US Politics

Progressive Democrats retract Biden Ukraine letter after furious debateDramatic U-turn from progressive caucus, withdrawing letter sent to US president urging talks to end war in Ukraine The chair of the progressive caucus of the US House of Representatives, Pramila Jayapal, has retracted a letter sent by 30 of the members urging Joe Biden to engage in direct talks with Russia to end the war in Ukraine following a heated debate within the Democratic party about future strategy over the conflict.We need direct talks with Russia and a negotiated settlement | Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and othersRead moreIn a statement issued on Tuesday afternoon, Jayapal made a dramatic U-turn, scrapping the letter that had been sent to the White House the previous day and implying it had all been a mistake. “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting,” she said.Jayapal went on to regret what she said was conflation of the progressive Democratic call for a diplomatic end to the Ukraine war with a recent statement by the Republican leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy, which threatened an end to aid for the stricken country should the Republican party take back the House in next month’s midterm elections.Jayapal said: “The letter sent yesterday has been conflated with GOP opposition to support for the Ukrainians’ just defense of their national sovereignty. As such, it is a distraction at this time and we withdraw the letter.”Jayapal’s retraction is the latest twist in a strange 24 hours of Democratic politics, which has seen the progressive caucus apparently lend its name to a call for direct talks with Moscow to end the war in Ukraine, followed by a fierce backlash and then staged walking back of the position.In the original letter, sent to the White House on Monday and first reported by the Washington Post, the progressive Democrats called on Biden to make “vigorous diplomatic efforts” towards a “negotiated settlement and ceasefire”. They highlighted the global hunger and poverty that could ensue from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine as well as “elevated gas and food prices at home”, concluding that America’s top priority should be to seek “a rapid end to the conflict”.Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the letter was the proposal that Biden should explore “incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief” for Russia.The letter provoked fierce pushback from several Democratic lawmakers – including one of its own signatories – and elicited a frosty White House response. It was interpreted as the first sign of friction over Ukraine within the Democratic party, which has until now stood firm behind Biden’s unconditional backing of Kyiv in its battle to defend and retrieve its sovereign territory from Moscow.The timing of the correspondence was also criticised, coming at a crucial stage in the war and just a week after Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, said that Congress was “not going to write a blank check to Ukraine”.The blowback from Democrats was so intense that within hours of the letter being dispatched, Jayapal was forced to issue a “clarification”.“Let me be clear: we are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion, and nothing in the letter advocates for a change in that support,” she said.The original letter was signed by several of the most prominent leftwing Democrats in the House, including the so-called “Squad” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib. Jamie Raskin, a member of the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol, was also among the 30.The White House responded by repeating Biden’s central approach – that Ukraine will decide for itself when and how to negotiate with Russia. The press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, reiterated that there would be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”.Individual Democratic lawmakers were more pointed in their reaction – including signatories. Mark Pocan, a congressman from Wisconsin who signed the letter, said it had first been drafted in July and indicated that he had been caught off guard by its publication.“I have no idea why it went out now. Bad timing,” he said.A second signatory, Mark Takano of California, put out a statement after the letter was revealed saying he remained “steadfast in support of the Ukrainian people”.Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a member of the progressive caucus who declined to sign the letter, posted an acerbic response on Twitter. He wrote: “The way to end a war? Win it quickly. How is it won quickly? By giving Ukraine the weapons to defeat Russia.”The sharpest comment from any Democrat came from the former marine and representative from Massachusetts, Jake Auchincloss. He condemned the letter as “an olive branch to a war criminal who’s losing his war. Ukraine is on the march. Congress should be standing firmly behind [Biden’s] effective strategy, including tighter – not weaker! – sanctions.”After the initial eruption of criticism, some of the progressive signatories defended their action. Ro Khanna of California, who pointed out that he had voted for each of the aid packages to Ukraine, said: “Our nation should never silence or shout down debate.”House Republicans divided over aid to Ukraine ahead of midtermsRead moreCongress has so far approved about $66bn for Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in February, including military, humanitarian and economic help. With Ukraine stepping up its advance on Russian positions as a potentially punishing winter approaching, and with the US midterm elections looming on 8 November, the progressives’ letter could not have landed at a more sensitive time.Russia specialists warned that the intervention could embolden Putin and loosen US commitment to lead the international coalition in support of Ukraine. Yoshiko Herrera, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said, “The biggest problem in the letter is that it may weaken US support for Ukraine by fostering the appearance of divisions among those who support Ukraine.”Cracks, albeit fine ones, are already clearly visible on the Republican side. The largest aid package for Ukraine, amounting to $40bn, was passed in May with 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voting against.Supporters of the letter said that it reflected a desire to end the war through diplomacy – an aspiration which Biden himself has championed. He was explicit about that goal in a speech he made in Delaware in June.Biden said: “It appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know.”TopicsDemocratsUS politicsRussiaUkraineJoe BidenUS foreign policyVladimir PutinnewsReuse this content More

US lawmakers call for more measures to protect against toxic lead in tap waterSenators make appeal to EPA after series of Guardian articles revealed that communities of color often face high lead levels US legislators are calling for increased measures to protect American residents from toxic lead in their tap water.A group of up to 15 US senators asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to lower the levels of lead allowable in drinking water, require all lead pipes to be replaced in the next decade and ensure that low-income neighborhoods can benefit equally from the remediation efforts.TopicsUS newsAmerica’s dirty divideWaterUS politicsUS Environmental Protection AgencynewsReuse this content More

Liz Truss’s elevation and downfall mirrors the American right Andrew GawthorpeThe British conservative party has lost touch with reality in ways that are reminiscent of how Trump transformed Republican politics in the US After serving for a mere 45 days, Liz Truss has become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. George Canning, the previous holder of this record, was forced from office because he died of tuberculosis. Truss, by contrast, is entirely the author of her own demise. But even though her short premiership has no doubt left her own political talents utterly discredited, it would be a mistake to stop apportioning blame there. In fact, Truss’s elevation and downfall show how the British Conservative party has lost touch with reality over the past decade in ways which mirror the descent of the American right.Republicans always choose radicalization to energize their electoral base | Thomas ZimmerRead moreTruss was forced from office after unveiling a budget that was profoundly out of touch with the realities of modern Britain. A diehard libertarian, she announced steep tax cuts for the rich, including removing an immensely popular cap on bankers’ annual bonuses. Much like the Trump tax cuts of 2017, these moves were supposed to be paid for by generating trickle-down economic growth – and when that failed to happen, as it inevitably does, public service and welfare cuts would follow. This kamikaze libertarianism was combined with sheer nastiness towards the poor, such as when the chair of the Conservative party told voters worried about rising energy bills to either go and get a better-paid job or “freeze”.So dire were Truss’s plans that even the markets rejected them, causing a financial crisis and ultimately her unceremonious ejection from office. But just getting rid of Truss is not going to solve the Conservative party’s problems. Instead, it must face up to ideological blinders and delusions of grandeur which led it to put Britain in this situation to begin with.The first entry on the charge sheet is the party’s long-running flirtation with an extreme variant of libertarian economics. Far from being some bizarre outlier, Truss was comfortably elected in a party leadership race this summer despite making no secret of her plans. She was also enthusiastically embraced by rightwing talking heads and thinktanks who have long advocated for precisely the measures in Truss’s budget. Truss was not on a lone ideological bender but was seeking to implement the orthodoxy of a key set of conservative elites – precisely the reason they promoted her into a job she was manifestly unfit for in the first place.But a much larger issue is the way that Brexit transformed British political discourse, introducing a fetish for anti-intellectualism and bold, ill-thought-through action which is reminiscent of how Trump transformed Republican politics in the United States. The party has become addicted to elevating cranks who promise an impossible return to Britain’s former heyday and to sneering at the policy and economics experts who point out the reasons why this is impossible. For a party that has long cast its critics as unpatriotic and over-educated, it was a small step from the fairytale of Brexit to the fairytale of Truss’s economic program.Another way in which the party is culpable is its refusal to face up to the contradictions of Brexit, which was always animated by two very different impulses. The first, most important to the average Brexit voter, was to reduce immigration and embrace the culture wars which went along with that goal. The second, embraced mostly by Tory party elites, was to turn Britain into a libertarian economic paradise, which by contrast would require liberal immigration policies to replace the workers shut out by Brexit.Much like their counterparts in the modern Republican party, Tory elites failed to realize how successful their cynical turn against immigration and towards the culture wars would be. What they originally saw as an electoral strategy to get them into office and allow them to move onto their libertarian agenda eventually became the defining characteristic of their whole movement. In America, this process produced Donald Trump. In the UK, it produced Boris Johnson, who pledged to deport unauthorized immigrants – even those fleeing Ukraine – to Rwanda. Truss seems to have entirely failed to notice this change in conservative politics and tried simply to ignore it, setting up a collision with a large chunk of her own party.So completely did Truss’s premiership embody the policies and tendencies of a certain set of Conservative party elites that its implosion seems to herald the final destruction of their project. This might seem like something to celebrate, but it will in fact probably lead to the further Trumpification of her party. Facing the direct repudiation of their libertarian program and unable due to their own ideological blinders to consider realigning with the EU, Conservatives are likely to see only one way forward: rushing into the culture wars and trying to smuggle whatever parts of their plutocratic agenda they can along with them.For America and the rest of the world, this means a Britain that will continue to become more insular, smaller in its ambitions, and weaker in its capabilities. Conservative elites will continue to find many people to blame for this rather than looking in the mirror. But if they really want to repair the damage to their house, they have to begin by looking at the rotting foundations that they themselves laid.
Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States and host of the podcast America Explained
TopicsLiz TrussOpinionDonald TrumpUS politicsRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

