More stories

  • in

    ‘Demolishing democracy’: how much danger does Christian nationalism pose?

    Bad Faith, a new documentary on the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, opens with an obvious, ominous scene – the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021 – though trained on details drowned out by the deluge of horror and easily recognizable images of chaos. That Paula White, Donald Trump’s faith adviser, led the Save America rally in a prayer to overturn the results for “a free and fair election”. That mixed among Trump flags, American flags and militia symbols were numerous banners with Christian crosses; on the steps of the Capitol, a “JESUS SAVES” sign blares mere feet from “Lock Them UP!”The movement to overturn the 2020 election for Donald Trump was, as the documentary underscores, inextricable from a certain strain of belief in America as a fundamentally Christian nation, separation of church and state be damned. In fact, as Bad Faith argues, Christian nationalism – a political movement to shape the United States according a certain interpretation of evangelical Christianity, by vote or, more recently, by coercion – was the “galvanizing force” behind the attempted hijacking of the democratic process three years ago.Bad Faith traces the origins of the movement as a savvy, disproportionately powerful political force, from churches to Republican political operatives to donors, either from conviction or convenience. “I think a lot of Americans have a very difficult time accepting and understanding the fact that such treason, such anti-democratic activity, could be carried out by people who basically look like Sunday school teachers,” Stephen Ujlaki, the film’s director, told the Guardian. By looking back on the half-century of Christian nationalist belief, organizing and action, the events of January 6 no longer seemed shocking, but the logical endpoint of anti-democratic ideals. “It was unmistakable, once you looked in the right place and you listened to what people were saying, and you understood how to decode what they were saying,” said Ujlaki. “Little would you know that when they talk about recreating the kingdom of God on earth, they weren’t talking about something spiritual. They were talking about demolishing democracy so that God, ie themselves, could rule. And for that reason, I call it a conspiracy carried out in broad daylight.”Though Christian nationalists are quick to invoke the founding fathers, whom they claim were directed by a Christian God, the conspiracy has its modern origins in the 1970s, when the Republican political organizer Paul Weyrich began uniting evangelical parishioners and televangelist preachers like Jerry Falwell with Republican party politics opposing desegregation, via a political action group called the Moral Majority. It’s not that evangelical Christians weren’t political – as the film, narrated by Peter Coyote, points out, the idea of America as a white Christian nation undergirded the Ku Klux Klan, which at its peak in 1924 claimed 8 million members, the vast majority of whom were white evangelicals, including 40,000 ministers.Accordingly, the crucial tie between white evangelicals and the Republican party came not from the 1972 ruling in Roe v Wade, as is often misattributed, but from opposition to a different ruling preventing racially segregated institutions – including schools and churches – from claiming charitable, tax-exempt status. The ruling brought segregated church leaders such as Falwell in alignment with Republican operatives like Weyrich, who cannily realized that emotional arguments against abortion would drive more grassroots support than openly racist talk against desegregation.Bad Faith highlights Christian nationalism’s “origins in the racism, and the segregation mentality, and you can draw a straight line from that to gerrymandering and voter suppression,” said Anne Nelson, a film participant and author of Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right. Christian nationalist supporters, she added, were “very skillful at … framing and branding and messaging, that makes something like voter suppression look like electoral integrity. And they do this time after time, on every front”.The film juxtaposes the decades-long roots of the movement with its evolving principles: that America was founded as a Christian nation, for and by Christians; that maintaining such a state is a divinely sanctioned, righteous fight; that anti-democratic or violent tactics should be employed in the name of God. And in recent years, that Donald Trump – a thrice-married, profligate cheater with too many character scandals to name – is, if not a true “Christian”, a divinely sanctioned “King Cyrus” figure sent to disrupt the secular order. “The divisiveness and the distrust of institutions that we’re seeing today was part of a plan,” said Ujlaki. “It was a result of an actual plan, successfully executed to get to this point. And once the institutions are weakened and people have lost faith in elections, there’s room for the strongman to come in.”View image in fullscreenIn addition to political experts contextualizing the growth and funding of Christian nationalism, Ujlaki also enlisted several prominent, faithful Christians to dispute another of the movement’s prominent myths: that it’s a true distillation of Christian teachings. “It is absolutely not Christian. It is anti-Christian,” said Ujlaki. He quoted the theologian Russell Moore, who calls the movement “heresy” in the film, as well as the Rev William Barber II, whose faith leads him to advocate for wealth redistribution, racial equality and social justice: “They may have their Trump, but they don’t have their Jesus.”“They don’t care about the actual Jesus,” said Ujlaki. That’s underscored by the money trail, followed by Nelson and others, which leads to several non-evangelical donors – the Koch brothers and more – who nevertheless benefit from the movement’s weakening of institutions and drive to the far right, as with the Tea Party movement in 2010. “They’re in bed together, based on economic principles, not theology,” said Nelson.And yet theology continues to drive an anti-democratic movement, for which January 6 was not a disaster but a starting point. Bad Faith ends with a note about Project 2025, announced in December 2023 by the Heritage Foundation. The 900-page document builds on Weyrich’s Conservative Manifesto and recommends, among other things: placing all independent government agencies, including the FBI and Department of Justice, under direct presidential control; purging government employees considered “disloyal” to the president; and deploying the military against American citizens under the Insurrection Act.Some of the recommendations sound far-fetched and extreme, but if Bad Faith has one point, it is to take Christian nationalism as a serious threat to democracy. “These people are not stupid,” said Nelson. “They’re incredibly strategic. They’re extremely good at organization, and they have a very, very long attention span. If they set out an objective, they will give it 40 years to play out, they will build organizations, they will go into electoral districts not a month before the election, but two years before the election, organizing voters.”In Nelson’s view, major media organizations misunderstood this in the run-up to January 6. “They look at these events as independent grassroots eruptions, like the Tea Party,” she said. “And they’re actually fully integrated as a strategy with massive coordinated funding and implementation. If you don’t see that, you miss the story.”
    Bad Faith is now available to rent digitally in the US with a UK date to be announced More

  • in

    I left my suit in San Francisco: thieves swipe bags from Adam Schiff’s car

    San Francisco has earned an unwelcome national reputation for car burglaries, which Adam Schiff was reminded of the hard way: the Democratic representative had his luggage swiped from his car while it was parked in a downtown garage.With his formal clothing gone, Schiff ended up at a fundraising dinner Thursday for his US Senate campaign dressed like he was headed to a Los Angeles Dodgers game – in shirtsleeves and an insulated vest. Others who attended the event were mostly decked out in suit jackets and ties.Schiff’s campaign confirmed the burglary and declined further comment, citing an ongoing investigation.“Yes, they took my bags,” the representative lamented to the San Francisco Chronicle.Statistically, reported auto break-ins are down in San Francisco, but vehicles with busted windows leaving sprinkles of broken glass remain a common sight in the city. Visitors and residents are constantly reminded to remove valuables from parked cars.It was advice Schiff neglected to follow.In August, the city’s police chief announced a crackdown on auto smash-and-grabs. The San Francisco police department reported nearly 900 break-ins in February, down from 1,850 in July. There were more than 3,000 reported thefts in September 2022. More

  • in

    Hush-money trial live: Trump appears to repeat call for lifting of gag order after Pecker testimony ends – as it happened

    In a post written, unusually, in the third person on Donald Trump’s Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents:
    45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan’s UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order.

    We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech. If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!
    Prosecutors, meanwhile, have alleged that Trump has violated Merchan’s order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives 14 times. They’ve asked the judge to hold Trump in contempt, but he has yet to rule on the request.Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
    David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher and Trump ally, took to the stand in the Manhattan courtroom for a fourth day of testimony.
    Trump’s lawyers continued their cross-examination of Pecker, presenting a granular look into a hush-money scheme that prosecutors allege was meant to sway the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.
    Trump attorney Emil Bove’s questions prompted Pecker to effectively say that coverage beneficial to Trump had been business as usual, as the defense team tried to chip away at the prosecution’s claim that there had been an illicit conspiracy to sway the 2016 election.
    Pecker testified that the Enquirer had run negative stories about the Clintons as part of the effort to help the Trump campaign, agreed to in a meeting in August 2015, as the defense attempted to show that Pecker helped run positive stories about Trump and negative stories about other politicians even before the alleged catch-and-kill scheme.
    Trump’s legal team also appeared to try driving wedges into the notion that Trump’s 2006 affair with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, had been any real threat to Trump’s reputation. Pecker admitted Trump had not paid him any money directly related to McDougal.
    Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant, was called to the stand on Friday afternoon as the prosecution’s second witness.
    Pecker testified earlier in the week that Graff had often been the conduit for his communications with Trump, routing his calls and summoning him to a January 2017 meeting at Trump Tower in which he and Trump discussed some of the hush-money arrangements at issue in the case.
    Graff testified that contact information for Daniels and McDougal had been in Trump’s contacts. She said Daniels had once been at Trump’s offices in Trump Tower, and that she had assumed Daniels was there to discuss potentially being a contestant on The Apprentice.
    Gary Farro was called as the prosecution’s third witness. Farro works at Flagstar Bank as a private client adviser and was previously at First Republic, which was used by Cohen.
    Prosecutors accused Trump of violating a court-imposed gag order – which bars him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives – four more times over the course of the week, bringing the total violations to 14, prosecutors allege.
    Prosecutors said judge Juan Merchan should hold Trump in contempt of court and fine him $1,000 for each violation. Merchan has yet to rule on the alleged violations.
    Nevertheless, in a post written, unusually, in the third person on his Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents. “We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies,” the post said.
    That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.With court ending for today, here’s a look at how David Pecker says he ran negative stories on Hillary Clinton to boost Donald Trump.The Guardian’s Lauren Aratani and Victoria Bekiempis report:The testimony of former tabloid publisher David Pecker in Donald Trump’s criminal trial on Friday presented a granular look into a hush-money scheme that prosecutors allege was meant to sway the 2016 election in the real estate mogul’s favor.On cross-examination, defense attorney Emil Bove’s questions prompted Pecker to in effect say that coverage beneficial to Trump had been business as usual, as the ex-president’s legal team tries to chip away at the prosecution’s claim that there had been an illicit conspiracy to sway the 2016 race.Pecker was instrumental in coordinating three hush-money payments that were made during the 2016 election campaign to quash negative stories about Trump.In cross-examination on his fourth day of testimony, Pecker was grilled by Bove about whether he benefited from running positive stories about Trump and negative stories about other politicians even before the alleged catch-and-kill scheme.Pecker testified that the Enquirer had run negative stories about the Clintons as part of the effort to help the Trump campaign, agreed to in a meeting on August 2015.For the full story, click here:Farro’s testimony is done for the day, and the jurors have left.As Trump left the courtroom for the weekend, he seemed to flatten his lips, as if in recognition of an observer.Farro just discussed Cohen’s interest in opening up an account for Essential Consultants LLC, which he claimed was for a real estate consulting business.While testimony about bank records is most often very dry, observers have had a brief reprieve due to Farro’s sense of humor. “When Mr Cohen called me, I was on the golf course,” Farro said, offering a wry smile. “Very cliche for a banker, I know.”Farro is now talking about Michael Cohen’s establishment of a business bank account for Resolution Consultants LLC.Farro explained that it hadn’t officially been opened because Cohen hadn’t deposited money in the account.In a post written, unusually, in the third person on Donald Trump’s Truth Social account, the former president has once again demanded Judge Juan Merchan lift a gag order in his trial on charges of falsifying business documents:
    45th President Donald J. Trump is again the Republican Nominee for President of the United States, and is currently dominating in the Polls. However, he is being inundated by the Media with questions because of this Rigged Biden Trial, which President Trump is not allowed to comment on, or answer, because of Judge Juan Merchan’s UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gag Order.

    We request that Judge Merchan immediately LIFT THE GAG ORDER, so that President Trump is able to freely state his views, feelings, and policies. He is asking for his Constitutional Right to Free Speech. If it is not granted, this again becomes a Rigged Election!
    Prosecutors, meanwhile, have alleged that Trump has violated Merchan’s order prohibiting him from speaking publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff and their relatives 14 times. They’ve asked the judge to hold Trump in contempt, but he has yet to rule on the request.The next witness called to the stand is Gary Farro, who works at Flagstar Bank.Let’s hear what he has to say.After Rhona Graff’s testimony, Donald Trump left the courtroom without speaking to reporters gathered in the hallway outside.Someone from the press shouted a question about why Stormy Daniels had been at Trump Tower, but Trump did not respond.In her cross-examination of Graff, Susan Necheles appeared to try to set the stage for the defense that Trump might have been distracted while he was signing checks.Was he multi-tasking when signing checks? Was he on the phone? she asked. “I believe it happened. It wasn’t unusual,” Graff said.Donald Trump’s former executive assistant Rhona Graff has departed the witness stand after testimony in which she elaborated on how her former boss may have come to know adult film actor Stormy Daniels.As Graff was walking out of the courtroom, she passed Trump, who stood to greet her. It was unclear what he said to her, but one had the impression that he thanked her. This all happened in front of the jury.Necheles worked hard to downplay Daniels’ presence at Trump Tower.She asked about the evolution of The Apprentice. “He wanted people who were sort of controversial sometimes, right?” Necheles asked. Did Graff ever get the sense that Daniels was trying out for a slot?“I vaguely recall hearing … that she was one of the people that may be an interesting contestant on the show,” Graff said.“And the prosecutor just referred to her as an adult film actress, correct?” Necheles asked.“Uh, yes,” Graff replied.Necheles then asked: ”You understood that to mean, colloquially speaking, a porn star?”“I’d say that’s a good synonym,” Graff replied.Asked if she’d heard Trump say that Daniels was potentially being considered, Graff replied: “I can’t recall a specific instance where I heard it, it was part of the office chatter.”“You understood that she was there to discuss being cast for The Apprentice, correct?” Necheles inquired.“I assumed that,” Graff said.Susan Necheles, an attorney for Trump, is handling the cross-examination of Graff.“Was he a good boss?” Necheles asked early on.“I think that he was fair,” said Graff, who worked for Trump for 34 years. “He was fair and a respectful boss to me … all that time.”Hoffinger also asked Graff about Trump’s email contacts.Graff said that Karen McDougal’s information was in Trump’s contacts; there was also someone named “Stormy”.Hoffinger asked whether, on one occasion, she saw Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower.“I have a vague recollection of seeing her in the reception area on the 26th floor,” she said, adding that to the best of her recollection, this was before the 2016 election.“When you saw her at Trump Tower, did you know she was an adult film actress?” Hoffinger asked.”Yes, I did,” Graff replied.An attorney for Trump then rose to cross-examine Graff.Graff, who was Trump’s longtime executive assistant, said that she is testifying pursuant to a subpoena.Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked whether she had lawyers with her today. Graff said yes. Who was paying for the attorneys, Hoffinger pressed” “The Trump Organization,” Graff said.And who did she understand to be the current owner of the Trump Organization? “Mr Trump,” Graff replied.David Pecker is now off the witness stand after Donald Trump’s attorneys briefly cross-examined him a second time.The prosecution has now called its second witness: Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant.She isn’t in the spotlight much, but New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, did subpoena Graff for testimony two years ago as part of her civil investigation into his business dealings. That case ultimately resulted in a judge issuing a $454m judgment against the former president earlier this year. Here’s more on Graff’s testimony:We’re again discussing David Pecker’s unwillingness to deal with the Stormy Daniel story – and why he nonetheless urged Michael Cohen to snap up her account.On the stand, Pecker recalled discussing money for payoffs with Cohen. “I said to Michael Cohen, after paying for the doorman and the Karen McDougal story, I wasn’t going to pay anything further and I wasn’t a bank,” Pecker told jurors. He also described, again, his discussions with Dylan Howard when the Stormy Daniels story came to light.“When he first reach out to you about the story, what did you tell Dylan Howard?” Steinglass asked.“I told Dylan Howard that there is no possible way would I buy this story for $120,000 and I didn’t want to have anything to do with a porn star.”Why did he contact Cohen about Daniels?“Based on our original agreement,” Pecker recalled, “any stories … that would be very embarrassing, I want to communicate that to Michael Cohen right away. If he heard it from somebody else, [Cohen] would go ballistic.”“But you were still going to fulfil your obligation … so that the campaign could squash it?” Steinglass pressed.Pecker said yes. More

  • in

    Ruby Bridges: civil rights pioneer rejects claim book makes white children uncomfortable

    Increasingly, the US civil rights icon Ruby Bridges – the first Black child to integrate a school in Louisiana – has seen some adults seek to prevent grade-school students from accessing the books and films that chronicle her story, saying the tale makes white children feel bad about themselves.But that justification is “ridiculous” because “my biggest fans are kids all around the world”, Bridges told NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker in an interview airing on Sunday morning’s episode of the show.“All of the letters, all of the mail, I have little girls from all walks of life, different nationalities that dress up like Ruby Bridges,” the now 69-year-old activist said in an excerpt of the interview that NBC shared in advance with the Guardian.“I found through … traveling that they resonate with the loneliness, probably the pain that I felt. There’s all sorts of reasons that they are drawn to my story. So I would have to disagree [that it makes certain children feel guilty].”Delivered in a recurring segment known as Meet the Moment, which aims to spotlight people who influence political issues outside Washington, Bridges’ remarks to Welker come a little more than a year after one parent’s complaint prompted a school in Florida to stop showing its students a 1988 made-for-TV movie about her.The parent in question complained that the movie – which some schools usually show to students during Black History Month in February – might teach children that “white people hate Black people”.Separately, Bridges’ autobiographical picture book I Am Ruby Bridges was included in a collection of 64 “diverse” titles from Scholastic Books – the US’s largest children’s book publisher – that librarians are allowed to opt out of for popular book fairs that Scholastic helps stage at campuses nationwide.Scholastic defended itself by saying it had been forced into that position to shield teachers and librarians in largely conservative regions which may have enacted prohibitions against children’s books addressing race, gender and sexuality.Other works by Bridges have also been targeted by book bans schemed up by groups such as Moms for Liberty.In her conversation with Welker, Bridges dismissed the idea that her experience could unduly make white children uncomfortable.“That’s just an excuse not to share the truth, to cover up history,” Bridges said. “But I believe that history is sacred – that none of us should have the right to change or alter history in any way.”Bridges was six years old in November 1960 when US deputy marshals escorted her past jeering crowds into New Orleans’ William Frantz elementary school.With her white sweater, matching hair bow, black patent leather shoes and a small satchel in her right hand that day, she became the first Black child to desegregate an all-white elementary school in New Orleans – a scene immortalized in the 1963 Norman Rockwell painting named The Problem We All Live With.Bridges grew up to start an eponymous foundation dedicated to promoting tolerance and change through academic education. Meanwhile, the Akili Academy now occupying the school which Bridges integrated has a majority Black student population and is a stop on Louisiana’s Civil Rights Trail. More

  • in

    I’m happy to debate Trump, says Biden in surprise Howard Stern interview

    Joe Biden sprang a surprise on the Washington press corps on Friday when he gave an interview to the radio host and shock jock Howard Stern.The president also made news. Asked if he would debate Donald Trump before the election in November, Biden said: “I am, somewhere, I don’t know when, but I am happy to debate him.”The Biden campaign confirmed to reporters that Biden was willing to face Trump in person. Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to Trump and the Republican National Committee, posted: “OK let’s set it up!”Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has goaded Biden about debating – despite skipping all debates in his own primary this year; withdrawing from his second debate with Biden in 2020; and in 2022 prompting the Republican National Committee to withdraw from the body that organises presidential debates.Trump’s last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, also revealed that when Trump and Biden did meet on the debate stage, in September 2020, Trump had tested positive for Covid-19 but declined to tell the public. Trump and members of his family then flouted Covid protocols around the debate with Biden.The interview between Biden and Stern was announced minutes before the conversation began on air. Reporting the unscheduled stop in New York, the White House pool report said: “At 10.05am, the motorcade made an unscheduled stop at Sirius XM studio in midtown Manhattan.”Jennifer Witz, chief executive of Sirius XM, said: “We are thrilled that President Biden chose Howard Stern. It’s just another reminder that Howard is in a league of his own, regularly lauded as the world’s best interviewer.”That would be up for debate but Stern does have a habit of making news – often, in the case of Biden’s White House predecessor, retrospectively.Trump’s interviews with Stern before entering politics have regularly resurfaced, particularly over Trump’s usually controversial, often lewd and sometimes disturbing remarks.Wirtz said Sirius XM was “proud to offer distinct and varied insights and commentary spanning the political spectrum”.Biden was in New York after attending a campaign fundraiser hosted by the actor Michael Douglas on Thursday.Stern had never interviewed a sitting president before. In 2019, he interviewed Hillary Clinton, the losing Democratic candidate in the 2016 election.A day after the rightwing-dominated supreme court showed signs of delaying Trump’s federal election subversion trial by indulging his claims about presidential immunity, Stern asked Biden why he had to be careful talking about a court the host called “a joke”.“It’s a really extremely conservative court, maybe the most conservative in modern history,” Biden said.He also excused himself for a “Freudian slip” after saying “Trump” while meaning to refer to Richard Nixon.Much of the interview focused on Biden’s long life in politics, as a senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009, as vice-president to Barack Obama between 2009 and 2017, and as president since 2021.Discussing the deaths in a car crash in 1972 of his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden, and young daughter, Naomi, the president told Stern he then contemplated suicide.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I used to sit there and just think I’m going to take out a bottle of scotch,” Biden said. “I’m going to just drink it and get drunk.“I just thought about it, you don’t need to be crazy to commit suicide. I thought, ‘Let me just go to the Delaware Memorial [Bridge] and jump.’”He also encouraged listeners experiencing mental health issues to seek therapy.About how he met Jill Biden, his second wife, Biden said: “I got a call from my brother. ‘So I have a girl here at Delaware’ – Jill is nine years younger than I am. He said, ‘You’ll love her. She doesn’t like politics.’”Before that, while he was single, Biden said, he “got put in that 10 most eligible bachelors list … and a lot of lovely women, but women, would send very salacious pictures and I just give them to the Secret Service.”The “proudest thing” he had ever done in politics, Biden said, was securing the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which he introduced in 1990 and which became law four years later. The law was reauthorised and strengthened in 2013, when Biden was vice-president.The 81-year-old president has attracted controversy through his relative reluctance to sit for interviews with the mainstream press.On Thursday, a day before Biden chose to speak to Stern, Politico published an extensive report about what it called a “petty feud” between the Biden White House and the New York Times.“Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets,” Politico said, “the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organisation catering to an elite audience – and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work.“On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.”Reporting Biden’s interview with Stern, the Times noted that the president “once again told a story about being arrested at a Delaware desegregation protest as a teenager”, but observed: “There has never been any evidence that he ever was arrested at a civil rights protest.” More

  • in

    Election officials in the US are under threat. A key county just faced a major test ahead of November

    Everyone seemed determined not to jinx it.Jim Rose, the director of administrative services in Luzerne county in north-eastern Pennsylvania, had been listening to the radio all morning and had not heard “a single peep” about problems at the polls during Pennsylvania’s primary on Tuesday. When he ran into Emily Cook, the county’s acting director of elections, she wasn’t ready to celebrate. It was, after all, only mid-afternoon, and the polls would be open until 8pm.“If you say that, you have to go outside, spin around on your left foot – it has to be your left foot – and throw some salt,” she said.She may have only been half-joking. Cook had reason to be superstitious. While the political significance of Pennsylvania’s primary on Tuesday was somewhat low, the stakes were extremely high. Luzerne county has had a number of high-profile errors in running its elections in recent years, including when multiple precincts ran out of paper in 2022 and ballots were found discarded in the trash in 2020.It has also had extremely high turnover. Cook, 26, is the seventh person to lead the election office since the fall of 2019. Previously the deputy director, she took over the position about two months ago.“I am very conscious of how important it is that I get this right, not just for the department or the county on the whole, but for my own job,” she said in her office. “It feels like a test and preparation for what comes in November.”Election day is a thankless task for Cook and the thousands of other officials charged with the nuts and bolts of administering voting across the US. In a best-case scenario, they are invisible – everything goes smoothly and no one notices the incredibly delicate ballet of details that need to take place to pull off a successful election.But human errors take place all the time, and have increasingly sparked a cascade of wider conspiracy theories. Since the 2020 election, when Donald Trump spread baseless lies about the election, a flood of officials have left the profession, prompting concerns about the widespread loss of institutional knowledge.On Tuesday, Cook had been up since 4am and was responsible for everything from making sure there was enough pizza for employees in the office to fielding reports of issues at the polls. In the span of about an hour and a half, she spoke to a woman who wanted to report what she believed was voter intimidation, talked to an election judge at the polls about some electioneering that may have been getting too rowdy, conducted two television interviews with local reporters, huddled with county lawyers, and made sure dinner was ordered for that evening.There were a few minor issues. There were some aggressive people electioneering for candidates. A small number of voters were told to come back to a polling location when there was an issue with a ballot marking device (they should have been offered an emergency ballot). Someone had placed small flyers of Donald Trump inside a polling machine at one precinct and Cook and another employee were working to get them taken down.View image in fullscreenEn route to one of her interviews, Cook ran into Denise Williams, the chair of the county board of elections, who asked her if she had heard reports that there wasn’t space for a write-in candidate in one of the races. Cook said she would look into it.But these hiccups are somewhat typical in elections and were far from the major issues Luzerne county has faced in the past. By the afternoon, Cook was especially pleased that the county hadn’t had to go to court to petition to extend voting hours – something that happens when there are major issues at the polls.“Never calm, but I’ve definitely seen it more chaotic,” she said. “I think that’s the best we can hope for.”Cook was appointed the acting director on 12 February, giving her a relatively short runway until the primary. She had worked in the election office since 2019 – experience that she drew on as she quickly took over for election day.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStill, there have been leadership and management lessons she’s learned.“I don’t like to tell people no. I like to find a solution,” she said. “I think that’s part of what burns people out here, trying to keep everyone happy. Because everyone wants something completely different.”One floor above Cook’s office, Romilda Crocamo, the county manager, was also knocking on wood all afternoon. “I’m trying not to jinx it,” she said. “No earthquakes, no sinkholes.”For election day, she wore shoes with the American flag on them and a blue sweatshirt with the word Vote written across it in red. She had arranged for employees in the election office to get the same sweater (Cook and at least one other staffer was wearing the same one). Crocamo, who was also wearing an Avengers-themed lanyard, loves election day, and she confessed that sometimes she wonders if she’s too over the top.Every year around election times, the county needs to recruit employees from other departments to go and help staff the election office.“Historically, people are like ‘I don’t like elections’ – it’s like you’re condemning them to hell,” she said. But this time around she noticed that something had changed. “This time we had so many people who were like … ‘I wanna help.’”Cook agreed there had been a change in the election office after the negative attention the office has received.“There has been a culture change [of] ‘OK, we’re all gonna make this work together.’” More

  • in

    USC vetoed a Muslim student’s graduation speech for her pro-Palestinian views. Why? | Mohammed Zain Shafi Khan

    When Asna Tabassum, a hijab-wearing Muslim, was announced as the valedictorian for the University of Southern California class of 2024, my initial reaction was the thought of my south Asian mother saying, “What are you doing? Why aren’t you valedictorian?” But what followed was pride.Then the university announced last week that it would no longer allow Tabassum to speak at commencement. After pro-Israel groups mischaracterized Tabassum’s pro-Palestinian views as “antisemitic”, the USC administration claimed that security concerns made her speech untenable.“I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred,” Tabassum, a friend of mine, wrote in a statement. “I am surprised that my own university – my home for four years – has abandoned me.”USC has not just abandoned an accomplished student, but also nearly 1,000 Muslims on campus. I happen to be one of them.Right now, the reality of being a Muslim student is intertwined with the university’s decision to rescind Tabassum’s well-earned honour. We were teased by our institution, taunted even, as they refuse to publicly stand by their choice.As a Muslim, the lack of support scares me. My hijab-wearing friends have been called terrorists and spat at; my Palestinian peer has had their car broken into and their Qur’an torn and I am judged for wearing a keffiyeh to class or having a sticker on my laptop that reads “Free Palestine”.When Arab and Muslim students are directly affected, the university’s silence makes its position clear.When the office of the president can release a statement condemning Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, but not one condemning Israel for killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, it makes the university’s position clear.And when the university refuses to publicly support its choice for valedictorian, again the school’s position is clear.Understandably, students and faculty are upset and angry. Last Friday, 11 members of the USC advisory committee on Muslim life resigned “in protest against the university administration’s decision to revoke Asna Tabassum’s valedictory address at commencement”.This committee was convened by the president “to consider a number of tangible solutions to support Muslim students, faculty and staff”. But now, when USC cannot support one student, I doubt it wants to support any of us.This is what it is to be Muslim at a college campus: enraged, scared and robbed of the hope that Tabassum represents. As a student, I placed my trust in this institution that has taught me, but that trust has waned.As a journalist, I am also alarmed. This profession, this institution, and its foundation are based upon the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to share those ideas. The cowardice of hiding behind the veil of “safety concerns” is appalling. Furthermore, California’s Leonard Law stipulates that even private universities like USC are obliged to uphold speech protected by the first amendment.USC seems to not just be above the law, but also hypocritical. Just last semester, the Turkish ambassador and Azerbaijani consul-general were on campus as part of an event hosted by the university during the height of Azerbaijan’s military campaign against the majority-Armenian region of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno Karabakh. The Armenian community on campus was facing tragedy, watching their people being starved and mourning their loss.When students demanded that the university, especially at such a time, rescind its invitation to the delegation, the university refused, arguing that doing so would infringe the delegation’s freedom to speak.The provost’s office sent out an email about USC’s commitment to academic freedom, writing: “These freedoms are outlined within the USC policy on free speech and serve to protect the viewpoints – no matter how controversial or unpopular – of all members of our community.” In response to the protests, the university also increased security for the delegation – an option the university failed to provide Tabassum.Freedom of speech was protected then. Just not now.While the university may have made its decision, the students have made one for themselves too: “Let her speak.” Over 300 students recently marched in solidarity with Tabassum, demanding that the USC administration reinvite the valedictorian to speak at commencement. The university did just the opposite. With a decision that has enraged the class of 2024, USC has instead “released” all its outside speakers from speaking during the main commencement ceremony. This means that keynote speaker Jon M Chu will not be speaking at commencement. Tabassum will not be speaking at commencement. The only person who will be speaking is Carol Folt, USC’s president. And, respectfully, no graduate who has worked tirelessly for four years wants to just hear from the president.Instead of emailing students about this change, the administration simply updated the commencement website and posted an Instagram story.If the aim of the university is to maintain the safety and security of its 65,000 graduation attendees, it may have achieved that. Because, in all fairness, who is going to attend this graduation now, and for what? Graduating students are not represented, they are not excited and right now they are angry – even more so given that many of them never had their high school graduation, due to Covid.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut all of the above is moot at this point. The university has now gone further and announced that it has simply canceled the main stage graduation ceremony – again citing unnamed safety concerns following a day of peaceful protest that only turned violent with the university-sanctioned introduction of law enforcement.But if the university can promptly expel hundreds of non-violent protesters from campus less than 24 hours after their occupation began, how is it possible that the best a university that charges nearly $70,000 per year could do is cancel the entire event?I refuse to believe these choices were about security. From the start, it’s been about restricting Tabassum from speaking. It’s been about USC failing to stand up for its Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students.The university has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. It can start repairing some of the harm done by prioritizing the needs of its students over protecting its president.USC hasn’t listened to its Muslim students, its Arab students or its Palestinian students when we asked for the university to figure out a way to let Asna Tabassum speak safely. By ignoring our voice, as it did Tabassum’s, USC has silenced us all.For this and many other hasty decisions taken by the university these past two weeks, it’s clear what the next decision should be: let Carol Folt go.
    Mohammed Zain Shafi Khan is a journalist and student at the University of Southern California studying international relations and journalism More

  • in

    ‘A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose’: can Allan Lichtman predict the 2024 election?

    He has been called the Nostradamus of US presidential elections. Allan Lichtman has correctly predicted the result of nine of the past 10 (and even the one that got away, in 2000, he insists was stolen from Al Gore). But now he is gearing up for perhaps his greatest challenge: Joe Biden v Donald Trump II.Lichtman is a man of parts. The history professor has been teaching at American University in Washington for half a century. He is a former North American 3,000m steeplechase champion and, at 77 – the same age as Trump – aiming to compete in the next Senior Olympics. In 1981 he appeared on the TV quizshow Tic-Tac-Dough and won $110,000 in cash and prizes.That same year he developed his now famous 13 keys to the White House, a method for predicting presidential election results that every four years tantalises the media, intrigues political operatives and provokes sniping from pollsters. Long before talk of the Steele dossier or Mueller investigation, it all began with a Russian reaching out across the cold war divide.“I’d love to tell you I developed my system by ruining my eyes in the archives, by deep contemplation, but if I were to say that, to quote the late great Richard Nixon, that would be wrong,” Lichtman recalls from a book-crowded office on the AU campus. “Like so many discoveries, it was kind of serendipitous.”View image in fullscreenLichtman was a visiting scholar at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena when he met the world’s leading authority in earthquake prediction, Vladimir Keilis-Borok, who had been part of a Soviet delegation that negotiated the limited nuclear test ban treaty with President John F Kennedy in Washington in 1963.Keilis-Borok had fallen in love with American politics and began a collaboration with Lichtman to reconceptualise elections in earthquake terms. That is, as a question of stability (the party holding the White House keeps it) versus earthquake (the party holding the White House gets thrown out).They looked at every presidential election since Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860, combining Keilis-Borok’s method recognising patterns associated with stability and earthquakes with Lichtman’s theory that elections are basically votes up or down on the strength and performance of the party that holds the White House.They came up with 13 true/false questions and a decision rule: if six or more keys went against the White House party, it would lose. If fewer than six went against it, it would win. These are the 13 keys, as summarised by AU’s website:1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.Lichtman and Keilis-Borok published a paper in an academic journal, which was spotted by an Associated Press science reporter, leading to a Washington Post article headlined: “Odd couple discovers keys to the White House.” Then, in the Washingtonian magazine in April 1982, Lichtman used the keys to accurately predict that, despite economic recession, low approval ratings and relative old age, Ronald Reagan would win re-election two years later.That led to an invitation to the White House from the presidential aide Lee Atwater, where Lichtman met numerous officials including then vice-president George HW Bush. Atwater asked him what would happen if Reagan did not run for re-election. Lichtman reckoned that a few important keys would be lost, including incumbent charisma.“Without the Gipper, forget it,” Lichtman says. “George Bush is about as charismatic as a New Jersey shopping centre on a Sunday morning. Atwater looks me in the eye, breathes a huge sigh of relief, and says, thank you, Professor Lichtman. And the rest is history.”For the next election, Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis by 18 percentage points in the opinion polls in May 1988, yet Lichtman correctly predicted a Bush victory because he was running on the Reagan inheritance of peace, prosperity, domestic tranquillity and breakthroughs with the Soviet Union.View image in fullscreenThat year Lichtman published a book, The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency. But he was still derided by the punditry establishment. “When I first developed my system and made my predictions, the professional forecasters blasted me because I had committed the ultimate sin of prediction, the sin of subjectivity.“Some of my keys were not just cut and dried and I kept telling them, it’s not subjectivity, it’s judgment. We’re dealing with human systems and historians make judgments all the time, and they’re not random judgments. I define each key very carefully in my book and I have a record.”He adds: “It took 15 to 20 years and the professional forecasting community totally turned around. They realised their big mathematical models didn’t work and the best models combined judgment with more cut-and-dried indicators. And suddenly the keys were the hottest thing in forecasting.”Lichtman was a man in demand. He spoke at forecasting conferences, wrote for academic journals and even gave a talk to the CIA about how to apply the 13 keys to foreign elections. And his crystal ball kept working.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe predicted that George HW Bush would be a one-term president, even though he was riding high in polls after the Gulf war, causing many leading Democrats to pass on mounting a challenge. Then a call from Little Rock, Arkansas. It was Kay Goss, special assistant to Governor Bill Clinton.“Are you really saying that George Bush can be beaten in 1992?” she asked. Lichtman confirmed that he was saying that. Clinton went on to win the Democratic primary election and beat Bush for the White House. “The Clintons have been big fans of the keys ever since,” Lichtman notes.The one apparent blot on Lichtman’s copybook is the 2000 election, where he predicted victory for the Democratic vice-president Al Gore over George W Bush, the Republican governor of Texas. Gore did win the national popular vote but lost the electoral college by a gossamer-thin margin. Lichtman, however, believes he was right.View image in fullscreen“It was a stolen election. Based on the actual votes, Al Gore should have won going away, except for the discarding of ballots cast by Black voters who were 95% for Gore. I proved this in my report to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. One out of every nine to 10 ballots cast by a Black voter was thrown out, as opposed to one out of 50 cast by a white voter.“Most of those were not so-called hanging chads. They were over-votes because Black people were told punch in Gore and then write in Gore, just to be sure, and those ballots were all discarded. Political scientists have since looked at the election and proved I was right. Al Gore, based on the intent of the voters, should have won by tens of thousands of votes.”He adds: “I contend I was right about 2000 or at a minimum there was no right prediction. You could argue either way. I contend – and a lot of people agree with me – that I’m 10 out of 10. But even if you say I’m nine out of 10, that’s not bad.”Perhaps Lichtman’s most striking prophecy, defying polls, commentators and groupthink, was that Trump – a former reality TV star with no prior political or military experience – would pull off a wildly improbable win over the former secretary of state and first lady Hillary Clinton in 2016. How did he know?View image in fullscreen“The critical sixth key was the contest key: Bernie Sanders’s contest against Clinton. It was an open seat so you lost the incumbency key. The Democrats had done poorly in 2014 so you lost that key. There was no big domestic accomplishment following the Affordable Care Act in the previous term, and no big foreign policy splashy success following the killing of Bin Laden in the first term, so there were just enough keys. It was not an easy call.”After the election, Lichtman received a copy of the Washington Post interview in which he made the prediction. On it was written in a Sharpie pen: “Congrats, professor. Good call. Donald J Trump.” But in the same call, Lichtman had also prophesied – again accurately – that Trump would one day be impeached.He was right about 2020, too, as Trump struggled to handle the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic is what did him in. He congratulated me for predicting him but he didn’t understand the keys. The message of the keys is it’s governance not campaigning that counts and instead of dealing substantively with the pandemic, as we know, he thought he could talk his way out of it and that sank him.”In 2020 Lichtman gave a presentation to the American Political Science Association about the keys as one of three classic models of prediction. In recent months he has delivered keynote addresses at Asian and Brazilian financial conferences, the Oxford Union and JP Morgan. As another election looms, he is not impressed by polls that show Trump leading Biden, prompting a fatalistic mood to take hold in Washington DC and foreign capitals.“They’re mesmerised by the wrong things, which is the polls. First of all, polls six, seven months before an election have zero predictive value. They would have predicted President Michael Dukakis. They would have predicted President Jimmy Carter would have defeated Ronald Reagan, who won in a landslide; Carter was way ahead in some of the early polls.“Not only are polls a snapshot but they are not predictors. They don’t predict anything and there’s no such thing as, ‘if the election were held today’. That’s a meaningless statement.”He is likely to make his pronouncement on the 2024 presidential election in early August. He notes that Biden already has the incumbency key in his favour and, having crushed token challengers in the Democratic primary, has the contest key too. “That’s two keys off the top. That means six more keys would have to fall to predict his defeat. A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose.”View image in fullscreenLichtman gives no weight to running mate picks and has never changed his forecast in the wake of a so-called “October surprise” But no predictive model is entirely immune to a black swan event.Speaking in the week that saw a jury seated for Trump’s criminal trial in New York involving a hush-money payment to a pornographic film performer, Lichtman acknowledges: “Keys are based on history. They’re very robust because they go all the way back retrospectively to 1860 and prospectively to 1984, so they cover enormous changes in our economy, our society, our demography, our politics.“But it’s always possible there could be a cataclysmic enough event outside the scope of the keys that could affect the election and here we do have, for the first time, not just a former president but a major party candidate sitting in a trial and who knows if he’s convicted – and there’s a good chance he will be – how that might scramble things.”Millions of people will be on edge on the night of 5 November. After 40 years of doing this, Lichtman will have one more reason to be anxious. “It’s nerve-racking because there are a lot of people who’d love to see me fail.” And if he does? “I’m human,” he admits. “It doesn’t mean my system’s wrong. Nothing is perfect in the human world.”Biden v Trump: What’s in store for the US and the world?On Thursday 2 May, 3-4.15pm ET, join Tania Branigan, David Smith, Mehdi Hasan and Tara Setmayer for the inside track on the people, the ideas and the events that might shape the US election campaign. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live More