RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Trump Is Flailing and Pence Did Nothing to Help Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Saturday, 10 October 2020 08:23

Rich writes: "The obfuscation around the severity of Donald Trump's illness since he contracted COVID-19 has brought renewed attention to Mike Pence."

Mike Pence didn't have any good answers on the pandemic. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Mike Pence didn't have any good answers on the pandemic. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)


Trump Is Flailing and Pence Did Nothing to Help

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

10 October 20

 

he obfuscation around the severity of Donald Trump’s illness since he contracted COVID-19 has brought renewed attention to Mike Pence. What did Wednesday night’s debate show us about both Pence and Kamala Harris, and how will the debate, and Trump’s refusal this morning to take part in the next one, affect the campaign?

The debate will have a huge impact only if The Fly gets a Netflix deal. Despite a concerted media effort to hype the stakes of a face-off between the standbys for two septuagenarian presidential candidates, it was business as usual. Veep debates, like most veeps themselves, never move votes. Nothing happened last night to arrest the polling stampede toward Joe Biden in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s virus-spewing tantrum in the previous debate.

Trump’s refusal to participate in the next debate is another act of self-harm. Biden has all the leverage here. It is a completely reasonable position to all but MAGA death cultists that neither he nor the participating citizens in a town hall debate expose themselves to a COVID superspreader whose current medical condition is a state secret. And since it’s Trump who needs a debate to try to shake up a losing campaign, his decision to bail only hurts himself, not Biden. It makes him look like he is ducking questions and fearful of a format in which he can’t shout over everyone else. His promise that he will hold a rally instead — an implicit threat to infect even more people than he already has — is laughable. We’ll see if he flip-flops on this no-win stand as quickly as he did on his other politically self-immolating move of the week, pulling the plug on stimulus negotiations. The dexamethasone will have the final say.

As for Pence and Harris, it would be hard to claim we learned much new — unless you consider the possibility that Pence, too, is ill. His left eye looked infected and his energy was subdued. Certainly the chairman of the coronavirus task force is taking minimal precautions to preserve his own health. The day before the debate his press secretary, Katie Miller, mocked the Democrats for insisting on a plexiglass barrier onstage: “If Senator Harris wants to use a fortress around herself, have at it.” (A plexiglass barrier as a public-health precaution seems to be the only wall the Trump administration doesn’t want to build.) Given that Miller had herself battled COVID, this was a strange move, and sure enough, karma once again came home to roost. She had hardly made her taunt before the news arrived that her husband, Stephen Miller, the White House’s secretary of xenophobia, had tested positive. As if to further underline Pence’s devil-may-care attitude toward the pandemic, his wife, a.k.a. Mother, appeared onstage unmasked at the debate’s end. (Harris’s husband wore a mask.)

Pence had no good answers — and barely attempted any — to address the president’s catastrophic failure to confront, or at times even to acknowledge, a virus that has killed more than 210,000 Americans. He seemed to think that if he tossed out a hypothetical and hyperbolic death toll for the H1N1 outbreak during the Obama administration, somehow voters would ignore the growing COVID casualty rate afflicting Americans right now. What was also striking about Pence was his utter inability to deal with any women who are not Mother. He constantly interrupted Harris and the female moderator, Susan Page, when he was not mansplaining to them. If his goal was to make what is likely to be the largest gender gap in American electoral history even larger, mission accomplished!

Page was an embarrassingly inept moderator. She didn’t have a clue about how to get Pence to stop abusing the time limits, and she didn’t field follow-up queries when the candidates, more often than not Pence, ignored her questions entirely. But this was in one way a plus for Harris, since Page’s passivity allowed Pence’s condescension to play out in full view of those “suburban housewives” the Trump campaign ostensibly aspires to woo. Harris was shrewd to challenge Pence only glancingly and politely on his boorishness; if she’d turned up the tone a notch, she would have immediately been pilloried as an “angry” or “nasty” woman of color by the factotums of the white-supremacist party. Even so, there was plenty of sniping by the usual suspects, spewing the standard GOP boilerplate for targeting female politicians. “I don’t think she did a good job of making herself likable,” said Karl Rove on Fox News.

In terms of substance, Harris made the points she had to make about both the COVID debacle and Trump’s assault on the Affordable Care Act and its coverage of preexisting conditions. Pence didn’t and couldn’t address his administration’s four-year failure to offer its promised health-care plan. Harris, as many have noted, didn’t have an answer to the question about packing the court. If there is another debate, presumably Biden will have an answer by then. But even if he doesn’t, it makes no difference. This election is not going to be decided by voters’ views on packing the court or even on the attempted ramming through of Amy Coney Barrett.

It’s fascinating, though, that both the Trump campaign and Republican senators on the ropes in their re-election bids, like Lindsey Graham, think that Barrett can push them over the top in November. The latest Fox News poll out this week, consistent with others, shows that by a two-to-one margin, Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld (61 to 28 percent) and Obamacare to remain as law (64 to 32 percent). Barrett’s own paper trail, no matter how hard she may try to fudge her record during a confirmation hearing, attests to her minority stand on both these issues. Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee should get out of the way and give Harris as much airtime as possible to prosecute the case.

But the most important finding in that new Fox poll — more important than its finding that Biden has doubled his national lead over Trump to ten points since last month — is that only 24 percent of Americans are confident that the virus is under control, down from 30 percent in September. And every hour, it seems, Trump comes up with another stunt to undermine that confidence, whether it’s lording his “miracle” cure over sick Americans who have no access to his (unproven) medication or threatening the integrity of the FDA vaccine-approval process. Not to mention that he has now forsaken epidemiology entirely to turn over national coronavirus policy to a radiologist and Fox News commentator, Scott Atlas, and his own medical care to an osteopathic spin doctor, Sean Conley, who is an even less practiced liar than Sean Spicer.

Republicans are clinging to the hope that this latest awful patch in the Trump narrative will pass without inflicting lasting harm, like the revelation of the Access Hollywood tape four years ago this week. But the Access Hollywood tape only killed Billy Bush’s career, not 210,000 Americans. There’s nothing that happened in last night’s debate or is likely to happen in any future debate that will blot out the pandemic’s continuing body count or Trump’s indelible behavior in the pre-Election Day countdown of his now stark-raving-mad presidency.

Back in the Watergate era, Americans were stunned when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reported that Richard Nixon at his nadir was talking to the paintings on the White House walls. But at least that spectacle happened behind closed doors. Upon Trump’s return from Walter Reed, he stood gasping before the cameras on the Lincoln Balcony in full makeup, saluted into thin air, and held a pose that struck many as a cross between Benito Mussolini and Patti LuPone in Evita. If what we’re witnessing is what Trump calls “a blessing from God,” it will be more incumbent than ever on voters, not God, to save America.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56584"><span class="small">Paul Matzko, The New York Times</span></a>   
Saturday, 10 October 2020 08:19

Matzko writes: "At least 15 million Americans every week tune into one of the top 15 talk radio programs. They are not monolithically conservative, but they are overwhelmingly so."

The radio host Rush Limbaugh introducing President Trump at a campaign rally in 2018. (photo: Jeff Roberson/AP)
The radio host Rush Limbaugh introducing President Trump at a campaign rally in 2018. (photo: Jeff Roberson/AP)


Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives

By Paul Matzko, The New York Times

10 October 20


The medium is at the heart of Trumpism.

t least 15 million Americans every week tune into one of the top 15 talk radio programs. They are not monolithically conservative, but they are overwhelmingly so. A dozen of the top 15 shows feature conservative or libertarian hosts — with devoted followings like Rush Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” or Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” — and only one leans left.

Talk radio may face an aging audience, a decline in ad revenue and competition from new mass media forms like podcasts, but there are still millions of Americans whose politics are shaped by what they listen to on talk radio all day, every day. Fox News gets more of the attention for shaping conservative opinion and for its influence on the Trump administration, but we shouldn’t overlook the power of conservative talk radio.

The conservatism of talk radio only partly overlaps with institutional conservatism, that of right-wing Washington think tanks, magazines and the Republican Party itself. By the early 2000s, it had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
India's Hindu Right Are Willing to Bury Democracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56582"><span class="small">Arundhati Roy, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 10 October 2020 08:19

Roy writes: "In mid-September, reports came in of a nineteen-year-old Dalit girl who was gang-raped, mutilated, and left for dead by dominant-caste men in her village in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh."