We need direct talks with Russia and a negotiated settlementRepresentatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Barbara Lee, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and othersProgressive members of Congress are urging Joe Biden to push for a settlement with Russia over Ukraine. Here’s their letterEditors’ note: on Tuesday, the signatories withdrew their letter Dear Mr President,We write with appreciation for your commitment to Ukraine’s legitimate struggle against Russia’s war of aggression. Your support for the self-defense of an independent, sovereign and democratic state has been supported by Congress, including through various appropriations of military, economic and humanitarian aid in furtherance of this cause. Your administration’s policy was critical to enable the Ukrainian people, through their courageous fighting and heroic sacrifices, to deal a historic military defeat to Russia, forcing Russia to dramatically scale back the stated goals of the invasion.Crucially, you achieved this while also maintaining that it is imperative to avoid direct military conflict with Russia, which would lead to “world war III, something we must strive to prevent”. The risk of nuclear weapons being used has been estimated to be higher now than at any time since the height of the cold war. Given the catastrophic possibilities of nuclear escalation and miscalculation, which only increase the longer this war continues, we agree with your goal of avoiding direct military conflict as an overriding national security priority.Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interest of Ukraine, the United States and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. This is consistent with your recognition that “there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here,” and your concern that Vladimir Putin “doesn’t have a way out right now, and I’m trying to figure out what we do about that”.We are under no illusions regarding the difficulties involved in engaging Russia, given its outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and independent Ukraine, it is America’s responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine. Such a framework would presumably include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief and bring together the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians. The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.Ukraine needs foreign aid to build a future apart from Russia, says Kyiv mayorRead moreRussia’s invasion has caused incalculable harm for the people of Ukraine, leading to the deaths of countless thousands of civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, and displacement of 13 million people, while Russia’s recent seizure of cities in Ukraine’s east have led to the most pivotal moment in the conflict and the consolidation of Russian control over roughly 20% of Ukraine’s territory. The conflict threatens an additional tens of millions more worldwide, as skyrocketing prices in wheat, fertilizer and fuel spark acute crises in global hunger and poverty. A war that is allowed to grind on for years – potentially escalating in intensity and geographic scope – threatens to displace, kill, and immiserate far more Ukrainians while causing hunger, poverty, and death around the world. The conflict has also contributed to elevated gas and food prices at home, fueling inflation and high oil prices for Americans in recent months. Economists believe that if the situation in Ukraine is stabilized, some of the speculative concerns driving higher fuel costs will subside and likely lead to a drop in world oil prices.We agree with the administration’s perspective that it is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions, and with the principle you have enunciated that there should be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. But as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict, we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement.In May, President Zelenskiy, despite deadlocked negotiations, reiterated that the war “will only definitively end through diplomacy”, and had previously explained that “any mentally healthy person always chooses the diplomatic path, because he or she knows: even if it is difficult, it can prevent the loss of thousands, tens of thousands …and maybe even millions of lives.”I had to fight for Bosnia. That’s how I know Ukrainians can win, and they will rebuild | Faruk ŠehićRead moreIn conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties, which will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority.Pramila Jayapal, Member of CongressEarl Blumenauer, Member of CongressCori Bush, Member of CongressJesús G “Chuy” García, Member of CongressRaúl M Grijalva, Member of CongressSara Jacobs, Member of CongressRo Khanna, Member of CongressBarbara Lee, Member of CongressIlhan Omar, Member of CongressAyanna Pressley, Member of CongressSheila Jackson Lee, Member of CongressMark Pocan, Member of CongressNydia M Velázquez, Member of CongressGwen S Moore, Member of CongressYvette D Clarke, Member of CongressHenry C “Hank” Johnson Jr, Member of CongressRashida Tlaib, Member of CongressAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Member of CongressMondaire Jones, Member of CongressPeter A DeFazio, Member of CongressJamaal Bowman, Member of CongressMarie Newman, Member of CongressAlma S Adams, Member of CongressChellie Pingree, Member of CongressJamie Raskin, Member of CongressBonnie Watson Coleman, Member of CongressMark Takano, Member of CongressAndré Carson, Member of CongressDonald M Payne Jr, Member of CongressMark DeSaulnier, Member of CongressTopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUkraineAlexandria Ocasio-CortezJoe BidencommentReuse this content More

When former Vice President Mike Pence declared, in a speech to a conservative group, that “democracy depends on heavy doses of civility,” several attendees stood up and walked out of the Georgetown University auditorium.

