Joe Biden

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The electoral college has become a gun held to the head of US democracy | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      These are not easy days for supporters of American democracy. But what twists my innards is not the prospect that in three weeks’ time, the majority of voters could hand the reins of power to a vengeful authoritarian demagogue. Instead, I’m sickened by the prospect that the electoral college can do that for us – that Kamala Harris could win the national popular vote, but come up short where it counts.We know the popular vote winner has already twice lost in this young century, in 2000 and again in 2016. But few realize how narrowly we missed a catastrophic result in 2020 when Biden won the national popular vote by a substantial margin – over 7 million votes. In every other democratic nation, such a result would have settled matters. Not in the US. Biden’s margin of victory in three key swing states – Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin – was razor thin, with fewer than 44,000 votes combined.It was no accident that Trump trained his efforts – the stuff of outstanding state and federal indictments – to overturn Biden’s victory in these three states. Had Trump succeeded in pressuring Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” the votes necessary to overcome Biden’s state lead, had he succeeded in submitting bogus slates of electoral college votes from Arizona and Wisconsin, he could have recaptured the White House.Now, once again, our nation is held hostage to our manifestly defective means of electing the president. How did we arrive at this perilous point? The drafters of the constitution, exhausted by long days of toil in Philadelphia’s steamy Independence Hall in the summer of 1787, settled on the electoral college in something of an afterthought. Unable to decide between letting Congress elect the president or giving full power to the people, they ended up retrofitting a device used by the Holy Roman Empire to “elect” monarchs and emperors. By letting every state legislature choose a body of electors (equal to the state’s representation in Congress), the system was meant to find citizens of public standing capable of wisely choosing a chief executive.Almost from the get-go, the system did not function as designed. With the rise of parties, states realized they could best leverage their power over the national outcome by awarding all their electoral college votes to the statewide winner of the popular vote – the system we have now. (By defeating Al Gore by 537 votes in Florida, George W Bush captured all of the citrus state’s electoral college votes and, with them, the White House.)Those who nowadays defend the electoral college as a device designed to make sure the presidency isn’t always captured by “coastal elites” are offering a justification that has nothing to do with college’s original logic and ignoring the fact that the vast number of American citizens live in coastal states. An electoral system that awarded four votes to citizens of Wyoming and a single vote to citizens of California would be dismissed as a transparent violation of the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote”. And yet this is exactly what the electoral college does.Worse still is how the electoral college dramatically magnifies the vote of citizens in a handful of swing states. Tens of millions of voters in non-competitive states are essentially disenfranchised. Kamala Harris presently enjoys a 24-point lead over Donald Trump in California. Votes for Trump in California count, then, for nothing, while all votes for Harris over the bare majority needed to win are utterly wasted. In the key swing states, things look very different.The entire election will turn on what happens in seven states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. Voters in the remaining 43 states are reduced to the role of spectator. And so we’re left holding our breath, wondering whether American democracy will survive based on whether Arab Americans in Michigan feel betrayed by the Democratic party or whether Black men in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia will vote in sufficient numbers for Harris.A system that permits a national election to turn on the outcome in a handful of counties in a handful of states is tailor-made for a candidate intent on sowing electoral chaos. When Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol on 6 January 2021, his effort to remain in power had already failed. Every state (and the District of Columbia) had already certified its result, thanks to the honest and tireless efforts of election officials of both parties. The insurrection simply promised to delay the inevitable.This time around, the Maga team knows better. This time, it will devote its efforts to monkeying with the state count. They have already succeeded in inserting a substantial number of Trump loyalists into key positions within the election infrastructure of the swing states. It doesn’t take much to muddy the outcome of a close state contest by targeting specific counties – especially when Trump has primed his supporters to reject any result that doesn’t result in his victory.Given the dangers and dysfunctions of the electoral college, it is unsurprising that since 1816 there have been over 700 proposed amendments to reform or simply abolish the system. And yet all have foundered on the constitution’s arduous amendment process, which throughout our history has frustrated vitally needed constitutional change and now leaves us stuck with an electoral process that no one would seriously consider if tasked with designing a fresh system.And so we face the ominous prospect that this defect of constitutional design may – against the wishes of the majority of American people – deliver a result that tolls the end of liberal democracy in America. Sickening.

