Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It puts everyone in a really bad position’: Black journalists react to Trump joining NABJ panel

      by

      On Monday night, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) announced that Donald Trump will participate in a panel discussion at the organization’s annual convention in Chicago, which starts on Wednesday.The announcement, which said that the Q&A would “concentrate on the most pressing issues facing the Black community”, was met with swift online backlash from some Black journalists. They decried the decision to invite a presidential candidate who has lambasted Black journalists, led a movement to squash diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and who is responsible for increased anti-journalistic sentiment, including the popularization of the term “fake news” to describe factual, but potentially unflattering, reporting.Tiffany Walden, a co-founder and editor-in-chief of The TRiiBE, a digital platform that focuses on Black Chicago, told the Guardian that NABJ’s decision was “irresponsible”.“We’ve watched Trump threaten to send the feds here when he was in office,” Walden said. “We’ve watched him use Chicago as a dog whistle in all of his campaign’s materials during his first run for office. He talked about Chicago having top gang thugs. So this puts the city of Chicago and its residents in a very vulnerable position. It also puts Black journalists in a very vulnerable position at a convention that’s supposed to be a safe space for them.”Ameshia Cross, a political analyst, echoed this sentiment on X: “The same Trump that attacked Black journalists from the stump. The same Trump who is attacking DEI, can’t get ahead of his own racism and sexism. And the guy who wants to dissolve journalism as we know it, that’s who is speaking at #NABJ24 w/ record attendance. C’mon yall.”Another journalist, Carron J Phillips, called the move “the single dumbest and worst decision in NABJ history”.The outcry led to the NABJ president, Ken Lemon, and others defending the decision, saying that Black reporters should have the opportunity to question a political candidate.“Every year, every presidential election cycle, we invite the presidential candidates to come,” Lemon said to NABJ student journalists on Tuesday. “We extend that to anyone who is a nominee and in this case we have two presumptive nominees. We invited both of them … This is an important hour. We have people whose lives are depending on what happens in November … This is a great opportunity for us to vet the candidate right here on our ground.”Kamala Harris is scheduled to speak elsewhere on Wednesday, when Trump will be at NABJ, but her confirmation to attend this year’s convention, which lasts through Sunday, is “pending”, according to NABJ.Tia Mitchell, the chair of NABJ’s political journalism taskforce and a Washington correspondent at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote on X: “I helped make this call. And it’s in line with invitations NABJ has sent to every presidential candidate for decades. But continue to go off on your feed. I’ll continue to work to create opportunities for journalists to interview the potential next President.” (Mitchell, NABJ and NABJ’s Chicago chapter did not respond to requests for comment.)Wednesday’s panel will be moderated by Rachel Scott, a senior congressional correspondent for ABC News; Harris Faulkner, who anchors The Faulkner Focus and Outnumbered for Fox News; and Kadia Goba, a politics reporter for Semafor.“As journalists, we can never be afraid to tackle someone like Trump,” Jemele Hill, a contributing reporter for the Atlantic, wrote on X. “The reality is that he is running for president and needs to be treated as such. Being questioned by journalists is part of the job, and especially important in the company of Black journalists. Mainstream media keeps trying to convince us that he actually is gaining support among Black people. Let’s see if it’s true.”But the journalist Matthew Wright pushed back on the notion that there was anything productive in questioning Trump.“What does that serve?” Wright said to the Guardian. “We literally just watched him talk to Laura Ingraham [who] was trying to get him to answer different questions, but he practically played evasive of action even then. If a super conservative white woman can’t get straight answers out of him, what makes you think that three black women are going to get them?”In a statement about the NABJ appearance, Trump’s campaign wrote: “President Trump accomplished more for Black Americans than any other president in recent history.” Some journalists used this statement as evidence that NABJ’s decision to platform the former president was harmful, and would lead to further perpetuation of falsehoods.“This is the way 45 is touting his appearance before @nabj this week. Was this what you wanted [Tia Mitchell]? He is already lying and he isn’t even in Chicago yet. This is your legacy,” April Reign, a media strategist, wrote on X.The timing of the panel announcement – less than 48 hours before the convention’s start – also drew concern from NABJ members.Shamira Ibrahim, a culture writer, told the Guardian that she was shocked by the decision.“It puts everyone in a really bad position,” Ibrahim said. “You already paid your convention fees, you already paid for a hotel that’s likely not refundable at this point, flights are likely difficult to get replaced. Even if you have a moral opposition to it or an ethical opposition to it, you’re kind of already stuck in whatever plan you made.”NABJ’s annual convention has allowed Black journalists a space to fellowship and gather safely since the organization’s founding in 1975, with some reporters likening it to a family reunion. Inviting Trump, Ibrahim said, undermined that sense of community.“NABJ is primarily not just a place for journalists to get opportunities to interview politicians, but also a place for Black journalists to network, to have open conversations about things that are happening in the industry, to attend panels, and really get a sense of how to shift in a very, very volatile, fragile space,” she continued.“Inviting someone who, one, has made targeted attacks on Black journalists, two, has actively been responsible in defunding programs that help build Black journalists, and three, has publicly attacked the Black press flies in the face of any sort of fidelity convention.”On Tuesday afternoon, a coalition of organizations, including Chicago Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression and Anti-War Committee Chicago, announced plans to rally outside the convention to “tell Trump he’s not welcome in Chicago”. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington insiders simulated a second Trump presidency. Can a role-play save democracy?

      by

      It is the afternoon of 20 January 2025 and Donald Trump is in his White House dining room, glued to the same TV where he sat transfixed as the January 6 attack on the US Capitol unfolded four years ago. This morning, he completed one of the most spectacular political comebacks in US history, reciting the oath of office at the inauguration ceremony that returned him to the most powerful job on Earth.His political resurrection has caused turmoil in the transition period, and massive anti-Trump demonstrations have erupted in several big cities. In his inaugural address, the 47th president makes clear his intention to deal with his detractors: “They are rioting in the streets. We are not safe. Make our cities safe again!” he commands.The peaceful marches are portrayed on Fox News, the channel he is watching, as anarchic disorder. Trump grows increasingly incensed, and that evening calls his top team into the situation room with one purpose in mind: to end the demonstrations by any means necessary.“I need to make sure that our streets are safe from those who are running amok trying to overthrow our administration,” he tells the group of top law enforcement, national security and military officials. A flicker of alarm ripples through the room as the president cites the Insurrection Act, saying it allows him to call up the national guard in key states to suppress what he calls the “rebellion”.Discerning the concern among his top officials, Trump gives them an ultimatum. He is in no mood to compromise or stand down – he did that in his first term in the face of “deep state” opposition. “I have been charged by the American people to make this country great again,” he states, “and I need to know right now that everybody in this room is on board.”The scenario was imaginary, but the discussion around it was very real. Dozens of men and women in a Washington DC-area hotel conference center were seated at tables arranged to resemble the White House situation room, wearing name tags denoting their part in the role-play. Prominent people from both parties were in character as the president of the United States, AKA Trump; the joint chiefs of staff; Republican and Democratic governors; Congress members; federal prosecutors; religious and business leaders; and community organizers.About 175 people participated in five exercises, bringing to the process an extraordinary wealth of bipartisan institutional knowledge. Among the lineup were senior officials from successive administrations of both parties, including the Trump administration.They came with a mission: to wargame Trump acting out the most extreme authoritarian elements of his agenda and explore what could be done, should he win in November, to protect democracy in the face of possible abuses of power. What they discovered could be used to inform public debate and sound the alarm about what most participants agreed was a woeful lack of preparation.View image in fullscreenThe event was being held as part of the Democracy Futures Project, an ambitious series of nonpartisan tabletop exercises. Spearheaded by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, the role-playing games were staged in May and June amid tight security. A similar set of wargaming exercises, conducted under different leadership in 2020, pinpointed with uncanny precision Trump’s efforts to subvert that year’s presidential election.This year, the games included that imaginary scenario in which Trump, newly ensconced in the Oval Office, invokes the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces into American cities to fight supposed anarchy and crime.A second game looked at Trump’s threat to politicise federal agencies, including the justice department, and weaponise them against his political enemies. A third probed his immigration plans, which include dark warnings of mass roundups of undocumented immigrants and large-scale deportations.The Guardian attended two of the five exercises in the role of observers.The vocabulary of the exercises was that of the playground or sports field: the simulations were “games” revolving around “role-play”, with participants acting in the characters of Trump, his cabinet, military, law enforcement and congressional leaders, split into Trump’s “red” team and an oppositional “blue” team. Despite the linguistic levity, the purpose of the enactments could not have been more grave.“This is a pivotal moment for our democracy,” said Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who took part in the Insurrection Act simulation. “I believe very strongly that, should Trump be elected, we’re going to see a vast change and our democracy will not be what it looks like today.”The sense of urgency surrounding the gatherings has intensified dramatically as a result of recent events. Since the war games were staged, Trump has been emboldened by the attempt on his life at a Pennsylvania rally, Joe Biden has stepped out of the race, and Kamala Harris has shot up to become the presumptive Democratic candidate. The course of the election – and its outcome – is now deeply uncertain.Participants attended under the so-called Chatham House rule, meaning that what was said in the simulations could be reported publicly but not who said it. Some individuals agreed to be named, including Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee; Elizabeth Neumann, deputy chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; and Richard Danzig, the navy secretary under Bill Clinton.That so many prominent public figures were prepared to set aside entire days to delve deeply into a hypothetical was in itself a sign of these troubled and profoundly anxious times. “A lot of people are getting worried,” Whitman said, “and trying to figure out what guardrails are going to be left should Trump get in.”The danger with any attempt to role-play possible future scenarios is that it could sound paranoid or preposterous. Trump may say extreme things, but destroy democracy? Really? The co-founders of the project, who include Barton Gellman, the Brennan Center’s senior adviser and a former Atlantic journalist, and Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor, can point to two powerful arguments in support of the project. The first is the accuracy of the 2020 wargaming.The Transition Integrity Project imagined the then far-fetched idea that Trump might refuse to concede defeat, and, by claiming widespread fraud in mail-in ballots, unleash dark forces culminating in violence. Every implausible detail of the simulations came to pass in the lead-up to the US Capitol attack on 6 January 2021.The second ballast for the Brennan Center’s exercises was provided by Trump himself. All of this year’s scenarios were based on explicit statements from Trump and his closest allies, laying out his intended executive actions during a second term.Take the scenario that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to go against street protests. The 1807 law gives presidents the power to deploy the US military to suppress insurrections and quell civil unrest. Trump already considered this in 2020, when White House aides drafted a proclamation order invoking the act in preparation for suppressing Black Lives Matter protests in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. According to the Washington Post, similar drafts have been drawn up recently by Trump associates. .“This wasn’t a fanciful or unrealistic scenario,” said Peter Keisler, former acting US attorney general under George W Bush, who participated in the simulation. “We know people associated with Trump have been looking into how to use the Insurrection Act to deploy military force domestically against protests.”Keisler said that taking part in the exercise brought home to him how hard it would be to stop such a move: “It confirmed for me that for an authoritarian-minded president, deploying the military domestically could be one of the easiest and fastest levers of power that could be pulled, given how vaguely written the statute is.”View image in fullscreenIn the course of the Insurrection Act tabletop exercise, the person role-playing Trump initially met resistance from senior military figures who tried to cling to the Posse Comitatus Act barring federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement. As the scenario unfolded, Trump grew impatient and ended up firing the joint chiefs of staff, replacing them with military officers who would do his bidding and federalise the national guard.The way the exercise played out jibed with the fears of another of its participants, Paul Eaton, a former major general in the US army. “I’m not sure we can count on the military in a Trump world,” he said.Eaton pointed to a letter from May 2021 signed by 124 retired generals and admirals that propagated the lie that Biden stole the 2020 election from Trump. He added that studies had shown that almost one in seven of those prosecuted for storming the Capitol on January 6 had a military background.“When you have an armed force of 2 million-plus men and women who get a steady diet of lies from Fox News and social media, then you risk ending up with a military that’s going to question what is really true,” Eaton said.The second war game observed by the Guardian involved the scenario in which Trump, on day one, sets out to drain the swamp, free the January 6 “patriots”, and lock up his political enemies. “Let’s be an intelligent authoritarian,” the participant playing Trump told his red team allies, telling them to push the boundaries of what a president can do.Over the next few hours, the president sat on his phone firing off social media posts, while his cabinet executed his agenda. The justice department announced the investigation of Biden and others in his circle, and instructed the FBI to be very aggressive, to the extent of looking for even minor crimes.By the end of the day, they had arrested three of Biden’s grandchildren and, for good measure, Mike Pence’s daughter, “just to make sure Pence keeps his mouth shut”. They also withdrew all pending criminal charges against Trump.Trump’s team also prioritised schedule F: an effort to purge the civil service of people disloyal to the president. And they instructed the treasury department to look at tools at its disposal to withhold federal funding from top US universities under the guise that they were “harboring antisemitism”In response, the blue oppositional team called congressional hearings, tried to mobilize people across the country to protest against the president’s actions, staged acts of civil disobedience, and threatened lawsuits.At the end of the simulation, the consensus among many policy experts was that the blue team’s response felt weak and inadequate, with little agreement over message. “Blue has a catch-22 because they’re forces of normality, but all of this is not normal,” one participant said.Meanwhile, the red team’s efforts may have been alarming, but they didn’t get to even a fraction of what Trump has said he wants to accomplish in his first 90 days. “That is just the tip of the iceberg,” another participant said.As the Brennan Center has highlighted in its initial findings from the war games, participants came away from the simulations sobered by the experience. Above all, they discovered that there were far fewer effective restraints at their disposal than they had expected.Asked to identify the biggest lesson she had learned, Whitman said: “How little there is we can do.”Many of the attendees concluded that this time around, the courts cannot be relied upon as the primary means of staving off Trump’s attacks. In the thick of his 2020 “stop the steal” conspiracy to overturn the election results, courts did play a critical role, rejecting Trump’s claims of illegal voting in almost all cases.Trump’s many appointments to the federal judicial bench during his term, including his game-changing three appointments to the supreme court, have dented the hope that the judiciary will be a bastion against an authoritarian president.Participants also came away rattled by the thought that Trump and his associates are now much more experienced and adept at working the federal apparatus. As one of the Trump role-players put it: “This time around, they’re going to know where the door handles are.”Such apprehensions are disturbing. Yet the intention of the exercises was not to stun pro-democracy activists into depressed paralysis.Rather, it was, as Brennan put it, to show that “time is short, and the work of preparation demands more ambition and more hands on deck”.The exercises pointed to some positive guardrails that might still hold. State governors have their own reserves of independent authority, which, if combined with the capabilities of state attorneys general, could block, or at least slow down, federal abuses.Federal officials, who are in Trump’s sights as he threatens to politicise the top of the civil service in his attack on the “deep state”, also have the ability to safeguard the workings of democratic government. It may be easier said than done in the face of mass firings, but the Brennan Center is calling for a “well-resourced campaign” to persuade civil servants to stay the course and not resign, and provide them with legal support in case of retaliation.The last resort when all else fails, many participants suggested, would probably be the power of public protest. “Public opinion, mobilized by a powerful communications strategy, can help set boundaries on authoritarian behavior,” Brennan said in its initial findings.Keisler, the former acting US attorney general, said that the war game he attended shook him more than he had expected: “Do I think there’s a genuine jeopardy to our democracy? Absolutely. Do I think the country is ready for it? No. Do I think it’s guaranteed to end well? No.”He added: “And this was just a game. Then there’s real life, and that’s ahead of us.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris urges Americans to vote after six-week abortion ban takes effect in Iowa

      by

      Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic nominee for president, urged Americans to vote after a six-week abortion ban took effect in Iowa on Monday.“This ban is going to take effect before many women even know they’re pregnant,” Harris said in a video posted to YouTube. “What this means is that one in three women of reproductive age in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban.”During the 33-second clip, Harris used the phrase “Trump abortion ban” three times – part of a wider effort by her campaign to blame her rival Donald Trump, who appointed three of the supreme court justices who overturned Roe v Wade and enabled states to outlaw abortion, for the spate of unpopular bans that now blanket the south and midwest.The Republican-dominated Iowa state legislature passed the ban last year, but a lengthy court battle initially stopped it from taking effect. Last month, the Iowa supreme court ruled that the ban could be enforced, leading a lower-court judge to rule it could take effect on Monday morning at 8am local time.“The upholding of this abortion ban in Iowa is an absolute devastation and violation of human rights, depriving Iowans of their bodily autonomy,” Leah Vanden Bosch, development and outreach director of the Iowa Abortion Access Fund, said in a statement. “We know a ban will not stop the need for abortions.”Up until Sunday, abortion had been legal in Iowa up to roughly 22 weeks of pregnancy. Now, abortion clinics in the state have indicated that they will continue offering the procedure to the legal limit. The closest options for Iowans who want abortions after six weeks of pregnancy will probably be Minnesota and Illinois, Democratic-run states that border Iowa and that have become abortion havens since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022.The Iowa ban permits abortions past six weeks in cases of rape or incest, or in medical emergencies.Fourteen other states enacted near-total bans on abortion since the US supreme court overturned Roe. Three other states – Georgia, South Carolina and Florida – have banned abortion past about six weeks of pregnancy.Roe’s demise led to surge in support for abortion rights, even in red states. Sixty-one per cent of Iowans, including 70% of women, say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll found last year.The end of Roe has made abortion rights one of the top issues in the 2024 election. Harris, the face of the issue for Democrats, has said that she would sign a bill codifying Roe’s protections into law. On the other side of the aisle, Trump, the Republican nominee has tried to downplay the issue as it has become a liability for Republicans.Kim Reynolds, Iowa’s Republican governor, celebrated the ban, calling it a “victory for life”. In a statement, she added: “There is nothing more sacred and no cause more worthy than protecting innocent unborn lives.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Republican party’s obsession with families has taken a fanatical turn | Moira Donegan

      by

      “It’s possible,” writes Jessica Winter in the New Yorker, “that if JD Vance had his way, citizenship in the United States would be conferred not solely by birthright but by marriage and children.” This is no exaggeration. In a now viral 2021 clip, JD Vance said: “Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power – you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic – than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality: If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”This position now represents large swaths of the Republican party, which has taken on an angry and aggressively prescriptive approach to family life.If you’re a woman in America, Republicans want you to be a mother whether you care to or not. They want you to risk your health to give them more babies. Then, when those babies get bigger, they want to make sure that those children’s fathers – or, excuse me, “parents” – have a near-total control over both them and you.They don’t want you to be able to get a divorce if your marriage turns unhappy or even abusive. They don’t want your daughter to be able to get birth control if her father doesn’t approve of it; they don’t want your other daughter to be able to get the hormone treatment she needs to thrive as her truest self. They want to inspect your kids’ genitals before they let them play on the high school softball team. They want to ban books, and decide what your kids can and can’t read.They want to bar the medical treatments that allow you to plan your family and have children on your own terms – things like egg freezing and IVF. They want to make you have your children young, and they want to stigmatize those of us women who pursue our own careers, interests and ambitions instead of popping out as many children as they deem appropriate.If you say no – if you resist their prescription for marriage, motherhood and perpetual feminine self-sacrifice – they want to let you know, in sneeringly condescending terms, that you’re “childless cat ladies”, that you’re not as good as them, that step-parents are not real parents, blended families are not real families, that women who don’t have children are disgusting, worthless and deserving of contempt. If you say no, they want to denigrate you in public, punish you financially, dilute your vote and lessen your citizenship.As the 2024 presidential election heats up following Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate and Kamala Harris’s emergence as the new Democratic standard-bearer, it is becoming clear that much of the stakes of the November contest will revolve around questions of gender – and specifically, questions of family. And the view of the family that is emerging from the Republicans is a dark one indeed.Because the version of “family” that the Republicans are putting forward is one that can only look a very particular way. In their eyes, family is a compulsory relation of domination, an institution in which marriage and parenthood function to grant men near-total private control over women and children. Women, meanwhile, face a grim fate in the Republicans’ preferred vision of family: they are forced into motherhood, trapped into marriage, and punished for resistance.It’s not just that Vance, the VP pick and heir presumptive to the post-Trump Republican party, has made repeated, creepy remarks disparaging childless women and suggesting that adults without children should pay higher taxes and receive fewer votes. It’s that Vance’s obsessive, invasive and prurient investment in other people’s sexual and reproductive lives is the logical conclusion of the Republican party’s gender politics.Vance’s belief that women must be either compelled into childbirth or denied full citizenship is obviously of a piece with his party’s ambition to impose a national abortion ban. But it also flows from their opposition to no-fault divorce rights; their insistence that teens must not be able to access sexual, reproductive or transition-related healthcare without the approval of their parents; their rejection of IVF, diversity initiatives, and anti-discrimination protections; and their opposition to myriad other public policy initiatives that have helped advance women’s health, protect their safety, and allow them full access to work, education and the public sphere.The Republican plan, in short, is to sabotage or revoke any cultural or policy change that allows women to live as men’s equals. They instead aim to reshape policy, culture and the law to keep women in the home, dependent, without control over their own bodies and at the mercy of men.They aim, that is, to advance so-called “family values” in which birth is mandatory, marriage is inescapable, children are property rather than persons with rights of their own, and men are in charge. There’s a word for this dark vision of a world in which the private sphere is wholly controlled by husbands and fathers. That word is “patriarchy”.But the creepy and unsubtle patriarchal vision of gender and the family that is being advanced by the Trump-Vance Republican party may also present an opportunity for Harris and the Democrats to reclaim the mantle of “family”, and to redefine it for a better future. Rather than a compulsory, inescapable and unequal institution based on sexist domination, a “family” might instead be an alliance of equality, mutuality and care – one in which sovereign individuals can choose one another, and come together in an effort to love one another, respect one another, and help one another to thrive.These are, after all, the kinds of families that many Americans find themselves inhabiting: ones in which romantic partners might be gay or straight, married or not, but view themselves as equal partners; ones in which ties of blood, marriage, love, history and affinity all blend together in layers of connection and mutuality, ones in which children are wholly voluntary, chosen and loved, and in which women are sovereigns over their own bodies and lives, whose ambitions in the public world are neither impeded nor resented in the private one.These non-hierarchical, non-domineering, voluntary families can be encouraged through policy: through free, safe and legal abortion access, through free childcare, through paid family leave, affordable healthcare, high-quality care for seniors, insurance coverage for assisted reproductive technology, access to the full range of healthcare services for children and teens, and a thriving public school system. Such investments would help the sorts of families that most people want to build: ones that honor the dignity and worth of everyone in them.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on female political leaders: new strains of misogyny fuel old battles | Editorial

      by

      In 1989, a schoolgirl asked Gerald Ford what advice he had for a young lady wanting to become US president, as he had been. “It won’t happen in the normal course of events,” he predicted. Instead, a man would win the presidency with a female running mate, and the woman would take over because the man would die in office. After that, he suggested, men would have to fight hard to even become the nominee.Video of that encounter went viral after Joe Biden quit his re-election bid and Democrats rallied behind Kamala Harris. Ford’s prediction and his acknowledgment that female politicians are unfairly dismissed had new resonance, though of course Mr Biden is alive and it is still a matter of hope, not fact, that the US will see its first female president. Any Democratic nominee would face a difficult race. But even after Barack Obama became the first black president, and after female leaders such as Angela Merkel and Jacinda Ardern have commanded international respect and admiration, some fear that the racism and misogyny Ms Harris faces could prove insurmountable, though she inspires and energises other voters.Four years ago, Donald Trump said the quiet part out loud, remarking of her that “we’re not going to have a socialist president. Especially any female.” JD Vance, his running mate, described Ms Harris and others as “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too”. Online attacks from their supporters have been even more vicious, bigoted and graphic – and may well alienate moderate voters. For many, however, the prejudice is unconscious. Research has repeatedly shown that in politics, as in other walks of life, “women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both”.Macho attitudes and patriarchal values have been fostered and legitimised by strongmen worldwide in recent years. Giorgia Meloni and Marine Le Pen are ample proof that women can also be prominent in far-right movements and do little for other women. But a marked political gender gap has emerged in many places in the last few years. In the US, polling suggests women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than men of that age.Similar gaps are evident in countries from the UK and Poland to Tunisia and South Korea – where a backlash against demands for women’s rights was central to the 2022 election. The country has the highest gender pay gap of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nation, yet President Yoon Suk Yeol claims structural discrimination does not exist, and won over angry young men by vowing to abolish the ministry of gender equality. The contest was an alarming harbinger of how not just regressive but explicitly anti-feminist attitudes can be politically weaponised. In Argentina, Javier Milei followed suit and won the presidency.Ford predicted that the 1990s would see a female president; the US had already seen a vice-presidential nominee (and in the UK, of course, Margaret Thatcher was then prime minister). But it took until 2008 before there was another, Sarah Palin, and 2016 before Hillary Clinton became the first female presidential nominee of a major party. Now Ms Harris has her shot. Like women around the world, she faces not only old stumbling blocks, but new strains of misogyny. The unfairness and extremity of attacks upon her, however, could yet help to fuel a groundswell of support.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Top Republicans call Kamala Harris a ‘dangerous liberal’ as attacks ramp up

      by

      Republicans took to the airwaves Sunday to criticize a surging Kamala Harris, calling the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee a “dangerous liberal” as US conservatives’ lines of attack on the vice-president began to solidify.In appearances across CNN and Fox News, senior Republican figures Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham and former presidential candidate Ron DeSantis each attempted to paint Harris – who is typically seen as a centrist Democrat – as having far-left politics.Those remarks came after Trump sought to insult Harris at a rally on Friday night. The ex-president appeared to deliberately mispronounce Harris’s first name, claimed she is “the most incompetent, unpopular and far-left vice-president in American history” and stated: “She was a bum three weeks ago.”Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Cotton, the US senator from Arkansas, said: “For four years things were good” during Trump’s presidency. He argued that after Joe Biden took the White House in 2020 with Harris as his running mate, “everything has gone to hell”.“And it will be much worse under Kamala Harris,” Cotton said. “Just look at her record. She wants to ban private health insurance, she wants to ban fossil fuel production, she wants to ban guns.”In 2019, Harris did propose a universal healthcare plan during her run for president. But the plan did not propose eliminating private health insurance. Harris has not said that she wants to ban fossil fuel production. And it is untrue that Harris wants to ban all guns, although she has said high-capacity rifles – used in many US mass shootings – should be banned.Cotton added: “Kamala Harris is a dangerous liberal. She makes Joe Biden look competent and moderate by contrast.”In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation show, the South Carolina US senator Graham also attacked Harris as being too liberal.“If you expect vice-president Harris to change the course we’re on as a nation, you’re going to be sadly disappointed,” Graham said of the candidate endorsed by Biden after he halted his re-election campaign on 21 July.“She is the most liberal senator in the United States senate. There is no liberal horse that she has chosen not to ride. She sponsored the Green new deal and medicare for all. At the end of the day recasting her as something she’s not – she’s a nice person but she’s incredibly liberal. I mean, major league liberal,” Graham said.A noted military hawk, Graham attempted to tie Harris to Biden’s policies in the Middle East.“When it comes to Iran, Biden and Harris have been a colossal failure in terms of controlling the Ayatollah. They’ve enriched him and Israel is paying the price,” Graham said. He suggested that Iran could “sprint to a nuclear weapon” in the four months leading up to the US election.Graham was asked about JD Vance’s characterization of Harris and others as “childless cat ladies who are miserable in their own lives”.“This idea of trying to marginalize JD and make him some kind of bad person is not going to work, because he’s not a bad person – he’s a good person,” Graham said. The scrutiny over Vance comes as some Republicans are said to be concerned about Trump having selected him to be his running mate.DeSantis, the Florida governor who became locked in a fierce battle with Trump as the pair ran for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed that “the entrenched corporate media” will attempt to “rewrite history” regarding Harris.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“They’re going to try to present her as something she’s just not,” DeSantis told Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.“She owns all the policies. She’s not going to be able to distance herself from them, and most Americans think that this country’s going in the wrong direction.”DeSantis did concede that Republicans would have preferred to run against Biden, who had generally fallen several points behind Trump in opinion polls before Harris’s introduction into the race essentially reset it.“You take somebody like Harris, who’s not exactly lighting the world on fire – but Biden makes her look like Socrates just because we’re so used to him not even being able to do anything,” DeSantis said.Byron Donalds, the Republican congressman for Florida who had been rumored to be a potential Trump running mate, joined in the criticism of Harris on Sunday as Republicans appeared to solidify around the idea of painting her as an extreme liberal.“She wanted Medicaid for all, which would have cost our country easily $100tn. She wanted the Green New Deal, the massive old Green New Deal, not the scaled down version they were able to get through Congress,” Donalds told Sunday Morning Futures.Donalds, who has previously stressed the need to “unite this country”, also took aim at Roy Cooper, the governor of North Carolina, and Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona. Both men are rumored to be potential Harris running mates.“Knowing both of those gentlemen, they’re both boring and nobody’s really going to care. But at the end of the day, this is about Kamala Harris’s terrible record versus a record of success from Donald Trump,” Donalds said. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Voters to choose between two starkly different candidates in US ‘Armageddon election’

      by

      A man convicted of dozens of felonies versus a criminal prosecutor. An architect of abortion bans versus a champion of reproductive freedom. An elderly white man fixated on the past versus a mixed-race daughter of immigrants leaning into the future.One hundred days from the US presidential election, the choice for voters has never been so clear cut. Kamala Harris, 59, the de facto Democratic nominee after the dramatic withdrawal of Joe Biden, is a progressive person of colour bidding to become the first female president in America’s 248-year history.Donald Trump, at 78 the oldest nominee in history, is a populist-nationalist who has demonised immigrants, gained backing from far-right extremists and tapped into white Christian nostalgia by promising to “make America great again”.“In this moment, I believe we face a choice between two different visions for our nation, one focused on the future, the other focused on the past,” Harris told members of the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta in Indianapolis on Wednesday. “And with your support, I am fighting for our nation’s future.”Biden has previously spoken of a “battle for the soul of the nation” and Trump has described this election as “the final battle”. But the nomination of Harris will be clarifying about the culmination of a tumultuous decade and a collision of two Americas: one liberal, diverse and optimistic, the other conservative, nativist and, in Trump’s telling, driven by grievance and vengeance.Halifu Osumare, professor emerita in the department of African American and African studies at the University of California, Davis, said: “The difference between the candidates couldn’t be any starker. To me it represents this country and its schizophrenia. This country is both racist to its core yet the leader of the world in the rights of the individual and democracy.“This election is going to play out that schizophrenia because you’ve got a good deal of the nation who wants to take us back to those days where white supremacy was absolutely dominant, and those who want us to evolve as a human species. We need somebody who has humanity at her core in order to do that.”The road that led here began with the election of Barack Obama, America’s first Black president, in 2008. For millions of Americans, Obama represented hope; for millions of other Americans, he represented fear that the country they grew up in was disappearing. Whereas white Christians made up 54% of the US population in 2008, they have now slipped into the minority and make up only 44%.Racially motivated backlash against Obama was evident in the stirrings of the populist Tea Party movement. Then came Trump’s entry into politics as a “birther”, questioning whether Obama had in fact been born in Kenya and was therefore ineligible for the presidency.Again, Trump offered hope to one America and fear to the other. He embodied a rage against change, political correctness and liberal elites, gaining traction in small towns and rural areas that felt left behind. He scapegoated immigrants as the source of blame, creating an us-versus-them dynamic, and promised to build a border wall to keep them out.The country faced a clear choice in 2016 and handed Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in the electoral college, though there were complicating variables such as her status as a former first lady and the FBI reopening an investigation into her handling of classified information.Four years and one global pandemic later, Trump, a white man who was the oldest president ever, was defeated by Joe Biden, a white man who was even older and a moderate who won back white working-class votes that Clinton had lost in the rust belt. In 2024, the world was braced, somewhat wearily, for a rematch.Moe Vela, a former senior adviser to Biden when he was vice-president, said: “When it was Biden and Trump, you had two septuagenarians that created a battle of senior citizens. Now you have not only gender, not only the past versus the future, not only a difference in heritage – you have also the stark contrast in hope versus hate.”In the past month, American politics has moved at incredible speed, upending all certainties. Biden flopped at a presidential debate in Atlanta, Trump survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania and, as a chorus of Democrats questioned his age and mental acuity, Biden became the first incumbent since 1968 to announce he would not seek re-election.The party quickly rallied around Harris, a former US senator, prosecutor and California attorney general, with an avalanche of endorsements, fundraising and memes. She hit the campaign trail with electrifying speeches and Beyoncé tracks, providing a shot of adrenaline that flipped Democrats from doom and gloom to giddy optimism. Opinion polls show Harris outperforming Biden among Black, Latino and young voters, and running more or less even with Trump.Leon Panetta, a former defence secretary and CIA director, said: “There’s a hundred days to go to the election and, in a year where everything has pretty much happened, it’s hard to tell how this all plays out. But I don’t think there’s any question that the Democrats are very much back in this race and are looking a hell of a lot better than they did a few weeks ago.”Panetta, who served in various capacities under nine US presidents, has witnessed growing polarisation and a coarsening of political discourse. “It’s obvious that America in these last number of years has become more divided, more partisan, and our democracy in many ways has become much more dysfunctional as a result of those divisions,” he added. “Kamala Harris presents a message that we could have a better America in the future, and we need that message of hope.“The message of Trump, whether he wanted to change it or not, still gets trapped by his own sense of retribution, vengeance and going after people. That’s not what Kamala Harris is about and so the American people are going to have a real choice here in November to decide what kind of direction we want for our country. The more defined that difference is, the better the chances are that the Democrats can win.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBorn in Oakland, California, to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, Harris is the anti-Trump in myriad ways. She is 19 years younger, instantly neutralising the age argument and turning it against her opponent, whose ramblings and name confusions will be under special scrutiny.She has been the face of the Biden campaign on the issue of abortion as reproductive rights became an animating issue after the supreme court in 2022 overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision. She is expected to stick largely to Biden’s foreign policy playbook on Ukraine, China and Iran but could strike a tougher tone with Israel over the war in Gaza.Her sudden ascent punctured Republican balloons after a successful party convention in Milwaukee, where Trump was almost deified after his defiant response – “Fight! Fight! Fight” – to a near-death experience. His entrance to the sound of It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World, and speeches by the likes of wrestler Hulk Hogan, underlined an image of old-school machismo.The Trump campaign, which relished a contest with the ailing Biden, is now having to rapidly adapt to the new challenge of Harris. It has begun casting her as a leftwing radical from California who was the “co-pilot” of what they say are the Biden administration’s failed policies on immigration and inflation.Trump told a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, this week: “For three and a half years, Lyin’ Kamala Harris has been the ultra-liberal driving force behind every single Biden catastrophe … As border czar, Kamala threw open our borders and allowed 20 million illegal aliens to stampede into our country from all over the world.”Republican representative and rightwing media have mispronounced her name, mocked her laugh (“Cackling Kamala”), and invoked diversity, equity and inclusion programmes to brand her potentially the “first DEI president”. Commentators predict a torrent of bigotry, racism and misogyny reminiscent of the playbooks deployed against Obama and Clinton. The tone of the two campaigns could not be more different.Tara Setmayer, co-founder and chief executive of the Seneca Project, a women-led Super Pac, said: “That’s the decision. It’s between democracy versus autocracy, and progression versus regression. Usually a future-forward vision wins out. But we’ll see. It’s going to be a hell of a battle. When you think we were battling for the soul of America in 2020, this is the battle for the soul of America on steroids.”The clarity of the choice raises the temperature in an already febrile atmosphere. The attempt on Trump’s life came after years of political violence that included the shooting of representative Steve Scalise, a hammer attack on former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband and the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.Both parties now head into an “Armageddon election” in which they say the American way of life is on the line. Winning will signify total vindication; losing will signify total catastrophe. How would Trump’s fervent base react to defeat by a Black woman? At a rally for Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, in Middletown, Ohio, this week, state senator George Lang warned: “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved.”Differences personified by Harris and Trump appear irreconcilable. David Blight, a professor of American history at Yale University, said: “It’s about crushing the other side. There’s no bipartisanship about this election except for the ‘never Trumpers’ [traditional Republicans who oppose Trump], who have seen a light and don’t want to live in a country with that kind of authoritarianism.“We’re on the brink of something here.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris switch scrambles Republicans as Trump resorts to insults

      by

      Donald Trump capped a tough week in which his Democratic opponents turned the tables, replacing aging Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as their top choice for president, by resorting to insults and extremism on the campaign trail.A week ago, Trump was riding high on the iconic moment when he rose bloodied and with a defiantly raised fist from an assassination attempt, pulling away in the polls. Biden, meanwhile, was struggling to recover from his dire late June debate against the Republican nominee and an unconvincing performance in the days since.Now, with the former president suddenly facing a vibrant, younger rival in Harris, who hit the ground running after Biden quit his re-election campaign last Sunday and quickly endorsed her for the top of the ticket, Trump called her “a bum” and said he “couldn’t care less” if he mispronounced her name.At a rally in Florida on Friday night organized by the far-right Christian advocacy group Turning Point Action, Trump not only went personal against the US vice-president, but once again appeared to threaten American democracy.“Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it anymore. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians,” he said at the event in West Palm Beach, not far from his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence.Trump has been adopted by much of the US evangelical Christian right as a flawed champion, besmirched by losing in sexual misconduct and business fraud civil cases and convicted on criminal counts for election-related fraud in a case involving an adult film actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him. With other criminal cases ongoing, he is nevertheless the one-term president who tilted the US supreme court against abortion, gun control, government experts, voting rights and diversity efforts in higher education, delighting his white, ultra-conservative base.At Friday’s rally, he also lit into Harris. She won the support not only of Biden but of the Obamas, the Clintons and the Democratic leaders in Congress last week, and if she is officially anointed at the party’s convention next month, she will be the first Black female nominee, the first south Asian nominee, and, if she beats Trump in November, America’s first female president.On Friday, Trump called her “the most incompetent, unpopular and far-left vice-president in American history”. And in a seeming nod to how the campaign has been upended, he said: “She was a bum three weeks ago.”He also pronounced her name Ka-MAH-la Harris, whereas the vice-president pronounces her name KAHM-a-la.He insisted that he had been told there are numerous ways to say her name and added: “I said: ‘Don’t worry about it, doesn’t matter what I say, I couldn’t care less if I mispronounce it or not.’ Some people think I mispronounce it on purpose but actually I’ve heard it said about seven different ways.”He has variously called Harris “crazy”, “nuts” and “dumb as a rock”. Some Republicans in Congress disparage her as a “diversity hire”, even though in her career before she became the first female US vice-president she had been elected as the district attorney of San Francisco, the attorney general of California and a US senator. Rightwing activists and trolls have smeared her online with racist, sexist and sexualized barbs, Reuters reported.But opinion polls show that in just a few days, Harris, 59, has closed to within a point or two of Trump, whereas Biden had fallen around six points behind and was losing support in vital swing states.Trump, 78, is now the oldest nominee to run for president. Earlier in the week, Trump also said Harris “doesn’t like Jewish people” after she did not attend Benjamin Netanyahu’s in-person visit and address to a joint session of Congress in Washington where the Israeli prime minister defended Israel’s war in Gaza. Harris spoke out strongly against the suffering of Palestinian civilians.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis despite her husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, being Jewish and being involved in an antisemitism taskforce for the White House.In the last week, Trump also experienced another wobble in his trajectory. After introducing his choice of running mate at the Republican national convention as young gun and US senator for Ohio JD Vance to great fanfare, some within Republican circles began to lament Vance as a liability rather than a boon to the Trump ticket, following awkward performances on the campaign trail.Then, Jennifer Aniston went viral criticizing Vance’s past comments disparaging the likes of Harris, who is a stepmother but has not given birth, as unhappy “childless cat ladies”..And on Saturday, the New York Times published excerpts from communications between Vance and a peer from Yale Law School who said their close friendship broke down in 2021 when Vance supported a ban by Arkansas on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. It was the first such ban in the country – later struck down in court.Former friend Sofia Nelson is transgender and told the publication that the public should know what Vance has said, including more about his pivot from being a Trump opponent to an acolyte. This included Vance writing “I hate the police” after white officers killed a Black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, and calling Trump a demagogue, a disaster and “morally reprehensible” while saying the greater his appeal to the white electorate, the worse it would be for Black voters. The Vance campaign called Nelson’s decision to disclose private conversations unfortunate.On Saturday night, Trump and Vance are due to appear at a rally in Minnesota, hoping to get their campaign off the back foot. More