That speech came just three weeks before the midterm elections as commentators and candidates around the country were calling for greater civility in politics.

This is no surprise.

Civility is popular with the American people. Across the political spectrum, citizens agree that politics has become dangerously toxic, and they think the problem is worsening.

That is one political issue we all agree on – democracy needs to regain civility. If it’s going to, the effort has to start with each of us individually, rather than waiting for someone else to make the first move.

Bipartisan hypocrisy

This unanimity that more civility is needed in politics may be an illusion.

Citizens tend to lay the blame for political incivility solely on their political opponents. They want civility in politics, but say they think compromise is a one-way street.

They want politicians to work together, but also want the opposition to capitulate.

Former Vice President Mike Pence visits Fox News on Oct. 19, 2022.
Shannon Finney/Getty Images

They value civility, but hold that their partisan rivals are uniformly immoral, dishonest and close-minded.

Pence reflected these us-versus-them attitudes himself during his Georgetown speech when he claimed that powerful institutions have “locked arms to advance a woke agenda designed to advance the policies and beliefs of the American left.”

Defining civility

Despite the multiple pleas for civility, little is said about what civility is.

That probably explains why civility is so popular.

Each citizen gets to define the term in their own way, and no one believes their own side to be uncivil. But if we believe that the U.S. needs to restore civility, we must define it.

It cannot be the demand to always remain calm in political debate. It’s generally good to keep one’s cool, of course. But when engaging in political disagreement, it’s not always possible to do so.

Our political opinions typically reflect deeply held values and commitments about justice. We tend to regard those who disagree with us about such matters as not merely on the other side of the issue, but on the wrong side. We should expect disagreements about important matters to get heated.

Civility might be better understood as the avoidance of undue hostility and gratuitous animosity in political debate. This could be something as simple as calling out inflated rhetoric, as John McCain famously did during his presidential campaign when his supporters claimed that Barack Obama was untrustworthy and not an American.

This idea acknowledges that heated debates can be appropriate within reason. It allows for some degree of antagonism, while at the same time prohibiting unnecessary vitriol.

In a sense, this makes civility a matter of judging whether our subject’s behavior calls for an escalation of hostility. The problem is that, when it comes to evaluating the behavior of our opponents, we are remarkably poor judges.

Partisan civility

Americans’ assessment of political behavior tightly tracks our partisan allegiances.

We cut our allies slack while holding our opponents to very high standards. When our allies engage in objectionable behavior, we excuse them. But when members of the opposition engage in the same behavior, we condemn them. In one experiment, when partisans were told of an ally stealing an opposing candidate’s campaign signs off neighborhood lawns, they chalked it up to political integrity. But when those same partisans were told that an opponent had stolen their signs, they condemned the act as undemocratic.

We over-ascribe hostility, dishonesty and untrustworthiness to our political opponents. Consequently, we will almost always see fit to escalate hostility when interacting with our opposition. When civility is understood as the avoidance of unnecessary rancor, it fails.

I’ve argued in my recent book “Sustaining Democracy” that civility isn’t really about how we conduct disagreements with political opponents.

Instead, civility has to do with how people formulate their own political ideas.

The GOP elephant and Democratic donkey are going toe-to-toe on Election Day.
Getty Images

We are uncivil when our political opinions do not take due account of the perspectives, priorities and concerns of our fellow citizens.

To better understand this idea, consider that in a democratic society, citizens share political power as political equals. As democratic citizens, we have the responsibility to act in ways that respect the equality of our fellow citizens, even when we disagree with their politics.

In my view, one way to respect their equality is to give due consideration to their values and preferences.

Of course, this does not require that we water down our own political commitments – or always try to meet our opponents halfway.

It calls only for a sincere attempt to consider their perspectives when devising our own.

People are civil when we can explain our political opinions to our political opponents in ways that are responsive to their rival ideas.

A civility test

Here is a simple three-part test for civility:

First, take one of your strongest political views, and then try to figure out what your smartest partisan opponent might say about it.

Second, identify a political idea that is key to your opponent and then develop a lucid argument that supports it.

Third, identify a major policy favored by the other side that you could regard as permissible for government – despite your opposition.

If you struggle to perform those tasks, that means one has a feeble grasp on the range of responsible political opinion.

When we cannot even imagine a cogent political perspective that stands in opposition to our own, we can’t engage civilly with our fellow citizens. More

AnalysisRepublicans want working-class voters — without actually supporting workersSteven GreenhouseGOP courts blue collar voters but most favor anti-union ‘right to work’ laws and reject laws that would protect right to organize After years of struggle, America’s labor unions enjoy greater public approval than at any time in more than 50 years. Yet even as the Republican party seeks to rebrand itself as the party of the working class, its lawmakers, by and large, remain as hostile as ever toward organized labor. It doesn’t look like that situation is about to change.With the midterm elections approaching, and many polls indicating that the Republicans will win control of the House, nearly all Republican lawmakers in Congress oppose proposals that would make it easier to unionize. One hundred and eleven Republican House members and 21 senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would weaken unions by letting workers in all 50 states opt out of paying any fees to the unions that represent them. And at a time when many young workers – among them, Starbucks workers, Apple store workers, museum workers, grad students – are flocking into unions, Republican lawmakers often deride unions as woke, leftwing and obsolete.Congressional Democrats – seeing the surge in unionization drives along with the aggressive anti-union campaigns by Starbucks, Amazon and other companies – say there is increased urgency to enact the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (Pro Act), which would make it easier for workers to unionize. The Pro Act passed the House last year – with 205 Republicans voting against and five in favor – but it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, largely because of a GOP filibuster, and will almost certainly fail to pass if Republicans gain Senate seats in the midterms.The Pro Act remains the Democrats’ overwhelming legislative priority for helping unions – it would, among other things, ban employers’ captive audience meetings and create substantial penalties for corporations that break the law when fighting unionization. Republicans denounce the legislation, vigorously opposing a provision that would override the right-to-work laws enacted in 27 states, laws that allow workers to opt out of paying union dues. The Senate Republicans’ policy committee has slammed the Pro Act, saying it would undermine worker freedom, “heavily tilt the scales in favor of labor” and “curb workers’ choices, threaten jobs and increase costs on employers”.It wasn’t always this way. Two decades ago, there were 30 union-friendly Republicans in the House, but that number has dwindled to a handful, partly because many of the party’s billionaire and corporate donors frown on pro-union Republicans. These donors see unions as bothersome institutions that favor Democrats and reduce corporate profits. Indeed, many Republican lawmakers treat unions and their leaders as enemies.Virginia Foxx, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, scoffed at the idea that there is a union resurgence and said Democrats “are in the pocket of Big Labor”. “Unions are hitting the panic button and praying that Democrats can gin up a PR campaign to cover up the declining numbers and lack of interest in union membership,” Foxx told the Guardian, noting that union membership has sunk to just 6% of the private-sector workforce. Foxx, who often serves as Congress’s chief spokesperson on labor matters, belittled unions’ recent gains, saying that only a tiny percentage of Starbucks and Apple stores have been unionized.Foxx, a nine-term House member from North Carolina, said: “If Democrats genuinely believe that union popularity is soaring and that union campaigns and strikes are resonating with American workers, then they truly have a tortured relationship with both math and reality.”Even as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reported a 53% jump over the past year in the number of workplace petitions for union elections, Foxx and many other Republicans are backing bills that would make it harder to unionize. With corporations prohibiting union organizers from setting foot on company property to speak with workers, unions rely on NLRB rules requiring employers to give them workers’ home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses so they can communicate with them. But the Employee Privacy Protection Act, a Republican-sponsored bill re-introduced last March, shortly after the recent union surge began, would limit unions to obtaining just one of those three ways to contact workers. Foxx said workers should “never have to hand over their personal contact information” to “a union to which they object”.Bill Samuel, legislative director of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s main union federation, said he has seen no sign of Republicans warming up to unions despite their increased popularity – 71% of Americans approve of unions. “I haven’t seen any change” among Republicans, Samuel said. “There’s been no outreach. We haven’t been getting calls from Republicans asking, ‘How can we help workers organize?’”Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the House education and labor committee, agreed, adding: “Republicans are pretty much as hostile as ever toward unions – pretty much down the line.”Scott said Democrats should rush to enact the Pro Act in light of the many daunting obstacles that workers face in seeking to unionize at Starbucks, Amazon and other companies due to intense corporate opposition and a flurry of alleged illegalities by management. In Scott’s view, especially important is a provision that would for the first time allow the NLRB to impose substantial fines against companies that violate the law when battling union drives. “The biggest improvement we need is to have some meaningful sanctions for unfair labor practices,” Scott said. “Right now, there is no meaningful deterrent.”Oren Cass, executive director of American Compass, a thinktank for conservative economics, said that many Republicans have grown more interested in worker issues. Cass acknowledged, however, that most Republican lawmakers remain hostile to organized labor because “unions are predominantly financing mechanisms for the Democratic party.”He said some Republicans are open to the idea of increasing worker power, but only if it’s done largely outside the framework of traditional unions. Nevertheless, whether with or without unions, hardly any Republicans are pushing to expand worker power – an idea that would irk corporate Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers instead emphasize worker choice and worker freedom – part of their decades-long effort to enact state right-to-work laws that allow workers to opt out of paying any dues or fees to the unions that represent them.Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina are co-sponsoring the National Right to Work Act, which would let workers in all 50 states opt out of union dues. Wilson told the Guardian that the bill would “eliminate forced-dues clauses” and “allow workers to choose for themselves”. He said Joe Biden and the Democrats were on “a mission to force unionization” on “workers by eliminating employee choice”. Senator Paul said their bill would “put bargaining power where it belongs, in the hands of American workers”. Unions assert, however, that workers have far more bargaining power by bargaining collectively, rather than as individuals.Cass, who worked in Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, supports steps to give workers more power and said it’s a good time for Republicans to push to increase worker power. Their “constituents are significantly and increasingly working class”, Cass noted, adding that Republicans might be more willing to distance themselves from corporations now that more business executives “are on the other side”, having endorsed Democrats.For years, most Republicans lawmakers have opposed any increase in the NLRB’s budget; that agency oversees private-sector union elections and cracks down on employers that break the law in fighting unions. The labor board’s budget hasn’t increased since 2014, a budget freeze that has angered union leaders because they say it hampers the board’s ability to move quickly against law-breaking, anti-union employers.“The NLRB has been flat-funded for a long time,” said Scott, chair of the House labor committee. “With the popularity of unions increasing, the work of the NLRB has increased. In order to get their work done, the board needs significant increases in funding.”But Foxx called increasing NLRB funding “an inherently stupid idea”, asserting that the labor board tilts in favor of unions, just as Democrats asserted that President Trump’s labor board was far too anti-union.The AFL-CIO’s Samuel voiced dismay that many Republicans seem implacably opposed to anything that would help unions expand. “All this,” Samuel said, “illustrates their hostility to make it easier for workers to enjoy what is supposed to be their basic right under the law: to come together to form a union.”TopicsUS unionsUS politicsStarbucksAmazonanalysisReuse this content More

