smaller number of submarine-based and aircraft-based missiles is enough to deter a foe from launching a suicidal first attack.

Beyond specific policies, what Perry and Collina wish for most of all is a blossoming of public engagement to move the issues outside the narrow realm of military officials and national security experts, who are too often prisoners of outdated habits and dogma. The way to prevent the unthinkable is for more people to think about it.

In this campaign they are joined by former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has become a close ally of Perry on the nuclear issue. In an interview Thursday, he said the pandemic, climate change, and the nuclear issue all highlight the same imperative: the need to end hyper-nationalist policies and to recognize that on the most existential issues U.S. interests are in alignment with other world powers, not in competition. He also said the political and media classes need to focus attention on the limits of improvisation and hoping for the bestor the next 75 years will be less attractive than the 75 since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Can luck last forever? The answer is no, Brown told me. Luck is playing a role that is unacceptable.

After coronavirus emerged, millions of people watched a Ted Talk by Bill Gates from 2015 clearly laying out the imminent threat five years before it arrived. The world will be in bad shape if Perrys and Collinas book finds a similar audience only after the threat it warns against has already arrived.

Read more:

Donald Trump Has the Sole Authority to Blow Up the World. It is Madness to Let Him Keep It. - POLITICO

Donald Trumps language offers insight into how he won the presidency – The Economist

His linguistic quirks reveal the salesmanship that has made his career

Aug 8th 2020

EVERYONE KNOWS how to do a Donald Trump impersonation. In speech, adopt his raspy timbre, bellowing volume and start-stop rhythm. In writing, throw in bigly, capitalise Emotional Noun Phrases and end everything with an exclamation mark. Such quirks of enunciation and spelling make Mr Trump easy to mimic, but they do not easily explain his political success. The way he constructs sentences, however, does offer some insight into how he captured the presidency.

Underpinning Mr Trumps distinctive language is an extreme confidence in his own knowledge. Like Steve Jobswho inspired his colleagues at Apple by making the impossible seem possibleMr Trump creates his own reality distortion field. One of his signature tropes is not a lot of people know He has introduced the complicated nature of health care, or the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, as truths that are familiar only to a few. A related sound-bite is nobody knows more about...than I do. The fields of expertise Mr Trump has touted this way include campaign finance, technology, politicians, taxes, debt, infrastructure, the environment and the economy.

His critics have often attributed this to narcissism, but a complementary explanation is that it is also one of his strengthssalesmanship. In Mr Trumps framing, he is in possession of rare information. He is therefore able to cut a customer a special deal not a lot of people know about. Should you be tempted to take your business to a competitor, he will remind you that nobody knows more about what is on offer than he does.

And how does he convince listeners he really does know what hes talking about? His language constantly indicates self-belief. Consider Mr Trumps predecessor. Barack Obama was known for long pauses, often filled with a languid uh He gives the impression of a man thinking hard about what to say next. But Mr Trump rarely hesitates and hardly ever says um or uh. When he needs to plan his next sentenceas everyone musthe often buys time by repeating himself. This reinforces the impression that he is supremely confident and that what hes saying is self-evident.

Perhaps the most striking element of Mr Trumps uncompromising belief in his sales technique can be glimpsed in an unusual place: his mistakes. Mr Trump is often presented as a linguistic klutz, saying things that make so little sense that his detractors present them as proof of major cognitive decline.

All people make some slips and stumbles when they speak: not just those known for them (say, George W. Bush) but those known for eloquence (Mr Obama, for example). Mr Trump regularly makes errors but his signature quality, by contrast, is to lean into them. Take a recent interview with Fox News, in which he talked about governors differing attitudes towards masks. Some are keener than others about requiring people to wear them to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Or, as Mr Trump put it, theyre more mask into.

What is remarkable is not the mistake. It is easy for anyone to go down a syntactic blind alley. Many people will say something like theyre more mask and then realise there is nowhere to go. The sentence, in linguists terms, requires repair, which usually involves backtracking. Unless, that is, you are Mr Trump, in which case you confidently intone into and move on, giving no hint of trouble.

This refusal to concede blunders shows up in more serious ways, of course, such as the presidents unwillingness to take responsibility for his administrations missteps during the pandemic. It also helps explain two mysteries. The first is the odd disjunct between words that seem nonsensical on the page and a stage presence that enraptures audiencesit is Mr Trumps assertive persona that convinces more than his words.

The second is how this works on his fans. In a recent survey conducted by Pew, Americans were asked to rank Mr Trump and Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on a number of characteristics. The trait for which Americans give Mr Trump the highest mark is telling. Despite a notably light schedule and a stated disdain for exercise, the presidents incessant speaking style is almost certainly the reason he received a good score on one quality in particular: 56% of voters, and 93% of his supporters, describe him as energetic.

Dig deeper:Sign up and listen to Checks and Balance, our weekly newsletter and podcast on American politics, and explore our presidential election forecast

This article appeared in the Books & arts section of the print edition under the headline "The Greatest Phrases!"

Read more here:

Donald Trumps language offers insight into how he won the presidency - The Economist

What Do Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump Have in Common? – National Review

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) addresses a question regarding citizenship while participating in a Census Town Hall at the Louis Armstrong Middle School in Queens, N.Y., February 22, 2020. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)Whatever their intentions, both of them just pointed us, independently, in the right direction.

I find myself in the odd position of being grateful this summer for a moment in the public life of both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump. The two celebrity politicians may have more in common than we realize. First, AOC did the unexpected she put Saint Damien of Molaki in the news, accusing the martyr of being part of our problems, representative of patriarchy and white supremacist culture. Shes a bit impossible to have a conversation with if her argument is no white men allowed, which is certainly what it sounds like and what the trends may be.

Meanwhile, we should all aspire to love with the kind of selfless love Father Damien did. Writing to his brother about six months into his arrival in Hawaii, he said: This may give you some idea of my daily work. Picture to yourself a collection of huts with eight hundred lepers. No doctor; in fact, as there is no cure, there seems no place for a doctors skill. He would go to the homes of people half of them were Catholic. He would offer them spiritual and temporal aid (the temporal not being contingent on the acceptance of the spiritual). They would have wounds full of maggots, some of them. Sometimes he wasnt quite sure how to administer the final sacrament when both hands and feet are nothing but raw wounds.

Clearly, when people have had to die because of the coronavirus (particularly in nursing homes), he should be a patron saint for these times! This is the man whose example can show us how to love better. His witness will encourage us all not to get the coronavirus but to remember who we are. In a sense, theres something so dark about the very phrase social distancing. By all means, do it and out of respect for others but do not let the necessary barriers separate us from the love of God and our fellow man. (And, yes, woman, Representative AOC.)

For his part, Donald Trump has now infamously talked about hurting God. He, of course, was making a case for his reelection and, it would seem, giving a gift to Joe Biden, who can now use his Catholicism to his advantage because of the presidents over-the-top characterization. And yet, the fact of the matter is we do hurt God. We hurt God with our sins. And, goodness, politics today is a seemingly endless occasion of sin this culture of contempt that often seems one with our politics.

And, frankly: An election year that has already seen a pandemic and rioting is a terrifying reality for many of us who think about it for a moment too long. Donald Trump is playing to a base that knows that what some progressives consider religious freedom is not the robust first freedom we have long protected. But the problem, of course, with what Donald Trump said is that it is not only the evil of legal abortion which Joe Biden has come to embrace with all the expansive abandon of the most radical elements of his party, despite CNNs describing him as a devout Catholic that hurts God. Cruelty and contempt hurt God. Immorality hurts God. There are degrees, to be sure, and distinctions. And they are important. But so is integrity and humility in leadership. The fact of the matter is that we all hurt God.

Maybe the locked churches on Good Friday this year did us some real damage. There are annual read-throughs of the Passion of Jesus Christ on that day, a focused reminder that its not some crowd from two millennia ago them who crucified Christ. Its what I do when I sin. That is the most brutal, humbling reality. And right now, this should be the air we are breathing.

These are times for an examination of conscience, personally and culturally. Whatever ones beliefs, weve been given a treasure in life itself. What have we been doing with it? Are our priorities right? Weve got one shot at this and time is running out. Thats a political question, too. How is it that our presidential choices are a Joe Biden who should be in retirement and the Democrats insult our intelligence when they pretend their presidential candidate isnt really his vice-presidential pick and Donald Trump? In this culture of cancellation, how many of us wouldnt like to cancel this reality-TV show that has become our politics?

Demand better choices. This isnt entertainment. Were here to be good stewards of great gifts. Repent and renew. Rebuild. With a new respect for life, and rejoice in, not be repulsed by, differences. We can learn from one another if we would have a little mercy.

A writer recently dubbed AOC the future of the Catholic Church. Breaking news, though: The future of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. And He could help us about now. The most dangerous place to be is to expect from politics what politics has no business providing. This is a culture that makes saviors of politicians. So, thanks to AOC and DJT for pointing in the direction of God, whatever their intentions. Contempt destroys. Grateful creatures, on the other hand, move forward with hope.

This column is based on one available throughAndrews McMeel Universals Newspaper Enterprise Association.

View post:

What Do Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump Have in Common? - National Review

Inside Donald Trumps struggle to win over Black voters in Texas – The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WACO On the door for the McLennan County Republican Party headquarters on a February night, a flyer read, Black Voices for Trump. Inside, 50 or so faces virtually all of them white looked up at the speaker before them.

How many of you are tired of being called a racist? asked the speaker, K. Carl Smith, who is Black.

Almost everyone in the crowd raised their hands or nodded solemnly.

Smith, a native of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, who grew up in Alabama, came to Waco in a long-shot attempt to energize support among Black voters for President Donald Trump. Finding none in the audience, Smith spent most of the evening coaching white Republican activists on how to better engage with voters of color.

The meeting was organized by the McLennan County party, which billed it as a nationwide initiative event. Smith, the featured speaker, is a member of the advisory board for the Trump campaigns Black Voices for Trump initiative, which has held its own events nationwide to chip away at his broad unpopularity with Black voters and flip the narrative that he is hostile to people of color. The presidents reelection campaign has also sought to do that with swag targeted at Black millennials emblazoned with the word Woke and by hosting online Black Voices for Trump Real Talk events. But it has proved a tall task, given Trumps racially divisive behavior and tweets since hes been in office.

Smith said he came to Waco to have real talk with Republicans about delivering the message of liberty to people who might not look like them.

Republicans are terrible when it comes to engaging minorities," he said. "I want to show them not only the importance of it, but suggest to them how to do it. The party always talks about wanting to be more diverse, more inclusive, but whatever theyre doing they need to stop because its not working.

Reaching a diverse group of voters will grow increasingly important to the party in Texas, where the GOP is overwhelmingly white in a state where the white share of the population is shrinking. And any efforts will face significant opposition from Texas Democrats, who say activating the Black vote is crucial to their November chances. The Texas Democratic Party announced last week that it had launched a joint effort to contact 1.5 million Black registered voters in Texas to promote registration and mobilization.

