RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump's Trial. Will He? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53118"><span class="small">Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards, The New York Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 28 January 2020 09:08

Excerpt: "An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump's impeachment trial."

Chief Justice John Roberts, center, walked into the Senate chambers on Jan. 16 to swear in lawmakers for the impeachment trial of President Trump. (photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock)
Chief Justice John Roberts, center, walked into the Senate chambers on Jan. 16 to swear in lawmakers for the impeachment trial of President Trump. (photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock)


John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump's Trial. Will He?

By Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards, The New York Times

28 January 20


Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.

n overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Spiritual Adviser Paula White Orders End to 'Satanic Pregnancies' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53116"><span class="small">Michael Stone, Patheos</span></a>   
Tuesday, 28 January 2020 09:08

Stone writes: "White is no stranger to making ludicrous statements. Last year White claimed she made the White House 'holy ground.'"

Paula White. (photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
Paula White. (photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty Images)


Trump Spiritual Adviser Paula White Orders End to 'Satanic Pregnancies'

By Michael Stone, Patheos

28 January 20

 

hat happened to “Pro-Life”? President Trump’s spiritual adviser, Pastor Paula White, wants to put an end to “satanic pregnancies.”

In a bizarre rant captured by Right Wing Watch, White “takes authority over the marine kingdom, the animal kingdom, and all ‘satanic pregnancies’ that seek to harm Trump or the church.”

We cancel every surprise, from the witchcraft… any spirit of control, any Jezebel… We come against the marine kingdom, we come against the animal kingdom… we break the power in the name of Jesus… We command any satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.

White is no stranger to making ludicrous statements. Last year White claimed she made the White House “holy ground.” At the time the arrogant and profoundly deluded White proclaimed:

I have every right and authority to declare the White House as holy ground because I was standing there and where I stand is holy.

In other words, White believes that everywhere she goes is “holy ground” because God is with her, and she has the power to make the White House “holy ground” simply by her presence.

Obviously White, like her friend Trump, is a con artist preying on the gullible and the ignorant. Last year White made the equally absurd claim that “demonic networks” have aligned themselves against the President’s reelection campaign.

Previously Pastor White claimed that Christians will take over the U.S., and that any opposition to Trump is opposition to God.

And White made headlines after telling her followers that if they did not give her money they would suffer the “consequences” for failing to obey God’s command.  

Pastor White has been a big Trump supporter and his main spiritual adviser from the beginning of Trump’s quest for political power. In fact, she was a featured speaker at the presidential inauguration.

Bottom line: Pastor Paula White, President Trump’s spiritual adviser, wants to put an end to “satanic pregnancies,” declaring “We command any satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.”

The stupid, it burns.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Capitalism Underdeveloped Rural America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53115"><span class="small">Marc Edelman, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 28 January 2020 09:08

Edelman writes: "A toxic brew of economic suffering, racism, and community decline prepared the ground for authoritarian populism in America's devastated rural areas."

A corn farmer. (photo: Austin Public Library)
A corn farmer. (photo: Austin Public Library)


How Capitalism Underdeveloped Rural America

By Marc Edelman, Jacobin

28 January 20


A toxic brew of economic suffering, racism, and community decline prepared the ground for authoritarian populism in America’s devastated rural areas. Trumpism will not be defeated unless the Left can promote a progressive agenda to rebuild rural America.

n the wake of the 2016 US presidential election, the liberal intelligentsia belatedly realized that rural and small-town America was in crisis. One sector of liberal opinion insisted that the key to Donald Trump’s victory lay in racism rather than economic distress (partly because of its own complicity with the neoliberal, free-market project). Another sector, blind to the central importance of racial inequality for US capitalism, preferred to stress narrowly economic explanations for Trump’s rise.

Both schools of thought failed to grasp the different ways in which economic suffering, racism, and community decline have interacted to prepare the ground for authoritarian populism. They also grossly underestimated the human toll of the catastrophe engulfing rural areas and small towns, overlooking the “social pathologies of collapse” that have become ever more glaring.

Since the turn to more cutthroat free-market policies in the 1980s, American capitalism has systematically underdeveloped rural and small-town regions of the United States. The 2008 crash poured gasoline on the fire. Mutual savings banks and credit unions, cooperatives, mom-and-pop businesses, local industries and newspapers, health and elder care facilities, schools, and libraries have all fallen victim to relentless austerity policies or private-equity raiders.

As people could no longer share in the wealth they had produced, while community tax bases and social institutions withered away, “rural resentment” and economic anxiety boosted fear of cultural and demographic changes and heightened receptivity to authoritarian appeals and conspiracy theories. Aggrieved masculinity and a loss of white privilege were certainly vital ingredients in this toxic brew, along with the question of gun rights. But such “cultural issues” were also bound up with economic decline and social fragmentation: white men who have experienced economic setbacks “are the group of owners most attached to their guns,” and the ones most likely to view the home as a bunker requiring defense against threatening outsiders.

Losing the War on Poverty

In July 2018, the White House Council of Economic Advisers claimed that the “War on Poverty” first initiated during the Johnson presidency in the 1960s was now “largely over and a success.” This rosy assessment flew in the face of ample evidence that things were getting much worse.

After 1980, wages stagnated and became detached from productivity growth. Between 1940 and 1980, the wage gap between poorer and richer cities had narrowed by an annual rate of 1.4 percent, but after 1980, this convergence ended. On the international stage, the collapse of the Bretton Woods framework in the mid-1970s spurred an “opening up” of global finance and trade. On the home front, concerted attacks on organized labor, especially after Ronald Reagan entered the White House, undermined the bargaining power of workers.

By 2018, 40 million Americans lived in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million “in Third World conditions of absolute poverty.” By 2011, 1.5 million households — half of them white — were surviving on incomes of less than $2 per person per day. Those households included 3 million children. Nine million Americans have zero cash income. By 2016, 63 percent of Americans lacked $500 in savings to cover an emergency, and 34 percent had no savings at all. That same year, the official poverty rate was 12.7 percent.

A 2017 study of fifteen states, which accounted for 39 percent of all US households, found that so-called ALICE households (“asset-limited, income-constrained, employed”) — those who were above the poverty line but earned less than the “bare-minimum survival budget” — made up two-fifths of the total. Between 2007 and 2016, median household wealth fell by 31 percent.

Many of the poor and near-poor are employed, often in multiple low-wage jobs, and have to rely on food stamps to eat — in effect a public subsidy for their employers, which include some of the world’s largest and most profitable corporations. In 2017, 78 percent of US workers reported that they were living from paycheck to paycheck. Nearly 40 percent of working-age adults indicated that they had trouble meeting at least one basic need — food, health care, housing, or utilities — in 2017.

A rapidly growing number of the poor sell their blood plasma twice weekly in order to survive. Blood collections doubled between 2008 and 2016. While plasma exports are booming, frequent donors often suffer negative health consequences.

Low-income Americans spend a huge part of their income on gasoline and the cars that are essential for commuting to work, especially in rural areas that lack systems of public transport. Evangelical Christian and right-wing talk shows dominate the airwaves on these unavoidable long-distance journeys. A hospital visit or car repair can trigger a downward spiral that culminates in job loss and homelessness. US households are deeply indebted from mortgages, automobiles, credit cards, medical bills, and student loans. Business indebtedness, which has long played an important role in the demise of farms and other small enterprises, is an additional source of stress for many.

Financialization on Main Street

In Glass House: The 1% Economy and the Shattering of the All-American Town, Brian Alexander describes an Ohio community whose story is replicated in thousands of others throughout the United States. Home to a large glass plant, it was a place where “a factory worker might live three blocks from a factory owner,” and where owners backed bond issues to fund good schools and hospitals that attracted skilled employees.

In the 1980s, corporate predators mounted a raid, loaded the company with debt, dismembered it, crushed the union, and cashed out. The new owners — hedge funds and private-equity shops — slashed wages and pensions, and ordered executives to live elsewhere “so they wouldn’t be troubled by requests for civic involvement or charitable contributions.”

The priority now was maximizing shareholder value, not making things — let alone squandering profits on community institutions. The deindustrialization of the United States reached a crescendo after the 2008 crash: non-metro areas outpaced the rest of the country in industrial job losses, with a 35 percent drop in manufacturing employment.

Populist demagogues like Trump blame those job cuts exclusively on free trade and factory flight — their liberal critics also cite automation and a failure to innovate — but neoliberal financialization has clearly been central.

Financialization — the involvement of financial actors in business and markets, and the ownership of assets not for what they might produce but for how they might be stripped and flipped to generate shareholder value — has its origins far away from the affected communities, and it tends to be an opaque process. As Jennifer Clapp points out: “This lack of transparency about which actors are involved in driving these trends creates space for competing narratives — often advanced by the financial actors themselves — that point to other explanations for negative social and environmental outcomes.” As neoliberalism fails to deliver the promised prosperity, people trying to understand what has happened to their communities increasingly fall back on conspiracy theories and “post-factual” claims.

Banking Deserts

Mutual savings banks used to power small-town economies. Their directors contributed to local institutions, knew clients, and sometimes made loans based on trust. From the 1980s on, private-equity investors seeded mutual and savings banks across the country with small deposits, anticipating their conversion into stock institutions. Depositors could buy stock at insider prices before initial public offerings (IPOs). Typically, shares appreciated by 15 percent on the day of the IPO, and 20–50 percent more over the following months.

Directors and investors encouraged giant regional banks to gobble up and shutter the local ones, then cashed in as shares soared 200 to 400 percent above the IPO level. In the process, they sucked wealth out of communities, imposed stricter lending criteria, and cut the ground from under small businesses. Many people found themselves trapped in “banking deserts,” forced to rely on high-cost check-cashing outlets and payday lenders (often financed at one remove by the larger banks that had created those deserts in the first place).

Like mutual banks, cooperatives and credit unions reinvested wealth that communities produced locally and acted as a bulwark against rapacious corporations and banks. About one-quarter of the 8,000 credit unions active in 2007 had closed by 2017. Between 2000 and 2015, more than a third of the 3,346 agricultural cooperatives still active at the beginning of the century had been forced to shut down.

Unhousing the Poor

When the mortgage bubble burst in 2008, homelessness soared as homeowners defaulted on what had often been predatory loans. Across the United States, residential foreclosures rose dramatically, from a little over 380,000 in 2006 to 1 million annually between 2009 and 2012. Foreclosures only returned to pre-crisis levels in 2016. By 2012, nearly a quarter of US homeowners with mortgages were “underwater,” with debts that exceed the value of their homes. A staggering $7 trillion in home equity evaporated.

Evictions from rented accommodation were even more widespread, with 83 million nationwide between 2000 and 2016 — an average of 4.9 million per year. That figure excludes the many “informal evictions” that took place when renters gave in to pressure from their landlords to move before facing legal action. At least one-quarter of poor renting families spend 70 percent or more of their income on rent and utilities. Just one in four households that qualify for affordable-housing programs actually receive assistance.

The housing crisis has had a devastating impact. A single foreclosure ruins an individual’s credit rating, and legal eviction from rental housing generates a court record. Either misfortune can prevent them from obtaining jobs or accommodation in the future, since employers and landlords routinely perform credit checks or screen applicants for an eviction record. Eviction also leads to the loss of employment, as overstressed workers make mistakes and get fired.

People with no permanent address additionally struggle when filling out job applications. They frequently lose access to food stamps, Medicaid, and other benefits when renewal notices are posted to their former addresses. Children have to switch schools mid-year, harming their education.

Large investor groups also create housing insecurity by targeting “mom-and-pop” trailer parks, hiking rents, and siphoning off money that would otherwise be spent locally. Frank Rolfe and Dave Reynolds, who boast a $500 million portfolio of mobile-home parks, run a “Mobile Home University” that teaches investors how to get started on a business that promises annual returns of up to 20 percent.

Mobile-home park investors skim profits from what Rolfe contemptuously refers to as “the dregs of society.” Trailer-park residents — 6 percent of the population — are largely helpless to resist: they are more likely to endure the rent increase than to pay the $3,000 it costs to move a trailer to another park.

Farming in Crisis

The 1980s brought the worst crisis for US farming since the Depression of the 1930s. The cost of fertilizers skyrocketed, interest rates soared, banks called in loans, and grain prices plummeted with the loss of sales to the USSR after its invasion of Afghanistan. A handful of giant corporations grabbed an ever-greater share of the profits accruing between farm gate and dinner plate, through rapid consolidation of input and machinery suppliers, and the processing and export of commodities.

Bigger, more powerful machinery made it possible for fewer farmers to farm larger areas, which compounded the problems of indebtedness, land concentration, and a decline in the population sustained by agriculture. Survivors of the 1980s slump recently suffered a second crisis when the commodities boom of the 2000s came to an end. Between 2013 and 2017, farmers suffered a 48 percent drop in real net farm income — the largest four-year decline since the Depression. More than half of farm households now lose money on farming.

As farmers go bankrupt once again, the multiplier effects further destabilize local economies and the communities that depend on them. The concentration of farmland ownership, especially when corporate enterprises replace family-owned units, also leads to declining school attendance in rural districts, and often to the closure of schools that had long been centers of community life.

News Deserts and the Retail Apocalypse

Family-owned stores and diners on small-town Main Streets were sites of human contact. They invested profits locally and provided jobs for rural households. As malls and chain stores proliferated, these “mom-and-pop” businesses withered away. Roughly 600,000 disappeared between 2007 and 2012. Even when the economy rebounded, businesses did not return to their former sites: by 2016, less than one-quarter of US counties had replaced the businesses they lost in the recession.

Fewer small businesses means less advertising revenue for local newspapers, thousands of which closed, having already been hobbled by the migration of readers and ad dollars to the internet. The same destructive financialization that has been strangling industries and banks afflicts local media companies. This deprives communities not only of local news reporting and ads, but also of any space to mark births, deaths, weddings, graduations and sporting achievements — all of the things that make a town’s inhabitants identify with a place, and take pride in it. Furthermore, we can draw a clear connection between newspaper closures and lower voter turnout, reduced competition in local elections, and increased government corruption, as officials no longer face scrutiny by journalistic “watchdogs.”

Hedge funds and private-equity firms bought up local papers at bargain-basement prices all over the country. They cut costs by merging the production, sales, and editorial functions of several newspapers, while putting together audiences large enough to remain attractive to their advertisers (who increasingly tend to be chains rather than local businesses). Often, consolidation meant the closure of “underperforming” papers, creating “news deserts” that leave smaller communities with no source of local news.

After the first waves of retail closures on small-town Main Streets, low-wage jobs in chains and malls also began to disappear with the expansion of e-commerce. According to Bloomberg, it wasn’t just competition from online merchants that drove this trend: “The root cause is that many of these long-standing chains are overloaded with debt — often from leveraged buyouts led by private-equity firms.” This “retail apocalypse” set off a vicious circle: with the demise of brick-and-mortar businesses — whether on Main Street or at the mall — e-commerce behemoths like Amazon became ever more vital for rural residents, many of whom could ill afford the gas and time that would be needed to drive long distances to shop.

To compound the malaise, since the mid-2000s, the surviving big-box businesses have frequently mounted “dark-store lawsuits,” claiming that their tax assessment should be based on sales of vacated comparable properties. That forces small towns to dedicate scarce funds to legal costs and further erodes local tax bases.

Some of the few retail outfits still proliferating in this bleak environment are dollar stores, which drive established groceries out of business. The number of dollar stores has risen from 20,000 to 30,000 since 2011. Chains such as Dollar General — whose owners include BlackRock and Vanguard, and which cater to customers that one market analyst describes as “a permanent underclass” — can spend as little as $250,000 on a new store; by comparison, a Walmart might cost over $15 million. Profits from a local grocery store used to go back to the community, or an owner who lived nearby. Profits from Dollar General go straight to its corporate office.

Empty storefronts and malls, vanished newspapers, and mushrooming dollar outlets are not just signs of job loss and economic precarity. Rural people see them as stark, painful reminders of abandonment and a shredded social fabric.

Eviscerating Health Care, Education, and Public Services

In recent decades, federal and state governments have slashed funding for social services, shrinking the public-sector workforce and eroding its working conditions. Rural hospital closures doubled between 2011–12 and 2013–14. Many struggled because of a shortage of patients with employer-sponsored insurance, which generally provides higher reimbursements than Medicaid and Medicare. Obstetric services are now unavailable in more than half of rural counties. Faced with long, costly drives to providers, many women receive inadequate prenatal care, resulting in higher rates of maternal and infant mortality.

Between 1990 and 2015, the number of maternal deaths per thousand in the United States soared to 26.4; in Louisiana, it reached a shocking 58.1, the same rate as Jordan, and slightly worse than that found in El Salvador and Iraq. During the same period, maternal deaths dropped below 10 per thousand in Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and the UK. More than 440 rural nursing homes have closed or merged in the last decade, often because Medicaid payments aren’t enough to cover their costs; when residents have to relocate to distant facilities, they’re cut off from lifelong friends or elderly spouses who are unable to make the drive. Health disparities become even greater when cash-strapped local authorities sell public parks to raise revenue, depriving residents of space for exercise and recreation.

Post offices have long served as lifelines for people in rural areas, who rely on them for information, essential medicines, and basic human contact. In 2012, some 3,000 rural post offices narrowly escaped closure, but a slow attrition is thinning their ranks anyway. The growing importance of Amazon in rural areas has stretched the underfunded US Postal Service (USPS) to breaking point, since private couriers such as FedEx and UPS don’t operate in many rural areas, especially for “last-mile delivery.” USPS carriers are working longer shifts, often for no extra pay, and offices are understaffed. These conditions are being used as pretexts for privatization — along with the 2006 congressional mandate that required USPS to pre-fund seventy-five years of future retiree health-care benefits, causing its deficit to soar.

Trump’s task force to “reform” the USPS was partly inspired by right-wing ideological hostility to the public sector, and by a hunger to boost the profits of private delivery services. The fact that Amazon is USPS’s largest customer was also important: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos publishes the Washington Post, which has been strongly critical of the Trump administration.

The federal authorities and many state governments have systematically starved schools of money. Because property taxes are a key source of funding for education, when populations and tax bases decline, schools either close, shift to four-day schedules, or consolidate with neighboring districts. This strips away another vital focus of small-town social life and collective identity. Thirty percent of all school closures nationwide in 2011–12 were in rural districts, stranding students in isolated areas and forcing them to take long bus rides that drag down their academic performance.

Rural public libraries are “de facto community centers,” often providing the only public meeting spaces. For those unable to afford computers or access to the internet, libraries provide an essential gateway to educational resources, medical information, government services, and job applications. While library closings in devastated cities like Detroit received a lot of attention after the 2008 crisis, the same picture can be found across the country, especially in rural areas: reduced opening hours, difficulties holding on to qualified staff, inadequate, deteriorating facilities, and funding cutbacks. Powerful right-wing lobbies, such as the Koch brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” have also campaigned against ballot initiatives that sought to fund public libraries.

When underfunded schools descend into mediocrity, critical thinking suffers, and people become more susceptible to demagogic manipulation and social media trolls. Public library cutbacks have the same effect. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorialized in 2016: “Defund libraries. Create a nation of fools.

Killing the Pain

The scale of the opioid problem is staggering. In 2015, 92 million people — 38 percent of US adults — used prescription opioids, with 11.5 million (nearly 5 percent) reporting misuse. Pharmaceutical distributors aggressively marketed painkillers like OxyContin and fentanyl: in some states, doctors wrote more prescriptions than there were people. From 2008 to 2017, drug companies shipped almost 21 million opioid pills to just two pharmacies in one rural West Virginian town with a population of 2,900. Unsurprisingly, deaths from overdoses are higher in West Virginia than in any other US state.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, wholesalers are obliged to report suspicious orders to the Drug Enforcement Administration. However, according to a minority report from the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the “big three” distributors — McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health — have “consistently failed to meet their reporting obligations over the past ten years.” Big pharma companies targeted regions, doctors, and even individual patients to hike sales. They systematically understated the risks of addiction, and even acquired patents for addiction treatment, so that they could profit from the disaster they had done so much to create.

At ground level, doctors who run “pill mills” engaged in schemes to bilk Medicaid and private insurers. They have frequently accepted kickbacks from drug manufacturers, and lucrative speaking engagements where they tout the virtues and minimize the dangers of particular opioids. Big Pharma spends more than any other lobby in Washington.

More Americans die each year from drug overdoses than perished in the Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars put together. To make things even worse, the methamphetamine scourge, centered in rural areas, has “returned with a vengeance” after subsiding in the 2000s. This is partly because users can find cheap opioids to dampen meth’s intense rush. In some states, deaths from meth now vastly outnumber those from opioids.

Incarceration rates for white people — especially white women — have risen since 2000, probably because of an increased law-enforcement presence in drug-consuming rural areas. The absence of family members adds to the pressure on households and communities. Drug addicts also make unreliable family members, neighbors, and employees, further undermining social cohesion and economic life.

Angry Politics in Shattered Communities

Many working-class Trump supporters experience severe financial stress, compounded by high levels of diabetes, lack of exercise, heavy drinking, and obesity. Researchers consider stress to be a precursor and a consequence for these conditions, and an element in the development of fear, hatred for outgroups, and sympathy for authoritarianism. In 2017, for the third year in a row, life expectancy in the United States fell, with drug overdoses and other “deaths of despair” playing a significant part. From 1999 to 2016, suicide rates increased in 49 out of 50 states, with rises of over 30 percent in twenty-five mostly rural states. Farmers, in particular, are killing themselves in record numbers.

Trump tapped into this anger and alienation. His country-club racism, casual authoritarianism, simple-minded nationalism, and overblown promises struck a chord in shattered communities. Trump’s framing of the economic crisis appealed to the instincts of an audience that had long harbored existential fears and deep resentments of cosmopolitan elites, racial minorities, immigrants, and unscrupulous foreign trading partners. Trump’s tirades also appealed to nouveau-riche entrepreneurs and well-to-do suburbanites, who lapped up Republican rhetoric about “burdensome” regulation, “big government,” and “undeserving” minorities, immigrants, or public employees. Whites who are intolerant of “outgroups” are less supportive of democracy and more likely to hanker after a “strong leader.”

By 2016, rural people had seen governments seemingly unable or unwilling to address the convergence of multiple crises that afflicted their communities. This revived past memories of broken promises — not least those of neoliberal Democratic administrations. The Democratic Party could not even perceive the existence of a crisis, let alone put forward credible — and necessarily radical — solutions to it. By nominating a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who was widely and accurately viewed as a quintessential member of the country’s established political class, it lent credence to Trump’s bombast about “American carnage.” As in other countries where demagogic authoritarian populists have won power, sectors of the population who were suffering greater economic marginalization punished establishment “moderates” and “centrists.” The feeling of abandonment and downward mobility made white rural Americans more receptive to a candidate who spoke about their distress in familiar terms and cast himself as an “outsider.”

The Authoritarian Populist Moment in the United States

Rural decline was not simply the product of deindustrialization, free trade, the farm crisis, or automation. Since the 1980s, financial capital has developed imaginative new ways to strip and seize a wide range of assets that could be found in rural districts, from manufacturing plants to mutual savings banks, local shops, and newspapers — or even people’s blood plasma. An austerity agenda that prioritized tax cuts for the rich undermined the capacity of small communities to fund vital institutions like schools, libraries, and nursing homes.

Deregulatory policies pushed by big capital left unions decimated, eroded health and safety standards in the workplace, and ravaged the environment. Workers found themselves trapped in precarious employment, relying on multiple low-wage jobs to make ends meet, often not knowing what shifts they would be given until the last minute or deprived of any labor rights as so-called “independent contractors.” The lion’s share of the vast wealth produced by rural zones ended up in the pockets of shareholders from companies and financial institutions with their headquarters in distant urban centers.

To insist on the importance of these interlocking crises in explaining the rise of Trump is not to downplay the racism of many of his supporters, who in 2016 included a majority of both working-class and affluent white voters, women and men. The daily outrages of the Trump administration seem to have little or no impact on the devotion of the president’s base. Whether or not “Trumpism” is “a religion founded on patriarchy and white supremacy” — as Charles M. Blow suggested in the New York Times — or a millenarian cargo cult of desperate people “praying for factories,” in the words of Mike Davis, its attraction relies heavily upon emotional appeals and triggers, much like authoritarian populist regimes elsewhere.

It also serves as a protective facade for a hard-right project that invokes “family values,” retrograde attitudes about gender and sexuality, and an exclusionary vision of the nation in order to play upon social divisions, roll back progressive gains, and intensify the exploitation of human beings and the environment. The task of turning back the authoritarian populist onslaught could not be more urgent. At the very least, this must involve massive public investment, funded by progressive taxation, to create a more stable, inclusive, and just society that provides opportunities for all — especially in the zones that have been sacrificed to capital over the past thirty years.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Joe Biden's Confounding Candidacy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53112"><span class="small">Walter Shapiro, The New Republic</span></a>   
Monday, 27 January 2020 13:57

Shapiro writes: "Joe Biden is perhaps the most confounding candidate in this Democratic race."

Joe Biden. (photo: Frank Franklin II/AP)
Joe Biden. (photo: Frank Franklin II/AP)


Joe Biden's Confounding Candidacy

By Walter Shapiro, The New Republic

27 January 20


The former vice president is drawing tiny, unenthused crowds in Iowa. So why is he still one of the front-runners?

lunchtime town meeting in the college town of Ames, home to Iowa State, should attract a sizable crowd less than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses—especially when a former vice president, who is leading in some of the recent Iowa polls, headlines the event.

But Joe Biden is perhaps the most confounding candidate in this Democratic race. By my charitable count, only 250 would-be caucus-goers attended his event in Ames on Tuesday. 

They were treated to such Biden staples as a paean to dead senators he once worked with: Iowa’s John Culver died in 2018, Ted Kennedy in 2009, and Tom Eagleton in 2007. He offered a somewhat exaggerated version of Richard Nixon’s victory margin in Delaware in 1972, the year that the 29-year-old Biden upset expectations, winning his Senate seat by a narrow margin. And there was a moving reference to his late son Beau’s military service in Kosovo during the NATO military operations in the 1990s.

As is typical with Biden, the applause after an hour of stump speech and questions was affectionate yet perfunctory. On the way out, I ran into Alan Vandehaar, a retired adult education professor, whose opening words were, “That was uninspiring.” 

This is the Biden perplex.

As Jeff Link, a leading Iowa Democratic strategist who is neutral in the presidential race, put it, “The curious thing to me is that Biden continues to be so resilient in the polls because the other indicators are a mixed bag.” And a key figure in a rival Iowa campaign said, “We just aren’t seeing Biden organizers.”

Maybe Biden can win Iowa with a stealth campaign that depends heavily on TV ads and the warm feelings that almost all Democrats have for him, despite some mild sniping from a few Sanders surrogates. But, despite the aura of inevitably that has come to surround Biden as he has held onto his lead in most of the national polls, I wonder if the former vice president is more vulnerable than he seems.

Biden, for example, is drawing significantly smaller Iowa crowds than Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. In fact, Biden may have played to more packed rooms in the run-up to the 2008 caucuses in which he limped home with an embarrassingly weak fifth-place finish

The traditional justification for the privileged position of the Iowa caucuses is that, unlike primaries, they measure the enthusiasm of party activists. Even in the record turnout year of 2008 (with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton vying for supremacy) fewer than 30 percent of Iowa Democratic voters ventured out on a wintry Monday evening to invest an hour or two in attending a caucus.

Crowd size is often over-hyped in politics (see Trump, Donald), but turnout at candidate events matters in Iowa and New Hampshire. A significant fraction of early-state voters go out of their way to see candidates in person. The respected Iowa Poll, conducted earlier this month, found that 33 percent of Democrats say that an “extremely important” factor in making their decision is how a “candidate has engaged with caucus-goers at events.”

Biden supporters would argue that turnout at town meetings represents a flawed gauge since Iowa voters know him so well. But Sanders is also a familiar political figure—he is even recycling many of the same lines he used on the campaign trail in 2016—and yet he still draws huge crowds. His familiarity hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm for his candidacy. (A New York Times/Siena College poll released Saturday morning showed him pulling ahead of the other candidates.) 

The Impeachment Factor also hangs over the Biden campaign. The legal wizards running President Trump’s defense team have signaled that Biden and his son Hunter will be at the center of their high-decibel rebuttal early next week.

Forget, for the moment, the merits of the Democrats’ steel-trap case against Trump and the false equivalence of the Republicans’ vicious attacks on the Biden family. Instead, focus on the short-term political question: How will Iowa Democrats react on caucus night February 3?

Will the Republican “But the Bidens...” drumbeat make caucus-goers nervous about nominating the former vice president? Or will the screeds and screams convince Iowans, questing after the most electable pick, that Biden is the candidate the Trump team fears more than any other Democrat?

Turnout estimates for the caucuses range from a low of 225,000 (a tad under the 2008 record) to almost 300,000. I find the argument for lower turnout persuasive; it is easy to imagine Iowa Democrats—many of whom are still undecided about the candidates—staying home when the babysitter doesn’t show up, a child gets the flu, or they feel overwhelmed by work.

All surveys, even the respected Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa Poll, which is due to be released on the eve of the caucuses, involve guesswork about the rate of participation. With the plausible range in turnout varying by almost 25 percent, polling is an even less reliable crutch in Iowa than it is in most presidential primaries.

As a result, reporters have to rely more on instinct than hard data in deciphering the caucuses. This is not to encourage the kind of voice-of-God predictions that fill dead spots on cable TV. But there is value in leaning into a few hunches as long as you approach them with humility. 

One of mine relates to Pete Buttigieg, who shot to the top of the pack in Iowa last fall. I have attended two large Buttigieg rallies over the past 10 days—one in Des Moines earlier this month and the other in Cedar Rapids on Tuesday night. Despite the crowds (and more than half the roughly 1,000 people in Cedar Rapids stood for nearly an hour as they listened to him), I had a sense that the former Indiana mayor wasn’t quite closing the deal.

Maybe I have heard the stump speech once too often, with Buttigieg talking about “the first time that the sun comes up over Cedar Rapids and Donald Trump is no longer president.” Maybe it’s the disembodied way that Buttigieg pulls written questions out of a hat rather than calling on the questioners directly as Warren and Biden do. Or maybe Buttigieg (like Howard Dean in 2004) is beginning to suffer from the Icarus Problem as a once unknown candidate who flew too near the sun.

The Iowa airwaves have been mercifully free of attack ads, with their grainy pictures and the-end-is-nigh voiceover suggesting that a rival candidate has cloven feet. In fact, most Iowa Democrats whom I have interviewed offer positive assessments about most presidential candidates, which is why they find it so difficult to make a decision. 

In contrast, Twitter, as well as a significant percentage of the pundits who write op-eds and engage in online commentary, appears to be feeding a Democratic outrage machine. Left-wingers denounce moderates, and establishmentarians moan that the Democrats are yielding to extremists. The scrum online leads me to worry that these attacks will become bitter and shrill as Iowans prepare to caucus.

At this point, there is little we don’t know about the leading candidates. On Friday night, CBS News trumpeted an interview with Sanders in which the Vermont socialist confessed that it is “impossible to predict” the cost of his Medicare for All health-care plan.

A gotcha moment?

Not really, since, when it comes to issues, Sanders has always believed in magical realism. Actually, it’s more magic than realism. Speaking Monday at a rally in Des Moines, Sanders promised, “Within the first week of our administration, we will introduce and we will finally pass a Medicare for All single-payer plan.” Left unmentioned is how Sanders intends to pass this landmark legislation with a (best case) 51-to-49 Senate majority and many Democrats staunchly opposed to eliminating private health insurance. 

Four decades ago, I first came to Iowa to cover a candidate named George Bush who did push-ups at the downtown YMCA in Des Moines to show that he was “up for the Eighties” unlike 68-year-old Ronald Reagan.

In that time, I have never seen an Iowa caucus as baffling as this one (not even in 2004, when the Democrats had four serious candidates). My hope is that the candidates win and lose the caucuses on their merits rather than falling victim to some last-minute media controversy or a long-ago news clip dramatically revealed through opposition research in the final hours.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Congress Needs to Throw This Surveillance Program Away Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53109"><span class="small">Sharon Bradford Franklin, Slate</span></a>   
Monday, 27 January 2020 13:57

Franklin writes: "It's an ineffective, cumbersome system that even some of the nation's brightest minds haven't been able to legally wield in nearly five years."

'As Congress debates reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions, there are many important reforms it should enact.' (photo: Slate/Nazar Abbas/Moment/Getty Images Plus/Daniel Schweinert/Westend61)
'As Congress debates reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions, there are many important reforms it should enact.' (photo: Slate/Nazar Abbas/Moment/Getty Images Plus/Daniel Schweinert/Westend61)


Congress Needs to Throw This Surveillance Program Away

By Sharon Bradford Franklin, Slate

27 January 20


It’s highly intrusive and ineffective—but some insist Congress should reauthorize it anyway.

emember the Snowden disclosures? It may seem like an eternity ago, but it was in 2013 that Edward Snowden revealed to the public the government’s extensive warrantless domestic surveillance program. After he disclosed that the National Security Agency was scooping up millions of phone records showing Americans’ calling patterns, Congress responded appropriately by ending that bulk collection program through the USA Freedom Act in June 2015. 

But Congress never actually finished the job. It replaced the bulk program with one that is narrower, yes, but that continues to allow the government to invade our privacy by collecting massive amounts of phone records. Now, it’s time for Congress to finish what it started almost five years ago. 

On March 15, 2020, three U.S. surveillance law provisions are set to expire unless Congress reauthorizes them again. One of these is Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which authorizes the U.S. government to collect business records, such as financial or hotel records. The USA Freedom Act added new subsections to Section 215 to permit the collection of call detail records, or CDRs, on an ongoing basis. CDRs, as defined by Section 215, consist of “session identifying information.” They show which phone numbers (or other identifiers, like an international mobile subscriber identity number) are contacting which other numbers, and the time and duration of these connections. Congress created this Section 215 CDR authority in an attempt to replace the earlier bulk program with a more limited version. CDRs are the same kind of records that the NSA was collecting in bulk under the old program. When CDRs are assembled and analyzed at scale, the calling patterns can be highly revealing of very sensitive information; they can show your regular calls to a cancer clinic or a therapist. 

As Congress debates reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions, there are many important reforms it should enact, such as explicitly prohibiting targeting on the basis of race, religion, and other protected classes. But ending the Section 215 CDR program is a necessary and critical first step

As I have explained in more detail elsewhere, the current Section 215 CDR program is significantly narrower than the earlier bulk program, but the replacement authority still allows the government to collect vast quantities of information on Americans. The most notable post-Snowden improvement is that the government can no longer collect all the CDRs generated by any communications provider in bulk. Rather, providers store the phone records, and the NSA can only acquire CDRs associated with particular targeted numbers. In addition, the government must now get approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for each target. 

However, the current program has still enabled the government to collect hundreds of millions of CDRs, and the program’s intrusiveness is compounded by permitting the government to collect calling records out to “two hops” from the person who is actually suspected of being connected to terrorism. The first hop involves collecting all the CDRs on an ongoing basis for a particular terrorism suspect, and the second hop permits collecting records for every person who has been in contact with the terrorism suspect’s number. These CDRs for the second hop show all of the calls to and from the first hop contacts, even though most of them will not have any actual connection to terrorist acts or planning. Thus, although allowing two hops is much narrower than the earlier, pre–USA Freedom Act bulk program that permitted collection out to three hops (since each hop exponentially increases the number of records), that second hop still allows the NSA to acquire calling records for vast numbers of people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. 

Perhaps more importantly, the Section 215 CDR program is not effective in producing valuable intelligence. Scholars who have examined the technical features of the Section 215 CDR program have concluded that not only has the program been ineffective since its inception in 2015, but it is unlikely to be effective in the future. In June 2018, the NSA announced that it had discovered “technical irregularities” in some of the CDRs it had acquired, and that the NSA had received records it was not entitled to collect. As a result, the NSA decided to purge all of the CDRs it had collected since the program began in late 2015. Several months later, the NSA suspended operation of the program altogether. As former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats explained in an August 2019 letter to Congress, the intelligence community made the decision to suspend the program based on “balancing the program’s relative intelligence value, associated costs, and compliance and data integrity concerns caused by the unique complexities” of operating this program. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which concluded in its 2014 report that the earlier bulk collection program had been ineffective, has also reviewed the current Section 215 CDR program and agreed with the intelligence community’s assessment that it should be suspended. In short, this highly complex authority simply isn’t worthwhile. 

Nonetheless, after internal debates that lasted for many months, the Trump administration decided to seek permanent reauthorization of the CDR program in 2019. In hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees this past fall, U.S. government witnesses asserted in their joint written testimony to the House that the “CDR program may be needed again in the future, should circumstances change,” and stated to the Senate that reauthorization would permit the government to “retain this potentially valuable tool should it prove useful in the future.” When Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked why Congress should reauthorize a program that the NSA itself had decided to suspend as ineffective, the agency representative responded that “in one year from now, two years from now, three years from now … we could find ourselves in a situation where this particular tool in our toolbox, we would want to have the agility to use it should it be valuable moving forward.” 

In other words, the government asserts that Congress should let the intelligence agencies maintain the invasive, ineffective program as another “tool in the toolbox” because you never know when you may want it. 

The key problem with the toolbox metaphor is that it leaves the impression that the Section 215 CDR program is something an intelligence analyst could simply grab and use in a hurry when it’s needed, like a hammer or a screwdriver. But the metaphor doesn’t hold. The Section 215 CDR program is a highly complex system that involves collecting electronic data—including the records of numerous Americans—from various communications service providers, analyzing this data, and storing it securely. It is so complex that it took the NSA 2½ years—from late 2015 until the spring of 2018—to discover that it had been collecting numerous CDRs contaminated by “technical irregularities” that were not readily apparent to analysts. And, as noted, “the unique complexities” of operating the program were among the factors that Coats cited to explain the NSA’s decision that the program was not worth restarting. The Section 215 CDR program is not something that could simply and safely be whipped out of the toolbox in response to an unknown future threat. It’s an ineffective, cumbersome system that even some of the nation’s brightest minds haven’t been able to legally wield in nearly five years. 

Even if we did accept the administration’s “toolbox” metaphor, its reasoning is deeply flawed. If you discovered that a tool was more dangerous than helpful—say an electric saw that was hard to use without cutting off a finger—you would get rid of it and rely on other, safer alternatives. You wouldn’t store it in your toolbox for some hypothetical future use. And if, one day in the future, you learned that you had a project for which you really could use a mechanical saw, you would go out and procure a newer, safer version that met your new needs. 

Finally, as a matter of principle, intelligence agencies should not be given every tool they may want, but only those that they need, and only those that can be implemented in a manner that protects individual rights. Intelligence work is difficult, and foreign intelligence information can come from unexpected sources. But this does not mean that intelligence agencies should be given broad authorities to monitor everyone all the time. If, at some future date, our intelligence agencies conclude that collecting a new type of “session identifying information” on an ongoing basis would provide needed intelligence on terrorists and other valid targets, they can go back to Congress at that time to seek a new authority tailored to the new need, one that incorporates robust safeguards for privacy and human rights. 

Fortunately, during the House and Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last fall, many members of Congress seemed aware of these issues, and thus skeptical of the government’s request for reauthorization of the CDR program. And encouragingly, later in November, Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, respectively, introduced S. 2939, the Protecting Against International Terrorism Act, a bill that would “terminate” the Section 215 CDR program. Sens. Ron Wyden and Steve Daines and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Warren Davidson, and Pramila Jayapal have also introduced the Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act, which would revoke the authority for the CDR program. It is likely that there will soon be additional surveillance reform legislation introduced in the House that would end the CDR program as well. As Congress considers key reforms to U.S. surveillance authorities, it is time to abolish the Section 215 CDR program. 

The notion that we can never let a surveillance program expire because we never know when it may be useful may be tempting, but it is also dangerous. From the Church Committee’s comprehensive investigation of domestic spying in the 1970s to the Snowden revelations of the last decade, Americans have seen too many reminders of how surveillance powers can be abused. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 Next > End >>

Page 610 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