      Lawrence Douglas is the author, most recently, of Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. He is a contributing opinion writer for the Guardian US and teaches at Amherst College More

    • 288 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      If Kamala Harris is trying to show she can meet the needs of Black America, she has gaps to fill | Shamira Ibrahim

      by

      As we enter the final 21 days of the 2024 presidential election, the euphoric sheen from the summer’s “Kamala is Brat” phenomenon, which resonated with large swaths of gen Z voters, has waned. The Harris campaign is scrambling to communicate its case for selection at the polls, with the vice-president hurriedly pushing out platforms that address lingering skepticism amongst various demographic groups. On Tuesday night, during a broadcast conversation with the radio host Charlamagne tha God, Harris turned her attention to Black men.Harris’s concern is not completely unfounded – several notable Black male celebrities, such as the rapper 50 Cent and the sports personality Stephen A Smith, have expressed their receptiveness to the Trump campaign. On the aggregate, there has been a dip in support: a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely Black voters reported that 78% of all Black voters expressed an interest in voting for Harris, which would be a significantly smaller turnout than the 90% of Black people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020. The most pronounced drop comes from Black men, 85% of whom turned out for the US president in the last election and just 70% of whom now say they would vote for Harris.In the hour-long interview, Charlamagne, whose daily morning show The Breakfast Club reaches a predominantly Black audience of 8 million listeners monthly, prodded Harris on topics spanning reparations, criminal justice reform, economic inequality and the fearmongering of the Trump campaign. Harris homed in on her consistent talking points about the necessity of voter participation, a proposed influx of capital for the middle class and misinformation, responses that felt stale and limited. But at other times, her replies landed with impact: when asked about issues specific to Black people that she would prioritize, Harris stressed initiatives around Black maternal mortality and the child tax credit as long neglected needs.In a few cases, Harris’s answers felt like fitting a square peg into a round hole. When asked by a caller how she intends to address the homelessness crisis in the US when the current administration seems to overemphasize foreign interests such as the Israel-Gaza war, the Democratic nominee deflected, punting back to her well-tread lines on home ownership and small business loans.The full exchange, which aired on iHeartRadio’s podcast platform and was simulcast on CNN, both reflected Harris’s best assets and underscored her biggest flaws as a candidate. She remains unflappable on her key points – including the idea that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and Black advancement – and she’s deft at articulating the possibilities and limitations of the government.But her inability to veer away from her entrenched positions or to adequately explain how they could substantively apply to the poor and working class, where Black communities are disproportionately represented, leaves much to be desired. If Harris’s aim is to squash the nagging perspective that she will be unable to meet the needs of Black America, then she still has a gap to fill. Her insistence that “we can do it all” is undercut by the reality that a large part of the Black working class is struggling with unemployment, homelessness, and other critical issues that prevent successful class migration.Yesterday, Harris’s campaign released the Opportunity Agenda for Black Men, a five-point platform focused on Black entrepreneurship, mentorship, marijuana legislation, and cryptocurrency. The platform came on the heels of a contentious lecture from Barack Obama to Black men in Pittsburgh, where the former president alleged that they “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that”.Whether misogyny is a factor in Harris’s current polling numbers or it isn’t, the emphasis on Black men feels overstated. The Black population accounts for barely 13% of the country, with high distribution in metropolitan areas that skew predominantly Democratic, while white and non-Black populations have voted for Trump at significantly higher rates.Despite this disconnect, the Harris campaign has responded with an aggressive media blitz of interviews and campaign stops directly targeted at Black communities. As a result many Black voters are ultimately left with the idea of voting as a means of harm reduction and not one of enthusiasm. For all of Harris’s insistence that the Trump campaign thrives on driving fear, the most animating influence on her campaign’s push to get Black voters to the polls seems to be fear as well. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Taiwan and trade: how China sees its future with the US after the election