Make no mistake about it, Black voters are the backbone of the Texas Democratic Party, said Serita Robinson, Black constituency organizer for the state Democratic Party. Black voters are the key to winning Texas. Our investments now are going to make the difference between winning and losing in November.

For the sake of the Texas GOPs future, Smith said, party leaders need to do more than just pay lip service to the need to be more representative of their constituents. But in a national cultural moment of intense racial strife, party leaders face serious questions about whether they can make inroads.

The daunting challenge didnt seem to rattle the February events attendees. The crowd included a handful of aspiring congressional candidates and the chair of a local Republican womens club. But the racial makeup of the room laid bare the partys numbers problem when it comes to voters of color.

At one point, the chair of the McLennan County GOP lamented, I invited every Black friend I know, and they didnt show!

Smith, the creator of the Frederick Douglass Republican Engagement Strategy, seemed unfazed by the fact that the only other Black person in the room was a reporter. I need to preach to the choir, because the choir needs to know how to bring in new choir members and sing a new song, Smith said.

As our country becomes more colored, weve got to learn to talk to people who dont traditionally look Republican but have those values, he said.

During his speech, Smith tried to show Texas Republicans how to trump the race card. Before acknowledging his wordplay to scattered laughter, he cited Scripture.

How did Paul the Apostle overcome the negative perceptions that the gentiles had of him? he asked. He did good deeds. President Trump has good deeds in terms of the policies that have been passed by this administration and how it has helped the Black community in particular.

Criminal justice reform? You cant argue that. President Obama didnt get it passed.

The visit to Waco was one that many Trump campaign surrogates have made across the nation in person before the coronavirus pandemic and mostly virtually since March as a way to let campaign surrogates of color offer their takes on Trumps record. Guests at the February meeting discussed ways to engage Black voters including finding shared values and highlighting the administrations work to pass the First Step Act, which eased federal minimum prison sentences and retroactively reduced the sentences of people convicted of crack cocaine-related charges, and to direct federal financial support to historically Black colleges and universities. (Smith boasted of being a proud graduate of Alabama A&M University.)

Trump himself has made sporadic attempts to reach out to Black voters. In February, his campaign aired a Super Bowl ad featuring Alice Marie Johnson, a Black woman whose prison sentence Trump commuted in June 2018. Soon after, he honored Charles McGee, one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, at his State of the Union speech.

But those moments have in large part been overshadowed by recent events and Trumps own words or actions.

I thought [Trumps] State of the Union speech was a smooth way to possibly open the door to recruit more Black voters to his candidacy, said Katherine Tate, a political science professor at Brown University. Then the pandemic hit.

Critics have chided his response to the coronavirus, which has claimed a disproportionate number of Black lives. The Trump administration has also responded to protests over police brutality and racial inequality by calling for the use of force and sending federal law enforcement to confront protesters in Portland. Thats in addition to promoting birtherism against former President Barack Obama, tweeting that four American congresswomen of color should go back where they came from, and describing fine people on both sides of a clash between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

More recently, after the death of civil rights leader and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, Trump said in an interview with Axios that he didnt know Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, and claimed that nobody has done more for Black Americans than I have.

His support of the Confederate flag has probably stepped on some toes, and his rhetoric has become overheated in terms of trying to cater to a conservative, white audience that might hurt him with Black voters, Tate said.

The racial disparity is present even in Trumps own Cabinet, where Ben Carson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, is the only Black American. Omarosa Manigault Newman, the onetime White House adviser, was the only Black member of his senior staff; Trump fired her at the end of 2017, and she later claimed in a memoir that Trump is a racist who has used the N-word repeatedly.

Meanwhile, the Texas GOP also has its own problems to address. Shortly after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis police custody, several local GOP leaders in Texas promoted racist conspiracy theories online. The state party has taken some steps to diversify: Allen West, a Black former congressman from Florida, was recently elected chair of the state party. And the party has a number of people of color running in competitive districts, including U.S. House candidate Wesley Hunt and state House candidate Will Douglas, who are both Black.

While I think Republican candidates need to continue to focus on the principles of the Republican Party, such as low taxation, personal responsibility and limited regulation, I think having a deeper discussion around race could also be meaningful, said former state Rep. Stefani Carter, R-Dallas, who is Black.

But some in the state GOP scoff at the notion that the problem is with the party. State Rep. James White, R-Hillister, the only Black Republican in the Texas House, said he feels the media holds Democrats and Trump to a different standard.

We had riots throughout the country while Obama was president, and I believe he called rioters thugs, he said. My guy refers to them as thugs, and then all of a sudden people think that hes race signaling.

White also pointed to the more recent protests that have occurred since Floyds death, noting that Floyd, who was pinned to the ground for nearly eight minutes while an officer held a knee to his neck, was killed in a city run by Democrats.

Minneapolis? Horrible! Horrible! And run by Democrats, White said. Chicago? Horrible! And run by Democrats forever. Los Angeles? Horrible! I dont see how anyone puts that on Donald Trumps shoulders.

With three months before the November election and statewide polls suggesting a close race between Trump and Biden in Texas, Trump surrogates are playing up Biden gaffes, such as when he said, If you have a problem figuring out whether youre for me or Trump, then you aint Black. That comment came during a May interview with Charlamagne Tha God, a host on the radio show The Breakfast Club. In July, Biden said that Trump was the first racist president, ignoring the fact that past presidents have owned slaves and enforced segregation in the federal government.

Although Smiths visit took place several months before Bidens racist president comments, Smith sought to preempt such digs by recasting the Democratic Party as the bigoted one.

If President Trump is a racist, hes a terrible racist, Smith said. Democrats, he said, were the ones who opposed former President Abraham Lincoln and supported slavery in the South. (That rhetoric has become common in the Trump era, but it ignores the history of how in Texas and the rest of the South, many conservative Democrats switched parties after their former party embraced civil rights legislation.) Its the Democrats, he told a brimming crowd, who control the language and media narrative, which casts the GOP in a bad light.

Political analysts agree that even modestly increasing the Republican Partys share of Black voters will be a major challenge that small-scale efforts like the Black Voices events are ill-equipped to solve. Trump claimed during a 2016 campaign speech that hed win 95% of Black voters by 2020, but according to a June PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, 91% of Black adults said they would vote for Biden if the election were held then, compared with just 5% for Trump.

The difficulty for a lot of Black conservatives is going into a room where theres no one that looks like them, said Marie McClellan, a small-business owner who has lived in Waco for over 20 years. My husbands best friend was a Black conservative. We already knew the struggles that people like him were experiencing in any community. We were already aware of that.

Smith thinks he knows how Republicans can nonetheless make inroads. At the February event, he sold $20 hardback copies of his book, Frederick Douglass Republicans: The Movement to Re-Ignite Americas Passion for Liberty, to teach his predominantly white audience how to woo people of color.

After tonight Im so pumped, said Kathy Endres, a white woman who attended Smiths event and bought copies of the book for herself and her husband. I feel like I can go out there and make the whole world Republican, but I know its one step at a time and its not an easy chore.

The Trump campaign has remained mum on what number, if any, the campaign has in mind for Black support this fall. While he doesnt need to win a lot of Black voters to win reelection, just moving the needle by a few percentage points could be helpful.

The effort is there, Smith said of Trumps strides with Black voters. Id like to see it continue, but theres always room for improvement.

Correction: This story originally misstated the organizer of the Black Voices for Trump event. It was the McLennan County GOP, not the Trump campaign.

Follow this link:

Inside Donald Trumps struggle to win over Black voters in Texas - The Texas Tribune

Trump and the suburbs: is he out of tune with America’s increasingly diverse voters? – The Guardian

Speaking on a hot, windy afternoon during a visit to the fracking fields of west Texas last month, Donald Trump conjured an ominous vision of suburban America under siege: terrorized by rising crime and threatened by the development of low-income housing.

Its been hell for suburbia, Trump declared, touting his decision to rescind an Obama-era fair-housing rule to combat racial segregation in the suburbs, part of his promise to preserve what he called the Suburban Lifestyle Dream. To the scattered crowd in attendance, he added: So, enjoy your life, ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy your life.

Nearly 500 miles east, in the expanse of metropolitan Houston, Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni is running to represent a suburban congressional district that is worlds apart from the one that exists in Trumps imagination.

Texas 22nd congressional district, which is almost the size of Rhode Island and nearly as populous, is so diverse that his campaign is distributing literature in 21 languages. Protests against police brutality and racial discrimination spread throughout the region after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died under the knee of a white Minneapolis police. And Floyd, a native of Houston, was laid to rest in the district.

This is new Texas, said Kulkarni, a former diplomat who grew up in Houston. Its diverse, its educated, its dynamic.

And its not only Texas. From Atlanta to Phoenix, this pattern is part of a longterm political realignment of the suburbs that has been dramatically accelerated by Trumps presidency.

Once a cornerstone of the Republican coalition, these densely populated metropolitan suburbs are turning increasingly Democratic. At the same time, the more sparsely populated exurban areas have become even more deeply Republican, countering, for now, Democrats gains elsewhere in the suburbs. The fight then is increasingly for the voters in the middle, the suburbanites lodged between liberal and conservative America.

Until now, Trump has appeared uninterested in persuading these swing voters back, alienating them further with the inflammatory rhetoric and hardline views on race and cultural heritage that excite his base.

But their mounting backlash to Trumps handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his attempts to stoke racial grievance have imperiled the presidents re-election prospects and put his party at risk of being shut out of power in Congress.

In recent weeks, Trump has sought to appeal, with little subtlety, to suburban voters. In one tweet, he vowed to protect the Suburban Housewives of America from the threat posed by his Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden.

In a play to the perceived racist fears of white suburban voters, he wrote: I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood.

Demographers and political strategists say Trump is promoting a vision of Americas suburbs with aproned housewives, leafy cul-de-sacs and picket fences that no longer exists.

Hes talking about an America thats at least 40 or 50 years old, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. The suburbs of today are really a microcosm of America.

A decades-long rise in the number of people of color, immigrants and college graduates, have transformed the sleepy bedroom communities of yesteryear into sprawling amalgams of Americas diversity. There are also far fewer housewives and the overall rates of violent crime have declined significantly.

In response to the recent upheaval, Trump adopted a strategy used by Richard Nixon as a presidential candidate during the turmoil of 1968, vowing to be a president of law-and-order and protect suburbanites from outside threats.

But suburban voters say they strongly disapprove of his handling of the protests, according to a New York Times/Siena College survey. An even larger share say they have a favorable view of the Black Lives Matter movement, which Trump denounced as a symbol of hate.

Overall, recent polling shows suburban voters backing Biden by historic margins.

Suburban women are not going to be fooled by Donald Trumps antiquated notion of what they should care about.

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that just 35% of suburbanites would vote for Trump, almost the same proportion 33% who said they approved of his job as president. That contrasts with 60% of suburban voters who said they would support Biden.

The disaffection is particularly pronounced among suburban women: 66% said they would support Biden, compared to 48% of suburban men.

The Trump administration has in many ways radicalized women and moms, said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, part of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is spending heavily on political races in diversifying Sun Belt states.

