World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson, the new speaker of the House, is a gender extremist | Moira Donegan

      by

      Late last month, when House Republicans ended their chaotic, weeks-long search for a new speaker by elevating Louisiana’s Mike Johnson, a curious trend of stories began appearing in national media. Democratic operatives (and perhaps a few of Johnson’s Republican adversaries, too) had begun leaking what’s known in Washington as “oppo”, or opposition research – unflattering truths about political rivals – about the new speaker.For many politicians, the embarrassing secrets revealed in an oppo dump are somewhat oblique; usually, they’re about money. Maybe the candidate, as a young lawyer, represented a bank in a case where he aimed to repossess the home of a poor widow; maybe the candidate’s husband or daughter was appointed to a job they did not seem quite qualified for, raising questions about nepotism or access trading. The aim of such stories is to make a politician appear corrupt, or unscrupulous – like someone beholden to greed and not to principle.But the picture that has emerged instead of the once-obscure Louisiana congressmen has not been that of the typically cynical climber, maneuvering corporate heights in pursuit of their own ambition without regard to ethics. Instead, the revelations that have emerged about Mike Johnson since his ascent to the speakership paint a picture of a fevered zealot: in thrall of baroque and morbid religious fantasies; beholden to a regressive, bigoted and morbid worldview; and above all, obsessed – with a lurid and creepy enthusiasm – with sex, and how he thinks it should be done.The enforcement of a Christian sexual morality and a strict gender hierarchy of men over women have not been incidental or minor themes of Johnson’s career: they have been its primary goal, one he pursued doggedly through his pre-congressional life. As a lawyer, he worked against gay marriage, and to uphold Louisiana’s criminal ban on gay sex, writing briefs that described homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and “a dangerous lifestyle” which he compared to pedophilia and bestiality. He still opposes marriage equality, and led efforts to squash the speakership candidacy of Tom Emmer last month in part because of Emmer’s support for gay marriage rights. Along the way, Johnson has authored a national version of Florida’s so-called “don’t say gay” bill, which would outlaw mentions of homosexuality at schools, hospitals and other federally funded facilities. He opposes access to transition-related healthcare for adolescents and adults alike, and both he and his wife have worked to advance so-called “conversion therapy”, an abusive, homophobic practice that has been outlawed in several states.It probably goes without saying that Johnson, like many Republicans and nearly all of the party’s luminaries, favors a national ban on abortion, which he calls a “holocaust.” While more savvy Republicans like Glenn Youngkin have attempted to frame themselves as “moderates” by placing their preferred abortion bans at supposedly more amenable points in pregnancy, like 15 weeks, Johnson has made no such effort: he has sponsored legislation that would ban abortion nationwide at all stages of pregnancy, establishing a “right to life” for fertilized eggs that supersedes women’s rights to dignity and self-determination.His sweeping antagonism to abortion rights has extended to several kinds of birth control, such as IUDs, implants and many birth control pills. In his career as a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom – a rightwing legal shop spearheading efforts to advance Christian gender conservatism through litigation – he argued that the most popular kinds of hormonal birth control, and those that are controlled by women, are equivalent to abortion and should therefore be banned. When the House advanced a bill to codify the right to contraception after the US supreme court’s Dobbs ruling in 2022, Johnson voted against it. He has since played dumb on the issue, claiming he does not remember his opposition to birth control in an interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News.In light of his aggressively misogynist and anti-gay views on public policy, it is likely not surprising that Johnson also advances a disturbing and sexist view of the private sphere. He has condemned no-fault divorce, the liberalized regime of divorce law that was won by feminists in the 20th century, and which allowed women to initiate divorce and to exit marriages without having to prove either infidelity or abuse to a court. Johnson says that women’s freedom to leave marriages, along with their freedom to elect out of motherhood when they choose, is responsible for mass shootings.He and his own wife have a so-called “covenant marriage”, a religious arrangement that formalizes men’s superiority and constricts women’s freedom to leave, designed for conservative straight couples who feel that no-fault divorce and gay marriage rights somehow degrade their own unions. He has also spoken of being in a bizarre arrangement of mutual masturbation monitoring with his son, with whom Johnson installed family surveillance technology that reports users’ pornography consumption habits to one another.It would be easy to see Johnson’s wildly regressive gender politics as a personal quirk – his beliefs that gay people are sinful and inferior; that women should not be able to live freely from men or use their bodies in ways that are counter to wishes of the men close to them; that marriage should act, for men, as an entitlement to absolute control, and for women, as a prison. But these ideas are not quirks; they are part of a powerful constituency in the Republican party, one that has now found its way into the speakership, second in line for the presidency.Gender conservatism does not tend to attract as much notice as the other pillars of the far-right ideology: it is less distinct than the far right’s avowed white supremacy, less flashy than its hostility to democracy. But the convictions shared by Johnson – about women’s inferiority and men’s right to control them, about gay people’s moral transgression, and about the ways that the sexed body at birth can, and must, be used to determine the outcomes of a person’s life – have become the foundation upon which the Republican party’s warring factions are set to unite.The notion that the Christian right tradition that Johnson represents would be uncomfortable with Trumpism was always overstated; in America, Christian conservatives have always had more moral vanity than moral conviction. But now, Johnson’s ascent to the head of the thoroughly Trumpist House Republican caucus marks the groundbreaking for a new party order. The Republican party is rebuilding itself: it’s building on misogyny.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Progressive Rashida Tlaib says ‘we cannot lose our humanity’ as House moves toward censure for Israel comments – US politics live

      by

      In remarks on the House floor minutes after Democrats failed to block an effort to censure her for remarks her detractors say disparaged Israel, progressive Rashida Tlaib defended her criticism of the country and urged lawmakers to join in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.“I will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words,” Tlaib said. “No government is beyond criticism. The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent, and it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”Tlaib, who was first elected in 2018 and is a prominent member of “The Squad” of progressive female lawmakers, grew emotional as she said, “I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable.”She continued by saying she was against attacks on both Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike:
      The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity, Mr. Chair. I hear the voices of advocates in Israel and Palestine across America and around the world for peace.
      I’m inspired by … the courageous survivors in Israel who have lost loved ones, yet are calling for a ceasefire and the end to violence. I am grateful to the people in the streets for the peace movement with countless Jewish Americans across the country standing up and lovingly saying ‘not in our name’.
      We will continue to call for a ceasefire, Mr. Chair, for the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza, for the release of all hostages and those arbitrarily detained and for every American to come home. We will continue to work for real, lasting peace that uphold human rights and dignity of all people and centers … peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and censures no one – no one – and ensures that no person, no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.
      The House’s Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has released a statement marking a month since Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel that also weighs in on the upcoming vote to censure Rashida Tlaib.Tlaib is the sole Palestinian American in the House, and has been outspoken against Israel’s retaliatory invasion of the Gaza Strip. Republicans have moved to censure Tlaib for comments they say promote the destruction of Israel, and which have also attracted criticism from some Democrats.Jeffries does not mention Tlaib specifically in the statement, but instead recommends that Democrats agree to disagree when it comes to Israel:
      As public officials serving in Congress, the words we choose matter. It is my strong belief that we must all take care to respect each other personally, even when strongly disagreeing on matters of policy or legislation. We should be able to agree to disagree on domestic or foreign policy issues, without being disagreeable with each other or the President of the United States. If the end goal following the defeat of Hamas and safe return of all hostages is a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people, as I believe it should be, ad hominem attacks against colleagues will never accomplish that objective. The searing moment of turbulence in our society and throughout the world calls for us to tackle the challenges we confront in a serious, sober and substantive manner. Let us all recommit to doing just that for the good of everyone.
      Voters in many states across the country are casting ballots in off-year elections that could serve as important bellwethers ahead of the 2024 presidential vote. There is no shortage of races to cover, but we’ll be paying particularly close attention to Virginia, where Republican governor Glenn Youngkin is hoping his allies take control of the legislature so he can enact an abortion ban, and Ohio, a Republican-leaning state where voters are deciding where to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. In red state Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear is fighting for a second term, while in Mississippi, voters are deciding whether to send Republican Tate Reeves to the governor’s mansion again, or replace him with Democrat Brandon Presley – a cousin of Elvis Presley.But that’s not all the news that has happened today:
      The House is moving forward with a resolution to censure progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib over comments criticizing Israel and supporting the Palestinian cause. In a speech, Tlaib said she would continue calling for a ceasefire in the ongoing invasion of Gaza.
      David Weiss, the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden, defended his independence in an unusual behind-closed-doors appearance before the House judiciary committee.
      Iowa’s Republican governor Kim Reynolds endorsed her Florida counterpart Ron DeSantis for president, saying she does not think Donald Trump can win next year.
      Maryland’s Jamie Raskin led the Democratic defense in the just-concluded floor debate over censuring Rashida Tlaib.He argued that punishing Tlaib for her criticism of Israel would undercut speech freedom:The House just suspended its consideration of the resolution to censure Tlaib, and is expected to vote on it tomorrow.Here’s video of the first half of Rashida Tlaib’s speech on the House floor defending her comments on Israel’s invasion of Gaza:In remarks on the House floor minutes after Democrats failed to block an effort to censure her for remarks her detractors say disparaged Israel, progressive Rashida Tlaib defended her criticism of the country and urged lawmakers to join in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.“I will not be silenced and I will not let you distort my words,” Tlaib said. “No government is beyond criticism. The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent, and it’s been used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”Tlaib, who was first elected in 2018 and is a prominent member of “The Squad” of progressive female lawmakers, grew emotional as she said, “I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable.”She continued by saying she was against attacks on both Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike:
      The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity, Mr. Chair. I hear the voices of advocates in Israel and Palestine across America and around the world for peace.
      I’m inspired by … the courageous survivors in Israel who have lost loved ones, yet are calling for a ceasefire and the end to violence. I am grateful to the people in the streets for the peace movement with countless Jewish Americans across the country standing up and lovingly saying ‘not in our name’.
      We will continue to call for a ceasefire, Mr. Chair, for the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza, for the release of all hostages and those arbitrarily detained and for every American to come home. We will continue to work for real, lasting peace that uphold human rights and dignity of all people and centers … peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and censures no one – no one – and ensures that no person, no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.
      Progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib has long been outspoken against Israel’s policies towards Palestinians, but provoked a firestorm of criticism last week by defending the controversial slogan “from the river to the sea”:What makes that slogan so controversial? Here’s the Guardian’s Daniel Boffey with the answer:
      “We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty,” said Andy McDonald, a Labour MP, at a protest in London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign at the weekend.
      Three days later, McDonald was suspended from the party pending an investigation, leaving the former shadow cabinet minister sitting as an independent for now.
      Some feel the decision was heavy handed while others see it as a sign of strong leadership from Keir Starmer as the Labour leader tries to draw a clear line between himself and his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.
      The key to understanding why the party reacted so strongly is six words from McDonald’s speech – and the context in with they were spoken.
      “Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by a variety of people with a host of purposes. And it is open to an array of interpretations, from the genocidal to the democratic.
      The full saying goes: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a reference to the land between the Jordan River, which borders eastern Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.
      The question then is what that means for Israel and the Jewish people.
      The House of Representatives just rejected an attempt to block a resolution censuring progressive Democrat Rashida Tlaib over her criticism of Israel.The vote was 213 opposed to tabling the resolution, 208 in favor and one voting present.The resolution accuses Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, of “promoting false narratives” regarding Hamas’s 7 October terrorist attack against Israel, and “calling for destruction for the State of Israel.”The House is expected to vote later today on the passing the resolution. Lawmakers are currently on the floor debating Tlaib’s comments.Voters across Virginia are in the middle of casting ballots for state senate and assembly seats – all of which are up for grabs. Beyond just determining control of the legislature, today’s election could decide whether Republican governor Glenn Youngkin is able to pass a ban on abortion in one of the few southern states where accessing the procedure is still possible. Here’s more on today’s election, from the Guardian’s Joan E Greve:As he approached another door in Fredericksburg, walking past Halloween decorations and trees starting to lose their autumn leaves, Muhammad Khan prepared his pitch to voters. Over the past several weeks, Khan has spoken to many of his Virginia neighbors, stressing to them that the upcoming legislative elections will determine the future of their state.Addressing fellow union organizers on Friday morning, Khan said: “We really need to fight, and we need Virginia blue.”Members of Unite Here, a hospitality workers’ union, have knocked on 230,000 doors on behalf of Democratic candidates in Virginia ahead of Tuesday, when all 140 legislative seats in the battleground state will be up for grabs.Republicans are looking to maintain their narrow majority in the house of delegates and flip control of the state senate, which would clear the way for the governor, Glenn Youngkin, to enact his policy agenda. But Democrats warn that Republicans would use their legislative trifecta in Richmond to enact a 15-week abortion ban and roll back access to the ballot box.The results in Virginia carry national implications.In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, David Weiss, the justice department special counsel handling the prosecution of Hunter Biden, assured lawmakers he has full control over the case, Politico reports.Republicans have alleged political interference in the investigation of the president’s son, which centers around allegations Biden failed to pay taxes on income from his overseas business dealings, and lied about using drugs on a background check to buy a firearm. Special prosecutors usually testify to Congress only after finishing their investigation, but the justice department and Weiss agreed to a behind-closed-doors session with the GOP-controlled committee.Politico obtained part of Weiss’s testimony, and here’s what it had to say:Among the many cities and states voting today is New York City, where voters are poised to send to the city council a man who was caught up in one of its most high-profile instances of wrongful convictions, the Associated Press reports:The exonerated “Central Park Five” member Yusef Salaam is poised to win a seat Tuesday on the New York City council, marking a stunning reversal of fortune for a political newcomer who was wrongly imprisoned as a teenager in the infamous rape case.Salaam, a Democrat, will represent a central Harlem district on the city council, having run unopposed for the seat in one of many local elections playing out across New York state on Tuesday. He won his primary election in a landslide.The victory will come more than two decades after DNA evidence was used to overturn the convictions of Salaam and four other Black and Latino men in the 1989 rape and beating of a white jogger in Central Park. Salaam was imprisoned for almost seven years.“For me, this means that we can really become our ancestors’ wildest dreams,” Salaam said in an interview before the election.Less than two weeks after 18 people were killed by a gunman in their small New England city, residents headed gingerly to polling places there today.The mood was somber. Several shooting survivors remained hospitalized, flags flew at half-staff, and funerals were being held this week for those who died in the attack, the Associated Press reports.“This is a necessity. We have to do this [vote]. So we can’t neglect it even though we’ve been through a terrible tragedy,” said James Scribner, 79, a retired teacher and Marine veteran, who was joined by his wife at local school that was transformed into a polling place.The shootings on October 25 at a bar and a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, forced tens of thousands of residents to shelter in place for several days. Grocery stores, gas stations and restaurants were closed. The gunman was later found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a nearby town.Local candidates paused their campaigns for a week after the shootings, and campaigning was different when it resumed, said Jon Connor, a candidate for mayor.“When we restarted campaigning, I was knocking on doors to see how people are doing,” said Connor, who was greeting voters earlier today. “We’re meeting people where they are. We want to be respectful.”Lewiston voters were choosing a mayor and filling seven city council and eight school board seats. Some election workers stayed home, either out of safety concerns or to focus on mourning, city clerk Kathy Montejo said.Voter turnout appeared slow but steady.
      It seems a little quieter, a little more subdued, a little more somber,” Montejo said.
      Some voters overcame feelings of vulnerability to get to the polls.
      It still stays in the back of my mind. But I also can’t let one person make me stay in my house all by myself. I’m still sad. But I had to do my civic duty,” voter Lori Hallett said.
      The Iowa governor, Kim Reynolds, broke her neutrality in the Republican primary and endorsed Ron DeSantis for president on Monday, saying she does not believe Donald Trump can win the general election.“I believe he can’t win,” Reynolds said in an interview with NBC. “And I believe that Ron can.”The endorsement gives DeSantis the support of a deeply popular governor (she has an 81% approval rating among likely caucus-goers, according to a Des Moines Register/NBC poll). It also gives him fuel as he tries to close a significant gap with the former president in polling, both in Iowa and across the US. Trump is currently polling at 45.6% in Iowa, according to the FiveThirtyEight average of polls, while DeSantis is at 17.1%. The Florida governor is also trying to break away from Nikki Haley, with whom he is battling for second place in the race.DeSantis is betting his presidential campaign on a strong showing in Iowa, which will hold its caucuses for the GOP nomination on 15 January.Iowa has long held the first caucuses in the presidential nominating contests and its governors do not typically endorse candidates. Reynolds had previously told others, including Trump, she would stay neutral in the contest, the New York Times reported in July. She reversed that on Monday.“As a mother and as a grandmother and as an American, I just felt like I couldn’t stand on the sidelines any longer,” she said on Monday, according to the Des Moines Register. “We have too much at stake. Our country is in a world of hurt. The world is a powder keg. And I think it’s just really important that we put the right person in office.”Full report here.Voters in Houston are heading to the polls today to elect the next mayor of the nation’s fourth largest city, choosing from a crowded field that includes US congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and state senator John Whitmire, two longtime Democratic lawmakers, the Associated Press writes.Jackson Lee and Whitmire have dominated an open mayoral race that drew 17 candidates to the ballot in the Texan metropolis and one write-in candidate, and that has been focused on issues of crime, crumbling infrastructure and potential budget shortfalls.If elected, Jackson Lee would be Houston’s first Black female mayor. Since 1995, she has represented Houston in Congress. Whitmire has spent five decades in the Texas legislature, where he has helped drive policies that were tough on crime while casting himself as a reformer.If no candidate manages to get more than half of the vote today, the top two will head to a runoff, which would be held December 9.Jackson Lee, 73, and Whitmire, 74, have touted their experience in a race to lead one of the youngest major cities in the US.About two weeks before the election, Jackson Lee’s campaign had to contend with the release of an unverified audio recording, which is purported to capture her berating staff members with a barrage of expletives.Booming growth over the last decade in Houston has caused municipal headaches but has also turned the area into an expanding stronghold for Texas Democrats. Although the mayoral race is nonpartisan, most of the candidates are Democrats.Whitmire and Jackson Lee are seeking to replace Mayor Sylvester Turner, who has served eight years and can’t run again because of term limits. More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kevin Phillips obituary