Indian Muslims in an argument with a group of Indian policemen after they were removed from a protest site at Shaheen Bagh on March 24, 2020, in Delhi, India. (photo: Yawar Nazir/Getty)
Indian Muslims in an argument with a group of Indian policemen after they were removed from a protest site at Shaheen Bagh on March 24, 2020, in Delhi, India. (photo: Yawar Nazir/Getty)


India's Hindu Right Are Willing to Bury Democracy

By Arundhati Roy, Jacobin

10 October 20


While India’s rulers downplay the brutal murder of a Dalit teenager by an upper-caste gang and acquit Hindu nationalists guilty of historic crimes, Arundhati Roy argues, they are concocting another show trial of Muslims and progressive activists to intimidate dissenters.

s Diwali approaches and Hindus prepare to celebrate the triumphant return of Lord Ram to his kingdom (and the spanking new temple that is being built for him in Ayodhya), the rest of us must be content to celebrate this season of serial triumphs for Indian democracy.

Between the breaking news of a disturbing cremation, the laying to rest of one great conspiracy, and the inauguration of another, how can we not be proud of ourselves, our cultural and civilizational values, both ancient and modern?

Terror Against Dalits

In mid-September, reports came in of a nineteen-year-old Dalit girl who was gang-raped, mutilated, and left for dead by dominant-caste men in her village in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. Her family was one of fifteen Dalit families in a village where a majority of the six hundred households were Brahmin and Thakur — the same caste as Ajay Singh Bisht, the saffron-robed Uttar Pradesh chief minister who calls himself Yogi Adityanath. (He is, by all accounts, being groomed to replace Narendra Modi as prime minister in the near future.)

The girl had been stalked and terrorized by her assailants for a while. She had nobody to turn to for help. Nobody to protect her. So, she stayed at home and rarely went out. She and her family were aware of what was in store for them. But awareness didn’t help. Her mother found her daughter’s bleeding body in the field where she took her cows to graze. Her tongue had been almost severed, her spine broken, leaving her paralyzed.

The girl survived for two weeks, first in a hospital in Aligarh and then, as her condition worsened, in a hospital in Delhi. On the night of September 29, she died. The Uttar Pradesh police, best known for pulling off four hundred custodial killings last year — almost a fourth of the all-India total of nearly 1,700 — whisked the girl’s body away in the dead of night and drove all the way back to the outskirts of her village.

They locked up the traumatized family, denying the girl’s mother a final farewell, a chance to gaze upon her daughter’s face, and denying the community the dignity of performing the last rites for a beloved who has departed this world. Denying them even the definite knowledge that it was indeed their daughter’s body that was cremated.

The murdered girl’s broken body was laid on a hurriedly put-together pyre, and the smoke rose into the night sky from behind a wall of khaki police uniforms. The girl’s family huddled together, clearly terrified by the blaze of media attention. Terrified because they knew very well that when the lights faded, they would be punished for that attention, too.

If they manage to survive, they will go back to the lives they have grown used to — victims of medieval cruelty and indignity meted out to them in their medieval caste-ridden village where they are considered untouchable and subhuman.

An Ordinary Crime

A day after the cremation, confident that the body had been safely dispatched, the police have announced that the girl had not been raped. She had only been murdered. Only.

This marks the beginning of the standard operating procedure in which the caste angle is quickly excised from caste atrocities. Courts, hospital records, and the mainstream media can all be expected to cooperate in this process of gradually turning a hate-fueled caste atrocity into just another unfortunate but ordinary crime.

In other words, absolving our society, letting our culture and social practices off the hook. We have seen it time and time again, most graphically in the 2006 massacre and brutalization of Surekha Bhotmange and her two children in Khairlanji.

As part of our effort to return our country to her glorious past, as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promises it will do, in the next election, if you can, please don’t forget to vote for Ajay Singh Bisht. If not him, then for the nearest Muslim-baiting, Dalit-hating politician, whoever he or she may be. Remember to “like” the next lynching video that’s uploaded, and to keep watching your favorite venom-spewing TV anchor, because he or she is the keeper of our collective conscience.