Watts was a stay-at-home mother of five when she started the group in 2012, after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. She realized then that she had been living in a bubble as a white suburban woman, and was awakened to the trauma of gun violence that disproportionately impacts communities of color every day.

Watts believes white suburban women across the country, for whom gun reform is increasingly a voting priority, are having a similar realization in response to the Black Lives Matter protests. In November, she hopes they will join Black and Hispanic women in removing Trump from office.

Suburban women are diverse and decisive, she said, and they are not going to be fooled by Donald Trumps antiquated notion of what they should care about.

Suburban women as a force in American politics is not new. In the 1990s, campaigns targeted the soccer moms. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, they became the security moms. And in 2008, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, rebranded them hockey moms..

In 2018, suburban women both as candidates and voters helped Democrats regain control of the House by flipping long-held Republican districts on the outskirts of Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. In a rout, Democrats swept all seven districts of Orange county, once a fortress of suburban conservatism known as Reagan country.

Now in 2020 less than three months before the November election Democrats are increasingly confident about their strength in the suburbs, as the Biden campaign expands its footprint in states like North Carolina, Arizona and Texas.

Trump won suburban voters by four percentage points in 2016, according to exit polls. Some strategists believe he has an opportunity to do so again this year, if swing voters perceive Democrats as moving too far left.

Suburbanites have not moved wholesale to the Democratic party, said Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia.

The affluent suburban district he once represented is now solidly Democratic, part of a political metamorphosis that has all but wiped from power the Republicans who once dominated this southern state.

Though the suburbs have changed, Davis said they remain an aspirational destination for upwardly-mobile families and young people, a place where residents expect low crime, fewer taxes, better schools and stable property values. As such, he said they have a distinct political identity as homeowners and parents that still aligns more closely with the Republican agenda.

Trump is speaking to suburbians who dont want the city moving out to where they are, Davis said. Thats why they live there. Its a statement. Its not a racial statement but it is a values statement.

Republicans continue to thrive in suburban areas surrounding smaller cities like Indianapolis and Jacksonville, Florida, which tend to be less diverse and more conservative.

Voters in these communities overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2016 and provided decisive margins in states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where fewer than 80,000 votes sealed his victory.

Democrats do not need to win these voters, but they cannot afford to ignore them either, said Lanae Erickson, the senior vice-president at the center-left thinktank Third Way.

In a new analysis of suburban counties in six battleground states, shared exclusively with the Guardian, Third Way identified 30 smaller suburban counties where Democrats have an opportunity to breach these Republican firewalls.

Using voter file data, the analysis projects, that for example, that in Pennsylvania Democrats will grow their vote total in the states most populous suburban county, Montgomery Ccounty, by 28,792 votes. By contrast, Democrats are expected to gain a total of 145,511 votes across the states nine smaller suburban counties, due in part to an influx of Latinos.

In a razor-thin election like 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost the state by just 44,000 votes, these counties could be decisive.

Suburbanization will continue to reshape American politics long after 2020.

The politics are only beginning to catch up with the new demographic realities, said Stephen Klineberg, a professor of sociology at Rice University and the author of Prophetic City: Houston on the Cusp of a Changing America. By 2050, all of America will look like Houston looks today.

In that sense, the open race for Texas 22nd congressional district is like peering into the future, Klineberg said.

There in the sprawl of Houstons suburbs, Kulkarni, whose father is from India and whose mother is a descendent of the citys namesake, Sam Houston, is running against Troy Nehls, the Republican sheriff of Fort Bend county, which covers much of the district and is almost equally split among Asian American, African American, Hispanic and white voters.

During the Republican primary, which tested the candidates fealty to Trump, Nehls denounced an early effort by local officials to mandate mask-wearing and mimicked the presidents rhetoric on the protests. But on social media, he has vowed to build bridges between the minority communities in his district and law enforcement.

As Houston grapples with the devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, as well as the aftershocks of the racial justice protests, Kulkarni says voters of all political stripes are ready to move beyond a politics of division.

They are tired of the attacks on science and healthcare, Kulkarni said. They like the fact that we live in a diverse area. And I think theres actually more of a consensus now than Ive ever seen before that diversity is our strength, not our weakness.

Go here to see the original:

Trump and the suburbs: is he out of tune with America's increasingly diverse voters? - The Guardian

Bill Barr and Donald Trump are trying to torch the "Ancient Constitution" that governed kings – Salon

With each passing day, it seems, the Trump administration seems intent on replaying the leadup to the English Revolution.

Like King James I of England (aka James VI of Scotland), Trump believes that he, to quote James' tract of 1598, "The True Law of Free Monarchies," "is above the law," accountable only to God. He asserted in a July, 2019 speech that Article II of the Constitution means "I have to the right to do whatever I want as president." Like James' son, Charles I, who ruled England for 11 years without a parliament, Trump is increasingly governing through executive orders rather than making laws with the House and Senate.

Attorney General William Barr, Trump's legal theorist, has put forward the notion that the president's powers are "undivided and absolute." Even more astonishing, Barr wrote in his June 2018 unsolicited memo to the Trump administration that "The Constitution itself places no limit on the president's authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct . . ." Both Barr and Trump believe that the chief executive's prerogatives are not to be questioned. It is "presumption and high contempt, "James told Parliament in 1616, "to dispute what the king may do." Barr said pretty much the same thing in his speech to the Federalist Society in November 2019, arguing that the "presidential power has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches."

The response to this view of untrammeled presidential power is about the same as Satan's in Milton's "Paradise Lost" after God suddenly alters Heaven's political structure: "strange point and new! / Doctrine which we would know when learned." Over and over again, we hear the phrase, "Trump is not a king." Meaning that does not reign supreme, and the Constitution does not give him the right to do whatever he wants.

But saying "Trump is not a king" misrepresents the nature of English monarchy and understates just how radically Trump and his enablers are trying to redefine the American polity. Barr's notion that the founders would have approved of an executive with nearly unlimited authority is not only wrong in contemporary terms, it's profoundly ahistorical. To understand that, we need to briefly trace the history of the Ancient Constitution, the unwritten rules governing the limits on monarchic power in England, as these values traveled across the Atlantic and formed the basis for how the colonists understood authority, and why they felt justified in rebelling against King George III.

There are in fact two kinds of monarchy: absolute, in which the monarch is above the law, and limited or mixed, in which the monarch's powers are limited by convention. England's monarchy has always been a limited or mixed monarchy. It was never absolute, and the one English monarch who tried to rule as if he were an absolute monarch Charles I literally lost his head as a result.

Let me give a few examples.

In 1385, Parliament had enough of Richard II and his shenanigans, so they decided to impeach him because he was a "tyrant over his subjects and worthy to be deposed." To justify the deposition, Henry, Duke of Lancaster, soon to become Henry IV, gave the Commons a list of Richard's crimes, the most important being #16: "he said that the laws of the realm were in his head . . . by reason of which fantastical opinion, he destroyed noble men and impoverished the poor commons." (I'm quoting from Hall's "Chronicle," widely available and used by Shakespeare for his history plays).

About a century later, England's chief justice, Sir John Fortescue, wrote an immensely popular and influential tract, "In Praise of the Laws of England," declaring that, the monarch "is not able to change the laws of his kingdom at pleasure." Laws can be altered, and taxes imposed, only "with the assent of his subjects." Meaning, only with Parliament's approval.

Not that monarchs didn't try to get around these rules. In 1508, a very young Henry VIII tried to change the coronation oath. In place of swearing to uphold "the laws and customs of the realm . . . which the folk and people have made and chosen," he wanted to add the following proviso: he would uphold only those laws "not prejudicial to his crown and imperial jurisdiction." But he didn't succeed, and had to swear to the original oath, the one limiting monarchic power.

While some political theorists on the Continent believed in absolutism, nobody in 16th-century England held that the monarch had unlimited power. After being slapped down, Henry VIII always worked with Parliament. Queen Elizabeth I, for all her self-regard, never said that she was an absolute monarch. James did, but while he talked the absolutist talk, he never tried to put those ideas into practice. That fell to his son, Charles, and it did not work out well for him. He was executed in 1649, leading to the short-lived English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell, itself overthrown 11 years later. But after the Restoration, the English crown never made the sorts of claims for itself that Charles did. The Ancient Constitution, not absolutism, ruled.

These assumptions travelled across the Atlantic with the colonists, and they formed the bedrock for the American Revolution.

In 1680, for example, the English writer Henry Carepublished "English Liberties: Or, the Free-born Subject's Inheritance." Care began by declaring that the English monarchy is "the best in the World" because the English enjoy "a most excellently mixed or qualified monarchy." The monarch, to be sure, has his powers and prerogatives. But so do the nobility, whose privileges act as a "screen to Majesty, and a refreshing shade to their inferiors." So does the commonality or the people, guarded "by the Fence of law, as renders them free men, not slaves." Quoting Fortescue, Care observes that in England, the phrase, "what pleases the prince has the force of law," does not apply. Instead, it's the opposite. In England, monarchs swear an oath "to observe and cause the laws to be kept," not to change them at will or, as Henry VIII tried, to observe only those laws that do not infringe on his authority.

Care's book was reprinted five times, indicating its popularity. One reprint, in 1721, was published by James Franklin, Benjamin's brother, and went through at least six editions. As Nick Bunker writes in "Young Benjamin Franklin," Care's volume "amounted to a source book of ideas that [Benjamin Franklin] would draw upon until the 1770s, when Americans replaced it with better treatises of their own." Treatises that would build on the Ancient Constitution.

Returning to the present, Trump and Barr's notion of a president who can do what he wants, immune fromall investigation, and can govern by fiat, is profoundly ahistorical and wrong. It's inconceivable that the Founders would have given the president powers that not even the English monarch enjoyed.

Which is not to say that Trump will not try, or that he might not succeed. UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo has proposed that the Supreme Court's DACA decision allows Trump the latitude to do whatever he wants through executive order: Presidents "can now stop enforcing laws they dislike, hand out permits or benefits that run contrary to acts of Congress and prevent their successors from repealing their policies for several years." Trump appears to have tested this thesis this past weekend, signing an incoherent series of executive orders and memoranda intended to go around Congress on unemployment benefits, payroll tax suspension and other coronavirus relief measures.

It's not yet clear whether Trump will succeed where Charles I failed. The coming election will determine whether the United States remains loyal to its roots in the Ancient Constitution, or whether the fundamental nature of this republic will move toward something much more authoritarian and absolutist. Will "what pleases the president have the force of law"? The answer depends on who wins in November.

Read the original:

Bill Barr and Donald Trump are trying to torch the "Ancient Constitution" that governed kings - Salon

Rick Gates, Ex-Trump Aide and Mueller Witness, Is Publishing a Memoir – The New York Times

News of Mr. Gatess book was reported earlier by Business Insider.

Other books from former Trump aides and associates are in the pipeline, including a memoir from Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trumps former lawyer, who is serving a three-year prison sentence for campaign finance violations and other crimes that were part of an effort to pay for the silence of two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohens book is tentatively titled Disloyal: The True Story of Michael Cohen, Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump. Last month, Mr. Cohen, who was on furlough because of the coronavirus, said that a decision to return him to prison was an attempt by the administration to punish him for writing the book, and a judge agreed, ordering him released back to home confinement.

Mr. Gates, who has never spoken publicly about his experience on the Trump campaign apart from his testimony, is likely to face fewer obstacles to sharing his account. He never served in the administration so does not face a government review to ensure he isnt sharing classified information. In his book, Wicked Game, Mr. Gates adds context to the publicized, politicized public account provided in the Mueller investigation, including information that was left out of the report, he said in an interview on Friday.

Readers hoping for another explosive tell-all about the president may be disappointed. Mr. Gates said he isnt trying to settle scores and that his book takes a middle of the road approach, a position that could hamper the books commercial prospects in a polarized media environment. At one point, Mr. Gates had a deal with a big publishing house, but it fell through because he declined to make changes that the publisher requested, including removing passages that were critical of the Mueller investigation, he said. Instead, Wicked Game is being released by a smaller, independent press that specializes in conservative political books, as well as business, self-help, health, military and Christian titles. Mr. Gates co-wrote it with Mark Dagostino, who has worked on books with Chip and Joanna Gaines and Hulk Hogan.

Its not a salacious book, Mr. Gates said.

He added that his book will shed new light on the inner workings of the Mueller investigation, which he is highly critical of, as the books subtitle, An Insiders Story on How Trump Won, Mueller Failed, and America Lost suggests. He describes the hard-nosed tactics prosecutors used and notes that Robert S. Mueller III never interviewed him. Mr. Gates said he isnt aiming to walk back his guilty plea.

I accepted the charges, and I knew the consequences that were associated with them, Mr. Gates said. At the end of the day, they did find me as the most credible fact witness.

Read the original:

Rick Gates, Ex-Trump Aide and Mueller Witness, Is Publishing a Memoir - The New York Times

Is This the Beginning of the End of American Racism? – The Atlantic

I.

Marine One waited for the president of the United States on the South Lawn of the White House. It was July 30, 2019, not long past 9 a.m.

To hear more feature stories, get the Audm iPhone app.

Donald Trump was headed to historic Jamestown to mark the 400th anniversary of the first representative assembly of European settlers in the Americas. But Black Virginia legislators were boycotting the visit. Over the preceding two weeks, the president had been engaged in one of the most racist political assaults on members of Congress in American history.

Like so many controversies during Trumps presidency, it had all started with an early-morning tweet.

So interesting to see Progressive Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run, Trump tweeted on Sunday, July 14, 2019. Why dont they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you cant leave fast enough.

Trump was referring to four freshman members of Congress: Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Somali American; Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, an African American; Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a Palestinian American; and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a Puerto Rican. Pressley screenshotted Trumps tweet and declared, THIS is what racism looks like.

Subscribe to The Atlantic and support 160 years of independent journalism

On the South Lawn, Trump now faced reporters and cameras. Over the drone of the helicopter rotors, one reporter asked Trump if he was bothered that more and more people were calling him racist.

I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world, Trump replied, hands up, palms facing out for emphasis.

His hands came down. He singled out a vocal critic, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Now, hes a racist, Trump said. What Ive done for African Americans, no president, I would say, has done And the African American community is so thankful.

It was an absurd statement. But in a twisted way, Trump was right. As his administrations first term comes to an end, Black Americansindeed, all Americansshould in one respect be thankful to him. He has held up a mirror to American society, and it has reflected back a grotesque image that many people had until now refused to see: an image not just of the racism still coursing through the country, but also of the reflex to deny that reality. Though it was hardly his intention, no president has caused more Americans to stop denying the existence of racism than Donald Trump.

We are living in the midst of an anti-racist revolution. This spring and summer, demonstrations calling for racial justice attracted hundreds of thousands of people in Los Angeles, Washington, New York, and other large cities. Smaller demonstrations erupted in northeastern enclaves such as Nantucket, Massachusetts, and Bar Harbor, Maine; in western towns such as Havre, Montana, and Hermiston, Oregon; in midsize cities such as Waco, Texas, and Topeka, Kansas; and in wealthy suburbs such as Chagrin Falls, Ohio, and Darien, Connecticut.

Adam Serwer: Protest is the highest form of patriotism

Veteran activists and new recruits to the cause pushed policy makers to hold violent police officers accountable, to ban choke holds and no-knock warrants, to shift funding from law enforcement to social services, and to end the practice of sending armed and dangerous officers to respond to incidents in which the suspect is neither armed nor dangerous. But these activists werent merely advocating for a few policy shifts. They were calling for the eradication of racism in America once and for all.

The president attempted to portray the righteous demonstrations as the work of looters and thugs, but many of the people watching at home didnt see it that way. This summer, a majority of Americans57 percent, according to a Monmouth University pollsaid that police officers were more likely to use excessive force against Black culprits than they were against white ones. Thats an increase from just 33 percent in December 2014, after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City police officer in the killing of Eric Garner.

Whats more, by early June, roughly three out of four Americans were saying that racial and ethnic discrimination is a big problem in the United Statesup from only about half of Americans in 2015, when Trump launched his presidential campaign.

It would be easy to see these shifts as the direct result of the horrifying events that have unfolded in 2020: a pandemic that has had a disproportionate effect on people of color; the video of George Floyd dying beneath the knee of an impassive Minneapolis police officer; the ghastly killing of Breonna Taylor, shot to death in her own home.

Yet fundamental shifts in American views of race were already under way before the COVID-19 disparities became clear and before these latest examples of police violence surfaced. The percentage of Americans who told Monmouth pollsters that racial and ethnic discrimination is a big problem made a greater leap from January 2015 (51 percent) to July 2016 (68 percent) than from July 2016 to June 2020 (76 percent). What we are witnessing right now is the culmination of a longer processa process that tracks closely with the political career of Donald Trump.

In the days leading up to Trumps attack on Omar, Pressley, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, Fox News slammed the Squad, especially Omar. All four had been publicly sparring with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over a $4.6 billion border-aid package that they thought did not sufficiently restrain Trumps immigration policies.

Yet Pelosi promptly defended her fellow Democrats on July 14, 2019. When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, Pelosi tweeted, he reaffirms his plan to Make America Great Again has always been about making America white again.

It has always been a racial slur for white Americans to tell Americans of color, Go back to your country. Because their country is New York City, where Ocasio-Cortez was born. Their country is Detroit, Tlaibs birthplace. Their country is greater Boston, where Pressley lives. Their country is the United States, to which Omars family immigrated when she was young.

Ibram X. Kendi: Am I an American?

As Democratic politicians raged at the president that Sunday, Republicans were silent. Its become frighteningly common for many of my Republican colleagues to let these moments sail by without saying even a word, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

To be fair, by Monday, a few Republicans, including Representatives Mike Turner of Ohio and Will Hurd of Texas, had called the presidents tweets racist. But Trump, emboldened by the silence from the rest of his caucus, doubled down on his attacks.

IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, Trump wrote to the four women on Twitter, YOU CAN LEAVE.

The president added: If Democrats want to unite around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

By Monday night, House Democrats had had enough. They introduced a resolution to strongly condemn the presidents racist tweets.

Trump woke up the next morning once again in a state of angry denial. Those Tweets were NOT Racist, he tweeted. I dont have a Racist bone in my body!

For better or worse, Americans see themselvesand their countryin the president. From the days of George Washington, the president has personified the American body. The motto of the United States is E pluribus unumOut of many, one. The one is the president.

To Trump, and to many of his supporters, the American body must be a white body. When he launched his presidential campaign, on June 16, 2015, he began with attacks on immigrants of color and on the person whose citizenship hed falsely questioned as a peddler of birtherism: Barack Obama. They were all desecrating the American body. Of Mexican immigrants, he said: Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists. Of Obama, he said: Hes been a negative force. We need somebody that can take the brand of the United States and make it great again.

Trump presented himself as that somebody. To make America great again, he would make it seem as if a Black man had never been president, erasing him from history by repealing and replacing his signature accomplishments, from the Affordable Care Act to DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. He would also build a wall to keep out immigrants, and he would ban Muslims from entering the country.

Days after first proposing his Muslim ban, in December 2015still early in his candidacyTrump told CNNs Don Lemon, I am the least racist person that you have ever met.

Trumps denial was audacious, but back then, his audacity only contributed to the complacent sense among many Americans that this interloper from reality television posed no serious threat. Yet the Americans who dismissed Trumps chances were living in denial themselves.

For many, Obamas presidency was proof that the country was rising to its ideals of liberty and equality. When a Black man climbed to the highest office in the land, it signified that the nation was postracial, or at least that history was inexorably bending in that direction. The Obama administration itself boasted that it was fighting the remnants of racisma mop-up operation in a war that was all but won.

I was less sanguine. In the months leading up to the 2016 election, I told family and friends that Trump had a good chance of winning. Across American history, racial progress has normally been followed by its opposite.

So I was glad to be alone on Election Night. I did not want to see people I loved shocked that a racist nation had elected a racist president. On November 8, 2016, I watched the returns come in by myself, on the couch. My daughter, Imani, was sleeping in her crib. My wife, Sadiqa, was at the hospital, treating patients during an overnight shift in the pediatric emergency department.

I stayed up until 1:35 a.m. When Trump carried Pennsylvania, I turned off the television and called Sadiqa to hear how her shift was going. Our conversation was brief; she had to get back to her patients. Later, I would read about how, around 2:50 a.m., Trump greeted his exuberant supporters in New York City with a victory speech. He pledged to be a president for all Americans.

Within days of being sworn in, Trump broke that promise. He reversed holds on two oil-pipeline projects, including one through the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which was opposed by more than 200 Indigenous nations. He issued executive orders calling for the construction of a wall along the southern border and the deportation of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security. He enacted his first of three Muslim bans.

By the end of the spring, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had directed federal prosecutors to seek the harshest prison sentences whenever possible. Sessions had also laid the groundwork for the suspension of all the consent decrees that provided federal oversight of law-enforcement agencies that had demonstrated a pattern of racism.

Led by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, the administration worked on ways to restrict immigration by people of color. There was a sense of urgency, because, as Trump said at a private White House meeting in June 2017, Haitians all have AIDS and Nigerians would never go back to their huts once they came to the United States.

Then came Charlottesville. On August 11, 2017, about 250 white supremacists marched on the University of Virginia campus, carrying torches that lit up the night sky with racism and anti-Semitism. Demonstrating against Charlottesvilles plan to remove statues honoring Confederates, they chanted, Blood and soil! They chanted, Jews will not replace us! They chanted, White lives matter!

The white supremacists clashed with anti-racist demonstrators that night and the next afternoon. White lives did not matter to the white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. He drove his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of counterprotesters, murdering Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others.

We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides, Trump said in response. He spoke about there being very fine people on both sides.

Adam Serwer: After Charlottesville, the white nationalists are winning

On September 5, 2017, Trump began his long and unsuccessful attempt to eliminate DACA, which deferred deportations for roughly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration also began rescinding the Temporary Protected Status of thousands of refugees from wars and natural disasters years ago in Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal, and Honduras.

