US Politics

Kanye West’s Instagram and Twitter accounts locked over antisemitic postsThe rapper has also drawn heavy criticism for donning a ‘white lives matter’ T-shirt during Paris fashion week Kanye West has now had both his Instagram and Twitter accounts locked after antisemitic posts over the weekend.Twitter locked his account Sunday after it removed one of West’s tweets saying he was going “death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE” because it violated the service’s policies against hate speech.“I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda,” he tweeted on Saturday in a series of messages. The tweet has since been removed and West’s account locked.“The account in question has been locked due to a violation of Twitter’s policies,” a spokesperson for the platform told BuzzFeed News.The social media company Meta also restricted West’s Instagram account after the rapper made an antisemitic post on Friday in which he appeared to suggest the rapper Diddy was controlled by Jewish people, an antisemitic trope, NBC News reported.The controversial rapper who legally changed his name to Ye recently drew heavy criticism for donning a “white lives matter” T-shirt during Paris fashion week. He also dressed models in the shirt containing the phrase that the Anti-Defamation League considers a “hate slogan”.The league, which monitors violent extremists, notes on its website that white supremacist groups have promoted the phrase.West told Fox News host Tucker Carlson he thought the shirt was “funny” and “the obvious thing to do”.“I said, ‘I thought the shirt was a funny shirt; I thought the idea of me wearing it was funny,’” he told Carlson. “And I said, ‘Dad, why did you think it was funny?’ He said, ‘Just a Black man stating the obvious.’”During the same interview, West told Carlson that Jared Kushner, the Jewish son-in-law of former president Donald Trump, negotiated Middle East peace deals “to make money”.West was diagnosed with bipolar disorder several years ago and has spoken publicly about his mental health challenges.TopicsKanye WestTwitterUS politicsInstagramnewsReuse this content More

Abrams denies accusation she refused to recognize Kemp as winner in 2018‘I acknowledged it repeatedly,’ says Georgia gubernatorial nominee who faces Kemp rematch, but insists voter suppression is an issue Democratic organizer Stacey Abrams on Sunday pushed back on the accusation that she refused to acknowledge Brian Kemp as the winner of Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election, the same politician she is once again competing with for the governor’s mansion.On Fox News Sunday, host Shannon Bream played a 2019 speech in which Abrams said “we won”, but Abrams said the clip was taken out of context.“I acknowledged that Brian Kemp won – I acknowledged it repeatedly in that speech,” she said. “I very clearly say I know I’m not the governor, but what I will not do is allow the lack of nuance in our conversations to dull and obfuscate the challenges faced by our citizens.”Abrams also pushed back on Bream’s claims that voter suppression is not a huge issue in Georgia after the Fox News host pointed to increased voter registration and a decision from a federal court earlier this month dismissing a challenge to the state’s new voting restrictions.“Voter suppression is not about turnout. It’s about the barriers and obstacles to access,” Abrams said. “Voter suppression is when there’s difficulty registering things on the road, being able to cast a ballot and having that ballot counted.”Abrams’s remarks came two days after she told the GOP-friendly Fox News digital that she would welcome both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the campaign trail as she enters the final stretch of her bid to oust Kemp, a Republican.“Yes. We’ve reached out to – we’ve been in conversations with the Biden administration, and we look forward to having folks from the Biden administration, including the president himself if he can make it,” the former Georgia state house minority leader said.Biden, whose approval rating is at 42.5%, has focused more on fundraising in the lead-up to the midterm elections, and has not yet appeared much at political rallies with candidates. Abrams raised eyebrows earlier this year when she declined to attend a Biden speech in Atlanta focused on voting rights, an issue she has spent her career elevating.Abrams has consistently trailed Kemp in polling in the race ahead of next month’s election, which is one of the most closely watched in the US. The contest is a rematch from 2018, when Abrams lost to Kemp by 55,000 votes but said the race was tainted by voter suppression. It is also seen as the latest test of the influence of Georgia’s growing non-white and Democratic electorate.TopicsGeorgiaUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘armageddon’ John Kirby says Biden’s warning about threat of a nuclear attack from Russia were not based on specific new information The US military’s top spokesperson tamped down concerns of an imminent nuclear threat from Russia, days after Joe Biden warned of a potential nuclear “armageddon”.Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser this week, Biden talked bluntly about the threat of a nuclear attack from Russia. “We have not faced the prospect of armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” the president said. He added that Russian leader Vladimir Putin was “not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming” after invading Ukraine earlier this year.Echoing comments from the White House earlier this week, top Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said Biden’s comments were not based on specific new information.“His comments were not based on new or fresh intelligence or new indications that Mr Putin has made a decision to use nuclear weapons,” Kirby told Martha Raddatz in an interview on ABC News’ This Week. “Quite frankly, we don’t have any information that he has made that kind of decision. Nor have we seen anything that would give us pause to reconsider our own strategic nuclear posture.”U.S. has not “seen anything that would give us pause to reconsider our own strategic nuclear posture” following Putin’s threats in Ukraine, NSC spokesman Kirby tells @MarthaRaddatz. “We don’t have any indication that he has made that kind of decision.” https://t.co/OpYwwOBhrk pic.twitter.com/RHNNlj06Ar— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 9, 2022
Biden’s remarks invoking Armageddon drew a sharp rebuke from former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, a member of the Donald Trump White House’s cabinet who is mulling a 2024 presidential run.“Those comments were reckless” and “a terrible risk to the American people”, Pompeo said on the Republican-friendly Fox News network.Kirby on Sunday also declined to weigh on a recent explosion on the Kerch Bridge linking Russia and Crimea, the Ukrainian territory under Russian control.The explosion dealt a blow to Russian military logistics and embarrassed Putin, for whom the bridge had symbolic personal importance. Ukraine has not yet claimed responsibility for the attack, but it has been celebrated by senior leaders in the country.“We don’t really have anything more to add to the reports about the explosion on the bridge,” Kirby said. “I just don’t have anything more to contribute to that this morning.”Kirby also addressed Biden’s comments last week that the US was trying to find where Putin could get an “off ramp” to the war on Ukraine.“Mr Putin started this war and Mr Putin could end it today, simply by moving his troops out of the country,” Kirby said. “He’s the one who chose to start this conflict again and he can choose to end it.”Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February. But Ukraine’s defenders in recent weeks have taken back some of the territories it had lost control of during the invasion.With its hold on Ukraine weakening, Putin recently ordered the mobilization of reservists to reinforce the invasion, which ignited protests in dozens of cities across Russia and has led to long lines at its land borders with other countries.TopicsUkraineJoe BidenVladimir PutinRussiaUS politicsUS militaryEuropenewsReuse this content More

Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America by Maggie Haberman review – the vain sadist and his ‘shrink’ The New York Times reporter’s eagerly awaited book on the ex-US president scathingly exposes the toxic mix of egotism, bigotry and delusion behind his cynical riseDonald Trump has always alternated between snarling at reporters and fawning over them. During his time in the White House he defamed Maggie Haberman as a third-rate drudge or a “crooked Hillary flunkey” and tried to hack her phone to unearth the sources for her revelations about him in the New York Times. He once tweeted an unflattering photograph of her; whenever he saw her on CNN he sneered at her smudgy specs. His animosity amounted, in Haberman’s opinion, to a “fixation”. Yet although Trump knew she was writing a book about his ignorant, incompetent and often insane conduct as president, he welcomed her to his Florida country club and during their last interview remarked to his aides: “I love being with her, she’s like my psychiatrist.”Haberman dismisses the ingratiation, then reflects that Trump “treats everyone like they are his psychiatrists”. He vents experimentally in the hope that others will be able “to decipher why he was doing what he was doing”; while in office he “drove days of news based only on his reaction to people reacting to him”. The crucial difference from a therapeutic session is that this tantrum-prone patient is not hoping for a cure. Instead, his aim is to mystify and, with luck, to madden the world. The White House during Trump’s occupancy was a crib for the mentally stunted monster Freud called “His majesty the child” and cabinet officials spent their days dangling shiny objects to distract him as he “popped off about various topics and chased fragments of conversation about things he’d heard on television”. Haberman’s book is chockablock with scoops, comprehensively leaked to the press before publication, but what singles it out from the competition is its perceptiveness about Trump’s character and the way his private vices became public menaces.Officiating as a harassed shrink, Haberman diagnostically reviews Trump’s early life, when his manias and self-delusions were already blatantly evident. His mentor Roy Cohn, a corrupt and perverse attorney with a scar-pocked face and the habit of deliciously licking his lips as he uttered curses, taught him the uses of “emotional terrorism”. Negotiating with mafia thugs and political bosses during his years as a property developer in New York, Trump devised the tricks that have served him ever since: brazen lying, performative rage, chaotic plotting that sets allies at odds with one another. These tactics expose his gamesmanship, since power for him means unhindered play, kept going by double and triple bluffs. Hence his current claim, after the FBI raided his country club to retrieve the cartons of contraband nuclear secrets hidden there, that he could declassify such documents simply by thinking that he had done so.Trump’s fabled, probably fabulated wealth also amounts to no more than random zeroes dancing in his head: his net worth, he admitted in 1991, “fluctuates with attitudes and feelings, even my own feelings”, since billions of dollars are merely “mental projections”. This confidence man defies the suckers to believe in him or vote for him and he mocks them when they are dim enough to do so. “Look at those losers,” he sneered at the customers who squandered their welfare cheques in his Atlantic City casino – though Trump himself, bankrupted by the ill-managed venture, was the ultimate loser. “They’re fucking crazy,” he often muttered as he basked in the baying adulation of the mobs at his election rallies.Trump lives, Haberman argues, in “the eternal now”, which is why in his White House no one did any long-term planning. But he is also held captive by an “eternal past” of grudges and grievances, re-enacted in assaults on those who supposedly slighted him. Barack Obama, whom he envied and therefore despised, was exorcised in a hygienic rite: Trump replaced the Oval Office’s en suite toilet because he refused, Haberman suspects, to entrust his arse to the seat used by “his Black predecessor”. On other occasions he seems crassly sadistic or downright evil. He wanted his notional border wall painted black to absorb and reflect the sun’s heat so that the skin of migrants would burn and blister when they touched it. Hitler, he proclaimed during a presidential visit to Europe, “did a lot of good things”.For all Trump’s belligerence, in Haberman’s view he remains fragile and fearful. He dispatched White House valets to fetch Big Macs for his dinner because fast-food restaurants wouldn’t know who they were serving and therefore were less likely to poison him. In the 1980s he required the models he dated to take Aids tests before he would condescend to have sex with them; he still rubs his hands red-raw with disinfectant wipes meant for use on non-porous surfaces (which may be the only symptom of guilt he has ever exhibited). At his pettiest, squeamish phobias such as these shade into prissy vanity. In France in 2018 Trump cancelled a visit to a cemetery for the American war dead when the weather changed: he explained that he didn’t want to get his hair wet in the rain. In his first television address about Covid-19, the prospect of an impending plague mattered less to him than “a visible spot on his white shirt” that he noticed just before the live broadcast began. He took the pandemic as a personal slight: his petulant refrain throughout those two terrible years was: “Can you believe this is happening to me?”Trump “used the government”, Haberman concludes, “as an extension of himself”, treating it as a private enterprise that serviced his appetites, threatened his detractors and enriched his family firm. Even more destructively, he “ushered in a new era of behaviour” by turning hatred into “a civic good”; although he began with puerile name-calling, the vituperation has advanced beyond rhetoric and he no longer bothers to euphemise his appeals to militias such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. It is all at once alarming and absurd, elated by the imminence of a spectacular apocalypse. The Trump show, as Haberman remarks, has “a menacing psychological-thriller score and a sitcom laugh track” playing simultaneously. This is the way the world ends, with both a bang and a hollow, cynical guffaw.TopicsBiography booksThe ObserverDonald TrumpPolitics booksUS politicsreviewsReuse this content More

The Persuaders by Anand Giridharadas review – why it pays to talk in a polarised world The US journalist and TV pundit has written an engaging and provocative study of the dangers of political purityIt is a mark of the problem that The Persuaders seeks to describe that I had to force myself to sit down and read it. Anand Giridharadas, well known in the US as a journalist and TV political pundit, has written a thinky book on a subject many of us may feel we’ve heard too much about already – namely, the feedback loops, filter bubbles and interference of Russian bot farms that have led to extreme polarisation in the US and beyond. Giridharadas describes this state of affairs as “Americans’ growing culture of mutual dismissal”, leading to a mass “writing-off from a distance” and the inability of anyone to change their minds about anything. In overview, it looks like a book borne of Twitter discourse, and who needs that?As it turns out, The Persuaders is, well, persuasive, with a mission to find solutions for all this by identifying strategists, activists and thought leaders who have broken through entrenched political indifference or partisanship to build bridges or win over new fans. If the understanding is that no one will cede an inch to the other side, Giridharadas seeks cheering counter-examples, from the coalition behind the 2017 Women’s March, to the explosion in mainstream support for Black Lives Matter, to the rise of figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – her modern campaigning style is studied usefully alongside the less flexible and successful style of Bernie Sanders. The book grapples with the dangers of political purity and how to persuade people from the centre right and flabby middle to the left without diluting the cause. Despite the occasional cuts-job vibe of books by busy media operators, I found it a useful, thoughtful and interesting read.Which is not to say it didn’t annoy me. That’s the point, I suppose. The clever thing about Giridharadas’s approach is that while dissecting the prejudices of others, he flushes out your own kneejerk reactions, a dynamic from which the author himself isn’t spared. In the chapter on the Women’s March, the Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, one of the organisers, describes how alienated she was by the movement’s roots in “white feminism”. There are readers who, presented with other names from the Women’s March leadership team, will have an equally forceful recoil, thanks to their perceived links with antisemitic figures.The concern around white feminism is given many pages of thoughtful discussion. The latter worry, triggered by support among some march organisers for Louis Farrakhan, the antisemitic leader of the Nation of Islam, is given half a sentence. One requires understanding; the other is largely dismissed. The effect of this, deliberately or otherwise, is to underscore the need for everyone to consider the alternative view. Multiple interviewees with decades of activism behind them express frustration at the present state of leftwing politics and its habit of either occupying a drippy middle ground or else digging into the narcissism of small difference. In the era of no microaggression going unpunished, the book makes the case through various veteran activists that not only is the purity spiral counterproductive to broadening the movement, it is, for those pursuing it, almost addictively recreational. As the author writes: “Social media rewarded the hunt for apostates more than the conversion of non-believers.”Loretta Ross, a pioneering activist and theorist in Black radical feminist tradition, puts it this way: “I think the 90-percenters spend too much time trying to turn people into 100-percenters, which is totally unnecessary.” She means those ostensibly on the same side who say: “If you’re not working on my issue from my angle, then you’re erasing my issue. If you’re championing economic justice, you’re problematic for minimising race. If you’re championing racial justice, you don’t post enough about the ills of capitalism. If you’re focused on long-term climate change, you’re neglecting the here-and-now needs of poor communities.” These fights only hurt the progressive cause. It’s OK to call people out, but understand what you’re reaching for, she says. “You can’t change other people. You can’t even change the person you’re married to. You can help people. You can expose people to different information and help them learn – if you do so with love.”What this means in some contexts, argues Giridharadas, is shelving what feels good for what actually works. One chapter studies a fascinating programme trying to stop rapists reoffending by educating them on feminism, which requires a huge emotional effort on the part of the female educators to overcome what Ross calls “the justified instinct to focus on those hurt by the problem, not those perpetrating it”. Who wants to put resources into engaging with a rapist at the expense of funding his victims? But if it’s the most effective way to reduce rape, it’s at least worth considering.The most skippable stretch of the book is a long, Wikipediaesque biography of Ocasio-Cortez, all well-rehearsed information by this point. And there are occasional, inadvertently funny passages. An account of a consciousness-raising group of white people trying to become better educated about their own race privilege contains a testy back and forth over whether the description “recovering racist” implies that they are, in fact, racist, that is pure Monty Python.By far the most fascinating and potentially useful case study is that of Anat Shenker-Osorio, the communications strategist for progressive causes, whose tactics, pegged to the data, have exposed a lot of shortfalls in leftwing political campaigning. Shenker-Osorio points out that when people get frightened, they skew right; when they feel compassion and common cause with their fellow humans, they skew left. The left has often made the mistake of tailgating on the right’s framing of a discussion, piping up “We too are tough on law and order!” rather than calling out the right’s way of sowing disagreement between groups. “What is it about winning that is distasteful to you?” she says drily to a campaigner fixated on small differentials in language. She also counsels the left to cheer up. “Many progressive and Democratic messages basically boil down to ‘Boy, have I got a problem for you!’” – proven to be a big downer at the polls. “You’ve got to sell people on the beautiful tomorrow.”Exacerbated by new technology, these are, nonetheless, very old problems. As Saul Bellow put it in The Adventures of Augie March: “That’s the struggle of humanity, to recruit others to your version of what’s real.” This enjoyable, helpful read may, paradoxically, suspend our solipsism for long enough to better prosecute that recruitment.TopicsPolitics booksThe ObserverBlack Lives Matter movementFeminismAlexandria Ocasio-CortezUS politicsreviewsReuse this content More

Republican Chuck Grassley vows to vote against a national abortion banThe longest-tenured US senator joins a growing chorus of conservative lawmakers opposed to such a restriction The longest-tenured Republican in the US Senate has pledged to vote against a national ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy which a prominent fellow party member and chamber colleague proposed last month, joining a growing chorus of conservative lawmakers opposed to that idea.Chuck Grassley, who’s been one of Iowa’s senators since 1980 and is seeking an eighth term in his seat during November’s midterms, expressed his opposition to such a ban during a televised debate Thursday night with his Democratic challenger Mike Franken.Anti-abortion Republican man says: I wish women could decide on lawRead more“I would vote ‘no,’” the 89-year-old lawmaker said in the verbal faceoff with Franken, a retired Navy admiral who’s thought to be more than 9 percentage points behind Grassley in the polls, according to the website FiveThirtyEight.Grassley’s remark during the recent debate is by no means an indication that he’s softening an anti-abortion stance that is typical among Republicans. He was among 43 GOP co-sponsors of a federal ban on aborting pregnancies beyond 20 weeks that was pitched last year by Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina.Graham last month introduced a bill aiming to ban abortions after 15 weeks with few exceptions, and just nine Republican senators co-sponsored the measure. Grassley was not among those nine.Graham’s fellow Republicans likely have met Graham’s bill with a cold reception because polling data show many voters disapproved of the US supreme court’s decision in June to eliminate the nationwide abortion rights that had been established by the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade. In fact, one poll found that as many as 60% of voters support abortion rights in most are all cases.The Hill reported on its website that Grassley may have adopted his position on Graham’s more recently proposed ban out of fear for motivating opposition among Democratic voters in Des Moines and Iowa City, areas that are significantly more liberal than the rest of the strongly conservative state.Donald Trump won Iowa when the Republican captured the Oval Office in 2016 and then lost it to Joe Biden in 2020. The state had gone to Biden’s fellow Democratic president Barack Obama in the previous two elections.During the midterms, the Democrats are trying to preserve their advantage in a Senate that is evenly divided but which they control because of a tiebreaker vote in Biden’s vice-president Kamala Harris.Nonetheless, even if they lose the chamber to the Republicans, the party’s Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said that he doesn’t envision bringing Graham’s 15-week ban up for a vote in 2023. McConnell, of Kentucky, has said he believes each state should determine the legality of abortion in their jurisdiction.Since the supreme court’s controversial abortion ruling in June, the legislatures of 26 states have prohibited, severely limited or were expected to impede access to the termination of pregnancies, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. Meanwhile, just 21 American states had laws protecting abortion access.The co-sponsors of Graham’s proposed 15-week ban are Steve Daines of Montana, Marco Rubio of Florida, Kevin Cramer and John Hoeven of North Dakota, John Thune of South Dakota, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Roger Marshall of Kansas, and Josh Hawley of Missouri.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022AbortionRepublicansIowaUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

DeSantis stays off path of political controversies in hurricane aftermathRightwing governor known for aggressive, culture-war brand of populism gives softer demeanor after storm, destroying opponents’ hopes of toppling him If such a thing can be said following a devastating hurricane that took the lives of more than 100 people, caused tens of billions of dollars in damage, and changed the face of south-west Florida forever, Ron DeSantis has had a good storm.The rightwing Republican governor has become a near ever-present face on national television during the aftermath of Hurricane Ian, largely steering clear of the political controversies that have plagued him in recent weeks as he sought to bring a calm and reassuring face to a fast-moving tragedy.It was a previously unseen side of a politician better known for his aggressive, culture-war brand of populism that has elevated him as a rival in the Republican party to Donald Trump. It even earned some praise from Joe Biden, his Democratic bete noire who visited Fort Myers this week to tour hurricane damage.“I think he’s done a good job. We have very different political philosophies … but we worked hand in glove,” the president said of a man many expect to be challenging him for the White House in the 2024 presidential election.“And on things related to dealing with this crisis, we’ve been completely lockstep. There’s been no difference,” he added, acknowledging the partnership between the DeSantis administration and federal agencies.Biden’s affirmation on Wednesday, as the immediacy of Ian’s search and rescue missions began to evolve into a relief and recovery effort, came little more than a month before the 8 November midterms, in which DeSantis was already heavily favored to win a second term as Florida governor.To some analysts, it left opponents’ hopes of toppling him lying deep among the hurricane wreckage.“Biden essentially ended the intellectual argument for any swing or undecided voters to pick Charlie Crist over DeSantis. The 2022 race for Florida governor is officially over,” Peter Schorsch, publisher of Florida Politics, said in a withering assessment of the Democratic candidate’s chances.Other observers contrast DeSantis’s softer demeanor during the hurricane with the prickly, hardline disposition more familiar to viewers of Fox News, the governor’s preferred megaphone.“In a lot of ways [the hurricane] has been golden because it allowed him to step away from politics and to really exercise his crisis management skills, and to seem compassionate, two things that we don’t see a lot of,” said Susan MacManus, distinguished professor emeritus of political science at the University of Florida.“It was an opportunity to go to different parts of the state and exhibit compassion for the people living here, the workers and the circumstances. Floridians are so used to seeing his political side, but this was a golden opportunity to see his management and people skills side.”A debate between DeSantis and Crist, scheduled for 12 October, was postponed because of the hurricane, with no make-up date yet set. It adds up, MacManus believes, to an even steeper mountain to climb for Crist, himself a former Florida governor when he was a Republican.“Here’s Crist with barely enough money to run any ads because he expended a lot when he was in the primary, plus outside donors haven’t really been willing to put a lot of money into the Crist campaign,” she said.“The two things, the free exposure that DeSantis has, plus canceling or at least delaying the debate, make it very difficult for Crist to close the gap.“I’m an analyst for a television station on campus and even this week we’ve just gone 100% doing stories about hurricane recovery. It won’t be until next week where we really see it ramping up again, and that’s a very short amount of time with mail-in ballots already going out.”A Mason-Dixon poll taken before the 28 September storm already had Crist 11% behind, suggesting that messaging over abortion and the backlash to DeSantis’s political stunt shifting Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Massachusetts were gaining little traction with likely voters.“DeSantis is going to be Governor Hurricane for the next couple weeks,” pollster Brad Coker told NBC.“The disadvantage Crist has is two-fold: he’s completely out of the news and he never managed a hurricane, so he can’t stand up and point to what he did. Crist is totally, totally defanged.”Kevin Cate, a Democratic strategist and former Crist adviser, calculated that DeSantis had earned the equivalent of $110m in free television time from thousands of appearances nationally during the first week following the storm.In Florida, he said, that value was $16.5m, while the Republican also retains a blowout advantage in cash in hand, $110m to Crist’s $3.6m.Both campaigns have resumed television advertising after a brief hiatus during the storm, and Crist’s team claims that since the 23 August primary, the Democrat has received more in fundraising – $4.7m to $4.6m – than his opponent.Southwest Florida is a Republican stronghold, and the party has concerns over the impact of the hurricane could have on the election. Officials in Lee county say they met Thursday’s deadline for sending out mail-in ballots, but with thousands of homes damaged and residents displaced, they say there is no guarantee they will reach their intended recipients.DeSantis could be asked to sign an order allowing early voting sites to be used on polling day, NPR reports, although the governor appears to be reluctant.“I want to keep [the election] as normal as humanly possible. The more you depart, it creates problems,” he said at a press conference on Wednesday.TopicsRon DeSantisUS politicsFloridaHurricane IanfeaturesReuse this content More

Waging a Good War review: compelling military history of the civil rights fight Thomas E Ricks applies a new lens to a familiar story, showing how those who marched for change succeeded – and sufferedThomas E Ricks has written a sweeping history of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, retelling many of its moments of triumph and tragedy, from the Montgomery bus boycott spawned by the courage of Rosa Parks in 1955 to the bodies bloodied and broken by Alabama troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 10 years later.‘It’s good to think strategically’: Thomas E Ricks on civil rights and January 6Read moreThe stories are familiar but Ricks is the first author to mine this great American saga for its similarities to a military campaign.James Lawson, a key figure in training a cadre of influential movement leaders, called it “moral warfare”. Cleveland Sellers said the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign in Mississippi “was almost like a shorter version” of the Vietnam war. Ricks points out that “the central tactic of the movement – the march – is also the most basic of military operations”.But the greatest value of this compelling account lies in its capacity to remind us how a relatively small group of intelligent, determined, disciplined and incredibly courageous men and women managed after barely a decade of pitched battles to transform the US “into a genuine democracy” for the very first time.As Martin Luther King Jr remarked, the attempt to undo the ghastly effects of the 90-year campaign after the civil war to keep Black Americans effectively enslaved became an effort to “redeem the soul of America”.The crucial ingredient was the nonviolent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Ricks writes that it was “at the core” of how the movement “attracted people and prepared them for action”. It was the dignity of the marchers, who declined to counterattack the hoodlums who viciously attacked them, that would gradually “catch the attention of the media, and thereby the nation”.As Gandhi explained it, nonviolence did not “mean meek submission to the will of the evil doer”. It meant “the pitting of one’s whole soul against the will of the tyrant”. As an American disciple explained, “Your violent opponent wants you to fight in the way to which he is accustomed. If you adopt a method wholly new to him, you have thus gained an immediate tactical advantage.”Lawson compared the strategy to “what Jesus meant when he said ‘turn the other cheek’. You cause the other person to do the searching … We will not injure you, but we will absorb your injury … because the cycle of violence must be broken. We want the cycle of violence in America and racism stopped.”Early in the Montgomery protest, after a bomb exploded on the porch of King’s house, “filling the front room with smoke and broken glass”, the budding leader demonstrated his commitment. When supporters gathered, he ordered, “Don’t get your weapons. We are not advocating violence.” Go home, he said, “and know that all of us are in the hands of God.”King said Montgomery “did more to clarify my thinking on the question of nonviolence than all of the books I had read … Many issues I had not cleared up intellectually were now solved in the sphere of practical action.”As in a conventional war, martyrs played a vital role in inspiring soldiers. Nearly all of the students who led sit-ins at Nashville lunch counters had visions in their head of Emmett Tell, the 14-year-old boy who was tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being accused of offending a white woman.During Freedom Summer, in Mississippi in 1964, the brutal murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner became the turning point in the campaign to get the federal government to transform the nation.Two of the victims were white. Ricks writes: “The simple, hard fact was that the American media and public cared more about killings of whites than of blacks. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s hard calculation about white lives mattering more than Black ones had been confirmed … It was no different from Winston Churchill celebrating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”But the most influential martyrs of all were John Lewis and 140 fellow marchers who were brutally attacked as they tried to march from Selma to Montgomery. The images blanketed network television, leading directly to Lyndon Johnson’s speech before Congress one week later in which he electrified the nation by declaring: “We shall overcome.” Just four months later the president signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the movement’s two most significant legislative accomplishments.“Now you were having brought into every American living room … the brutality of the situation,” remembered Bayard Rustin, one of the key architects of King’s March on Washington. “I think that if we had television 50 years earlier, we would have gotten rid of lynching 50 years earlier.”Ricks does a tremendous job of putting the reader inside the hearts and souls of the young men and women who risked so much to change America. In just three months in Mississippi in summer 1964, there were at least six murders, 80 beatings, 35 shootings and 35 church bombings, not to mention policemen who routinely put guns to the heads of protesters and cocked them without firing.The Nation That Never Was review: a new American origin story, from the ashes of the oldRead more“There were incipient nervous breakdowns walking all over Greenwood, Mississippi,” Sally Belfrage wrote to a friend. Her roommate, Joanne Grant, said it was an understatement to say she was frightened most of the time. And yet, “as with all of us, it was the best time in my life. I felt we were changing the world.”Ricks of course points out all the reversals of this progress accomplished by disastrous supreme court decisions and hatred rekindled by Donald Trump. He ends by calling for a “third reconstruction”, a new “focused effort to organize, train, plan, and reconcile”.I only hope this riveting account of the glorious exploits of so many civil rights pioneers will inspire a new generation to make that gigantic organizational effort.
Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968 is published in the US by Farrar, Straus and Giroux
TopicsBooksCivil rights movementRaceProtestMartin Luther KingUS politicsHistory booksreviewsReuse this content More