More stories

  • in

    Ginni Thomas and rightwing activists exploited supreme court ruling – report

    In the months before the US supreme court handed down Citizens United, the 2010 ruling which unleashed a flood of dark money into American politics, the wife of a conservative justice worked with a prominent rightwing activist and a mega-donor closely linked to her husband to form a group to exploit the decision.So said a blockbuster report from Politico, detailing moves by Ginni Thomas – wife of Justice Clarence Thomas – and Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society chief who has worked to stock the court with rightwingers, leading to a series of epochal decisions, including the removal of the federal right to abortion.Half a million dollars in seed money, Politico said, came from Harlan Crow, the Nazi memorabilia-collecting billionaire whose extensive and mostly undeclared gifts to Clarence Thomas have fueled a spiraling supreme court ethics scandal.Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island and champion of ethics reform, said the report laid out “the creepy intermingling of dark billionaire money, phoney front groups, far-right extremists and the United States supreme court”.Politico noted that the ruling in Citizens United was widely expected after justices “took the unusual step of asking for re-arguments based on a sweeping question – whether they should overrule prior decisions approving laws that limited spending on political campaigns”.Noting that conservative groups moved to capitalise faster than others, the site quoted an anonymous source as saying Ginni Thomas “really wanted to build an organisation and be a movement leader. Leonard was going to be the conduit of that.”It also published a timeline of Thomas and Leo’s moves.A nonprofit, Liberty Central, was incorporated with $500,000 from Crow on 31 December 2009, three and a half months after the close of oral arguments in Citizens United.The Citizens United decision was handed down on 21 January 2010, with Clarence Thomas objecting to disclosure rules.On 18 February 2010, Ginni Thomas told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) she had been “called to the frontlines”.Ginni Thomas’s work on the hard right of US politics has already contributed to controversy surrounding her husband, not least through her support for Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and Clarence Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself when investigations reached the supreme court.Politico also noted how a Leo-linked group, the Judicial Education Project, paid Ginni Thomas up to $100,000 before transforming into a generator of amicus briefs to the court and becoming involved in the push to overturn Trump’s defeat as he sought a second term as president in 2020.Connections between Leo and Ginni Thomas have made headlines before. The Washington Post reported how, in January 2012, Leo told the political strategist Kellyanne Conway – later White House counselor to Trump – to direct money to Ginni Thomas while urging: “No mention of Ginni, of course.”Politico also noted that Ginni Thomas’s current entity, Liberty Consulting, is “a focus of interest from congressional committees”, with Senate Democrats demanding “Leo and Crow provide a list of ‘gifts, payments, or other items of value’ they’ve given Thomas and her husband”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionClarence Thomas has said he did not declare gifts from Crow, including holidays, travel, school fees and a property purchase, because he was advised he did not have to. Crow has said he did not discuss politics or business before the court with his friend.Leo and Crow have resisted congressional disclosure demands. The chief justice, John Roberts, has rebuffed requests to testify about ethics matters. Supreme court justices are nominally subject to the same ethics regulations as all federal judges but in practice govern themselves. Senate Democrats have advanced supreme court ethics reform but it has next to no chance of passing, given Republican opposition.Leo, Crow and Ginni Thomas did not comment to Politico. Lawyers for Leo have complained of harassment by Congress and dismissed a reported investigation of his work by the attorney general of Washington DC as politically biased.Receiving business and funds from groups connected to Leo would be legal if Ginni Thomas provided services commensurate with such payments. Laura Solomon, a tax attorney for charitable groups and donors, told Politico: “The real question then is, ‘What is Ginni Thomas qualified to do, what did they pay her to do, and was it fair market value?’”Politico’s report made a splash among court watchers.Norman Ornstein, emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said: “This stinks to high heaven. We need the Internal Revenue Service and the justice department to investigate. It looks like tax offenses, criminal ones, not to mention the sheer corruption. Leonard Leo and Ginni Thomas are despicable.”The New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer – co-author of Strange Justice, a biography of Clarence Thomas, and author of Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right – simply posted a fire emoji. More

  • in

    Kevin McCarthy faces battle with hard-right Republicans as shutdown looms

    Kevin McCarthy will return from his August recess on Tuesday facing the latest in a long series of conundrums for the Republican House leader: should he force a government shutdown, leaving hundreds of thousands of government workers without a paycheck, or burn more bridges with the hard-right flank of his conference, risking his speakership in the process?With just 12 legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year, the Republican-controlled House must quickly pass some kind of spending package to keep the federal government open after 30 September. If the chamber does not approve a spending bill, the government will shut down for the first time in nearly five years, furloughing federal employees and stalling many crucial programs.McCarthy has indicated his preference to pass a continuing resolution, which would keep the government funded at its current levels for a short period of time as lawmakers continue to negotiate over a longer-term deal. But members of the hard-right House freedom caucus, who are still furious over the deal that McCarthy and President Joe Biden struck to suspend the debt ceiling earlier this year, insist they will not back a continuing resolution unless the speaker agrees to several significant policy concessions, such as increased border security and an impeachment inquiry into Biden.Given House Republicans’ narrow majority and a new rule allowing any single member of the chamber to force a vote on removing the speaker, McCarthy’s handling of this fraught situation could determine whether he loses his gavel after just eight months in power.The trouble for McCarthy started in the spring, after the House passed the compromise debt ceiling bill, known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Seventy-one members of the House Republican conference opposed the legislation over concerns that it did not go far enough to reduce government spending, and they sharply criticized McCarthy for agreeing to the inadequate deal.Gordon Gray, vice-president for economic policy at the center-right thinktank American Action Forum, said he had been bracing for a potential shutdown ever since the debt ceiling showdown concluded.“Since the debt limit grenade was diffused, there’s a big chunk of House Republicans who just want to break something,” Gray said. “That’s just how some of these folks define governing. It’s how their constituents define success.”Now House Republicans have reneged on the debt ceiling deal, instead choosing to advance appropriations bills with spending levels below those agreed to in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Democrats warn that the proposed cuts could deal a devastating financial blow to early education programs, climate initiatives and housing assistance.“The deal in the Fiscal Responsibility Act was roughly a freeze. It could be worse, but a freeze effectively is a cut in purchasing power because costs go up every year,” said David Reich, senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “So what was agreed to was a reasonably tight level, and now come the House Republicans marking up their bills.”House Republicans’ strategy in the spending talks has been met with exasperation in the Senate, which returned from its recess on Tuesday. Before the upper chamber adjourned at the end of July, the Senate appropriations committee advanced all 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2024 with bipartisan support. The Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, has implored the House to take a similar approach to the budget process.“Both parties, in both chambers, will have to work together if we are to avoid a shutdown,” Schumer said on Wednesday in a floor speech. “When the House returns next week, I implore – I implore – my Republican colleagues in the House to recognize that time is short to keep the government open, and the only way to avoid a shutdown is through bipartisanship.”Even the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, offered a mild rebuke of his colleagues in the House when asked about the spending fight last week.“Speaker McCarthy agreed to certain spending levels in the debt limit deal he reached with President Biden earlier this year,” McConnell said. “The House then turned around and passed spending levels that were below that level. Without saying an opinion about that, that’s not going to be replicated in the Senate.”McConnell indicated that the most likely outcome at this point would be the approval of a short-term continuing resolution to buy more time in the budget talks. But members of the House freedom caucus, who abhor the idea of extending funding at levels previously approved by a Democratic Congress, have already outlined a litany of demands in exchange for their support on a continuing resolution.In a statement released late last month, the caucus said its members would only back a continuing resolution if it included a Republican proposal on border security and addressed “the unprecedented weaponization of the justice department and FBI”, an implicit reference to the four criminal cases against Donald Trump. The caucus also demanded an end to the so-called “woke” policies at the department of defense, which has faced rightwing criticism for providing funding to servicemembers and their family members who need to travel to access abortion care.Hard-right Republicans have now added another item to their list of demands: the launch of an impeachment inquiry against Biden.“I’ve already decided I will not vote to fund the government unless we have passed an impeachment inquiry on Joe Biden,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Republican congresswoman from Georgia, said last week.Another hard-right House member, Matt Gaetz of Florida, has warned that McCarthy’s failure to act on impeaching Biden could cost him his speakership.“I worked very hard in January to develop a toolkit for House Republicans to use in a productive and positive way. I don’t believe we’ve used those tools as effectively as we should have,” Gaetz said on Tuesday. “We’ve got to seize the initiative. That means forcing votes on impeachment. And if Speaker McCarthy stands in our way, he may not have the job long.”But the possibility of an impeachment inquiry has failed to gain widespread favor among Senate Republicans, several of whom have acknowledged that Greene and her allies have presented no valid evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on Biden’s part.With the likelihood of a shutdown increasing by the day, the White House has attacked hard-right Republicans’ demands as a political stunt that could reap devastating consequences for millions of Americans.“Lives are at stake across a wide range of urgent, bipartisan priorities for the American people,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, said on Thursday. “Like Senate Republicans, Speaker McCarthy should keep his word about government funding. And he should do so in a way that acts on these pressing issues – including fentanyl, national security and disaster response – rather than break his promise and cave to the most extreme members of his conference agitating for a baseless impeachment stunt and shutdown.”Past shutdowns prove the widespread upheaval caused by lapses in government funding. During the last partial shutdown, which ended in January 2019, roughly 800,000 federal workers went without a paycheck. The Trump administration tried to keep national parks open with limited staff, resulting in damage to the grounds. Loan programs overseen by the Small Business Administration and federally funded research projects were also halted or delayed.“It’s very disruptive. Federal agencies spend a whole lot of time trying to figure out what they’re allowed to do and not allowed to do,” Reich said. “It’s a total waste of effort and energy.”Even though history shows the fallout of government shutdowns, Gray still anticipates a lapse in funding – if not in October then later this year.“I could envision a brief [continuing resolution] – like two weeks – with some disaster supplemental funding in it,” Gray said. “My expectation is that we’ll still have a shutdown this fall.” More

  • in

    The Last Politician review: the case for Joe Biden, polling be damned

    By the polling, Joe Biden is stuck in a footrace with Donald Trump, his 91-times criminally charged predecessor as president. More than three-quarters of voters say Biden is too old to govern effectively. Two-thirds of Democrats wish he would throw in the towel.The intersection of Biden’s work as vice-president to Barack Obama and what Franklin Foer calls the “dodgy business dealings of son Hunter” haunts the father still. More than three fifths of Americans now believe Joe Biden was involved in Hunter’s business. The impeachment specter hovers.Kamala Harris poses a further problem. The polls, again: 53% of independents disapprove of the vice-president, two in five strongly. Were Biden to leave the stage, few would be reassured.Under the subtitle “Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future”, Foer dives into our political morass. He emerges with a well-sourced look at Biden and his time in power. A staff writer at the Atlantic and former editor of the New Republic, Foer acknowledges his own doubts about Biden but also voices his admiration for the back-slapping politician from Scranton. Foer’s title, The Last Politician, points to his thesis: that Biden’s old-fashioned approach to politics drives and shapes all he does.Foer captures Biden’s successes and his cock-ups, his abilities and insecurities. At times, Biden is portrayed as overly confident. He is also caught wondering why John F Kennedy was not so tightly handled by his aides – or “babied”, as Foer reports it. Youth, vigor and acuity are all parts of the answer.The Last Politician is definitely news-laden, a must-read for political junkies. Biden’s staff finally spoke. Foer lays out how Biden’s age shapes his first term and his re-election odds; Harris’s shortcomings as vice-president; and Biden’s relationships with Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Complications dominate.Biden’s “advanced years were a hindrance, depriving him of the energy to cast a robust public presence or the ability to easily conjure a name”, Foer writes. “His public persona reflected physical decline and time’s dulling of mental faculties that no pill or exercise regime can resist.”Biden was gaffe-prone as a younger politician. Now, his verbal and physical stumbles lead news cycles.Decades ago, Ronald Reagan’s typical day began with his arrival in the West Wing at 9am. Biden starts about an hour later. That’s an hour earlier than Trump, sure. But Foer writes: “It was striking that [Biden] took so few morning meetings or presided over so few public events before 10am.” Plenty has been written about Reagan’s capacity by the end of his term. When Reagan left the White House, after eight years, he was nearly 78. Today, Biden is nearly 81.“In private,” Foer writes, Biden “would occasionally admit that he felt tired.” Unstated is this: the cumulative effect of such realities of age leaves Biden on the cusp of being ignored, unable to woo swaths of the American public or drive his message and numbers. In the 2022 midterms, his popularity deficit kept him sidelined. For a politician, a shrug or a yawn can be more damning than disdain.Expect Republicans to quote Foer as they bash Harris. “Rabbit Ears” is the chapter title of Foer’s examination of the former California senator, a moniker bestowed by Biden’s inner circle. As they saw it, Foer writes, Harris was sensitive to “any hint of criticism … instantly aware” of the slightest dissatisfaction.She projected clinginess and uncertainty. “Instead of carving out an independent role, she stuck to the president’s side – an omnipresence at every Oval Office meeting.” Harris’s “piercing questions” impressed Gen Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, but lunches with Biden gradually fell “off the schedule”.Then again, Biden owed Harris little. She brutalized him in a debate, intimating he was a bigot. Then she dropped out of the Democratic primary before a vote was cast, the political equivalent of a face-plant.The relationship between Biden and Zelenskiy also had its ups-and-downs, Foer says. He lauds Biden for “quietly arming the Ukrainians”, helping them “fend off invasion” by Russia. He also describes tensions between the two leaders.Biden and Zelenskiy failed to establish swift rapport. Zelenskiy demanded Nato membership and offered “absurd analysis” of alliance dynamics, leaving Biden “pissed off”. In Foer’s telling, “even Zelenskiy’s most ardent sympathizers in the [Biden] administration agreed that he had bombed”, while Zelenskiy “at least subconsciously … seemed to blame” Biden “for the humiliation he suffered, for the political awkwardness he endured” at the hands of Trump.“Where Biden tended to expect Zelenskiy to open with expressions of gratitude for American support, Zelenskiy crammed his conversations with a long list of demands.” Sucking up to Ted Cruz didn’t help either.In the end, Foer is a Biden fan. He gives the Inflation Reduction Act, in his view the crowning achievement of the first term, an unqualified endorsement. Homing in on provisions that aim to “stall climate change”, Foer says the law stands as “an investment in moral authority”, enabling the US to “prod” other countries on environmental issues.Watching the latest spate of environmental cataclysms, it is hard to dispute that the climate crisis is real – all while Republican presidential aspirants continue their denials. But there is something amiss in Foer’s enthusiasm and the administration’s posture. For now, inflation holds more public attention. Nearly three-quarters of Americans see inflation as a “very important” issue. Climate crisis and the environment? Forty-four per cent.A hunch: voters are less worried about moral authority and more about grocery bills and prices at the pump. According to the polls, the Democrats have lost their grip on voters without a four-year college degree, regardless of race. A priorities gap is on display again.Issues that speak loudest to white progressives lack broad resonance. The faculty lounge makes a lousy focus group. Foer’s enthusiasm is premature.
    The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future is published in the US by Penguin More

  • in

    Virginia’s off-off-year election is next big test for reproductive rights

    As she addressed about 120 Democratic voters at a rally in rural Orange, Virginia, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger made a point to impress upon her constituents just how much is on the line this fall.“This is personal. And politics is personal,” Spanberger told the crowd. “This year more than any other year, this election matters.”Stepping up to the podium, one of the Democrats endorsed by Spanberger, the state senate candidate Jason Ford, warned that Republican victories in November could have devastating consequences across the state.“In Virginia, reproductive rights are on the ballot this fall,” Ford said. “Properly funding our schools [is] on the ballot this fall.”The messages encapsulated Virginia Democrats’ broader pitch to voters as they look to regain control of the house of delegates and maintain their narrow majority in the state senate. They fear that, if Republicans can take full control of the general assembly, they will rubber-stamp Governor Glenn Youngkin’s conservative agenda to lower taxes and bolster “parents’ rights”. But most importantly, Democrats expect Republican victories in November would jeopardize abortion access in Virginia, which has become a rare refuge for those seeking the procedure in thesouth.The results also may provide the clearest indication yet of voters’ sentiments ahead of the 2024 elections and determine whether Virginia can still be considered a battleground, considering Republicans have lost the state in every presidential race since 2008.“Too many people think Virginia is solid blue in the electoral college,” said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. “With Glenn Youngkin’s victory, and if the Republicans achieve what they are setting out to do this year, I think all bets are off for 2024.”An off-off-yearVirginia is one of just five US states that conduct off-year elections, meaning those that are held when no federal elections take place. History shows turnout in Virginia’s state legislative races tends to be particularly low in so-called “off-off-years” when there are no major statewide offices such as governor on the ballot.But candidates and activists from both sides of the aisle insist it would be a mistake to downplay the importance of Virginia’s elections this year. If Republicans can flip just two seats in the state senate, Youngkin will face few impediments in enacting his legislative agenda.Since taking office last year, Youngkin has already advanced policies calling for transgender children to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their sex assigned at birth. On his first day in office, Youngkin signed executive orders aimed at barring schools from teaching critical race theory and loosening public health mandates related to the coronavirus pandemic.“To get in and have the opportunity to take back the state senate and be able to support those initiatives is something that’s really important,” said Steve Knotts, chair of the Fairfax county Republican party in northern Virginia. “I think that they’ll be voting for Governor Youngkin’s initiatives and Republican control of the state legislature this year, but we have to do the work to get that message out because a lot of people forget there’s an election.”All 100 seats in the house of delegates, where Republicans held a 52-48 majority during the most recent legislative session, will be up for grabs. Democrats will be defending a 22-18 advantage in the state senate, where every seat will also be in play this November. The implementation of a new legislative map, which fueled a wave of retirements among veteran Virginia legislators, has injected more uncertainty into the elections.As of now, control of the legislature appears to be a true toss-up. According to a survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University in July, 47% of Virginians want Republicans in control of the house of delegates, compared with 41% who would prefer a Democratic majority. When asked about control of the state senate, Virginians were evenly divided, with 44% of respondents preferring a Democratic majority and another 44% supporting a Republican takeover.A fully red general assembly would be a gamechanger for Youngkin, who has faced a legislative blockade from Senate Democrats. A Republican takeover would erase the last major barrier in Youngkin’s quest to enact his full agenda – including a 15-week abortion ban.“This race is first and foremost about abortion,” said Susan Swecker, chair of the Democratic party of Virginia. “If it hadn’t been for the Democratic blue brick wall in the state senate the last two years, abortion would be banned in Virginia.”The last holdout in the southIn the wake of the supreme court’s decision last year to overturn Roe v Wade, southern states controlled by Republicans passed a wave of laws severely restricting access to abortion or, in some cases, banning it altogether. Virginia – where abortion is currently legal until about 26 weeks – has become the last remaining southern state without extensive abortion restrictions, but that status could soon evaporate if Republicans have their way.Youngkin has indicated he supports a 15-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and the safety of the mother. The governor has framed the proposal, which senate Democrats already defeated once earlier this year, as a point of consensus among a wide swath of Virginia voters.“I believe that there’s a moment for Virginians to come together over a very, very difficult topic, and Virginians elected a pro-life governor,” Youngkin said last month.But polls challenge the perception of a 15-week ban as an area of common ground across the state. According to a Washington Post-Schar School survey conducted in March, 49% of Virginia voters support a 15-week ban with exceptions, while 46% oppose it. Voters also expressed criticism of Youngkin’s stance on abortion, with 33% approving of his handling of the issue and 45% disapproving.Threats to abortion access appear to be weighing heavily on Virginians’ minds as they head for the polls. Sara Ratcliffe, a Democratic candidate for the house of delegates who spoke at the Orange rally, said abortion was often the first issue voters mention when she knocks on doors.“As the dominoes have fallen, especially in the redder states and in the states surrounding us here in the south, people have realized what’s at stake,” Ratcliffe said. “People are scared, and people are worried, which is why they’re turning out and they’re voting on this issue.”That fear and anger was palpable among the Democratic attendees of the Orange rally, several of whom cited protecting abortion access as their top priority for November.“People younger than me now don’t have the same freedoms I had when I was a woman of childbearing age, and I feel that’s not fair,” said Lynn Meyers, a 78-year-old from Locust Grove.Bill Maiden, a 58-year-old voter from Culpepper, added, “Even my friends that are Republican, they are concerned about [abortion access] too. They don’t agree with Youngkin’s stance on this.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConcerns over abortion restrictions contributed to Republicans’ disappointing performance in the 2022 midterms, and the issue could now threaten the party’s hopes in Virginia.Despite the potential political liability of a 15-week ban, Democrats fear that Youngkin will not hesitate to approve an even more severe policy if Republicans flip the senate. They often remind voters that, shortly after Roe was overturned last year, Youngkin said, “Any bill that comes to my desk I will sign happily and gleefully in order to protect life.”Youngkin bets big on 2023Three years ago, most Virginians had never heard the name Glenn Youngkin. A former co-CEO of the private equity firm the Carlyle Group, Youngkin’s 2021 gubernatorial bid marked his first foray into electoral politics.He defeated six primary opponents by carefully toeing the line between endorsing many of Donald Trump’s policy positions on culture war issues without completely alienating the independent voters who eventually fueled his victory in the general election. Youngkin’s win over the former Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe was all the more surprising given that it came just one year after Joe Biden beat Trump in Virginia by 10 points.“The guy never ran for office before, but he just had really good instincts [on] how to strike that balance and get the support of the [‘Make America Great Again’] Republicans while not seeming threatening at all to swing voters at the same time,” Rozell said. “Not many Republicans these days can do that.”Those instincts appear to have served Youngkin well in office so far. The VCU survey conducted in July showed Youngkin’s approval rating stood at +18, as 49% of Virginians approved of the governor’s job performance and 31% disapproved. Biden trailed far behind Youngkin at -15, with 39% of Virginians approving of his job performance and 54% disapproving.Those approval numbers have made Knotts more optimistic about Republicans’ prospects in November. “We have a very popular governor who is really getting in and doing some programs that are good for Democrats, Republicans [and] independents,” Knotts said. “So I think this could be a really good year for us.”Youngkin’s popularity has also spurred talk of a potential presidential bid, and the Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch, has reportedly told allies that he would like to see the Virginia governor jump into the 2024 Republican primary.Youngkin’s success or failure in November could decide his fate on the national stage, and he has dedicated substantial political capital to bringing home a win for Republicans. Youngkin’s state Pac, Spirit of Virginia, raised an impressive $5.9m during the second quarter of the year to promote Republican campaigns.“This is a unifying agenda that is resonating across the Commonwealth,” said Dave Rexrode, chair of the Spirit of Virginia. “Virginians want leaders in the general assembly who will work with Governor Youngkin to move our commonwealth forward.”Beyond Youngkin’s own political future, the outcome in Virginia this November could provide a roadmap for both parties in 2024, as they battle it out for the White House.…When Barack Obama won Virginia in the 2008 presidential race, he became the first Democrat to carry the state since 1964, and the victory marked a sea change for his party. Democrats have won Virginia in every presidential election since Obama’s landmark victory, and the party now holds both of Virginia’s US Senate seats.Their wins have led some Democrats to downplay Virginia’s status as a battleground state, but Swecker warns that would be a dangerous oversight.“People got very excited about the successes we had and took for granted that we were a blue state,” Swecker said. “Those of us who are in the trenches know better.”Youngkin’s victory in 2021 demonstrated how Republicans can still play statewide in Virginia, and the governor hopes that the legislative races this year will prove his win was no fluke.“I am curious whether the Republicans are able to carry that momentum into this election cycle and what it might suggest about the Republican base and how deeply engaged it is and activated going into the 2024 elections,” Rozell said.Regardless of the outcome in Virginia, the November results will be closely scrutinized by both parties to spot potential strengths and vulnerabilities heading into 2024, when the White House and Congress will be up for grabs.As someone who has closely studied Virginia politics since the 1980s, Rozell has endured much talk about the state being a guarantee for one party or the other over the years, but he insists that Virginia remains, as ever, a battleground.“Don’t assume that Virginia is a Democratic lock any more,” Rozell said. “And those 13 electoral votes can be really important next year.” More

  • in

    ‘We have to come to grips with history’: Robert P Jones on The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy

    How did Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election despite the Access Hollywood tape? How did he gain even more votes in 2020 despite an administration of chaos, lies and pandemic blunders? How can he be running neck and neck with Joe Biden for 2024 despite four indictments and 91 criminal charges?Future historians will surely debate such questions and why so many Americans saw themselves in a tawdry tycoon and carnival barker. One of the most persuasive theories is captured in a single word: race.Trump won white voters without a college degree by 32 points in 2020. A glance at his rallies shows the lack of diversity in his notorious “base”. His signature slogan, “Make America great again”, is a thinly disguised appeal to nostalgia for postwar suburbia.In his books The End of White Christian America and White Too Long, Robert P Jones has steadily built the argument that this movement is animated by shifting demographics. He points out that in 2008, when Barack Obama, the first Black president, was elected, 54% of Americans identified as white and Christian. By the end of Obama’s second term, that share had fallen to 47%. Today it is 42%.“It’s just a continued slide,” says Jones, 55, sitting at his desk at the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), where he is founder and president, in downtown Washington. “Most importantly, moving from majority to decisively non-majority white and Christian has set off a kind of ‘freak out’ moment among many white Christians.”In The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path to a Shared American Future, effectively the third book in an unofficial trilogy, Jones traces the roots of Trumpism back more than 500 years.He explains: “Go back and understand they really do believe that this country was divinely ordained to be a promised land for European Christians.“That idea is so old and so deep it explains in many ways the visceral reactivity. Why are we fighting today about AP African American history? Arkansas’s banned it, Florida’s been fighting it, and it’s because it tells this alternative story about the country that’s not just settlers, pioneers – a naive mythology of innocence.”Jones examines that mythological origin story and its promised land. He spotlights the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a little-known or understood series of 15th-century papal edicts asserting that European civilisation and western Christianity are superior to all other cultures, races and religions. For Jones, it is “a kind of Rosetta Stone for understanding the deep structure of the European political and religious worldviews we have inherited in this country”.The initial edict, issued by Nicholas V in 1452, granted the Portuguese king Alfonso V the right to “invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery”.Jones says: “Then there’s a series of these documents that get issued between 1452 and 1493, each of which build on this idea but essentially all say the same thing: that if the land is not occupied by Christian people – and that Christian identity is the thing that determines whether you have your own human rights or not – then the Christian kings and queens have the right to conquer those lands and take possession of everything that they can in the name of the state and the church.”This provided convenient theological justification for the first European powers that came into contact with Native Americans to seize lands and exploit resources. Spreading the gospel by the sword was married with huge economic incentives.From this perspective, the enslavement of Africans was not America’s original sin but a continuation of genocide and dispossession justified by papal doctrine. The New York Times’s 1619 Project was a long-overdue corrective to established narratives but it was not the final word.Jones reflects: “The 1619 Project was very important culturally in the US because it at least did move us out of this room with white people gathered around a table like you see on the postage stamp or the paintings of the beginning of the country and took us back to a different story: the story of enslaved people in the country.“But if we really want to understand our present we have to go back and tell the whole story and that’s European contact with Indigenous people before it is enslavement and the transatlantic slave trade. That all comes from the same source. It is this cultural idea that there is a kind of superiority to European culture that’s justified by Christianity that sets up, in the Doctrine of Discovery, this entire project.”Jones sees connections between the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till in the Mississippi Delta in 1955 and the killing and expulsion of Choctaws forced to walk the Trail of Tears, starting in 1831; between the lynching of three Black circus workers in Duluth in 1920 and the mass execution of 38 Dakota men in Minnesota in 1862.When history is put in silos, he contends, such threads are missed. “You don’t get a society that tortures and kills a 14-year-old boy in Mississippi on the basis of whistling at a white woman without this sense of entitlement, of superiority and permissive violence stemming from the Doctrine of Discovery. That was the thing that pushed people into the Mississippi territory, forcibly removing Choctaw Creek Native Americans from their lands, killing many, forcibly removing the others.“If you don’t understand that history, you end up with this shocking, ‘Well, how could a society be this way that this would happen, and then they [Roy Bryant and JW Milam, the white men who killed Till] would get acquitted by their peers, who deliberated for only an hour after the trial?’ But when you understand this longer history, that becomes a little bit less of a mystery.”When Jones visited these sites of trauma, he found communities working across racial lines to seek the truth, build memorials and museums and commemorate their histories in ways unthinkable in the last century. The US is currently in a great “Age of Re-evaluation”, according to Scott Ellsworth, a scholar of the Tulsa race massacre.Jones comments: “For all of these what I thought was fairly remarkable is how recent these moves are in the US to try to tell a different story, a more inclusive story about what happened. In none of these cases do they predate 2000. It’s all in the last 20 years that any of these movements have happened.“If you had driven down through the Delta in Mississippi in 2000, you would not have come across any signs or anything. Even though the whole world knows the story of Emmett Till, you would not have known that it happened in Tallahatchie county, in the Delta. There was nothing there on the ground. A group of citizens about 20 years ago got together and said, ‘No, we should change this, and we should try to tell the truth about the story.’”Till’s casket is displayed at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture; his story was told in the 2022 film Till; and in July, Joe Biden signed a proclamation designating an Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley national monument in Illinois and Mississippi.The 46th president urged America to face its history with all its peaks and troughs, blessings and blemishes. He told an audience in the White House grounds: “We can’t just choose to learn what we want to know. We have to learn what we should know. We should know about our country. We should know everything: the good, the bad, the truth of who we are as a nation. That’s what great nations do, and we are a great nation.”Biden added, a little bleakly: “We got a hell of a long way to go.”Jones believes that Biden gets it. “He’s been fairly remarkable on these issues of racial justice. He, for example, has been one of the only presidents who has used the words ‘white supremacy’ consistently in addresses – and not just before Black audiences. If you look at Biden’s speeches and you search for ‘white supremacy’, he’s not just talking about that in Tulsa during the commemoration speech.“He’s using it, and understands it as one of the deep problems of American history that we currently have to wrestle with. He’s been very clear and seems very genuine about that being something that he’s leaving as part of his legacy. It’s also part of why he made the pronouncement about the Emmett Till national monument, so this becomes a permanent part of the story that we tell about ourselves.”Trump, however, has a polar opposite worldview that Jones says explains why history has become the new frontline in the culture wars. Just over a third of self-identified Democrats are white and Christian; about 70% of self-identified Republicans are. PRRI polling finds that two-thirds of Democrats say America’s culture and way of life has changed for the better since the 1950s; two-thirds of Republicans believe it has changed for the worse.Jones writes how white Christians can “sense the tectonic plates moving” in the demographics of their neighbourhoods, the food in their grocery store, the appearance of Spanish-language local radio and roadside billboards, and the class photos on the walls of their public schools.He says: “I’ve always thought that, in Trump’s Maga slogan, the most powerful word is not about America being great; it’s the ‘again’ part. It’s this nostalgia tinged with loss. What have we lost and who’s the ‘we’ that have lost something? If you just ask those questions, it’s pretty clear. It’s the formerly dominant white Christians who were culturally dominant, demographically dominant, politically dominant and are no longer.“It’s that sense of loss and grievance that Trump has been so homed in on and so astute at fuelling and setting himself up. You hear him say things like, ‘I am your voice’, ‘I alone can fix it’, ‘If you don’t elect somebody like me, we’re not going to have a country any more’. Those kinds of phrases tell you what he’s appealing to.“If we look at the insurrection at the Capitol, it’s so chilling the last frame that the January 6 House select committee showed in their video has two people – it looks like something out of Les Mis – up on a barricade and they’ve got two flags. One is a Trump flag and the other is a Christian flag that they’re flying on the barricades.”Jones has skin in the game. Growing up a Southern Baptist in Jackson, Mississippi, he went to church five times a week and earned a divinity degree. His family Bible, printed in 1815, has generations of births and deaths and marriages handwritten between the Old and New Testaments. Some online genealogical research revealed slave-owners among his ancestors.“My grandfather was a deacon at a church in Macon, Georgia, and one of his jobs on Sunday morning was to make sure no Black people entered the sanctuary. He was literally a bouncer on the outside of the church to keep non-white people out. That was an official role as a deacon in the church. It wasn’t like some wink, wink, nod, nod – that was his assignment for Sunday morning.“It’s been tough, but, on the other hand, one of the things you hear often with these anti- so-called critical race theory bills and with ‘woke’ is ‘not making white people uncomfortable’. But I would rather know the truth, even if it’s an uncomfortable truth, then be ignorant and comfortable.”He quotes James Baldwin, the transcendent and trenchant African American writer: “All that can save you now is your confrontation with your own history … which is not your past, but your present. Your history has led you to this moment, and you can only begin to change yourself by looking at what you are doing in the name of your history.”Jones comments: “There’s a kind of liberation, freedom and growth that can come from facing this history and moving somewhere better together. That’s the invitation, and the reason for doing the work isn’t at all just to feel bad or beat yourself up over what your family did or whatever.“If we really want to live up to this promise of being a truly pluralistic, multi-religious, multiracial democracy, it’s going to take us coming to terms with that history and putting into place something different than we’ve had in the past. There’s no way we can do that if we don’t even understand why we’re in the dilemmas we’re currently in.”Another of his favourite Baldwin quotations describes “white people as the slightly mad victims of their own brainwashing”.Jones continues: “Such a great line, and if you think about this impossibly innocent history that we have told ourselves, that we were always upstanding, that we always treated other peoples with dignity and respect, it just isn’t true. In order, again, to right the ship and come to a new place together, we have to have to come to grips with that history.”Only then, Jones says, can America, a nation that likes to claim exceptionalism, be sincere about its unique experiment.“Our current generation is the first that has been asked whether we truly believe what we often claim: that we are a pluralistic democracy.“Before, many white Christian Americans who are part of the dominant culture could pay lip service to that, knowing that they had enough numbers at the ballot box, knowing that they had enough control on business, enough control of local institutions, that they still had a lock on power. This is the first generation where that’s not true.“The question is called in a way that’s new and that’s why there’s so much visceral reaction, because there’s a way in which we’ve never honestly had to answer the question. But now it’s being put in a way that we’re going to have to answer it.”
    The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy: And the Path to a Shared American Future is published in the US by Simon & Schuster More

  • in

    Republicans talking about Biden’s age are ‘one-trick pony’ – campaign co-chair

    Republicans attacking Joe Biden for being too old to serve a second term are “one-trick ponies”, the US president’s campaign co-chair said.“Republicans are a one-trick pony talking about the president’s age, that’s all they talk about,” Cedric Richmond told CNN.Biden, 80, is the oldest president ever. He will turn 82 after the election next year. If he completed a second four-year term, he would be 86 on leaving office. His likely opponent – Republican former US president Donald Trump – is 77.Polling shows that more than two-thirds of the American public think Biden is too old to serve an effective second term, with smaller proportions thinking the same of the 91-times indicted Trump.Richmond, a former Louisiana congressman, told CNN: “It’s now time to go into campaign mode and talk about the president’s accomplishments because they are great accomplishments.“Beating the NRA [to pass gun control reform]. Passing [an] infrastructure [spending package] which no other president could do, although they promised it.”Democrats lost the US House last year but only narrowly. They kept the Senate, after a campaign focused on warning of extremism in Trump’s Republican party.Richmond said: “We have to be solely focused on what not only this president and vice-president but what this Congress has done, the Democratic Senate and the Democratic House when we had it.“And I think that that’s going to prove to be a winning formula once again for all Democrats and for President Biden and Vice-President [Kamala] Harris.”Earlier, a CNN poll showed Biden and Trump in a dead heat in a general election. The poll also returned a low approval rating for Biden and showed about 70% of Democrats want someone else as their candidate next year.The poll also showed the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley as the only Republican candidate clearly beating Biden. Haley, 51, has called for mental competency tests for politicians over 75 and claimed a vote for Biden was really a vote for Harris, given the chances of Biden not completing a second term.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRichmond said he was “glad” to be asked about Haley, because of “her position on abortion, because I’ll tell you that if you look at the vote in Ohio, just a month ago, a swing state, they soundly rejected the extreme positions on abortion. And that’s Nikki Haley.“Now about the president’s age. Voters will see his vigour. Voters will see his accomplishments … he’s traveling around the world over the next four and a half days [to the G20 in India] to continue to show American leadership.“So when they compare President Biden’s miles traveled to that of Republicans, even Republicans that are running for president, he’s traveling almost 30% more.”Polling also shows widespread belief that Biden’s policies have been bad for the US economy, despite most observers saying it is performing strongly.Richmond said: “This is about American families. And I think American families are going to look at the issues they have faced, and they’re going to look at who’s addressing those issues, who’s talking about those issues, and who’s doing something about it, and that’s going to be President Biden.” More

  • in

    Georgia report reveals jury called for criminal charges against Lindsey Graham and others

    A special purpose grand jury in Georgia that investigated Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election for nearly two years recommended bringing criminal charges against several people who ultimately were not charged, including US senator Lindsey Graham, former senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, as well as the influential conservative figure Cleta Mitchell.Those recommendations were revealed Friday when the special purpose grand jury’s final report was unsealed. A regular grand jury indicted Trump and 18 others over their efforts to overturn the 2020 election last month. Those charged include Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, and former Georgia Republican party chairman David Shafer.The special purpose grand jury recommended bringing charges against Graham, Perdue and Loefller “with respect to the national effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election with efforts focused on Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia”.Graham, a key Trump ally in the senate, called Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger after the election and inquired about tossing aside legally cast mail-in ballots. Perdue reportedly pushed Georgia governor Brian Kemp to call a special session of the Georgia legislature in order to overturn the election results. Loeffler initially said she would vote against certification of Biden’s win in the US Senate before reversing course after the January 6 riot and voting in favor of certification.Mitchell, who remains an influential figure on the right today, was on the infamous January 2021 phone call in which Trump asked Raffensperger to find votes in his favor. The special purpose grand jury unanimously recommended indicting her under several Georgia statutes.The special purpose grand jury also recommended indicting Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, and Boris Epshteyn, who remains a top Trump aide.It also recommended charges against Burt Jones, who served as a fake elector and is now lieutenant governor of Georgia. A special prosecutor is handling an investigation of Jones after Willis was barred from investigating him after hosting a fundraiser for a political rival. More

  • in

    Florida supreme court to hear abortion case that could drastically limit access

    The Florida supreme court on Friday will hear arguments in a case that could drastically limit abortion access in the south-eastern United States.Abortion providers in Florida filed a lawsuit to block the state’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.If the state’s high court upholds the 15-week ban, a separate, stricter law would take effect prohibiting abortion after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.“It would be devastating for providers to have to turn even more folks away under a six-week ban,” said Whitney White, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “They’re already having to turn away patients under the current 15-week ban.”Friday’s hearing is the culmination of Republican efforts to end Florida’s legacy as a safe haven for abortion seekers in neighboring states. Five of the seven justices on the current state supreme court were selected by the conservative governor, Ron DeSantis, fueling the concerns of Floridians who support abortion access.After signing the six-week trigger ban into effect in April, Governor DeSantis said in a brief statement that he was “proud to support life and family in the state of Florida”. The Florida governor has been hesitant to discuss abortion on the campaign trial.A whopping 62% of American adults believe abortions should be legal in “all or most cases”, according to a 2022 report published by Pew Research Center. A 2020 Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 56% of likely voters in Florida believe abortion should be legal in most cases. And abortion rights supporters in Florida say the bans violate the explicit privacy protections found in the state constitution.Despite DeSantis’s conservative overhaul of the state’s high court, White remained confident about the case in the run-up to Friday’s hearing.“No justice of the Florida supreme court has ever written a decision questioning the conclusion that abortion rights are protected by the privacy clause,” White said.Florida Republicans passed the 15-week ban on abortion in April 2022, months before the US supreme court ended the federal right to abortion. That same month, a judge revived a 2015 state law that mandated patients wait 24 hours between getting an initial consultation for an abortion and undergoing the procedure.“It’s been one restriction after another,” said Dr Kanthi Dhaduvai, a Jacksonville abortion provider with Physicians for Reproductive Health.Dhaduvai felt “nervous and frustrated” about the hearing, fearing a court ruling that would make it impossible for her patients to receive “what is often life-saving care”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRoughly half of Dhaduvai’s patients come to Florida from states like Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama – even Texas.“I think a lot of people are not aware as to how dangerous this could be, not just for Florida, but the entire region,” she said. “Florida has been a huge access point for people, we already have people traveling these great distances to get care.”In the months after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, Florida saw the greatest increase in the number of legal abortions performed per month, according to a report released this April from the Society of Family Planning.“I’m still providing care and I’m going to continue providing care, within legal limits, even after the decision,” Dhaduvai said. More