Near the end of his first year in office, Trump wondered aloud at a White House meeting: Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? He was referring to Haiti, El Salvador, and nations in Africa. He suggested that the U.S. should bring in more people from countries like Norway.

Three days later, on January 14, 2018, speaking before reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida, he was again asked if he was racist. No, Im not a racist, he responded. I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed.

The America that denied its racism through the Obama years has struggled to deny its racism through the Trump years. From 1977 to 2018, the General Social Survey asked whether Black Americans have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people mainly due to discrimination. There are only two answers to this question. The racist answer is noit presumes that racist discrimination no longer exists and that racial inequities are the result of something being wrong with Black people. The anti-racist answer is yesit presumes that nothing is wrong or right, inferior or superior, about any racial group, so the explanation for racial disparities must be discrimination.

Ibram X. Kendi: The hopefulness and hopelessness of 1619

In 2008, as Obama was headed for the White House, only 34.5 percent of respondents answered yes, a number Ill call the anti-racist rate. This was the second-lowest anti-racist rate of the 41-year polling period. The rate rose to 37.7 percent in 2010, perhaps because the emergence of the Tea Party forced a reckoning for some white Americans, but it fell back down to 34.9 percent in 2012 and 34.6 percent in 2014.

In 2016, as Trump loomed over American politics, the anti-racist rate rose to 42.6 percent. It went up to 46.2 percent in 2018, a double-digit increase from the start of the Obama administration. In large part, shifts in white public opinion explain the jump. The white anti-racist rate was barely 29.8 percent in 2008. It jumped to 37.7 percent in 2016 and to 40.5 percent two years into Trumps presidency.

The deniers of racism, those who blame people of color for racial inequity and injustice, have mostly been white, but not exclusively so. Between 1977 and 2018, the lowest anti-racist rate among Black respondents47.2 percentcame in 2012, the midpoint of Obamas presidency. That rate climbed to 61.1 percent in 2016 and 66 percent in 2018, a nearly 20-point swing from the Obama years.

It has become harder, in the Trump years, to blame Black people for racial inequity and injustice. It has also become harder to tell Black people that the fault lies with them, and to urge them to improve their station by behaving in an upstanding or respectable manner. In the Trump years, the problem is obvious, and it isnt Black peoples behavior.

The United States has often been called a land of contradictions, and to be sure, its failings sit alongside some notable achievementsa New Deal for many Americans in the 1930s, the defeat of fascism abroad in the 1940s. But on racial matters, the U.S. could just as accurately be described as a land in denial. It has been a massacring nation that said it cherished life, a slaveholding nation that claimed it valued liberty, a hierarchal nation that declared it valued equality, a disenfranchising nation that branded itself a democracy, a segregated nation that styled itself separate but equal, an excluding nation that boasted of opportunity for all. A nation is what it does, not what it originally claimed it would be. Often, a nation is precisely what it denies itself to be.

There was a grand moment, however, when a large swath of Americans walked away from a history of racial denial. In the 1850s, slaveholders expanded their reach into the North. Their slave-catchers, backed by federal power, were superseding state and local law to capture runaways (and free Blacks) who had escaped across the Mason-Dixon Line. Formerly enslaved people such as Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, as well as journalists such as William Lloyd Garrison, stood in pulpits across the North and West describing the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. Meanwhile, slaveholders fought to expand their power out westwhere white people who did not want to compete with enslaved Black labor were calling for free soil. Beginning in 1854, slaveholders went to war with free-soilers (and abolitionists like John Brown) in Kansas over whether the stateand the United Stateswould be free or slave. The Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision, in 1857, implied that Black people and northern states had no rights that slaveholders were bound to respect.

From the October 2018 issue: Ibram X. Kendi on a house still divided

Slaveholders seemed intent on spreading their plantations from sea to shining sea. As a result, more and more white Americans became antislavery, whether out of concern for the enslaved or fear of the encroaching slave power. Black Americans, meanwhile, fled the country for Canada and Liberiaor stayed and pressed the cause of radical abolitionism. A critical mass of Americans rejected the Souths claim that enslavement was good and came to recognize the peculiar institution as altogether bad.

The slaveholders attempts to perpetuate their system backfired; in the years before the Civil War, the inhumanity and cruelty of enslavement became too blatant for northerners to ignore or deny. Similarly, Trumps racismand that of his allies and enablershas been too blatant for Americans to ignore or deny. And just as the 1850s paved the way for the revolution against slavery, Trumps presidency has paved the way for a revolution against racism.

On July 16, 2019, the House bitterly debated the resolution to rebuke Trump for his racist tweets against the four congresswomen of color. The four were members of the most diverse class of Democrats in American history, which had retaken the House in a midterm repudiation of the president.

Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the presidents racist tweets, Speaker Pelosi said from the House floor. Republicans sounded off in protest. Pelosi turned to them, voice rising, and added: To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.

Republicans claimed that Pelosi had violated a House rule by characterizing an action as racist. They moved to have the word struck from the Congressional Record.

The motion to strike racist from the record failed along party lines. I know racism when I see it, I know racism when I feel it, and at the highest level of government, theres no room for racism, Representative John Lewis, the civil-rights icon, said during the debate.

From the October 2017 issue: Ta-Nehisi Coates on Donald Trump, the first white president

One after another, Republicans rose to defend their president. What has really happened here is that the president and his supporters have been forced to endure months of allegations of racism, said Representative Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania. This ridiculous slander does a disservice to our nation.

In the end, only four Republicans and the Houses lone independent voted with all the Democrats to condemn the president of the United States. That means 187 House Republicans, or 98 percent of the caucus, denied that telling four congresswomen of color to go back to their countries was racist. They believed, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, that the presidents not a racist.

To call out the presidents racism would have been to call out their own racism. McConnell had been quietly killing anti-racist bills that had come out of the House since January 2019, starting with the new Houses first bill, which aimed to protect Americans against voter suppression.

The day after being rebuked by House Democrats, Trump held the first rally of his reelection campaign. He spent a large portion of his speech in Greenville, North Carolina, railing against the four congresswomen. As he was pummeling Omar with a round of attacks, the crowd started chanting, Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!

Trump stopped speaking. He made no effort to stop the chant as it grew louder. He basked in the racial slur for 13 seconds.

Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!

On Thursday, Republicans were quick to denounce the chant. Theres no place for that kind of talk, Tom Emmer of Minnesota said to reporters. But, he added, theres not a racist bone in the presidents body.

Trump disavowed the Send her back chant, but by Friday he had disavowed his disavowal, calling the chanters incredible patriots and denying their racism along with his own. Many Americans saw through these patently false claims, however. By the end of July, for the first time, a majority of voters said the president of the United States was, in fact, a racist.

I thought I appreciated the power of denial from studying the history of racist ideas. But I learned to understand it in a personal way during the first year of Trumps presidency. In 2017, I fell ill; I felt as sick as Id ever been. But I told myself the hourly trips to the bathroom were nothing. The blood wasnt serious. I ignored the symptoms for months.

I waited until the pain was unbearable before I admitted that I had a problem. And even then, I wasnt able to acknowledge it on my own. My partner saved my life.

Sadiqa saw the totality of my symptoms during a weeklong vacation over New Years. It was the first time in months that we were together all day, every day. As soon as we returned home, in January 2018, she dragged me to the doctor.

I acquiesced to the appointment, but I still wouldnt permit the thought that my condition was serious. I did not have any of the commonly known risk factors for the worst possibilitycolon cancer. I was 35, and I exercised regularly, didnt smoke, rarely drank, and had no family history. I was a vegan, for goodness sake.

I realize now that I was engaged in a powerful bout of denial. Americans, too, can easily summon a litany of reasons their country is not racist: Look at the enlightened principles upon which the nation was founded. Look at the progress the country has made. Look at the election of Barack Obama. Look at the dark faces in high places. Look at the diversity of the 2020 Democratic field.

Even after the doctor found the tumor, my denial persisted. Once I accepted that I had cancer, I was convinced that it had to be Stage 1, for all the reasons I had been convinced that I did not have cancer at all. A routine surgery was in order, and then all would be good.

I fear that this is how many Americans are thinking right now: Routine surgerythe defeat of Donald Trump at the pollswill heal the American body. No need to look deeper, at police departments, at schools, at housing. Are Americans now acknowledging racism, but telling themselves the problem is contained? Are they telling themselves that it is a big problem, but it cant have spread to almost every part of the body politic? Will this become the new form of American denial?

False hope was my new normal, until it wasnt. When they scanned my body, doctors found that the cancer had spread. I had Stage 4 colon cancer. I had two choices: denial and death, or recognition and life. America now has two choices.

Trumps denials of his racism will never stop. He will continue to claim that he loves people of color, the very people his policies harm. He will continue to call himself not racist, and turn the descriptive term racist back on anyone who has the temerity to call out his own prejudice. Trump clearly hopes that racist ideaspaired with policies designed to suppress the votewill lead to his reelection. But now that Trump has pushed a critical mass of Americans to a point where they can no longer explain away the nations sins, the question is what those Americans will do about it.

One path forward leads to a mere restoration. Barack Obamas vice president unseats Trump, removing the bad apple from the barrel. With Trump dispatched, the nation believes it is again headed in the right direction. On this path, Americans consider racism to be a significant problem. But they deny the true gravity of the problem and the need for drastic action. On this path, monuments to racism are dismantled, but Americans shrink from the awesome task of reshaping the country with anti-racist policies. With Trump gone, Americans decide they dont need to be actively anti-racist anymore.

Or Americans can realize that they are at a point of no return. No returning to the bad old habit of denial. No returning to cynicism. No returning to normalthe normal in which racist policies, defended by racist ideas, lead to racial inequities.

On this path, Trumps denialism has permanently changed the way Americans view themselves. The Trump effect is real, and lasting. The reckoning we have witnessed this spring and summer at public demonstrations transforms into a reckoning in legislatures, C-suites, university-admissions offices.

On this path, the American people demand equitable results, not speeches that make them feel good about themselves and their country. The American people give policy makers an ultimatum: Use your power to radically reduce inequity and injustice, or be voted out.

The abolition of slavery seemed as impossible in the 1850s as equality seems today. But just as the abolitionists of the 1850s demanded the immediate eradication of slavery, immediate equality must be the demand today. Abolish police violence. Abolish mass incarceration. Abolish the racial wealth gap and the gap in school funding. Abolish barriers to citizenship. Abolish voter suppression. Abolish health disparities. Not in 20 years. Not in 10 years. Now.

This article appears in the September 2020 print edition with the headline The End of Denial.