      by

      ‘The whole secret of politics is knowing who hates who,” Kevin Phillips told the journalist Garry Wills during the 1968 US presidential campaign.Phillips, who has died aged 82, was the political analyst behind Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy”, aimed at exploiting racial tensions to draw to the Republican side the more conservative voters in the south, where the Democrats had dominated since the American civil war primarily because Abraham Lincoln had been a Republican.Although both he and Nixon later played down his direct influence, Phillips’ keen perception of the changing antipathies of the American electorate, detailed in his 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority, lay at the heart of Nixon’s victory.Phillips’s analysis was not limited to the south. He realised that traditional working-class Democrats were becoming alienated not just by the party’s embrace of civil rights, but were also sympathetic to conservative positions against the Vietnam war, protest, federal spending and the 1960s “cultural revolution”.Though he predicted their drift rightward to the Republicans, he could not foresee the long-term effect of this political tsunami, stoked by culture wars, and he eventually disavowed the division his work had sowed, becoming, by the George W Bush presidency, a leading voice of apostate Republicanism.Phillips’ analysis echoed a century of US political history. After John F Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) through Congress. Johnson was a master of political compromise, but when he signed the latter bill, he supposedly told an aide, “there goes the south”.The so-called “solid south” always voted Democrat, but these naturally conservative “Dixiecrats” were at odds with the rest of their party, which primarily represented working people in the north.Similarly, the Republicans were traditionally a party of big business, led by industrial magnates whose sense of noblesse oblige rendered them relatively liberal on social issues. But they also harboured a fierce right wing committed to undoing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and opposed to any hint of government regulation.These factional divisions facilitated legislative compromise, but Johnson’s prediction soon proved true, as Dixiecrats deserted to the Republicans. Starting with Nixon’s re-election in 1972, Republicans swept the south five times in nine presidential elections, stymied only by the southerners Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.Phillips was born in New York City, where his father, William, was chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority, and his mother, Dorothy (nee Price), was a homemaker. He graduated from Bronx high school of science at 16, by which time he had already begun studying the political makeup of his city, discerning an antagonism towards the black and Hispanic community by the white working-class children of an older generation of immigrants.Already a loyal Republican, after graduation he headed the Bronx’s youth committee supporting the re-election of Dwight D Eisenhower. He earned his BA in political science from Colgate University in 1961, having spent a year at Edinburgh University studying economic history, and took a law degree from Harvard in 1964.His political career began as an aide to the Republican congressman Paul Fino, from the Bronx, where he realised that despite Fino’s relatively liberal domestic positions Republicans could not depend on minority voters.Phillips lent his prodigious research into the breakdown of the nation’s congressional districts to the Nixon campaign, and after the election he became a special assistant to the attorney general John Mitchell, Nixon’s campaign manager, who would be jailed in the fallout from the Watergate scandal.He left Mitchell in 1970, becoming a commentator, with a syndicated newspaper column, his own newsletter and regular appearances as a broadcasting pundit. Phillips later traced Republican failures back to Watergate, although ironically it was his tip to the Nixon aide Jeb Magruder about the damaging information that might be in the Democratic party chairman Larry O’Brien’s Watergate office that precipitated the fatal burglary.Phillips coined the terms “sun belt” for the fast-growing areas of the southern and south-western states, and “new right” to distinguish the populist politics of Ronald Reagan from those of “elitists” such as Nelson Rockefeller. But as the white working-class shrank, along with its jobs, the politics of resentment grew more divisive. Dog-whistles to racists, from Reagan’s “welfare queens” to George HW Bush’s Willie Horton ads portraying a black murderer, culminated in the 1994 “Republican revolution” which captured Congress and proceeded to shut down the government.What Phillips had not foreseen was the impossibility of political compromise now that all the different reactionaries were in the same Republican boat. Watching the growing economic inequality which sprang from the Reagan years, he began to have second thoughts. His belief in his party as a stable, serious preserver of the status quo began to fall apart.Starting with Wealth and Democracy (2002), Phillips produced a series of books excoriating what he saw as George W Bush’s plutocratic revolution, recalling the robber barons of the 19th-century Gilded Age. He warned of an instinct toward authoritarianism under the guise of fighting so-called liberal permissiveness.Phillips castigated the Bushes further in American Dynasty (2004) for aiding already rich investors, especially in the sun belt’s energy and defence industries, at the whim of the Pentagon and CIA. American Theocracy (2006) recognised the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party, a dystopian vision of ideological extremism mixed with greed-driven fiscal irresponsibility.His 2008 book Bad Money focused on what he called “bad capitalism”, relying on financial services instead of industrial production. After the 2008 financial crash, he wrote a sequel, After The Fall (2009). By now he was a regular in such centrist outlets as National Public Radio or the Atlantic, where he found himself explaining how his analysis of the changing American electorate led, with some inevitability, to the polarised society that elected the authoritarian Donald Trump.Among his 15 books, Phillips also produced a biography of the US president William McKinley (2003) and 1775: A Good Year for Revolution (2012), about the circumstances which precipitated that war.He is survived by his wife, Martha (nee Henderson), whom he married in 1968, and their three children, Betsy, Andrew and Alec. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are Republicans still supporting Donald Trump? – video

      by

      Despite facing multiple criminal charges, Donald Trump remains the frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But in South Carolina, a traditionally conservative southern state, a split is opening up between Trump loyalists and more moderate Republicans who are fearful of what their party has become. The Guardian’s Oliver Laughland and Tom Silverstone investigate More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders calls for end to Israeli strikes and killing of thousands

      by

      Bernie Sanders has stepped up his calls for a humanitarian pause in Gaza, demanding an immediate stop to Israeli bombing and an end to the killing of thousands of “innocent men, women and children” in the enclave.In some of his strongest words in the 30-day war, the independent US senator from Vermont decried the 7 October Hamas attack inside Israel. He labelled Hamas as an “awful terrorist organization” that had “slaughtered 1,400 people in cold blood”, reiterating his belief that Israel had the right to defend itself.But speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Sanders said the death of civilians had to stop. “What Israel does not, in my view, have a right to do is to kill thousands of thousands of innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with that attack,” he said.The senator added: “There’s not enough food, there’s not enough water, medicine, fuel. You’ve got a humanitarian disaster, it has to be dealt with right now.”Sanders continues to be influential on the progressive flank of US politics at a time of deepening rifts on the left over the response to the war. He walks a fine line, condemning the civilian death toll caused by Israeli air strikes while resisting calls for a full-on ceasefire.“I don’t know how you could have a permanent ceasefire with an organization like Hamas which is dedicated to destroying the state of Israel … and has got to go,” he told CNN.Several members of the progressive wing of the Democratic party have gone further, demanding an immediate ceasefire and challenging the Biden administration’s plans to send emergency military aid package to Israel. In a newly-released video, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib, accused Joe Biden of supporting “genocide” and demanded he back a “ceasefire now”.Sanders declined CNN’s invitation to condemn Tlaib, saying: “We don’t have to quibble about words … Rashida is a friend of mine, her family comes from Palestine, I think she’s been shaken, as all of us are, about what is going on right now.”Republicans in the US House last week passed a $14.3bn military aid package for Israel. Democrats have indicated they are likely to oppose any similar bill that reaches the upper chamber given its inclusion of spending cuts for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).Sanders said that he would judge any aid package when it reaches the Senate, but said it should be made contingent on ending civilian deaths. “It’s terribly important that, as we debate that, to say to Israel, ‘You want this money, you got to change your military strategy’.”Sanders’ call for an end to the bombing to allow humanitarian aid to reach desperate Palestinians came as the US secretary of state Antony Blinken made a surprise visit to the West Bank on Sunday. Blinken met the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and, according to read-outs of the conversation, expressed Washington’s desire that the Palestinian Authority, which Abbas heads, should be central in the running of any post-Hamas Gaza.The Biden administration continues to press for a humanitarian pause in the bombardment, both to allow humanitarian aid in and to assist with the release of the more than 240 hostages captured by Hamas on 7 October. Speaking on CBS News’s Face the Nation, the deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer said that while the Biden administration supported Israel’s mission “to go after Hamas” it was also urging more care by the Israeli military to spare the lives of civilians.The current death toll, as released by the Hamas-run ministry of health, is more than 9,770 Palestinians.Finer said that the US had had “many direct conversations” with the Israeli government emphasising “their obligation to distinguish between civilians and fighters … Some of the images and events that we’ve seen transpire in Gaza have been heartbreaking for all of us.”So far the US call for a reduction in the civilian death toll has failed to sway Israeli military thinking. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has dismissed the idea of a temporary ceasefire until all of the hostages are released.Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, ruled out any humanitarian pause on Sunday. Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union, he said such a break in the air strikes and ground incursion would allow Hamas to “rearm and regroup and prevent us from achieving our goal to destroy Hamas’s terrorist capabilities”.Erdan claimed “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. He also insisted that Israel “never intentionally targets civilians. We do everything that is possible to minimize and mitigate civilian casualties.”Fears that the Gaza fighting will spill over into a wider regional war are also roiling political debate in the US. On Monday, a bi-partisan resolution will be presented in the US senate warning Iran not to unleash further fighting on Israel’s northern border through the powerful Iranian-backed militia, Hezbollah.The Republican senator who has co-authored the resolution, Lindsey Graham, told CNN that the resolution threatens Iran with a US military response should it open up a second front against Israel. “The resolution puts Iran on notice that all this military force in the region will be coming after you if you expand this way by activating Hezbollah or killing Americans through your proxies in Syria and Iraq,” he said.Richard Blumenthal, Graham’s Democratic partner behind the resolution, called the non-binding motion “aggressive but absolutely necessary”. “The key word here is deterrence – the purpose of the resolution is to deter Iran by showing we’re going to be behind the president as he seeks to stop the war from widening or escalating.” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Renegade review: Adam Kinzinger on why he left Republican ranks

      by

      Adam Kinzinger represented a reliably Republican district in the US House for six terms. He voted to impeach Donald Trump over the insurrection and with Liz Cheney was one of two Republicans on the January 6 committee. Like the former Wyoming congresswoman, he earned the ire of Trump and the GOP base.A lieutenant colonel and air force pilot, Kinzinger read the terrain and declined to run again. In his memoir, he looks back at his life, family and time in the US military. He also examines the transformation of the Republican party into a Trumpian vessel. With the assistance of Michael D’Antonio, biographer of Mike Pence, he delivers a steady and well-crafted read.Kinzinger finds the Republicans sliding toward authoritarianism, alienating him from a world he once knew. On 8 January 2021, two days after the Trump-inspired coup attempt, he received a letter signed by 11 members of his family, excoriating him for calling for the president to be removed.“Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!’ the letter began. “We were once proud of your accomplishments! Instead, you go against your Christian principles and join ‘the Devil’s army’ (Democrats and the fake news media).”The word “disappointment was underlined three times”, Kinzinger counts. “God once.”Elected in 2010 with the backing of the Tea Party, once in office, Kinzinger distanced himself from the Republican fringe. The movement felt frenzied. Hyper-caffeinated. He cast his lot with Eric Cantor, House majority leader and congressman from Virginia. “Overtly ambitious”, in Kinzinger’s view, Cantor also presented himself as “serious, sober and cerebral”. Eventually, Cantor found himself out of step with the enraged core of the party. In 2014, he was defeated in a primary.Cantor was too swampy for modern Republican tastes. Out of office, he is a senior executive at an investment bank.Simply opposing Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act wasn’t enough. With America’s first Black president in the White House, performative politics and conspiracy theories took over.Kevin McCarthy, deposed as speaker last month, earns Kinzinger’s scorn – and rightly.“I was not surprised he was ousted,” Kinzinger told NPR. “And frankly, I think it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.”On the page, Kinzinger paints McCarthy as weak, limitlessly self-abasing and a bully. He put himself at the mercy of Matt Gaetz, the Florida extremist, prostrated himself before Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia extremist, and endured 15 rounds of balloting on the House floor to be allowed the speaker’s gavel – an illusion of a win.McCarthy behaved like “an attention-seeking high school senior who readily picked on anyone who didn’t fall in line”, Kinzinger writes. The California congressman even tried, if feebly, to physically intimidate his fellow Republican.“Once, I was standing in the aisle that runs from the floor to the back of the [House] chamber,” Kinzinger remembers. “As [McCarthy] passed, with his security man and some of his boys, he veered towards me, hit me with his shoulder and then kept going.”Apparently, McCarthy forgot Kinzinger did stints in war zones.Kinzinger also takes McCarthy to task for his shabby treatment of Cheney, at the time the No 3 House Republican. On 1 January 2021, on a caucus call, she warned that 6 January would be a “dark day” if they “indulged in the fantasy” that they could overturn Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.McCarthy was having none of it. “I just want to be clear: Liz doesn’t speak for the conference,” he said. “She speaks for herself.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat, Kinzinger writes, was “unnecessary and disrespectful, and it infuriated me”.These days, McCarthy faces the prospect of a Trump-fueled primary challenge. But he is not alone in evoking Kinzinger’s anger. Kinzinger also has tart words for Mitch McConnell and his performance post-January 6. The Senate minority leader was more intent on retaining power than dealing with the havoc wrought by Trump and his minions, despite repeatedly sniping at him.When crunch time came, McConnell followed the pack. Kinzinger bemoans McConnell’s vote to acquit in the impeachment trial, ostensibly because Trump had left office, and then his decision to castigate Trump on the Senate floor when it no longer mattered.“It took a lot of cheek, nerve, chutzpah, gall and, dare I say it, balls for McConnell to talk this way,” Kinzinger bristles, “since he personally blocked the consideration of the case until Trump departed.”Kinzinger devotes considerable space to his own faith. An evangelical Protestant, he is highly critical of Christian nationalism as theology and as a driving force in the Republican party. He draws a direct line between religion and January 6. Proximity between the cross, a makeshift gallows and calls for Mike Pence to be hanged was not happenstance.“Had there not been some of these errant prophecies, this idea that God has ordained it to be Trump, I’m not sure January 6 would have happened like it did,” Kinzinger said last year. “You have people today that, literally, I think in their heart – they may not say it – but they equate Donald Trump with the person of Jesus Christ.”In his book, Kinzinger echoes Russell Moore, former head of public policy of the Southern Baptist Convention: “Moore’s view of Christianity was consistent with traditional theology, which does not have a place for religious nationalism. Nothing in the Bible said the world would be won over by American Christianity.”Looking at 2024, Kinzinger casts the election as “a simple question of democracy or no democracy … if it was Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I don’t think there’s any question I would vote for Joe Biden”.
      Renegade is published in the US by Penguin Random House More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      In a world on fire, Biden struggles to banish the curse of Trump

      by

      Is Joe jinxed? In less than three years as US president, Joe Biden has faced more than his fair share of international crises. America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan blew up in his hands like a cluster bomb. Then came Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Europe’s biggest war since 1945. Now, suddenly, the Middle East is in flames.It could just be bad luck. Or it could be Biden, who prides himself on foreign policy expertise, is not as good at running the world as he thinks. But there is another explanation. It’s called Donald Trump. If Biden’s presidency is cursed, it’s by the toxic legacy of the “very stable genius” who preceded him.It’s worth noting how the poisonous effects of Trump’s geostrategic car crashes, clumsy policy missteps and egotistic blunders continue to be felt around the world – not least because he hopes to be president again. In 2020, with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, Trump unveiled his “ultimate deal” for peace in Israel-Palestine.His plan was a gift to rightwing Jewish nationalists, offering Israel full control over Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank and Jordan Valley while shattering hopes of a viable Palestinian state. It was laughably, amateurishly lopsided. Except it was no joke. It excluded and humiliated Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, convinced many that peaceful dialogue was futile and so empowered Hamas.Netanyahu had long advised Trump that the Palestinians could be safely ignored, normalisation with Arab states was a better, more lucrative bet and Iran was the bigger threat. Now he could barely contain his glee. “You have been the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” he cooed. Naturally, Trump lapped it up.The catastrophic consequences of Trump’s dangerous fantasising are now plain to all – but it’s Biden, his re-election prospects at risk, who is getting heat from left and right. Partly it’s his own fault. He thought the Palestinian question could be frozen. Meanwhile, Trump, typically, has turned against Netanyahu while praising Hamas’s close ally, Iranian-backed Hezbollah, as “very smart”.The 2018 decision by Trump, egged on by Israel, to unilaterally renege on the west’s UN-backed nuclear counter-proliferation accord with Iran was the biggest American foreign policy blunder since the Iraq invasion. Ensuing, additional US economic sanctions fatally weakened the moderately reformist presidency of Hassan Rouhani.Iran took Trump’s confrontational cue – and shifted sharply to the anti-western, rejectionist right. A notorious hardliner, Ebrahim Raisi, president since 2021, has pursued close alliances with Russia and China. At home, a corrupt, anti-democratic clerical oligarchy, topped by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, brutally suppresses dissent, notably advocates of women’s rights.Mahsa Yazdani is the mullahs’ latest victim. Her “crime”, for which she was jailed for 13 years, was to denounce the killing by security forces of her son, Mohammad Javad Zahedi. Such persecution is commonplace. Yet if the Barack Obama-Biden policy of engagement, backed by Britain and the EU, had been maintained by Trump, things might be very different today, inside and outside Iran.Instead, Biden faces an angry foe threatening daily to escalate the Israel-Hamas war. Iran and its militias are the reason he is deploying huge military force to the region. Iran is why US bases in the Gulf, Syria and Iraq are under fire. And thanks to Trump (and Netanyahu), Iran may be closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons capability.Trump’s uncritical, submissive, often suspiciously furtive attitude to Vladimir Putin has undermined Biden’s Russia policy, doing untold, lasting harm. Untold because Democrats have given up trying to cast light on at least a dozen, publicly unrecorded Trump-Putin calls and meetings over four years in the White House.It’s not necessary to believe Moscow’s spooks possess embarrassing sex tapes, or that Trump solicited Russian meddling in US elections, to wonder whether he cut private deals with Putin. Did he, for example, suggest the US would stand aside if Russia invaded Ukraine, where there had been fighting over the Donbas and Crimea since 2014? Trump has a personal beef with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. That alone is sufficient to shape his policy.Trump’s criticism of European allies and threats to quit Nato caused a damaging loss of mutual confidence that Biden still struggles to repair. For his part, manipulative Putin sticks up for the former president. He recently declared that federal lawsuits against Trump amounted to “persecution of a political rival for political reasons”. Evidently, he’d like to see his pal back in power.Did Trump’s behaviour in office, his impeachments and failed coup, encourage Putin (and China’s Xi Jinping) to view American democracy as sick, failing and demoralised. Probably. Trump’s 2020 Afghanistan “peace deal” – in truth, an abject capitulation to the Taliban – confirmed their low opinion. It led directly to the chaotic 2021 withdrawal and a shredding of US global credibility that was largely blamed on Biden.Little wonder Putin calculates that American staying power will again fade as Trump, campaigning when not in court, trashes Biden’s Ukraine policy and his House Republican followers block military aid to Kyiv. Unabashed by his Middle East fiasco, Trump vainly boasts he would conjure a Ukraine peace deal overnight – if re-elected (and not in jail).It’s an unusually challenging time in world affairs. And Biden has been unlucky domestically, too, given a post-pandemic cost of living crisis and a supreme court gone rogue. Yet his biggest political misfortune remains the noxious global legacy and continuing, uniquely destructive presence of Trump.He is more than just a rival waiting for an 80-year-old president to slip and take a tumble. Symbolically, Trump is nemesis. He is the darkness beyond the pale, he’s a monster lurking in the depths, he’s the enemy within. He’s Joe’s Jonah.
      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 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      High stakes for abortion rights as Pennsylvania votes on key judge pick

      by

      Pennsylvania voters will select a new member of the state’s supreme court on Tuesday in a judicial election that has become the unlikely focus of Republican billionaire donors, political action committees and abortion rights advocates.Democrat Daniel McCaffery is facing off against Carolyn Carluccio, a conservative judge whose apparent opposition to abortion access has drawn the ire of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive justice groups.As McCaffery and Carluccio compete for a seat on the Pennsylvania supreme court, total spending in the race surpassed $17m, according to the Associated Press – an unusually high price tag for an election that typically sees low voter turnout. But Democrats and abortion rights advocates hope Pennsylvania voters view Tuesday’s ballot as a proxy for reproductive freedom in Pennsylvania.“This election, Pennsylvania voters have a choice between Carolyn Carluccio, who has tried to hide her anti-abortion positions and dodge questions about the judiciary’s role in protecting abortion rights, and Daniel McCaffery, a proven champion of reproductive freedom,” said Breana Ross, campaigns director of Planned Parenthood Votes Pennsylvania.Abortion rights advocates hope to energize Pennsylvania voters by casting Carluccio as an existential threat to abortion access. This strategy delivered liberals a resounding victory in the Wisconsin supreme court race earlier this year, when record numbers of voters turned out to elect Janet Protasiewicz, a Democrat who pledged to defend abortion rights. Protasiewicz’s conservative opponent, Dan Kelly, refrained from voicing his opinion on voting rights.Carluccio’s campaign, taking its cues from Kelly’s unsuccessful playbook, has avoided sharing her views on abortion. After winning the primary election in May, Carluccio removed information about her opposition to abortion from her campaign website, according to a May report from the Keystone.Carluccio’s campaign site previously vowed to defend “all life under the law”.“When we redesigned our website, we chose to no longer include a résumé link. Judge Carluccio listed on her résumé that she would ‘defend all life under the law’, and she meant just that: under the law,” Rob Brooks, a spokesman for Carluccio’s campaign, told the Guardian.Carluccio has frequently branded herself as a non-political actor who operates outside the bounds of traditional partisanship.“I reject calls to rule based on partisan or ideological grounds and instead rule according to our laws,” Carluccio wrote in an August op-ed about her candidacy.Despite Carluccio’s insistence on her own ideological neutrality, her campaign has invited the support of distinctly rightwing groups. In a February letter to the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Carluccio disclosed that her candidacy was endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, a leading anti-abortion group in the state.According to campaign finance reports, her campaign received over $4m from Commonwealth Leaders Fund, a political organization funded by the billionaire GOP donor Jeffrey Yass.Pennsylvania Democrats said Carluccio is hiding her ties to the anti-abortion movement in a disingenuous bid for primary voters. The general electorate is supportive of abortion access – 64% of all Pennsylvania voters in the 2022 midterms said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to polling from the Associated Press.“Her campaign is clearly trying to portray her as acceptable to a primary audience,” said JJ Abbott, executive director of Commonwealth Communications, a progressive political consulting firm. “They know abortion is a motivator for voters, since the Dobbs decision, voters are more likely to engage in elections because of what is at stake for abortion.”But the stakes of Tuesday’s election are not straightforward. Unlike Wisconsin, where the threat of the 1849 near-total abortion ban loomed overhead, the outcome of Pennsylvania’s supreme court race will not directly affect abortion access in the state. Tuesday’s race will not change the composition of Pennsylvania’s high court – four of the seven seats on the current bench are held by Democrat-affiliated justices. Carluccio is operating in what appears to be a much less dire political environment than Kelly, whose campaign struggled to avoid the topic of abortion while Wisconsin was feeling the effects of the 1849 ban.Still, Planned Parenthood and other reproductive justice advocates said the abortion rights movement needs to look ahead to the 2025 election, when three of Pennsylvania’s Democratic justices will appear on the ballot.The long-term maintenance of Pennsylvania’s liberal supreme court majority is a priority for abortion rights advocates. In September, Planned Parenthood Votes launched a seven-figure advertisement campaign against Carluccio, the largest ad buy in the group’s history.As anxieties mount, abortion rights supporters are hopeful that Pennsylvania voters, as in Wisconsin, will heed the warnings offered by Planned Parenthood on the long-term consequences of Carluccio’s candidacy.Dr Benjamin Abella, a medical professor and emergency physician in Philadelphia, said voters like him are “paying attention” to Carluccio’s efforts to hide her campaign’s ties to rightwing anti-abortion groups.“The public understands that we should not be lulled into a false sense of security on abortion rights, especially if a judge is keeping quiet on their intentions and positions,” he said. “There’s no such thing as a safe state any more and that any and every election poses a risk.” More