      by

      Deciphering the obscure machinations of elite politics is a pursuit that western China-watchers are all too familiar with. But as the US election approaches, it is analysts in China who are struggling to read the tea leaves on what differentiates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump when it comes to their stance on the US’s biggest geopolitical rival.Commentators are calling it the vibes election. For Beijing, despite the cheers and whoops of Harris’s campaign, her vibes are largely similar to Trump’s.“Harris will continue Biden’s policies” on China, says Wang Yiwei, a professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. What are Biden’s policies? He is a “Trumpist without the Trump”, says Wang.Harris has done little to dispel the belief that her stance on China will be largely the same as Biden’s, should she win the election in November. In her headline speech at the Democratic national convention on 22 August, China was mentioned just once: she promised to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”.Harris has little foreign policy record to be judged on. But in an economic policy speech on 16 August, she emphasised her goal of “building up our middle class”, a vision that Biden has used to justify placing high tariffs on Chinese imports, extending Donald Trump’s trade war.Beijing fundamentally does not see there being much difference between a Democratic- or Republican-controlled White House. Indeed, hawkishness on China has become one of the few bipartisan issues in US politics.In a recent piece for Foreign Affairs, leading foreign policy commentators Wang Jisi, Hu Ran and Zhao Jianwei wrote that “Chinese strategists hold few illusions that US policy toward China might change course over the next decade … they assume that whoever is elected in November 2024 will continue to prioritise strategic competition and even containment in Washington’s approach to Beijing.” The authors predicted that although Harris’s policymaking would likely be more “organised and predictable” than Trump’s, both would be “strategically consistent”.Jude Blanchette, a China expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, also says that US-China relations would remain strained, no matter who was in the White House. “The US-China relationship is trending negative irrespective of who assumes office next January, but a Trump 2.0 would likely bring significantly more economic friction owing to an almost certain trade war,” Blanchette said.Even in areas where US-China co-operation used to be more fruitful, such as climate policies, there are concerns that such exchanges are on thin ice. In a recent briefing, Kate Logan, associate director of climate at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that China “seems to be placing a greater emphasis on subnational cooperation”: provincial- or state-level dialogues rather than negotiations between Washington and Beijing. This is partly driven by a concern that should Trump be re-elected, national-level climate diplomacy could be in jeopardy.Harris’s nomination of Tim Walz, the governor of Minnestoa, has also been a curveball for China’s America-watchers. Having taught in China in 1989 and 1990, and travelled there extensively in the years since, Walz has more China experience than anyone on a presidential ticket since George HW Bush. But other than Walz’s sustained support of human rights in China, it is unclear how he could or would shape the White House’s China policy if Harris were to win in November.More impactful would be the national security team that Harris assembles. Her current national security adviser, Philip Gordon, is a likely pick. In 2019, Gordon signed an open letter cautioning against treating China as “an enemy” of the US. Some analysts have speculated that his more recent experience inside the White House may have pushed him in a hawkish direction. But in a recent conversation with the Council on Foreign Relations, a thinktank in New York, Gordon refrained from describing China as an enemy or a threat. Instead, he repeatedly referred to the “challenge” from China – one that the US should be worried about, but that could be managed.High on China’s own agenda is Taiwan, which in January elected Lai Ching-te, who is detested by Beijing, as president. Lai is from the pro-sovereignty Democratic Progressive party. For Beijing, a red line in its US relations is Washington’s support for “separatist forces”, and it see Lai as an agent of these forces.Beijing puts adherence to its version of the “one China” principle – the notion that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China’s rightful territory – at the centre of its international diplomacy. In China’s official readout of President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Biden in November, the Taiwan issue was described as “the most important and sensitive issue in Sino-US relations”.Certain members of the Chinese foreign policy establishment welcome the idea of a second Trump term, because they see Trump as a business-minded actor who would not be inclined to provide US resources or moral support to the cause of Taiwanese sovereignty. Wang, the Renmin University professor, says that Trump has less respect for the international alliance system than Biden, which works in China’s favour. “His allies don’t trust him very much … Taiwan is more worried about Trump,” Wang said.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      But Trump is also unpredictable. In the event of a Trump presidency, Blanchette notes, “he will be surrounded by advisers who are hawkish on China and very likely pro-Taiwan. That won’t determine his decisions, but it will shape them.”Early in his presidential term, Trump was actually quite popular in Taiwan because of his tough stance on China. But opinions have cooled, especially after his recent comments suggesting Taiwan should pay the US to defend it. Local headlines likened him to a mobster running a protection racket.Those same outlets have latched on to Walz, focusing on his time spent in both China and Taiwan, and his support of Tibet and Hong Kong. Some describe him as the friendly “neighbourhood uncle”.According to a recent Brookings Institution poll, 55% of people in Taiwan think that the US will aid Taiwan’s defence, regardless of who is in the White House.Among analysts and diplomats, there’s tentative agreement, with some saying that while the rhetoric would be very different under Trump, actual policies wouldn’t change so much.“Obviously, the personalities are dramatically different, but US national interests are not,” said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy.“Either administration is going to come in and recognise Taiwan’s innate value to the US as a democratic partner in a tough neighbourhood, as a major security partner, major trading partner, and critical supplier of ICT [information and communication technology] goods.”Contingencies are being prepared in Taipei, but in reality, US support for Taiwan is hard-baked into laws like the Taiwan Relations Act and – deliberately – quite hard for a single administration to change on a whim.But improving cross-strait relations probably aren’t high on Trump’s agenda, and he is unlikely to expend political capital on Taiwan.“I think the bigger US interest, if Trump were going to expend political capital to engage Xi Jinping, would be the US economy, not to broker cross-strait peace,” said Thompson.Experts think that a similar, America-first case could be made to Trump regarding tensions in the South China Sea: the US and the Philippines have a mutual defence treaty and the US formally recognises the Philippines’ claims to waters and islets disputed with China (as did an international tribunal in 2016). But, although there are fears about Trump’s fickle attitude towards international alliances, the previous Trump administration’s stance on the dispute was largely in line with the Biden administration’s, and the fact that about 60% of global maritime trade passes through the contested waterway makes stability there important to the US economy.For normal people in Taiwan, the election feels like an event that could shape their futures, despite the fact that they have no say in it. Zhang Zhi-yu, a 71-year-old shopkeeper in Hualien, a city on Taiwan’s east coast, says that Trump is “crazy and irresponsible”.But, she concludes, “It’s no use worrying about war … we’re just ordinary people. If a foreign country wants to rescue Taiwan, people like us won’t be rescued first”. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Pelosi says she still hasn’t spoken to Biden since pressuring him to drop out

      by

      Nancy Pelosi has admitted she still has not spoken to Joe Biden since her crucial intervention in July led to his decision to drop out of the presidential race, following a disastrously frail performance in a debate against Donald Trump.The former speaker of the House told the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland on the Politics Weekly America podcast that although she continues to regard the US president as a great friend and longtime political ally, she felt a cold political calculation was necessary after the evidence of Biden’s failing mental acuity.“Not since then, no,” she said when asked if she had spoken to Biden since. “But I’m prayerful about it.”She added: “I have the greatest respect for him. I think he’s one of the great consequential presidents of our country,” she said. “I think his legacy had to be protected. I didn’t see that happening in the course that it was on, the election was on. My call was just to: ‘Let’s get on a better course.’ He will make the decision as to what that is. And he made that decision. But I think he has some unease because we’ve been friends for decades.”“Elections are decisions,” she added. “You decide to win. I decided a while ago that Donald Trump will never set foot in the White House again as president of the United States or in any other capacity … So when you make a decision, you have to make every decision in favor of winning … and the most important decision of all is the candidate.”Pelosi admitted that some in Biden’s campaign may not have forgiven her for her role in limiting Biden’s legacy to one term, but that a Trump victory would have equally reflected terribly on his legacy.Known as a uniquely influential House speaker, particularly during a Biden administration that passed major legislation on infrastructure and climate, Pelosi was widely seen as a senior Democrat willing to indicate that Biden should reconsider his bid for re-election when the polls showed Trump beating him badly.After Biden did step aside, Pelosi then encouraged the party to endorse Kamala Harris – and scored yet another victory when the vice-president named former congressman Tim Walz as her running mate.Pelosi has also been a longtime thorn in Trump’s side, frequently antagonizing him into posting long rants about her on social media, and publicly ripping up his State of the Union speech in 2020 on the podium of the House of Representatives, calling it a “manifesto of mistruths”.Explaining her unique ability to hold together a fragile coalition of centrist and progressive Democrats, Pelosi explained that she thought “leadership is about respect, about consensus building”, while deriding Trump’s ability to do anything of the sort, particularly with his hateful rhetoric towards immigrants, who he has described as “poisoning the blood of this country”.“I hardly ever say his name,” she says of Trump, instead describing him as “what’s-his-name”.“I think [Trump is] a grotesque word … You just don’t like the word passing your lips. I just don’t. I’m afraid, you know, when I grew up Catholic, as I am now, if you said a bad word, you could burn in hell if you didn’t have a chance to confess. So I don’t want to take any chances.“It’s up there with like, swearing.”In her new book, The Art of Power, Pelosi describes being the first woman speaker of the House, and her disappointment at the failure of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president in 2016, but says she remains optimistic that Harris will make history where Clinton could not.“I always thought America was more ready for a woman president than a woman speaker of the House,” she told the Guardian. “The Congress of the United States is not a glass ceiling there. It’s a marble ceiling. And it was very hard to rise up there. But the public, I think, is better disposed … In Congress, they would say to me: “Understand this, there’s been a pecking order here for a long time of men who’ve been waiting for openings to happen and take their turn.” And I said: “That’s interesting. We’ve been waiting over 200 years.”She praised Harris, however, for not running as “the first woman or first woman of color. She’s running on her strength, her knowledge of policy and strategy and presentation and the rest. And I think that’s a different race than Hillary Clinton ran.”Noting that more women support Harris and more men support Trump by considerable margins, Pelosi said: “The reason that there’s such a gender gulf is because there’s such a gulf in terms of policies that affect women.”“A woman’s right to choose is a personal issue. It’s an economic issue, but it’s also a democracy issue. This is an issue about freedom, freedom to manage your own life.”“What is a democracy? It is free and fair elections. It’s a peaceful transfer of power. It’s independent judiciary and is the personal freedoms in the bill of rights of our constitution. And he is assaulting those by particularly harshly on women, harshly on women. Did you see the other day? He said Kamala Harris was retarded. This is a person running for president of the United States.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Has he no respect for the office? Has he no decency about how to communicate?”Pelosi spoke about her fear of political violence, noting that misinformation spread by Trump had caused an atmosphere in which US disaster response agency Fema had to withdraw rescue workers from parts of North Caroline hit by a hurricane after reports of trucks of militia saying they were hunting Fema workers.“This is springing from the top,” she said of Trump’s role in fomenting political violence. “He’s taking pride in doing it. Don’t take it from me, take it from him.”After an armed assailant attacked her husband, Paul Pelosi, in their home after breaking in with an intent to harm her, many Republicans made jokes – including Trump’s son Donald Jr, who suggested he would dress as Paul Pelosi for Halloween.“When it happened, what was so sad for my children and grandchildren was that [some Republicans] thought it was a riot – they were laughing and making jokes … his son, all those people making jokes about it, right away. We didn’t even know if he was going to live or die.”Asked if she agreed with the recent remarks of the former chairperson of the joint chiefs, Mark Milley, a Trump appointee, that Trump was “a fascist to the core”, Pelosi said:“Yes, I do. I do. And I know it’s interesting because Kamala Harris says, I’ve prosecuted people like Trump. I know men like that. No, I know him,” she said, stressing Trump.“There’s one picture of me leaving the Roosevelt Room at the cabinet meeting. And I’m pointing to him and I’m saying, I’m leaving this meeting because with you, Mr President, all roads lead to Putin. [Milley’s] comment, ‘fascist to the core’, speaks to the actions that he has taken. Trivialize the press, fake news – that is a tactic of fascist governments.”She added that a possible repeat of January 6 was a key reason for the importance of Democrats at least winning the House in 2024. “Hakeem Jeffries must have the gavel, which means that we have the majority of the votes to accept the results of the electoral college for the peaceful transfer of power.”‘“Nobody could have ever seen an insurrection incited by the president of the United States. But an outsider, as a loser in this election, once again, he might try that.”Later in the interview, Pelosi said Trump’s name, then caught herself. “I said his name. Oh my gosh. I hope I don’t burn in hell.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris reveals ‘opportunity agenda for Black men’ in efforts to shore up support

      by

      Kamala Harris has revealed a plan to give Black men more economic opportunities, as anxiety mounts among her supporters that some in the Black community are less enthused by the Democratic presidential ticket than in recent elections, and may sit this one out – or support Donald Trump.The vice-president’s plan includes forgivable business loans for Black entrepreneurs, creating more apprenticeships, and studying sickle cell and other diseases that disproportionately affect African American men. It also includes ensuring that Black men have more access to shaping a national cannabis industry and to invest in cryptocurrency.Harris presented the so-called “opportunity agenda for Black men” on Monday, before speaking in the north-west corner of Erie, Pennsylvania, the country’s largest battleground state. It will be Harris’s 10th visit to Pennsylvania this election season.Political support among Black men for the Harris-Walz campaign has been wavering somewhat. Last week, Barack Obama suggested that some Black men “aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president”.The former president’s comments were later condemned by the Florida Republican representative Byron Donalds and Texas’s Wesley Hunt, members of Black Men for Trump, which posted a letter accusing Obama of being “insulting” and “demeaning”.“President Obama’s recent call for Black men to support Kamala Harris based solely on her skin color, rather than her policies, is deeply insulting,” the letter states. “Black Americans are not a monolith, and we don’t owe our votes to any candidate just because they ‘look like us’.”Over the weekend, the former president Bill Clinton was drafted in to speak to worshippers at a Zion Baptist church in Albany, Georgia, in support of Harris.“Uniting people and building, being repairers of the breach, as Isaiah says, those are the things that work,” Clinton said. “Blaming, dividing, demeaning – they get you a bunch of votes at election time, but they don’t work.”A poll in the New York Times placed Harris slightly behind Joe Biden among Black likely voters and showed one in five Black men support Trump. Despite alarm at the poll, the figures still show strong Black support for Democrats – but while the president won 87% of the Black vote in 2020, Harris’s numbers are lower. Seventy-eight per cent of Black voters in key battleground states polled in September said they would support the Democrat.Raphael Warnock, a Democratic senator from Georgia, warned against overestimating the shift. “Black men are not going to vote for Donald Trump in any significant numbers,” he told CNN on Sunday. “There will be some. We’re not a monolith.”Warnock predicted Black voters would remember that Trump had personally taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times in 1989 calling for the state to bring back the death penalty and to strengthen policing after the brutal beating and rape of a female jogger in Central Park.The so-called “Central Park Five” – five Black teenagers – were falsely accused of the crime and imprisoned for several years, before finally being exonerated in 2002. “Donald Trump has shown no deal of concern about what they went through, no deal, no bit of contrition about it,” Warnock added.But the South Carolina representative Jim Clyburn, who helped secure Biden’s Democratic nomination in 2020, told the network he is “concerned about the Black men staying home or voting for Trump”.“Black men, like everybody else, want to know exactly what I can expect from a Harris administration. And I have been very direct with them. And I have also contrasted that with what they can expect from a Trump administration,” Clyburn said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDemocrats have previously been accused of taking the Black vote for granted. In 2020, Biden was forced to apologize for telling the popular radio host Charlamagne Tha God that if African Americans “have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black”.Trump has sought to capitalize on wavering Black male support for Democrats who may sympathize with his “America First” policies around employment and immigration.As well as Harris’s new policy outreach to Black men, she is also reaching out to Hispanic men who might also be cool to her candidacy, via an “Hombres con Harris” outreach featuring ad buys and Hispanic celebrity events in battleground states.Three weeks out from polling day, there is some Democratic concern that Harris’s support among men broadly needs attention. Polls have found that there is roughly a 60-40 split between men and women, with men favoring Republicans and women Democrats.A Pew Research Center study released last year asked Americans how important it is to them that a woman be elected president in their lifetime. It found that only 18% of US adults said this is extremely or very important to them, with some 64% saying it was not too important or not at all, or that the president’s gender did not matter. More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe | Moira Donegan

      by

      In an appearance this week on the daytime talkshow The View, Kamala Harris was asked how her presidency would differ from Joe Biden’s. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” she said. The comment was seized on by the Trump campaign, who have used it in an attempt to seize upon Biden’s unpopularity and blame Harris for the issues that seem to most enrage and terrify their supporters, among them high consumer prices and immigration. But the comment also rankled some members of Harris’s own base: namely, the young, progressive and non-white voters who have been distraught over the suffering inflicted by Israel in its US-backed war on Gaza.If Harris can’t think of any way she would differ from Biden, these voters may have some suggestions for her. The Biden approach to Israel, after all, has been disastrous on multiple fronts. It has been a moral catastrophe, with Israel’s wildly disproportionate campaign of indiscriminate slaughter in Gaza leading to famine, plague and tens of thousands of deaths. It has been an electoral liability, alienating Muslim and Arab American voters in the crucial swing state of Michigan and depressing turnout among the young voters whom Democrats have long relied on and which were a crucial part of Biden’s 2020 victory.And it has been a complete strategic failure, with Israel now expanding its war into Lebanon, the region on the brink of a large-scale conflict between American and Iranian proxies, and the whole world watching as American leaders fail to exert any meaningful pressure or discernible consequences on a small country that has used a great number of US weapons while completely ignoring US instruction.There was a moment, earlier in the war, when things could have gone differently. After the 7 October 2023 attacks killed hundreds of innocent Israelis, the Biden administration reportedly urged caution. But it was only in February, some four months into the war, when much of Gaza had already been leveled and its hundreds of thousands of people displaced into the south, that the Biden White House attempted to stop the Israelis from invading Rafah, the small southern border city where the refugees had fled, by delaying a shipment of 2,000lb bombs.The move had broad support: Nancy Pelosi, hardly a robust supporter of the Palestinian cause, was by then urging enforceable conditions on aid to Israel. The move would also have had the benefit of bringing the Biden administration’s actions more plausibly into line with American and international law, which compels that states not sell arms to armies, like Israel’s, that have likely committed war crimes.It was, to say the least, a mild gesture, and not one that had any impact at all on Israel’s military readiness: all told, America has sent more than 10,000 such bombs to Israel over the past year, many of which have been dropped on Gaza. By the time the Biden administration even so much as dawdled in sending military support to Israel, tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians had already been massacred. But reportedly, the anger that this small act of non-compliance provoked among Israeli officials and the American pro-Israel lobby was so intense that the Biden administration got spooked.No meaningful conditions have been imposed on military aid since, and Israel has openly flouted American efforts to de-escalate, continuing its brutal assault on Gaza, launching an invasion into Lebanon that has displaced approximately 1 million people, and attempting to provoke Iran into an outright war – which, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government seems to believe, America will fight on Israel’s behalf. Meanwhile, the whole world watches on, with every foreign leader around the globe seeing anew each day the bleak reality of diminished American power: the United States, the Gaza war has proved, neither keeps its promises nor follows through on its threats.But for all that the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza war has been devastating and embarrassing internationally, it has also been unpopular domestically, creating real electoral dangers for the Harris campaign. The protests that sprang up across American campuses last spring were not merely the venting of a fringe minority; they represented a large-scale mobilization of young people morally outraged by the images coming out of Gaza.These young voters view the Biden administration as complicit in a genocide; for Democrats to assume that this belief is insincere, or that those who hold them will overcome such a grave moral objection and turn out to vote for Harris anyway, seems both entitled and unwise.Early in her campaign, Harris seemed to understand this. She refused to attend Netanyahu’s speech to Congress when he came to Washington this summer, and she had strong words for the Israeli prime minister when they spoke together at a news conference. Harris also made positive rhetorical gestures towards the plight of Palestinians, saying kind words in her convention speech about the injustice of their suffering and their right to self-determination. But for the most part, that’s all these moves were – words. Now, Harris has mostly stopped saying them.Voters have noticed. Specifically, Arab American voters in Michigan have. In February, when Michigan held its Democratic primary, more than 100,000 primary voters cast “uncommitted” ballots, as part of a protest movement aimed at pressuring Biden to change his stance on Gaza. The uncommitted votes were several times greater in number than Biden’s 2020 margin of victory in the state. That discontent has not gone away. A recent national poll of Arab American voters found Trump leading by more than four points among the group, which voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the last cycle. This may have a particularly potent impact in Michigan, where a new Quinnipiac poll released last week found Harris trailing Trump by three points.Harris may not want to place much daylight between herself and the incumbent she has served as vice-president. But she has an opportunity to break with Biden on Gaza in these last months of the campaign – to show strength and resolve internationally, to show deference to the interests of a key voter group, and to do the right thing. For all the tendency to cast Israel as a global exception, the truth is that Netanyahu’s style of governance – his bigotry, his corruption, his advancement of a violent and exclusionary nationalism – is part of a broader trend of far-right authoritarianism.It is the same trend that Harris aims to defeat in her campaign against Donald Trump. She has presented herself as a candidate on a mission to revive the liberal order, to protect democracy, to remake America into a country worthy of its global power, and to embody the principles of courage, justice and equality that make leaders worthy of following. She has a chance to show that she means it.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US won’t run for another term on UN human rights council. Israel is likely why | Kenneth Roth

      by

      Something unusual happened this week at the UN: the US government decided not to run for a second term on the human rights council. Taking a year off is mandatory after a country serves two three-year terms, but the Biden administration chose to bow out after a single term. That is extremely unusual. What happened?Various rationales are circulating, but one, in my view, looms large: Israel. Or more to the point, Joe Biden’s refusal to suspend or condition the massive US arms sales and military aid to Israel as its military bombs and starves the Palestinian civilians of Gaza.The election for the 47-member human rights council in Geneva is conducted by the 193-member UN general assembly in New York. The balloting would have provided a rare opportunity for the world’s governments to vote on US complicity in Israeli war crimes. The US could have lost. The Biden administration seems to have calculated that it was better to withdraw voluntarily than to face the prospect of such a shameful repudiation.To understand that rationale, one must understand the dynamics of the human rights council election. The council was created in 2006 to replace the old UN commission on human rights. The commission had become a collection of repressive governments that joined it, not to advance human rights but to undermine them. They routinely voted to protect themselves and their ilk.The new council introduced a device that was supposed to avoid that travesty – competitive elections. Rather than the backroom deals that had populated the old commission with the dictators and tyrants of the world, the UN’s five regional groups would each propose slates of candidates on which the full UN membership would vote. The idea was that highly abusive governments could be rejected.View image in fullscreenFor the first few years, it worked. Each year, Human Rights Watch and its allies would single out the most inappropriate candidate for the council, and each year they would either withdraw their candidacy (Syria, Iraq) or lose (Belarus, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka). Even Russia was defeated, in 2016, as its aircraft were bombing Syrian civilians in eastern Aleppo. It lost again in 2023 as it was pummeling Ukrainian civilians.It worked this year as well, when the general assembly for the second time rejected Saudi Arabia, given its murder of hundreds of Ethiopian migrants trying to enter from Yemen, its not-so-distant bombing of Yemeni civilians, its repression of dissidents including women’s rights activists and its brazen murder of Jamal Khashoggi.But to avoid that embarrassment, the regional groups began gaming the system. Many started to propose the same number of candidates as openings, effectively depriving the General Assembly of a choice. That’s how the likes of Burundi, Eritrea and Sudan hold council seats. Sometimes there were still competitive slates – Saudi Arabia lost this year because there were six governments seeking five seats for the Asia-Pacific region – but uncompetitive slates have become the norm.Even the western group, despite its ostensible support for an effective council, usually offers uncompetitive slates. The explanation typically offered is that western governments don’t want to bother with the need to lobby the 193 members of the general assembly for support. But that left western governments in no position to press other regions to present competitive slates. The council suffered for their diplomatic laziness.This year, something seems to have gone wrong with this cozy if detrimental practice. In the election this week, the western group had three seats to fill. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland had all put their hats in the ring, and the United States was expected to seek renewal of its term that was coming to an end. Three years ago, when a similar possibility emerged of four western candidates for three positions, Washington persuaded Italy to withdraw, allowing it to run unopposed.But this year, by all appearances, none of the other three Western candidates were eager to abandon their quest. That could have reflected the possibility that Donald Trump would win the US presidential election next month. In 2018, he notoriously relinquished the US seat on the council to protest its criticism of Israel. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland must have wondered: why defer to the US candidacy if Trump may soon nullify?View image in fullscreenThe Biden administration could have run anyway. After all, why not let the nations of the world choose the best three of the four candidates, as was originally supposed to happen? Instead, it bowed out. Yes, maybe it was just being nice – to Iceland, which assumed its seat when Trump abandoned it; to Switzerland, the host of the council; but to Spain? The Spanish government is one of Europe’s most vocal defenders of Palestinian rights. And Washington is ordinarily not reluctant to throw its weight around on behalf of Israel.It is rare that the UN general assembly has the chance to vote on the US government’s conduct. A competitive vote for the UN human rights council would have provided such an opportunity. Given widespread outrage at Israeli war crimes in Gaza – and at Biden’s refusal to use the enormous leverage of US arms sales and military aid to stop it – that vote could easily have resulted in an overwhelming repudiation of the Biden administration. Rather than face the possibility of a humiliating reprimand, the US government withdrew its candidacy.These events show again how devastating Biden’s support for Israel has been for the cause of human rights. By virtue of its diplomatic and economic power, the US government can be an important force for human rights. Other than on Israel, its presence on the council has generally helped the defense of human rights.But US credibility, already compromised by Washington’s close alliances with the repressive likes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has been profoundly undermined by Biden’s aiding and abetting of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. With Biden seemingly constitutionally unable to change, the defense of human rights is taking a hit.That doesn’t mean an end to that defense. The human rights council functioned well despite Trump’s withdrawal. Without the baggage of Washington’s ideological animosity, Latin American democracies led a successful effort to condemn Venezuela. Tiny Iceland secured condemnation of the mass summary executions spawned by the “drug war” of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, whom Trump had embraced.But it is a sad state of affairs when, rather than join the frontline defense of human rights at a time of severe threat – in Russia, Ukraine, China, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere – the Biden administration has gone sulking from Geneva back to Washington. It says it won’t run again for the council until 2028.

      Kenneth Roth was executive director of Human Rights Watch from 1993 to 2022. He is now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs More