US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      I’d much rather share a ladies’ room with Sarah McBride than with Nancy Mace | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Since the conversation, if you can call it that, about trans people always seems to come down to bathrooms, I am sure of one thing.I would much rather share a ladies’ room or a locker room with Sarah McBride than with Nancy Mace.McBride, of course, was just elected to Congress and, in January, will be the highest-ranking elected official in America who is transgender. The 34-year-old comes to the US House of Representatives after serving in the Delaware legislature; before that, she was the national press secretary of the Human Rights Campaign.Mace, a member of Congress from South Carolina since 2021, has been on an ugly campaign in recent weeks clearly intended to belittle and marginalize McBride – and to get on TV as much as possible doing so. She has filed a resolution, and the House speaker, Mike Johnson, has given it his nod of approval, that would somehow force trans people to keep out of the congressional bathrooms that reflect their gender identity.“If you think this bill is about protecting women and not simply a ploy to get on Fox News, you’ve been fooled,” wrote Natalie Johnson, Mace’s former communications director. She added, pointedly, that a real effort to protect women would involve “a bill to bar Matt Gaetz, a sexual predator with an affinity for underage girls, from ever walking those halls again”. (Trump, as you know, tapped the far-right former Florida representative as his attorney general as part of this month’s parade of appalling cabinet choices. Gaetz later withdrew from consideration.)On Wednesday, McBride reacted with dignity to all the performative insults and abuse. She simply responded that she would follow the rules and that she’s in Congress to represent her Delaware district; I’m sure she’ll eventually find ways to continue her admirable advocacy.Mace, on the other hand, can’t be described as dignified. She’s running around pasting the word “biological” on restroom doors for photo ops, and snidely tweeting in McBride’s direction about International Men’s Day.And she’s getting plenty of the media attention she craves.On one level, this is all part of the unending circus of the Trump era.On a human level, it’s scary, wrong and damaging.“As a trans person myself, I’m really worried about where this is headed,” wrote Parker Molloy, who writes incisively about politics and media in her newsletter the Present Age. “I spend each day worrying about whether or not the healthcare that keeps me alive will remain legal, whether I’m going to face new restrictions on where I’m allowed to exist in public, what would happen to me if (god forbid) I wound up in prison for some reason, and whether or not my identity documents like my passport will be retroactively made invalid.”She added poignantly: “Now, more than ever, I feel alone.”Trans students may have it even worse. Again, it often comes down to bathrooms.A lot of children, especially transgender and gender-nonconforming children, avoid bathrooms all day, since that’s where the bullying can be most intense. Thus, advocates say, trans kids often are prone to urinary tract infections or eating disorders because they’ve avoided eating and drinking.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs for the right’s obsession with trans students on sports team, the vast majority have no unfair advantage on the playing fields (or courts, or pools). They are just trying to reap the same benefits of sports as do other kids – leadership, teamwork and friendship.The meanspirited and misinformed narrative about transgender people makes it difficult for them to feel cared about and to live full lives.But don’t try to tell that to Mace, whose preoccupation is not with kindness or decency, but with getting attention and winning the culture wars.As the Daily Beast reported last year, Mace’s staffers were given a handbook that outlined just how intensely this mattered to their boss; they were told to book her on TV multiple times a day, amounting to nine times a week for national outlets and six times a week for local outlets.In 2021, Mace depicted herself as supportive of LGBTQ+ rights. That was before the tide turned so forcefully and, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post put it, before “the Republican base had been fed a steady diet of anti-trans rhetoric, making trans issues fertile ground for anyone willing to engage in the fight”.Mace, clearly, is more than willing.If that means being cruel, then so be it. As writer Adam Serwer observed about Trumpian politics: “The cruelty is the point.”Meanwhile, vulnerable and marginalized people are made to suffer for trying to be true to themselves. And despite the progress shown by McBride’s election, the world around this milestone seems to be getting increasingly harsh.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk has cozied into Trump’s White House. How long will this bromance last? | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      It’s deja vu all over again, again. In the wake of Donald Trump’s decisive re-election, his transition team has moved to pack his cabinet and adviser positions with figures straight out of the Star Wars cantina – some of the most dangerous and bizarre sideshows from every corner of his chaotic galaxy.In the Trump Cinematic Universe, loyalty usurps qualification. That’s why Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host who wants to eliminate “woke” officials from the military, got tapped to oversee our national defense. And it’s why Matt Gaetz was asked to helm the very Department of Justice that was investigating him for alleged sex trafficking, before his abrupt withdrawal from consideration.But perhaps no figure better captures the cartoonish nature of Trump’s staffing philosophy than Elon Musk, the literal richest man on Earth, who has somehow grabbed the wheel of a presidential transition that’s navigating the road ahead about as well as one of his Teslas.From offering his two cents on presidential appointments, to joining calls with the Ukrainian president, to adjudicating the race for Senate majority leader via an X poll, the man who broke Twitter now has his sights set on breaking the federal government. He’s poised to hack the budget, ramrod in his half-baked policy musings and push through deregulation that will inevitably benefit his fleet of companies.Like any great romcom, Musk and Trump got off to a rocky start. Two years ago, before he donned a “dark gothic Maga” cap himself, Musk was urging Trump to “hang up his hat”, and Trump was calling Musk too chicken to buy Twitter. But then Musk did buy Twitter, and began diligently turning it into a bastion of rightwing misinformation called X.The arc of this entanglement reached its inevitable conclusion when Musk rewired the platform’s algorithm to promote his own conspiracies about immigrants and election interference, while also giving free advertisement to Trump to the tune of 2bn views. Though Trump was already the first major party nominee to own a social media platform in Truth Social, he now essentially leases a second one for free.While Trump received support from Musk gratis, his voters received million-dollar checks. For all Musk’s handwringing about “ballot harvesting”, he engaged in a brazen election interference scheme when he more or less paid citizens to vote for Trump.Musks’s so-called sweepstakes, which a Pennsylvania court waved through, culminates big money’s political playbook. Billionaires no longer need to launder their bribes through Super Pacs with vaguely patriotic names. They can avoid that rigmarole, cut out the middleman and offer direct financial incentives for supporting whichever candidate they deem most favorable to their business interests.And now that Musk’s doubtfully legal efforts have paid off in the election of the country’s first president with a felony conviction, the true singularity can begin – not the merging of humans with AI supposedly portended by Neuralink, but of Musk’s agenda with Trump’s. There’s no shortage of “catastrophic conflicts of interest”, to quote former chief of government ethics Walter Shaub. Sure enough, Musk’s corporate empire has received $15bn in public contracts, while facing 20 federal investigations. But it would be no more than coincidence should that first number skyrocket and the second number plummet over the next four years.More troubling than his informal heft as Trump’s self-proclaimed “first buddy”, though, is Musk’s appointment to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency – which, as many have pointed out, somehow takes two people to lead. This glorified taskforce has a mandate to slash government costs, regulations and employment. With his typical spunk, Musk has pledged to eliminate a third of the $6.75tn federal budget, not unlike how he cut half of Twitter’s workforce.Fortunately for Musk, that austerity doesn’t extend to his own bank account, which has received a generous Trump bump. Post-election Tesla stock surges have already earned him $70bn, and Musk’s appointment may also qualify him to receive a massive tax break. That seems only appropriate given that this faux department’s name abbreviates to Doge, a cryptocurrency that Musk owns “a bunch of”.Nevertheless, the patent absurdity of the Musk-Trump pact just might offer a silver lining for Democrats. First, analysts and casual observers alike remain skeptical of how long the honeymoon can last between two narcissists whose power is exceeded only by their pettiness. Their relationship, like Trump’s coalition at large, is perilous and fragile.Second, Doge’s recommendations are just that: nonbinding. Trump himself has described Musk and Ramaswamy as offering “advice and guidance from outside of government”. That means the Department of Government Efficiency is not actually a department, nor is it government – so its proposals can be dispensed with efficiently.This cuts both ways. The few worthy, populist ideas that could expand the Trump administration’s appeal – like reining in the Pentagon – will never get past a Republican House of Representatives. And if they dared touch entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, there won’t be a Republican House for much longer.Musk is clearly attempting to emulate Trump’s governing style. But Trump has consistently proven a more effective huckster than head of state. On the campaign trail, he was a Rorschach test: voters projected their grievances and aspirations on to his concepts of a plan. But a record is concrete. Soon enough, reality will sharpen into undeniable focus, one bad bromance at a time.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editorial director and publisher of the Nation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We create gods because the world is chaos’: Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci on celebrity, sin and papal thriller Conclave

      by

      Faith, death and vengeful vaping: of all the Oscar contenders this year, Conclave is the one that best combines chewy religious inquiry and lavish side-eye. Adapted by Wolf Hall screenwriter Peter Straughan from the Robert Harris novel, Conclave has been directed by All Quiet on the Western Front’s Edward Berger as a heavy-breathing battle for hearts, minds and power.Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence, who, after the sudden death of the pope, must park his own religious doubts to wrangle the 113 cardinals who have descended on the Vatican. These men will be sequestered until they can elect one of their number as the new pontiff. Among them are the gentle progressive Bellini (Stanley Tucci) and smooth traditionalist Tremblay (John Lithgow). Both have secrets. But are they as lethal as those of their friends – and rivals?The film was shot in Rome 20 months ago; triangulating the actors’ schedules for a reunion seemed to take almost as long. Fiennes is completing work on a new Alan Bennett adaptation and zombie follow-up 28 Years Later; Tucci shooting the Russo brothers’ latest and promoting his new memoir; Lithgow stars at the Royal Court in new play Giant, as Roald Dahl, railing against accusations of antisemitism.In the end, they all dialled in early one morning from different parts of London. Fiennes was in a tasteful kitchen and vast cardie, Tucci his home office, teetering with books and sketches, while Lithgow beamed from a creamy Chelsea rental.View image in fullscreenCatherine Shoard: Did any of you find or renounce God while making the film?John Lithgow: No. But we were in Rome, so taking a warm bath in Renaissance Italian art, which is as Christian as you can get. And we were working on something that really felt worthy. So it was a spiritual experience.Stanley Tucci: I was raised Catholic but broke with the church. It just never made sense to me. It was a myth I had great difficulty believing. But as John said, being in Rome is always incredibly moving. I remember as a kid living in Italy and being profoundly moved by the experience of going into a church, simply because of the art and the amount of time and energy that was devoted to creating it – and sustaining the myth. But it didn’t sway me one way or the other.Ralph Fiennes: I feel a bit differently. My mother was a committed Catholic, but quite enlightened. She had brothers and a great uncle who had been priests. My great uncle, Sebastian Moore, is quite a well-known theologian. So God was not unfamiliar to me. Questions about faith were something I grew up with.I rebelled against my upbringing when I was 13. I said to my mother: “I’m not going to mass.” I didn’t like the heaviness. There was a very claustrophobic, dominant feeling from the church in Ireland, where we then were living, in the early 70s. I hated the sense of compulsion and constriction.I don’t think of myself as a practising anything, but I’ve never stopped having a curiosity about what it is to have faith. I’m also very moved by what we can encounter with the art the church has produced. Not just the Catholic church. I was in Thessaloniki recently and went to a museum of icons there, which was profoundly moving. What is it that makes us want to build these churches and shrines? Faith is a huge, potent thing that mankind seems to want to have, even if the forces of logic and science and reason go against it. I’m curious about that energy.CS: Why are people drawn to faith?RF: It’s about looking for answers. Life is messy. Life is shitty. Life is unpredictable. I think human beings want a sense of coherence in their inner selves. And often faith does contain helpful guidances or moral rulings. Of course, the Catholic church has done terrible things. It’s full of twisted and dark corners, but all power structures will go that way. I think the precept of a faith brings people together and gives communities a sense of coherence.Christ was teaching at a time when tiny communities were held together by messengers on horseback or on ships, taking letters or preaching vocally. They didn’t have mass communication. So in a small community, how you cohered was really important. I have some experience with visiting Inuit peoples in northern Canada, where they worship animals and have a real respect for the elements. Their communities have been totally shattered and wounded by encounters with the Christian churches. But they have their stories which help them survive and cohere.ST: I think that this sense of camaraderie and community is something we all long for and there’s no question that the church does that. But we create these ideas of God, or gods, because the world is chaos. It’s to dispel our fears. We have no control over our lives and that causes anxiety. Fear of death is the most potent; we’ve created all these constructs to make ourselves feel better about when we or a loved one dies.View image in fullscreenEach society has their own construct to dampen those fears, to make it OK. If we think about religion as making order out of chaos, it’s exactly the same thing that art does. And yet so much art has been created by the church. Of course all of these incredible artists could only paint religious subjects. I have faith, I have faith in art. That’s where my faith lies.JL: What they said! It’s such a deeply thought-out film. What’s fascinating about telling a story like this is the context of a political event – the election of a new pope – and examining the electorate. The college of cardinals are all men who’ve been drawn to religion by a longing to commit their lives to faith. And so wholeheartedly that they are at the top of the food chain of a great big religious construct.But when it comes right down to it, they all have to vote and compete. There are rivalries and betrayals and deceptions and jealousies and ambitions and aspirations, all of which go counter to the entire reason they’re there: a devotion to Christ and the idea of the Catholic church. Any story with that tension between virtue and sin is automatically great. I think that’s why people are responding so fervently to this film. They see these tensions: men who went into something for deep personal reasons that have gradually been eroded by ambition.CS: Do you think there’s anything unhelpful about the drama of elections? Are we addicted to horserace narratives?JL: It’s inevitable when a leader is chosen that it’s going to get political. But it’s just an incredibly interesting moment for this film to arrive. While we were shooting the film, there was the great fight in the US House of Representatives for the House speaker. There were 15 ballots before Kevin McCarthy finally survived the process – it was just like what we were acting out.View image in fullscreenThat was uncanny event No 1 – the second is what happened two weeks ago. Had the only voters in that been the cast and crew of Conclave, there would’ve been the opposite result. There’s a great liberal tradition in film – and the great example is Mr Smith Goes to Washington. The forces of corruption and money in politics fail at the end and the simple man prevails. That’s very much the movie paradigm. And Conclave basically follows those rules. It’s just amazing the tide has turned so much in the last few weeks. It makes our movie into a kind of wish-fulfilment story – which I think is another reason people have been attracted to it.ST: The film does follow a certain trope, in a way, as the book did. But it’s a fascinating one – and not an easy one. So often movies are made just to make us feel better. That’s why there are so many happy endings in movies, because there are so many unhappy endings in life.CS: In the film someone pointedly says that the papacy is a heavy burden for an older man. Should there be an upper age limit on positions of power? Or even voting for them? In real life, cardinals can’t vote once they’re over 80.RF: It would be a great guideline in the current US government: 80 as a signoff. We’d have two years of Trump but not four.JL: I don’t think it would pass Congress at the moment.RF: But maybe that’s a good idea, to have an age limit on any electoral governmental ruling system. I’m sure that’s smart, but who decides whether it’s 75, 80, 70? There are plenty of people with alert minds working vigorously into their early 80s. But the patriarchal element seems to me one of the looming themes, that begs all kinds of questions. Stanley’s character, Cardinal Bellini, articulates the very, very vital issues of how the church should go forward in relation to gender and sexual identity and diversity. Mostly the film has been well-reviewed. Some people seem to think it’s a bit simplistic, but I think it puts on the table quite coherently and intelligently big themes that could be discussed without it being an attack on the church.View image in fullscreenThe Catholic church is riven with it. That’s why it’s very frustrating to read Saint Paul: he preaches love, but his strictures on women are just horrendous. It’s so conflicted. It needs a good clean out. And yet these patterns of behaviour do seem to appeal to all the world. People love the ritual. They love the tradition. It’s kind of a conundrum, isn’t it? The church is so potent. Clearly it does good. It does lots for suffering peoples and the poor, but it’s also got this other side where it’s so backwards in its conventions and thinking. Its traditions are holding it back.CS: What can the church do to change?ST: Priests should be able to get married. That changes everything. And nuns. Why can’t you be devoted to God and love someone at the same time? I don’t understand that. Priests used to be married many years ago but the Catholic church stopped that. The excuse was that priests needed to devote themselves to God. But really it was because when they died, everything went to their wives. It wasn’t about devotion but money. And I think that’s a problem. Priests being able to be married would ground them in reality and only enhance their spirituality. Let’s just start with that.CS: Yet in the US the democratic process recently embraced a return to patriarchy. Why are people drawn to institutions and leaders who seek to roll things back?View image in fullscreenRF: I think it comes back to a story and how it’s put out. Trump told a story. The way he described the problem with America and what he could do, was a story. He has a remarkable gift for talking and accessing people’s deeper gut feelings. And the story in its simplicity appealed. Whatever you think of the horror of the language and the racism and sexism that we all identify on the liberal side, it speaks to people. He’s the man in the bar who says: “I’ll get rid of this shit. We’ll make your lives better.” His win was a visceral response to a man saying: “I’m going to sort it for you.” Basically, his story won. It’s not my country, but it seems to me that the Democrats were increasingly perceived as a sort of removed elite. Theirs wasn’t a story that I think was put across very strongly. Trump told the best story, whether you like it or not.JL: He also told the story of the Democrats. He dominated the narrative with a much bolder, louder voice, and with the support of a huge amount of the media. Story is a very potent word in in this conversation. The Democrats couldn’t get their story out, or whatever was persuasive and compelling about their story couldn’t rise above all the noise.ST: By simplifying everything, he distilled it down to ideas that were very easy for people to grasp.JL: And that’s how tyranny operates.ST: He just played on everyone’s fears and he did what so many fascistic-minded people do, which is find a scapegoat: immigrants. It’s always the other. So people go: that’s why I have no money, because of that guy. It’s not true, at all. But it works. It’s worked before and it worked again.RF: It seems the rate of inflation in America has wrong-footed a lot of people; the price level people are used to dealing with suddenly went up.JL: Well, there was a simple story to tell there that never got articulated: inflation was substantially a result of the huge crisis of Covid and it had been coming down steadily for months. The Biden administration was doing a very good job at handling an inflation crisis, but that story never got told. And it doesn’t matter how many graphs you see in a newspaper, it still feels like prices are too high. But prices are too high because the country suffered a traumatic economic episode. It was being handled. God knows what’s gonna happen now, with tariffs being the new go-to solution. They’re gonna create inflation.ST: How are tariffs gonna help? I don’t know.CS: Conclave is a very theatrical film. Does all the smoke and bling and the costumes attract certain people to the pulpit? Someone like Trump – embraced by the religious right – is used to being immediately judged on his performance.View image in fullscreenRF: The spoken word in the space to a body of people is the business we’re all in. There’s John every night embodying Roald Dahl with extremely toxic views. In a way that’s a pulpitian provocation. That’s what the theatre does – and Giant is a fascinating, compelling play. As actors, when we speak on a stage and we have our audience, that’s a potent thing that’s created. I don’t know that people are drawn to the church so that they can always be speaking, but clearly if you are a priest, there is that moment when you get up and you deliver your homily for the week. You have to put across a view or a lesson or a teaching or an idea that is meant to send your community out with, hopefully, questions to improve their moral wellbeing or the way they engage with life.My memory of listening to homilies is that they are sort of provocations based in the religious text that say: think about this or think about that. How we listen as a congregation is fascinating. That’s why I love what the theatre is.JL: There’s something in all of us three – actors, not men of the cloth – that is mainly interested in impact. We just wanna reach people, and we’re playing roles and we’re telling stories that are not our personal stories. But the three of us have had hundreds of experiences of reaching people, throttling them with theatrics, making them laugh or cry or scream out in horror.RF: Or go to sleep.JL: Our great ambition is to wake them up and to startle them and get huge rounds of applause. There are two major, beautifully written speeches in our film that have an extraordinary impact on the college of cardinals. That’s why we are in the game. We understand the thrill of succeeding at making an impact.RF: And we understand that crushing disappointment when you realise you haven’t made the impact you’d hoped.JL: Oh, it’s awful!CS: The characters you play are trying to emulate God and falling short. As actors who are public figures, are you more conscious of being treated like quasi-gods – and of your own failings coming under more scrutiny?JL: Different types of actors are treated very differently. I’m a strange actor who’s gone off and done extremely peculiar roles. I’m the go-to psychopath or hypocrite or villain from time to time. I guess all three of us are character actors in a sense. My whole game is surprising people. I have a sort of perverse enthusiasm for upending people’s expectations of me. People don’t go to me for political wisdom. I come off very pretentious if I get anywhere near that kind of talk. But my acting is completely surprising and sometimes revolting. I just go for it.View image in fullscreenST: These people are trying to emulate God and yet they created God. So that’s weird. But without question, people in the public eye are always under more scrutiny. You’re larger than life. But I think that’s changed over the years. You used to see actors on stage, from a distance, in a proscenium. Then you saw them in movies, but still in this big rectangle. Everybody was big and what they did was big. Over the years things got smaller and smaller and now you can put me in your pocket.That changes the way we look at people. It used to be only posthumously that you’d find out somebody in Hollywood was a sexual deviant or a terrible drinker or whatever. In life, it was like: let’s just leave them alone. And everybody did. Television altered how much access to people you were allowed. But now, you can watch me on like your wristwatch and that changes the way you look at me. So people realise that yes, actors are just people. But they still want them not to have these faults. Yet they can’t wait to find out about them.JL: It’s interesting to hear you talk about this, Stanley, because of the three of us people have come to know you the best.ST: Because I made that food show.JL: But that food show is very much the Stanley show and the world has got to know you so well and like you so much. In Rome you were virtually worshipped in that wine shop.View image in fullscreenST: That was really funny. I remember when we went to a grocery store. You were always able to hide behind a persona or a character. So it’s odd because it’s the first time I’ve ever just been myself. And I was very uncomfortable with it at first, even though it was my idea. I don’t know what I was thinking, and now I’m more comfortable with it. I know the idea of connecting through food makes people so happy, so that makes me happy. I just think it’s a nice thing. But I’m never eating Italian food again …RF: I don’t know if priests are emulating God. I think they’re meant to be conduits or shepherds for the message. We’re all sinners – even priests. I think priests or nuns are mostly just answering a calling to preach the message. But of course, if you are preaching the message and you’re in the pulpit, naturally people will expect that you are going to be an example. Cinema is very potent in how it puts an actor’s face on screen. We are conduits for a playwright or a character, we’re not there necessarily preaching a religion or political idea or any kind of philosophy. We’re just drawn to roles. We’re drawn to the drama. The workings of cinema are so keyed into key myths that we want to keep telling ourselves. So audiences will project on to actors huge things, and the media massages the sense of projection. So you suddenly can feel very exposed. People in all forms of entertainment can suddenly realise that there’s an expectation of them as a private person. I think that’s troubling.CS: There are two lines in the film I want to ask your opinion on. The first is: “Things fall apart. The abyss calls out.” Which is a warning from one cardinal about what will happen if the church embraces liberalism. Where do you see the church in 50 years’ time? The second is Stanley’s character’s line that to not know yourself at his age is shameful. Is it, and do you?ST: I’m still learning about myself and trying to make myself better. I don’t always succeed. Sometimes we know ourselves and sometimes we just don’t. I don’t fully know myself. I worry that I’m going to have an epiphany about myself on my deathbed. Then I’ll just die sad.CS: What might it be?ST: Suddenly it’ll occur to me that I really just don’t like myself at all. And then it’ll be over. I’d have no time to rectify it.View image in fullscreenJL: You’d have time for a phone call, Stanley.ST: But I’d wanna go back and change things and make things better and I’ll just be dead.JL: By now, I have settled into a strong sense of myself as a good actor. I wouldn’t work all the time if I weren’t good at it. What I love about the profession is also what makes me feel a little guilty: it seems the most irresponsible thing you can do. Your lines are written for you. Everyone takes good care of you lest you miss a performance or lose a shooting day. You’re treated like a much bigger deal than you actually are. But I think the more you are content with that self-image, the better off you are.RF: I would like to think the church will evolve by dialogue within itself. That it can be a force for good. But I think the evolution of the church is going to be difficult and hard. Our journey through life is a constant evolution with relation to ourselves and in relation to others with whom we connect. There are always traps for us as individuals with our egos and our sense of anxiety. The best of the church or any faith, or any structure, or just your therapist, is in helping each other deal with the world.View image in fullscreenThe acting community at its best is wonderful at supporting each other. The experience where I thought this, at its best, is a fantastic profession to be in, was a production of King John, directed by Deborah Warner at the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1988. The sense of ensemble and community was so fantastic in that production. Everyone flowered in their parts and within themselves as a group. The best the church can be is as a fantastic group. And the energy and the positivity of the group reaches out, and groups everywhere are wonderfully self-supportive of each other.ST: That’s the ideal, but I worry that this right-leaning ideology that’s taking over so much of the world will once again make the church retreat. And that’s really scary.RF: But at the end of our film, the group celebrates the person who seems to me to carry the spiritual depth and coherence and integrity that is needed. Going forward in the world now, we’re very frightened of what might come at us because of what’s happened. But we mustn’t lose sight of the power of what we can have. We must keep intact our aspiration to an ideal. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      James Carville on where he thinks the Democrats went wrong – podcast

      by

      Archive: Pennebaker Associates, McEttinger Films, Cyclone Films, CNN, CBS News, MSNBC, PBS Newshour, BBC News
      Listen to Today in Focus here
      Sign up to The Stakes, the Guardian’s free newsletter on the aftermath of the 2024 US presidential election
      Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Who is Pam Bondi, Trump’s new pick to lead the US justice department?

      by

      Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s new pick to lead the US justice department, was the first female attorney general of Florida but is perhaps best known in recent years as a loyalist to the former president.Trump announced Bondi as his nominee for US attorney general on Thursday hours after Matt Gaetz, Trump’s first pick, bowed out of consideration amid growing Republican opposition following sexual misconduct allegations against him.“I am proud to announce former Attorney General of the Great State of Florida, Pam Bondi, as our next Attorney General of the United States. Pam was a prosecutor for nearly 20 years, where she was very tough on Violent Criminals,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.Bondi has been a chair at the America First Policy Institute, a thinktank set up by former Trump administration staffers, and served on Trump’s first transition team.The 59-year-old has been a longtime Trump ally – she was considered during his first term as a potential candidate for the nation’s highest law enforcement role.Trump was told by advisers that she was a good alternative to Gaetz because she has allies across the Republican party as well as inside Trump’s world, according to people familiar with the matter, the Guardian reported Thursday.Before she became involved in national politics, Bondi spent more than 18 years as a prosecutor in the Hillsborough county state attorney’s office. She was a political unknown when she was elected as Florida’s first female attorney general in 2010 and had received an endorsement from the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.View image in fullscreenShe served as Florida’s top prosecutor from 2011 to 2019, and later as a lobbyist for US and international clients.Bondi’s tenure as attorney general also coincided with two of the most high-profile and deadly shootings the nation has seen. In 2016, after 47 people were shot and killed and more than 50 were injured in an extremist attack on an LGBTQIA+ nightclub in Orlando, Bondi was called out on-air by CNN’s Anderson Cooper over her support for a ban on same-sex marriage in the state.Two years later, 17 students and staff were shot and killed by a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school. Bondi called for the death penalty for the shooter and supported then governor Rick Scott in the passage of the state’s first gun-restriction legislation, which raised the minimum age for someone to buy a gun from 18 to 21. It also appropriates millions of dollars for expanded mental health resources in schools, to build a replacement for Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and for heightened campus security.Bondi’s ties to Trump go back years. While serving as Florida’s attorney general, she backed Trump in 2016 over a candidate from her home state, Marco Rubio.In 2016, the Associated Press revealed that Bondi had personally asked Trump for a donation to her campaign three years earlier. The funds came through a Trump family foundation, which is in violation of policies around charities engaging in politics. The $25,000 donation also came as Bondi’s office was considering joining New York in an investigation of Trump’s universities, over allegations of fraud and false promises about what training and job prospects for students would look like. Once the check arrived, Bondi declined to participate in the investigation, according to the Associated Press.Bondi did try to send the check back, the Florida Times-Union reported, but it was rejected and returned by Trump.Bondi was then one of Trump’s attorneys during his 2019 impeachment proceedings, when he was accused – but not convicted – of trying to make military assistance to Ukraine dependent on that country’s willingness to investigate Joe Biden. And during Trump’s hush-money trial, Bondi was one of a handful of Republicans to show up to court to support him.Bondi has harshly criticized the criminal cases against Trump as well as Jack Smith, the special counsel who charged Trump in two federal cases. She described Smith and other prosecutors who have charged Trump as “horrible” people “weaponizing our legal system”.If she is confirmed, Bondi will join several other members of Trump’s legal team in the justice department.The Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump names Pam Bondi as attorney general pick after Gaetz steps aside

      by

      Donald Trump announced that he would nominate for attorney general Pam Bondi, the former Florida state attorney general, hours after the former representative Matt Gaetz withdrew in the face of opposition from Senate Republicans who had balked over a series of sexual misconduct allegations.The move to name Bondi reflected Trump’s determination to install a loyalist as the nation’s top law enforcement official and marked another instance of Trump putting his personal lawyers in the justice department.Trump almost immediately settled on Bondi as a replacement pick for Gaetz, according to people familiar with the matter. Bondi had not auditioned for the role and her loyalist credentials coupled with her willingness to defend Trump on television made her an attractive pick.View image in fullscreenThe fact that Bondi could count on broad support inside Trump’s world and the Senate Republican conference, in contrast with Gaetz who always faced an uphill struggle, also earned her the endorsement from most of Trump’s senior advisers on Thursday, the people said.“I am proud to announce former Attorney General of the Great State of Florida, Pam Bondi, as our next Attorney General of the United States. Pam was a prosecutor for nearly 20 years, where she was very tough on Violent Criminals,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.“Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again. I have known Pam for many years — She is smart and tough, and is an AMERICA FIRST Fighter, who will do a terrific job as Attorney General!”Should Bondi be confirmed by the Senate in the coming months, it would be a reward for years of her loyalty to Trump which started during the 2016 campaign, when she became an outspoken but fierce defender of his candidacy.She also helped with Trump’s legal defense during his first impeachment trial, parroted claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and continued working as a surrogate through the 2024 campaign when she attended Trump’s criminal trial in New York.Bondi’s elevation to lead the justice department would also come as a result of extraordinary serendipity, after Trump picked Gaetz almost on a whim after he decided against more conventional lawyersThe selection process for major positions has involved Trump pulling up each candidate on a bank of screens at his Mar-a-Lago club and looking for various qualities, including on their perceived loyalty and how they might play on television.Trump did not like the initial list of names that included Mark Paoletta, the former counsel at the White House office of management and budget; Missouri’s attorney general, Andrew Bailey; and Robert Guiffra, co-chair of the New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, and decided he preferred a pugilist like Gaetz.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut the Gaetz nomination sank after a series of meetings on Wednesday with Republican senators. Later that evening, they broadly expressed to the Trump team their continued opposition to the Gaetz nomination, the people said.On Thursday morning, Trump called Gaetz and told him that it was clear he did not have the votes in a rare moment of realpolitik for Trump. Gaetz agreed and took himself out of the running, one of the people said.Gaetz told associates after he announced he was withdrawing his nomination that he faced the reality that at least three senators – Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski – and senator-elect John Curtis, would vote against him and block his confirmation, the people said.From his Mar-a-Lago club, Trump said in a statement: “I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be attorney general. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the administration, for which he has much respect.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Matt Gaetz withdraws from consideration to be Trump’s attorney general

      by

      Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman, withdrew from consideration to serve as Donald Trump’s attorney general on Thursday, amid intense scrutiny of allegations of sexual misconduct, ending the brief nomination of one of Trump’s most controversial cabinet picks.After meeting with senators on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Gaetz determined that his nomination was “becoming a distraction to the critical work” of the new Trump administration, he explained on X.“There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump’s [justice department] must be in place and ready on Day 1,” Gaetz said.“I remain fully committed to see that Donald J. Trump is the most successful President in history. I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the Department of Justice and I’m certain he will Save America.”A source familiar with Gaetz’s nomination process told the Guardian that privately confirmed opposition from four senators – enough to sink the nomination if no Democrats defected – was what pushed Gaetz to decide to withdraw.The announcement comes a little more than a week after Trump said he was nominating Gaetz to be attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.A staunch Trump ally disliked by some fellow Republicans in Congress, Gaetz always faced an uphill battle to be confirmed. He came under intense scrutiny last week over allegations he had sexual relations with a 17-year-old girl.The justice department declined to charge Gaetz last year as part of a sex-trafficking investigation. But details of his encounter and relationships were beginning to seep out. Just before he announced he was withdrawing his nomination, CNN reported that the woman he is alleged to have had sex with when she was 17 told the House ethics committee there had been a second sexual encounter with Gaetz.ABC News and the New York Times reported earlier this week on records of Venmo transactions connecting Gaetz to women who said that he paid them for sex.Gaetz’s announcement comes one day after the House ethics committee deadlocked over releasing its report on the allegations. At least one House Democrat on the committee, Representative Sean Casten of Illinois, said on Thursday he would continue to push for the full release of the Gaetz report.In a post on Truth Social, Trump, who had reportedly been calling senators to lobby for Gaetz’s confirmation, said that “Matt has a wonderful future”.“I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General,” he wrote. “He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!”A staunch Trump ally known for theatrics such as wearing a gas mask on the House floor, Gaetz resigned from Congress the day Trump announced his nomination. It is unclear who Trump will now pick to lead the justice department, which the president-elect has pledged to use to prosecute his enemies.Gaetz’s withdrawal comes as Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, faces accusations of sexual assault. A police report made public this week contains allegations from a woman regarding a 2017 encounter with Hegseth in which she says he took her phone, blocked her from leaving his hotel room and sexually assaulted her. Hegseth has denied the allegations.“Matt Gaetz was a ridiculous, horrible and dangerous AG selection. That Republican senators were not willing to rubber-stamp his nomination is a hopeful sign that a modicum of sanity persists in Washington,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, a watchdog group, in a statement. “But Gaetz was not the only Trump nomination threatening America and there’s every reason to worry about who Trump will appoint in Gaetz’s stead.”Additional reporting from Martin Pengelly More