‘We risk another crisis’: TikTok in danger of being major vector of election misinformation A study suggests the video platform is failing to filter false claims and rhetoric in the weeks leading up to US midterms

Read the new Guardian series exploring the increasing power and reach of TikTok
In the final sprint to the US midterm elections social media giant TikTok risks being a major vector for election misinformation, experts warn, with the platform’s massive user base and its design making it particularly susceptible to such threats.Preliminary research published last week from digital watchdog Global Witness and the Cybersecurity for Democracy team at New York University suggests the video platform is failing to filter large volumes of election misinformation in the weeks leading up to the vote.TikTok approved 90% of advertisements featuring election misinformation submitted by researchers, including ads containing the wrong election date, false claims about voting requirements, and rhetoric dissuading people from voting.From dance videos to global sensation: what you need to know about TikTok’s riseRead moreTikTok has for several years prohibited political advertising on the platform, including branded content from creators and paid advertisements, and ahead of midterm elections has automatically disabled monetization to better enforce the policy, TikTok global business president Blake Chandlee said in a September blog post. “TikTok is, first and foremost, an entertainment platform,” he wrote.But the NYU study showed TikTok “performed the worst out of all of the platforms tested” in the experiment, the researchers said, approving more of the false advertisements than other sites such as YouTube and Facebook.The findings spark concern among experts who point out that – with 80 million monthly users in the US and large numbers of young Americans indicating the platform is their primary source of news – such posts could have far reaching consequences.Yet the results come to little surprise, those experts say. During previous major elections in the US, TikTok had far fewer users, but misinformation was already spreading widely on the app. TikTok faced challenges moderating misinformation about elections in Kenya and the war in Ukraine.And the company, experts say, is doing far too little to rein in election lies spreading among its users.“This year is going to be much worse as we near the midterms,” said Olivia Little, a researcher who co-authored the Media Matters report. “There has been an exponential increase in users, which only means there will be more misinformation TikTok needs to proactively work to stop or we risk facing another crisis.”A crucial testWith Joe Biden himself warning that the integrity of American elections is under threat, TikTok has announced a slew of policies aimed at combatting election misinformation spreading through the app.The company laid out guidelines and safety measures related to election content and launched an elections center, which “connect[s] people who engage with election content” to approved news sources in more than 45 languages.“To bolster our response to emerging threats, TikTok partners with independent intelligence firms and regularly engages with others across the industry, civil society organizations, and other experts,” said Eric Han, TikTok’s head of US safety, in August.In September, the company also announced new policies requiring government and politician accounts to be verified and said it would ban videos aimed at campaign fundraising. TikTok added it would block verified political accounts from using money-making features available to influencers on the app, such as digital payments and gifting.Still, experts have deep concerns about the spread of election falsehoods on the video app.Those fears are exacerbated by TikTok’s structure, which makes it difficult to investigate and quantify the spread of misinformation. Unlike Twitter, which makes public its Application Programming Interface (API), software that allows researchers to extract data from platforms for analysis, or Meta, which offers its own internal search engine called Crowdtangle, TikTok does not offer tools for external audits. However, independent research as well as the platform’s own transparency reports highlight the challenges it has faced in recent years moderating election-related content.TikTok removed 350,000 videos related to election misinformation in the latter half of 2020, according to a transparency report from the company, and blocked 441,000 videos containing misinformation from user feeds globally. Internet nonprofit Mozilla warned in the run-up to Kenya’s 2022 election that the platform was “failing its first real test” to stem dis- and misinformation during pivotal political moments. The nonprofit said it had found more than 130 videos on the platform containing election-related misinformation, hate speech, and incitement against communities prior to the vote, which together gained more than 4m views. “Rather than learn from the mistakes of more established platforms like Facebook and Twitter, TikTok is following in their footsteps,” Mozilla researcher Odanga Madung wrote at the time.Why TikTok is so vulnerable to misinformationPart of the reason TikTok is uniquely susceptible to misinformation lies in certain features of its design and algorithm, experts say.Its For You Page, or general video feed, is highly customized to users’ individual preferences via an algorithm that’s little understood, even by its own staff. That combination lends itself to misinformation bubbles, said Little, the Media Matters researcher.“TikTok’s hyper-tailored algorithm can blast random accounts into virality very quickly, and I don’t think that is going to change anytime soon because it’s the reason it has become such a popular platform,” she said.Meanwhile, the ease with which users’ remix, record, and repost videos – few of which have been fact-checked – allows misinformation to spread easily while making it more difficult to remove.TikTok’s video-exclusive content brings up additional moderation hurdles, as artificial intelligence processes may find it more difficult to automatically scrape video content for misinformation compared to text. Several recent studies have highlighted how those features have exacerbated the spread of misinformation on the platform. When it comes to TikTok content related to the war in Ukraine, for example, the ability to “remix media” without fact checking it has made it difficult “even for seasoned journalists and researchers to discern truth from rumor, parody and fabrication”, said a recent report from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media.That report cited other design features in the app that make it an easy pathway for misinformation, including that most users post under pseudonyms and that, unlike on Facebook, where users’ feeds are filled primarily with content from friends and people they know, TikTok’s For You Page is largely composed of content from strangers.Some of these problems are not unique to TikTok, said Marc Faddoul co-director of Tracking Exposed, a digital rights organization investigating TikTok’s algorithm.Studies have shown that algorithms across all platforms are optimized to detect and exploit cognitive biases for more polarizing content, and that any platform that relies on algorithms rather than a chronological newsfeed is more susceptible to disinformation. But TikTok is the most accelerated model of an algorithmic feed yet, he said.At the same time, he added, the platform has been slow in coming to grips with issues that have plagued its peers like Facebook and Twitter for years.“Historically, TikTok has characterized itself as an entertainment platform, denying they host political content and therefore disinformation, but we know now that is not the case,” he said.Young user base is particularly at riskExperts say an additional cause for concern is a lack of media literacy among TikTok’s largely young user base. The vast majority of young people in the US use TikTok, a recent Pew Research Center report showed. Internal data from Google revealed in July that nearly 40% of Gen Z – the generation born between the late 1990s and early 2000s – globally uses TikTok and Instagram as their primary search engines.In addition to being more likely to get news coverage from social media, Gen Z also has far higher rates of mistrust in traditional institutions such as the news media and the government compared with past generations, creating a perfect storm for the spread misinformation, said Helen Lee Bouygues, president of the Reboot Foundation, a media literacy advocacy organization.“By the nature of its audience, TikTok is exposing a lot of young children to disinformation who are not trained in media literacy, period,” she said. “They are not equipped with the skills necessary to recognize propaganda or disinformation when they see it online.”The threat is amplified by the sheer amount of time spent on the app, with 67% of US teenagers using the app for an average of 99 minutes per day. Research conducted by the Reboot Foundation showed that the longer a user spends on an app the less likely they are to distinguish between misinformation and fact.To enforce its policies, which prohibit election misinformation, harassment, hateful behavior, and violent extremism, TikTok says it relies on “a combination of people and technology” and partners with fact checkers to moderate content. The company directed questions to this blog post regarding election misinformation measures, but declined to share how many human moderators it employs.Bouygues said the company should do far more to protect its users, particularly young ones. Her research shows that media literacy and in-app nudges towards fact checking could go a long way when it comes to combating misinformation. But government action is needed to force such changes.“If the TikToks of the world really want to fight fake news, they could do it,” she said. “But as long as their financial model is keeping eyes on the page, they have no incentive to do so. That’s where policymaking needs to come into play.”TopicsTikTokThe TikTok takeoverSocial mediaUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Samuel Alito assured Ted Kennedy in 2005 of respect for Roe, diary revealsExcerpts reported by biographer show Alito, who wrote June ruling that outlawed abortion, said he was ‘big believer in precedents’ In a private meeting in 2005, Samuel Alito, who would become the US supreme court justice who wrote the ruling removing the federal right to abortion, assured Ted Kennedy of his respect for Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 court decision which made the procedure legal in the US.“I am a believer in precedents,” Alito said, according to diary excerpts reported by the Massachusetts senator’s biographer, John A Farrell, on Monday. “People would find I adhere to that.”Alito and Kennedy met regarding Alito’s nomination by George W Bush. The nominee also said: “I recognise there is a right to privacy. I think it’s settled.”Seventeen years later, in his ruling removing the right to abortion, via the Mississippi case Dobbs v Jackson, Alito said the entitlement had wrongly been held to be protected as part of the right to privacy.“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” he wrote this June.The late Kennedy, a younger brother of US president John F Kennedy, who spent 47 years in the Senate, also questioned Alito about a memo he wrote as a justice department clerk in 1985, outlining his opposition to Roe. Alito told Kennedy he had been trying to impress his bosses.“I was a younger person,” Alito said. “I’ve matured a lot.”According to Farrell, Alito told Kennedy his views on abortion were “personal” but said: “I’ve got constitutional responsibilities and those are going to be the determining views”.Alito was confirmed to the supreme court by the senate, 58 votes to 42. Kennedy voted no.Farrell reported the excerpts from Kennedy’s diary in the New York Times. A spokesperson for Alito “said he had no comment on the conversation”.Kennedy died in 2009, aged 77. His Senate seat was filled by a Republican, Scott Brown, who was subsequently defeated by Elizabeth Warren, who quickly emerged as a leading progressive. In June, after Alito’s ruling removed the right to abortion, Warren was a leading voice of liberal anger.“After decades of scheming,” she said, “Republican politicians have finally forced their unpopular agenda on the rest of America.”01:54Susan Collins, a Maine Republican but a supporter of abortion rights, said she had been misled in a meeting similar to that between Kennedy and Alito.Collins said that in the 2018 meeting, when asked about Roe, Brett Kavanaugh told her to “start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the constitution and my commitment to the rule of law” and added: “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”In 2022, Kavanaugh sided with Alito and three other conservatives in removing the right to abortion.Collins said: “I feel misled.”Discussing Alito’s meeting with Kennedy, Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and legal ethics specialist, told the Times: “No serious court watcher can doubt that what Alito said in Dobbs he deeply believed in 2005. And long before then.”Farrell’s previous books include a biography of Richard Nixon. On Monday, reviewing Ted Kennedy: A Life, the Associated Press wrote: “Teddy lived long enough for his flaws to be fully exposed. All are laid bare in this book – the drinking, the infidelity, the selfishness, the casual cruelty, the emotional isolation.“The central riddle of Kennedy is how these weaknesses existed alongside the benevolence, loyalty, perseverance and wisdom that made him one of the most influential senators in modern American history.”The AP review noted Kennedy’s silence during another supreme court nomination, that of Clarence Thomas in 1991, writing: “When Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment, Kennedy was in no position to help lead the fight against him. He passed his time at the confirmation hearings by doodling sailboats, and Thomas was confirmed.”In June this year, Thomas joined with Alito to overturn Roe v Wade. In a concurring opinion, he suggested other privacy based rights could be next, including the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage.TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsEdward KennedynewsReuse this content More