More stories

  • in

    It’s not all about the culture war – Democrats helped shaft the working class | Robert Reich

    OpinionUS politicsIt’s not all about the culture war – Democrats helped shaft the working classRobert ReichResults in Virginia and New Jersey do not make Republican dog-whistle politics the future. The left must do more to help Sun 7 Nov 2021 01.00 EDTLast modified on Sun 7 Nov 2021 01.03 EDTAfter Tuesday’s Democratic loss in the Virginia gubernatorial election and near-loss in New Jersey, I’m hearing a narrative about Democrats’ failure with white working-class voters that is fundamentally wrong.Is this a presidency-defining week for Biden? Politics Weekly Extra – podcastRead moreIn Thursday’s New York Times, David Leonhardt pointed out that the non-college voters who are abandoning the Democratic party “tend to be more religious, more outwardly patriotic and more culturally conservative than college graduates”. He then quotes a fellow Times columnist, the pollster Nate Cohn, who says “college graduates have instilled increasingly liberal cultural norms while gaining the power to nudge the Democratic party to the left. Partly as a result, large portions of the party’s traditional working-class base have defected to the Republicans”.Leonhardt adds that these defections have increased over the past decade and suggests Democratic candidates start listening to working-class voters’ concerns about “crime and political correctness”, their “mixed feelings about immigration and abortion laws”, and their beliefs “in God and in a strong America”.This narrative worries me in two ways. First, if “cultural” messages top economic ones, what’s to stop Democrats from playing the same cultural card Republicans have used for years to inflame the white working class: racism? Make no mistake: Glenn Youngkin focused his campaign in Virginia on critical race theory, which isn’t even taught in Virginia’s schools but comes out of the same disgraceful Republican dog-whistle tradition.The other problem with this “culture over economics” narrative is it overlooks the fact that after Ronald Reagan, the Democratic party turned its back on the working class.During the first terms of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. They scored some important victories, such as the Affordable Care Act and an expanded earned income tax credit.But both Clinton and Obama allowed the power of the working class to erode. Both ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing the millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs any means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the working class. Both refused to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated them or enable workers to form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Clinton was elected to fewer than 11% today, denying the working class the bargaining leverage it needs to get a better deal.The Obama administration protected Wall Street from the consequences of its gambling addiction through a giant taxpayer-funded bailout but let millions of underwater homeowners drown.Both Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust to ossify – allowing major industries to become more concentrated and hence more economically and politically powerful.Finally, they turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general-election campaigns. He never followed up on his re-election campaign promise to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion that opened the floodgates to big money in politics.What happens when you combine freer trade, shrinking unions, Wall Street bailouts, growing corporate power and the abandonment of campaign finance reform? You shift political and economic power to the wealthy and you shaft the working class.Adjusted for inflation, American workers today are earning almost as little as they did 30 years ago, when the American economy was a third its present size.Biden’s agenda for working people – including lower prescription drug prices, paid family leave, stronger unions and free community college – has followed the same sad trajectory, due to the power of big money. Big Pharma has blocked prescription drug reform. A handful of Democratic senators backed by big money have refused to support paid family leave. Big money has killed labor law reform.Resilience: the one word progressives need in the face of Trump, Covid and more | Robert ReichRead moreDemocrats could win back the white working class by putting together a large coalition of the working class and poor, of whites, Blacks and Latinos, of everyone who has been shafted by the huge shift in wealth and power to the top. This would give Democrats the political clout to reallocate power in the economy – rather than merely enact palliatives that paper over the increasing concentration of power at the top.But to do this Democrats would have to end their financial dependence on big corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy. And they would have to reject the convenient story that American workers care more about cultural issues than about getting a better deal in an economy that’s been delivering them a worsening deal for decades.
    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsUS CongressVirginiaNew JerseyRaceUS domestic policycommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden hails ‘monumental step forward’ as Democrats pass infrastructure bill

    The ObserverJoe BidenBiden hails ‘monumental step forward’ as Democrats pass infrastructure billThe president will sign $1tn package into law after House ended months-long standoff by approving bipartisan deal

    ‘She betrayed us’: Arizona voters baffled by Kyrsten Sinema
    0Martin Pengelly in New York and David Smith in WashingtonSat 6 Nov 2021 12.41 EDTFirst published on Sat 6 Nov 2021 10.45 EDTJoe Biden saluted a “monumental step forward as a nation” on Saturday, after House Democrats finally reached agreement and sent a $1tn infrastructure package to his desk to be signed, a huge boost for an administration which has struggled for victories.Trumpism without Trump: how Republican dog-whistles exploited Democratic divisionsRead more“This is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America,” Biden said, “and it’s long overdue.”There was also a setback, however, as Democrats postponed a vote on an even larger bill. That 10-year, $1.85tn spending plan to bolster health, family and climate change programmes, known as Build Back Better, was sidetracked after centrists demanded a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Biden said he was confident he could get it passed.Walking out to address reporters at the White House, the president began with a joke at the expense of his predecessor, Donald Trump.“Finally, it’s infrastructure week,” he said.Under Trump, the administration’s failure to focus on infrastructure amid constant scandal became a national punchline.“We’re just getting started,” Biden said. “It is something that’s long overdue but long has been talked about in Washington but never actually been done.“The House of Representatives passed an Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That’s a fancy way of saying a bipartisan infrastructure bill, once-in-a-generation investment that’s going to create millions of jobs, modernise our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our broadband, a range of things turning the climate crisis into an opportunity, and a put us on a path to win the economic competition of the 21st century that we face with China and other large countries in the rest of the world.”The House approved the $1tn bill late on Friday, after Democrats resolved a months-long standoff between progressives and centrists. The measure passed 228-206. Thirteen Republicans, mostly moderates, supported the bill while six progressive Democrats opposed it, among them Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.Approval sent the bill to the desk of a president whose approval ratings have dropped and whose party struggled in elections this week. Biden said he would not sign the bill this weekend because he wanted those who passed it to be there when he did so.“We’re looking more forward to having shovels in the ground,” Biden said. “To begin rebuilding America.“For all of you at home, who feel left behind and forgotten in an economy that’s changing so rapidly, this bill is for you. The vast majority of those thousands of jobs that will be created don’t require a college degree. There’ll be jobs in every part of the country: red states, blue states, cities, small towns, rural communities, tribal communities.“This is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America, and it’s long overdue.”This week, Democratic candidates for governor lost in Virginia and squeaked home in New Jersey, two blue-leaning states. Those setbacks made leaders, centrists and progressives impatient to demonstrate they know how to govern a year before midterm elections that could see Republicans retake Congress.At the White House, Biden said: “Each state is different and I don’t know but I think the one message that came across was, ‘Get something done … stop talking, get something done.’ And so I think that’s what the American people are looking for.“All the talk about the elections and what do they mean? They want us to deliver. Democrats, they want us to deliver. Last night we proved we can on one big item. We delivered.”The postponement of a vote on the spending bill dashed hopes of a double win. But in a deal brokered by Biden and party leaders, five moderates agreed to back the bill if CBO estimates of its costs are consistent with numbers from the White House and congressional analysts.The agreement, in which lawmakers promised to vote by the week of 15 November, was a significant step towards shipping the bill to the Senate. Its chances there are not certain: it must pass on the casting vote of Vice-President Kamala Harris and with the approval of Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, centrists who have proved obstructive so far.The spending bill “is fiscally responsible”, Biden said. “That’s a fancy way of saying it is fully paid for. It doesn’t raise the deficit by a single penny. And it actually reduces the deficit according to the leading economists in this country over the long term. And it’s paid for by making sure that the wealthiest Americans, the biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share.”Republicans have highlighted what they say will be the bill’s effects on dangerous economic inflation.Why does the media keep saying this election was a loss for Democrats? It wasn’t | Rebecca SolnitRead more“According to economists,” Biden said, “this is going to be easing inflationary pressures … by lowering costs for working families.”He also said: “We got out of the blue a couple of weeks ago a letter from 17 Nobel prize winners in economics and they determined that [the two bills] will ease inflationary pressures not create them.”Biden acknowledged that he will not get Republican votes for the spending bill and must “figure out” how to unite his party. Friday was an exhausting day for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. She told reporters: “Welcome to my world. This is the Democratic party. We are not a lockstep party.”Biden said he was confident he could find the votes. Asked what gave him that confidence, the president alluded to his legislative experience as a senator and vice-president, saying: “Me.”On Friday night, Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, delayed travel to Delaware as the president worked the phones. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters Biden even called her mother in India. It was unclear why.“This was not to bribe me, this is when it was all done,” Jayapal said, adding that her mother told her she “just kept screaming like a little girl”.
    Associated Press contributed to this report
    TopicsJoe BidenThe ObserverBiden administrationUS politicsUS domestic policyUS taxationUS economyUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Why does the media keep saying this election was a loss for Democrats? It wasn’t | Rebecca Solnit

    OpinionUS politicsWhy does the media keep saying this election was a loss for Democrats? It wasn’tRebecca SolnitThe election swept in a number of women and politicians of color at the state and local level. Yet pundits want to pretend this was an electoral catastrophe Sat 6 Nov 2021 06.18 EDTLast modified on Sat 6 Nov 2021 10.36 EDTPretty much anything that happens to the Democrats is a sign that they’re weak and losing and should be worried, according to the storylines into which mainstream media tends to stuff news. Pretty much nothing, including losing, seems to signify that the Republicans are losers. In so habitually and apparently unconsciously fitting a wide array of new and varied facts into familiar old frameworks, the media shape the political landscape at least as much as they report on it.House Democrats expected to vote on Biden’s $1.75tn package after months of contentionRead moreIt’s in the language. The New York Times editorial board thunders that “Democrats deny political reality at their own peril” and then insists that this election in which a moderate lost is a sign that the party needs to get more moderate. Bloomberg News found a way to make a victory sound like defeat: “Phil Murphy clung on to win a second term as New Jersey’s governor, surviving by a narrow margin.” It was about the same margin by which a Republican won the Virginia governorship, but the language around that was apocalyptic (though Virginia usually elects a governor who’s in the other party than the president, and New Jersey – which not long ago gave Republican Chris Christie two terms – re-elected its first Democratic governor in decades on Tuesday).According to the Washington Post, which seemed to believe that Virginia was a national referendum on the party: “Democrats scramble to deflect voter anger.” The verbiage that followed was stuffed with the emotive language of a pulp novel, though it was presented as news: “An off-year electoral wipeout highlighted the fragile state of the party’s electoral majorities in the House and Senate. But a new round of bitter recriminations threatened to dash Democratic hopes of quickly moving past the stinging defeats.” Fragile, bitter, stinging. Wipeout, dash, defeat. It is true that Terry McAuliffe lost, and also true that he was a corporate centrist who, reportedly, ran a lousy campaign; it’s also true that he is not the Democratic party, and the nation didn’t vote in Virginia’s election.As for this week’s election, it swept in a lot of progressive mayors of color. The most prominent was Michelle Wu, who won the Boston mayor’s seat as the first woman and first person of color. Elaine O’Neal will become Durham, North Carolina’s, first Black woman mayor, and Abdullah Hammoud will become Dearborn’s first Muslim and Arab American mayor. Aftab Pureval will become Cincinnati’s first Asian American mayor. Pittsburgh elected its first Black mayor, and so did Kansas City, Kansas. Cleveland’s new mayor is also Black. New York City elected its second Black Democratic mayor, and Shahana Hanif became the first Muslim woman elected to the city council (incidentally, New York City and Virginia have about the same population). In Seattle, a moderate defeated a progressive, which you could also phrase as a Black and Asian American man defeated a Latina. A lot of queer and trans people won elections, or in the case of Virginia’s Danica Roem, the first out trans person to win a seat in a state legislature, won reelection.In Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, who in 2017 was the first of a wave of ultra-progressive district attorneys to take office across the country, swept to a second term with 69% of the vote. “I want to congratulate him. He beat my pants off,” said his Republican rival. In Cleveland, Austin, Denver and Albany, citizens voted in police-reform measures, and while a more radical measure in Minneapolis lost, it got a good share of votes. 2021 wasn’t a great election year for Democrats but it’s not hard to argue that it wasn’t a terrible one, and either way it just wasn’t a big one, with a handful of special elections for congressional seats, some state and local stuff, and only two gubernatorial elections.It is true that the Democratic Party is large and chaotic with a wide array of political positions among its elected officials, which is what happens when you’re a coalition imperfectly representing a wide array of voters, by class, race, and position from moderate to radical on the political spectrum. It’s also true the US is a two-party system and the alternative at present is the Republican party, which is currently a venal and utterly corrupt cult bent on many kinds of destruction. It’s the party whose last leader, with the help of many Republicans still in Congress, produced a violent coup in an attempt to steal an election.A friend who is an independent Democratic party organizer remarked to me: “Democrats are analyzed completely differently from Republicans, mainly because Democrats try to govern and to enact policies that affect the entire country. The media don’t cover the fact that Republicans don’t govern and can’t seem to report on what a party doesn’t do and doesn’t talk about.”Looming in the background, of course, is the fact that Republicans themselves believe they are losers, because they’ve hitched their wagon to the shrinking demographic of angry white suburban and rural voters. Their efforts to suppress votes and undermine voting rights, control or replace election officials, gerrymander like crazy and overturn election results are the moves of a party that doesn’t believe Republicans can win fair elections. All this is treated as more or less ordinary and mostly not very newsworthy.We’re only a year out from the election that won back the White House and gave Democrats control – if by the slimmest of margins – of the House and Senate. Georgia elected two Democratic senators and Arizona sent in a Democratic senator to take a seat that had been held by Republicans for more than half a century. Which was, actually, quite a lot of winning, but you wouldn’t know it from the news.The New York Times editorial board, in one of those familiar “the party is doing it wrong” claims, declared Tuesday’s results “a sign that significant parts of the electorate are feeling leery of a sharp leftward push in the party, including on priorities like Build Back Better,” though Data for Progress reports that “With a +29-point margin, likely voters support the Build Back Better plan. The plan is very popular with both Democrats and Independents, who support the plan by respective margins of +83 and +19 percentage points.”Eric Levitz at New York Magazine has noted that, according to polls, “only a quarter of the public thinks the Build Back Better agenda is going to help ‘people like them’”, and he links to an ABC report that also says “Democrats are failing to sell the legislation to the public, who are broadly unaware of what is in the spending packages.” Though if the public is broadly unaware of what’s in the biggest and most transformative legislation in decades, that’s a huge failure by the media as well as the party. Reporting that people don’t see what’s in it for them instead of reporting on what is in it for them might be the problem in a nutshell.
    Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘If Hillary Clinton loses this election, it will be because of you and me’ – an exclusive extract from Huma Abedin’s memoir

    Huma Abedin‘If Hillary Clinton loses this election, it will be because of you and me’ – an exclusive extract from Huma Abedin’s memoirThe presidential candidate’s right-hand woman was looking forward to the last push in the 2016 campaign, and her son starting school. Then her husband, Anthony Weiner, broke the news …
    Read an interview with Huma Abedin here Huma AbedinSat 6 Nov 2021 04.00 EDTIf there was a single night I truly believed Hillary Clinton would become president, it was 28 July 2016, when she took to the floor in her white Ralph Lauren suit to formally accept the nomination. As a blizzard of confetti and a hundred thousand red, white and blue balloons descended from the cavernous ceiling, the song Stronger Together, written and recorded for that evening, echoed through the hall, competing with the deafening sounds of fifty thousand supporters clapping and cheering for the woman in white on stage. Once HRC accepted the nomination, she began tossing giant blue balloons emblazoned with white stars out to the audience; to Tim Kaine, her running mate; to Chelsea, who had spoken so eloquently to introduce her mother; to her husband, who had given his own moving tribute to her on the second night of the convention and now looked exuberant as he waded through the waist-high drift of balloons that rained down.Afterwards, our delegation of about 20 Clinton/Kaine family members, campaign staff and officials made its way through the balloons to the small backstage hold area, and Tim Kaine surprised me by leading the rest of our group in an impromptu singing of Happy Birthday. It was my 41st birthday. This new decade was turning out to be pretty extraordinary. Or so it seemed.A month later, after a long day in the midst of a week of fundraising events on Long Island, I joined Anthony and our son Jordan in a home that had been lent to us so that I could stay close to the Clintons. The house was a pristine construction of glass and wood, with a tennis court and rectangular granite pool in the back. It was this scene of unblemished perfection that would soon be the setting for the collapse of my entire house of cards.When I walked through the front door that evening, Anthony was in the middle of his end-of-day routines with Jordan, and I joined my nightly conference calls. He played games with Jordan while bathing him, then dressed him in pyjamas and handed him to me so I could read him a bedtime story. Anthony had been checking his phone regularly, but no more than I.Jordan fell asleep beside me, and I continued to sit with him, my dress crumpled around me, the lamp still on, his picture book open in my lap, my iPhone in my hand as I began responding to the messages that had come in over the past 30 minutes.“Can you talk?”Anthony had quietly walked into the room. From the tone, I knew it was bad.“The New York Post called.” Really bad.It was late. There was simply too much going on in my world for Anthony’s problems to surface at this moment. The Democratic National Committee server being hacked; Trump publicly calling on Russia to find Hillary’s emails; warnings about Russian election interference; death threats from Islamic State. I was also planning the final two months of the campaign. On the home front, Jordan’s first day of school was the following week and I was worried I wouldn’t even be in town for it. I didn’t have the bandwidth to contend with any more problems.Distracted and overwhelmed, I half-heartedly asked, “What is this about?”He opened with an apology, the admission that he didn’t entirely know what was in the story. He simply said the Post had a picture of him and that Jordan might be in it. I envisioned a photo of Anthony and Jordan out somewhere. On the ferry. On the subway. On a park bench. I inferred that he had sent some such picture to another woman. I had given up on expecting him to respect the vows of our marriage, but our child’s image being shared felt more violent than any humiliation I had faced in the past.The stakes were already so high, almost unbearably so, and I needed help navigating how to handle the story. Around midnight, I emailed Clinton’s adviser Philippe Reines all I knew, which was essentially nothing. “Philippe, I think I have a problem,” I typed before falling into a night of fitful sleep. I knew only one thing: it wouldn’t be as bad as Anthony said. It would be worse. And it was.A response from Philippe appeared in my inbox in the early hours: “You need to look at this picture yourself.” And so I clicked on the link Philippe sent. I wish I could take back the image that appeared but I can never erase it. There was Jordan, sleeping peacefully next to an indecent Anthony, an image shared with a stranger, or a “friend” in Anthony’s view, and now for the entire world to see. This crossed into another level of degradation, a violation of the innocence of our child. There were no more “What were you thinking?” questions left in me. It was over.If there was anything unforgivable in a marriage, a partnership in raising a child, this was it. It was not rage that motivated me that morning, because the word rage would not do justice to what I was feeling. I think God had put me in this perfect glass and wood-framed house for a reason, because I would have destroyed everything around me if I had been in my own home. I simmered until I thought I would explode. After checking to make sure Jordan was still asleep and closing the door to his room, I marched out to the living room, where Anthony was lying on the sofa, still fully dressed from the previous night, his eyes bloodshot, phone in his hand, no doubt having seen the article as soon as it posted. I informed him I was putting out a statement announcing our separation, to which he responded quietly: “OK.” I then told him that he needed to find another place to live when we returned to Manhattan. He would not be welcome to sleep in the apartment or spend any nights alone with our son ever again. He nodded, looking down while I screamed at him. The yelling didn’t make anyone feel better, but I did it anyway.I went outside and got on the phone with Philippe a little after 7am, and asked him to help me with a statement. Then I steeled myself, took a few deep breaths, and dialled Hillary Clinton. She did not need this. Our campaign did not need this. She counted on me, had faith in me, and I was bringing more scandal, more shame to what should have been a laser-focused effort to close out the campaign. She said that she was glad I was finally moving on with my life. I then dialled Bari Luri, now Chelsea’s chief of staff, and emailed Bill Clinton’s team, too, apologising to them all. I knew they would face questions about this on the campaign trail.I thought the image might kill my mother, so I sent her an email, told her I was leaving Anthony and assured her I was fine and that Jordan would be OK. I was glad she was close by, visiting family in New Jersey, because I knew she would come to help me; but I couldn’t have her hear my voice in that moment because then she would know just how bad it was. Everyone has a limit and I had finally reached mine, ages after everyone else had gotten there. The next day, my mom, my sister, my nephews would all descend on us.I received all sorts of messages that began with “I don’t know what to say”, because “I’m sorry” didn’t seem quite enough this time. Most people congratulated me for finally freeing myself from Anthony.Twenty-four hours later, my family were on their way to join us, and the fundraisers were in full swing. But I had something else on my plate. New York state Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was making their first visit to interview Anthony and me, to ensure that Jordan was “safe”. Children’s Services investigations can be triggered by calls to the agency from members of the public concerned about the wellbeing of a child. Enough people had called in to report us that Children’s Services said they had no choice but to open a case. It was a tense and uncomfortable visit. A young woman and two or three men in suits filled the chairs at the dining table and asked questions. Anthony couldn’t remember enough details to answer. When was the photo taken? Who was it sent to? Were there others? What was happening in the image? Was the child awake? I felt like I was in a bad movie where the acting was subpar and the plot made no sense.After a few minutes, they shifted their attention to me. Did I have any prior knowledge of Anthony taking suggestive pictures in which Jordan was present? I tried not to let the anger within me distort my voice when I said of course I did not. Never, for one second, did I think Anthony would do anything to harm or expose our child. Ever. Until now. The barrage of questions continued, and in the brief silences during their note-taking, my mind could escape back to the old world I had lived in, the world of reason. I wondered why Anthony would do this now, just when we both had so much at stake in our lives. I was on the campaign of a lifetime which, if successful, would be historic. His life was finally back on track. He was in talks to anchor a television news show, write a book, launch a podcast. None of these opportunities could possibly survive the scandal. And they didn’t.When the investigators said they needed to interview Jordan, I became protective of him and tried to resist. The young woman, who had identified herself as the primary investigator, assured me that she would only ask him a few general questions about how he was doing, and there would be nothing that would make him uncomfortable.It took a few excruciating minutes. I brought her upstairs and introduced her to Jordan as Mommy’s friend who wanted to say hello. Jordan was eager to tell her how much he loved to play chess, and liked watching Paw Patrol. Then she asked him what form of punishment his parents gave him if he misbehaved. My heart stopped. I was shocked at the implication in her question. “No cookies!” Jordan chirped back.When the investigator told me she could see that our family was closely bonded, it felt like things would be OK. Then she went on to ask me if it was possible my assessment of Anthony’s parenting lacked the accuracy it would have had if I was present in the home on a regular basis, and what I heard, between the lines, made me want to ask, “You mean if I worked less?” I had been the primary breadwinner for most of my marriage, so not working was not an option. I expressed as much to her.She nodded that she understood and kept writing her notes.On the night of 24 October I returned home to find the Children’s Services investigator waiting for me. Had I considered what life would be like if Anthony went to prison, she asked. By then, it had been alleged that Anthony had sexted with a teenage girl. Each time I thought he had reached a new nadir, he shocked me by going even lower. But I must have looked blank because she then offered, as kindly as she could, “You seem perplexed.” Perplexed didn’t begin to describe it.“I just need to get through the next 15 days,” I responded. “Just 15 days. Then I can think about things like prison.”It may have sounded flip, but I really had no answers to this question – or to so many others. I just didn’t. On 28 October, on a flight to Cedar Rapids, the reporters on board our campaign plane heard about a letter FBI director Jim Comey was sending to Congress announcing that the FBI was reopening the email investigation. When we landed, we discovered that the investigation seemed to have something to do with some emails found on Anthony’s laptop.The instant I heard the word “Anthony”, my heart stopped. No, no, no. I had handled this, I had taken control of this. I had sent him away. It had cost us a fortune, I had cobbled together a life of relative normalcy for my son, I came to the office every day. This couldn’t be happening now. But there was no time to linger on any of that. I caught up with Hillary Clinton in a tented area, as she was about to walk out to deliver her speech, to let her know about this latest development.While her eyes opened wide with surprise, she shook her head, then simply said, “OK, keep me posted,” as though it was just another hiccup, and walked out on stage.On the plane after the event, we heard that the letter Comey had sent to Congress was out. It turned out that the Southern District of New York, which was prosecuting Anthony’s case involving the teenager, had found emails of mine on his laptop and to this day I do not know where or how because I never knew they were there. They called the FBI’s New York office, who then called the DC office, which meant the laptop ended up with Comey. They didn’t alert Anthony’s attorneys or mine. I watched Clinton’s face as she processed it.The moment she made eye contact with me, I just broke down.I had held it together for months – through the night of the shocking photo, all the meetings with Children’s Services, the paparazzi on the street, becoming a single parent overnight, the daily hate messages. But now that I knew the investigation somehow involved my own email, tears flowed out of me. Clinton stood up from her seat, came over to hug me and then walked with me to the bathroom so I could compose myself. On a plane full of colleagues, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers – everyone with eyes simultaneously averted and questioning – she did that.When I got home that night, heart pounding furiously, I called Anthony at the treatment facility he had entered. It seemed he hadn’t heard the news because he had no idea what I was talking about.“How could your emails be on my laptop?” he asked. It was a question neither of us can answer to this day. Then he went into Anthony mode, where there is a solution to every problem: “I am sure it’s a mistake and they will figure it out.” His attitude was confident, almost dismissive.“Anthony,” I said, wanting to shake him through the phone, “if she loses this election, it will be because of you and me.”That night, I wrote one line in my notebook. “I do not know how I am going to survive this. Help me God.” TopicsHuma AbedinAnthony WeinerHillary ClintonUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

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

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

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

  • in

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

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

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

  • in

    ‘Get shit done’: how Republican dog-whistles beat Democratic inaction

    Republicans‘Get shit done’: how Republican dog-whistles beat Democratic inaction Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race by playing dirty over CRT – and the Democrats had no answerDavid Smith in Washington@smithinamericaSat 6 Nov 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Sat 6 Nov 2021 02.02 EDTNo film director could have choreographed it better. At the very moment Joe Biden emerged from his helicopter into a cold, dark night on the White House south lawn, a new adversary was delivering his victory speech before a hot-blooded crowd in northern Virginia.Glenn Youngkin condemns report his son twice tried to vote in VirginiaRead moreThe cable news split screen took place just after 1am on Wednesday. The president, a Democrat, was returning from G20 and Cop26 summits in Europe. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, was celebrating a stunning victory in the race for governor of Virginia. The message from voters was emphatic.The Republican party was back in business, ready to take on a weakened president whose party is racked by infighting. Youngkin showed the way by deploying a formidable new weapon to which Democrats had no answer: a racist culture war fought over children.The businessman turned politician promised to ban critical race theory (CRT) from Virginia’s schools on his first day in office. It mattered little that CRT, an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society, is not taught in Virginia’s schools.Moral panic over CRT has been fuelled for more than a year by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and other rightwing media, an apparent backlash to racial justice protests that followed the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis last year. In such hands, CRT became a catch-all for any teaching about race and American history.“It is a very convenient soundbite for encapsulating everything about the reckoning after George Floyd’s death and the Black Lives Matter movement,” said Tanya Hernández, a law professor at Fordham University in New York.“It is a way censor to gag and suppress any kind of reconsideration of our status quo.“Those who are making a lot of noise about critical race theory have no interest in learning what it’s really about because it’s not their focal point, just a nice encapsulation as a reference point of everything they don’t like. They don’t want any discussion about the accuracy and the truthfulness of our racial histories to be taught to children.”Youngkin turned the manufactured controversy into a seductive argument, even citing civil rights leader Martin Luther King on the stump.He told supporters: “What we don’t do is teach our children to view everything through a lens of race, where we divide them into buckets – one group’s an oppressor and another group’s a victim – and we pit them against each other and we steal their dreams. We will not be a commonwealth of dream-stealers.”It proved the right dog whistle in the right place at the right time. Youngkin tapped into a surge of frustration among suburban parents after months of school closures due to the coronavirus pandemic. This included grumbles about teachers’ unions, mask mandates and what they witnessed about their children’s education during months of remote learning.A self-declared outsider with a suburban dad persona, if with a background in private equity, Youngkin promised to empower parents even as his Democratic rival, Terry McAuliffe – a career politician who launched his campaign with the slogan “Our Kids. Our Schools. Our Future” – vowed to keep them away from the curriculum.Tara Setmayer, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project, a group opposed to Donald Trump and Trumpism, said: “Republicans are the masters at finding an issue playing on the racial resentment and grievance within the Republican party base and creating this perception that somehow this is a threat to children, to white America, and some type of invasion of the education system.“Critical race theory doesn’t even exist here and most people don’t know what it is. But it is a masterclass in how perception is reality and, when propaganda isn’t pushed back on, it can metastasise in ways that become problematic in campaigns. That’s exactly what happened in Virginia.”‘The party of parents’Youngkin’s success with CRT makes it likely to become a core part of Republican strategy for next year’s midterm elections. The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, has announced support for a Parents’ Bill of Rights opposing the teaching of CRT. Jim Banks, chairman of the conservative House study committee, issued a memo suggesting: “Republicans can and must become the party of parents.”Democrats are likely to resist by contending that many top Republicans’ underlying goal is cutting funding from public schools and giving it to private and religious alternatives. The vast majority of American children attend public schools.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House principal deputy press secretary, told reporters on Thursday: “Republicans are lying. They’re not being honest. They’re not being truthful about where we stand. And they’re cynically trying to use our kids as a political football. They’re talking about our kids when it’s election season but they won’t vote for them when it matters.”In many ways it is a case of back to the future, the return of a culture wars playbook that has served Republicans for more than half a century. In 1968, Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign wooed the south by appealing to racial fear and resentment without using overtly racist language.Ronald Reagan demonised “welfare queens”. In 1988, a political action committee linked to George HW Bush’s campaign funded a crude advert blaming Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, for the case of Willie Horton, an African American convict who committed rape during a furlough from prison. Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that he would make Horton “Dukakis’s running mate”.Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, said: “Lee Atwater, who was considered one of the greatest Republican political operatives, understood that racial resentment animates a lot of white suburban voters and you can manipulate that to get people to the polls. Critical race theory now is the modern day version of the southern strategy.”Republicans are masters at simplifying messages and repeating them until they become a mantra, she said, while Democrats tend to lecture about policy.“Republicans are predictable in their methods but Democrats still haven’t figured out how to beat them because Democrats don’t do well in the culture war battle. They should learn from this election cycle that you cannot show up to a political guerrilla warfare fight with a policy pen.”Trump, who got his big break in politics by pushing the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, took the southern strategy to new and unsubtle extremes. Youngkin offered Republicans hope they can put the genie back in the bottle, returning to the coded race-baiting of the pre-Trump era.He did accept the former president’s endorsement and refrain from speaking ill of him. But during the campaign’s final weeks he almost never spoke of Trump, doubtless aware that he remains a toxic force among suburban voters, especially women. Democrats were unable to find a photo of Youngkin and Trump together and were forced to run ads that spliced them.Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “Ever since [the insurrection at the US Capitol on] 6 January, they have been looking for ways to get around Donald Trump, and they think they’ve found it using this Virginia race.“It’s to not ignore him, because he will lash out and you’ll lose his base, but it’s to say good things and to make sure you have emissaries, which is what Youngkin did, who are keeping him informed and in the loop and telling him how important he is. And then just never being able to get together. ‘We just can’t get the schedules to match!’ It’s incredible they managed to do it for a whole campaign but they did.”But it is far from certain this Trump-lite approach will work for Republicans next year. Districts in the House of Representatives have different dynamics from state-wide races for governor; Republican primaries are generally won by the most ardently pro-Trump candidate. Few are able to self-finance like the multi-millionaire Youngkin.And when the midterms campaign is under way, there seems little prospect of Trump holding back. His rallies are sure to dominate TV coverage and taint all Republican candidates, including those in battleground states who would prefer to keep him at arm’s length. His ego will not allow otherwise.Kurt Bardella, an adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said: “Donald Trump is not going to sit on the sidelines and make himself disappear from public life as much as the Republican party apparatus may wish that, so they can have their cake and eat it too. In my opinion, the Youngkin win is the exception to the rule. It’s not the new rule yet.”He continued: “The message for Democrats and for the president coming from Tuesday is: get shit done. It’s a lot easier to knock somebody over who’s standing still than to knock somebody over who’s moving forward. Ultimately, I do believe that the American people respond to action and progress and a momentum.”‘Mean evil Republicans’Biden has sunk to 50% disapproval and 41% approval in an Emerson College national poll. He received a boost on Friday when it was announced that the economy added 531,000 jobs last month. After months of stalling, Congress moved towards passing his ambitious legislative agenda.But Democrats, who narrowly averted disaster in the election for governor in New Jersey, still face the challenge of communicating the benefits of Biden’s plans to voters – one that Barack Obama failed a decade ago. And they will have to find a way to reverse their fortunes in the latest iteration of the culture wars.Ed Rogers, a political consultant and veteran of the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations and several national campaigns, said of Democrats: “They never respect the legitimacy of their defeat. It’s always because ‘the mean evil Republicans fooled people’. Well, here we are.“It is a harbinger. This was a time Republicans were supposed to do OK in these little off-year elections. They’re supposed to do real well in the midterms and it’s still certainly on that trajectory. If Democrats didn’t learn anything, they should learn that.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Misfire review: a bullseye from Tim Mak – but the NRA isn’t beaten yet

    BooksMisfire review: a bullseye from Tim Mak – but the NRA isn’t beaten yet The NPR reporter has written an important book about the moral bankruptcy which put the powerful and merciless gun group on the back footCharles KaiserSat 6 Nov 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Sat 6 Nov 2021 02.02 EDTTim Mak has written a sprawling tale of the greed, incompetence and narcissism which has dominated the National Rifle Association throughout Wayne LaPierre’s 30 years as its leader. Abetted by his wife, Susan, LaPierre has allegedly used his members’ dues to fund a billionaire’s lifestyle.‘We have to break through that wall’: inside America’s battle for gun controlRead moreThe LaPierres’ wedding in 1998 was a near miss: he almost ran from the altar, until she and the priest changed his mind. Mak calls this “emblematic” of “a man driven by fear and anxiety over all other forces … his reaction to these emotions is usually to flee and hide”.These qualities, Mak writes, have made LaPierre “prey” to an endless series of conmen, throughout his leadership of America’s most-feared lobbying group.“Pushed and prodded” by his wife to discover “money’s alluring glow”, Mak writes, LaPierre saw his salary balloon from $200,000 in the mid-1990s to $2.2m in 2018. According to the investigation of the New York attorney general, which has done the most to expose serial excesses at the NRA, between 2013 and 2017 the black cars, private jets and hundreds of thousands of dollars of expensive clothing led to $1.2m in reimbursed expenses.Between 2013 and 2018, companies used to book the LaPierres’ private planes received an astonishing $13.5m. There were trips to Lake Como, Budapest and the Bahamas. Just the hired cars for trips to Italy and Hungary cost $18,000. LaPierre spent $275,000 on suits at a single Beverly Hills emporium, including $39,000 on one day in 2015. To disguise such excesses, the bills were sent to an outside vendor which the NRA reimbursed.Mak also does a good job of describing how every mass shooting has pushed the NRA ever further right, transforming it from advocacy group for gun rights into a fully fledged player in the culture war, especially after the massacre of 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December 2012.Mak offers a particularly depressing account of how the NRA chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, was personally involved in negotiations over the Manchin-Toomey bill, a Senate measure which would have modestly increased background checks if, as Mak points out, not enough to have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre, since that gunman used guns legally obtained by his mother.In any case, after months of negotiation the NRA double-crossed both sponsors, made sure the bill failed to get the 60 votes it needed to pass the Senate, then dropped its A-ratings for Manchin and Toomey to D and C respectively.The NRA’s role in the Trump-Russia scandal was substantial. Maria Butina, eventually convicted as a Russian spy, used “relationships within the NRA to build an informal channel of diplomatic relations with Russia”. Her efforts included a famous public exchange with Donald Trump during his first campaign, in which he expressed his affection for Vladimir Putin and promised to improve relations as president.The NRA spent $30m to help to elect Trump, more than his own fundraising super pac. Ironically, NRA membership dues fell after Trump entered the White House. The organization lost its most lucrative fundraiser when Barack Obama left office.Power struggles and a ‘personal piggy bank’: what the NRA lawsuit allegesRead moreThe great unravelling began on 6 August 2020, when the New York attorney general, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit to dissolve the NRA entirely. She accused LaPierre of using the organization for 30 years “for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members, and vendors”.Six months later, the NRA filed for bankruptcy. But despite endless infighting, Wayne LaPierre remains in charge. And because Trump was elected, with the NRA’s help, the supreme court now includes three justices appointed by him – at least two of whom seemed eager in arguments this week to demolish most of the remaining state restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, in New York and six other states.The passions of gun owners – and the fear they have instilled in a majority of public officials – remain dominant forces in American politics despite the greed and incompetence of their leaders chronicled so thoroughly in this important book.
    Misfire is published in the US by Dutton
    TopicsBooksNRAUS gun controlNewtown shootingUS crimeUS politicsUS CongressreviewsReuse this content More