More stories

  • in

    Huma Abedin on Anthony Weiner: ‘He ripped my heart out and stomped on it over and over again’

    Huma AbedinInterviewHuma Abedin on Anthony Weiner: ‘He ripped my heart out and stomped on it over and over again’Hadley FreemanShe was Hillary Clinton’s aide and the wife of a star politician when a sexting scandal sent him to prison, destroyed their marriage – and derailed her boss’s bid to become president. How did she cope?

    Read an extract from her memoir here
    @HadleyFreemanSat 6 Nov 2021 04.00 EDTWalk of shame, huh? I’ll take it,” says Huma Abedin, reading the name of the lipstick on the makeup artist’s table. It is a bright, cool day in Manhattan and we are at a photographer’s studio, where Abedin is having her photo taken for this interview. Having watched her from afar for so long, first as Hillary Clinton’s elegant, silent assistant, then as the mostly silent and increasingly unhappy spouse of the former congressman Anthony Weiner, I had expected her to be quiet, anxious and guarded, but Abedin, 45, is none of those things. Someone so beautiful could come across as imperious, but with her big, open-mouthed laugh and “Oh gosh, you know better than me!” air, she veers closer to goofy. After 25 years of working for Clinton, she has a politician’s knack for making those around her feel comfortable. She leans forward keenly when spoken to, and makes sure to use everyone’s name when talking to them. She tells us, twice, that she ate “so much comfort food over the weekend at the hospital”, where she waited while Bill Clinton was being treated for a urological infection; he was discharged the day before our interview. “Just burgers and fries, burgers and fries. Food is my weakness,” she says rolling her eyes at herself. Everyone is instantly disarmed. But then she picks up that lipstick and at the word “shame” the makeup artist and I look down awkwardly and Abedin becomes – as she has been for so long, she tells me later over lunch – “the elephant in the room again”. “I lived with shame for a very, very long time,” as she puts it.The question Abedin hears most is: why? Why did she stay with Weiner after he accidentally tweeted a photo of his crotch while sexting women online in 2011, leading to his resignation from Congress? Why, when he ran for New York City mayor in 2013, did she assure voters that she had “forgiven him”? And why did she stay with him when it then emerged he was still sending women photos of the contents of his trousers? Why did she only separate from him but not divorce him when, in 2016, he sent a woman a photo of himself aroused while lying in bed next to his and Abedin’s toddler son, Jordan? And why were there official emails between her and Hillary on Weiner’s laptop, thereby prompting the then director of the FBI, James Comey, to announce the fateful reopening of the investigation into Clinton’s emails days before the 2016 election?Well, her new memoir, Both/And: A Life in Many Worlds, makes a good fist of answering most, if not all, of these questions. Having started the book believing that Abedin’s choices were so unrelatable as to be incomprehensible, I finished it feeling as if I probably would have often done the same. This is the first interview she has given about her book: “And I’m glad it’s not a TV one, because that’s really not me, being in front of the camera,” she says. I ask why she decided to write the book at all, given that it would, inevitably, thrust her right back into the bright glare of public scrutiny.“I think if I’d written this book when people wanted me to write it, in the midst of all the heat and intensity, it would have been a much more bitter book. I needed the time. But I feel like I’m somebody who’s been in the public eye on and off for the past 20 years and someone else has been writing my story, and it felt like the right time for me to write it,” she says.In order to understand what she did, Abedin says, as she eats her omelette and chips in a downtown restaurant, you have to understand where she came from. People tend to start with her long relationship with Hillary Clinton, who she has worked for since she was 20 years old, and think that shaped how she handled her own husband’s very public betrayals of her. It’s true that it’s hard not to boggle at the symbolism that she was working at the White House when the president, after initial denials, finally admitted he’d had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. But Abedin loathes this line of thinking. “I know that people want to make this comparison” – between Bill Clinton’s scandal and Weiner’s – “because it seems to the outside world so similar, but to me it wasn’t,” she insists. Instead, she says, to really understand how she, a devout Muslim, was married to an American Jew who ended up in prison for sex offences, you have to go back to her beginnings.Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the daughter of two professors, both India-born Muslims. When she was two, her parents were offered jobs at the university in Jeddah and so the family moved to Saudi Arabia. Her parents raised her to be devout but also modern; she has no problem, she writes, with women who opt to wear the hijab as long as they have “the choice”. When she was 17, her father died from progressive renal failure, which her parents had kept hidden from the children for most of their childhood. I ask what she learned from her father and she says: “To make your own choices, but be thoughtful about them, not rash.”Her mother encouraged her to go to university in the US and she went to George Washington University in Washington DC. She’d spent her summers in the US, so the culture shock wasn’t too great, but because of her faith she doesn’t drink alcohol, which differentiated her from the other American students. There was something else, too: “As was expected of any girl with my background, I would lose my virginity to the man I would marry,” she writes, and that is exactly what she did, waiting until she married Weiner at the age of 33.She applied to be a White House intern while still at college, and was assigned to the first lady’s deputy chief of staff. She was offered a permanent position even before she graduated. “I officially became a member of a lifelong club known as Hillaryland,” she writes. From the moment she arrived, Abedin was in awe of the Clintons, Hillary especially, and it’s an impression that has not waned in the 25 years she has spent working alongside her. She tells me that one of the reasons she wrote her memoir “was to show the world that she’s this incredible person, and I wanted to present her as a human, away from the caricatures”. But it’s hard to see the human when so many of the descriptions of her in the book sound like a press release (“Diplomacy is about meeting the world with open eyes, attuned listening and small gestures of outreach. It was second nature to Hillary Clinton”). This is also how she talks about her in person. The only criticism Abedin allows of Hillary in the book is of her occasionally unfortunate taste in clothes (“the coat that looked like a carpet that HRC thought was colourful and fun”). Meanwhile, her attendance at Donald Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss (“When the invitation came [Hillary] figured, why not? When someone is getting married, you go”) and even her vote for the war against Iraq (“she was clear about her reservations”), which Abedin advised against, are justified. From very early on, the two women developed a close relationship based on mutual respect, and it’s easy to see why Abedin – a young woman who lost her father and was living far away from her mother – would cleave to the Clintons.“I wasn’t necessarily politically motivated. It felt like [being part of] the cause, and every day you were doing something important,” she says, and that cause was the Clintons.Yet her devotion to the cause occasionally crashes up against historical fact, and in the case of the Clintons in the late 1990s, that means Lewinsky. Abedin does her best to get around this when recalling how rumours of the president’s affair with the intern began. “Given all the manufactured stories that had come before this one – that the Clintons were murderers, thieves – it seemed very likely that this one could be untrue,” she writes.Come on, I say. By the time Lewinsky came along, the president had already been accused of sexual impropriety by Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones (the latter of which he still denies). There must have been some part of Abedin that thought Lewinsky was telling the truth.“No,” she replies before I finish the question.Why not?“For me, as an intern, it seemed not possible. We never saw [the president]! You would turn on the TV and it was Ken Starr this, Ken Starr that, Whitewater this, Whitewater that – but when you turned away from the TV and you looked at your desk, really important work was continuing. Northern Ireland, the Middle East peace process. The other stuff was just distractions on TV. Maybe if I hadn’t been an intern it would have been different, but I knew how it was [in the White House] and it seemed impossible,” she says. Throughout our time together, she never says Lewinsky’s name. I ask how the Clintons feel about Ryan Murphy’s recent dramatisation of the scandal in Impeachment: American Crime Story. “It’s not a conversation that we discussed internally,” she replies crisply.When the Democrats gained seats in the 1998 midterm elections, despite the impeachment, Abedin knew exactly who to credit. “It was Hillary Clinton’s effort, her struggle and her strategising, her broken and open heart that had saved the presidency … Hillary Clinton was the saviour, not the liability,” she writes, channelling her internal Barbara Cartland.As I read this sentence out loud to her, Abedin quotes it along with me. “Her broken heart, yeah,” she says smiling a little.This idea that Hillary had, through forgiveness and loyalty, fixed her husband’s transgression and saved his career seems to echo your later belief that you could fix your husband and rescue his political career, I say to her.“Yes, yes, yes!” she says excitedly, as if she’d never put those ideas together.So did seeing how Hillary handled her husband’s infidelity – silently, stoically – influence how Abedin later dealt with Weiner?“If it did, it was subconscious. I think what really drove me was I was desperately in love with my husband. I think all of the ugliness from the outside, it made us into a bubble. I didn’t know who I could trust, and so much of the conversation was so embarrassing, so we kind of receded into our corner,” she says.The first time Weiner asked Abedin on a date was in 2001. She declined, saying she was busy working for Hillary. So he loudly asked Hillary to give Abedin the night off, and Hillary, to Abedin’s horror, told her to go have fun. She managed to shake off the obnoxious congressman that night, but they bumped into one another frequently at political events. She was the quiet, well-liked aide who hid from the spotlight; he was the brash congressman who yelled about his political causes to any passing camera. And yet, by 2007, they were friendly, and she was falling for him. He was not fazed by her job, which was extremely demanding, given that Hillary was now a senator and also running for the presidency. “Other men would find this whole Clinton world really overwhelming and more than they could handle,” she says. Also, unlike other men, he had no problem with what she describes as her “limitations” – her decision not to have sex until she was married. The man who would soon be routinely described as a sex addict in the media didn’t even kiss her until a year into their relationship. “And he was fine with that,” she says. She’d always assumed she’d marry a Muslim, so he gave up alcohol and pork, and fasted during Ramadan alongside her. When he proposed, in 2009, she accepted. “It was a real journey for me to get to a place where I could allow myself to marry someone outside my faith. But he was my first love, and my greatest soulmate … Then everything exploded. He didn’t just break my heart, he ripped it out and stomped on it over and over again,” she says calmly.The first warning sign came as they were discussing their wedding plans and she handed him his BlackBerry to call his dad. Her eye was caught by an email from a woman. It was “fawning, flirtatious and very familiar”, she writes. He insisted it was “just a fan”. Because he was known for being a straight talker – to a fault – she believed him. But later, she would remember what he said to her right before she saw that email: “I’m broken and I need you to fix me.” Has she ever asked him what he meant?“Often I’ll raise things with Anthony, and I think there’s a lot he doesn’t remember. But I think, in hindsight, it really was a self-realisation that something didn’t feel right, and my guess is that committing to me, committing to being married, exposed those vulnerabilities: ‘Am I good enough to be in a relationship with somebody?’ That’s what a lot of people who have these insecurities feel,” she says.Soon after, they got married and their wedding was officiated by none other than … Bill Clinton. “Every wedding is a wonder,” intoned the man who, just over a decade earlier, had been impeached for lying about infidelity. I tell Abedin that often when she describes Weiner in the book – “charming, charismatic and clearly attractive to lots of women” – it sounds like she could be describing Bill. Was that part of his appeal?“No! Not at all!” she gasps. She was, she says, just deeply in love with him.Only 10 months into their marriage, Weiner texted Abedin to say his Twitter account had been hacked. This, of course, was a lie, and after a few days he had to admit, to his wife and then the public, that the person who had posted a photo of Anthony Weiner’s crotch to Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account was Anthony Weiner. The media cackled. Abedin cringed. Then the New York Times found out she was pregnant and, even though she was still in her first trimester, they printed it, and that’s how the Clintons and most of her friends found out. But she didn’t leave him. It was, Weiner told her, just an online thing, like a computer game, and he was sorry. It’s not like he had sex with someone else, she told herself. Abedin had barely dated at all before Weiner and he was, she writes in the book, her “first and only”. I ask if she thinks this inexperience caused her to be naive about her husband. “I don’t think I was naive – I think I wasn’t rash. Also, because I lost my father when I was young and that was such an important relationship in my life, I thought: ‘Am I going to deprive this child of a father, without giving him another chance?’ I feel I made a very thoughtful decision about it.” He resigned from Congress, they went into therapy, and six months later their son, Jordan, was born.A few months after that, it was Abedin who was in the spotlight when five Republican members of Congress, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, wrote a letter saying Abedin should be investigated for possible terrorist “infiltration” of the state department. “Abedin has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organisations,” they wrote. This was complete nonsense: none of Abedin’s family had any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Looking back now, Abedin sees this episode as a precursor to the heightened Islamaphobia that would soon unfold in the US: “Michele Bachmann was the appetiser for what came next, and I was the experiment.”For so long, Abedin had been, she says, “the token Muslim in American politics”. Hillary trusted her expertise on the Middle East and she often acted as translator on trips to the region. But now American politicians and some foreign ones were questioning her loyalty. Senator John McCain gave a speech to the Senate defending her: “Huma represents what is best about America … I am proud to call her my friend.” More Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and the then House speaker John Boehner, spoke up for her, and the scandal faded. It was a testament to how well liked Abedin was in the American political world, whereas her husband was totally isolated.When Weiner mooted the idea of running for mayor of New York in 2013, Abedin was enthusiastic. He was such a good politician, and what had happened in 2011 had clearly been an aberration, she thought. “I couldn’t imagine Anthony would do anything to risk it all again,” she writes. Abedin, for the first time, made a public statement defending her husband. “I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him,” she said at a press conference to persuade voters. Hillary was horrified and I ask Abedin why. After all, Hillary had stood by her husband after his infidelities. “Hillary has always approached how she tried to help me from the perspective of a friend, and she felt that I didn’t need to do what I did,” she says.I ask if Hillary ever mentioned to Abedin their shared experience of being married to chronically unfaithful husbands.“No. No. I don’t think she – I don’t want to be talking about private conversations with her. But she has this incredible empathy, compassion and problem-solving gene that she can’t shake. There’s no, ‘This is what I did so you should do this.’ No. She didn’t have to. I’d seen what she’d gone through,” she says.Soon after Abedin made her public statement of forgiveness, it emerged Weiner was still sexting. Abedin doesn’t include this detail in the book – and who could blame her – but this time he was doing so under the unforgettable alias “Carlos Danger”. New Yorkers rejected the possibility of Mayor Danger.No one could understand why she stayed – not even the Clintons, although they never said so explicitly. But no one in her family was divorced, and she just couldn’t picture it for herself. She told Weiner in 2014 that she wanted a separation, but they still lived together. Outsiders tutted, but he made life easier for her. Abedin was extremely busy working for Clinton, now secretary of state and, imminently, presidential nominee. He was happy to stay home and look after their son while Abedin travelled the country. Anyone who has been married with kids will know that, for pragmatic purposes, you sometimes tolerate more than you should.A month after Hillary was named the Democratic nominee in the 2016 election, Weiner called Abedin. He told her the New York Post was publishing a picture of him and Jordan. She assumed it would be a paparazzi photo of the two of them in the park. It wasn’t. It was a photo taken by Weiner showing himself aroused and in bed, and next to him lay their sleeping toddler son, and he had sent it to a woman on the internet. Abedin threw him out of their apartment and publicly announced their separation. Strangers called Child Services saying they were concerned for Jordan’s safety, so now, while going through a very public scandal, and a separation, and helping to helm an especially fevered presidential campaign, she was also being investigated by Child Services. Just one of those things would drive most people to a nervous breakdown. How on earth did she not collapse?“God,” she replies. “My faith has carried me through this life and, when I was at my lowest moments, that’s where I went. I think the average American doesn’t know about Islam, but, no question, that is where I find my balance.”Things were about to get even worse for Abedin. A few weeks later, it was alleged that Weiner had been sexting a 15-year-old girl – a federal offence. “Each time I thought Anthony had reached a new nadir, he shocked me by going even lower,” Abedin writes.Maybe he was testing you to see how much you could take, I say.“I think the isolation and the shunning from society made him retreat more into these spaces and, as a result, it felt as though whatever it was Anthony was dealing with, it was not being treated properly and we both had to get to the bottom,” she says. He went into rehab and that was when doctors first told her that Weiner had an “addiction”. Does she think he’s a sex addict?“There are certain questions for him to answer, not me. What I do know is that somebody who intentionally loses everything and falls into the same pattern again, that’s not behaviour you can control,” she says.It’s an addict’s behaviour, but maybe not to sex, I say. Maybe he was addicted to self-destruction, or even public shame. She nods emphatically.Because Weiner’s alleged victim was underage, the FBI seized his laptop. When they found emails on it from Abedin to Hillary containing classified information, Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails and whether she used a private server for official communications. The election was less than two weeks away. Abedin’s two worlds – her Clinton world and her tattered marriage – had collided in the most spectacular fashion. Within days, Comey cleared Clinton, but the damage had been done.Abedin says she’s put all her anger behind her, but she still sounds pretty angry when talking about Comey. “Do I believe [the reopened investigation] was the singular factor in her loss? No. Do I believe it was a factor? Yes, I do,” she says. The first thing she heard after Clinton gave her concession speech on 9 November was reporters shouting, “Do you blame yourself, Huma?” She says she still has no idea why her emails were on her ex-husband’s computer. I ask how she felt when President Trump thanked Comey after winning the election. After a long pause she says: “I’m not sure I have a word you can print.”Almost exactly a year after that, Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Before he was incarcerated, the two of them attempted to file for divorce, but because of the enormous media interest, Abedin reluctantly withdrew the petition. (They are currently finalising details of their divorce.) She had expected to spend that year working as chief of staff to the first female president; instead, she was shuttling her son to prison for visits with his father in a country that was enacting a so-called Muslim ban, and she still laughs at the dystopian absurdity of it. Were she and Hillary bitter after the election?“Bitterness is not the word, but I was angry. There was also a lot of ‘I told you so’ [to the public and media]. Like, ‘I told you this Muslim ban was going to happen!’”How to tell when a political sex scandal matters – a simple guideRead moreJordan is now nine and I ask if he has his father’s all-too-recognisable surname; she says he does. How has she explained that photo of him lying in bed next to his father?“That’s a conversation that, when he’s at an age when it’s appropriate, we’re going to have. He knows there are moments when there are [photographers] around and he’s had to deal with the gaggles,” she says. The first thing Jordan asked her when she told him she had written a book was: “Does that mean those men are coming back?”After Weiner was released, and registered as a sex offender, he got an apartment in the same building as Abedin, to make things easier for Jordan. This remains the status quo. In 2019, after he told Abedin he was dating again, she did the one thing she had always resisted: she looked through his old phone. It turned out that, after 2013, while they were still married, he hadn’t just been sexting women – he’d been having sex with them, sometimes in their family home. With a therapist, they then went through a disclosure process, in which he told her everything. Knowing the truth at last helped her to shake off the anger, the shame and the resentment, and to move on. These days she says they are “more than civil to each other” but when I ask what he’s doing now for a job, her voice hardens: “You’d have to ask him. I assume he’s doing stuff.” (According to a New Yorker interview in December 2020, he’s running a company that makes “countertops out of concrete and crushed Heineken bottles”.) Abedin, meanwhile, is still working for Hillary. “She’s doing a show for Apple TV, she and her daughter have set up a production company, and there’s all these amazing projects,” she says brightly. It was always about the cause. I ask her if she’s seeing anyone and she goes all fluttery: “Oh my goodness. This is a question I was not prepared for. No, I’m not seeing anyone. I don’t really go on dates. That’s kind of sad, now that I think of it. But if you have any leads, I’ll take them.”What is she looking for in a partner?She thinks for a moment: “Somebody not in politics, don’t you think?” TopicsHuma AbedinHillary ClintonAnthony WeinerDemocratsUS politicsUS elections 2016featuresReuse this content More

  • in

    Glenn Youngkin condemns report his son twice tried to vote in Virginia

    VirginiaGlenn Youngkin condemns report his son twice tried to vote in VirginiaPoll worker told governor-elect’s 17-year-old son he was not eligible to cast ballot in father’s contest with Terry McAuliffe

    Podcast: Is this a presidency-defining week for Biden?
    Martin Pengelly@MartinPengellySat 6 Nov 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Sat 6 Nov 2021 02.02 EDTGlenn Youngkin, the Republican victor in this week’s election for governor in Virginia, reacted angrily to a report which said his 17-year-old son twice tried to vote in the contest.‘Get shit done’: how Republican dog-whistles beat Democratic inactionRead moreResponding to the Washington Post on Friday, a spokesman for Youngkin said: “It’s unfortunate that while Glenn attempts to unite the commonwealth around his positive message of better schools, safer streets, a lower cost of living and more jobs, his political opponents – mad that they suffered historic losses this year – are pitching opposition research on a 17-year-old kid.”The Post did not name Youngkin’s young kin, because he is a minor. It quoted a local elections official as saying the boy tried to vote once on Tuesday, then came back 20 minutes later and tried again, saying a friend the same age had been allowed to do so.The official, Jennifer Chanty, said she told him: “I don’t know what occurred with your friend but you are not registered to vote today. You’re welcome to register, but you will not be voting today.”The paper identified Chanty as a Democrat. She said the Youngkins were not registered to vote in her precinct and added: “It was just weird. He was very insistent that he wanted to vote in this election and I said, ‘Well, you’re not old enough.’”She also said: “Teenagers do stupid things. I’ll chalk it up to that. I’ll believe that first before anything else.”Youngkin’s spokesman said the governor-elect’s son “honestly misunderstood Virginia election law and simply asked polling officials if he was eligible to vote. When informed he was not, he went to school.”Elections officials told the Post no laws were broken.Youngkin won a startling victory in Virginia, beating the Democrat Terry McAuliffe, a former governor and close Clinton ally who led for most of the race.The Republican successfully distanced himself from Donald Trump, not least physically as the former president stayed away from the state.Youngkin acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory over Trump last year, but Democrats accused him of flirting with Trump’s lies about voter fraud.Most strenuously, critics accused Youngkin of using dog-whistle tactics to appeal to white voters, particularly in focusing on education and critical race theory.Critical race theory is an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society. It is not taught in Virginia schools. Regardless, Youngkin promised to ban it.TopicsVirginiaUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Setback for Biden as Democrats delay vote on sweeping investment plan

    US politicsSetback for Biden as Democrats delay vote on sweeping investment planModerates want more details before reconciliation bill advancesPelosi signals she has votes to pass bipartisan infrastructure bill Lauren Gambino in Washington and Adam Gabbatt in New YorkFri 5 Nov 2021 16.43 EDTFirst published on Fri 5 Nov 2021 09.27 EDTDemocrats on Friday once again postponed a vote on the centerpiece of Joe Biden’s economic vision, after lobbying by the president and House leaders failed to persuade a small group of moderates to support the spending package without delay.Despite the setback, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said she planned to plow ahead on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, another key pillar of the president’s legislative agenda, indicating she had the votes to overcome resistance from progressives who want to pass it in tandem with the social policy and climate mitigation spending package.“We had hoped to be able to bring both bills to the floor today,” Pelosi said at an impromptu news conference on Friday, after a day of frenzied negotiations appeared unlikely to break an impasse over Biden’s agenda.But Pelosi insisted the House was on the cusp of breakthrough that would not only send the infrastructure bill to Biden’s desk, notching a much-needed victory, but would move the party a “major step” closer to approving the social policy package.“We’re in the best place ever, today, to be able to go forward,” she said.A plan to advance both Biden’s social and environmental spending package and a smaller bipartisan public works measure was upended amid pushback from moderates demanding an official accounting of the spending bill.As tensions escalated, Pelosi proposed a new strategy, announcing in a letter to Democrats that the House would hold two votes on Friday: one on the infrastructure measure and a procedural vote related to the spending package.But that plan was thrown into jeopardy by progressives, who had for months said they would not vote for the infrastructure bill without a simultaneous vote on the spending package. That position derailed two previous attempts to advance the infrastructure bill first.The scrambled timeline deflated hopes of giving Biden a much-needed legislative accomplishment after months of false starts and electoral setbacks this week.Biden and party leaders have worked furiously to reach a consensus on the spending bill, which seeks to combat the climate crisis while reforming healthcare, education and immigration, all paid for by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on corporations. With razor-thin majorities, they need the support of every Democratic senator and nearly every House Democrat.Centrist lawmakers want to see an independent cost analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office before voting on the $1.85tn package – which could take several days or even weeks.In a statement, Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, signaled that her members had not softened their position on advancing the bills together.“If our six colleagues still want to wait for a CBO score, we would agree to give them that time – after which point we can vote on both bills together,” she said.Biden urges ‘every House member’ to support agenda ‘right now’ as crucial vote nears – liveRead moreNegotiations have seen the initial Biden spending proposal nearly halved from $3.5tn, with many provisions pared back or dropped entirely.Touting a strong monthly jobs report on Friday, Biden implored House Democrats to “vote yes on both these bills right now”, arguing both pieces of legislation were critical to economic recovery.“Passing these bills will say clearly to the American people, ‘We hear your voices, we’re going to invest in your hopes,” Biden said.After his remarks, the president said he was returning to the Oval Office to “make some calls” to lawmakers.Pelosi worked furiously on Thursday to pave the way for a vote before lawmakers leave Washington for a week-long recess, whipping members on the House floor and keeping them late into the night in an effort to shore up support for legislation which runs to more than 2,000 pages.Democrats suffered a series of stinging electoral setbacks this week, including losing the governorship of Virginia and being run to the wire in New Jersey.Major legislative victories will, leaders hope, help regain momentum and improve electoral prospects ahead of next year’s midterm elections.With unified Republican opposition, House Democrats can lose no more than three votes. If passed, the spending bill will go to the 50-50 Senate, where it will face new challenges. Two centrist Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, have already thwarted many proposals and are expected to have further objections.House passage of the $1.2tn infrastructure bill to upgrade roads, bridges, waterways and broadband, which has already passed the Senate with the support of 19 Republicans, would send the measure to the president’s desk.The $1.85tn spending package would provide large numbers of Americans with assistance to pay for healthcare, raising children and caring for elderly people at home. There would be lower prescription drug costs and a new hearing aid benefit for older Americans, and the package would provide some $555bn in tax breaks encouraging cleaner energy and electric vehicles, the largest US commitment to tackling climate change.House Democrats have added other key provisions, including a new paid family leave program and work permits for immigrants.Much of the cost would be covered with higher taxes on those earning more than $400,000 a year and a 5% surtax on those making more than $10m. Large corporations would face a new 15% minimum tax.
    The Associated Press contributed reporting
    TopicsUS politicsDemocratsJoe BidenHouse of RepresentativesUS healthcareUS CongressNancy PelosinewsReuse this content More

  • in

    The real lesson of the election results? Democrats must go big and bold | Andrew Gawthorpe

    OpinionUS politicsThe real lesson of the election results? Democrats must go big and boldAndrew GawthorpeCentrist Democrats may use electoral setbacks to try to water down the party’s legislative plans. That would be a big mistake Fri 5 Nov 2021 06.23 EDTLast modified on Fri 5 Nov 2021 15.56 EDTDemocrats this week suffered a stinging rebuke in elections up and down the country. The damage was most notable in Virginia, where Republican Glenn Youngkin won a state that Joe Biden carried by 10 points just a year ago. But there were warning signs elsewhere, too – from the party’s eroding support in the southern suburbs of New Jersey to its still-declining fortunes in Hispanic areas of south Texas, where Republican John Lujan flipped a heavily Hispanic state legislative district which Biden won by 14 points last year.Although depressing, these results are not entirely surprising. Even as Biden triumphed in the 2020 presidential election, there were ample signs that the suburban voters who propelled him to victory were keeping their options open. Democrats won the presidency, but declining suburban support nearly cost them the House of Representatives. In the Senate, they fought Republicans heroically but unsatisfyingly to a standstill, splitting the chamber 50/50. Voters rejected Trump, but they seemed not to want to pass complete control of government to his opponents, either.These latest results confirm that not much has changed since, and Democrats have only themselves to blame. They have enjoyed unified control of the federal government for a year, but have spent their time trapped in negotiations with one another over a pair of legislative packages covering infrastructure, climate and social welfare. Even seasoned pundits find the process confusing and opaque and, for the busy ordinary voter, the problem is multiplied tenfold. At a time when the coronavirus and its associated scourges – inflation, joblessness and parental panic over their children’s education – are still stalking the land, the party is struggling to break through because it’s too busy talking to itself.There’s a risk that Democrats – or, more precisely, one faction of them – react to this week’s results in a way that makes the problem even worse. Already, “moderate” senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have been the main roadblock to Democrats passing large, popular social welfare bills. They are backed, though more quietly, by other senators and House members who fear that the party will be punished if its agenda becomes too bold and too progressive. If moderates decide that this week’s results represent the beginning of just such a backlash, they may force the party to abandon its plans and retreat into a defensive crouch.This would be an enormous mistake. If Democrats are to reverse their fortunes, they have to be bold and rack up big accomplishments. Rather than backing off expansive legislation, they should double down on it. If Democrats pass an ambitious package to fight poverty, expand healthcare, assist families with childcare expenses, and introduce paid family and medical leave, there will be no mistaking what they stand for. Republicans, meanwhile, will be left arguing against programs that are standard throughout the developed world and – more importantly – popular in the United States as well.Nor is there much reason to believe that Democrats’ recent electoral setbacks resulted from being too progressive. Although a socialist candidate for Buffalo mayor lost out to her moderate rival and a police reform measure failed in Minneapolis, these results reveal nothing about the popularity of the party’s mainstream economic agenda. Democrats struggled not because they appear too progressive, but because, after months of infighting, they don’t appear to stand for anything.The need to move quickly and boldly is underlined by looking at the other factors that are draining the party’s support. The first is inflation, where the party’s plans to expand the social safety net in the future don’t do much to help voters struggling with rising prices right now. Although economic policymakers expect this period to pass relatively quickly, there is little the White House can do to address the fastest price increases in a generation. Even worse, the policymakers might be wrong, leaving Americans still struggling as the midterms approach. Their inability to do much about inflation increases the party’s need to act elsewhere if it is to demonstrate that it can deliver concrete improvements in people’s economic situation.Finally, the outsized role played in the Virginia election by concerns about the teaching of so-called critical race theory in schools is another reason Democrats badly need to change the conversation. As the party has retreated into bickering among itself, the political debate has become increasingly dominated by hyped-up culture war issues to which Democrats struggle to respond.It may be true that concerns about critical race theory are mainly a form of manufactured outrage designed to activate white grievance, but describing them as such doesn’t seem to be a winning political strategy. Even as the party crafts a new message about school curricula which disassociates it from the warped image put forward by the right, it also needs a more concrete response – one that emphasizes how the party is investing in the nation’s schools and families, including through improved access to childcare and paid family leave.But to do that, they need to actually pass the legislation that will create these programs. The painful truth Democrats have to face is that, to many voters, even imaginary claims about critical race theory feel more real right now than the social welfare programs being debated in Congress. To flip that calculus and show that Democratic governance can benefit the country while the culture war is designed to hold it back, Democrats have to be big and bold. Otherwise, they – and, given the Republican party’s extremist turn, the country – are in serious trouble.
    Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University, and host of the podcast America Explained
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsUS CongresscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    If Americans can’t have basic things like childcare, our democracy is a sham | David Sirota and Andrew Perez

    OpinionUS politicsIf Americans can’t have basic things like childcare, our democracy is a shamDavid Sirota and Andrew PerezCorporate influence and corruption defines American politics. No wonder most think the country is headed in the wrong direction Fri 5 Nov 2021 06.22 EDTLast modified on Fri 5 Nov 2021 13.28 EDTIn 2014, Northwestern and Princeton researchers published a report statistically documenting how lawmakers do not listen or care about what most voters want, and instead mostly care about serving their big donors. Coupled with additional research documenting the discrepancy between donor and voter preferences, they bluntly concluded that the “preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy”.Seven years later, America is witnessing a very public and explicit illustration of this situation in real time – and the country seems pretty ticked off about it, in the lead-up to Tuesday’s off-year elections and in advance of the upcoming midterms next year.Over the last few weeks, Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers have been making headlines agreeing to whittle down their social spending reconciliation bill at the demand of corporate donors and their congressional puppets.The specific initiatives being cut or watered down in the Biden agenda bill share two traits: 1) They would require the wealthy and powerful to sacrifice a bit of their wealth and power and 2) They are quite literally the most popular proposals among rank-and-file voters.New polling demonstrates the silencing effect that systemic corruption is having on voter preferences:
    82% of registered voters support adding dental and vision benefits to Medicare – and this is voters’ “top priority” for Democrats’ social spending bill, according to survey data from Morning Consult. Conservative Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have pushed to keep these benefits out of the bill, following an aggressive lobbying campaign by health insurers who enjoy massive profits from the privatized Medicare Advantage program.
    Another top priority for voters is allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, with 72% saying they support the idea, according to Morning Consult. Sinema and a few House Democrats backed by the pharmaceutical industry managed to block the party’s original drug pricing measure from being put into the reconciliation bill. On Tuesday, Democrats announced they had reached a deal on a drug pricing plan, which Politico described as “far weaker” than Democrats’ promised legislation. One industry analyst said the deal “seems designed to let legislators claim an achievement while granting pharma protection”.
    The poll also found that 70% of voters support including paid family and medical leave for new parents in Democrats’ spending bill. Manchin has demanded this item be cut.
    After railing against the Republicans’ 2017 tax law for years, Democrats have largely refused to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and their final bill may even end up being a net tax cut for the rich. This, even though Biden’s own pollsters found that raising taxing on the wealthy was “the most popular of more than 30 economic proposals” they tested during the 2020 presidential campaign.
    The flip side of all this also appears to be true – Democrats have protected initiatives to enrich powerful corporations, even though some of those measures aren’t very popular. One example: subsidies for health insurance plans purchased on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace that shower money on for-profit insurers. Morning Consult reports that extending new ACA premium tax credits passed by Democrats in March “is the lowest-ranking of all the health measures included in the poll”.The results of this latest middle finger to voter preferences? New polling data shows that almost three-quarters of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction.Taken together, this is the democracy crisis thrumming underneath all the media noise – the day-to-day erosion of democracy by corporations that use a system of legalized bribery to buy public policy, which then erodes Americans’ faith in their government. And yet this erosion does not get discussed in a media-directed democracy discourse that focuses almost exclusively on the 6 January insurrection or Republican efforts to deny election results and limit voting.This is what my 2006 book called the “hostile takeover”: the conquest of democratic institutions by moneyed interests, to the point where “the world’s greatest democracy” routinely rejects the commonsense policies that the vast majority of voters want and that every other high-income country has already adopted.The hostile takeover is not just the rejection of the most popular policies – it is also the media discourse itself. The Washington press is constantly portraying industry-sponsored opponents of majoritarian policies as “moderates” or “centrists” and depicting supporters of those policies as fringe lunatics who refuse to be reasonable and compromise.Meanwhile, there is a pervasive omertà that silences most media discussion of the corporate influence and corruption that so obviously defines American politics – and there is scant mention that the “moderate” obstructionists are bankrolled by the industries lobbying to kill the popular policies that Americans want.There is some encouraging proof that more and more Americans innately understand the kleptocratic nature of their government, and want explicit accountability journalism to uncover it. Also mildly encouraging is the impact of that reporting in the reconciliation bill battle: Democrats tried to get rid of all the drug pricing provisions, but were successfully shamed into adding at least a few of the (pathetically weak) provisions back in after independent media aggressively exposed the pharma ties of key lawmakers.It’s not a huge victory and not worthy of some effusive celebration of Democrats because the provisions are watered down and a betrayal of the party’s promise to do something a lot better. But it’s a minimal proof-of-concept win.It may at least get the idea of Medicare negotiating drug prices into law for the first time. And as important, it shows that when there is a robust press willing to challenge power, the government can be forced – kicking and screaming – to respond, or at least pretend to respond.It’s going to take a whole lot more of that kind of reporting and a whole lot more movement pressure to secure real wins and beat back the hostile takeover.The silver lining here is that at least that takeover is now explicit. The polls showing what people want compared to what’s being excised from the reconciliation bill make this part of the democracy crisis impossible to deny – and ending that denial is a prerequisite for achieving something better.
    David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor-at-large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter
    Andrew Perez is a senior editor at the Daily Poster and a co-founder of the Democratic Policy Center
    This article was originally published in the Daily Poster, a grassroots-funded investigative news outlet
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsUS CongresscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Is this a presidency-defining week for Biden? Politics Weekly Extra – podcast

    Voters handed Joe Biden a devastating blow by electing a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, in Virginia. Jonathan Freedland talks to David Smith about how the president rallies his party ahead of next year’s midterms.

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    Listen to Science Weekly, as Madeleine Finlay brings us daily updates from Cop26. Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More