Also, please don’t forget to be grateful that we can still vote, that we live in the world’s largest democracy, and that unlike what we like to call the “failed states” in our neighborhood, in India we have neutral courts that administer the rule of law.

Vanishing Act

Only a few hours after that shameful, horrifying cremation outside the village in Hathras, on the morning of September 30, a Central Bureau of Investigation special court gave us a robust demonstration of just such neutrality and probity.

After twenty-eight years of careful deliberation, it acquitted all the thirty-two people who had been accused of conspiring to demolish the Babri Masjid in 1992, an event that changed the course of the history of modern India. The acquitted included a former home minister, a former cabinet minister, and a former chief minister.

In effect, it appears that nobody demolished the Babri Masjid. At least not legally. Perhaps the mosque demolished itself. Perhaps all those years ago, it picked that day, December 6, Babasaheb Ambedkar’s death anniversary, to hammer itself into dust, to crumble under the collective willpower of the saffron-scarfed thugs who called themselves devotees that had gathered there that day.

It turns out that the videos and photographs we all saw of the men hammering down the old mosque’s domes, the witness testimonies that we read and heard, the news reports that filled the media in the months that followed were figments of our imagination.

L. K. Advani’s Rath Yatra, when he traveled the length and breadth of India in an open truck, addressing huge crowds, shutting down city roads, exhorting true Hindus to converge on Ayodhya and participate in building a Ram temple at the exact spot where the mosque stood — all of that never really happened.

Neither did the death and destruction that his Yatra left in its wake. Nobody chanted Ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tod do. We were experiencing a collective, nationwide hallucination. What were we all smoking? Why aren’t we being summoned by the Narcotics Control Bureau? Why are only Bollywood folks being summoned? Are we not all equal in the eyes of the law?

The Special Court judge has written a detailed 2,300-page judgment about how there was no plan to destroy the mosque. That’s a feat, you have to admit — 2,300 pages about the absence of a plan. He describes how there is absolutely no evidence to say that the accused had met “in a room” to plan the demolition. Perhaps that’s because it happened outside a room, on our streets, at public meetings, on our TV screens for all of us to watch and participate in? Or, heck — is it just that “maal” again, giving us these ideas?

A Committee of Lunatics

Anyway, the Babri Masjid conspiracy is out for now. But there’s another one that’s “in” and “trending.” The conspiracy of the 2020 Delhi massacre, in which fifty-three people (forty of them Muslim) were killed and 581 injured in the working-class neighborhoods of North East Delhi. Mosques, graveyards, and madrassas were specifically targeted. Homes, shops, and businesses, for the most part Muslim, were firebombed and razed to the ground.

In the case of this conspiracy, the Delhi Police charge sheet, which runs into thousands of pages, even has a photograph of a few people sitting around a table — yes! in a room, a sort of office basement — plotting. You can clearly tell by their expressions that they’re plotting. What’s more, there are accusing arrows pointing at them, identifying them, telling us their names. It’s devastating.

Far more alarming than those men with sledgehammers on the dome of the Babri Masjid. Some of the people sitting around the table are already in jail. The rest probably soon will be. The arrests took just a few months. The acquittals could take years — if the Babri judgment is anything to go by, then maybe twenty-eight years, who knows.

Under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act), with which they have been charged, almost everything is a crime, including thinking anti-national thoughts. The onus is on you to prove your innocence. The more I read about it and the modus operandi the police adopt around it, the more it sounds like asking a sane person to establish her sanity before a committee of lunatics.

The Delhi conspiracy, we are asked to believe, was hatched by Muslim students and activists, Gandhians, “Urban Naxals,” and “Leftists” who were all protesting against the implementation of the National Population Register, the National Register of Citizens, and the Citizenship Amendment Act, which they believed combine together to cut the very ground from under the feet of the Muslim community and India’s poor who do not have “legacy papers.”

I believe that, too. And I believe that if the government decides to push ahead with that project, the protests will start again. As they should.

A Million-Page Stitch-Up

According to the police, the idea behind the Delhi conspiracy was to embarrass the Indian government by inciting violence and creating a bloody, communal conflagration during US president Donald Trump’s state visit to India in February.

The non-Muslims who are named in the charge sheet are accused of conspiring to give the protests a “secular color.” The thousands of Muslim women who were leading the sit-ins and protests are accused of being “brought in” to give the protests “gender cover.”

All the flag-waving and public readings of the preamble to the Indian Constitution, and the outpouring of poetry and music and love that marked these protests, are dismissed as some sort of insincere fakery designed to disguise malign intent. In other words, the core of the protest is jihadi (and male) — the rest is just garnishing and decoration.

The young scholar Dr Umar Khalid, who I know well, and who has been persecuted, hounded, and fake-newsed by the media for years, is, according to the police, one of the chief conspirators. The evidence they have collected against him, the police say, runs into more than a million pages.

(This is the same government that declared it had no data on the 10 million workers who had to walk hundreds — and some thousands — of kilometers home to their villages in March after Modi announced the world’s most cruel COVID-19 lockdown — no idea of how many died, how many starved, how many fell sick.)

Not included in the 1 million pages of evidence against Umar Khalid is the CCTV footage of the Jaffrabad Metro station — the site of his supposedly egregious plotting and provocation — which activists appealed to the Delhi High Court to preserve, as early as February 25, even as the violence was raging. It has been inexplicably erased.

Umar Khalid is now in jail, along with hundreds of other Muslims who have been recently arrested, charged under the UAPA as well as with murder, attempt to murder, and rioting. How many lifetimes will it take for courts and lawyers to wade through 1 million pages of “evidence”?

A New Generation

Similar to the way in which the Babri Masjid appears to have decided to demolish itself, in the police version of the 2020 Delhi massacre, Muslims conspired to murder themselves, burn their own mosques, destroy their own homes, orphan their own children, all in order to show Donald Trump what a terrible time they’re having in India.

To bolster their case, the police have annexed to their charge sheet hundreds of pages of WhatsApp conversations between students and activists and activist support groups that are trying to support and coordinate between the scores of sites of protests and peaceful sit-ins that had sprung up in Delhi.

It could not be more different from another set of WhatsApp conversations by a group of people who call themselves Kattar Hindu Ekta, or “Hardline Hindu Unity,” in which they actually boast about killing Muslims and openly praise BJP leaders. That is part of a separate charge sheet.

The student-activist conversations are, for the most part, full of spirit and purpose as young people, buoyed by a sense of righteous anger, go about their business. Reading them is energizing and returns you to those heady pre-COVID days and the excitement of watching a new generation come into its own. Time and again, more experienced activists intervene to caution them about the need to stay peaceful and calm. They also argue and bicker in petty ways, as activists tend to — that’s part of the business of being democratic.

The main bone of contention in the conversations, unsurprisingly, is whether or not to try and replicate the stunning success of the protest by the thousands of women of Shaheen Bagh who had, for weeks together, braving the bitter winter cold, squatted on a main road, blocking traffic, creating chaos, but drawing a huge amount of attention to themselves and their cause.

Bilkis Bano, the “Dadi (granny) of Shaheen Bagh,” has made it to Time magazine’s most influential people of 2020. (Don’t confuse her with the other Bilkis Bano, the nineteen-year-old who survived the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat when Narendra Modi was chief minister of that state. She witnessed a massacre in which fourteen members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were killed by a rampaging mob of Hindu vigilantes. She was pregnant and gang-raped. Only.)

Protecting the Guilty

The Delhi activists’ WhatsApp chatter has people divided over whether to go for a “chakka jam” — a road block — in North East Delhi or not. There’s nothing new about planning a chakka jam — farmers have done it time and again. They are doing it right now, in Punjab and Haryana, to protest the recently passed farm bills that corporatize Indian agriculture and threaten to deliver small farmers into an existential crisis.

In the case of the Delhi protests, some activists on the chat groups argued that blocking roads would be counterproductive. Given the climate of open threats by BJP leaders in the area that was fueled by their rage at having been humiliated in the Delhi elections just weeks ago, some local activists feared that blocking roads would incite anger and direct the ensuing violence toward their communities.

They knew that farmers or Gujjars or even Dalits doing it is one thing. Muslims doing it is quite another. That’s the reality in India today.

Others argued that unless roads were blocked and the city was forced to pay attention, the protestors would just be sidelined and ignored. As it turned out, in some protest sites, roads were blocked. As predicted, it gave Hindu vigilante mobs armed with weapons and murderous chants the opportunity they were looking for.

Over the next few days, they unleashed a kind of brutality that took our breath away. Videos showed them being openly backed and supported by the police. Muslims fought back. Lives and property were lost on both sides. But entirely unequally. No equivalence can be made here.

The violence was allowed to swell and spread. We watched in disbelief the spectacle of grievously injured young Muslim men lying on a road surrounded by police who forced them to sing the national anthem. One of them, Faizan, died soon after.

Hundreds of distress calls were ignored by the police. When the arson and slaughter cooled down, and the hundreds of complaints were finally entertained, victims claimed that the police forced them to remove the names and identities of their attackers and the communal slogans raised by the gun- and sword-wielding mobs. Specific complaints were turned into generic ones designed to be inconclusive and protect the guilty. (Hate was excised from hate crimes.)

A One-Party Democracy

On one of the WhatsApp chats, one particular Muslim activist, who lived in North East Delhi and had repeatedly warned the others about the perils of a chakka jam, exited the group after posting a final bitter, recriminatory message. It is this message the police and the media have seized and built upon to spin their sordid web and tar the whole group — among them India’s most respected activists, teachers, and filmmakers — as a set of violent conspirators with murderous intent. Can there be anything more ridiculous?

But it could take years for innocence to be established. Until then, they could be in jail, their lives completely ruined while the real murderers and provocateurs roam free and win elections. The process is intended to be the punishment.

Meanwhile, several independent media reports, citizens’ fact-finding reports, and human rights organizations have held the Delhi police complicit in the violence that took place in North East Delhi. In an August 2020 report, after having had some of the disturbingly violent videos that we all saw forensically examined, Amnesty International said that the Delhi police are guilty of beating and torturing protestors and acting with the mob.

Since then, Amnesty has been accused of financial irregularities and its bank accounts have been frozen. It has had to close its India offices and let go of all 150 of its staff in India.

When things begin to get dire, the first to leave or be forced to leave are international observers. In which countries have we seen this pattern before? Think. Or Google.

India wants a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council, a say in world affairs. But it also wants to be one of the five countries in the world that will not ratify the international covenant against torture. It wants to be a one-party democracy (an oxymoron) with zero accountability.

Burying the Carcass

The real purpose of the absurd police-manufactured 2020 Delhi conspiracy, and the equally absurd 2018 Bhima Koregaon conspiracy (the absurdity is part of the threat and the humiliation) is to imprison and pin down activists, students, lawyers, writers, poets, professors, trade unionists, and noncompliant NGOs. It has to do not just with erasing the horrors of the past and present, but also with clearing the decks for what is still to come.

I suppose we ought to be grateful for these one-million-page evidence gatherings and 2,000-page court judgments. Because they are proof that the carcass of democracy is still being dragged around. It hasn’t been cremated yet, unlike the murdered girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.

Even as a carcass, it’s pulling its weight, slowing things down. The day is not far off when it will be jettisoned and things will speed up. The unspoken slogan among those who rule us may well be Ek dhakka aur do, Democracy gaad do. Bury it.

When that day comes, 1,700 custodial killings in a year will seem like a rosy recollection of our recent, glorious past.

Let that small fact not deter us. Let’s keep voting for the people who are leading us into penury and war, tearing us apart limb from limb.

At least they are building us a grand temple. And that’s not nothing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
We Know Exactly How Amy Coney Barrett Feels About Abortion. Don't Let Republicans Pretend Otherwise. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56576"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, The Cut</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 12:16

Warren writes: "Without access to high-quality reproductive health care - including contraception and safe, legal abortion - we cannot have true equality."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty)


We Know Exactly How Amy Coney Barrett Feels About Abortion. Don't Let Republicans Pretend Otherwise.

By Elizabeth Warren, The Cut

09 October 20

 

he decision whether or not to bear a child is “central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that 30 years ago, at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. She understood that reproductive freedom is foundational to equality, and critical to women’s health and economic security. Without access to high-quality reproductive health care — including contraception and safe, legal abortion — we cannot have true equality.

But President Trump, Senate Republicans, and their extremist allies don’t care. They’ve spent almost four years of the Trump administration — and the many years before — undermining health care and turning back the clock on reproductive rights. That’s why they nominated Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court. She’s the ticket for a desperate, right-wing party that wants to hold onto power a little longer in order to impose its extremist agenda on the entire country.

President Trump and his Republican enablers have tried to deny this obvious fact. The president recently said that he “didn’t know” how Barrett would rule on reproductive rights, and Republicans in the Senate have fallen in line. The Republican Party knows the large majority of Americans don’t support overturning Roe v. Wade. They benefit when we stay on the sidelines — and they want us to sit back and stay quiet while our fundamental freedoms are on the line.

But we see right through their radical play.

President Trump picked Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee to take us back in time. Roe v. Wade established the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion and has been the law of the land for over 47 years. But over, and over, and over again, President Trump has bragged about his plans to appoint judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe. The Affordable Care Act expanded access to reproductive health care — like no-co-pay birth control — for millions. But President Trump has promised to overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and sent his Department of Justice to ask the Supreme Court to do just that.

Barrett is Trump’s ideal candidate to accomplish his plans. In 2006, she signed a newspaper ad calling for the end of Roe and describing the decision as “barbaric.” She was a member of an anti-choice group while on the University of Notre Dame faculty. She’s also been critical of the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court’s past decision to uphold the law in court. Her position on abortion and other reproductive rights are clear: She believes women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.

If Barrett’s nomination makes you scared and angry, you’re right to be: 17 abortion-related cases are already one step away from the Supreme Court. Twenty-one states have laws that could be used to restrict abortion in the event Roe is overturned. And if Barrett’s confirmation is rammed through quickly, she’ll have the opportunity — on November 10 — to hear a case about overturning the Affordable Care Act, and a lifetime on the nation’s highest court to undermine the rights and values we hold dear.

Access to birth control has changed the economic futures of millions of women, and access to safe abortion care is an economic issue, too. For a young couple with modest wages and piles of student loan debt, the decision to start or expand a family is a powerful economic issue. For a woman working two jobs with two kids in day care, an unplanned pregnancy can upend budgets already stretched too far. For a student still in high school or working toward a college degree, it can derail the most careful plans for financial independence. Indeed, one of the most common reasons that women decide to have an abortion is because they can’t afford to raise a child.

And let’s be explicitly clear: If these attacks succeed, they will have disproportionately negative consequences for women of color, who are already facing some of the most insurmountable barriers to abortion care. Rich women will still have access to abortion and reproductive care, but it will be Black and Brown women, women with low incomes, women who can’t afford to take time off from work, and young women who were raped or molested by a family member who will be the most vulnerable.

But this isn’t a moment to back down. Already, it’s inspiring to see so many women and friends of women coming off the sidelines in this fight — and we must continue to speak up, call your senators, and make sure this conversation is grounded in our real experiences. Men must speak up, too, because reproductive freedom affects us all.

Voting is already underway across the country, and there are only 26 days before the election is completed. And the data shows most Americans want to wait until after the election for a new justice to be confirmed. Justice Ginsburg gave us our marching orders: Do not fill this Supreme Court seat until after the election when the next president is installed. We will fight hard together to honor her wish.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: After the Vote Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54565"><span class="small">Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 12:04

Bronner writes: "There are indeed times that try people's souls, and this is one of them."

Demonstrators kneel in a moment of silence outside the Long Beach Police Department on Sunday, May 31 2020. (photo: Ashley Landis/AP)
Demonstrators kneel in a moment of silence outside the Long Beach Police Department on Sunday, May 31 2020. (photo: Ashley Landis/AP)


After the Vote

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

09 October 20

 

These are the times that try men’s souls: the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis shrink for the service of his country, but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

– Thomas Paine, The American Crisis (1775)

here are indeed times that try people’s souls, and this is one of them. The United States is facing the possibility of a coup, and American democracy might hang in the balance as the elections of 2020 unfold between President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden. Last time, in 2016, the electoral college in its wisdom crowned a candidate who had lost the popular election by three million votes. And the man these electors chose was not exactly on par with George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or FDR. President Donald Trump is a pathological liar, a self-serving crook, semiliterate, and a power-hungry egotist who will do anything to stay in office. He has railed against nonexistent voting fraud, misled the public over the coronavirus, endorsed white nationalism, sought to suppress voting, reasserted the political privileges of elites, trampled traditional political and constitutional norms, and — perhaps most important — reorganized once independent state institutions to serve his needs.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has chastised the president for “flirting with treason” — and she is right. Trump has threatened to reject the results of a “rigged” election, stay in office if he loses, and perhaps even prevent a peaceful transition of power. There will be legal challenges to the election. Given the number of mail-in ballots and purposely generated electoral confusion, it may take days or even weeks to determine who won — and who will prevail. A power vacuum might well set the stage for a putsch. Intent on ramming through the arch-conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before the next president takes office, Trump is dreaming of a reactionary judicial majority ready to rule in his favor should questions of legality arise.

What is to be done? MSNBC, CNN, and liberal print media are ablaze with pundits ready to describe everything and proscribe nothing for what happens after the vote. Some of the most prominent have said that they will run, walk, and crawl to the voting booth, which is often a bit much. But then probably the only way in which Trump can win is if significant numbers of women, young people, and people of color stay home. Voter turnout is the key to the election, and voting for Biden is an ethical and practical imperative. The alternative is horrifying: Trump and his people reject compromise and discourse. The leader represents a mob with its blatant bigotry, self-imposed ignorance, wild conspiracy theories, xenophobia, and contempt for science and the arts. Are they fascists? Probably. Are they proto-fascists? Undoubtedly. Trump’s mob already believes that the election will be “rigged” (unless Trump wins), and its members will not suddenly vanish after the votes are cast.

Vote! By all means vote! Let’s make it a landslide! But then what? What happens if Trump loses the popular vote, refuses to leave office, and then receives support from the Supreme Court? Establishmentarian liberals remain content with calling for legal battles against the thousand suits currently being prepared by the president’s lawyers that will seek to invalidate “fraudulent” electoral outcomes. Even if the anti-Trump forces prevail, however, legal victories require enforcement and, given the state of the Department of Justice and a Republican Senate holding the majority until January 20th, sanctioning the law seems unlikely.

What then? There is only one answer: mass resistance, strikes, and disruptions in which defenders of democracy take to the streets or, as Frances Fox Piven put the matter, “refuse cooperation.” Left at that, however, resistance hangs in the abstract. More organization and discipline are required than was evident in Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or the Portland Police riots. That is because more is at stake. A “polarized” nation does not express the current reality. President Trump has launched a veritable second civil war in which oppositional tactics will ultimately be determined by leaders of the Democratic Party, unions, interest groups like the NAACP, NOW, or Planned Parenthood, and grass-roots organizations such as the Reverend William Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign. They will form the coalitions, decide upon the overriding agenda, and clarify the tactics.

Such organizations are mostly run by establishmentarian and bureaucratic liberals, suspicious of mass action, and sharply cautious in their political outlooks. But the “street” can have an impact, and the past has something to teach. Radical unions of the 1930s played a seminal role in bringing about the New Deal. The Civil Rights Movement pushed President Eisenhower and President Kennedy to (grudgingly) support its aims. Occupy Wall Street pressured the Obama administration to act on its economic programs, and Black Lives Matter forced civil society and leaders of the Democratic Party to take notice. Where BLM has been confronted with injustice, moreover, its supporters have remained at their posts.

This doesn’t mean that the anti-Trump opposition will prove victorious. No one is quite sure how the military will react, or other associations in civil society, though any political person must prepare for the worst. Lack of discipline and sectarianism can undermine the resistance. Other problems and dangers will appear. Surrendering in advance, however, is not an option. Refusing cooperation, seizing buildings, bringing commerce to a stop, strikes, disruption, and unrelenting pressure on liberal politicians are necessary in order to “make” government agencies act against aspiring fascism and the mob that supports it.

So vote! By all means vote! But also get ready for what might happen after the vote. Tactics have the best chance of arising from the interplay between mass protest and organizations forced to recognize an imminent danger. That might not be enough. But it is a good place to start. The republic is imperiled, and resistance requires commitment and responsibility. There is no room now for sectarianism, an abundance of caution, or indulgence in arbitrary violence. But there is always a place for reason, freedom, and solidarity.



Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Rutgers University. Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue, his most recent work is The Sovereign (Routledge).

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Next > End >>

Page 329 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN