If an accurate history of the Build Back Better Act is written, the “process” of crafting that legislation will go down as one of the most shamelessly corrupt bag jobs in the annals of American politics… and friends, that is saying something.
At this juncture, even minke whales plying the frigid seas beneath the diminishing ice of Antarctica have heard about how Joe Manchin screwed them, and the rest of us, in the name of fossil fuel money. The lobbyists in Manchin’s ear have been about as subtle as a high-speed truck wreck on Main St. while going about their business.
If they could, these people would pay off Santa Claus to make him label more kids “bad” and get more coal into those stockings. Their market analysts would call it “Redefining Child Behavior: An Untapped Revenue Stream,” and someone would get a promotion for thinking outside the box.
Less scrutinized than Manchin, though equally culpable in this perfectly capitalist disaster, is Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. While Manchin has been at the forefront of news coverage the way Donald Trump was in his vile heyday, Sinema has been altogether opaque. Refusing to enumerate or explain her “concerns” publicly, Sinema has brushed off all ten trillion press inquiries with the same response: The White House knows what I want.
The White House, meanwhile, is feeling all too ready to put Sinema in a corner and pretend she’s a coat tree. “A new strategy is emerging among Democrats at the White House and on Capitol Hill as they scramble to put together an agreement on the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, a multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package focused on new social spending programs,” reportsPunchbowl News. “They want to isolate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. After months of talks that have alternated between productive, maddening, fruitful and deadlocked, White House officials and Capitol Hill Democrats now believe it will be easier to find agreement with Sen. Joe Manchin than Sinema.”
It’s a damned hard day at the office when working with Manchin is the best available choice… and really, anyone in the Biden administration who believes one of them is better to deal with than the other needs to walk around the block and get some air. The pair have been working in tandem to destroy — not denude, pare down, narrow, shave or shrink: destroy — the Build Back Better Act from the very beginning, because that is what their paymasters seek, period, end of file. They may as well carry signs festooned with corporate logos every time they set foot in the Senate chamber: BROUGHT TO YOU BY…
The way Manchin and Sinema have gone about their obstructionism is the tell. Both of them are attacking the bill on ideological grounds, but it is no coincidence that their coordinated efforts have been laser-focused on virtually all the portions of the bill that are meant to pay for the bill. There is no better way to wreck this legislation than to gut the money meant to sustain it.
Sinema, joined by Manchin, is against raising taxes on the wealthy, which obliterates a major source of revenue for the bill. Sinema, flush with pharmaceutical industry donations, refuses to support reforming the way prescription medications are paid for, another major source of revenue for the bill. Reforming the IRS’s tax collection methods, yet another way to pay for the bill, is opposed by a number of conservative Democrats, rounding out the fiscal brick wall being erected to keep the legislation in the realm of another failed good idea.
Redline those three items, and Biden will have to fund this thing by selling lemonade at Metro stations for the next 30 billion years. This is not an accident or a coincidence. These are tactics, and they have worked brilliantly for the people paying Sinema and Manchin’s bills.
While Sinema may seem to be running through raindrops without getting wet, the splashback is beginning to accelerate. Five veteran members of her own Advisory Council quit their positions and went public with why on the pages of the New York Times: “You have become one of the principal obstacles to progress, answering to big donors rather than your own people,” they wrote. “We shouldn’t have to buy representation from you, and your failure to stand by your people and see their urgent needs is alarming.”
This is the point at which I am required to write, “It’s not over yet,” so I will: It’s not over yet. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is appealing to progressives to stand the gaff and not be disheartened by the barrage of corporate influence that has been unleashed.
Ocasio-Cortez gave a speech Wednesday night warning that the corporate lobbyists “want you to give up before the deal is done, because it’s way easier for them to try to get away with the things that they’re lobbying for and against if people at home aren’t watching,”
And, as Common Dreams reports: “Ocasio-Cortez noted the ‘intense presence of corporate lobbyists throughout the process of reconciliation.’ This is why, she said, ‘that it’s just as important for people at home to be engaged in this process.’”
President Biden, for his part, has finally decided to jump into the negotiations with both feet after months of trying in vain to influence them by way of the Jedi Mind Trick. His effort may come to bring in some fence-sitting Democratic House members, but I doubt it will move Sinema very much.
As for the Republicans, they hardly need to get out of bed for this fight. They are avidly watching two conservative Democrats rip the party apart and are united in their joy. Biden may as well be talking to the stump of Shel Silverstein’s Giving Tree: “Keep fouling everything up,” the tree told Sinema and Manchin. And they did… and the tree was happy.
Manchin is doing it for coal money, at least some of it his own. Sinema is doing it for pharmaceutical and medical industry donations. The former is doing it loud, the other softly and bewilderingly. Even Sinema’s long silence could be viewed as entirely tactical; it has surely deranged the process to the verge of collapse. The corruption they ooze while doing this is made of primary colors, vivid and impossible to miss.
They don’t want this bill to exist, will likely vote only for a version that has fewer actual teeth than the paper it is printed on, and that’s a big maybe. Perhaps, after voting for fire, flood, famine and greed, Sinema will take another bow on her way out the door, like she did when she voted against paying workers a living wage back in March. Nothing surprises anymore.
Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer held a vote in the Senate to simply open a discussion on the Freedom To Vote Act, authored by Senator Amy Klobuchar and co-authored by Senator Joe Manchin. After the failure of the For The People Act to get even one single vote from any Republican, Manchin told his fellow Democrats that he could tweak the legislation to both protect the vote and get Republican votes. Clearly, he failed.
But the bill did functionally get 50 votes and, with the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote as President of the Senate, that’s enough to make it into law according to the Constitution.
But it was stopped by the filibuster.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It’s not part of any law. And it’s damaging America.
Today’s filibuster was fine-tuned into its current form by the “Grandfather of the Confederacy” John C. Calhoun, and its only purpose then was to block discussion of legislation that involved slavery in the South. After the Civil War, it was still used to prevent equal rights for African Americans and other minorities…as it was yesterday.
Historian Adam Jentleson notes, “[F]rom the 87 years between when Reconstruction ended until 1964, the only category of legislation against which the filibuster was deployed to actively stop bills in their tracks was civil rights legislation.”
The filibuster is just a rule the Senate has decided to impose on itself and that it can change anytime it wants.
And it’s an unconstitutional rule, although senators have found it such a convenient place to put blame for inaction (rather than on themselves) that nobody has challenged it as such.
But the Constitution is clear. Each state has two senators who represent it (Article I, Section 3). And, wrote the Framers in Article V of the Constitution, “[N]o state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Democrats in the Senate represent 41 million more people than Republicans and hold 51 out of 101 Senate votes (including the VP), yet they’re told that under the senate rules they can’t exercise or adequately represent either of their majorities. Instead, a mere 41 Republican senators can block their actions through the filibuster.
That is a clear and egregious loss of states’ “equal suffrage” guaranteed in the Constitution. Most Americans know of the principle as “one person, one vote”: the concept that no citizen’s vote has more power than anothers’. Or, in this case, no state has more power in the Senate than any other state.
But in the Senate right now, 41 Senators have the power to block the votes of 59 others and thus kill any legislation they don’t like — including urgently needed laws like the Freedom To Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or the For The People Act. That is not “equal suffrage.”
Back in January of 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon and President Dwight Eisenhower had just been re-elected in the 1956 election. Nixon was presiding, as President of the Senate, over the opening session of the 85th Congress, and an issue of amending the Senate filibuster rule came before him.
The Senate should be able to change its rules, he said, by a simple majority vote because the power of the Senate to change its own rules was authorized by the Constitution and the Constitution didn’t specify it was one of the three special issues (impeachment, ratification of Constitutional amendments, and treaties with other countries) that required supermajorities.
Nixon’s challenge was later cited by both Vice Presidents Humphrey (1967) and Rockefeller (1975) and became the basis by which Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell carved holes into the filibuster (for approving cabinet officers, federal judges and Supreme Court justices) with simple majority votes in 2013 and 2017.
Challenging the filibuster on a constitutional basis is not a new or unique idea, although it’s gotten far too little coverage in the press (probably because most Americans don’t even understand what the filibuster is). I last ranted here about it in March of this year including a dive into its racist history, as well as in January.
The Brennan Center for Justice did a deep dive into this topic a full year ago and came to the same conclusion: the filibuster is a relic and almost certainly violates the spirit, if not the text, of the Constitution. As they noted, “[T]he filibuster continues to undermine a real democracy.”
Constitutional law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Burt Neuborne similarly proposed in a LA Times op-ed in March of this year that Harris expand on the example of Nixon and simply declare the filibuster unconstitutional, forcing the Senate to deal with the issue on a constitutional rather than a purely political basis.
The fear cited by Democrats for eliminating or substantially changing the filibuster is that the Senate may end up in Republican hands and then they’d have a hard time blocking legislation to which they object.
But isn’t majority rule the essence of democracy?
Instead, since the 1960s, the filibuster has become the favorite anti-democratic tool of well-funded special interests like the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Banking to prevent any sort of meaningful action on climate change, labor rights and consumer protections (among other things).
For example, after the brutal 2012 slaughter of 20 first-graders and 6 adults at Sandy Hook, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) put together a modest bill to increase the use of background checks to purchase weapons.
Given the demographic and political changes in America today — including the substantial shift in the Overton Window defining what’s politically normal or acceptable to discuss in the media (who could have imagined five years ago that Bernie Sanders would be driving the mainstream of the Democratic Party?) — ending Republican obstruction and doing the people’s business that’s overwhelmingly supported in poll after poll is essential to preserve Americans’ faith in our system.
In large part because of the filibuster that faith has collapsed in the past few decades; it’s one of the bigger factors that led to Trump, charging that “the system is rigged,” winning the White House in 2016. We have to restore faith in American democracy, or he or someone like him will be back in power in 3 years.
Democrats must stop being afraid of their own shadow (Carl Jung pun intended) and get things done for the American people.
The disaster of Democrats being, once again, seen as hapless and impotent will do far more to advance the Republicans’ antidemocratic crusade (by causing Democrats to lose elections in 2022 and 2024) than any rule in the US Senate.
And wouldn’t it be extraordinary to have our first African American and female Vice President puncture the weapon used by mostly-male white supremacists to fight civil rights in the US Senate for over 200 years?
Blow up, or at least substantially modify, this unconstitutional filibuster now!
Before it’s too late, we need to ask ourselves a crucial question: Do we really — I mean truly — want a new Cold War with China?
Because that’s just where the Biden administration is clearly taking us. If you need proof, check out last month’s announcement of an “AUKUS” (Australia, United Kingdom, U.S.) military alliance in Asia. Believe me, it’s far scarier (and more racist) than the nuclear-powered submarine deal and the French diplomatic kerfuffle that dominated the media coverage of it. By focusing on the dramatically angry French reaction to losing their own agreement to sell non-nuclear subs to Australia, most of the media missed a much bigger story: that the U.S. government and its allies have all but formally declared a new Cold War by launching a coordinated military buildup in East Asia unmistakably aimed at China.
It’s still not too late to choose a more peaceful path. Unfortunately, this all-Anglo alliance comes perilously close to locking the world into just such a conflict that could all too easily become a hot, even potentially nuclear, war between the two wealthiest, most powerful countries on the planet.
If you’re too young to have lived through the original Cold War as I did, imagine going to sleep fearing that you might not wake up in the morning, thanks to a nuclear war between the world’s two superpowers (in those days, the United States and the Soviet Union). Imagine walking past nuclear fallout shelters, doing “duck and cover” drills under your school desk, and experiencing other regular reminders that, at any moment, a great-power war could end life on Earth.
Do we really want a future of fear? Do we want the United States and its supposed enemy to once again squander untold trillions of dollars on military expenditures while neglecting basic human needs, including universal health care, education, food, and housing, not to mention failing to deal adequately with that other looming existential threat, climate change?
A U.S. Military Buildup in Asia
When President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared their all-too-awkwardly named AUKUS alliance, most of the media focused on a relatively small (though hardly insignificant) part of the deal: the U.S. sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia and that country’s simultaneous cancellation of a 2016 contract to buy diesel-powered subs from France. Facing the loss of tens of billions of euros and being shut out of the Anglo Alliance, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the deal a “stab in the back.” For the first time in history, France briefly recalled its ambassador from Washington. French officials even cancelled a gala meant to celebrate Franco-American partnership dating back to their defeat of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War.
Caught surprisingly off guard by the uproar over the alliance (and the secret negotiations that preceded it), the Biden administration promptly took steps to repair relations, and the French ambassador soon returned to Washington. In September at the United Nations, President Biden declared that the last thing he wants is “a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” Sadly, the actions of his administration suggest otherwise.
Imagine how Biden administration officials would feel about the announcement of a “VERUCH” (VEnezuela, RUssia, and CHina) alliance. Imagine how they’d react to a buildup of Chinese military bases and thousands of Chinese troops in Venezuela. Imagine their reaction to regular deployments of all types of Chinese military aircraft, submarines, and warships in Venezuela, to increased spying, heightened cyberwarfare capabilities, and relevant space “activities,” as well as military exercises involving thousands of Chinese and Russian troops not just in Venezuela but in the waters of the Atlantic within striking distance of the United States. How would Biden’s team feel about the promised delivery of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to that country, involving the transfer of nuclear technology and nuclear-weapons-grade uranium?
None of this has happened, but these would be the Western Hemisphere equivalents of the “major force posture initiatives” U.S., Australian, and British officials have just announced for East Asia. AUKUS officials unsurprisingly portray their alliance as making parts of Asia “safer and more secure,” while building “a future of peace [and] opportunity for all the people of the region.” It’s unlikely U.S. leaders would view a similar Chinese military buildup in Venezuela or anywhere else in the Americas as a similar recipe for safety and peace.
In reaction to VERUCH, calls for a military response and a comparable alliance would be rapid. Shouldn’t we expect Chinese leaders to react to the AUKUS buildup with their own version of the same? For now, a Chinese government spokesperson suggested that the AUKUS allies “should shake off their Cold War mentality” and “not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties.” The Chinese military’s recent escalation of provocative exercises near Taiwan may be, in part, an additional response.
Chinese leaders have even more reason to doubt the declared peaceful intent of AUKUS given that the U.S. military already has seven military bases in Australia and nearly 300 more spread across East Asia. By contrast, China doesn’t have a single base in the Western Hemisphere or anywhere near the borders of the United States. Add in one more factor: in the last 20 years, the AUKUS allies have a track record of launching aggressive wars and participating in other conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines, among other places. China’s last war beyond its borders was with Vietnam for one month in 1979. (Brief, deadly clashes occurred with Vietnam in 1988 and India in 2020.)
War Trumps Diplomacy
By withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the Biden administration theoretically started moving the country away from its twenty-first-century policy of endless wars. The president, however, now appears determined to side with those in Congress, in the mainstream foreign policy “Blob,” and in the media who are dangerouslyinflating the Chinese military threat and calling for a military response to that country’s growing global power. The poor handling of relations with the French government is another sign that, despite prior promises, the Biden administration is paying little attention to diplomacy and reverting to a foreign policy defined by preparations for war, bloated military budgets, and macho military bluster.
Given the 20 years of disastrous warfare that followed the George W. Bush administration’s announcement of a “Global War on Terror” and its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, what business does Washington have building a new military alliance in Asia? Shouldn’t the Biden administration instead be building alliances dedicated to combating global warming, pandemics, hunger, and other urgent human needs? What business do three white leaders of three white-majority countries have attempting to dominate that region through military force?
While the leaders of some countries there have welcomed AUKUS, the three allies signaled the racist, retrograde, downright colonial nature of their Anglo Alliance by excluding other Asian countries from their all-white club. Naming China as its obvious target and escalating Cold War-style us-vs.-them tensions risk fueling already rampant anti-Chinese and anti-Asian racism in the United States and globally. Belligerent, often warlike rhetoric against China, associated with former President Donald Trump and other far-right Republicans, has increasingly been embraced by the Biden administration and some Democrats. It “has directly contributed to rising anti-Asian violence across the country,” write Asia experts Christine Ahn, Terry Park, and Kathleen Richards.
The less formalized “Quad” grouping that Washington has also organized in Asia, again including Australia as well as India and Japan, is little better and is already becoming a more militarily focused anti-Chinese alliance. Other countries in the region have indicated that they are “deeply concerned over the continuing arms race and power projection” there, as the Indonesian government said of the nuclear-powered submarine deal. Nearly silent and so difficult to detect, such vessels are offensive weapons designed to strike another country without warning. Australia’s future acquisition of them risks escalating a regional arms race and raises troubling questions about the intentions of both Australian and U.S. leaders.
Beyond Indonesia, people worldwide should be deeply concerned about the U.S. sale of nuclear-propelled submarines. The deal undermines efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons as it encourages the proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, which the U.S. or British governments will need to provide to Australia to fuel the subs. The deal also offers a precedent allowing other non-nuclear countries like Japan to advance nuclear-weapons development under the guise of building their own nuclear-powered subs. What’s to stop China or Russia from now selling their nuclear-powered submarines and weapons-grade uranium to Iran, Venezuela, or any other country?
Who’s Militarizing Asia?
Some will claim that the United States must counter China’s growing military power, frequently trumpeted by U.S. media outlets. Increasingly, journalists, pundits, and politicians here have been irresponsibly parroting misleading depictions of Chinese military power. Such fearmongering is already ballooning military budgets in this country, while fueling arms races and increasing tensions, just as during the original Cold War. Disturbingly, according to a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey, a majority in the U.S. now appear to believe — however incorrectly — that Chinese military power is equal to or greater than that of the United States. In fact, our military power vastly exceeds China’s, which simply doesn’t compare to the old Soviet Union.
The Chinese government has indeed strengthened its military power in recent years by increasing spending, developing advanced weapons systems, and building an estimated 15 to 27 mostly small military bases and radar stations on human-made islands in the South China Sea. Nonetheless, the U.S. military budget remains at least three times the size of its Chinese counterpart (and higher than at the height of the original Cold War). Add in the military budgets of Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other NATO allies like Great Britain and the discrepancy leaps to six to one. Among the approximately 750 U.S. military bases abroad, almost 300 are scattered across East Asia and the Pacific and dozens more are in other parts of Asia. The Chinese military, on the other hand, has eight bases abroad (seven in the South China Sea’s Spratley Islands and one in Djibouti in Africa), plus bases in Tibet. The U.S. nuclear arsenal contains about 5,800 warheads compared to about 320 in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. military has 68 nuclear-powered submarines, the Chinese military 10.
Contrary to what many have been led to believe, China is not a military challenge to the United States. There is no evidence its government has even the remotest thought of threatening, let alone attacking, the U.S. itself. Remember, China last fought a war outside its borders in 1979. “The true challenges from China are political and economic, not military,” Pentagon expert William Hartung has rightly explained.
Since President Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” the U.S. military has engaged in years of new base construction, aggressive military exercises, and displays of military force in the region. This has encouraged the Chinese government to build up its own military capabilities. Especially in recent months, the Chinese military has engaged in increasingly provocative exercises near Taiwan, though fearmongers again are misrepresenting and exaggerating how threatening they truly are. Given Biden’s plans to escalate his predecessors’ military buildup in Asia, no one should be surprised if Beijing announces a military response and pursues an AUKUS-like alliance of its own. If so, the world will once more be locked in a two-sided Cold-War-like struggle that could prove increasingly difficult to unwind.
Unless Washington and Beijing reduce tensions, future historians may see AUKUS as akin not just to various Cold-War-era alliances, but to the 1882 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. That pact spurred France, Britain, and Russia to create their own Triple Entente, which, along with rising nationalism and geo-economic competition, helped lead Europe into World War I (which, in turn, begat World War II, which begat the Cold War).
Avoiding a New Cold War?
The Biden administration and the United States must do better than resuscitate the strategies of the nineteenth century and the Cold War era. Rather than further fueling a regional arms race with yet more bases and weapons development in Australia, U.S. officials could help lower tensions between Taiwan and mainland China, while working to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In the wake of the Afghan War, President Biden could commit the United States to a foreign policy of diplomacy, peace-building, and opposition to war rather than one of endless conflict and preparations for more of the same. AUKUS’s initial 18-month consultation period offers a chance to reverse course.
Recent polling suggests such moves would be popular. More than three times as many in the U.S. would like to see an increase, rather than a decrease, in diplomatic engagement in the world, according to the nonprofit Eurasia Group Foundation. Most surveyed would also like to see fewer troop deployments overseas. Twice as many want to decrease the military budget as want to increase it.
The world barely survived the original Cold War, which was anything but cold for the millions of people who lived through or died in the era’s proxy wars in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Can we really risk another version of the same, this time possibly with Russia as well as China? Do we want an arms race and competing military buildups that would divert trillions of dollars more from pressing human needs while filling the coffers of arms manufacturers? Do we really want to risk triggering a military clash between the United States and China, accidental or otherwise, that could easily spin out of control and become a hot, possibly nuclear, war in which the death and destruction of the last 20 years of “forever wars” would look small by comparison.
That thought alone should be chilling. That thought alone should be enough to stop another Cold War before it’s too late.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin has spent the last months batting around his fellow Democrats like a cat toying with a mouse. President Biden’s signature Build Back Better Act has been the target of his torments — his energy industry paymasters hate it and want it destroyed, and so he has carried their water with dutiful ruthlessness — and today, the sham pretense of “negotiation” was dropped with an audible thud.
“In recent days,” reportsMother Jones, “Sen. Joe Manchin has told associates that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party if President Joe Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill do not agree to his demand to cut the size of the social infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion, according to people who have heard Manchin discuss this. Manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an ‘American Independent.’ And he has devised a detailed exit strategy for his departure.”
Such a move, if Manchin follows through, would immediately deliver Senate majority control to Mitch McConnell and the Republicans. Bernie Sanders would lose his Budget Committee chairmanship to Lindsey Graham, the current ranking Republican. The Build Back Better Act, along with Biden’s entire domestic agenda, would fall to ashes. This is the biggest club Manchin has, and he just audibly rattled it in the bag.
The road to this nauseating juncture has been torturous. “We’ve made breakthroughs,” an unnamed Democratic senator told reporters just yesterday, after a meeting between Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders. The two diametrically opposed committee chairs had come together, according to The Hill, “to reach a deal on a path forward for President Biden’s economic agenda by the end of the week.”
Specifically, the pair sought to find a path to passage for the Build Back Better Act, a bill packed with climate and social policies that are anathema to Manchin’s corporate paymasters, and to his own personal coal-stained bottom line. This has been going on for months now, and what was a robust piece of legislation is now a shadow of itself, and under mortal threat thanks to Manchin’s threat.
It has been like this from the beginning. The same day Manchin had his “breakthrough” meeting with Sanders, he announced his opposition to the carbon tax, an idea being floated to salvage the bill after Manchin demanded the most effective climate elements be stripped. Biden’s staffers have been scrambling to fix the damage done by Manchin, and when they offered this solution, they got Manchin telling reporters, “The carbon tax is not on the board at all right now,” right before his sit-down with Bernie.
Are we sensing a pattern yet?
Three weeks ago, Manchin’s whole problem was the cost of the bill, yet he refused to publicly offer a number he could live with. When congressional progressives offered a solution to that concern — chop the time frame of the bill in half, which cuts its price tag in half — it suddenly seemed as if a way to daylight had been found…
…which was precisely when Manchin (perhaps realizing he was about to fail his paymasters) started blasting out specific complaints about the details. No clean energy impetus. No child tax credit (without worthless work requirements included). No carbon tax. Include the Hyde Amendment. Vote on the infrastructure bill first and alone.
Just yesterday, Biden informed House progressives that he was dumping tuition-free community college from the package, in order to try and please Manchin.
The problem all along has been simple: Nothing will please Manchin. He may have specific ideological complaints about elements of the bill, but that is not what motivates him. Clinging to a doomed home-state industry motivates him, which is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. Nothing would do more good for West Virginia than a deliberate transition away from coal, even if it means subsidizing former coal workers until they get trained up for new work. That won’t happen this round because of Manchin.
More than this, I suspect, Manchin is motivated by a desire to protect his own personal coal-based wealth, and the wealth of the lobbyists who are in his ear even as they fill his wallet. He does not want a denuded bill. He wants no bill at all, and every time his fellow Democrats try to appease him by slicing up their own policy objectives, he moves the goal posts again. His threat to flee the party is a dramatic version of more of the same. If this were a football game, Democrats would be kicking field goals in the parking lot outside the stadium by now.
Hurricane Manchin, the worst climate-driven storm we have endured to date, is threatening to blow everything to the ground. It is not just the Build Back Better Act that is in peril; coal-state senators scuttling vital climate bills while the world drowns and burns is a dead-bang existential threat.
There is no bargaining with a storm like this, especially one whose effects will be felt globally. There are only two ways to handle such a storm: Either run away, or build up strong and dare it to knock you down. The Democrats have been running away for months. It’s time for a new tactic.
“The interminable delay of an up-or-down Senate vote on President Joe Biden’s agenda serves no one other than Sinema, Manchin, and their corporate donors who want the bill gutted or killed,” writes David Sirota for The Daily Poster. “Every day Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stalls a vote on an already-scaled-back $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, Senate Democrats become more complicit in the betrayal of their party’s campaign promises, the evisceration of the working class, and the destruction of the climate. They can make a different choice and hold a vote right now.”
Schedule a vote on the bill immediately, and announce there will be no further subtractions made. With the lid closed, Democrats can finally share concrete details about the bill with the public, and beat back the barrage of nonsense offered by the Republicans, and by Manchin. “And to really up the ante,” suggests Sirota, “Democratic leaders could add a bunch of programs that will target aid and investment to West Virginia and Arizona.”
Make Manchin and his crew defend themselves against that, make them explain their opposition to elderly dental care, child care, tuition-free schooling, cheaper prescription drugs, and the fact that the ocean is coming for us all, and maybe we should try to do something about it. Manchin has not been made to do this yet, and I would love to see him try.
…and if Manchin jumps, so be it. His decision to leave could come to amount to voluntary irrelevance. He was hardly there anyway, and his defection could rob the Republicans of basically everything they planned to run on next year. The whole tumbling mess would then be McConnell’s problem, and he could enjoy explaining it away while fighting off the slobbering machinations of Donald Trump, who would probably see a switch of party control in the Senate as a signal that his destiny is at hand.
Trump may go off like a burning fireworks factory, and the GOP may be forced to run with him or away from him. Either choice could tear the party apart and thoroughly horrify a stout majority of voters in the process. The 2022 midterms, if Manchin jumps, could very well be a bloodbath for Republicans entirely because of him.
Enough of this patty-cake bullshit. Call the vote.
Today marks seven years since the murder of Laquan McDonald by the Chicago Police Department (CPD). On this same day, the former mayor of Chicago — who helped cover up McDonald’s murder in order to win reelection — is attending a nomination hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for him to serve as ambassador to Japan.
As BIPOC youth who experienced the consequences of living under eight years of a mayor who demonstrated complete disregard for our lives, this is a federal slap in the face.
Every time Rahm Emanuel is invited to be a part of another televised interview where he brags about how he reduced crime in Chicago and transformed the city during his time in office, it feels like he is making a mockery out of the lives of every youth organizer throughout the city whose demands he ignored.
Black youth keep dying every day in Chicago. Meanwhile, Emanuel — who closed schools and clinics and cut the after-school programming that those same youth should have had access to while in office — gets promoted, moving up the ranks and on to other political ventures. He is able to disassociate himself from the communities he helped gut, but we aren’t able to remove ourselves from the harmful effects of his politics.
We still have to experience crises daily, and Rahm Emanuel still has blood on his hands.
During the first year of his first term as mayor, Emanuel moved to close down half of the public mental health clinics within the city. For BIPOC youth who live in over-surveilled communities with a surplus of police, for youth who live in neighborhoods plagued by violence, and for youth who don’t have access to education, stable housing, healthy food, and other basic life necessities, lack of access to mental health resources means not having support to cope with the trauma of growing up in a city that doesn’t care for us.
In 2013, during his second year of his first term as mayor, around 50 public schools within the city of Chicago were closed, most of which were concentrated on the predominantly Black and Latinx West and South sides of the city. These school closings represented the largest public school closing in modern U.S. history. Emanuel justified these school closings by stating that due to “budget constraints” and “underutilization” these schools could not afford to stay open. At this same time in which the city was experiencing these “budget constraints,” however, 40 new charter schools were opened, many of which were within a mile and a half of the public schools that were previously closed. Emanuel valued profit over people, and payoffs over students, with his continued disinvestment in public schools and expansion in charter schools. In addition to this, enrollment in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) saw declines and the Chicago Teachers Union went on its first strike in a quarter of a century due to failed negotiations with the city over an expansion of resources like arts and music programs at a large number of underfunded schools.
Youth on the South and West sides of the city still have to wake up every day and travel through their communities and see the vacant buildings that were once their schools, once their communities and once held their memories of childhood.
While Rahm Emanuel’s first term was full of education crisis, his second term was defined by major failures in his approach toward policing. Emanuel failed Black Chicagoans by not holding police accountable and instead poured hundreds of millions more into police spending. We saw that when he covered up the murder of Laquan McDonald and then put $95 million into a police and fire training academy despite widespread and powerful opposition.
Chicagoans are currently leading a campaign to #DefundCPD and instead demand investment in much-needed resources on the city’s South and West sides. Chicago’s Black and Brown youth are demanding that police officers be removed from schools through the #CopsOutCPS campaign. Many of these officers have long records of misconduct but are placed within schools on desk duty. They are allowed in schools with the same weaponry they use to terrorize us within our neighborhoods.
When making sense of this ambassador position, it is important to understand Emanuel’s prioritization of police over community needs given the inextricable connection between policing and militarism. Police are a militant force in our communities.
When we consider that in 2020 the United States accounted for 38 percent of the world’s military spending, and just approved a $768 billion budget for the military but can’t pass a rescue plan for our communities or our environment, it makes sense that President Biden would appoint Rahm Emanuel as an ambassador of Japan. In his time in Congress, Emanuel supported the war in Iraq. During his time in the White House, he was terribly anti-immigrant. It is clear throughout his career that Emanuel’s priorities are in upholding war and violence over the demands of communities of color who want investment and social justice. His time in the Clinton White House was a reflection of that, his time in the Obama White House was a reflection of that and his time as mayor was a reflection of that. We’re scared that he will show us more of the same as an ambassador.
To attack critical race theory is to attack Black knowledge production and attempt to silence its epistemological disruptive reverberations, which challenge the U.S.’s atrocious anti-Black racism.
The attacks waged against everything deemed “critical race theory” constitute a new form of McCarthyism, deeming all ideas legitimately critical of realities in the U.S. as “un-American.” Contemporary attacks against critical race theory also expose its conservative attackers’ abysmal ignorance regarding its central claims.
“Thoughtcrime,” which is a concept developed by George Orwell in his dystopic novel, 1984, is what one commits in the act of contesting hegemonic orders, authoritarian regimes and ideological zealots bent on silencing critical thought itself. Within this context, ignorance is deemed a strength. Not to know and not to know that one does not know seems “utopic” for many who use critical race theory as a scapegoat to manufacture disinformation and a politics of distraction.
Within a context where war is waged on imaginative creativity, and critical thought is seen as an enemy of the state, we are pushed to become the walking dead, stripped of the capacity for critical thought for the sake of strict stability and pristine order.
With images in my mind from Yevgeny Zamyatin’s dystopic novel, We, the attacks on critical race theory give me nightmare visions of a future day when our students (perhaps donning brownshirts by day and white hoods at night) will record us teaching about white privilege, systemic racism and implicit racial bias. I fear that, targeted by covert actions, professors like me may again be labeled by the state as political dissidents and left to the whims of a new, updated House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Acutely aware of how critical race theory is facing attacks from white supremacists on the right, I was troubled to also find it facing a different sort of attack by Black law professor Randall Kennedy in his recent American Prospect article, “The Right-Wing Attack on Racial Justice Talk.”
While Kennedy does argue against the recent right-wing attacks on critical race theory, depicting them as self-serving efforts of so many to avoid coming to terms with the U.S.’s history of racism and its continued existence, he simultaneously labels various aspects of critical race theory as “misguided,” and argues that they ought to be rejected. For example, he writes:
The idea that Black people cannot be racist because they lack power to effectuate their prejudice is misguided for a number of reasons including the obvious empirical point that there are Black people who, as police chiefs, mayors, Cabinet officials, members of Congress, professors, directors of human resources offices, chief executive officers, prison wardens, and president and vice president of the United States, do exercise decisive, often unreviewable, power over whites and others.
Kennedy’s framing here is itself deeply misguided. He assumes that because some Black people are in positions of power, those Black people can therefore use such “power to effectuate their prejudices” and that this means that they would qualify as racists.
What I fear most about Kennedy’s position is that right-wing white enthusiasts, to put it mildly, will take his words as support for the idea that racism is also a Black phenomenon, and not fundamentally and inextricably a feature of the structure and practice of whiteness.
Kennedy’s position opens the doors to a more widespread embrace of the erroneous and damaging concept of “Black anti-white racism.”
I can hear conservative white people moan and shout: “Ah, you see! The Black professor, and one from Harvard to boot, understands my white pain and suffering stemming directly from Black anti-white racism.” Or, “If America is to change regarding race relations, then, we must all change, because there is that horrible thing called Black racism, and that we, as white people, continue to suffer under its yoke.” Or, “As a white man, I’m so tired of being discriminated against by Black people. They have so much power.” Or, finally, “Given Black anti-white racism, we need to campaign and organize: ‘White Lives Matter!’”
Because so many white people dread being called the r-word, as if it was somehow comparable to the n-word, Kennedy’s argument provides cover for white people to obfuscate the systemic feature that is indispensable when discussing critically the nature of racism. He also conflates some Black people’s “power to effectuate their prejudices” with 400 years of white people in positions of systemic power over Black people, where being white sufficiently constituted the “power to effectuate [white] prejudices.”
Historically, white racism wasn’t about being in strategic and fluid social locations of influence, it was about white people occupying the category of the human. The latter wasn’t limited to social locational or situational power but exemplified having the ontological power to define and enforce Black people into literal nonexistence, it meant having the power to define and enforce the “sub-person”status of Black people. So, Kennedy’s use of power within the context of Black people wielding it against white people is not only undertheorized, but ahistorical.
Even within our contemporary moment, those Black “police chiefs, mayors, Cabinet officials, members of Congress, professors, directors of human resources offices, chief executive officers, prison wardens, and president and vice president of the United States” continue to live within a country predicted upon anti-Black racism. Each of those occupied positions mean very little within a context of white supremacy.
Does Kennedy really believe that former President Obama had the “power”(comparable to white power, which is the only real, centuries-old held systemic racist power that we know of in the United States) to “effectuate his [racist] prejudices”? While Kennedy and I are both professors, both with endowed chairs, my contention is that we are still deemed “n*****s” in the eyes of white supremacist North America. Bear in mind that this is not to say that we are that ugly epithet.
W.E.B. DuBois, in a speech delivered in China at the age of 91, sums up an important message that all too familiarly speaks to Black life in North America. DuBois said, “In my own country for nearly a century I have been nothing but a n*****.” Malcolm X was also unmoved by white America’s sham democracy when it came to Black people. Malcom asked, “What does a white man call a Black man with a Ph.D.?” He answered: “A n***** with a Ph.D.”
As professors, we are still Black professors. Our academic statuses are forms of temporary reprieve at best. Class might free us from trying to use a “fake” $20 bill, but at the end of the day we are both George Floyd, Black bodies navigating a larger white system where we are believed to be “criminals” a priori. Having a Ph.D. will not shield me against white police officers killing me dead as they approach me in the night, mistaking my holding a copy of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason for a weapon, or mistake Kennedy’s holding a cell phone for a gun. Then again, perhaps someday we might have to face the fact that the $20 bill that we have is fake and find ourselves under the knee of white violence, white “law and order.”
Within the context of anti-Black America, Blackness functions as an ontological and political deflationary signifier, but it also constitutes a material condition where to be Black in the U.S. is to be always already imminently dead. In Golden Gulag, Ruth Wilson Gilmore powerfully writes about racism where she refers to it as the “state-sanctioned or extra-legal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death.”
And keep in mind that this racial-differentiated vulnerability is pervasive. Let white students simply think that a Black professor is discriminating against them based upon race and see how quickly the white students are believed. You see, they also have epistemic privilege and power. White supremacist history is at their backs. Get enough white parents alarmed, and one’s fate is sealed. And let’s not forget about the white power (typically male) elites who run the institution. That is what white power and white privilege look like.
Indeed, that is how U.S. racism operates; it is systemic, historical, institutional and materially grounded. As Sara Ahmed writes in Living a Feminist Life, “[White] privilege does not mean we are invulnerable: things happen; shit happens. [White] privilege can however reduce the cost of vulnerability; you are more likely to be looked after.” The payoff of white racism is exponential.
In Blackness Visible, Charles Mills refers to “the multidimensional payoff from whiteness — economic, juridico-political, social, cultural, somatic, ‘ontological’— in a white-supremacist system.” As you can see, within the context of an anti-Black society, there is no similar payoff vis-à-vis Black people. When I think of white systemic racist power, I think of this multidimensional payoff. It is certainly not the sort of power that would justify Kennedy’s assumption that Black people can be “racists” simply because they have power. To accept Kennedy’s argument, I would need to concede the existence of a chimera: “Black systemic racist power.”
Part of the difficulty with Kennedy’s argument about Black racism is his failure to interpret with precision the thesis held by scholars of anti-racism that racism is “prejudice + power.” For example, in her book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, educator and psychologist Beverly D. Tatum holds to this thesis, arguing that racism involves a system that advantages some and disadvantages others based upon race.
Within the context of this discussion in her book, Tatum uses the term “people of color” to refer to those who she says cannot be racists. Hence, if people of color are in fact racist (and by implication if Black people are racist) then they must, for Tatum, “systematically benefit from racism.” Black people, however, don’t systematically benefit from racism. I once had a white student raise the issue of affirmative action as an example. The problem with that argument is that affirmative action is not meant for Black people to benefit from racism, but it is meant as an approach to curtail the effects of racism. Tatum also argues that for people of color to be racist, we would need to live in a world characterized by the “systematic cultural and institutional support or sanction for the racial bigotry of people of color.” Historically, the fact of the matter is that Black people have never had systematic cultural and institutional support or sanction for their “racial bigotry.”
It is important to note, however, that Tatum does argue that if we were to define racism narrowly as consisting of racial prejudices alone, then, yes, people of color, which includes Black people, can be said to be racist. I’m sure that there are Black people and people of color who don’t like white people, and that have racist prejudices against them. I would ask, however, about the basis of those “racial prejudices.” The aim is not to justify them by making such an inquiry, but to try to understand them within the context of centuries of anti-Black racism. I would also argue that even if we grant that there are Black people who hold racial prejudices, we will need to examine and be truthful about how those prejudices are not linked systemically to a system of anti-white racism. White racist prejudices in the U.S. are fundamentally linked to white supremacist systems that oppress Black people. So, even if Black people have racial prejudices, they cannot be racist oppressors in relationship to whites unless we are prepared to denude racism of its structural and systemic oppressive logics, which is how we understand the use of the term “racism” within the context of an anti-Black American polity.
As white feminist Peggy McIntosh might argue, and with which I would agree, Black people don’t find themselves within “invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on [their] groups from birth.” Yet, this is the reality of white people in this country.
Of course, some white people might say, “But I’m poor even though I’m white!” I lament white poverty and will do what I can to undo racial capitalism, because it keeps us down in similar ways. Yet, we mustn’t be misled by a false equivalence. To be a poor white is still to be a poor white. To become white was the price of the ticket, as James Baldwin would say. In that process of being recruited by whiteness, there is the understanding, even if only implicit and inchoate, that you are the opposite of Black — human.
White literary figure Lillian Smith knows about this recruitment. In Killers of the Dream, she writes, “Your white skin proves that you are better than all other people on this earth.” Tatum concludes in this way: “In my view, reserving the term racist only for behaviors committed by Whites in the context of a White-dominated society is a way of acknowledging the ever-present power differential afforded Whites by the culture and institutions that make up the system of advantage and continue to reinforce notions of White supremacy.” On this score, Kennedy’s contention that there are “Black racists” falls flat.
The idea that Black people who hold racial prejudices and occupy positions of relative power qualify as “racists” akin to white supremacist racists would only ever make sense to me if a counterfactual (i.e., wildly fantastical) set of historical events were also real. Let me explain.
For years now, I have used the following counterfactual history (presented in the block quote of my own words below) as an example to challenge and augment the narrow and protected memory of my white students, many of whom have never even heard of the white abolitionist John Brown. That historical archive seems too dangerous for those who are afraid to investigate what lies within the belly of the beast, the monstrous structure of white supremacy. (Spoiler alert: In the imagined history below, I have simply reversed the actual history of anti-Black racism in the U.S. in order to make clear the ridiculousness of claiming that Black people are racist.)
Imagine that Black people decided to venture off to Europe to explore the unknown. Needing cheap labor, they decided to capture millions of white people from Europe and enslave them. Moving through the “door of no return,” white people suffered in cruel agony, undergoing forms of psychic trauma from which they would perhaps never recover. Black people brought them back to Africa in ships that smelled of feces, urine, sickness and blood. They were packed in suffocating spaces that were designed to house far fewer.
Many of the whites died from the disease-laden conditions of the ship. In fact, Black people had to pull white children from the arms of their loving white parents because their little bodies had to be thrown overboard to protect the remaining items of value. Black people made sure to separate white people so that they couldn’t speak the same language so that any attempt at escape was thwarted in advance. Some whites, holding hands, jumped overboard to their death rather than to be enslaved by the Black sellers of white flesh. They eventually were sold from auction blocks, often naked, as other Blacks examined them. They were sold to the person who bid the highest. Imagine white women exposed to the Black men as their wicked imaginations took flight. Imagine how Black women must have looked upon those wretched white hypersexual beasts of burden, defining their Black womanhood accordingly.
Eventually, white people were not just ordered to work, but were beaten, starved, dehumanized, brutally separated, sexually molested, backs scarred from the whip, bodies broken, and so many souls decimated. Black people had to think of ways to hide from the truth of white humanity. So, they created Black myths of white inferiority, white bestiality, white stupidity, white sub-personhood. If whites resisted, in any form, then they would receive multiple lashes until there was nothing more than gore and slashed skin. Many Black masters were invested libidinally in such rituals. And Black women loved to blame white women for the mixed-race children that would appear on the plantation, knowing that her Black husband had raped these pitiful and abject white creatures. Masses of Black people were indoctrinated with stories from the Bible that spoke of white people’s natural inferiority, reading only those sections that could be marshaled to support white wretchedness. God, after all, was Black. Adam and Eve were Black. Eminent Black philosophers, naturalists and taxonomists from Africa wrote entire treaties on white debauchery, and Black superiority, Black beauty and the Black man’s burden. White people were just children, the decedents of Ham, destined to be a servant of servants.
Eventually, white people were “freed,” but not really as they had to follow what were called “white codes.” Slavery had a new coding: criminality. And many white people suffered the fate of convict leasing or debt servitude. Mass incarceration would follow these white people all the way up to the present day in various predominantly monochromatically Black countries. In one such country, there was something called Jim Crowism. White people could not sit with Black people because the former were inferior. So, Black people created segregated schools, bathrooms, restaurants, buses, you name it. Black people created Black neighborhood covenants to keep those “white animals” out. After all, they had the wrong color skin. It was disgustingly white. They had stringy hair, pointy noses, thin lips, and the wrong hips and backsides, too narrow and too flat. How could God have created such aesthetic monstrosities? Many white people internalized these degrading myths, they came to prefer all things Black, even Black dolls. There were also anti-miscegenation laws against Black people and white people marrying. No one wanted to taint the “purity” of Black blood. White people, after all, had “bad blood.” Well, that’s what they were told during the infamous experiment on white people to find a “cure” for syphilis.
There was a time, which was called the “barbeque,” when many Black people would gather in the thousands, along with their Black children, in their best attire, to watch white men castrated and burned to death by Black men because some Black women said that a white man raped her. And everyone knew that white men were rapists of Black women. It’s a part of their ethically inept nature.
Soon, de jure anti-white racism would yield to white and Black protests. Black people begrudgingly tolerated white people. Some Blacks were sincere but refused to accept the fact that they were still racists. Not the old kind, but the new kind, the kind that claims not to see race: “I don’t see white people, I just see people.” “There is no such thing as systemic Black racism.” “Black privilege is a farce.”“We live in a post-racial America.” “Hell, we didn’t own white slaves.” “Black racism can’t exist because you guys had a white president.”
While unarmed white people are dying at the hands of Black police and white bodies are being disproportionately warehoused in prisons, and white people are marching in the streets screaming “White Lives Matter,” Black people are wondering what the problem is.
In fact, it is white people who are to blame for their own condition; they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. White people are just playing the race card and suffering from victimhood. As Black people continue in a state of denial, white people are trying their best to teach Black people about Black privilege and systemic Black racism. There are times when white people just want to give up on Black people and their racist system of governance. Some have even come to articulate a vision called Euro-pessimism. And, many whites, to the consternation of many Black people, are even demanding reparations. They feel that they are owed something because of the history of Black anti-white racism.
Only if the absurd counterfactual history that I have imagined above were true –rather than being the opposite of the actual history of enslavement and racism in the U.S. — would it then make sense to accept the idea that “Black people are racists.”
Without this counterfactual history, the idea of a Black racist is titular and does far more harm. For example, the claim that “Black people are racist” risks denuding the historical and current monstrosity of what we know to be the manifestations of white racism in the U.S., and the venomous nature of the ways in which white supremacy is a global phenomenon.
In The Racial Contract, Charles Mills argues that, “white supremacy, both local and global, exists and has existed for many years.” There is a reason that we use the term “Euro-domination,” not “Afro-domination.” The former speaks to pervasive forms of white settler colonialism. Indeed, for Mills, white supremacy functions as a political system and involves a “racial contract” between white people — literal or metaphorical.
To maintain that Black people can be racist is as absurd as comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the KKK. It’s as absurd as comparing India Walton to David Duke. Therefore, literacy regarding the legacy of white supremacy and its extant reality is so crucial. The truth of white supremacy is not flattering. It is a hard pill to swallow for white people. Yet isn’t it better to choke on the truth than to ingest delectable lies? According to James Baldwin, “People who imagine that history flatters them are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and become incapable of seeing or changing themselves or the world.”
While the death of former Secretary of State and retired Gen. Colin Powell has elicited praise-filled eulogies in the mainstream media and officials in Washington, many Americans still carry bitter feelings over Powell’s support for the illegal, unnecessary and predictably disastrous war in Iraq. In particular, critics cite his February 2003 speech before the United Nations Security Council in which he put forward a litany of demonstrably false statements in making the case that Iraq had compiled a dangerous arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” and was actively supporting the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
In light of the negative reaction from the arms control community and other knowledgeable sources, as well as many of the United States’ European allies and others, Powell’s speech would not have had anything close to the war-justifying impact it did were it not for efforts by prominent Democrats — including then-Sen. Joe Biden — to defend him.
Virtually all of the accusations that Powell put forward in his nationally televised speech were based upon the word of anonymous sources. His interpretation of the fuzzy photos he displayed were similarly unconvincing. Despite years of spy satellites and aerial surveillance combing that largely-desert country, no evidence of ongoing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons activity had been spotted, nor were any of the proscribed missiles and other weapons systems. In addition, United Nations inspectors, who had been given unfettered access to suspect sites throughout Iraq since late the previous year, had visited suspect sites and had found nothing. So while his speech was eloquent, Powell fell far short of proving that Iraq had anything that could seriously threaten the security of its neighbors, much less the United States.
Powell’s remarks were widely dismissed in the international community. The Security Council rejected his calls to authorize an invasion of that oil-rich country. Hans Blix, executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), categorically rejected many of Powell’s claims. For example, the respected Swedish diplomat insisted that there was absolutely no evidence to back Powell’s claims of mobile biological weapons laboratories, of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived, or that his organization has been infiltrated by Iraqi spies, later noting how UNMOVIC had not “found evidence of the continuation or resumption of proscribed items.”
The weakest part of Powell’s presentation was his effort to link the decidedly secular Iraqi regime with the fundamentalist al-Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden had referred to Saddam Hussein as “an apostate, an infidel, and a traitor to Islam.” Reports cited by Powell attempting to link Hussein to affiliated groups like Ansar al-Islam came almost exclusively from anti-Hussein Iraqis in exile hoping that establishing such a link could encourage U.S. military action to oust the dictator. Indeed, Ansar al-Islam’s stated goal was to overthrow the secular Baathist regime in Baghdad and replace it with an Islamic state.
The efforts to tie al-Qaeda figure Abu Musab Al Zarqawi to the Iraqi regime were also based largely on unattributed sources. Ansar al-Islam fighters and their al-Qaeda supporters had been seen only in autonomous Kurdish areas beyond Iraqi government control. (Indeed, Powell’s claim that there had been “decades” of contact between Hussein and al-Qaeda was particularly odd, given that the terrorist network was less than 10 years old at that point.) Furthermore, none of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi, none of al-Qaeda’s leaders have been Iraqi and none of the money trail has ever been traced to Iraq.
Subsequent reports indicate that Powell himself didn’t even believe what he was saying, but saw himself obliged as a “good soldier” to obey the commands of his commander-in-chief.
Despite the lack of compelling evidence and the ridicule the claims made in the speech received from knowledgeable observers, leading Democrats rushed in to defend Powell in the face of his transparently false claims.
For example, Sen. Joe Biden who, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, served as the Democrats de facto foreign policy spokesperson, insisted that Powell’s testimony was “very powerful and I think irrefutable,” telling Powell, “I am proud to be associated with you.” The Washington Post highlighted Biden’s statement in an editorial praising Powell’s speech, which it titled as a nod to Biden’s statement, “Irrefutable.”
Even though Iraq had already disarmed itself from its proscribed weapons and weapons systems and had eliminated its weapons programs years earlier, Nancy Pelosi was inspired by Powell’s speech to reiterate the lie that Iraq had not done so, saying, “The case for disarming Saddam Hussein is strong and well known, and Secretary Powell reiterated that case today.”
Susan Rice, who held senior positions in the Clinton and Obama administrations (and is currently serving in the Biden administration), insisted that Powell “has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that,” a particularly ironic statement given the strong doubts among arms control community, including those within the U.S. government, such as the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and within the CIA itself, which questioned claims about Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and delivery systems.
Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — both future Democratic presidential nominees and secretaries of state, along with then-Democratic House leader Dick Gephardt — insisted that Powell’s testimony was “compelling,” as did Sen. Maria Cantwell, who also stated that Powell had made a strong case that the isolated and disarmed country suffering under the toughest sanctions in world history was somehow a “serious threat to global stability.”
Rep. Ed Markey, now a U.S. senator, insisted that Powell had made a case “as well as it can be made.” Sen. Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, claimed that Powell had made a “compelling, convincing, and chilling case.” Sen. John Edwards, the subsequent Democratic vice-presidential nominee, claimed that, “Powell made a powerful case before the United Nations,” and that Saddam Hussein constituted a “grave threat.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Powell’s testimony convinced her that “I don’t know that there’s any other solution” than war. Similarly, Kerry used Powell’s speech to push the United Nations to grant the United States the authority to invade Iraq, saying, “With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the U.N. to respect its own mandates.” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid also insisted that Powell had made a convincing case for war, though he later admitted that he was “sucked in by General Powell,” and regretted believing him over more credible sources.
It is unclear as to why so many leading Democrats would have rushed to defend what virtually all knowledgeable observers saw as a transparently weak case for war. One possible reason is that they figured that if the United States invaded Iraq only to find there were no biological or chemical weapons, no nuclear program, no offensive weapons systems and no ties to al-Qaeda, they could simply blame the Bush administration or “faulty intelligence” and not suffer the political consequences. Indeed, the Democrats who praised Powell’s speech were almost all easily reelected to Congress, even after they acknowledged that Powell’s statements were untrue, while Kerry, Clinton and Biden all later received the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.
On October 20, at least half a million workers in South Korea — from across the construction, transportation, service and other sectors — will walk off their jobs in a one-day general strike. The strike will be followed by mass demonstrations in urban centers and rural farmlands, culminating in a national all-people’s mobilization in January 2022. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the country’s largest labor union umbrella with 1.1 million members, is organizing these mobilizations in a broad-based front with South Korea’s urban poor and farmers.
The 15 detailed demands of the strike can be summarized as fitting within three basic areas:
Abolish “irregular work” (part-time, temporary or contract labor with little or no benefits) and extend labor protections to all workers;
Give workers power in economic restructuring decisions during times of crisis;
Nationalize key industries and socialize basic services like education and housing
South Korea Today: Overworked and Job-Insecure
Today, South Korea ranks third in highest annual working hours and as of 2015 it was third in workplace deaths among member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Over 40 percent of all workers are considered “irregular workers.” As in the U.S., many of these irregular workers labor in the gig economy, beholden to tech giants’ apps.
With an economy and society dominated by corporate conglomerates known as chaebol, South Korean people face increasingly bleak prospects. The top 10% of earners claimed 45% of total income in 2016, real estate speculation has led to a housing crisis, and privatization in education and health care are expanding disparities. As South Korea undergoes blowback from the effects of COVID-19 on the global economy, these crises have only sharpened.
Behind the shiny electronics and cars that chaebol like Samsung, Hyundai or LG are known for lie countless stories of exploitation. Earlier this year, cleaning staff for LG Twin Towers (the company’s skyscraper headquarters) camped outside the company building for 136 days in the coldest winter months to protest layoffs and exploitative workplace conditions. LG hired goons to pour water into the workers’ tents as they slept. One worker exclaimed, “What did we do wrong? Imagine this giant conglomerate comes and floods your bedroom. Can you sleep?!”
Exploitation and unsafe conditions are consistent across industries. Coal miners at Korea Coal, a government-owned coal mining corporation, are suffering health conditions from breathing in coal dust and overwork. One coal miner recounted the plight of irregular workers:“The government reduced the labor force by half, so our unit now has to do the job of two units. So everyone is ill. There’s no one here who is not sick. Our wages need to increase but have stayed the same. We work the same as regular workers, but we don’t even get half the pay.”
How We Got Here: Demystifying South Korea’s Rise
Often hailed as a “miracle on the Han river,” the story of economic development in South Korea has always had its winners and losers. Forty years of U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships set the political conditions for the growth of South Korean industry. That story is for another time, but a general description still paints a chilling picture: participation in the Vietnam War, the separation of families and sale of children through the transnational adoption system, state management of a sex industry catered to occupying U.S. troops, and decades of martial law and anticommunist state terror all played their part in the rise of the chaebol. The confrontation between labor and capital brewing in South Korea today is another chapter in this bloody history.
Since the Chun Doo-Hwan dictatorship in the 1980s, neoliberal reforms have gradually stripped away South Korea’s protectionist policies, opening its markets and resources to foreign investors at the expense of workers. By the mid-1990s, South Korea received a rush of $100 billion in foreign loans. When the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit, the economy quickly deflated as foreign capital withdrew. With national bankruptcy looming, South Korea was forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance.
But the IMF loan came with strings attached: structural adjustment policiesdismantled hard-won worker protections, public corporations were privatized, and domestic markets were pried open for foreign capital, which returned to devour cheap Korean assets. By 2004, up to 44 percent of South Korea’s total stock market capitalization was owned by foreigners, mostly from the U.S., the E.U. and Japan.
The 1997 crisis and its aftermath ultimately led to mass layoffs, the “irregularization” of South Korean workers and the doubling of poverty rates in a single decade. Despite an ostensible democratic transition in the late 1980s, the South Korean people have no ownership of South Korea’s economy. The average household’s debts amount to almost double their annual income. Sixty-four chaebols claim 84 percent of the GDP, yet provide only 10 percent of jobs. In fact, the average South Korean has less say in government than U.S. corporations, which have power under the 2007 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement to legally contest laws they find unfavorable.
Taking Back the Future: South Koreans on Strike
When half a million South Korean workers walk off their jobs tomorrow, they will demand the abolition of all forms of “irregular” work. They will also demand an end to loopholes in labor laws that permit employers to cheat their employees out of basic rights, such as the right to organize, access to benefits and compensation for work injuries.
In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis and a new government effort to build a “digital” economy, workers are also demanding that future economic restructuring decisions be jointly determined by labor and management. Workers aren’t just demanding the government make changes for them; they’re fighting for more power to determine these changes themselves.
They’re also demanding their fair share. Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising demand by far is the push to nationalize troubled industries that have been laying off workers en masse — including the airline, automobile manufacturing and shipbuilding industries. After decades of austerity, the KCTU is challenging the state to take responsibility and guarantee housing, health care, elder care, child care and education for all. Its demands for social reforms include increasing public housing units from 5 percent to 50 percent of all available housing, making college-preparatory classes free for all, and for the state to hire at least a million care workers to ensure free elder care and child care for all families. “The government uses taxpayer money to bail out troubled companies,” says Lee Jeong-hee, the director of policy for KCTU. “It should play a greater role to guarantee fairness and protect the common people.”
South Korean workers see COVID-19 as a turning point. This ongoing pandemic nearly halted the movement of people and created bottlenecks in the global supply chain — and workers worry how the economic effects of the climate crisis and digital transformation of industries could leave them on the losing end of a new economy.
“In times of crisis, the forces that successfully respond to the demands of the times will lead the new era,” says Lee. The KCTU’s demands exceed improving the conditions of its members — they are fighting for workers’ power as a class and demanding their share of the wealth they create. And for this, the workers expect to pay a heavy price. The South Korean state has already responded with preemptive repression, jailing KCTU President Yang Kyung-soo and at least 30 other union organizers, according to Lee. As strikers walk out of their jobs, Lee expects the government and companies to respond, as they have in the past, by jailing other union leaders and fining and suing workers for their activities.
South Korean workers have thrown down the gauntlet, and we should all pay close attention. While the dynamics at play in the KCTU strike are particular to Korea, the plight of precarious workers under the weight of neoliberalism is a global struggle. As labor struggles rock Korea and the world this “Striketober,” opportunities arise to build towards an international class struggle to confront the international exploitation of workers. Everywhere, the working masses are making history, demanding a different future.
U.S. observers must not treat the struggle in South Korea as a distant concern. The conditions South Korean workers face today are the consequence of more than 70 years of capitalist development in the shadow of U.S. military and financial hegemony. Given the United States’ imperialist position in the world economy, and its long and violent history in Korea, solidarity from U.S. workers is especially important. When we asked how to support KCTU from overseas, Lee asked us to spread the word. The international spotlight may protect some workers against retaliation by employers and the government and push the workers’ demands forward.
The unspoken mantra of the Trump administration was, “The cruelty is the point.” It would not surprise me to learn those same words are written on the walls of the inner Capitol Hill offices of Sen. Joe Manchin and his staff. The man certainly has taken Congress, the people, the country and indeed the planet on a brutal ride through the soaring peaks of his own self-regard, and for what?
He’s gotten to see his name in the paper on a daily basis (another favorite Trump pastime), sucked in huge amounts of energy industry campaign donations, and he has defended the sanctity of his own stinking coal fortune against silly notions like the impending end of the world.
Senator Manchin has done this by playing hide-and-seek with his intentions for months, and now the whole program may come crashing down. I guess he didn’t enjoy chairing the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee very much, because if his actions cause President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda to implode, he and the Democrats, once again in the congressional minority, will be back to watching Mitch McConnell decide which pieces of legislation see daylight. McConnell is the same fellow, you’ll note, who won’t let any Republicans vote to avoid a government shutdown or a massive global economic calamity. Manchin will be fine, though; he has his coal mines and his coal money nailed down tight.
Since the summer, Manchin has made it all about cost, but refused to publicly disclose what he deemed an acceptable price tag would be for Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act. Last week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — which has already retreated on price and policy a half-dozen times in the face of corporate conservative Democratic intransigence, in the name of getting a good bill done — appeared to have contrived an elegant solution: Chop the time frame of the bill in half, which chops the price in half. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared open to the idea, and there was suddenly serious movement toward a solution.
Not so fast, said Manchin. See, it was never about the money, you guys. I was just saying that. It was really about the fact that my paymasters detest the climate provisions in the BBB Act, and well, you know how that goes, right? The mere possibility that the Build Back Better Act might become real motivated the West Virginia coal baron to swing into action. What followed was the mother of all “Friday news dumps”:
The most powerful part of President Biden’s climate agenda — a program to rapidly replace the nation’s coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy — will likely be dropped from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, according to congressional staffers and lobbyists familiar with the matter.
Senator Joe Manchin III, the Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia whose vote is crucial to passage of the bill, has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program, according to three of those people. As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision, and are trying to cobble together a mix of other policies that could also cut emissions.
The $150 billion clean electricity program was the muscle behind Mr. Biden’s ambitious climate agenda. It would reward utilities that switched from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, and penalize those that do not. Experts have said that the policy over the next decade would drastically reduce the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet and that it would be the strongest climate change policy ever enacted by the United States.
Memo to Manchin, West Virginia, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and every other state that puts coal ahead of breathing: It’s done. It’s over. It’s hard, but we have to find something else for you to do. We can spend some money now and make the change easier, or we can lose a few cities to climate-driven superstorms and infernos and spend 10 times as much playing catch-up, at which point you’ll likely get half of what you need because we waited too long, thanks to people like Joe Manchin.
“As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision,” reads the Times report, because Biden’s people want and need to get something out of this frazzled mess before the roof caves in… which is where Manchin’s real cruelty, his genuinely diabolical cruelty, reared its scaled head. Just in case those industrious White House staffers were able to salvage actual climate protections from the tatters left by Manchin’s Friday declaration, a second Manchin missive came down the pike on Sunday to gum up the works even further.
“Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has told the White House the child tax credit must include a firm work requirement and family income cap in the $60,000 range,” reportedAxios. Not only is such a demand well into the final-straw red zone for progressives who have already bent over backwards to appease “moderates” like Manchin. It would deal a serious blow to what is undeniably an incredibly effective program. A temporary version of it has been in effect by way of COVID relief funding, and has dramatically reduced child poverty in the U.S. It works, and it works well, so Manchin opposes it.
It is difficult to find the words to describe this ghoulish man and his James Cagney fashion sense, but it is not hard at all to explain his impact on the lives of every living thing on the planet. “He plans to gut Biden’s climate plan, and with it the chances for swift global progress,” tweeted author and activist Bill McKibben. “This is high on the list of most consequential actions ever taken by an individual Senator; you’ll be able to see the impact of this vain man in the geologic record.”
The worst part? There’s nothing for it. Manchin is not up for reelection until 2024. He chairs the Energy Committee, and so can’t be coerced with a promotion. If he quit tomorrow, West Virginia’s GOP Gov. Jim Justice would certainly appoint a Republican replacement, just as “Democrat” Manchin appointed a Democratic replacement for Robert Byrd in 2010 when Manchin was governor of West Virginia. That would automatically hand the Senate to McConnell. Push Manchin too hard and he could flip party affiliation, handing the Senate to McConnell.
Word began to bubble up on Monday that Manchin might have a sit down with Bernie Sanders, who has done more than any other senator to see this process through to a just conclusion. I’d love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting if it happens, but I don’t see Manchin being swayed. If Biden can’t budge him, Bernie will probably have the same luck.
The only other possible alternative I see is for President Biden to (finally) lose patience with this small fraction of a leader (Manchin got 290,510 votes in 2018, Biden got more than 81 million two years later), and dare Manchin to kill a bill that would bring his own party down with it. This far, no farther.
It would be the bluff of the century, and Manchin might blink… but then again, he might not, and as the Times reported, the White House is already crabbing backward looking for “acceptable” alternatives. Pro tip: There are none. This, again, is a commonality shared by Manchin and Trump. Neither wants anything beyond the attention and the money. End of file. You can’t bargain with that, because they are not here to bargain.
I’m reminded of the scene in The Dark Knight, when Batman is mercilessly pummeling the Joker, and the Joker is laughing hysterically throughout. “You have nothing,” he cackles, “nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength.”
For the time being and the foreseeable future, Manchin and his corporate sponsors hold the top cards. Unless something spectacular happens, there are no good ways out of this. The Joker was right: Everything burns.
Under the Build Back Better Act, Congress can expand and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, improving the lives of millions of seniors while also throwing a lifeline to folks living in states where GOP politicians are strangling public benefits.
But to win these popular reforms, we have to defeat the efforts of Big Pharma, their greedy lobbyists and the politicians who take their money.
It wasn’t enough for Democratic Representatives Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Scott Peters of California, Kathleen Rice of New York and Stephanie Murphy of Florida to vote against a robust bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3). These politicians — compelled by their unhappy corporate donors — tried to derail efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs by introducing atoothless alternative in a pathetic public stunt to appease the industry. Their bill excludes most drugs, letting Big Pharma continue to price-gouge.
This was a coup for corporate interests. The savings from the Lower Drug Costs Now Act will provide funds to let Medicare cover dental, hearing and vision care, and to expand Medicaid. But by taking the side of greedy lobbyists, this handful of contrarians dealt a huge blow to President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda and put the health and well-being of millions of working-class and poor people in jeopardy.
Representatives in the pockets of the corporations — which spent $18 million since July on ads opposing drug price negotiations — are trying to pit Medicaid against Medicare by saying we cannot afford to do both.
This is a false choice. We can and should expand both. Yet wealthy CEOs and greedy lobbyists are posing a false dilemma by trying to force Congress to choose one or the other.
But grassroots voices from across the country are fighting back.
A few weeks ago, my organization, People’s Action, held adirect action in front of Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) headquarters in Washington, D.C. alongside Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and our allies where we shared stories of real people in pain thanks to Big Pharma’s greed. PhRMA is the third-largest lobbying organization in the country, and represents companies like Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Merck & Co., which place misleading ads and spend millions more in dark money and direct campaign contributions to keep drug prices high.
At the rally, we told Judy Cross’s story. Cross lives in Idaho and has worked as a nurse for 51 years. Now, at 74, she relies on an oxygen tank and is unable to travel or see her grandchildren because she cannot afford her $10,000 per month medications to treat pulmonary fibrosis. She has a life expectancy of three to five years without the medication that she can’t get.
We also shared Joey Izaguirre’s story. Facing health issues, Izaguirre lost his job and shortly after was diagnosed with diabetes. He couldn’t afford insulin, doctor’s visits and equipment to test his blood, and rather than continue to feel like a burden on his family, he took his own life.
These stories are horrific, and they are only two of so many others. Pain, suffering, further health complications and even death are the costs that people in our country pay for Big Pharma’s greed. So we aren’t stopping.
Recently, People’s Action released anew report with Dēmos that spells out the corporate sabotage of democracy and the plot to kill the Build Back Better agenda. It coincided with a day of action on which 13 of our member organizations held direct actions in states from Colorado to West Virginia, holding these same corporations or the entities that represent them to account and exposing their role in undermining the progressive agenda our communities need.
Corporate influence over Congress is no secret. Companies like JPMorgan Chase, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and Exxon have spent millions in lobbying to derail popular, progressive investments in our communities.
For example, the American Dental Association recently pushed for means-testing as a way to restrict access for seniors to dental, hearing and vision benefits in Medicare.
Adding these benefits to Medicare, which is part of the Build Back Better plan, would be critical for millions of seniors. Carmen Betances could not afford the preventative dental visits she needed years ago. So today, she needs $8,000 tooth implants to prevent more pain, infections and lost teeth. She has no idea how or if she will afford the care she desperately needs. Her story is common: Almosthalf of all Medicare beneficiaries go without dental care, and those rates jump when it comes to seniors of color, like Betances.
Big Pharma is orchestrating this horror story. While PhRMA presses corporate Democrats to put profit before people and weaken Medicare drug price negotiations, organizations like the American Dental Association are squeezing the same elected officials to limit care. The result? It will be harder for seniors, particularly seniors of color, to stay healthy.
But these conservative Democratic sellouts are only considering cutting dental, vision and hearing because there wouldn’t be enough savings from the watered-down drug price negotiations to pay for them. Drug companies think they have us cornered, and they are gearing up to pounce.
That’s why our elected officials need to stand up to Big Pharma. The health and well-being of millions of people like Cross, Izaguirre, and Betances is at stake.
“Moomat ahiko,” which translates to English as “breath of the ocean,” is a song sung by the Tongva — one of the Indigenous peoples of Southern California — and their relatives. Moomat Ahiko is also the name of the first ti’aat (sewn-plank canoe) built by the Tongva in over a century.
The word for ocean used by the Acjachemen — another of the coastal Indigenous peoples of the land now known as California — is also moomat, and they honor and respect the ocean as sacred.
Both the Acjachemen and Tongva hold the ocean in deep respect and continue to honor it through song and ceremony. They live in relationship with their environment and continue to always show respect to their lands and waters. Their traditional territories include the eastern shores of the Pacific Ocean, the West Coast of North America within the state of California, in what is now called Orange County. Historically, they lived in village sites near rivers, streams and springs, including the village of Genga (Banning Ranch) near the Santa Ana River and the coastal cities of Newport and Huntington Beach, where an oil spill is currently threatening an already fragile ecosystem. While some Acjachemen and Tongva community members still live in these ancestral homelands, many have been priced out of their own homelands for generations and now live far away from their ancestral lands and waters after centuries of displacement.
On October 1, a massive and deadly oil spill began. The cause of the spill is still being confirmed, but evidence from the spill shows that a commercial shipping vessel dragged its anchor, pulling on a pipeline and ripping it open, spilling oil into the ocean. An oil sheen on top of the water was observed that night, but it was 12 hours later that Amplify Energy, the owner of the pipeline, reported it to state and federal officials. The company has estimated that the ruptured pipeline released 126,000 gallons of oil into the ocean, onto the beaches and into the wetlands of Orange County.
The areas most affected by the spill are within an Acjachemen and Tongva cultural corridor that stretches from what is now known as Huntington Beach down to Crystal Cove. Prior to colonization, this area was highly populated, and multiple Acjachemen and Tongva villages spanned the coast. Now, tribal community members are actively working to reclaim and restore relationships with coastal lands and waters in this cultural corridor.
California coastal Native nations have spent thousands of years in a direct ceremonial and accountable relationship with the ocean and have respected and cared for the ocean and coastal waters, which provide habitat to a vast array of wildlife, including fish, whales, sea turtles, and birds that depend on a healthy and clean environment, for millennia. These coastal lands and waters are essential to the cultural, spiritual and physical well-being of coastal Native nations. Offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration off the Pacific Coast puts these coastal lands and waters — and the plants, animals, ecosystems, and communities that depend on them — at risk from oil spills and other damage.
The sustainable, reciprocal relationship these tribes maintained with the coastal lands and waters in their homelands was forever changed with the onslaught of colonization. The first acts of environmental injustice and environmental racism in California occurred when Spanish soldiers and padres (the priests at the missions) landed on the coasts of Southern California in 1769. Indigenous Peoples were often forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands, and traditional ways of living sustainably in right relationship with the local ecosystems were discouraged or outright prohibited by the settler-colonists.
The introduction of non-native plant and animal species brought from across the ocean to establish and maintain colonial outposts in the “New World” had a devastating impact on the local ecosystems and the Indigenous communities that relied upon these ecosystems for survival. The 150+ Native nations with ancestral territories in California have been fighting since those first acts of violent displacement to protect the lands and waters within their ancestral territories and undo the environmental damage caused by the introduction of new species and systems of agriculture that did not consider local ecologies or long-term principles of sustainability.
In recent history, extractive industries such as gold mining and oil and gas extraction continue to threaten culturally and environmentally significant lands and waters, and tribal communities continue to respond.
Huntington Beach, 1926. View up the coast from the Huntington Beach Pier.Orange County Archives
California was first claimed by Europeans in 1542 by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo and again in 1579 by Francis Drake. Cabrillo would die in California on the Tongva island of Pimu, also known as Catalina. These early European explorations and mappings did not result in the colonization of California until 1769, when the Spanish began forcing California Indians to labor at missions, presidios (forts) and ranchos (where domesticated animals such as cattle were raised).
The European and U.S. view of California has always been as a resource for extraction in a trans-Pacific global economy. After the settlement of California by non-Indians, the extraction of resources without relationship, consent or care for the environment — whether for ranching and agriculture, gold, oil or water — began at an intense speed. As a resource, California was claimed for European nations, and the wealth of its land and oceans continues to be extracted. The Acjachemen and Tongva are the survivors of colonial and capitalist extraction. Despite their dispossession, they continue to work for the protection of their lands and waters.
The California missions were the first European effort to extract California Indians through forced labor and incarceration. The goal of the missions was to remove the Indians from their environments and make them useful for colonialism, indoctrinate them in Christianity, and become a labor force that would extend the Spanish empire and protect their claim from other foreign incursions. Spanish colonialism was followed by Mexico’s expansion of ranchos and the privatization of land. The ranchos continued the mission’s project of extracting the labor of California Indians and drastically increased the number of non-native species. The U.S. waged war against Mexico and claimed California as its own in 1848. Americans found gold and commenced in an effort to exterminate the Indians of the state and established laws to enslave their children, all for the purposes of resource extraction.
Like the billions of dollars of gold that were extracted, billions of dollars’ worth of oil have been extracted from California tribal homelands and waters since colonization. The wealth extracted from tribal homelands comes at great cost not just to California Indian peoples but to the planet. As Tongva and Chumash activist Jessa Calderon explained in an Instagram post, “What our families maintained for thousands upon thousands of years, Western uncivilization has managed to destroy in a couple hundred years.” The devastation to Acjachemen and Tongva homelands since colonialism is beyond explanation.
Acjachemen and Tongva Peoples have maintained respectful, reciprocal and sustainable relationships with the coastal lands and waters of what is now known as Orange County since time immemorial. The recent oil spill in these tribal homelands makes it clear that the time to end offshore oil drilling and all extractive industries and rematriate (or restore) tribal lands and waters is now.
In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom officially apologized to California Native Americans for the state’s role in the attempted genocide of California Indian peoples and established the California Truth and Healing Council via Executive Order N-15-19. The goal of the Truth and Healing Council is to “bear witness to, record, examine existing documentation of, and receive California Native American narratives regarding the historical relationship between the State of California and California Native Americans in order to clarify the historical record of this relationship in the spirit of truth and healing.”
It is essential that these narratives include the ways in which California Native Americans have experienced centuries of environmental injustice as a direct result of settler-colonial and state policies dating back to the mission era.
Last year Governor Newsom announced the 30×30 Initiative and the Native Ancestral Lands Policy. The conservation-oriented 30×30 Initiative is the first of its kind in the nation to establish the goal of conserving 30 percent of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030 as a mechanism for addressing climate change and fighting species extinction and ecosystem destruction. The policy acknowledges that “since time immemorial, California Native Americans have stewarded, managed and lived interdependently with the lands that now make up the State of California.”
The purpose of the Native Ancestral Lands Policy is to encourage state agencies, departments, boards and commissions to “seek opportunities to support California tribes’ co-management of and access to natural lands that are within a California tribe’s ancestral land and under the ownership or control of the State of California, and to work cooperatively with California tribes that are interested in acquiring natural lands in excess of State needs.”
California must support tribal land rematriation throughout the state as part of the 30×30 Initiative, the Just Transition Roadmap, and any other state policies developed around conservation and climate change. Continuing to prioritize resource extraction from land and people is not the path toward racial and environmental justice.
A California-based environmental justice organizer known as “mark! Lopez” told Truthout, “When we see the ocean being poisoned, we feel that pain because it is the same poison we have in our lungs and blood and any solutions we move forward must heal us all.”
Lopez, who is the Eastside Community Organizer and Special Projects Coordinator for the group East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, added:
When we look at the oil spill, some may say all the ships backed up in the bay are the reason, so the solution is that cargo needs to move through the region faster to prevent ships from dragging their anchors across oil pipelines on the ocean floor. Others may say this is why we shouldn’t have pipelines on the ocean floor, and instead they should be buried. These are false solutions, and like all false solutions they only serve to reinforce capitalism and the ongoing colonization of the land, water, air, and our peoples here and across the hemisphere. Some may look at the oil spill and be shocked by the disaster, but we know that even without this catastrophic spill the everyday functioning of these systems creates crisis in our communities, from the extraction both on Native land we call our neighborhoods here in LA; to First Nations lands in Canada and Indigenous lands in the Amazon and up and down the coasts; from the everyday “small” leaks that are the collateral damage of a faulty system; to the mega refineries up against our communities; to the burning of fossil fuels to move goods including crude oil on ships, trucks and trains contaminating our communities. The system, and its false solutions, consistently reinforces itself.
We cannot undo the damage that has already occurred as a result of colonization. But we can collectively work to make sure that it does not continue. We must prioritize the phaseout of fossil fuels on land and water and end offshore drilling in our coastal waters. In terms of the immediate crisis in Orange County, Acjachemen and Tongva leaders must be involved in all stages of the strategic planning and clean-up efforts in our homelands. No one knows these lands and waters like we do, and our voices must be centered in these conversations.
Long-term strategies and solutions must be developed in collaboration with, and the consent and leadership of, Indigenous peoples and Native nations. There can be no “just transition” without Indigenous voices and values centered in the conversation and leading the way. The link between biodiversity hot spots and Indigenous peoples is clear. As cited by the Sacred Lands Film Project, a 2008 World Bank Report asserted that while Indigenous people make up just 4 percent of global population, “traditional indigenous territories encompass up to 22 percent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity.”
There were no oil spills on land or water in our homelands prior to colonization and the issuance of the papal bulls known as the Doctrine of Discovery, which legitimized the enslavement, genocide and forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their homelands around the world.
There were no man camps or people-trafficking rings prior to colonization. There was no massive-scale environmental degradation resulting in the death of thousands of plant and animal relatives in the name of “progress.”
Land return is a necessary step in the process of reconciliation and healing promoted by California’s governor in his 2019 apology to California Native Americans and his subsequent orders, and an essential component of any Just Transition plan.
Returning Indigenous lands and waters to the Indigenous peoples who have been in the right relationship with their homelands since time immemorial must be a central component of any long-term strategies for creating a better world for all of us.
Hundreds of activists gathered this week at Washington, D.C.’s Freedom Plaza for the People vs. Fossil Fuels mobilization — 10 years ago to the week that I set foot in the same place as the Occupy D.C. encampment had begun.
I started as an Occupy D.C. organizer and have since become executive director of Power Shift Network, where I work to support young people, especially Black, Indigenous and youths of color who are organizing for climate justice. This work has allowed me to see a critical throughline between movements that offers us lessons and mandates for our current moment and fight for a stable climate and livable future for us all.
Occupy made us understand a dimension of the hold of corporations over our lives, and while we built on that power, we have also had to redirect our activism away from its failures. What our movement must internalize today is that what is causing climate destruction and what has truncated our past movements’ ability to challenge corporate power is both white supremacy and the violent colonial legacies that continue to shape our politics and world. There are Black and Indigenous youth who have always understood this intimately, working to build a new era of climate activism and environmentalism — and it’s on all of us to get on board.
Ten years ago, Occupy was not yet there. The movement’s failures to address white supremacy and colonialism kept us internally stifled and also externally limited our demands and narrative. In D.C., there was tension on which was the appropriate “Occupy” encampment — there were two in different parts of the city — a conversation that was dominated by white folks.
Those of us whose families had felt the pangs of empire in our own lives, or as a result of structural violence, were fighting to reconsider the word “occupation” being thrown around by gentrifiers and outsiders to D.C., the ancestral home of the Piscataway people, who were also woefully underrepresented in the Occupy space. A centered understanding of colonialism and white supremacy would have resulted in an entirely different, deeper conversation about corporate power, and led us to a different climate today — both literally and figuratively.
Occupy’s failures to address its overwhelmingly white leadership and internal racism are well documented, but perhaps less documented is that those of us participating who were Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) kept the space from imploding altogether by continually putting out internal fires caused by white supremacy culture. I and others spent a disproportionate amount of time being pulled into circles about transforming harm after internal conflicts and acts of violence — leaving us excluded from leading conversations about messaging and external demands, which were largely taken up by white people.
These dynamics had important consequences, both on those of us within the movement and the long-term efficacy of the dominant Occupy narrative and demands. The Occupy movement elevated critical narratives about corporate capture post-Citizens United, wealth inequality and student debt cancellation — but what was obscured in our national conversation a decade ago were many Black and Indigenous organizers’ experiences and analysis about the impacts of white supremacy and colonialism. This is the root cause of the abuse of the planet and people, the ongoing extraction of resources, and the ongoing colonial violence against BIPOC communities who make up the vast majority of the 99 percent worldwide.
This limited analysis leads to Band-Aid approaches to systemic harms that fundamentally leave marginalized people behind in a country built on white supremacy. When I was first exposed to the youth climate movement, the loudest people were the most privileged, and those who were most invested in continuing the status quo. People were fighting to preserve a life of upper-middle-class suburban homes with white picket fences — one that is only made possible when we silo the demands for corporate reform and government accountability (both foundational of the Occupy and environmental movements) from historically grounded analysis of the root causes of these systems’ harms.
In 2011, the vast majority of the environmental movement was not focused on challenging corporate power and challenging colonial violence against BIPOC communities, and the leadership of the major organizations were overwhelmingly white — the Sierra Club being founded by John Muir, an unabashed eugenicist, is just one of many examples of this. This movement focused on the conservation of pristine land for white recreation and the promise of ending climate disruption, while Black and Indigenous communities already experiencing its catastrophic results were too often sidelined or ignored altogether. Meanwhile, Occupy’s white-led leadership, in D.C. and beyond, made few meaningful connections to Indigenous and Black communities, and alienated many internally who did choose to participate.
It has taken years to make real, meaningful leadership changes that have led to today’s Indigenous- and Black-led movements drawing these critical connections. I’m grateful that People vs. Fossil Fuels has been grounded in Indigenous leadership, and all of the climate and environmentalist organizations need to work hard to follow this lead and make sure we’re all learning from past movements.
We need to invest in those who are categorically experiencing the worst impacts of the climate crisis, disproportionately BIPOC folks. In supporting the “melanating” of the climate movement, Power Shift Network’s membership has grown from 86 to 118 member organizations in just the past year — a 37 percent increase — because we’ve been focused on supporting voices that have been marginalized by the environmental movement historically.
But while our movements have been internally reckoning, the 10 years since Occupy have given our corporate targets their opportunity to grow in size and sophistication: The 1 percent’s wealth has grown, transforming from an amorphous idea to one with specific faces, names and cultural power, like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. In the absence of meaningful government action, they pose themselves as technocratic capitalist heroes who will solve the climate crisis by moving our extractive industries and pollution into space.
When movements don’t have a forefront analysis about white supremacy and colonialism as extraction from the Earth, this co-optation and posing of “silver-bullet” solutions will continue. Only a movement for climate justice that centers racial justice is going to be equipped enough to understand the action necessary both against this ballooning corporate sector framing itself as a solution and a federal government that continues to expand fossil fuel expansion in service of these corporations, while touting its own climate leadership — as the Biden administration is doing.
The need for climate justice solutions that center our relationship with the Earth are more vital than ever — and youth who are BIPOC are leading the movement that will bring us to these solutions.
Ten years ago, we elevated a narrative about the violence and dangers of corporate power into the national stage. Today’s BIPOC youth-led climate justice movement is challenging both government and corporate power that is holding us all back from a livable future. They’re calling on Biden to take the executive action needed to shut down off-shore drilling, challenging corporate banks funding fossil fuel expansion, and building the care infrastructure to support our communities in weathering the harm to come.
It’s the movement we needed 10 years ago, and long before, but now that we have it, it’s on all of us to support, elevate and grow it.
A few weeks ago, I had to confront the fact that ignoring Donald Trump was no longer a viable course of action. The legitimate danger of giving oxygen to his antics, and the comfort taken from pretending he didn’t exist, has been overcome by the indisputable menace posed by his growing movement to burn what exists of U.S. democracy to the ground.
“The trick will be to approach this with critical consciousness,” I wrote at the time. “Don’t listen to what Trump bleats during his daily diatribes, and if you’re a media type, don’t spread it. No more ‘Can you believe he said this?!’ stories, please. No more free wall-to-wall coverage of his ‘Yay fascism!’ rallies, either. Instead, watch what he does, and more importantly, watch what his people do.”
So here I sit less than a month later, preparing to break my own rule because circumstances demand it. “Don’t listen to what Trump bleats,” I said. “Instead, watch what he does.” Well, the man has bleated again, but this particular gobbet of intellectual mush has enough political gravity to make the words themselves an act. To wit: Trump, with a single statement, has dumped a beach worth of sand into the gears of Republican election hopes in ‘22 and ‘24.
The statement, posted yesterday to Trump’s website, came out of absolutely nowhere: “If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.”
… and scene.
Trying to determine what Trump was thinking when he released this statement is like trying to read a dog’s mind while it is eating its own vomit. If there’s reason to the dog’s actions beyond the compulsion to simply DO SOMETHING VERY STRANGE, it is not visible to the naked eye… yet there sits the dog, tail wagging, munching away.
What would motivate him to order his own voters to stay home? I suspect there is an element of jumping the gun here; like a skittish racehorse, Trump is leaping out of the gate before the bell because being endlessly grabby is his essential nature.
While statements like this are clearly part of Trump’s overarching efforts to undermine democracy and faith in elections, the fact remains that he still needs his voters to gain the power he requires to get what he wants. He seeks to recreate the country into an authoritarian playground where voting is not a substantive part of the process, but he’s not there yet. We’re not there yet, and this specific attack on the election process could prove to be wildly counterproductive.
I had a feeling something like this was coming. Upon tuning back into Trumpworld, I discovered that my instincts for predicting his eruptions — honed over five long years of daily observation — remain keen. He has been growling at Facebook and Twitter again, demanding the social media behemoths free him from his electronic cell. More significantly, he has been dropping hints left and right about another run in ‘24.
Just a hunch here, but I also think he’s just plain old pissed. I think he’s dying to tell the world he is going to run again, because he needs the adulation the way sunflowers crave the dawn (and the immediate boost in fundraising would help him stave off imminent financial calamity)… but they won’t let him. “They,” in this instance, is a battalion of advisers who have been telling him such an announcement would detonate the GOP’s hopes for taking back the House and Senate next year.
Every midterm would immediately be about him — which he would love, of course, but which would also give Mitch McConnell an ulcer the size of a car battery — and the party would almost certainly lose seats they could either hold or take back. That’s the Trump-centric math from 2018 and 2020, and there’s no reason to believe it has substantially changed.
Donald Trump does not do “thwarted.” Over and over again during his administration, whenever he was forced to choke out a “qualification” for the latest rancid filth he’d uttered, a window of silence would open for 24 to 72 hours. Somewhere in that span, and never later than three days afterward, the man would go violently sideways and blow up everything he just tried to fix. It became as predictable as the tide, and this statement is prima facie evidence that the phenomenon lives on.
It’s possible I’m overstating things here. After all, it’s just another Trump statement, another dank fart in the midnight breeze, here and gone… except let’s not forget about Georgia. Mitch McConnell is the minority leader today because the Democrats won two seats in Georgia, and they won those seats in large part because Trump voters stayed home to protest the “stolen” election.
Now here he is, all but ordering the faithful to shun the ballot box again unless he is magically reinstated as president. Only a guess, but I’m betting the folks at Republican Party headquarters looked like Richard Sherman after the Butler interception when they heard about this. Everything seemed to be going so well, too.
From the tone of the statement, it sounds like Trump has the bit fully in his teeth with this one. I doubt this is the last time we will hear such proclamations/orders, and in any event, he got some attention out of it.
There are two lessons here. First, Trump is about Trump, forever and ever, amen. That will never change. If the Republican Party is burned down to the stumps because of his behavior, he won’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
Second, any pundit or columnist predicting certain doom for the Democrats next year with Trump in the mix like this is throwing darts into a tornado trying to hit the triple bull. Just stop. The man is an agent of chaos, and he cares as much for the fate of the GOP as he does for the last contractor he stiffed on the bill. So long as he is around chucking bombs like this, the next two elections are wide open.
It seems that everywhere you look in America you see homelessness. Rarely, though, do you hear that Wall Street is helping cause it.
Thirty-two percent seems to be the magic threshold, according to new research funded by the real estate listing company Zillow. When neighborhoods hit rent rates in excess of 32 percent of neighborhood income, homelessness explodes. And we’re seeing it play out right in front of us in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires want to make a killing.
Housing prices have gone out of control since my dad bought his house in 1957 when I was six years old. He got a Veteran’s Administration-subsidized loan and picked up the brand-new 3-bedroom ranch house my brothers and I grew up in, in suburban south Lansing, Michigan. It cost him $13,000, which was about twice what he made every year working a good union job in a tool-and-die shop.
When my dad bought his home in the 1950s the median price of a single-family house was around 2.2 times the median American family income. Today, the Fed says, the median house sells for $374,900 while the median American income is $35,805 — a ratio of more than ten-to-one between housing costs and annual income.
As the Zillow study notes:
“Across the country, the rent burden already exceeds the 32 percent [of median income] threshold in 100 of the 386 markets included in this analysis….”
And wherever housing prices become more than three times annual income, homelessness stalks like the grim reaper.
And it’s true that we haven’t been building enough new housing, particularly low income housing, as 40 years of Reaganism have driven down wages and income for working class people relative to all of their expenses.
But that’s not what’s been uniquely driving housing prices into the stratosphere — and, as a consequence, the crisis in homelessness — over the past decade. You can thank speculation for much of that.
As the Zillow-funded study noted: “This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability — the share of income people spend on rent — crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.”
“Unusual high appreciation of the aforementioned urban centers is due to the ever growing influx of foreign buyers — mostly wealthy Chinese — who view American residential real estate as the safest investment commodity. … According to a National Realtors Association survey, the Chinese spent $22 billion on U.S. housing in 12 months through March 2014…. [Other foreign buyers include primarily include] Canadians, British, Indians and Mexicans.”
But foreign investment has been down for the past few years; what’s taken over and is really driving home prices today are massive, multi-billion-dollar funds that sweep into neighborhoods and buy everything available, bidding against families and driving up housing prices.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Meet Your New Landlord: Wall Street,” in just one suburb (Spring Hill) of Nashville, “In all of Spring Hill, four firms … own nearly 700 houses … [which] amounts to about 5% of all the houses in town.”
This is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
“On the first Tuesday of each month,” notes the Journal article about a similar phenomenon in Atlanta, investors “toted duffels stuffed with millions of dollars in cashier’s checks made out in various denominations so they wouldn’t have to interrupt their buying spree with trips to the bank…”
The same thing is happening in cities and suburbs all across America; the investment goliaths use fine-tuned computer algorithms to sniff out houses they can turn into rental properties, making over-market and unbeatable cash bids often within minutes of a house hitting the market.
After stripping neighborhoods of homes families can buy, they then begin raising rents as far as the market will bear.
In the Nashville suburb of Spring Hill, the vice-mayor, Bruce Hull, told the Journal you used to be able to rent “a three bedroom, two bath house for $1,000 a month.” Today, the Journal notes, “The average rent for 148 single-family homes in Spring Hill owned by the big four [Wall Street investor] landlords was about $1,773 a month…”
Ryan Dezember, in his book Underwater: How Our American Dream of Homeownership Became a Nightmare, describes the story of a family trying to buy a home in Phoenix. Every time they entered a bid, they were outbid instantly, the price rising over and over, until finally the family’s father threw in the towel.
“Jacobs was bewildered,” writes Dezember. “Who was this aggressive bidder?”
Turns out it was Blackstone Group, now the world’s largest real estate investor. At the time they were buying $150 million worth of American houses every week, trying to spend over $10 billion. And that’s just a drop in the overall bucket.
In 2018, corporations bought 1 out of every 10 homes sold in America, according to Dezember, noting that, “Between 2006 and 2016, when the homeownership rate fell to its lowest level in fifty years, the number of renters grew by about a quarter.”
This all really took off around a decade ago, when Morgan Stanley published a 2011 report titled “The Rentership Society,” arguing that snapping up houses and renting them back to people who otherwise would have wanted to buy them could be the newest and hottest investment opportunity for Wall Street’s billionaires and their funds.
Turns out, Morgan Stanley was right. Warren Buffett, KKR and The Carlyle Group have all jumped into residential real estate, along with hundreds of smaller investment groups, and the National Home Rental Council has emerged as the industry’s premiere lobbying group, working to block rent control legislation and other efforts to control the industry.
As John Husing, the owner of Economics and Politics Inc., told The Tennessean newspaper, “What you have are neighborhoods that are essentially unregulated apartment houses. It could be disastrous for the city.”
Meanwhile, as unionization levels here remain among the lowest in the developed world, Reagan’s ongoing war on working people continues to wipe out America’s families.
At the same time that housing prices, both to purchase and to rent, are being driven through the roof by foreign and Wall Street investors, a new survey published this month by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health found that American families are in crisis.
“Thirty-eight percent (38%) of [all] households across the nation report facing serious financial problems in the past few months.
“There is a sharp income divide in serious financial problems, as 59% of those with annual incomes below $50,000 report facing serious financial problems in the past few months, compared with 18% of households with annual incomes of $50,000 or more.
“These serious financial problems are cited despite 67% of households reporting that in the past few months, they have received financial assistance from the government.
“Another significant problem for many U.S. households is losing their savings during the COVID-19 outbreak. Nineteen percent (19%) of U.S. households report losing all of their savings during the COVID-19 outbreak and not currently having any savings to fall back on.
“At the time the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction ban expired, 27% of renters nationally reported serious problems paying their rent in the past few months.”
These are not separate issues, and they are driving an explosion in homelessness.
“Communities where people spend more than 32 percent of their income on rent can expect a more rapid increase in homelessness.
“Income growth has not kept pace with rents, leading to an affordability crunch with cascading effects that, for people on the bottom economic rung, increases the risk of homelessness.
“The areas that are most vulnerable to rising rents, unaffordability and poverty hold 15 percent of the U.S. population — and 47 percent of people experiencing homelessness.”
The Zillow study makes grim reading and is worth checking out. In community after community, when rent prices exceed 32 percent of median home income, homeless explodes. It’s measurable, predictable, and is destroying what’s left of the American working class, particularly people of color.
The loss of affordable homes also locks otherwise middle class families out of the traditional way wealth is accumulated — through home ownership: over 61% of all American middle-income family wealth is their home’s equity. And as families are priced out of ownership and forced to rent, they become more vulnerable to homelessness.
Housing is one of the primary essentials of life. Nobody in America should be without it, and for society to work, housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable.
If ever there was a time to solve to this problem — and regulate corporate and foreign investment in American single-family housing — it’s now.
But McConnell was never playing to “win,” if winning was defined as blocking a debt ceiling increase. Quite the opposite: He was, and is, playing to raise the debt ceiling without dirtying his own party’s hands in the eyes of his base. It is a shockingly irresponsible maneuver and, at the same time, an act of insidious political skill, using the Democrats’ majority status as a cudgel against them designed to render them ever-more vulnerable in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles.
Political modeling currently suggests that the upcoming two election cycles could ultimately cost Democrats a catastrophic eight Senate seats. If that came to pass, it would solidify for a generation a situation in which Republicans lose the national vote by millions or even tens of millions of ballots yet lock into place a bulletproof Senate majority. And in McConnell’s calculus, that is more likely to come to pass if Democrats are forced to go solo in taking politically unpopular votes to increase the debt ceiling.
More than 60 years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson exercised such total control over his Senate majority that he came to be seen as the “master of the Senate,” in biographer Robert Caro’s unforgettable phrase. Johnson used his Senate majority, and then after he became president in 1963, his knowledge of how the institution functioned, to pass major social reforms. McConnell, by contrast, is using his iron grip over his caucus not to pass an ambitious legislative agenda, but rather to stymie and embarrass his opponents, and, of course, in the long run to win majorities and use those majorities to further lock into place conservative control over the judiciary. At the moment, lacking formal control over the Senate, he is a minority leader behaving as if he controls the entire institution, using the filibuster so aggressively that he is gumming up the basic functioning of government. And, to the eternal discredit of the politically mediocre Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Democrats are letting him get away with it.
From the get-go of this current debt ceiling “crisis” — an artificial crisis ginned up entirely by the GOP as a way to embarrass the Biden administration — the Senate Republican leader was very clear: Since the U.S. government always spends significantly more than it receives in tax revenues each year, the amount of money the government was permitted to borrow had to be raised. The alternative, as McConnell knows all too well, was unthinkable — a national default, a collapse in the country’s credit rating, an inability to pay basic bills such as Social Security payments to the elderly, and the triggering of a global financial crisis and recession. Yet, McConnell continued, he wouldn’t lend a single Republican vote to the majority party to help them raise that limit; and not only that, he would support his members filibustering efforts to do so.
Each time he explained his stance, McConnell would then make sure to note that Democrats could bypass the filibuster simply by using a parliamentary sleight-of-hand that made increasing the debt ceiling part of the Democrats’ overall spending bill, thus allowing them to increase it with a simple numerical majority.
If all of this sounds arcane, that’s because it is. Senate rules are an exercise in obscurantism, designed to be understood only by a select group of initiates. But in essence, here’s what McConnell is saying: He wants the Democrats to own the increase in debt, despite the fact much of it was accrued during the tax-cutting and military-spending binges of the Bush and Trump eras. He wants the Democrats to be the only party that pays a political price for voting to jack up the national debt. And he wants it to be labeled an increase designed exclusively to fund Democratic social program priorities rather than to cover past obligations accrued to a large degree by two GOP presidents who both lost the popular vote and whose tax-cutting agenda wasn’t supported by the majority of the population.
For a generation now, since Newt Gingrich’s bomb-throwing tenure as house speaker, the debt ceiling has been a political football, with both parties at times withholding support for its increase as a way of trying either to secure movement on policies dear to them, or to stymie spending proposals that they oppose. Yet, until this current round of McConnell-maneuvering, neither party has threatened to filibuster efforts to increase the debt ceiling.
This is political opportunism taken to the most extraordinary degree, essentially holding the global economy hostage on the assumption that the Democrats will have to bite the bullet and raise the debt ceiling on their own — providing instant fodder for midterm political ads for the GOP, aimed at a base that has, for decades now, opposed increasing the debt ceiling.
Seen in that context, McConnell’s supposed climb-down was nothing of the sort. After pushing right to the brink of both a government shutdown and a national debt default, McConnell eased off the accelerator just enough to let government function until early December; but, all the while, he has maintained his position that the GOP won’t lend votes to a longer-term raising of the debt ceiling. What does this mean? It means that between now and December, critical weeks in which the Democrats need to be passing the vast bulk of their ambitious legislation on infrastructure spending, on climate change investments, on child care provisions, and, hopefully, on voting rights protections, a huge shadow — that of a potential debt default — will be thrown over the entire process. And it means that, come December, Democrats will, in all likelihood, still have to take a politically poisonous vote to increase the debt ceiling without any GOP buy-in.
This is the sort of ruthless power-play that Machiavelli would have understood all too well. It makes for great political theater, and plays well to a conservative base. But it also makes for both an increasingly toxic politics and an increasingly unstable economic environment. That’s a high price to pay for McConnell’s hypocrisy masterclass.
The debt ceiling crisis has been averted for now, albeit without a single Republican vote in the House, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaning toward using the reconciliation process to get it done. The federal highway spending authority expires in 18 days, leaving ample time to deal with it. Funding for the federal government will not expire until December 3.
While no “top line” spending amount has been agreed to, Democrats in both chambers appear to be moving past the gut-punch of Joe Manchin’s coal-fueled intransigence, and are working to get as much as they can for the people with less money than they wanted. There is no fixed deadline for finalizing and passing the Build Back Better Act and the infrastructure bill, but Democratic leadership devoutly hopes this can get done before November.
All in all, it’s a remarkably packed legislative calendar, and certainly the most impactful one in recent memory. Roadblocks abound, to be sure, but there is scant reason to believe it can’t all get done before the deadlines. Now would be the perfect time for all involved to pause, take a breath, and adopt a broader view of the situation beyond the reactionary WE ALL GONNA DIE fuss and feathers of standard-issue D.C. politics.
Yeah, right. Where’s the fun (and clicks, and advertising dollars) in that kind of calm, deliberate approach? “Biden Bleeds Out,” screamed a Wednesday morning Washington Post headline. The author, Dana Milbank, even went so far as to say out loud the crappy little secret that undergirds most of the legislating that gets done in that dank and humid town: “The ultimate details are less important than passing both bills.”
And boom goes the dynamite. Never mind the fact that the Democrats have had such trouble pushing these wildly popular bills because they have utterly failed to explain what’s so good about them. You know who cares about the details, aside from the people who would benefit from them? The legion of corporate lobbyists who are laboring night and day to destroy or denude the BBB Act specifically because of what the bill contains.
Milbank is hardly alone. “Democrats are nowhere right now,” announcesPunchbowl News. “Democrats Are In Peril,” proclaimsThe New York Times. “Another Bad-News Poll for Democrats,” gloomsCNN. “Biden’s Approval Rating Has Fallen,” intones NBC News. Unless I missed a memo, the midterm elections are still 13 months away. This precipice President Biden and his party are allegedly dangling over appears only to exist in the hive mind of reporters who need to fill column inches every day to earn their paychecks.
The D.C. press corps is notorious for its flock-of-birds mentality, wheeling this way and that en masse in search of — and in service to — the accepted, acceptable story line. “Dems in Disarray” has been catnip to this bunch since time out of mind, and nothing about today’s reporting suggests a change of course or an adjustment of perspective is in the offing.
“Like wildebeests crossing the Serengeti, journalists travel in a herd,” columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Monday. “We follow not the life-giving seasonal rains but a safe, comfortable, groupthink story arc — call it The Narrative — whose current chapter is titled ‘Democrats are doomed’…. So when The Narrative warns that Biden urgently needs to get the progressives and the moderates in his party to set aside their differences, I take a somewhat different view. What I see is a pretty normal exercise in legislative give-and-take, except that it’s all happening within the Democratic Party — while Republicans hoot, holler and obstruct…”
As has been the case throughout the hyper-chaos surrounding this process, it is the congressional progressives who have been the steadying hand of reason. After it became clear that Manchin was a hard “no” on spending $3.5 trillion on the Build Back Better Act, Democratic legislators began mulling the grim question of what to keep, and what to cut, from the bill in order to bring down its cost.
This was an impossible conundrum: Everything in the bill is important, and quite a lot of it is nothing short of life or death. Everyone with skin in the game was prepared to fight to the knife for their priorities, and the possibility of actual party immolation became more than just an easy headline with a print deadline looming. Talk of doing “fewer things well” had House members seething all over the building, while Republicans stood back and waited for the explosion.
Enter the Congressional Progressive Caucus with a wondrously simple solution: Chop the thing in half.
Instead of spending $3.5 trillion over ten years, spend $1.75 to $2 trillion over five years. Keep the bill mostly if not entirely intact, and set the programs to expire in half the time. The money should be good for the likes of Manchin. By the time the programs reach their expiration dates, ones that worked well will likely have enormous popular support, and can be extended. At a bare minimum, the country will get five years of policy geared toward helping people, and not toward making rich people even richer.
“We do believe that you can significantly cut down on the price tag by funding some of these programs for a shorter period of time,” Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal toldCBS News. “Make sure that the benefits are universal and accrued to people immediately — not in three years or five years — but something that people can tangibly feel right away. And then deal with the extension of those programs down the road when people see how transformative they are.”
Speaker Pelosi appears to be on board with the idea, which suggests it is more than halfway home. The devil remains in the details, but this suggestion is an inspired, shrewd bit of deal-making. The party would be foolish to reject it out of hand. They have more than two weeks to meet their self-imposed November deadline, at which point the other priorities will be teed up and waiting.
For me and many others in prison, COVID-19 has been an emotional roller coaster. The Delta variant wave is just one more ride. I made it through the first round, will I make it through this one?
I’m 53 years old and I’ve spent 35 years of life in prison. I’ve long since come to grips with the powerlessness that is every prisoner’s lot. But COVID has taken that powerlessness to another level.
Many of us don’t know if we are going to live long enough to finish our prison sentence no matter how short it is. The vaccine, for those of us who have gotten it, has reduced the risk of death drastically. Many haven’t gotten the vaccine due to lack of trust in the government. But I got it, because after what I have witnessed during the first wave, I felt it may be my only way to get out alive.
But that is not our only concern. An immediate concern now is how the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) is going to respond to the new wave of the pandemic and what policies they are going to enact this time. Throughout the pandemic and long before that, DOCCS has lost trust through its actions. The pandemic only gave more proof of how cruel the prison system is.
COVID Exacerbates Abuse and Neglect of Incarcerated People
In prison, our medical care is subpar to begin with during the best of times. Since the pandemic started it has gotten much worse. The State of New York has used COVID-19 as an excuse to take away our rights and privileges as well as to abuse and assault prisoners. The state also refuses to provide necessary medical care, including in my own case.
I myself had two issues that needed addressing when the pandemic hit: a sebaceous cyst that was pushing against a nerve in my neck and was scheduled to be removed, as well as a molar tooth that broke off at the root. When the pandemic started, all outside appointments were canceled. Over 18 months later, I still have not received treatment for either issue despite multiple requests. I deal with constant untreated nerve pain and chewing my food is extremely difficult and painful.
My story is far from unique. Many people I have talked to have had their medical issues sidelined since the pandemic began. Since the Spring of 2020, all outside medical appointments and only the most immediate emergencies were seen in the prison hospital.
I am known as a guy who writes about what occurs in prison, so people talk to me about what is happening. In addition to medical issues, I hear about physical abuse at the hands of guards, which has increased as well. Neglect and physical assaults of prisoners by guards in New York State has been the worst that I’ve seen in the four states I’ve done time in over the past four decades.
In recent years, these assaults and deaths by lack of medical treatment have led to lawsuits and news stories that have brought attention to the issue. For example, in 2015, Samuel Harrell was killed in Fishkill Correctional Facility by guards known as the “beat up squad.” And more recently, Layleen Polanco died at Rikers while in solitary confinement, after the jail’s failure to treat her medical condition.
The state has placed more cameras in the facilities and mandated that body cameras be worn by some officers. The problem is that the guards know where the cameras’ blind spots are and who is wearing a body camera. They are then able to abuse people out of sight of the cameras, and I have witnessed this several times.
And I have also experienced abuse. I have been relocated to many different facilities throughout the state. The medium-security facilities are worse than the maximum-security ones. There are many more blind spots.
The main “beat down” spot in Franklin Correctional Facility is in the back of a van they use to take you to the box (solitary confinement). The driver takes the long way, and the guards in the back dump you on the floor (while you are handcuffed behind the back) and proceed to “tune you up.” This can include knees, feet, elbows and fists applied to your face, head and torso.
When it happened to me, they pulled my legs out from under me so I landed hard face first, taking most of the fall on my shoulder (by ducking my head and twisting), and then they kicked me once in the kidneys and left me there.
Maybe it was the gray in my beard and possibly my white skin that got me off light. I have heard about and witnessed the results of much worse attacks. When I was in Upstate Correctional, a special housing unit/restrictive housing facility, they put a kid in the cell next to me who had both eyes closed and what looked like a broken nose. He screamed when he used the bathroom to urinate.
As bad as you think you have it these days, try experiencing this crisis from a position where you had very little control to begin with, then having that stripped away entirely. There’s an old saying in prison: Shit runs downhill, and prisoners are at the bottom of that hill. At no time has that been clearer than now.
While things have gotten better since the vaccine was offered, DOCCS has continued to deny people basic rights and privileges. For a long time, there were no regular visits from family and friends or “family reunion visits,” which are overnight trailer visits with partners and kids. These are crucial for families to stay connected. As of September 2021, DOCCS has reinstated family reunion visits. But as a result of not having these visits for a year and a half, people had much less contact with loved ones, and this has led to increased tension, violence and mental health-related incidents.
I am very concerned about what this new phase of COVID will bring. While the Delta variant is much less deadly for those who are vaccinated, we can still get very ill if we catch the virus. Add to that the fact that a large number of people in prison are not vaccinated, partly due to the mistrust generated by DOCCS since the pandemic began.
So we will see what the next round has in store. I’m not optimistic. Just like everyone else in the world, we wonder: Will it ever end? Will I survive? But in prison, we are even more powerless to protect ourselves, especially since COVID is only one of the threats we face. We also contend on a daily basis with abuse from correctional officers and lack of medical care. The pandemic has only exacerbated the poor conditions that I’ve experienced for 35 years in prison.
I keep a “Don’t Forget This” file in a little corner of my computer, and it is by nature a confused and jumbled mess. Order and direction are not on the menu. What goes in there are articles that appear to be important but have no immediate place in whatever I’m working on. Like a person who has bought a Christmas ornament in June, I stick the story in the file with the idea that maybe a tree will come along I can hang it on.
Rifling through the file some days ago, I came across a true doozy of a “Don’t Forget This.” A New York Times article from October 6, 2017, covered a White House dinner party for military commanders and their families. At a pre-party press avail, Trump stood in a wide circle with the Pentagon brass and their spouses around him, and out of absolutely nowhere, uncorked some cryptic garblewharble that is deeply ominous today because of everything we couldn’t quite see four years ago:
TRUMP: You guys know what this represents? I don’t know. Maybe it’s the calm before the storm. Could be the calm, the calm before the storm.
REPORTER: What storm, Mr. President?
TRUMP: We have the world’s great military people in this room, I will tell you that, and we’re going to have a great evening. Thank you all for coming.
REPORTER: What storm, Mr. President?
TRUMP: You’ll find out.
The Times tried gamely to pierce the fog of words Trump had spread the night before. Was he agitating against Iran? Could this be meant as a harbinger for confrontation with North Korea? Standard-issue explanations all, and in the absence of explanation, the Times threw up its hands and moved on with the circus: “Sometimes, though, Mr. Trump’s statements leave his own staff in the dark, forcing them to impute a meaning to his words that might not actually exist.”
Something compelled me to save that article four years ago, and when I pulled it up last week, a cacophony of nervous bells began ringing in my head.
When he uttered those words, Trump had been president for just nine months, having been elected after a race he went out of his way to call “rigged” throughout its final month. During an October debate, he was asked if he would accept the results of the election. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” was his reply. At a Delaware rally some days later, Trump promised the assemblage, “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election,” dramatic pause, “if I win,” and the crowd went wild.
This, it was widely assumed, was his way of laying the groundwork for disputing what most expected would be his inevitable defeat at the hands of Hillary Clinton. When he won, the “rigged” talk was conveniently shelved, replaced in due course by arguments over the crowd size at the inauguration, and then by something else, and then by something else, to the present day.
Four years later, we know much more about the man and his motives than we did when he spoke of “the calm before the storm” while surrounded by all the military muscle the country can offer. Trump holds an adolescent’s view of military might, and further believes the armed services are in service to his image. Nothing made this clearer than his serial attempts to fold massive military parades into national holidays.
Trump is a no-bullshit authoritarian with little use for laws, rules or traditions that do not bend to his will. In his push to overturn the 2020 presidential election, he appeared to fully expect that the federal government, the military and even the Supreme Court would stand in his corner as he usurped the clearly expressed will of the people. Preening with all those generals four years ago must have been a heady affair for him, so much so that he felt compelled to utter that vague yet menacing non-sequitur threat.
What did he believe then that we are finally seeing now?
The so-called “Trump Insurrection” is inaccurately assumed to have reached its crescendo with the sacking of the Capitol Building on January 6. That insurrection, in truth, has been ongoing and evolving, transforming from a clown show starring the likes of Rudy Giuliani to a grimly professional operation that strikes at the heart of this democracy.
At present, those efforts seek to install Trump loyalists in positions of electoral control in vital states like Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada. Pro-Trump state legislatures across the country have passed dozens of new laws making it harder to vote, and pro-Trump Republicans in the U.S. Senate stand in the way of a voting rights bill that would stymie those statewide voter-suppressing acts. The potential for electoral chaos in 2022 and 2024 is profound if these efforts are successful.
Congressional investigations into the events of January 6 have uncovered detailed plans for overthrowing the 2020 election that were presented to Trump before the Capitol attack. It has been revealed that Trump sought to install loyalists within the Justice Department who would focus on his fever-dream “stolen election” conspiracies. A clutch of Trump aides have been subpoenaed by the House committee, and Trump himself has bluntly ordered them to defy those subpoenas.
President Biden, for his part, has refused to invoke executive privilege over Trump-era documents pertinent to the investigation. With this act, or more accurately this refusal to act, Biden has done something I have never seen a president do: He is actively refusing to provide cover for his predecessor, an enormous development in the legal realm of executive powers. Trump has vowed to fight this decision in court, which could easily prove fruitless; he is claiming presidential powers he no longer holds as a citizen. Biden could have done this for him, and did not, and that is huge.
With all this in the air at present, I cannot help but look back at that dinner party four years ago. How much of what we are dealing with now did Trump see coming then? Some of it? None of it? Was it just another gob of balderdash from a president who often communicated in gibberish? Or was the idea of autocratic overthrow in his head then, and perhaps even when he came down that escalator in 2015 and declared his intention to rule?
One thing is sure: He was right on the money. That October night four years ago was indeed the calm before the storm, and that storm has only just begun.
The World Health Organization estimates that 15 percent of the world’s population has a disability. There are 360 million Indigenous people in the world, representing 5 percent of the global population, comprising 5,000 distinct groups in over 90 countries. There is scarce statistical data on Deaf, disabled and ill Indigenous populations globally, but some data suggest that rates of disability are as high as 50 percent of the Indigenous population.
These higher rates of disability are common anywhere the colonizer has invaded. This is caused largely by a legacy of systematic oppression and genocide that has never ended. This includes environmental destruction that has had devastating impacts on the health of Indigenous people and has especially endangered disabled Indigenous lives.
The escalating climate crisis is increasingly impacting Deaf, disabled and ill Indigenous people. Yet, in the face of this destruction, little support or reparations are on offer. In fact, the disproportionate impact of the climate crisis on disabled Indigenous communities is yet another aspect of a colonial genocide that has never ended.
Impacts of a Colonial Environment
Kera Sherwood-O’Regan (Kāi Tahu) is the impact director at Activate Agency in *Aoteāroa (“New Zealand”), a social change agency led and owned by those with disabilities. Sherwood-O’Regan explained that in her Indigenous community the environment wasn’t traditionally viewed or treated as a separate entity from her people. The environment is a colonial concept that disconnects people from nature for primarily colonizing nations to plunder and profit.
Environmental degradation leads to a host of illnesses and disabilities that create further harms to Indigenous people, specifically. Twenty-two percent of the world’s land surface is recognized as Indigenous land representing 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates there are approximately $1 trillion in potential revenues from undeveloped coal, natural gas and oil on tribal lands. Timber is bountiful, as there are 18 million acres of forest land on the 56 million acres of federal trust land. The potential impact to the health of Indigenous people lies heavily in the hands of government and corporate entities that often steamroll over tribal sovereignty. The same is true across the globe.
The world’s largest uranium deposits sit on Indigenous land in what is known as Australia. In the 41 years it was in operation, the Ranger mine on traditional Mirarr lands had over 200 spills, leaks and breaches. In 2013, a Ranger tank leaked over 1 million liters of radioactive liquid. The Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium mines also occupy this land.
There are a number of health problems associated with uranium mining and long-term exposure, including cancer. Almost one-third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had some form of long-term respiratory disease in 2012–13. A recent government study found that Aboriginal people near the Ranger mine had a 50 percent higher rate of cancer versus other Indigenous people in the Northern Territory of Australia. The study, however, claimed that the cancer rates weren’t linked to the mine and were a result of the high alcohol and tobacco consumption rates. Yet, there was limited input from Indigenous people themselves for this study, casting doubt on the accuracy of the study. Moreover, there is documentation of higher rates of cancer for Native people living near uranium mines in the “U.S.”
Meanwhile, the Wayuu people in La Guajira, Colombia, have experienced many harms as a result of one of the world’s largest open pit coal mines, Cerrejón mine. The Wayuu homeland is in a dry region with little access to clean water, which means the Wayuu must travel further in search of water or experience dehydration and other health impacts. It particularly impacts disabled Wayuu people as the lack of clean water has caused malnutrition and decreased growth in the children, potentially leading to an increased rate of death, disability and illnesses for the future. This is part of a larger legacy of violence against Indigenous people in the country.
Environmental degradation has led to not only increased droughts but also rising waters. Members of the Isle de Jean Charles tribal nation in southern Louisiana have become the first state recognized climate refugees in the “U.S.” They’ve lost 98 percent of their home island due to rising waters and coastal erosion. Sea level rise is so dire in Louisiana that the state is losing approximately a football field of land every hour.
Traditional ways of life and knowledge are lost alongside land, further assimilating Indigenous people into their colonizers’ way of life. According to Ida Aronson, member of and Sargent of Arms for the United Houma Nation (UHN), their home territory of Montegut, Louisiana, once was a community where people could live off the land by growing and catching their own food. It wasn’t unusual to have five generations of family together every night to feast on crawfish and other traditional foods. Due to pollution that has killed off many of the local plants and animals they used to gather in the area, and due to a lack of grocery stores, Montegut is now a food desert.
“The food desert thing really frustrates me because we are the nation’s largest river swamp. We have all of what should be an amazing place to live and grow food and to thrive really,” Aronson told Truthout. Contaminated water has also led to reliance on bottled water, soda and other packaged and processed beverages, further harming a community with high rates of diabetes. Poorly managed diabetes can lead to a host of medical problems, including amputation and loss of vision.
Colonialism impacts health and disability for Indigenous people in a wide range of ways, according to Kahstarohkwanoron Lindsay Monture of the Kanienkehá:ka (Mohawk) Nation and Turtle Clan from Six Nations of the Grand River Territory in “Canada.” Monture is the director of programs at Indigenous Climate Action, an organization that creates tools and opportunities to uplift Indigenous voices, sovereignty and stewardship of the land. “Colonialism has forced us into systems that don’t belong to us; they aren’t made for us and they don’t care for us. When those systems fail, there is no support for the harms they cause,” Monture said. For example, environmental degradation leads to food insecurity as Indigenous Peoples become “more reliant on commercial foods shipped into remote communities, with high shipping and purchasing costs that are unsustainable.” Food insecurity can create a litany of health issues including reliance upon cheaper, but considerably unhealthy, foods.
Industry Control Over Survival
The United Houma Nation has attempted since the 1970s to gain federal recognition from the Canadian government, which could bring rights and resources such as health care and sovereignty over their oil-rich lands. Aronson believes the denial of federal recognition is due to the influence of the oil and gas industry. The loss of traditional ways of life and lack of tribal resources “serve to push people more into the oil industry because that’s the job that pays and puts food on the table because they can’t live off the land,” Aronson said.
The same fossil fuel industry that many tribal members depend on for survival is also leading to higher rates of illnesses and disabilities. In preliminary data from an unofficial, unreleased, ongoing community needs assessment conducted by the United Houma Nation, over half of its members reported a disability in a member of their household. One-third reported hypertension, which Aronson suggested is a side effect of working in oil and manual labor jobs. One-third also struggled with depression and half said their children had ADHD. Asthma and severe allergies were also highly reported.
Environmental Violence and Solutions
These disparate climate impacts on the health of Indigenous people clearly aren’t going away. The recently released UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that global temperatures are the hottest they’ve been in 100,000 years and that many of these “changes due to greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level.” These rapidly accelerating temperatures are leading to an increase in both the number and severity of storms.
Jean-Luc Pierite, president of the Board of Directors for the North American Indian Center of Boston, is from the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana and was born with mild cerebral palsy. His family home was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. What would normally be a six-hour drive from New Orleans to Houston took his family 18 hours during the evacuation. While Pierite was able to make this grueling trip, these conditions are dangerous, if not impossible, for other people with disabilities, such as those who rely upon items like breathing machines.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that many of the people who died during Hurricane Katrina were disabled or living in nursing homes. A White House report found that approximately 71 percent of the victims were over 60, many of whom had medical conditions or disabilities. At least 68 people were found abandoned in nursing homes. While the total numbers of disabled people impacted by Katrina are unknown, the National Council on Disabilities stated in the past, “people with disabilities, especially those living in poverty, were disproportionately left behind in Hurricane Katrina.” Twenty-five percent of the population of the three cities hardest hit — Biloxi, Mobile and New Orleans — had a disability. As one study found there is almost no data on Katrina or other hurricanes impacts on Indigenous people either.
Deaf, disabled and ill people are often denied the right to evacuation through a lack of accessible news, information, resources, transportation and shelters. Plus, as disabled people disproportionally live in poverty, they often lack the financial resources to evacuate. This situation becomes more dire for those that are also Indigenous.
Compounding the United Houma Nation’s lack of resources are evacuation concerns for their disabled members. In a community with only a couple of roads, people in Montegut need to evacuate early in the event of a weather disaster, Aronson said, but evacuation for disabled people is incredibly difficult. For instance, the United Houma Nation only has two vehicles that are wheelchair accessible. One was broken at the time of our conversation.
Lanor Curole, tribal administrator and programs director of the United Houma Nation, told Truthout that because they’re not a federally recognized tribe, they don’t receive any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds for evacuation or recovery. They have to rely solely on their parish and state governments. Curole went on to explain that through the state, those that are “medically needy” have to pre-register for early evacuation where they’ll be put in an unknown shelter that will supposedly meet health and disability needs. Curole said the way the program is administered though often leaves disabled and rural people behind. “A lot of people prefer to be on their own than deal with the system,” she said.
Compounding evacuation concerns are that storms are intensifying much more quickly and the government can’t keep up. Voluntary or mandatory evacuation for the lands of the United Houma Nation requires a 72-hour advance notice of landfall. As happened with Hurricane Ida, which hit on the 16th anniversary of Katrina and left many without water or power for days, there wasn’t 72 hours’ notice to evacuate, leaving many stranded. “It’s every man for himself,” Curole said.
Aronson said that evacuation and survival “really comes down to family relations.” However, Aronson and Pierite explained, many members of the United Houma Nation and Tunica-Biloxi tribes have relocated due to storms, leaving fewer family members to help the vulnerable. Meanwhile, Aronson said, “the saltwater intrusion is killing the local plants and the natural barriers to the storms … when the storms land, they hit harder and you have to go further inland [to evacuate].”
Not too far from Montegut sits Cushing, Oklahoma, the “pipelines crossroads of the world.” Oklahoma, which has a high populace of Indigenous people in the “U.S.,” is experiencing earthquakes caused by Oklahoma’s approximately 3,200 active wastewater disposal wells. The U.S. Geological Survey found that between 2014 and 2017, Oklahoma surpassed California as the most seismically active state in the continental “U.S.” In 2016, the Osage Nation of Oklahoma declared a state of emergency after being hit by a 5.8 earthquake, the largest in Oklahoma’s history.
Earthquakes are just the tip of the iceberg for Indigenous people in Oklahoma. A pamphlet by Physicians for Social Responsibility noted that, “Of the studies looking specifically at health impacts of unconventional gas development, more than eighty percent document risk or factual harms” and that 6 percent of the “U.S.” population live within one mile of an active fracking well, many of whom are historically marginalized people. Despite this documented harm, under the “Halliburton loophole,” many fracking chemicals are unknown as they’re considered “proprietary” and aren’t monitored under existing environmental regulation. This means the impact on health and disabilities could be catastrophic, but there is no way to definitively track fracking chemicals impacts on health, and to in turn, advance health care for these related illnesses and to hold industry accountable for these harms.
Resource-extractive industries’ activities compound the intergenerational and historical trauma many Indigenous people are burdened with. For example, the rates of murdered and missing Indigenous womxn, children and Two-Spirits are particularly high near “man camps,” which are makeshift housing for overwhelmingly non-Indigenous, cisgender male construction workers. The situation became so dire in “Canada” that a national inquiry by the federal Canadian government, conducted between 2016-2019, ultimately concluded that this violence was genocide. “Resource extraction in our territories is the number one cause of our missing [Indigenous people],” said Lorraine Keeshkundug Clements (Anishinaabe), who worked on the inquiry.
Crossing the border is Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline that moves climate catastrophic tar sands oil from Edmonton, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin, where the headwaters of the Mississippi River meet Lake Superior. In Minnesota alone, this pipeline passes near or through three reservations. As Truthout reported, Minnesota state permits required Enbridge to create a public safety fund to cover certain costs related to anti-human trafficking efforts near the man camps. There has been an increase in reports of sexual harassment since construction began. In the fight to stop Line 3, which became operational on October 1, Indigenous Water Protectors have been brutalized and arrested by police and their health further jeopardized.
“The search for profit and capital over any concern for the safety and well-being of Native Americans has become a hallmark of the American government; combined with the apathy of the non-Indigenous and corporate greed, we will see our graves early while profit sectors continue to reap dollars drenched in the blood of our people,” said Jaike SpottedWolf of Camp Migizi, a frontline camp resisting Line 3.
Despite claims of support for tribal sovereignty and the end of violence against Indigenous womxn, the Biden administration hasn’t pulled permits for Line 3. In his first days in office, Biden approved over 30 exploratory drilling permits.
The EPA was repeatedly contacted for comment, but didn’t offer one.
Those in power know the catastrophic harm they’re causing. The Department of Defense has warned that the climate crisis will lead to greater conflicts across the world as people fight for remaining clean water and food. The U.S. Army has reported that the Pentagon should urgently prepare for the possibility that domestic power, water and food systems might collapse due to the climate crisis near mid-century. Ironically, the U.S. military is one of the world’s largest polluters and users of dirty energy.
The intersections of numerous oppressions are to blame for this situation, but colonialism is the underlying current. “We (Indigenous people) have to get back to being us because that’s what’s best for the environment,” said Pierite. “The power needs to be ceded even within very progressive, very environmentally conscious organizations. They have to be accomplices in the overall liberation movement in order for an Indigenous-centered healing and way of life to take place.”
Through the leadership of Deaf, disabled and ill Indigenous people in the climate movement, there’s an opportunity to end the destruction wrought by colonialism and ableism around the world.
*Quotation marks have been used around colonial nations’ names to recognize that these are Indigenous lands.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in higher education to enforce that no one be “excluded from participation in, or be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” on the basis of sex. U.S. higher education institutions that receive federal funding must comply with Title IX guidelines, which includes responding to allegations of sexual violence (including harassment and assault) with a prompt grievance process that is fair to both parties. Up until Betsy DeVos’s modifications to the guidelines established in the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, Title IX required institutions to have a mandated reporting process as part of their mechanism of responding to sexual violence allegations. Mandated reporting requires that any disclosure of sexual violence made to a higher education employee (e.g., faculty, staff, coaches, graduate workers) who is designated as a responsible employee must be promptly reported to the Title IX office at that institution. Mandated reporting policies, while packaged as a supportive mechanism to prevent allegations of sexual violence from being “swept under the rug” by campus administrators, in practice have usually been an agent of controlling survivor narratives at the threat of disciplinary action for university employees who receive these disclosures and a mechanism for silencing survivors.
As the Biden administrationreevaluates the current Title IX policies, there has been ongoing debate regarding the value of mandated reporting. In addition to this debate, concerns surrounding free speech, privacy and academic freedom are continuously at the forefront of academic conversations. While rarely discussed as such, these are also Title IX issues. Mandated reporting prevents survivors at all levels in higher education from fully engaging in academic opportunities because they are unable to share their experiences as part of their learning process. Academic freedom in itself enables students and faculty to share their views, opinions and beliefs without sanction or retaliation. Yet, survivors cannot discuss their experiences of sexual violence in any academic setting without fear of being reported to Title IX. This not only prevents survivors from contributing to classroom discussions, assignments or professional development opportunities with perspectives that are informed by these experiences — bordering on censorship — but can constitute a violation of their privacy rights when an investigation into their sexual assault is triggered without their consent. Survivors are frequently deterred from filing formal reports like Title IX out of fear of retaliation, but mandated reporting exposes them to potential retaliation that academic freedom is supposed to protect them from.
For undergraduate students, mandatory reporting policies prevent survivors from fully engaging in course material that may relate to their victimization experience. An undergraduate who is a survivor may be unable to share their unique insights and expertise as a survivor during class out of fear of a subsequent report and investigation by Title IX. For graduate workers, a similar dynamic may take place regarding their ability to fully engage with course material; however, the consequences of a Title IX report and investigation have the potential to impact their education and current/future employment in academia. Simultaneously, graduate workers are subject to mandated reporting from undergraduate and graduate students who disclose to them, as well as other graduate workers and faculty they disclose to, which in our experience has served as a barrier to fully engaging in mentor/mentee relationships and in our own research labs.
For faculty who are also survivors, navigating course instruction with mandatory reporting obligations renders the separation of survivorship and educator an impossible and daunting task. Faculty members who seek to educate both graduate students and undergraduate students from a lens influenced by their own victimization experiences may be forced to censor their course content to avoid disclosures that would trigger a Title IX report. As contingent and untenured faculty, we are frequently under observation in the classroom and the looming threat of mandated reporting by other faculty is an obstacle to using our experiences in our pedagogy. Students who have experienced sexual violence themselves are often drawn to share their experiences with us inside and outside the classroom because of the nature of our scholarship to which we are then burdened by our mandated reporting obligation, which creates barriers to forming relationships with student-survivors and providing them the support they really need.
As student-centered educators and graduate students, we are strictly at odds with our mandated reporting obligations. As experts on sexual assault, we argue that the Title IX training that most mandated reporters are required to complete at the start of each academic year is a clear contradiction of how to support sexual violence survivors. We are trained to interrupt and stop the student at the first sign of a disclosure to inform them of our reporting obligation, which then either: 1) prevents them from disclosing and receiving the support they need; and/or 2) takes away control of their own narrative by forcing disclosure to other sources. The lack of clarity in the Title IX guidelines often leads campus administrators to advise mandated reporters to report any cases that may fall under the umbrella of a mandated report to protect the institution and mandated reporters from liability from Title IX non-compliance, encouraging over-reporting out of fear of under-reporting. Some states/institutional systems are going above and beyond the mandated reporting policies that were introduced by the Obama administration: The State of Texas has law/policies that state any disclosure of sexual violence/abuse — not just campus-related — must be referred to the Title IX office, or the responsible employee can face disciplinary action, including termination. It is hard to imagine a scenario where a university’s Title IX office would need to know about the sexual abuse a student experienced as a child long before they ever attended that university. Yet again, maintaining control over survivors remains mandatory reporting’s key purpose, regardless of the violations of free speech, privacy and academic freedom.
This is the logical conclusion when the backlash to how institutions have handled sexual violence (e.g.,Baylor University) continues to primarily focus on policy that gives more power and control to the institution, rather than survivors. By abiding by our mandated reporting obligation, we are contradicting our work as sexual violence scholars, but in not following mandated reporting obligations, we are at risk for disciplinary action — which, as contingent employees, is of significant concern. With the looming threat of discipline or dismissal for not abiding by mandated reporting obligations, many instructors are opting to avoid topics of sexual violence altogether to minimize the possibility of receiving a disclosure, which disadvantages all students by not receiving this educational content and further marginalizes survivors by ignoring their experiences and denying them the opportunity for informal support and relevant class engagement.
Mandatory reporting has clear negative impacts on education for folks at all levels of higher education, and ironically, bars survivors from fully participating in their education — something that Title IX is supposed to protect. For survivors in this position, there are few, if any, opportunities for recourse away from Title IX processes short of filing a complaint with the Department of Education, pursuing a lawsuit against the institution or suffering in silence. As such, mandatory reporting policies must be abandoned entirely; there is no evidence that they do anything but harm survivors. Without mandatory reporting, survivors could finally have the autonomy and choice to seek the support they want without sacrificing their education, their scholarship and their work. We are resistant to recommend simply reforming Title IX because we believe that reforms happening within the institution will only replicate harms and reify the legitimacy of these processes.
Therefore, we urge the consideration of alternatives, such as transformative justice approaches to addressing sexual violence and opportunities for survivor-led organizing. Any model of support and reporting must be led by survivors for survivors, without the agenda of the university influencing the alternative model. One such alternative is a Responsible Reporting policy which empowers survivors through the ability to determine the type of support they receive, including the option of reporting to Title IX, but eliminates the requirement to report, which would provide survivors with the resources and knowledge they need to make an informed decision for themselves. The groundwork for this option has already been established through faculty receiving training on how to provide support to survivors, to assist them in reporting to Title IX if that is what they want, or refer them to resources if they do not wish to report.
Additionally, we recognize that the harms experienced by survivors on campus are often at the intersection of identity-based oppressions, and therefore we recommend building models that address the structural factors in academia that enable sexual violence to occur including racism, ableism and transphobia, and approach reports of violence that prioritizes healing instead of processes that mimic the criminal legal system. These models must include the restoration of all autonomy for the survivor, accommodations and options for support that do not rely on punitive measures or a formal investigation, and resources for all parties.
Finally, we must also consider the conditions that enable harm against students and particularly graduate students/workers to occur in the first place like academic hierarchies, low wages and policies against organizing. There are alternatives that can provide survivors with the support and accommodations they need while maintaining control over their narrative and healing, something that Title IX and mandatory reporting processes do not allow.
When President Joe Biden toured storm-ravaged neighborhoods in Louisiana in September, he portrayed the damage of Hurricane Ida as a national issue. He claimed that “its destruction is everywhere,” and even more so, that, “it’s a matter of life and death, and we’re all in this together.” As comforting as it may be to hear the president taking storm relief seriously, Biden is getting it wrong.
Natural disasters could not care less about the unity of the American people. And they hurt underprivileged communities the most.
The year 2005 showed us a preview of how storms can unleash massive social and economic disruption. Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast that August, causing the loss of almost 2,000 lives and an estimated $125 billion in damage. Cities like New Orleans were swarmed with images of poor, mostly Black residents navigating the flooded streets.
Floodwater had broken through the frail levees of New Orleans and taken over the Lower Ninth Ward, an overwhelmingly poor and Black area. Emergency food and medical aid took five days to come. A group of military contractors and the National Guard later organized the full evacuation of the city. Since then, Katrina has become a widely recognized symbol of neglect towards poor and Black communities, in addition to a blatant case of environmental injustice.
Several studies in the aftermath of Katrina have exposed the relationship between the hurricane and class or racial divides. Research confirms that the storm damage was concentrated in low-income areas. In fact, there is substantive evidence that low-income people — particularly in communities of color — had been disproportionately vulnerable to unemployment and decreasing housing availability in the years following the storm.
These unequal levels of devastation are not unique to Katrina. A 2018 paper pointed out that wealth inequality increases with the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, especially along lines of race, education and homeownership.
For example, during a period of substantial natural hazards between 1999 and 2013, white Americans living in counties with $10 billion worth of property damage from storms gained an average net worth of $126,000 per county. Black Americans in the same areas lost $27,000 per county. Similar trends are visible when comparing college-educated to non-college-educated Americans, as well as comparing home-owning to non-home-owning Americans.
It turns out that natural hazards are really good at making poor people poorer, and rich people richer.
While hurricanes chase some people out of their homes and trap them into poverty, risk-taking investors follow the storm path in order to buy property that will make them even wealthier. Less obvious ways to make money from storms include selling flood-damaged cars without disclosing the damage (yes, this is legal), payday lending to desperate financially insecure people, or selling protective materials and simultaneously funding climate denial lobbies. These tactics purposely take advantage of vulnerable populations for profit. They are, by definition, predatory.
What’s even more concerning is that federal aid doesn’t help reduce inequalities in the wake of a storm. For the past couple of decades, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has offered billions of dollars to counties and individuals coping with storm damage. Yet the more FEMA aid a county receives, the starker the wealth disparities become within its residents, possibly due to misallocation of funds. At the same time, private sources of community reinvestment are concentrated in predominantly white middle-class communities.
This means that — like many others in the past — the current hurricane season created more than a natural disaster. It also fueled a social, economic and cultural calamity.
FEMA has already filed over half a million applications since Ida. To date, it is the second-most intense hurricane to have hit the state of Louisiana, right behind Katrina. Moreover, Ida triggered a tornado outbreak and flash flooding across the Northeast, making it one of the costliest tropical cyclones in U.S. history.
Could the situation get any worse?
Actually, it probably will.
Hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean every year, June through November. National climate prediction centers are expecting 2021 to be an exceptionally active season for tropical cyclones. In the upcoming years, hurricanes will likely only get stronger and more frequent as global temperatures continue to rise.
This is an opportunity to do better: Apply the lessons learned from Katrina, commit to the fight against environmental injustice and pay more attention to the wealth trajectories of the country.
If previous natural disasters taught us anything, it’s that we cannot abandon those who need the most assistance after a storm. Katrina exemplified how relying exclusively on the private sector and the military for disaster relief can lead to exploitation and violence. Instead, we must prevent large-scale physical damage by strengthening the infrastructure of hazard-prone areas. Furthermore, legislators should put a halt to predatory private companies and individual profiting from natural hazards — from enforcing laws against price gauging to banning the sale of damaged goods without disclosure. In the event of a natural hazard, FEMA should provide emergency aid quickly and equitably.
It’s imperative that policymakers launch focused and comprehensive reforms that provide aid beyond short-term economic recovery. These could include targeted reemployment programs, unemployment benefits, relocation assistance, rent subsidies, education grants or infrastructural support — possibilities for holistic recovery following a natural disaster are endless.
Making people feel united after a harrowing hurricane is cute. Now it’s time for the Biden administration to really address the aftermath of Ida.
In the time leading up to the 2020 election, many people throughout the United States mobilized with an unprecedented sense of urgency. Those in opposition to the far right presidency of Donald J. Trump went above and beyond to unseat the 45th head of state. The prospect of his reelection scared many following an atrocious four years of unchecked state violence, resurgent fascism and political asininity that climaxed with a pandemic. It was clear to many, even some in Trump’s own party, that a second term could have potentially disastrous consequences. As true as that was, there were also radical dissenters who argued people would settle back into the comfort of “politics as usual” if Joe Biden became president. The fear was that people would not “hold him accountable” if he was elected because they would be complacent yet again. Now, less than one year into the Biden presidency, we can already see why this concern was justified.
President Biden was never the ideal candidate. He was unsurprisingly victorious as one of the most conservative elements in the convoluted electoral process to choose the Democratic nominee. His establishment politics and record as the former vice president during the Obama administration made him a safe choice to some. He wasn’t too controversial, which in U.S. politics, means being just minimally outspoken about injustices. Biden was largely the opposite of controversial: He was another elderly white man presidential hopeful who worked to appeal to both sides of the aisle, just as Obama had. He worked to channel that same Obama “change” energy into his campaign with Kamala Harris as a running mate, while usually not even bothering to pretend he’d challenge the status quo. The widespread fear of war and other forms of violence under Trump, who openly courted white supremacists of all sorts, created a desperation within the Democratic base. This drove many to support Biden regardless of his specific policy positions. Knowing he was the alternative to Trump, Biden didn’t really have to try.
In October 2020 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden channeled President Abraham Lincoln: “Today, once again, we are a house divided,” he said. Biden drew upon imagery of Lincoln who he said “reimagined America itself” and “believed in the rescue, redemption and rededication of the union.” He also invoked former President Lyndon B. Johnson, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass in his remarks.
The problem, however, as is always the problem with calls for unity, is that unity with white supremacists means death. The idea that white supremacists and fascists wanting to annihilate people who are not white is merely a “difference of opinion” feeds into a much more insidious issue: the unrelenting shift to the right. Time and time again, the liberal politics that have sought to address increasing white violence with pleas for unification have pushed the country further right. This happens because their coalescence is one that legitimizes the virulent politics of the far right.
President Biden and the Democratic Party’s politics are not serving as the counter and oppositional force some imagine them to be. Biden and Vice President Harris themselves illustrate as much. Biden’s segregationist history and “tough-on-crime” politics make it unsurprising that he’s so unabashedly pro-police. He made as much clear at the same aforementioned Gettysburg speech, stating, “I believe in law and order — I’ve never supported defunding the police — but I also believe injustice is real.” Biden even went as far as saying he wanted to fund the police more so than Trump.
Harris, a former self-proclaimed “Top Cop” prosecutor herself, didn’t have any stunning record for policing the police. A New York Timesarticle recalls, “Since becoming California’s attorney general in 2011, she had largely avoided intervening in cases involving killings by the police.” A photo of Harris with the Border Patrol also raised concerns about her positions regarding immigration. Decrying the border policy of Trump, in an MSNBC interview in June of 2019, Harris said, “When that child arrives, to say, ‘Go back where you came from’ — it is inhumane. It is irresponsible. And it is contrary to who we are, to our nature, and who we say we are.”
But by June 2021, she was sounding like an echo of Trump: Addressing migrants who were being treated inhumanely, Harris told them: “Do not come. Do not come. The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders.” Months later, the Biden administration shocked many by showing just how much they meant this.
When thousands of asylum seekers arrived at the U.S. border, the Biden administration quickly engaged in mass deportation without hesitating. It did so after having fought to keep a Trump-era policy that allows for the quick removal and expulsion of would-be migrants. Title 42, a public health order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, allowed for this rapid deportation process without giving those in need the chance to apply for asylum. Images of Border Patrol officers brutalizing Haitians who were trying to find safe haven didn’t stop any of this, despite Biden saying the officers responsible for these atrocities would be punished. This wasn’t the first incident of this type showing the political connection between Trump and the new Biden administration.
Again, at the border, Biden has confused many liberal voters with continuations of Trump’s border wall projects, though now they’re being called “levees.” The Biden administration also extended the Trump travel ban to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The federal response to the February 2021 winter storm that pummeled several states was lackluster and inspired little confidence for many. And Biden’s response to this catastrophic weather — the first major natural disaster of his tenure — left much to be desired with many people relying on mutual aid and community organizing when state and federal officials were nowhere to be found. All of this is intensified by the disturbing lack of transformative change needed to address the ongoing crises related to housing and poverty that have been compounded by crisis.
And it shouldn’t be neglected that Biden has “quietly extended a policy that critics call a betrayal of his campaign promise to end mandatory minimum sentences.” A new law about “class-wide scheduling of fentanyl analogues” makes it easier to punish low-level offenders in ways that mirror the crack/cocaine disparity. Due to this, fentanyl analogues, which are chemical relatives to fentanyl, can be punished more harshly than fentanyl itself. It’s been noted that this will, of course, fall on Black people who are already disproportionately punished in this regard.
These many examples of “betrayals” by Biden are not really betrayals when you observe them in the larger context of the rightward political shift in the U.S., which seems almost inescapable. Let’s not forget that someone has to actually be on your side to betray you.
People who believe in electoralism and sincerely object to families in cages and the turmoil that the Trump administration inflicted have a responsibility here and now. They should be a relentless part of the effort to confront the continuations of state violence that occur under Biden’s presidency.
This means more than petitions and casual protests; these “betrayals” should elicit the same intensity that similar policies elicited under Trump. If this doesn’t happen, then Biden’s presidency will continue to aid the growth and legitimacy of right-wing policy and sentiment throughout the country.
The next version or iteration of Trump will be far worse if moderates and liberals have consistently further enabled unacceptable far right violence by deeming it acceptable when it happens on their terms.
Trump was not as unique as his opponents tried to make him out to be. He was a figurehead for the white supremacy and oppression that this country has long stood for. Ruling political parties have always played into upholding the status quo put forth by a violent foundation. What’s wrong is wrong, no matter what president it happens under, and the fact that this has to be said reveals the failure of electoral politics to bring us closer to liberation.
It feels as if we’re at a crossroads. The exhaustion of the public is palpable. Organizers and activists of all sorts are trying to circumvent burnout, and people who believe all we need to do is vote blue may currently be feeling placated by a false sense of comfort. But we are still in the midst of a global pandemic and increasing inequality, and U.S. imperialism is still waging war.
As tiring as this all is, we have to remember things can still get worse. Plenty of us can look back to moments in recent years where we thought we’d reached the pinnacle of exhaustion and, in hindsight, see it wasn’t as bad as things can get. The road toward recovery must be filled with uncompromising demands for a stop to injustice and oppression. This is a fight to stop having to fight for those of us who, as Fannie Lou Hamer once said, are “sick and tired of being sick and tired.”
The debt ceiling crisis has been temporarily settled — momentary relief to be followed almost certainly by at least some degree of mayhem just when Santa is warming up the sled — and almost nobody is satisfied with the outcome. The jangled confusion of today’s “resolution” is the essence of what happens when Republicans try to govern Republicans.
At first blush, the idea of confusion within the GOP ranks seems incongruous; they are, if anything, more adept at marching in step than the Marine Corps Brass Band. Look closer, though, and understand where they’re marching to: “No masks! No mandates! Donald Trump is the president!” This is the far right being shoved by the far-far right, and the lot of them inevitably wind up going over a cliff together, inevitably taking the rest of us with them.
A perfect microcosm of this phenomenon has been unspooling itself in Idaho this week. The Gem State is no stranger to hard-right politics; there is currently a movement to have Idaho absorb five conservative Oregon counties and refashion itself as, I don’t know, Super Trump Idaho or something. The senior senator from Idaho is Mike Crapo, who famously un-endorsed Trump after the “grab her by the p—-y” video came to light at the end of the 2016 presidential campaign. After the roof caved in on him, Crapo scrapped his un-endorsement and stapled himself to Trump for all time.
So, yeah, it can get pretty weird in Idaho, but this story is another thing entirely. The state’s Republican governor, Brad Little, took a trip on Tuesday to the southern border in Texas, where he was joined by ten other Republican governors to grandstand about President Biden’s immigration policies.
The moment his plane disappeared into the sky, his lieutenant governor — one Janice McGeachin, among the hardest of the hard righties in that state and an assumed candidate for Little’s job next time it comes up — initiated what amounted to a palace coup in order to shove a wad of far-right nonsense into the daylight.
First, McGeachin attempted to call up the Idaho National Guard and send it to the Texas/Mexico border, presumably near where Little already was, in order to fight the “invasion” of the country. She was stonily rebuffed by Major General Michael J. Garshak, commander of the Guard, who reminded her, “As you are aware, the Idaho National Guard is not a law enforcement agency.”
McGeachin wasn’t finished. Assuming the powers of the governorship, the lieutenant governor signed a number of executive orders banning vaccine requirements for all K-12 schools and universities, even though no such requirements existed to begin with; she banned stuff that wasn’t there. From Texas, Little rescinded her executive orders and National Guard call-up, and scolded her actions as “an affront to the Idaho constitution.”
I’m not sure why Little was surprised. McGeachin pulled this same number back in May when Little left town for a conference of the Republican Governors Association. After he left, McGeachin barred all local officials and state schools from requiring masks, even though, again, no such requirement existed. Little reversed her again, reprimanded her again, and will likely have to deal with her when he runs for re-election. These little insurrections were McGeachin’s first campaign commercials, and they have put Little in a bind.
Little, who is far right, gets shoved by the far-far right McGeachin, all because of Donald Trump’s ongoing gravitational pull within the Republican Party. Little put no mask or vaccine mandates in place — a fact his state is suffering for — but McGeachin has painted a portrait of Little The Lefty crushing everyone’s freedom while she alone acted in defense of liberty. Little can try to explain himself, but all McGeachin has to do is howl “Tyranny!” and she’s won the exchange… so Little will be forced to tack even further to the right to defend his flank.
As it goes with Idaho, so it goes in Washington, D.C. The country came to this place with the debt ceiling because Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted to throw sand in the gears of President Biden’s domestic agenda but was not intentionally destructive enough to appease his own far-far right flank. He and Little should compare notes.
The handiest hostage in McConnell’s initial effort was the threat of defaulting on the nation’s debt, an act that would have clobbered an already precarious global economy. As the October 18 deadline drew closer, Democrats could not be sure if McConnell was truly enough of a nihilist to follow through on his threat, and they began scrambling for ways to go around him. That got weird in a hurry; ideas like minting a trillion-dollar coin were floated and dismissed.
Meanwhile, McConnell started getting an earful from banks and business interests, asking him to kindly refrain from destroying the world. Overtures were made by McConnell to the Democrats regarding potential resolutions, at which point the far-far right within McConnell’s caucus began to shove. What deal? they asked. I thought we were doing this. We have to do this!
Then it got better: “Looks like Mitch McConnell is folding to the Democrats, again,” Trump whaargarbld from Florida. “He’s got all of the cards with the debt ceiling, it’s time to play the hand. Don’t let them destroy our country!”
Not to be outdone even by his lord and master, Sean Hannity of Fox News weighed in. “Radical Democrats on Capitol Hill have a brand new hero,” he seethed, “with their multi-trillion-dollar socialist agenda now stalled in Congress, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is throwing them a lifeline. In a backroom deal, McConnell agreed to raise the debt ceiling, giving Democrats more time to use a process known as ‘reconciliation’ to ram through their socialist agenda.” Hannity concluded his aria by demanding that McConnell “stop being a Washington swamp-creature and start acting like a conservative.”
Despite this outraged yowling, the deal came together before noon on Thursday. “Top Senate Democrats and Republicans said on Thursday that they had struck a deal to allow the debt ceiling to be raised through early December,” reportsThe New York Times, “temporarily staving off the threat of a first-ever default on the national debt after the GOP agreed to temporarily drop its blockade of an increase.”
The problem — of course there’s a problem, there’s always a problem — is that the McConnell “resolution” accepted by the Democrats does not fully meet the amount required to meet the country’s debt, and it will all have to be re-litigated in December, smack-dab in the middle of the holiday season and right when the next government shutdown confrontation is set to take place. While McConnell may enjoy the chaos this will inevitably cause, the fact remains that what came out of his oven on this was half a loaf, and half-baked at that, because of the shouting from his own right flank.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took the deal because it averts an imminent economic apocalypse, and also gives his caucus a couple of months to hammer out the details of President Biden’s Build Back Better Act. All for the good, sure, but also a damn mess, one created by an intramural shoving match between Republican politicians seeking to out-Trump each other in time for next year’s midterms. Just another day of Republican politics, Idaho-style.
Palestinian lawyer Mohammed Khatib once dreamed of bringing his own children back to ride the swing in the roman olive tree where he used to play as a child, but that vision was shattered by the ongoing illegal expansion of Israeli settlements.
“I always dreamed that this olive tree and this place that I used to play when I was a child, that my children will play there,” Khatib said. “Unfortunately, this has been demolished, this has been uprooted, and in its place, they have built a huge settlement.”
Khatib’s story is all too familiar. The settlement enterprise, backed by the Israeli government, is responsible for stealing Palestinian land and has destroyed approximately 48,000 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories since 1967. This ongoing process of settler colonialism began prior to Israel’s creation in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their land and homes by the Zionist movement and then Israel. Known as the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic), it continues to this day.
Khatib, a human rights activist, was invited to share his experiences at the recent online launch of the campaign to Boycott Duty Free Americas (DFA), a chain of stores owned by a family that has donated millions of dollars to fund right-wing Israeli settler organizations.
Owned by the Falic family from South Florida, Duty Free Americas operates over 180 duty-free stores that sell items like hard liquor and chocolates at airports and border crossings across the United States and Latin America.
As reported by the Associated Press, the Falic family “has donated at least $5.6 million to settler groups in the West Bank and east Jerusalem over the past decade” and according to Haaretz, the Falic family also operates the Panama-based Segal Foundation for Israel, which ran afoul of even Israeli law because it “did little more than transfer millions of shekels to right-wing organizations in Israel.”
As documented by the Palestinian-led campaign Defund Racism, so-called charitable funds raised in the United States from donors such as the Falic family are used “to carry out the mission of the Israeli settler organizations.”
The South Florida Coalition for Palestine, a coalition of social justice organizations, has called for a campaign to boycott Duty Free Americas because of the role its owners play in funding the settler movement’s expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and land. The coalition felt a particular responsibility to initiate this campaign given that the headquarters of Duty Free Americas and its owners are based in South Florida.
At the launch of the boycott campaign against Duty Free Americas, South Florida Coalition for Palestine member Ken Barnes, who is also a South Florida representative with Jewish Voice for Peace, said, “We are boycotting Duty Free Americas until they stop funding Israeli apartheid.”
Anas Amireh, another coalition member representing Al-Awda: The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, echoed this sentiment, saying, “A corporation or business that funds the ethnic cleansing of an Indigenous nation must be held accountable.”
Meanwhile, in a video produced by the Defund Racism campaign and shown at the launch, Mohammed El Kurd, a writer, poet and activist from Sheikh Jarrah, explained the role of settler organizations. “You know we often say and speak about this settler colonialism,” he said, “but when you … see how it manifests and how this subtle colonialism crystallizes in real life, it is through the settler organizations who actively work to displace Palestinians or isolate Palestinians from one another in the Naqab, in occupied ‘48 territories, or in the West Bank.”
Khatib emphasized that “settlements are violent places,” explaining that many Israeli settlers are ready to kill, beat and threaten Palestinian farmers to prevent them from reaching their homes and land.
Protesters hold a sign reading “Duty Free Funds Israeli Apartheid” in front of the Duty Free Americas headquarters.South Florida Coalition for Palestine
“What these settlers are doing, no one could imagine and accept it … and all of this is coming from American support,” Khatib said.
“Let’s end U.S. complicity in Zionist settler colonialism,” added Bana Abu Zuluf of the Good Shepherd Collective and Defund Racism campaign, discussing the importance of using multidimensional strategies and identifying clear targets in boycott campaigns such as this one.
The organizers of the Campaign to Boycott Duty Free Americas intend to engage in protest and community education and to continue to strategize and coordinate with partners in the U.S. and in Palestine. A simple ask coming from the coalition is for people to send photos with signs saying “Boycott Duty Free Americas” or “DFA funds ethnic cleansing” at the airport, in front of DFA shops, or at home. The groups representing the coalition say they are committed to long-term organizing and community building around this issue.
Samir Kakli from the South Florida Muslim Federation spoke at the launch of the campaign about the power of organizing collectively and collaboratively: “While we are constantly in a state of heartache due to the ongoing apartheid and occupation, we are also strengthened by the very strong and principled resistance taking place in Palestine and across the globe,” Kakli said. “Individuals, groups and communities must continue to come together, and collaborate in partnership, for the best results will come from working as a powerful collective.”
The organizers of the boycott campaign understand that there will surely be opposition coming from supporters of the Israeli settlements and from those who deny Palestinians their humanity, but Lara Ghannam of the Florida branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations urged activists to remain steadfast in their clarity about the reasons for the campaign.
“This is about human rights,” Ghannam said. “This is about the silence of world leaders as 73 years of violence continue against the Palestinian people. And this is why it is vital for us, everyone here today, everyone watching, to join the campaign to boycott Duty Free Americas.”
With nearly two months left of this year’s turbulent hurricane season, thousands of Louisianans are entering their sixth straight week without power following Hurricane Ida. Meanwhile, displaced residents in search of adequate shelter for their families are piling into any neighbors’ homes that are still intact, some with up to 10 people in a single-wide trailer. Destroying more of Louisiana’s power grid than any other storm in the state’s history, Hurricane Ida has left millions without homes or access to clean water during a pandemic.
This destruction wasn’t by simple happenstance or some sort of unpredictable anomaly — it was the direct result of the failure of political and corporate leaders, year after year, to build adequate infrastructure, implement equitable protections for relief and provide Black communities the same resources and protections afforded to wealthy, white neighborhoods.
We’ve seen this before — 16 years ago nearly to the day, when Hurricane Katrina decimated Louisiana. The government and corporations provided no support that the people of New Orleans needed as delays in relief and rescue left millions of residents without food, water or shelter for weeks and severely undermined the economic stability of residents in the years since.
Color of Change, the organization I have led for the last 11 years, was founded in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was born in response to a profound realization in that moment: No one in power was nervous about disappointing Black people and failing to meet our needs, not even at that massive scale of suffering. There were no consequences for hurting Black communities.
Now, 16 years later, Black people have built the kind of power that it takes to be heard. As a result of the work of the movement for racial justice, we can now see how racial impact is more and more frequently part of the policy discussion when it comes to the problems we need to solve as a country — from climate disasters and a pandemic to consumer protections to tax and education policy. But being a topic of conversation, whether in a government office or a corporate boardroom, is not enough. We do not yet have the power it takes to get the results we need when it comes to preventing events like Ida — or COVID-19 — from causing us more harm (and forcing more sacrifices from us) than other communities.
We must continue to build the power required to keep both politicians and corporations in check. This is what people are talking about when they talk about Black power: the ability to create tangible consequences for bad actors that are strong enough to prevent injustice and devastation.
When our government allows exploitative real estate corporations to develop shoddy private developments to maximize profit and displace Black residents, thousands are left without homes during a disaster. When elected leaders redirect vital infrastructure and health funds to already bloated, inept and abusive police departments, health and emergency services cannot reach those in need during times of crises. Even with widespread organizing for reinvestment into our communities, corporations actively disrupt movements for collective power and change.
Climate change and structural racism share something profound: they are both outcomes that corporations and politicians have manufactured for their own narrow purposes and profits. They also bring out the worst of corporate myth-making.
Corporate leaders have pushed the sham of individual consumption reduction as the main solution to climate change while it’s apparent that reckless corporate overproduction, inefficiency and willful neglect of responsibility, including an extensive history of exploiting Black people, is the greatest contributor to climate change. Conservatives, including corporate leaders, have similarly tried to convince us that racism is a matter of individual behavior, rather than policies, systems and structures designed to maintain white supremacy and privilege.
Climate change and structural racism reinforce one another — each makes the other stronger. We need to accept that racism is a climate change accelerator, and that climate change is a major racial impact and racial justice issue. And in both cases, unchecked corporate power is the biggest driver.
Climate disasters aren’t a simple misfortune — their destruction derives from geographic segregation, generational poverty and a lack of accountability from corporate powers and elected leaders who have siphoned resources from our communities from the start. Historic and current political decisions have placed Black people directly in the initial zone of climate danger. From consistent faults in emergency protocols in New Orleans, unlivable air quality for majority Black neighborhoods in Detroit produced by Chrysler production plants, investing funds to police departments and giving tax breaks to corporations, environmental racism is the direct result of those in power intentionally choosing to prioritize profits over the well-being of our communities.
Corporations that have the means to ensure housing and substantial recovery for survivors of disaster but choose to do nothing are attacking Black communities, no matter what their slick advertisements featuring Black people may say. To understand the impact of climate change and refuse to implement legislative regulations to halt its impact is another form of attack on Black communities.
As individuals around the country are showing up for survivors via fundraising, mutual aid and neighborly support, inaction from corporate powers and harmful policies implemented by lawmakers have led to New York City, one of the wealthiest cities in the world, being entirely unprepared for mass flooding in subway systems and homes as a result of Hurricane Ida. Both private corporations and public elected officials have a responsibility not only to provide the necessary relief, but to prevent this kind of negligence from causing more damage in the future.
Last year, corporations of all kinds publicly claimed to care about racial justice. But the fact is, moments like these let us know which corporations are actually willing to put their money where their values are. Energy providers like Entergy and hospitality companies like Hyatt have an opportunity to uphold their commitments to justice and directly help those displaced in Louisiana. If they claim to care about Black lives, they, too, must support Black livelihood and wellbeing.
Forcing Black communities to bear the brunt of climate disasters disproportionately is not only unjust but will only postpone the moment at which we realize that climate change is an issue that affects us all and will drastically impact our shared fate. We must see decisive and effective action — right now — from the corporations that say Black lives matter, in order to undo decades of racist political and corporate exploitation that have targeted Black communities.
But that requires investing more effort in movements for racial justice that can create consequences for those corporations if they fail to act. Rather than letting the intense energy of 2020 fade away, we must take that energy and our collective focus on racial justice to the next level. And that means increasing our support for Black-led organizing and Black community power. That is the only true bulwark against the flood of bad decisions that continue to produce climate disasters.
In a scene eerily reminiscent of the Hindenburg disaster of 1937, a tight-knit group of progressive activist socialist Democrats splintered their party’s chances of saving their House majority in next year’s midterm elections, and all but doomed President Biden’s social agenda to defeat. House moderates, whose patience with their far-left colleagues has worn thin, lamented the big setback for the president while reminding reporters that Medicare and drug prescription price reforms are not in line with the priorities of the greatest health care system in the world…
Ha, wait. Sorry, wrong meeting. For a minute there, I thought I was supposed to be writing for the corporate “news” media.
“Splintered Dems,” howled The Washington Post’s headline last Friday, with The New York Times weighing in with “Big Setback for Biden.” Absent the facts, last week’s mainstream reporting would have left most with the impression that the Congressional Progressive Caucus had sacked the Capitol Building again, and President Biden was crouched in the Rose Garden rubbing gravel in his hair.
The news site Politico appeared to go well out of its way to present a version of reality as sponsored by the pharmaceutical/medical industry. That same Friday, it ran a story headlined, “Democrats’ domestic ambitions slam into reality.” Sounds pretty grim, no? Dead center under the headline was a sponsor’s graphic for PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The next day, Politico’s “Playbook” report, which as of October 3 was still visibly sponsored by the BlueCross BlueShield Association, was headlined, “The strangest thing I’ve ever seen.”
Both reports, along with an avalanche of similar stories throughout the “mainstream” press, made it sound for all the world like the Congressional Progressive Caucus had singlehandedly destroyed the president’s entire legislative agenda out of wildly malicious bomb-throwing spite. The truth — which has been slowly revealing itself as it cuts through the fog laid down by lobbyists and the paid-for press — is that the Congressional Progressive Caucus was loyally defending Biden’s agenda against an onslaught of corporate-owned conservative Democrats, and it succeeded with his official, in-person blessing.
Another Post article from Friday with a similarly wound-up headline — “The Biden agenda is in peril. Here’s the reason it might survive” — actually managed to get the story straight. Greg Sargent reports:
In the through-the-looking-glass media coverage of the Democrats’ brutal slog to pass President Biden’s agenda, the story has often been that radicalized progressives are threatening to derail the whole thing, because they refuse to accept the “reality” that the final package must be in sync with what the conservative faction of Democrats says is “possible.”
But this gets the story wrong. In fact, the progressives’ stand on Thursday makes successful passage of Biden’s agenda more likely, not less. To be clear, it’s very plausible the whole thing could still implode. But if so, that lefty stand won’t be why.
By refusing to help pass the infrastructure bill, progressives helped secure more space for negotiations on the reconciliation framework. The reconciliation bill is the Biden and Democratic Party agenda: It’s made up of all the climate provisions, economic infrastructure and tax reforms designed to secure our decarbonized future and rebalance our political economy after decades of upward skew. The centrists are the ones who oppose passing this agenda.
When the smoke cleared, the self-imposed artificial deadline for passing the infrastructure bill had been postponed until Halloween; even with a two-week congressional break between now and then, there should be enough time to cool tempers and negotiate a version of the Buy Back Better Act (BBB Act) that can survive the strange, cruel attentions of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
Manchin and Sinema emerged from this process looking damaged and foolish. Sinema in particular proved to all and sundry that there is no functional difference between her and a cardboard cutout of her when it comes to making deals; on Friday, when the rubber finally met the road during these negotiations, she was in Arizona for a personal matter followed by a fundraiser — the latter being a fact Saturday Night Livehad a bit of sport with. Even to this hour, nobody knows what Sinema specifically wants from these negotiations. Perhaps she wants nothing at all; she already got $750,000 in campaign donations from pharmaceutical and medical interests. Perhaps she thinks asking for more is just greedy.
As for Manchin, his long obstruction game came toppling down on his head when President Biden showed up on Capitol Hill and sided with the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the coupling of the infrastructure and budget bills. The man who, like his cohort Sinema, refused for many grinding weeks to say what he wanted suddenly announced his demand that the BBB Act price tag come down to $1.5 trillion. This will, of course, become a fight, but at least everyone finally knows what the fight is to be about.
Perhaps more insidiously, Manchin is insisting that the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment remain within the legislation; the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been entirely forthright about their intention to jettison the Hyde Act from the bills. Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal sounded a cautious note even as she laid down her marker. “Let’s just wait,” she toldCNN, “this is a negotiation and we’ve got to continue to move this forward, but the Hyde Amendment is something that the majority of the country does not support.”
Manchin still intends to cause trouble for the BBB Act, but his veneer as the immovable object has been cracked, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus knows it. “That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said of Manchin’s $1.5 trillion ceiling. “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.”
While yet another retreat on the vitally necessary money to be spent implementing the BBB Act is dispiriting, the fact remains that nobody knows what the final product will be. The fact that Biden and Pelosi came so conspicuously down on the side of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and that the caucus itself is wide open to negotiation on the final number, seems to indicate the expectation of negotiating down was part of the process from the beginning.
“There’s been a lot of talk about needing to compromise, about the progressives’ violating the political taboo of making the good the enemy of the perfect, of preferring all of nothing to a lot of something,” writes Josh Marshall for Talking Points Memo. “But this has pretty clearly not been the case. Rep. Jayapal publicly and Biden and Pelosi less publicly have been asking Manchin to name his number. They’re practically begging to compromise down. What they’ve been resist[ing] is being dictated to or surrendering all their leverage and getting an unknown reconciliation bill in which they’d be beggars rather than negotiators.”
After a little breather, they’ll all be back to it soon enough. The senator from West Virginia overplayed his hand, and while he still holds some strong cards, the Congressional Progressive Caucus holds the high ground with the Speaker and the president. I’ll bet it was awfully quiet at Manchin’s house this weekend. I’m sure it was even quieter at Sinema’s; she wasn’t even home. Meanwhile, Big Pharma and the medical industry lobbyists must be seething. All that money spent on spin, and all they did was gouge a hole in the lawn.
There is a substantial grassroots clamor for floor fights in the House to oppose unconditional U.S. military aid to Israel. This grassroots clamor would be much better served, however, if the floor fights were focused not on funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system but instead on Israeli military abuses of Palestinian civilians.
The main reason that the focus has been about Iron Dome funding in the past is because that was the terrain chosen by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer — likely because it was the terrain they could best use to isolate and marginalize dissenters.
But there are paths dissenters can use to force their way to the floor on their own terms, rather than on the terms set by AIPAC, Pelosi and Hoyer. One such path is amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Another such path is invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Each of these paths has its advantages and disadvantages if used alone; but they can be used in combination, getting the advantages of both. These paths can reorient the floor fights to discuss goals like ending the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and ending the Israeli military demolitions of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.
The recent floor fight on supplemental funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system proves that there is substantial grassroots clamor for a floor fight in the House to oppose unconditional U.S. military aid to Israel.
There were nine votes in opposition. There are likely many more votes to be had in the House against unconditional military aid to Israel, but these votes are not likely to emerge if the fight continues to be framed around the question of funding for the Iron Dome, which is widely perceived as a defensive weapon protecting Israeli civilians from Hamas rockets. This makes it relatively easy for AIPAC to mobilize its supporters. If AIPAC had to try to mobilize its supporters to defend knocking down Palestinian homes in the West Bank, or to defend preventing Palestinian children from leaving Gaza to get medical treatment for cancer, its task wouldn’t be so easy.
There would be many more votes for a fight against an offensive weapon being used to attack civilians, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which is U.S. law. (Note that Israeli military bulldozers being used to knock down Palestinian homes are such a weapon — indeed the weapon that killed Rachel Corrie.)
The main obstacle to this approach is that on a typical day, Pelosi and Hoyer control what sees the light of day on the House floor. But the Pelosi-Hoyer opposition can be overcome in two ways: forcing the House Rules Committee to allow a vote on an NDAA amendment by threatening to vote with Republicans to take down the rule if the amendment is not allowed, as Rep. Jamaal Bowman just did on his Syria War Powers amendment, or by going straight to the floor with a privileged War Powers Resolution to end unauthorized (and therefore unconstitutional) U.S. participation in hostilities, as Rep. Ro Khanna has done against U.S. participation in the Saudi war and blockade on civilians in Yemen.
The Case for NDAA Amendment, Compared to War Powers Resolution
The timing and process of the House NDAA consideration is somewhat predictable. Any member of the House can offer an amendment. It’s an authorization bill, so lawmakers can offer conditional prohibitions, which can attract much more support than straight prohibitions, and foster debate and focus on specific abuses. These follow the structure of “prohibit X, unless Y.”
For example, the Bowman Syria War Powers Amendment didn’t just say Get out of Syria. It said: Get out of Syria, unless you pass a specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, as required by the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
So on an NDAA amendment, a conditional prohibition could say something like: Export of such-and-such weapon to Israel is prohibited, unless the secretary of state certifies that the Israeli-Egyptian blockade against civilians in Gaza is over. Or: Export of such-and-such weapon to Israel is prohibited, unless the secretary of state certifies that this weapon is not going to be used to knock down Palestinian homes in the West Bank.
Compared to invoking the War Powers Resolution, offering NDAA amendments is widely seen among House Members as “playing by the rules,” not being “too radical,” not directly attacking the power of the House leadership to determine what comes to the floor. Bowman proved with his Syria War Powers Amendment that with the support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he could force a floor vote on a War Powers amendment that the House Democratic leadership didn’t want to allow a vote on.
The Case for War Powers Resolution, Compared to NDAA Amendment
Lawmakers can introduce a privileged War Powers Resolution and force their way to the floor any day the House is in session, which means the dissenters get to choose the timing that suits them best, like when a war is taking place, or when the Saudi dictator happens to be visiting the United States, as Senators Sanders, Lee and Murphy did in March 2018 when they brought their Yemen War Powers Resolution to a vote. Sponsors of a War Powers Resolution enjoy the full focus of activists and the media, because their resolution is the only thing happening on the floor, unlike the NDAA, which is a fire hydrant of amendments, each one only getting a little bit of the focus and attention.
Here’s the beauty: these two strategies can be used in complementary combination, as Khanna has done on Yemen War Powers. He turned to the War Powers Resolution when House leadership wouldn’t allow a vote on his amendment against refueling the Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. Once the Yemen War Powers issue was publicly joined in view of the multitude, once the issue was already joined in the media, House leadership didn’t dare try to block his amendments any more. And he still had — and still has — the Yemen War Powers Resolution threat, any time he wants.
If House members adopt a strategy similar to what I have suggested here, the lawmakers could offer conditional prohibitions as part of a bill that functions as a public preview and preparatory organizing vehicle for amendments. For example, a bill could stipulate that “the export of such-and-such weapon to Israel is prohibited, unless the secretary of state certifies that the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of civilians in Gaza is over.” They could then get co-sponsors for the bill and popularize the idea, and when the opportunity for an amendment comes, they could introduce the amendment. To force a floor vote on the amendment requires political pressure on the House leadership. Previous organizing around the bill that had the same ideas as the amendment would make it much easier to quickly organize support for the amendment, thereby increasing pressure on the House leadership to allow a floor vote. Once a floor vote on the amendment is forced, previous organizing around the bill with the same ideas would make it much easier to get other lawmakers to vote for the amendment, because they would have already supported the idea previously, or at least would have been lobbied to support the idea.
After laying the groundwork with this organizing, the lawmakers who offered the conditional prohibitions would be ready to respond quickly the next time that Israel attacks civilians in Gaza: the lawmakers could call the question immediately on U.S. participation on the House floor by invoking the War Powers Resolution, proposing a straight prohibition of U.S. participation in Israel’s attacks.
Organizing in advance around a vote to prohibit U.S. participation in a future war could serve three vital purposes: 1) To deter Israel from having another Gaza war; 2) To pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade; 3) To be ready for a House floor fight to end the war, if the war deterrence fails and if the pressure to end the blockade also fails.
During the recent Gaza war, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders introduced Resolutions of Disapproval against a U.S.-Israeli arms deal that had just been notified by the Biden administration to Congress. The media coverage of these efforts added significantly to the pressure on President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to an immediate ceasefire. But because the opportunity to oppose such a weapons deal depends on the administration’s notification of the deal to Congress, the timing of which is controlled by the administration, it is impossible to know in advance if there will be such an opportunity, and what the opportunity will be. Thus, in order to prepare in advance, it is necessary to prepare something else. Moreover, under current law, a Resolution of Disapproval on a weapons deal cannot be used to force a vote in the House, only in the Senate. So to force a vote in the House requires preparing something else.
It is a key strategy of defenders of the status quo to try to ensure that the only vote on Israel-Palestine on the House floor is a vote on Iron Dome funding, to isolate and marginalize critics of the status quo. In order to change the current dynamics in the House, it is crucial that we figure out how to force a floor vote in the House on supporting Palestinian human rights that is not a vote on Iron Dome funding.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the U.S. recently, attending the UN General Assembly session and meeting with President Biden. In spite of his government’s reign of terror against religious and ethnic minorities and dissidents in India, his U.S. hosts remained strangely silent.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Modi has committed egregious human rights violations against wide swaths of the Indian population. In just the two years since getting reelected in 2019, the government has changed naturalization laws to discriminate against Muslims and charged critics of this new law with sedition.
It has ignored the epidemic of horrific sexual violence in which Dalit women and girls (belonging to the lowest Hindu castes) are often targeted by upper-caste perpetrators.
The meaningless platitudes in the official statement could be mere diplomatic niceties between nation states. But there may be more sinister factors at play here.
This meeting wasn’t remotely justifiable as a part of Keshap’s duties. The RSS is neither a part of the Indian government nor a formal political party. It’s an extremist organization with a sordid history of instigating sectarian violence, a fact acknowledged by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The violent acts attributable to members of the RSS include the assassination of Gandhi.
Yet the ruling BJP openly admits its close ideological ties with the RSS.
None of this could possibly be unknown to Keshap. Why then did he meet with the head of the RSS? Was it poor judgment, or evidence of his own Hindu fascist leanings? Or did it result from a cynical political calculation at high levels of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that the RSS was the de facto ruling faction in India, so the U.S. may as well start dealing with them?
We’ll never know the answer unless there’s an investigation into Keshap’s motives. And if there’s no investigation, suspicion of approval of this ill-advised meeting by higher levels of the U.S. government will only deepen.
Here’s a question for Biden: By befriending the Modi government and ignoring its abuses, has your administration knowingly elevated the economic interests of U.S. corporations over the human rights of hundreds of millions of Indians?
It should be disturbing to anyone who cares about human rights that the country that invented the “war on terror,” which has entailed bombing several Muslim majority countries and spying on Muslims at home, is cooperating on “counterterrorism” with a country under an openly Islamophobic government.
Another arena of security cooperation between the two countries is the newly formed “Quad,” a grouping that also includes Japan and Australia. It’s evidently intended to counter China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region. This represents yet another example of the Biden administration’s ongoing saber-rattling on China.
India has its own regional power rivalry with China, and clearly the U.S. sees value in enlisting India into its anti-China alliance.
Another question for Biden : Do you seriously believe your own rhetoric from your joint statement with Modi, or are you merely making an expedient alliance with an authoritarian government for your geopolitical ends?
While the Biden administration doesn’t engage in Trump’s crude denialism, it has continued offshore oil and gas leasing and refused to block harmful fossil fuel projects such as the Line 3 oil pipeline. The construction of Line 3 has faced determined resistance from Indigenous peoples defending their land, water, and culture. Governments from the local to the federal have responded with a violent crackdown.
The Modi government in India has waged its own repression against Adivasi (Indigenous) peoples resisting extractivism.
Another question for Biden: Do the “shared values and principles” cited in your joint statement with Modi include digging up fossil fuels while paying lip service to climate action, and unleashing repression against Indigenous peoples who get in the way?
A Fundamental Continuity
In several areas, including relations with India, the difference between Trump and Biden is more stylistic than substantive. Unlike Trump, Biden doesn’t join Modi at Nuremberg-style rallies in Houston and Ahmedabad. But U.S. complicity in India’s human rights abuses continues, without Trump’s bluster.
For those in the U.S., there’s not much we can do directly to confront the RSS and its political front in India. But the least we can do is hold the U.S. government’s feet to the fire for aligning with one of the most dangerous authoritarian regimes in the world.
The capitalist vultures are wheeling low, but they’re finding slim pickings to choose from these days.
“No one wants to work!” The bosses whine about a worker shortage — though it’s one they brought about.
Eighteenth-century British economist Adam Smith noted how common it is to hear complaints about workers coming together to fight for their interests, and how rare it is to hear about all the scheming the bosses do to plunder workers’ labor.
“Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate,” Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations.
That scheming is the background to the current labor shortage. Over the past 40 years, employers have used their collective power to wring skyrocketing productivity out of workers while suppressing wages. Productivity grew 60 percent between 1979 and 2019, while the average worker’s wage grew just 15.8 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
That’s why so many jobs are just jobs that nobody wants to do. Draconian surveillance, massive overtime, short-staffing, two-tier contracts, calling your workers “contractors” so they’ll have no rights—this corporate playbook has made today’s workplace a tougher place to be than it’s been for generations.
More workers are throwing in the towel than at any other time in at least two decades. The number of job openings climbed to a record 10.9 million in July.
Many workers are acutely aware that the supply snarls also include labor. Forced overtime, an issue in recent strikes at Frito-Lay and Nabisco, is rampant, to compensate for understaffing. Help Wanted signs are everywhere. Schools are having a hard time finding bus drivers.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham had great insight into the basic calculus that capitalist labor relations rest on: the choice between working and starving. “What if we just cut off the unemployment?” she said in August. “Hunger is a pretty powerful thing.”
But that hasn’t worked. More than 7 million people stopped receiving unemployment benefits in early September as federal programs expired, and nearly 3 million more saw their benefits reduced by $300 per week. Yet the expected spike in job applicants hasn’t happened.
This favorable labor market is an opportunity for workers and unions to undo concessions they’ve made for years — or even to win long-sought demands.
At least some workers have gotten bold together; witness the high-profile fights at Frito-Lay and Nabisco and the months-long battles by Massachusetts nurses to lower nurse-to-patient ratios and Alabama miners to win back the $1.1 billion in concessions they forked over to rescue their employer from bankruptcy.
It’s also showing up in the willingness of Seattle Carpenters and Virginia Volvo workers earlier this year to vote down multiple contract offers. And in big strike votes at John Deere and by film and TV crewmembers.
The pandemic and the end of unemployment benefits haven’t cowed these workers into submission. Now’s the time to turn up the heat, take risks, and refuse to settle for less. It’s an opportunity that won’t last forever.
Should a major political party use a voting rights bill to rid itself of minor party competition? That appears to be happening with the recently introduced Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747), now before the Senate.
A pared-down version of the For the People Act, S.2747 would eliminate public funding for presidential campaigns by terminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund — a post-Watergate era reform meant to reduce big donor influence in presidential races by providing an alternate public funding source for campaigns.
For over 30 years, this reform was embraced by major and minor party presidential candidates alike. But in recent cycles, only Green Party nominees qualified for presidential primary matching funds. Major party presidential candidates have eschewed both presidential primary matching funds and general election grants — because these programs limit the amount of private funds candidates can spend if they accept public funding — and because the amount of public funding is not enough for major party candidates who now raise hundreds of millions in private funds.
These matching funds have been critical in helping Green Party presidential candidates pay for expensive petition drives to meet onerous state ballot qualification requirements established by Democrats and Republicans — a use affirmed by the Federal Election Commission. In many states, being on the ballot and achieving a certain result for president is even required for minor parties to retain ballot status. Without these funds, the Green Party would disappear in many states.
Exit polls in 2016 showed that 61 percent of those voting for Green presidential nominee Jill Stein would have stayed home if she was not on the ballot. Green and other minor party candidates bring more voters to the polls. Party suppression is a form of voter suppression. It is what authoritarian governments do. It is what the Democratic Party is subtly proposing to do via this bill.
We support S.2747’s provisions that would preempt the new anti-democratic Republican state laws promoting partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, partisan election certification, and intimidation of voters and election administrators. We support the bill’s provisions that make voting easier, including automatic voter registration, vote by mail, 15 consecutive days of early voting and Election Day as a national holiday. We support its requirements to disclose dark money.
But lamentably, S.2747 fails to address two primary anti-democratic elements of our electoral system. Voting rights should include the right to vote for someone who represents your views, not just the lesser evil. But ballot access for minor parties and independents in the United States is far more onerous than in other electoral democracies. The U.S. needs a “right to the ballot law” establishing reasonable ballot access requirements in state and federal elections.
Then there is our outdated single-member district, winner-take-all plurality voting system that systematically excludes diverse voices and political minorities from their fair share of representation, and leaves large number of voters in each legislative district without anyone representing their views. The Fair Representation Act would create multi-party democracy based on proportional representation in the House through ranked-choice voting from multi-member districts, and would eliminate gerrymandering and “the spoiler” dynamics in the process.
But we must protest the public finance provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act — which in knocking minor parties like the Greens off the ballot, would transfer the money now in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund into a public funding program for the House reachable almost exclusively by only upper-echelon major party candidates.
Greens vigorously support public funding of elections. But this voting rights bill should focus on voting rights. Public funding should be addressed in separate legislation with a full airing of all the implications for minor as well major parties and voter choice. Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate S.2747’s public financing section. Not only is it unfair to minor party and independent candidates — and the voters who support them — but the bill will be harder to pass because no Republican will vote for public funding. And if not enough Republicans support the bill, it would be hypocritical for Democrats to seek a filibuster carve-out for voting rights, when the bill contains such blatant partisan self-interest.
Millions of Americans are under-represented under our current system. Let’s pass the Freedom to Vote Act without its flawed public campaign funding section, then enact needed electoral reforms that will make the U.S a more representative and inclusive multi-party democracy, including public campaign funding, fair ballot access and proportional representation.