US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Government by the worst’: why people are calling Trump’s new sidekicks a ‘kakistocracy’

      by

      Matt Gaetz chosen to run the justice department. Fox hosts in charge of the Pentagon and transportation. Elon Musk as head of layoffs. And Robert F Kennedy Jr and Dr Oz overseeing the nation’s health.Some have likened Donald Trump’s administrative picks to a clown car; others are calling our incoming leadership a kakistocracy, or “government by the worst people”, as Merriam-Webster puts it.The word has been trending online, with a burst in search traffic in recent weeks and a new dedicated subreddit. It’s not the first time Trump has (accidentally) made the term famous; many discovered it in his first term. But even after Gaetz’s departure, the kakistocracy of 2016 looks like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood compared with the president-elect’s new batch of sidekicks.It’s not the first time a president has popularized the term. Trump would be horrified to know he shares this distinction with several of America’s least-discussed presidents, including Rutherford B Hayes, James Garfield and Chester A Arthur. This trio – somehow forgettable despite the fact that the middle one was assassinated – led the US from the late 1870s to the early 1880s, a period following Reconstruction that saw the expansion of Jim Crow laws and segregation, as well as another election in which the parties clashed over the results. That span saw a surge in the use of the word, as Kelly Wright, assistant professor of language sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, points out based on Oxford English Dictionary data. “Hayes’ term was absolutely being described as a kakistocracy,” she says. (1880 was also a general election year in the UK, another country known for its contributions to the English language. That year, William Gladstone became prime minister for the second time; perhaps his opponents were among those giving the word a boost.)In fact, as André Spicer wrote in the Guardian in 2018, the term has been around since at least 1644, during the English civil war, when a sermon warned of “a mad kinde of Kakistocracy” looming.Its roots, of course, go back even further – it’s borrowed from the Greek kakistos, or “worst”, which itself probably comes from the Proto-Indo-European word kakka, meaning “to defecate”.In other words, as Nancy Friedman wrote at her Substack on language in 2016, “you could say that kakistocracy is ‘government by the shitty’.”The term resurfaced on both sides of the Atlantic in the 19th century. Initially it tended to refer to government by the “unskilled, unknowledgeable and unvirtuous”, rather than the infallible aristocracy, Spicer wrote, but by the 20th century, it referred more to government by the corrupt. Today, Friedman’s definition seems most apt.But why does a word that is rarely used in common speech have such longevity? Nicole Holliday, acting associate professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, likens the term’s use to identifying a disease: “Some of this is about there being a diagnosis, and if there’s a diagnosis, then maybe there’s a treatment,” she says.Wright agrees. Those embracing the term, she says, may be thinking: “I didn’t know there was a word for this, and now that I do it helps me understand what’s going on.”Americans, Holliday says, love labels. “We like having words for things, because then they seem like they’ve been en-thing-ified” – in what sociolinguists call “enregisterment”, kakistocracy becomes an identifiable phenomenon. “Language is social,” Holliday notes, and when we have “conventionalized ways of talking about things, it makes us feel less alone” – especially when other ways of describing the situation feel inadequate.Of course, it’s not just the modern American left that uses the word; another ex-Fox host, Glenn Beck, used it during the Obama years; Boris Yeltsin also received the distinction. In fact, Wright says, usage has been fairly stable for five centuries.“We have no real opposite of kakistocracy, because competency is assumed to be the normal order of things,” Holliday says. “It’s not notable that the government is being run by the most competent people, because, indeed, that’s what you think should be happening. It’s only notable when it’s not.”

      This article was updated on 21 November 2024 to reflect Matt Gaetz’s withdrawal from consideration for attorney general. More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans agree more than they might think − not knowing this jeopardizes the nation’s shared values

      by

      The United States presents a paradox: Though the media and public opinion suggest it is a nation deeply divided along partisan lines, surveys reveal that Americans share significant common ground on many core values and political issues.

      As a political philosopher, I am deeply concerned about the perceived contrast between the public’s shared political concerns and the high level of polarization that is dividing the electorate.

      Sharing common ground on key issues

      Despite the prevailing narrative of polarization, Americans frequently agree on essential issues.

      For instance, there is widespread support for high-quality health care that is accessible to all and for stronger gun-control regulations. Remarkably, many Americans advocate for both the right to bear arms and additional restrictions on firearms.

      There is strong support for fundamental democratic principles, including equal protection under the law, voting rights, religious freedoms, freedom of assembly and speech, and a free press.

      On critical issues such as climate change, a majority of citizens acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change and endorse the development of renewable energy. Similarly, support for women’s reproductive rights, including the right to an abortion, is widespread.

      Though Republicans tend to be more concerned about the economy when they vote, both Republicans and Democrats rank it highly as a top political priority. Despite a currently strong economy by many standards, however, supporters of both parties believe the economy is performing poorly.

      This fact is likely the result of a combination of pandemic-related factors, from reduced spending and increased saving during the height of the pandemic to lingering inflation, partly triggered by the pandemic. Whatever the reason for this shared pessimism over the economy, it clearly helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election.

      Overall, Americans have a positive view of immigration. That sentiment has declined in recent years, however, as most Americans now want to see rates of immigration reduced – Republicans more so than Democrats.

      Part of the tension in the nation’s thinking about immigration is likely the result of a political culture that favors sensational stories and disinformation over more sober consideration of related issues and challenges. For instance, much of this election’s discourse over immigration was marred by fictional and bigoted accounts of immigrants eating pets and inaccurate portrayals of most immigrants as criminals. It should be evident that even shared political perceptions aren’t always based on good evidence or reasons.

      Despite the existence of so much common ground, Americans see the nation as polarized. Shared values and concerns matter little if constant exposure to disinformation makes it nearly impossible for half the population to sort fact from fiction.

      Believing there is conflict can itself breed more conflict.
      wildpixel/iStock / Getty Images Plus

      The effect of perception

      The perception of division itself can fuel distrust where common ground might otherwise be found among citizens.

      Even with substantial consensus on many issues, the perception of polarization often drives public discourse. This misalignment can be exacerbated by partisans with something to gain.

      Research shows that when people are told that experts are divided on an issue, such as climate change, it can lead to increased polarization. Conversely, emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus tends to unify public concern and action.

      The perception among U.S. voters that they disagree more than they agree can precede and perpetuate discord. Differing political camps begin to perceive each other as foes rather than fellow citizens.

      This continued perception that Americans are more divided on issues than we actually are poses an enormous threat to democracy. The biggest threat is that people begin to see even neighbors and family members who vote differently as enemies. Stress about holiday interactions with relatives who voted differently is reportedly leading some people to cancel family gatherings rather than spend time together.

      Yet, Americans are still potential allies in a larger fight to realize similar political aspirations. If people are too busy attacking each other, they will miss opportunities to unite in defense of shared goals when threats emerge. In fact, they will fail to recognize the real threats to their shared values while busily stoking divisions that make them increasingly vulnerable to disinformation.

      Volunteering, like these people sorting donated meals for medical patients in Colorado in 2023, can be a way to share priorities and form real connections with community members who have different political views.
      Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

      Bridging the gap

      Recognizing the public’s shared values is an important step in healing political divides. Philosopher Robert B. Talisse has argued that one way to get started might be refocusing attention on community projects that are nonpolitical but bring together people who don’t normally think of each other as political allies.

      This might include, for example, participating in civic or sports clubs, or volunteering to help with local community events. These actions are not overtly politically charged. Rather, they are collaborative in a way that supports community identity rather than partisan identity. It is an exercise in rebuilding civic trust and recognizing each other as fellow citizens, and perhaps even friends, without the tension of partisan politics. Once this trust in each other’s civic identity is healed, it can open a door for meaningful political discussion and understanding of each other’s shared concerns.

      If we Americans don’t find ways to recognize our shared values, and even our shared humanity, we won’t be able to defend those values when they are challenged. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Democrats must radically rethink foreign policy | Anatol Lieven

      by

      In domestic political terms, the foreign policy of the Biden administration has proved almost unimaginably successful – for Donald Trump, whom it enabled to run for president as the representative, however mendaciously so, of foreign policy restraint. A deep and searching debate on the Democratic party’s approach to foreign affairs is now essential.Since the second world war there has only rarely been a significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy. The most significant divergence around the time of the backlash against the Vietnam war (initiated by a Democratic administration) and Watergate. This, however, lasted barely a decade.After the end of the cold war, Democrats wholeheartedly adopted the “Wolfowitz Doctrine”, whereby the US should aim to be a hegemon not just in the world as a whole, but in every region of the world: in effect, an extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the entire planet. Barack Obama tried, to a limited extent, to push back against this, but was largely frustrated by the US foreign and security establishment – the so-called “Blob”.Can the Democrats break free from the hold of the Blob? If they were guided by US public opinion, it should be easy for them to do so. According to a recent poll, only 56% of Americans think that the US should play an active role in world affairs – among the lowest level recorded since the end of the Vietnam war. Only a third of Americans overall, and only a minority of Democrats, believe that spreading human rights and defending other nations are important goals. Large majorities in both parties prioritise domestic spending over foreign commitments.And indeed, responding to this public mood, Biden ran in 2020 on the slogan “A foreign policy for the middle class”. Very soon, this joined George Bush’s promise in 2000 to pursue a more modest and restrained foreign policy in the dustbin of history, and Biden was quoting Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, about America being “the indispensable nation”.Three overarching principles need to shape a new Democratic party approach. First, US policy needs to prioritise common threats to humanity, climate change first among them and international cooperation to address these threats. Second, to achieve such cooperation, the US needs to abandon its messianic strategy of spreading “democracy” through US power, which has become in practice little more than a means of trying to undermine rival states.Instead, it should return to relying on the force of US democratic example – if that example can in fact be renewed. There is after all a certain contradiction in Democrats calling the new US president a fascistic would-be dictator elected by a majority of illiterate bigots, and telling the rest of the world to adopt the US system.Third, the US needs to pull back from the pursuit of domination in every region of the world and instead adopt a limited and realistic strategy of defending America’s position on the world stage as a whole. In Europe, this means accepting a peace deal with Russia (if Trump can achieve one), abandoning Nato expansion and shifting the chief responsibility for European security on to the Europeans, with the US military functioning only as an ultimate backstop.In the far east, this involves drawing a lesson from the defeat of Russia’s Black Sea fleet by land-based missiles and drones and recognizing that the US navy will soon be incapable of defeating China close to China’s shores – though on the other hand it remains entirely capable of maintaining US dominance of the world’s oceans. This means that the US will need to share power with China and commit itself to the reunion of China and Taiwan, albeit only at some distant point in future.Finally, there is Israel and the Middle East. A progressive party seeking votes from the young cannot succeed without at least some measure of idealism. The sight of a Democratic administration supporting mass murder and ethnic cleansing abroad, while clubbing, arresting and expelling US students protesting against these crimes, will not persuade idealistic young Americans to vote Democratic. What it will do and has done is to persuade even more of them to do what many were doing already: to stay at home, in a mood of nauseated contempt for the entire US political system. The very least the Democratic party should do is to return to the policies of previous US administrations in setting limits to Israeli aggression.Such changes in their approach to the world would be extremely painful and difficult for the Democrats, but the deepening crisis of the western democracies demands radical new thinking. And if an electoral defeat this shattering does not lead Democrats to rethink some of their basic policies, then nothing will.

      Anatol Lieven is director of the Eurasia programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hear me out: RFK could be a transformational health secretary | Neil Barsky

      by

      Among the cast of characters poised to join the Trump administration, no one is as exasperating, polarizing or potentially dangerous as Robert F Kennedy Jr. But in a twist that is emblematic of our times, no single nominee has the potential to do as much good for the American people.Bear with me. RFK Jr has been rightly pilloried for promoting a litany of theories linking vaccines with autism, chemicals in the water supply to gender identity, how people contract Aids and saying the Covid-19 vaccine, which in fact stemmed the deadliest pandemic of our lifetimes, was itself “the deadliest vaccine ever made”. He claimed Covid-19 was meant to target certain ethnic groups, Black people and Caucasians, while sparing Asians and Jewish people.In normal times, these notions would be disqualifying. Spouting unfounded scientific claims is corrosive to a functioning democracy. It weakens the bonds of trust in our public institutions, and feeds the rightwing narrative that all government is illegitimate. This is why, writing in the Guardian this September, I dismissed the prospect of RFK Jr, saying his “anti-vaccine work is more likely to make America have measles again”.But these are not normal times. RFK Jr is Donald Trump’s pick to run our country’s health and human services department. He will have a massive impact on our broken, expensive and largely ineffectual delivery of healthcare services. How shall we deal with this?On one hand, RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine views are beyond the pale. To obtain Senate approval, I think he will have to repudiate the unproven assertion that the Covid-19 vaccine was harmful, and embrace the scientific reality that vaccines for measles, smallpox, coronavirus and other contagious diseases are in fact modern medical miracles that spared the lives hundreds of millions of people. And here is where I will part company with many of my Trump-fighting friends: should RFK Jr be able to abandon his numerous conspiracy theories about vaccines, he can be the most transformative health secretary in our country’s history.This is because RFK Jr has articulated what our Democratic and Republican leaders have largely ignored: our healthcare system is a national disgrace hiding in plain sight. He recognizes the inordinate control the pharmaceutical and food industries over healthcare policy, and the revolving door that exists among congressional staffers, pharmaceutical lobbyists and corporate executives. In testimony during hearings chaired by the Republican senator Ron Johnson this past September, Kennedy offered a lucid analysis of what is making America metabolically sick; he railed against big pharma and big food, and drew links between the damage done by ultraprocessed foods such as seed oils and sugars to our health, as well as the efforts of the food industry to come up with chemicals that make these foods addictive.He advocates banning pharmaceutical advertising on television, and wants to clamp down on the corporate ties to federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Health. (To my knowledge, he has not spoken out against the egregious cost of life-saving drugs or unequal access to medical treatment, but hopefully he will get around to that as well.)We spend $4tn on healthcare annually, and lead the world in spending more than $12,000 per person, 50% more than Switzerland, which is the second biggest spender per capita. American doctors dominate the Nobel prizes for medicine, and our medical schools are considered the best in the world. Yet we appear incapable of stemming the epidemic of chronic diseases. A staggering 73% of us are obese or overweight and more than 38 million people suffer from diabetes.This issue hits home for me, as I was diagnosed with severe type 2 diabetes in 2021, and – after receiving terrible medical advice to rely on insulin and metformin – reversed my condition by adopting a diet low in carbohydrates. This year, I published a “follow the money” series for the Guardian, Death By Diabetes, in which I highlighted the heavy influence of big pharma and big food on the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA is a so-called patient advocacy group that sets the standard of care for diabetes treatment in this country, and yet it accepts money from food companies such as the makers of Splenda and Idaho potatoes – two products which have been found to increase people’s risk of getting diabetes.I subsequently wrote about amputations, and the reality that African Americans with diabetes are four times more likely to endure that grim procedure than white people. I view nutrition and metabolic health as a matter of racial and economic equity. I am clear-eyed, I think, of the serious risks to public health that RFK Jr’s unfounded anti-vaccine views pose. But so long as we still have a voice and can find a drop of hope in these terrible times, I think we should try to tilt policy toward the public good where we can. To that end, here is the game plan I believe RFK Jr should pursue.

      Lose the conspiracies and stick to the science. RFK Jr is right, and there is more than ample research to focus on the deleterious impact of sugars and seed oils. Following the money has always been a valuable strategy. Let’s start there.

      Lean on the vast ecosystem of committed researchers, clinicians and writers who have devoted their career to promoting metabolic health, even while knowing they would forfeit access to government and pharmaceutical grants. Many of these mavericks come from top medical schools, but they are a decided minority on their faculties. They include clinicians such as Georgia Ede, Mariela Glandt, Tony Hampton, Eric Westman, scientists such as Benjamin Bikman, Ravi Kampala, Cate Shanahan, and writers such as Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz and Casey Means. These are heroic people who, in getting to know them and reading their work, I have found to be intellectually honest health practitioners.

      Appoint a diabetes czar to come up with proposals to once and for all fix this deadly and utterly reversible disease. I choose this particularly chronic ailment because it is ubiquitous, ruinously expensive, a disease that disproportionately afflicts the poor, is closely connected to our obesity epidemic, and utterly reversible through diet. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we could finally reverse type 2 diabetes in our lifetime?

      Increase federal funding of nutrition studies. The FDA and NIH historically have tilted the research scales in favor of studies that might produce the next blockbuster drug. In reality, we still do not understand why we get fat and why we have seen an increase in chronic (non-contagious) diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Crohn’s.

      Severely regulate the ability of cereal companies to market their sugary wares to children, and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to barrage the rest of us with advertisements. Will a Republican-controlled Congress allow for more government regulation – even if it saves lives?
      RFK Jr’s ascent represents a tricky issue for people like myself who strongly supported the election of Kamala Harris. Healthcare is far from the only issue I am committed to, and I am disgusted by the Trump administration’s plans to deport millions of undocumented people, its attack on democratic institutions, and possible abandonment of Ukraine and the Nato alliance. While I disagreed with Liz Cheney about many, if not most, issues, I also embraced her apostasy when it came to the election – I adhere to the approach of not interrupting people you disagree with while they are doing the right thing.After writing something unkind about RFK Jr in the days leading up to the election, I received a private note from Jan Baszucki, a prominent metabolic health advocate I have come to admire over the past year. “With all due respect,” she wrote. “I am a big fan of your reporting on type 2 diabetes. But your comments about RFK Jr … are not helpful to the cause of metabolic health, which is only on the national agenda because he put it there.”Leading up to the election, I believed RFK Jr was fair game. I was, and remain, particularly concerned that his fringe ideas about vaccines and poisons would get conflated with his excellent perspective on metabolic health, and hurt the cause. Now I think we should be constructive where we can advance the public good.The larger question hanging over RFK Jr’s term as HHS secretary is whether Donald Trump will back him up when he takes on the pharmaceutical and food industries. The US’s health is not an issue the president-elect has evinced an interest in in the past. And his embrace of corporate executives such as Tesla’s Elon Musk suggests crony capitalism could be the dominant theme of the second Trump administration. But if we know anything about what makes Trump tick, we know that he responds to positive reinforcement.After all, it was the criminal justice advocates such as Van Jones and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who coaxed him into supporting the First Step Act, a significant piece of criminal justice reform (and one which Trump now forswears). As founder of the Marshall Project, the non-profit journalism organization that covers the US criminal justice system, I believe criminal justice reform should also be a matter of national urgency, yet at the time, I was ambivalent about efforts to work with the administration. In retrospect, whatever harm Trump might have otherwise inflicted, I would say we are a better country for the First Step Act.We are in a similar dilemma with respect to healthcare today: the system is ruinously expensive and inhumane. If there is someone in the administration who wants to make things better, let’s not interrupt him.

      Neil Barsky, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and investment manager, is the founder of the Marshall Project More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      As we wait for national legislation, let’s launch a Green New Deal from below | Jeremy Brecher

      by

      As Trump and Trumpism devastate the American political landscape, how can people counter this destructive juggernaut? For the past five years, I have been studying how people are actually implementing the elements of the Green New Deal through what has become a Green New Deal from Below. This framework, which ordinary people are already putting into practice, is an approach to organizing that can form a significant means for resisting and even overcoming the Trump agenda.The Green New Deal is a visionary program designed to protect the Earth’s climate while creating good jobs, reducing injustice and eliminating poverty. The Green New Deal erupted into public attention as a proposal for national legislation, and the struggle to embody it in national legislation is ongoing.But there has also emerged a little-noticed wave of initiatives from community groups, unions, city and state governments, Indigenous American tribes and other non-federal actors designed to contribute to the core principle of the Green New Deal: to use the necessity for climate protection as a basis for creating good jobs and social justice. The US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who helped start the campaign for a Green New Deal, has called it “a Green New Deal from Below”.My new book, The Green New Deal from Below: How Ordinary People Are Building a Just and Climate-Safe Economy, details more than a 100 such initiatives in over 40 states. Some of these initiatives use names like “The DeKalb Green New Deal” and “The Green New Deal for Education”; others don’t use the moniker but apply the same principles. Here are some examples.In DeKalb county, Georgia, on 17 September, the DeKalb Green New Deal presented a 100% clean energy and transportation transition plan. Since it started in 2020, the DeKalb Green New Deal has passed 20 climate action policies, resolutions and initiatives. A local official, Ted Terry, told a news outlet: “Our Green New Deal is specifically a DeKalb Green New Deal – it’s what we think we can do with our own resources, our own land, our own people.”On New York’s Long Island, a co-op led by women of the Indigenous American Shinnecock Nation have fought for and are now exercising their traditional right to cultivate and harvest kelp in Long Island Sound. Their ocean farming extracts carbon and nitrogen from the polluted waters of Long Island Sound and produces an environmentally friendly alternative to fertilizer derived from fossil fuel. It is also producing jobs for impoverished tribal members. This and similar programs are often referred to as a “Blue New Deal”.In Minneapolis, unionized workers who clean downtown commercial office high-rises struck to demand that their employers take action on climate change. The janitors, members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) local 26 who are mostly immigrants and women, won a green education initiative that includes training in climate-friendly cleaning and building management, funded by their employers.In Illinois, the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, promoted by a broad coalition of labor and community groups, sets the state on a path to a carbon-free power sector by 2045 with the nation’s strongest labor and equity standards. The bill will slash emissions, create thousands of new clean energy union jobs, expand union apprenticeships for Black and Latino communities and increase energy efficiency for public schools. It also contains a transition program for families and communities currently reliant on jobs in the fossil fuel industry. Journalist Liza Featherstone has called the legislation a “miniature Green New Deal” for Illinois.In southern states like Texas and Virginia, the Green Workers Alliance has organized poorly paid solar panel installers to establish “a strong, worker-led movement that supports the Green New Deal and a just transition to a renewable economy”. They have connected with hundreds of workers in Facebook groups and listening tours. They have won back lost wages, organized struggles against temp agency abuses and campaigned to pressure large utility companies to transition to renewable energy.With Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress we can still create local programs like the DeKalb Green New Deal with its comprehensive municipal plan for clean energy and its score of concrete climate initiatives. We can still create co-ops like the Shinnecock Kelp Farmers that protect the environment, eliminate carbon pollution, create jobs for deprived communities and increase the power of those marginalized in our political system. Workers like the union janitors in Minneapolis can organize, strike and win both better working conditions on the job and demands that their employers protect the climate.States can follow the lead of Illinois and pass legislation to transition to carbon-free power while creating union jobs for those who need them most and providing a just transition for workers transitioning out of the fossil fuel economy. Workers in the still-burgeoning green industries can organize both to challenge employer abuses and to fight to expand renewable energy to create good jobs and protect the climate.One of the leading proponents of a Green New Deal from Below is Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston. Her programs have included solarization and resilience in poor neighborhoods, a massive construction program called the Green New Deal for Boston Public Schools, a Youth Clean Jobs Corp, and provision of free, nutritious breakfasts and lunches to all of Boston’s 50,000 public school students, prepared by an employee- and Black-owned food service company.Wu has already shown how action by a Green New Deal from Below can resist the coming Trump onslaught. On 12 November she told the Boston Globe that the city’s authorities will not assist federal law enforcement in any mass deportation efforts and pledged to fight the fear that might take hold among some Bostonians when President-elect Donald Trump takes office.The role of the Green New Deal from Below in the Trump era can go beyond such defensive measures. To paraphrase Wu, the impact of the Green New Deal has been to “expand the sense of what is possible”. A core goal of Trump and Trumpism is to obliterate that sense of possibility – the knowledge that through collective action people can improve their lives and their world. The Green New Deal from Below resists that obliteration, with people organizing to build the blocks of possibility right in their own backyards.

      Jeremy Brecher is the author of the new book The Green New Deal from Below: How Ordinary People Are Building a Just and Climate-Safe Economy. He is the author of more than a dozen books on labor and social movements and the co-founder and senior advisor of the Labor Network for Sustainability More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      What’s behind the escalating situation in Ukraine? – podcast

      by

      Tuesday marked 1,000 days of the Ukraine war – a conflict that for months had seemingly no end in sight. Russia has been advancing, but its progress has been grindingly slow, with Ukraine’s resistance struggling with a lack of weapons and aid. Both sides have had problems with morale and recruitment.Over the past week, things have changed. Russia has drafted in North Korean troops, while Ukraine has hit Russia with long-range missiles provided by the US. Dan Sabbagh is in Ukraine and explains how hits to the energy grid could make the difference on the ground, and how important the use of North Korean troops could be given the lack of willing Russian conscripts.Looming over it all, Dan tells Michael Safi, is the impending Trump presidency and the expectation that making “a deal” would be his priority. Is the recent increase in violence a sign that both sides are jockeying for a more powerful negotiating position?Support the Guardian today theguardian.com/todayinfocuspod More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate rejects Bernie Sanders effort to block arms sales to Israel

      by

      The US Senate has blocked legislation that would have halted the sale of some US weapons to Israel, which had been introduced out of concern about the human rights catastrophe faced by Palestinians in Gaza.Senator Bernie Sanders had introduced what are called joint resolutions of disapproval, seeking to block the Biden administration’s recent sale of $20bn in US weapons to Israel.Moves to advance three resolutions all failed, garnering only about 20 votes out of the chamber’s 100 members, with most Democrats joining all Republicans against the measures.The Senate was to vote later on Wednesday on two other resolutions that would stop shipments of mortar rounds and a GPS guidance system for bombs.Sanders introduced the measures in September as Israel continued its assault on Gaza – which has killed at least 43,000 people.“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has not simply waged war against Hamas – it has waged war against Palestinians,” Sanders said a press conference held on Tuesday ahead of the vote.“Much of what’s been happening there has been done with US weapons and American taxpayer support,” Sanders continued, adding that the US has provided more than $18bn in military aid to Israel and delivered more than 50,000 tons of armaments and military equipment.“The United States of America is complicit in these atrocities. This complicity must end.”The Sanders-led effort to stop the flow of arms to Israel came after the country failed to meet the US-imposed deadline of 12 November to increase humanitarian aid and allow at least 350 trucks into Gaza a day. Despite Israel’s failure, the US took no action.Under US law, military assistance must not be given to foreign security forces that have committed human rights violations. However, the Biden administration has largely refused to stop the transfer of weapons to Israel, despite persistent accusations of war crimes from human rights experts.Senator Elizabeth Warren had vocalized support for the resolutions and condemned the Biden administration for not taking action against Israel for failing to meet its deadline for aid into Gaza.“The failure by the Biden administration to follow US law and to suspend arms shipments is a grave mistake that undermines American credibility worldwide,” Warren said in a statement. “If this administration will not act, Congress must step up to enforce US law and hold the Netanyahu government accountable through a joint resolution of disapproval.”It is not the first time Sanders has led such an effort, and this one was not expected to pass. But backers hoped significant support in the Senate would encourage Israel’s government and Joe Biden’s administration to do more to protect civilians in Gaza.The Democratic senator Jeff Merkley, who co-sponsored the resolutions, said he opposed the transfer of offensive weapons used for bombing, which has “produced massive deaths, massive injuries, massive destruction”.“I stand before you today as someone who has spent a lifetime advocating for Israel’s economic success and for their security in a very difficult part of the world,” Merkley said, adding: “But the Netanyahu government has taken policies that are out of sync with American values.”More than 65% of housing, schools and healthcare facilities have been destroyed by Israeli forces, according to UN data. All 12 universities in the territory have been damaged or destroyed, according to Wafa, the Palestinian news agency. The UN also estimates that about 90% of Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians have been displaced. Humanitarian groups on the ground have reported malnutrition and starvation and global food security experts say famine in northern Gaza is imminent.A spokesperson from Oxfam, a British non-governmental organization that has been providing aid to the displaced in the region, said: “The Senate must vote to finally end arms transfers to Israel, as we see the crisis continue to escalate with warnings of imminent famine and entire communities being permanently erased in North Gaza governorate.“Israel is blocking humanitarian aid, and is meanwhile using US weapons in attacks that have killed thousands of children, aid workers, and journalists, destroyed schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure for clean water and more, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, where there is nowhere safe.”It has been more than a year since Hamas’s surprise and deadly attacks last 7 October. Negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas have repeatedly failed.AFP and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump likely to choose surgeon and writer Marty Makary as FDA chief

      by

      Donald Trump is likely to choose the Johns Hopkins surgeon and writer Martin Makary to lead the Food and Drug Administration, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.Makary raised concerns about a number of public health issues during the Covid pandemic, touting the protection from natural immunity and opposing Covid vaccine mandates.The FDA is the world’s most influential drug regulator with a more than $7bn budget. It is responsible for approving new treatments and ensuring they are safe and effective before entering the biggest and most lucrative market. It has regulatory authority over human and veterinary drugs, biological medicines, medical devices and vaccines.The agency is also responsible for maintaining safety standards for the food supply, tobacco, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, said he would not speculate on or get ahead of any announcement.As FDA commissioner, Makary would report to the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.To lead HHS, Trump has nominated Robert F Kennedy Jr, an environmental activist who has spread misinformation about the safety of vaccines and one of several unconventional Trump picks for top administration jobs.As a doctor, Makary was a co-developer of the Surgery Checklist, a routine for surgeons that improved patient outcomes and has been spread around the globe by the World Health Organization.His most recent book, Blind Spots, was published in September. In interviews promoting the book, he spoke against what he called “massive overtreatment” in the US that he called “an epidemic of inappropriate care”.He has advocated for re-examining the use of hormone replacement treatment in menopausal women, reducing overuse of antibiotics and reforms to medical education.Makary, who lives in Baltimore, has served as an adviser to the conservative healthcare thinktank Paragon Health Institute in Washington.If confirmed by the Senate, he would succeed Dr Robert Califf, a cardiologist and researcher who also held the role of FDA commissioner in the Obama administration.In his second term, Califf revamped the agency’s food operations and inspections processes and tried to combat misinformation. More