Originally posted here:

Is This the Beginning of the End of American Racism? - The Atlantic

Ireland and Slavery: Debating the ‘Irish Slaves Myth’ – CounterPunch.org – CounterPunch

Mural of Frederick Douglass, Falls Road, Belfast. Irish peoples history has embraced both a legacy of identification with the oppressed, and in propagation of the Irish Slaves Myths, elements of racism. Photograph byRoss CC BY-SA 2.0

Over recent months, social media in Ireland and the United States has been saturated with claims and counterclaims about Irish slaves and a broader controversy about Irish complicity in the transatlantic slave trade. The timing of the debate is far from coincidental: a series of false and malicious assertions that the American far Right have pushed aggressively for more than a decade, embraced with enthusiasm by the most conservative elements in Irish America, have grown wings in the new context opened up by the rise of Black Lives Matter. A controversy that has simmered below the surface has taken on new urgency as a fascist Right, emboldened by Trump, finds itself confronted for the first time with a powerful mass movement capable of pushing back. In this context racists in the US are attempting to weaponize a false version of Irish history to undermine BLM. In the south of Ireland, especially, a small anti-globalist Right sees in the controversy a possibility for redeeming their dismal showing in the recent election by drawing people in on the basis of a mawkish, fairytale nationalism. Socialists and all anti-racists have a responsibility in this situation to counter these lies, to build solidarity with BLM here in Ireland and abroad, and to confront racism wherever it is manifested in Irish society.

For the past seven years much of the burden of refuting these lies has been taken on by the Limerick-based independent scholar Liam Hogan. Working his way meticulously through a complicated historical record, Hogan has published extensively on the controversy, and is the main source for coverage that in recent weeks has appeared in leading newspapers in Britain, Ireland and the US. His research shows that a version of the white slave memes first began surfacing in US websites associated with hardcore white supremacists around 2003, but made its way into broader Tea Party circles from about 2013, and has more recently become a staple in the larger far Right that has grown in size and confidence under Trumps patronage. In the article below focused on the whether the experience of Irish indentures in the 17th and 18th century world is comparable with that of African slaves and in a second installment that will follow on Irish complicity in transatlantic slavery, I argue that there are problems in Hogans approach, and in the framework in which he situates these questions. But it should be acknowledged unequivocally that his work has been critical for arming anti-racists against a deluge of lies and misinformation. All anti-racists are indebted to Hogan for taking this on almost singlehandedly.

Far Right Weaponizes History

At the outset its worth taking the measure of the scale of the problem we confront. The notion of Irish slavery may have floated around Irish America in some vague form before 2003, but it does not seem to have played a significant role in underpinning white (Irish American) racism before then, and although by 2013 it had seeped into sections of the Irish American press, it was the white nationalist-influenced far Right rather than these outlets that drove its early dissemination. In Ireland former Irish army officer Sean OCallaghans highly problematic To Hell or Barbados (published in 2001) popularized the belief that Cromwells Irish deportees had been enslaved in the British Caribbean, and was almost certainly the source for Gerry Adams cringe-worthy 2016 assertion that through the penal days [the] Irish were sold as slaves. The careless blurring of the lines between slavery and indenture in OCallaghans work, rooted in sentimental nationalism than a commitment to white supremacy provided an aura of credibility for the Irish slaves meme that it would not have otherwise enjoyed.

To the extent that these falsehoods have taken root more broadly across Irish society, it is important to confront them. But its also worth pointing out that the surge in discussion of the Irish slaves meme on social media does not necessarily indicate growing support for racism. In the south of Ireland at least, where between May and early July 2020 there has been a staggering increase in the volume of such discussion, posts debunking the myth seem to exponentially outnumber those defending it. The five most popular facebook posts over this period related to Irish slaves all debunk the myth; only one in the top ten (from the right-wing student publication, The Burkean) defends it, but with only about 2% of the traction of the leading five.[1]

There are of course right-wing activists and individual racists in Ireland who want to weaponize the meme in the same way their American counterparts aim to do to discredit Black Lives Matter and undermine calls for racial justice but its clear also that there are (confused) BLM supporters and anti-racists even among those who believe at some level that Irish indenture and African slavery were equivalents. The assertion that Africans had been third in slavery in the Americas (after indigenous peoples and white indentures) was earlier popularized by the race conscious editor of Jet magazine, Lerone Bennett Jr., who wrote at the height of the Black Power movement that Africans had inherited [their] chains, in a manner of speaking, from the pioneer bondsmen, who were red and white. Clearly Bennett was blurring the lines here in the same way many do today, but he can hardly be accused of soft-pedaling the horrors of racially-based chattel slavery, and was obviously motivated by the hope that history might be put to work in building cross-racial alliances. The point here is not that populist renderings of the past should be given a free pass when they are put to service in building interracial solidarity they shouldnt but that we need to be attentive to the context in which particular versions of the past gain traction, and the present emphasis on marking off the sharp line between indenture and slavery itself reflects important ideological shifts over recent years.

A Mountain of Falsehoods

Lets get to the heart of the matter: on all the key questions of whether the Irish were the first slaves, or whether their experience as indentured laborers in Britains colonies in the so-called new world was equivalent to that endured by Africans, or of whether indenture is just a euphemism for slavery (as many on social media want to insist), the record is crystal clear and there should be no equivocation. These are all false assertions, almost always deliberately concocted at source through flagrant manipulation of numbers and chronology. Hogan has forensically dissected the numbers game here, and demonstrates repeatedly the dishonesty, embellishment and manipulation of the facts underpinning the Rights disinformation campaign.

There is nothing to be gained by trying to diminish or downplay the suffering endured by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Irish indentured servants a point that some of those arguing Hogans corner seem oblivious to, and one I will come back to in some detail below. But even if we acknowledge the hardships many of them had to endure, and even if we accept at face value the hugely inflated numbers that those disseminating the Irish slaves myth place in circulation, any attempt to conflate or render equivalent their nightmare with Africans experience as slave chattels is untenable, and callous in the extreme.

In scale, in duration, in the wrenching and long-term legacy of transatlantic slavery on Africa itself, in the absolutely central role which black slave labor played in generating the colossal wealth that helped fuel Europes industrial transformation in effect launching global capitalism and the modern world as we know it any attempt to draw equivalences is beyond absurd. By way of illustration, let us take at face value the hugely exaggerated numbers of Irish indentures purported in one prominent meme, which asserts that over an eleven-year period in the middle of the 17th century the British sold 300,000 [Irish people] as slaves. Leaving aside momentarily the question of status, as Hogan points out this number represents six times the total number of Irish migrants to the West Indies for the whole of the 17th century, and almost double total Irish migration to the West Indies and North America in the century and a half after 1630. But leave this aside as well: lets accept that for arguments sake there were 300,000 Irish laborers condemned to some degree of unfreedom in the plantation societies of the Americas.

Now consider a second figure: over nearly three centuries of the transatlantic slave trade some four million enslaved Africans died en route to the new world either while being transported overland to coastal ports in west Africa, at sea during the Middle Passage, or shortly after landing in the new world. That is, thirteen times as many Africans died in transit to the new world than the total number of Irish which the Right insists were deployed as slave laborers. If we use instead the numbers for Cromwellian deportations accepted by credible scholars (10-12,000) then this single measure reveals the absurdity of trying to render these experiences equivalent: forty times as many African died in transit than the total number of Irish sent into indenture in the 1650s. The scale of the far Rights intended swindle is breath-taking: that such idiocy can gain any traction at all shows an almost pathological aversion to facing up to the past among those circling the wagons against the renewed challenge to white supremacy.

Marx on Slavery and the Birth of Capitalism

Marxists understand the centrality of African slavery to the making of the modern world in ways that others, including liberal defenders of the present social order, miss or deliberately evade. For Marx himself, bloody conquest in the Americas (almost everywhere involving genocide against indigenous peoples)and chattel slavery on a scale the world had never previously seen were twin cornerstones of a newly emerging capitalism that would, over a remarkably short period in historical terms, bring under its ambit diverse and far-flung societies across the globe. The different momenta of primitive accumulation [of capital] distribute themselves now, he wrote in the first volume of Capital, over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a [systematic] combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force,e.g.,the colonial system. More broadly, he insists

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre.[2] [emphasis added]

The leading African American scholar-activist WEB Du Bois, deeply influenced by marxist materialism at the height of his intellectual powers, expanded on this argument from the vantage point of the early 20th century, when the global system that Marx identified in embryo had developed into mature form: That dark and vast sea of human laborthe great majority of humankind, he wrote in Black Reconstruction, shares a common destinydespised and rejected by race and color, paid a wage below the level of decent living[.] Enslaved in all but name, he insisted, they gather up raw materials at prices lowest of the low, manufactured, transformed, and transported, with the resulting wealth distributed and made the basis of world powerin London and Paris, Berlin and Rome, New York and Rio de Janeiro. Written in 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, one could hardly find a more fitting depiction of the world we inhabit today, marked by exploitive relations between global capital and a racially stratified, multinational labour force. And of course it is impossible to understand the deep resonance that protests in the US have found across the globe without understanding the ways in which police violence directed disproportionately at this dark and vast sea of human labor reinforces the wider system of exploitation that Marx and Du Bois identified.

This approach to understanding the centrality of slavery serves up a crushing riposte to far Right apologists, but it also marks off an alternative framework from which to understand the evolution of chattel slavery in the Americas one that captures complex aspects of its development missing from the debate thus far, and perhaps excluded by the way it has been framed by Hogan and others. In Ireland the enduring legacy of the revisionist reappraisal of the past is evident in writing on indenture and, more obviously, on Irish complicity in the transatlantic slave trade. Fearghal Mac Bhloschaidh has written perceptively of the ideological thrust of the revisionist project in Ireland: the main current dominating Irish historiography, he asserts, can be best understood as an idiosyncratic Irish manifestation of a wider liberal defence of power, which employs a vulgar empiricism and constrictive ontology to prohibit a radical reading of the past or an awareness of history as process.[3]

Framing Slavery and Indenture

The salience of this historiographical context for framing discussion of Irish indenture and its relationship to African slavery is obvious. Though the terrain of this discussion has been profoundly shaped by the regressive trends identified by Mac Bhloschaidh, this background will go unnoticed by many who happen upon the debate online or in the press. The convergence of the revisionist sensibility in understanding the Caribbean is most obviously manifested in Donald Akensons lectures on the Irish presence in 17th century Montserrat, collected in a volume published under the suitably provocative title If the Irish Ran the World. Drawing on a recent literature that simultaneously denies Irelands colonial past and upholds the notion of an Irish empire, Akenson asserts that the smallest of the main Leeward islands constituted Irelands only 17th and 18th century colony. Indenture figures in his account as a story of rational-choice upward mobility; the text strains to obliterate the distinction between Irish (mainly though not exclusively Anglo-Irish and Protestant) planters and indentured servants, and asserts that indenture was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience. [emphasis added] Though Hogan is mostly forthright in acknowledging the misery that attended indenture,[4] traces of Akensons cheerier rendering are evident in the present debate.

Three key elements prominent in earlier writing on indenture in the Caribbean and British North America are obscured in the way the recent controversy has been framed. First, an earlier historiography acknowledged, significantly, that indenture was one in a series of solutions by which planter elites attempted to solve the problem of labor scarcity in their new world colonies: in short they could not reap profits selling staple crops on the transatlantic market without an adequate supply of labor, and for a while in the earliest period of Anglo/European settlement white indentured labor seemed a viable option. As the distinguished anthropologist Sindey Mintz put it, planters were, in one sense, completely without prejudice [and] willing to employ any kind of laborunder any kind of arrangements, as long as the labor force was politically defenseless enough for the work to be done cheaply and under discipline. In parts of the Caribbean Irish indentures seem to have played an especially prominent role early on (rooted in the Cromwellian deportations) but in North America indentures were drawn from England (mainly), Scotland and Ireland, without any obvious distinction being made between them. A second element, now largely absent from the debate, is the sense that the turn to African slavery as the foundation for plantation labor was a contingent development, and not preordained by history. A complex convergence of circumstances pushed Anglo planters toward a full commitment to black slavery: improved conditions in Ireland and Britain meant the flow of voluntary migrants dried up; the turn from small-scale tobacco cultivation to sugar in the Caribbean (and from hopes of outright plunder to tobacco export further north in Virginia and the Chesapeake) generated an exponential increase in the planters labor requirements. Finally, British entry into and then domination of the transatlantic slave trade brought a sharp decline in the costs of deploying slave labor, to the point where African slaves-for-life could be deployed on the plantations more economically than white indentures.[5]

Labour, Identity and the Construction of Race

In the face of the malicious attempt to muddy the waters around the horrors of African slavery, it is important to point out the very real, and substantial, differences between indenture and slavery for life. But the evolution of chattel slavery, its place in an evolving system of labor exploitation, the declining importance of indenture indeed any sense of change over time is almost entirely absent from the narrow framework of national identity through which discussion is now focused. And what do we lose in this shift? Most significantly we miss the possibility of grasping what the African American historian Barbara J. Fields has called the incremental construction of race.[6] If it is true, as is now widely accepted, that race is a fiction, and that whiteness was deliberately constructed as a way of marking off racial boundaries and securing the loyalty of white laborers to their social betters, then the new world plantation societies of the 17th and 18th centuries served as the setting in which this process was initiated and then consolidated.

Here Akensons assertion that indenture and chattel slavery were galaxies apart or his insinuation that Irish indentures were simply slaveowners-in-the-making who had not yet found their true calling is misleading, and marks a retreat from a more dynamic and potentially productive framework. Those pushing the Irish slaves myth suggest that indenture is synonymous with slavery, but there are important distinctions: most (though not all) indentures from Britain, Scotland and Ireland were voluntary; in return for transatlantic passage and a modest package of land and tools, etc. at the end of their indentures, they signed away their freedom for terms ranging typically from 4 to 10 years. Historians will continue to debate the evidence from colonial North America and the Anglo Caribbean: there is a basis for emphasizing the special unease that planters exhibited toward their African laborers, and the indications that racial demarcation between African and Christian servants [i.e. whites] was underway from outset. But there is countervailing evidence especially from colonial North America, that points to a period in which race relations at the bottom were more fluid. It was not uncommon during the first half of the seventeenth century for Africans, Europeans, and indigenous Americans in the colonial Chesapeake to work alongside one another, and even to share the same living quarters. No sharp racial division of labor had yet emerged to prescribe which work would belong to a particular group. Contrary to the assumption that racism has always divided blacks and whites, unfree laborers of all races in the early seventeenth century Chesapeake seemed remarkably unconcerned about their visible physical differences.[7] Their lives intersected in many ways, and there is clear evidence that they shared not only living quarters and daily toil, but close personal ties as well. From the fragmentary record we know that at least some white laborers were conscious of the common lot they shared with blacks: We and the Negroes both alike did fare, one servant-poet wrote: Of work and food we had an equal share.[8] An investigation into the death of a Dutch servant at the hands of his master in 1647 illustrates the sense of vulnerability shared among the ranks of the unfree. A plantation overseer testified that when he visited the servants quarters just after hearing of the death of one of their co-laborers, they all

sate very mallanchollye in the quartering house, and [the overseer] asked them what they ayled to bee soe mallanchollye. The Spanyard made answer and said Lord have mercy upon this boye hath been killed by b(l)owes, his conscience told him. Tom Clarke said Lord have mercy upon us that ever it was my hard fortune to come to this countrye for, if this bee suffered, it maye bee my turne to morrow or next daye. The Negro said Jesus Christ my mayster is not good. And they all wept bitterlye.[9]

The construction of race in the vortex of new world conquest, exploitation and inter-imperial rivalry can also explain the fundamental distinction between the form of slavery that took shape in the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Atlantic world and every other form of slavery that preceded it. What was distinct about the system that provided the foundations for modern capitalism was its elevation of racial distinctions: though the timing of its development varied here and there, black skin became everywhere in the Americas a marker for slave status. Unlike slavery in the ancient world, where ethnicity and national origin seem to have barely figured in denoting the status of human beings, what developed in the Americas was a racially-defined system of exploitation. And the stigma attached to race, the comprehensive system of racist ideology concocted to rationalize and justify the selective enslavement of black Africans (notions of black inferiority, white superiority), gave grounding and coherence to a set of deeply embedded racial assumptions that outlived slavery, and which very obviously retain their destructive power well into the 21st century.

Wherever historians come down on what the records show for the formative period in race-making, there can be little dispute that racial boundaries became more rigid over time, and that this hardening of the color line was reflected in evolving law and custom. In British North America the critical turning point in the fastening of racial hierarchy the invention of whiteness came as a direct response by colonial elites to a multi-racial rebellion driven by the lower orders.[10]

Finally, understanding both slavery and indenture as evolving solutions to the labor problem rather than as mere reflections of a hierarchy of identities can explain how, as Kerby Miller has suggested, the records of almost every major slave revolt in the Anglo-American world from the West Indian uprisings in the late 1600s, to the 1741 slave conspiracy in New York City, through Gabriels rebellion of 1800 in Virginia, to the plot discovered on the Civil Wars eve in Natchez, Mississippi were marked by real or purported Irish participation or instigation.[11] The planters dread of rebel combinations between the Irish poor and African slaves like their more general tendency to perceive slave plots all around them was more often based on paranoia than firm evidence. What worried masters in Barbados, above all, Hilary McD. Beckles observed, was Irish involvement in slave revolts. In most cases fear outran fact in this regard,[12] he notes, but if it is true that the conditions which black slaves and white indentures worked and lived under were galaxies apart, how can we explain the persistence of this deep anxiety among Anglo slaveowners throughout the plantation societies of the Americas? Ironically, as Miller points out, it was not the much-maligned Irish nationalists of the 19th and early 20th centuries who first constructed the image of Irelands Catholics (and [their] Protestant allies) as inveterate rebels against political and social authority. Rather, it was earlier Protestant (and Catholic) conservatives and counter-revolutionaries, for whom essential (or wild) Irishness seemed the inveterate enemy of the hierarchical systems, deferential habits, and genteel norms that maintained the prevailing, unequal distributions of rights, property, and power.[13]

In obvious ways, the terms of the debate around slavery and indenture have been outside the control of Liam Hogan and others who have stood up to refute the intense disinformation campaign mounted by the far Right and a softer element of right-leaning, sentimental Irish nationalists. Clearly, they have performed an important service in deploying the historical record against sordid attempts to make light of the horrors of chattel slavery. But the narrow terms in which these issues have, until now, been discussed reveal also the persistent influence of conservatism in Irish history writing, itself a variant of a more general retreat among historians away from an engaged social history that attends to the complex relationships between race, class and power and toward a fixation with culture and identity. This can obscure as much as it reveals. Indentured servitude and racially-based slavery for life were not equivalents, nor were they comparable in terms of scale or importance in generating the economic foundations that would launch global capitalism. But they were related forms of exploitation at the birth of the modern world, and the best way to honor the victims of both is to commit to rebuilding the rebel combinations that flickered, tentatively, across the color line among those at the bottom. The odious racism that the Black Lives Matter Movement confronts today has its origins in that harsh world, and its time we buried that part of our past.

Notes.

1. Buzzsumo app, 29 June 2020: data in authors possession.

2. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 31: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist, available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm.

3. Mac Bhloscaidh, Objective Historians, Irrational Fenians and the Bewildered Herd: Revisionist Myth and the Irish Revolution, Irish Studies Review (April 2020): pps. 2,6.

4. On this point see Liam Hogan, Laura McAtackney and Matthew C. Reilly, The Irish in the Anglo-Caribbean: Servants or Slaves?, History Ireland (March-April 2016); pps. 18-22.

5. On these interlinked developments see David W. Galenson, The Rise and Fall of Indentured Servitude in the Americas: An Economic Analysis, Journal of Economic History 44:1 (Mar. 1984), pps. 1- 26. On parallels in the North American context see Kelly, Material Origins of Racism in North America, available at https://www.academia.edu/10195740/Material_Origins_of_Racism_in_North_America.

6. See Fields important discussion of this issue in Barbara Jeanne Fields, Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America, New Left Review 1/181 (May/June 1990): available online at https://newleftreview.org/issues/I181/articles/barbara-jeanne-fields-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america.

7. Kenneth Stampp, cited in Winthrop D. Jordan, Modern Tensions and the Origins of American Slavery, Journal of Southern History28:1 (1962): 21.

8. Jacqueline Jones, American Work: Four Centuries of Black and White Labor (1999), p. 76.

9. North Carolina Deeds, Wills, etc., 1645-51, cited in J. Douglas Deal, Race and Class in Colonial Virginia: Indians, Englishmen, and Africans on the Eastern Shore During the Seventeenth Century (1993), pps. 117-118.

10. On the importance of Bacons Rebellion (1676) in galvanizing Virginia elites and solidifying racial hierarchy in the colonial Chesapeake, see Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975), and Theodore Allen, They Would Have Destroyed Me: Slavery and the Origins of Racism, Radical America (May-June 1975): pps. 41-63.

11. Kerby Miller, Epilogue: Re-Imagining Irish and Irish Diasporan History, in Ireland and Irish America(2008).

12. Hilary McD. Beckles, A riotous and unruly lot: Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644-I7I3, William and Mary Quarterly 47:4 (Oct. 1990), p. 517. On indenture and cooperation between Irish indentures and African and creole slaves in the British Caribbean see also Aubrey Gwynn, Indentured Servants and Negro Slaves in Barbados (1642-1650), Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 19:74 (Jun. 1930), pp. 279-294. As a corrective to Akensons story of upward mobility, Gwynn reminds us (284) that although after their term of indenture had been completed, the servant was free, and might be allotted land on the island. But not many lived to see the day. Mortality on Caribbean-bound ships was high, a fact that seems to be missing from recent discussions of indenture. In Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624-1713 (1972), for example, Richard S. Dunn reports that on one ship eighty of 350 passengers died of sickness by the time it arrived in port in Barbados in 1638.

13. Miller, Epilogue, p. 23.

The rest is here:

Ireland and Slavery: Debating the 'Irish Slaves Myth' - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

Sikoryak’s ‘Constitution Illustrated’ Pay Homage to Comics and the Constitution – PopMatters

Constitution Illustrated R. Sikoryak

Drawn & Quarterly

July 2020

How many artists have created their own genres? Robert Sikoryak may stand among few, especially for genres within the comics form.

He has an eloquently simple concept: combine a set of words with incongruous drawings in the styles of famous comics. For his first 2009 graphic novel, Masterpiece Comics, Sikoryak retold classic works of literature, such as The Scarlet Letter, Doctor Faustus, and Crime and Punishment, featuring Little Lulu as Hawthorne's Pearl, Garfield as Marlowe's Mephistopheles, and Batman as Dostoyevsky's homicidal protagonist.

In 2017, Terms and Conditions earned Sikoryak greater attention for an even stranger premise: the complete, unabridged iTunes user agreement with Steve Jobs drawn in 94 pages of constantly changing styles. For The Unquotable Trump, released later the same year, he applied his formula to political satire, inserting Donald Trump cartoon images and verbatim quotes into comic book covers, with an appropriate emphasis on supervillains.

Now Sikoryak delves even deeper into American politics by adapting the most central US text. Constitution Illustrated provides the complete, unaltered Articles and Amendments in 114 cartoon vignettes. The book is both Sikoryak's widest range of comics homages yet and, more oddly, his most practical. Where the iTunes contract was a comically absurd choice because so few people have ever bothered to read it, the Constitution is, of course, a keystone of US law and culture. Sikoryak even evokes a pocket-sized edition, that ubiquitous prop used by politicians and pundits in need of something to clench and wave above their heads.

I just used my copy to check whether the 19th Amendment established the right of women to both vote and hold office or just to vote. The page features a spot-on imitation of H. G. Peter, the first but uncredited Wonder Woman artist. That pairing is a good illustration of Sikoryak's logic and humor. Though unlike the adaptions in The Unquotable Trump, the page isn't an exact recreation (like John Romita's 1975 The Hulk on the Rampage cover), but a formally freer combination of style and subject. (The 19th Amendment, by the way, is just for the right to vote.)

If you're a comics aficionado, Constitution Illustrated is also the ultimate pop quiz. I didn't keep score as I flipped through the first time, but I chuckled when I recognized the logic behind each discordant pairing, especially the superhero motif. For Article I, Section I describing the division of Congress into the Senate and the House, Sikoryak draws two muscular and oppositely colored patriots sprinting in a mirrored pose cribbed from the 1976 cover of The Greatest Race of All Time! Superman vs. the Flash. The two DC heroes are allies on the same team, but they still compete against each other all too often. That antagonism increases when the House's Super Friends face a row of Senate supervillains in an illustration of the House's sole power to create tax-raising bills and the Senate's power to amend them.

Instead of Spider-Man's antagonists Prowler and J. Jonah Jameson watching Peter Parker fall from a window, Sikoryak draws a presiding Chief Justice and a Senator watching the President in the same posean apt illustration for the protocols for trying an impeachment. President Parker bears no resemblance to either Donald Trump or Bill CIinton, but Sikoryak kindly adds tingling spider senses emanata as a helpful clue (something artist Romita did not include on the original 1969 cover).

A 1943-based colonial Captain America blocks a spray of musket bulletsmetaphorically blocking the states' ability to wage war, a power exclusive to the federal government. Sikoryak leaps to 1992 for Article II, Section 2's description of the President's role as Commander in Chief. I admit I didn't recognize Jim Lee's Wild C.A.T.s cover, just the decade-defining style which I took for Rob Liefeld. Happily, Sikoryak provides a cheat sheet in the appendixes, listing the source for each of adaption.

The list of comics artists that get a respectful nod in Sikoryak's Constitution Illustrated is dizzyingly eclectic. It includes Alison Bechdel, Garry Trudeau, Roz Chast, Art Spiegelman, Chris Ware, Charles Schultz, Frank Miller, Scott McCloud, Adrian Tomine, and many more. This book could be used in courses in comics and cartoon history, as it features some of the earliest creators, like Richard Outcault (The Yellow Kid) and Windsor McCay (Little Nemo), and some of the most recent, like Noelle Stevenson (Lumberjanes) and Bianca Xunise (Six Chix).

Black artists George Herriman, Jackie Ormes, Matt Baker, Barbara Brandon-Croft, and Aaron McGruder are represented, as well as the presentation of Black characters by non-Black artists. The Jaime and Gilbert Hernandez tribute is the most diverse, implying a hope that the Electoral College, which it describes should reflect the same level of diversity. Less subtlety, Sikoryak draws a chain-breaking Luke Cage to illustrate the slavery-ending 13th Amendment. His 25th Amendment depicts a Black vice-president assuming the presidencyjust as the Black character John Stewart assumed the role of Green Lantern in DC comics.

My favorite, though it's disturbing, is Mandrake the Magician turning his African servant Lothar partially invisible beneath the census directive to count only "three fifths of all other persons", meaning, of course, slaves. The image unites the racism of the Article with the racism of the 1930s characters. It also highlights how any contemporary analysis of the Constitution must address its deep flaws too. Sikoryak's satirical pairings breathe new and sometimes uncomfortable life into the United States' most living document.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Read more:

Sikoryak's 'Constitution Illustrated' Pay Homage to Comics and the Constitution - PopMatters

Global Projection 2020: Facial Recognition Market Exclusive Profitable Comprehensive Research Report with COVID-19 Impact Overview | Forecast 2029 -…

An investigation ofFacial RecognitionMarket has been given in the most recent report launched by MarketResearch.Biz that essentially focuses on the market trends, demand spectrum, and future prospects of this industry over the conjecture time frame. Moreover, the report gives a point by point statistical review in terms of trends outlining the geographical opportunities and contributions by prominent industry share contenders.

In addition, the report centers on giving thorough comprehensive analytical data on the local fragments, which incorporate North America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and the Rest of the World. Other than this, improvement plans and strategies, marketing terminologies, manufacturing protocols, current trends, dynamics of the market, and characterization have been clarified in brief in this Facial Recognition market report. The group of specialists and investigators displays the readers exact measurements and logical information in the report in a simple manner by methods for graphs, outlines, pie graphs, and other pictorial delineations.

For all-inclusive information: Download a FREE sample copy of Facial RecognitionMarket Report Study 2020-2029 athttps://marketresearch.biz/report/facial-recognition-market/request-sample

Topmost Prime Key Manufacturers of Facial Recognition Market Report-Aware Inc, NEC Corporation, Ayonix Corp., Cognitec Systems, Key Lemon S.A., nViso Sarl, Herta Security, Techno Brain, Neurotechnology, Daon Inc, Animetrics, 3M Company

How Does This Facial Recognition Market Insights Help?

Facial Recognition Market share (regional, product, end-user, application) both in terms of volume and revenue alongside CAGR

Key parameters which are driving this market and restraining its development

What all challenges manufacturers will face as well as new opportunities and threats faced by them

Find out about the market strategies that are being adopted by your competitors and leading organizations

To gain insightful analyses of the market and have a extensive comprehension of the Facial Recognition Market and its commercial landscape

Impact of Covid-19 in Facial Recognition Market:The utility-possessed section is for the most part being driven by increasing financial incentives and regulatory supports from the governments globally. The current utility-owned Facial Recognition are affected primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the projects in China, Germany, the US, and South Korea are delayed, and the companies are facing short-term operational issues due to supply chain constraints and lack of site access due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Asia-Pacific is anticipated is foreseen to get exceptionally influenced by the spread of the COVID-19 due to the effect of the pandemic in China, Japan, and India. China is the epic focus of this lethal disease.

Connect with our Analyst to understand the CORONA Virus/COVID-19 impact and be smart in redefining Business Strategies @https://marketresearch.biz/report/facial-recognition-market/covid-19-impact

Overview of Facial Recognition market:

The report begins with a market overview and moves on to cover the growth prospects of the Facial Recognition market. A detailed segmentation analysis of the Facial Recognition market is available in the report. Facial Recognition industry comprehensive analysis also covers upstream raw materials, marketing channels, downstream client surveys, equipment, industry development trend, and proposals. Furthermore, a business overview, revenue share, and SWOT analysis of the leading players in the Facial Recognition market are available in the report.

Click on- >To Inquiry And Customization of Facial Recognition Market Report

Segmentation Assessment By technology, component, and application and regions:

By technology:

2D3DFacial analyticsBy component:

HardwareScannersCamerasHandheld DevicesIntegrated DevicesSoftwareBy application:

Homeland securityCriminal investigationID managementPhysical securityIntelligent signageWeb applicationBusiness intelligencePhoto indexing & sorting

The report offers an in-depth assessment of growth and other aspects of the market. Facial Recognition in major countries (regions), including:

> North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)

> Europe (Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia and Italy)

> Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, and Southeast Asia)

> South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.)

> Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of the Facial Recognition Market are as follows:

Base Year: 2019 | Estimated Year: 2020 | Forecast Year: 2020 to 2029

Facial Recognition industrial report not only offers hard to find facts about the trends and innovation driving the current and future of Facial Recognition business, but also provides insights into competitive development such as acquisition and mergers, joint ventures, product launches, and technology advancements.

Table of Contents

Introduction: The report begins with an executive summary, which includes the highlights of the Facial Recognition Industry Research Study.

Market Segmentation: This section provides a detailed analysis of the type and application segments of the Facial Recognition market and shows the progress of each segment with the help of easy-to-understand statistics and graphical presentations.

Regional Analysis: All major regions and countries are covered in the Facial Recognition Industry Report.

Market Dynamics: The report provides an insight into the dynamics of the Facial Recognition industry, including challenges, constraints, trends, opportunities, and drivers.

Competition: Here, the report provides company profiles of the top players competing in the Facial Recognition market.

Forecasts: This section is filled with global and regional forecasts, CAGR, and size estimates for the Facial Recognition market and its segments, and production, revenue, consumption, sales, and other forecasts.

Recommendations: The authors of the report have provided practical suggestions and reliable recommendations to help players achieve a position of strength in the Facial Recognition market.

Research Methodology: The report provides clear information about the research approach, tools and methodology, and data sources used for the Facial Recognition Industry Research Study.

>>>Read Out Complete TOC of Facial Recognition [emailprotected]https://marketresearch.biz/report/facial-recognition-market/#toc<<<

About Us

MarketResearch.biz is a global market research and consulting service provider specialized in offering a wide range of business solutions to their clients including market research reports, primary and secondary research, demand forecasting services, focus group analysis and other services. We understand that how data is important in todays competitive environment and thus, we have collaborated with industrys leading research providers who work continuously to meet the ever-growing demand for market research reports throughout the year.

Contact Us:

Mr. Benni Johnson ([emailprotected])

MarketResearch.Biz (Powered By Prudour Pvt. Ltd.)

420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 300

New York City, NY 10170,

United States

Website:https://marketresearch.biz

Share Your Questions Here For More Details On this Report or Customizations As Per Your Need:https://marketresearch.biz/report/facial-recognition-market/#request-for-customization

See the original post:

Global Projection 2020: Facial Recognition Market Exclusive Profitable Comprehensive Research Report with COVID-19 Impact Overview | Forecast 2029 -...