More stories

  • in

    Senate Republicans stand by their man and Trump wins his second acquittal | David Smith's sketch

    If the denouement of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial had been a Hollywood film, stirring music would have struck up around the time Congressman Joe Neguse explained why he thinks the floor of the US Senate is “sacred”.“The 13th amendment, the amendment abolishing slavery was passed in this very room – not figuratively, literally where you all sit and where I stand,” said Neguse, the son of immigrants from Eritrea. “We made the decision to enter world war two from this chamber. We’ve certainly had our struggles but we’ve always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most.”Chords would have swelled as Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, looked the senators in the eye and implored: “The children of the insurrectionists – even the violent and dangerous ones – they’re our children, too.”And even hard-hearted Republicans would have turned to each other and wept when Raskin entreated: “Senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about Donald Trump. The country and world know who Donald Trump is. This trial is about who we are. Who we are!”But Washington is no Hollywood and the Senate – while it is predictable – doesn’t guarantee happy endings. The cold, hard fact of Trump’s second impeachment trial on Saturday was Trump’s second acquittal. His son, Eric, tweeted simply: “2-0.”As the time to vote arrived just before 4pm, the old chamber filled with a hubbub of expectant voices. McConnell, seated on the front row, planted the tips of his fingers together like a cartoon villain. The public gallery above was a sea of empty seats because of coronavirus precautions, although Democrat Congressman Al Green of Texas, a pioneer of Trump impeachment calls, was sitting alone and looking on.The charge against Trump of inciting insurrection was read. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the longest serving member of the Senate and presiding officer at the trial, said: “Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Donald John Trump, guilty or not guilty?”Typically senators hold votes by shouting “Aye!” or “No!”. The manner in which each now took it turns to rise to their feet and utter “Guilty” or “Not guilty” gave the event new gravitas, as if suddenly evocative of a court of law.They cast their votes in alphabetical order with all senators except Rand Paul wearing masks due to the virus. The voicing of “guilty” or “not guilty” pinged back and forth between Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right.Democrat Sherrod Brown of Ohio offered a characteristically gravelly “Guilty.” Richard Burr of North Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana were the first Republicans to break ranks. Republican Ted Cruz rose to his feet, buttoned his blue jacket and said loudly: “Not guilty.”When his turn came, McConnell, who had described the vote as a “close call”, peeled off his mask and stood up with his hands folded in front of his yellow tie. “Not guilty,” he said, quietly but firmly.From that moment the die was cast. If the minority leader had gone against Trump, it is not hard to imagine that a sufficient number of Republicans would have followed to secure a conviction. For those who believe McConnell is the architect of much that has gone wrong in his party and country, it was another compelling piece of evidence.After about 10 minutes, the result was announced: 57 for guilty, 43 not guilty. Leahy declared: “Two-thirds of the senators present not having voted guilty, the Senate adjudges that the respondent, Donald John Trump, former president of the United States, is not guilty as charged on the article of impeachment.”If there’s one thing that McConnell has mastered over the years, it’s the art of having your cake and eating itIt was hardly a complete vindication. By a simple majority, Trump lost. It was the most bipartisan margin in favor of conviction in history. He was fortunate that Senate rules require two thirds of votes cast. The impeachment managers fell just 10 short.In one of the last spaces on earth where phones and laptops are prohibited, reporters bolted from the press gallery to hit their deadlines. Most senators also hurtled towards the exits. But a few from both parties made their way over to Ben Sasse, one of the Republican rebels, to offer supportive words or taps on the arm. As the Senate returned to its usual state – almost empty – there was a final twist. Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, spoke from the heart: “This trial wasn’t even about choosing country over party, even not that. This was about choosing country over Donald Trump. And 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today. And it shall be a weight upon their conscience in the future.”And then McConnell gave his most damning criticism yet of the former president. “Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty,” he said. “There is no question – none – that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.”McConnell had only voted to acquit, he claimed, because of a technicality: Citizen Trump is “constitutionally not eligible for conviction”.Only in today’s Washington could someone be so clear-eyed about the greatest ever betrayal by a US president of his oath and office just minutes after letting him off the hook. It was like a juror at the OJ Simpson trial voting not guilty then rushing outside with the news that yes, of course he did it.But if there’s one thing that McConnell has mastered over the years, it’s the art of having your cake and eating it too. More

  • in

    Romney: impeachment row with fellow Republican was about 'boxers or briefs'

    Mitt Romney suggested on Saturday that a heated argument he was seen to have with a Republican colleague in the Senate chamber was not about whether witnesses should be called in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial – but concerned the age-old question: “Boxers versus briefs”.After a surprise move by House managers on Saturday morning, Romney was one of five Republicans to vote for the calling of witnesses.Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was among 45 who still backed their former president, who went on to be acquitted of inciting the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January. But before a deal was struck to avoid calling witnesses, Romney and Johnson were seen to engage in a fierce exchange.Quoting Jason Donner, a Fox News producer, Andrew Desiderio, a Politico reporter, tweeted: “Ron Johnson turned to Mitt Romney and was upset with him, even pointing at him once. Johnson was visibly upset …“They were going back and forth with [Alaska senator Dan] Sullivan in the middle of them. I heard Johnson tell Romney, ‘Blame you.’ Voices were definitely raised.”Johnson complained that the exchange had been reported, telling reporters: “That’s grotesque you guys are recording this.” Reporters pointed out the exchange happened in public, on the Senate floor.Romney sought to defuse the row, telling reporters it was about underwear preferences. “We were arguing about boxers versus briefs,” he reportedly said.As it happens, as an observant member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Romney has been seen to wear a “temple garment” under his clothes. Some public figures have been condemned for mocking the two-piece underwear as “magic Mormon underpants”. Members of the church regard such mockery as prejudiced and offensive.In 2012, as Romney ran for the White House and the singer Cher ran into trouble for mocking his underwear, one news outlet offered a guide to the garment. On Saturday, though, for anyone seeking to use the guide to divine which side of the “boxers versus briefs” argument Romney might have taken against Johnson, enlightenment remained elusive.“Garments today come in two pieces,” BuzzFeed News reported. “A white undershirt, and white boxer brief-style shorts.” More

  • in

    ‘Inciter in chief’: five key quotes from Trump’s second impeachment trial

    After an emotional and dramatic week in the Senate, the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump finally came to an end on Saturday, capping days of often fraught and emotional argument.
    Here are five key quotes from the trial which saw a US president impeached for a historic second time, but resulted in Trump’s acquittal on charges he incited the 6 January attack on the US Capitol.
    Jamie Raskin, lead House impeachment manager

    [embedded content]

    “The evidence will show you that ex-President Trump was no innocent bystander. The evidence will show that he clearly incited the 6 January insurrection. It will show that Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander in chief and became the inciter in chief of a dangerous insurrection.”
    Joe Neguse, House impeachment manager

    Brad Smith
    (@thebradsmith)
    ▶️ @RepJoeNeguse “Standing in the powder keg that Trump created, he struck a match and aimed it straight at this building.”📺 Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump, Day 3 on @Cheddar https://t.co/ScXD319CsY pic.twitter.com/8pNwArhA9f

    February 11, 2021

    “Standing in the middle of that explosive situation, in that powder keg that he had created over the course of months, before a crowd filled with people that were poised for violence at his signal, he struck a match and he aimed it straight at this building, at us.”
    Michael van der Veen, Donald Trump defense lawyer

    [embedded content]

    “It is constitutional cancel culture. History will record this shameful effort as a deliberate attempt by the Democrat party to smear, censor and cancel, not just President Trump, but the 75 million Americans who voted for him.”
    Stacey Plaskett, House impeachment manager

    This Week
    (@ThisWeekABC)
    Del. Stacey Plaskett says Vice Pres. Pence, Speaker Pelosi and others “were put in danger” while presiding over election certification.”President Trump out a target on their backs—and his mob broke into the Capitol to hunt them down.” https://t.co/welJUzOXal pic.twitter.com/9NyC6QngY1

    February 10, 2021

    “They [Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi] were put in danger because President Trump put his own desires, his own need for power, over his duty to the constitution and our democratic process. President Trump put a target on their backs, and his mob broke into the Capitol to hunt them down.”
    Madeleine Dean, House impeachment manager

    USA TODAY
    (@USATODAY)
    Rep. Madeleine Dean emotionally recounts being inside the U.S. Capitol during the attack: “Because the truth is, this attack never would have happened but for Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/yY7uqUeopM

    February 10, 2021

    “This attack never would have happened but for Donald Trump. And so they came, draped in Trump’s flag, and used our flag, the American flag, to batter and to bludgeon. And at 2.30, I heard that terrifying banging on House chamber doors. For the first time in more than 200 years, the seat of our government was ransacked on our watch.” More

  • in

    Donald Trump acquitted in impeachment trial

    Donald Trump has been acquitted by the Senate in an impeachment trial for his role in the 6 January attack on the US Capitol – a verdict that underscores the sway America’s 45th president still holds over the Republican party even after leaving office.
    Rendering its judgment for history, a divided Senate fell short of the two-thirds majority required to convict the former president of high crimes and misdemeanors over his months-long quest to overturn his election defeat and its deadly conclusion on 6 January, when Congress met to formalize the results of the election.
    After just five days of debate – the fastest presidential impeachment trial in American history – seven Republicans joined every Democrat in declaring Trump guilty on the charge of “incitement of insurrection”.
    Trump was the first US president to be impeached twice and is now the first president to be twice acquitted. If convicted, he could have been barred from holding office in the future, but this decision now paves the way – should Trump want to run again – for another tilt at the White House in 2024.
    Trump’s acquittal was never in doubt. Seventeen Republicans would have had to join all Democrats to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. Several Republicans argued that the trial was unconstitutional, even though a majority of the Senate voted on Tuesday to proceed with the trial.
    The final vote tally was 57-43. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana joined five Republican colleagues who were expected to turn against Trump: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
    Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those who voted to acquit the former president.
    Explaining his decision in a floor speech after the vote, McConnell said Trump committed a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” by refusing to intervene as his supporters carried out a violent insurrection at the Capitol.
    “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said, before concluding that the Senate was never meant to serve as a “moral tribunal”.
    In a statement, Trump thanked the Republicans who stood by his side during the trial, which he denounced as “yet another phase of the greatest witch-hunt in the history of our country”.
    “No president has ever gone through anything like it,” Trump said, “and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the almost 75 million people, the highest number ever for a sitting president, who voted for us just a few short months ago.” More

  • in

    The decline of Proud Boys: what does the future hold for far-right group?

    During the the Trump era, the far-right Proud Boys rode high, enjoying presidential support, recruiting thousands of men, and, as the self-nominated nemesis of leftist Antifa activists, participating in a string of violent street altercations around the country.But now since Trump’s election loss and the aftermath of the 6 January attack on the Capitol in Washington DC, a series of blows dealt by law enforcement, elected officials and their own leaders have shaken the extremist fraternity that the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a hate group.The cumulative impact has experts wondering about the Proud Boys’ long-term future.Since their foundation in 2016 by the far-right Canadian media personality and entrepreneur Gavin McInnes, the all-male group – who wear uniform clothing, enforce bizarre initiation rituals, eschew masturbation, and reward violence with higher degrees of membership – have been an outsized presence on the landscape of pro-Trump extremism, and successful in promoting themselves as the most militant part of his coalition.But their role in the Capitol insurrection especially has brought far less welcome attention.Law enforcement agencies have connected at least 10 Capitol arrestees with the Proud Boys in criminal complaints and affadavits. Those charged include leaders like the Florida combat veteran and conspiracy theorist Joe Biggs and Washington state’s Ethan Nordean, whose prominence rose in the group after he was caught on film attacking an antifascist during a 2018 riot in downtown Portland, Oregon.Biggs – a former employee of Alex Jones’s conspiracy-minded Infowars network – was central in organizing incursions into the city of Portland in 2019 and 2020, each of which drew Fred Perry-clad militants from around the country to confront antifascists and city authorities.He is now charged with impeding Congress, unauthorized entry to the Capitol, and disorderly conduct. However, the affidavit supporting the charges also alleges Biggs was involved in extensive radio communications with other Proud Boys on the day. The allegations of coordination between members of the group may hint at more charges to come.Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute, said in a telephone conversation that it was likely that “more conspiracy charges being levied on some of these people in the future”.Shannon Reid, an assistant professor in criminology at the University of North Carolina, said the strategy in these cases resembles the one prosecutors often use in pursuit of criminal enterprises, where the aim is to “pick up as many people as humanly possible and to hope that they just plead out”.The cases against Biggs and Nordean turn what had been the Proud Boys’ greatest weapon – social media – against them as authorities have detailed their alleged misdeeds using material that they and others posted online.For example, a grand jury indictment of a Texan, Nicholas Decarlo, and the founder of the group’s Hawaiian chapter, Nicholas Ochs, alleges that they together inscribed “Murder the media” on the front door of the Capitol before stealing a Capitol police officer’s handcuffs. In an affidavit, an FBI special agent says that they determined that Ochs had been in the building from his own Twitter account.Meanwhile, Dominic Pezzola and William Pepe allegedly conspired with each other in a sequence of events which included Pezzola assaulting a Capitol police officer, stealing his riot shield, and then using it to smash in one of the Capitol’s windows. The evidence cited in affidavits includes Pezzola’s account on the shuttered conservative-friendly social media service, Parler, and videos posted online by other rioters.The FBI says that another arrestee, Bryan Betancur, was wearing a Proud Boys cap at the rally. They also say that Betancur is a “self-professed white supremacist” who discussed carrying out school shootings and expressed support for Charlottesville killer, James Fields.He was placed inside the Capitol building by signals from his court-ordered ankle monitoring device, a parole condition related to an earlier offense.Newhouse said that voluminous social media evidence suggests that “this was carefully planned and extensively communicated in the moment”. The connection between Proud Boys and other extremist organizations – previously noted on several occasions by US law enforcement – has now led to the first instance of the group being outlawed. Last Wednesday, the Canadian parliament formally declared the Proud Boys a terrorist group, citing their “misogynistic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, anti-immigrant and/or white supremacist” ideology and their association with “white supremacist groups”.The designation opens the way for any crimes committed by Proud Boys to be prosecuted as terrorist acts. It also means that any fundraising, travel, recruitment and training for the group can be prosecuted, and members can be added to no-fly lists or denied entry to Canada.Meanwhile, parliamentarians in Australia are pushing their government to follow suit, after McInnes was denied entry to the country on character grounds in 2018.In the US, while criminal acts can be prosecuted as domestic terrorism, it has not been possible to designate domestic groups as terrorist, and, at least in theory, the first amendment prevents authorities from surveilling domestic groups on the basis of their political beliefs, even if those beliefs encompass an advocacy of violence.Increasingly over the life of the Trump administration, however, Democratic politicians advocated for just such an approach to rightwing extremists.Now, the first bill aimed at addressing rightwing extremism as domestic terrorism has been introduced to Congress by the Illinois Democrat Brad Schneider and has attracted bipartisan sponsorship.If passed it would set up dedicated domestic terrorism units within the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. It would also require those departments to report to Congress twice a year on domestic terrorism incidents and hate crimes, and their progress in dealing with such cases.In a telephone conversation, Schneider said that while he had first proposed a version of the bill in 2017, before he had become aware of the group, the Proud Boys were “certainly a troubling group, in their rhetoric and their actions”.“We have seen what they’ve done in various places, whether it was in Washington last year or it with the insurrection in the capital last month,”Schneider added, calling the latter event an attack “not just members of Congress, but the foundation of our government, our constitution, and our republic”.Other events have compounded the effects of the additional scrutiny. During the Trump presidency, police in cities from California to Kalamazoo were regularly accused of having a soft touch when it came to the Proud Boys and their far-right allies, and these claims have been borne out in nationwide studies. But since the election, local agencies around the country have appeared more ready to respond with force when the group’s street protests become violent.Police have used batons, gas and other “non-lethal” weapons on Proud Boys in Salem, Oregon, and Washington DC during December and January. Some Proud Boys have remarked on the apparent sea change: in a podcast released on 4 January, Nordean, the Washington state arrestee, said that “the police are starting to become a problem,” even though “we’ve had their back for years”.On 2 February, those comments were quoted in the criminal complaint detailing Nordean’s alleged participation in the riot.Just before the riot, Enrique Tarrio, the chair of the Proud Boys, was arrested on charges related to the vandalism of a black church and illegal weapons. Then, last week, it was revealed that he had been a “prolific” police informant.Since the revelation that he had been a police informant, Proud Boyschapters in Nevada, Missouri and Alabama have publicly announced theirdeparture from the main organization on the messaging platform,Telegram. On the same platform, the also-departed Oklahoma Proud Boyshave exchanged barbs with Tarrio and other leaders.Tarrio took over leadership of the group after McInnes ostentatiously resigned as a member following Guardian reporting that revealed that federal authorities considered them an extremist group.Notwithstanding his earlier public disavowals, in 2020 McInnes attended and spoke at the group’s annual WestFest event in Las Vegas in 2020, and has persisted in advocating for the group in the online outlets available to him, including his Telegram and Parler accounts.Though the Proud Boys may be reeling now, Newhouse warns that opposing a Democratic president gives them a similar opportunity to previous waves of rightwing militancy, like the militia movement in the Clinton years, and its revival as the so-called Patriot Movement during Obama’a time in office.“I don’t think they’re going anywhere,” he said. “The more extreme fringe actors are going to gain influence,” with some Proud Boys drifting into adjacent extremist groups in the Boogaloo movement or neo-Nazism.“De-radicalization is one of the hardest problems,”Newhouse said, “harder even than preventing acts of terrorism.” More

  • in

    'Hopefully it makes history': Fight for $15 closes in on mighty win for US workers

    Fear was the overwhelming emotion Alvin Major felt when, on a chilly November morning in 2012, he went on strike at the Brooklyn KFC where he worked.
    “Everybody was scared,” said Major. He may have been fearful, but what Major didn’t know was that he was about to make American history – an early leader in a labor movement that some historians now see as the most successful in the US in 50 years.
    Major was paid just $7.25 an hour as a cook at KFC, but the consequences of losing his job were dire, as his family was already struggling to make the next month’s rent. “Everybody was scared about going back to work,” he said. “Nobody visualized what this movement would come to.”
    The New York strike by hundreds of majority Black and brown New York fast-food workers was, at the time, the largest in US history – but it would be dwarfed by what was to come. Two years later, strikes had spread across America, and fast-food workers in 33 countries across six continents had joined a growing global movement for better pay and stronger rights on the job.
    In eight years, what became the Fight for $15 movement has grown into an international organization that has successfully fought for a rise in minimum wage in states across the US, redefined the political agenda in the US, and acted as a springboard for other movements, including Black Lives Matter. It now stands perilously close to winning one of the biggest worker-led rights victories in decades.
    Embed map
    This Tuesday, fast-food workers will walk out again, hoping to push through a change that will affect tens of millions of American workers.
    For Major, now 55, it all began in a hall in Brooklyn, where union and community activists had convened a meeting of fast-food workers to see what pressure they could bring on an industry notorious for its low wages and poor conditions, and a state that had shown those workers little interest.
    With a platform to speak, the workers talked about “how you had to be on food stamps, get rent assistance, all these kinds of things, and we’re working for these companies that are making billions”, said Major.
    At one point, a worker showed the burns on his arm he had suffered at work. In a show of solidarity, workers across the room others rolled up their sleeves to show their scars too. Even when injured on the job, workers said, they were too scared to take time off.
    This was not how Major imagined America to be when he moved to the US from Guyana in 2000. “In our family, with 14 kids, my dad’s wife never worked a day. My dad used to work, he took care of us, we had a roof over our head, we went to school, we had meals every day, he had his own transportation.”
    In America, “the greatest, most powerful and richest country in the history of the world”, he found “[that] you have to work, your wife has to work, when your kids reach an age they have to work – and still you could barely make it”.
    Industry lobbying allied to Republican and – until relatively recently – Democratic opposition has locked the US’s minimum wage at $7.25 since the last raise in 2009. Now a raise to $15 looks set to be included in Joe Biden’s $1.9tn Covid relief package – although it will still face fierce opposition.
    Even Biden, who campaigned on the raise, has expressed doubt about whether it can pass. But more progressive Democrats including longtime champion Senator Bernie Sanders are determined to push it through, and it remains in the House Covid relief bill.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal
    (@RepJayapal)
    I’m thrilled to announce that after working with leadership, we’ve secured a $15 minimum wage in the House’s COVID relief bill!This provision would lift nearly 1 million people out of poverty. It’s long overdue that Congress enacts a minimum wage that is a living wage.

    February 8, 2021

    The stakes are huge. The Congressional Budget Office said this week that 27 million Americans would be affected by the increase, and that 900,000 would be lifted out of poverty at a time when low-wage workers – and especially people of color – have suffered most during the pandemic. The CBO also said the increase would lead to 1.4m job losses and increase the federal budget deficit by $54bn over the next 10 years.
    Other economists have disputed the CBO’s job-loss predictions – the Economic Policy Institute called them “wrong, and inappropriately inflated”. The long-running debate about the real cost of raising the minimum age will no doubt continue. What is certain is that Biden will face enormous political blowback if his campaign promise to raise the minimum wage falls so early in his presidency – a promise that during his campaign he argued was central to his plans to address racial inequality.
    That backlash will also cross party lines – at least outside Washington. The US may be as politically divided as it has been since the civil war, but polling shows the majority of Americans support increasing the minimum wage no matter their chosen party. In November 60% of voters approved a ballot initiative to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2026 even as they voted to re-elect Donald Trump.
    More people voted for that ballot initiative than voted for either presidential candidate in the state. With Florida, seven states plus the District of Columbia have now pledged to increase their minimum wage to $15 or higher, according to the National Employment Law Project (Nelp) and a record 74, cities, counties and states will raise their minimum wages in 2021.
    The movement, and this widespread support, has changed the political landscape, pushing Democratic politicians, including Biden, Hillary Clinton and the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, to back a $15 minimum wage, against their earlier qualms.
    Cuomo called a $13 minimum wage a “non-starter” in February 2015. By July, he was racing California to get it into law.
    In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Clinton went from supporting a raise to $12 an hour to $15 as Sanders made ground on the issue. Even Saturday Night Live parodied the pair arguing about who was most for a $15 higher wage.

    [embedded content]

    Big companies including Amazon, Target and Disney have all moved to $15, or pledged to do so. One of Biden’s first executive orders called for federal contractors to pay employees a $15 minimum wage. The federal holdout would be the movement’s biggest win to date, but there is little arguing that they have made significant progress without it – not least for Alvin Major, who now has a union job earning over $17 an hour working at JFK airport and who says he is no longer worried about his bills.
    For Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), this is “the David and Goliath story of our time”. She puts the public support down to the “pervasiveness of underpaid, low-wage work”.
    “Every family in America knows somebody that’s trying to make ends meet through a minimum-wage job. And the pandemic has revealed that essential work in a way that many people hadn’t noticed before, and they now understand how grocery store clerks, nursing home workers, janitors, airport workers, security officers, delivery drivers [and] fast-food workers are all people trying to do the very best job they can, and provide for their families.”
    The SEIU has been a longtime funder and supporter of Fight For $15 and for Henry, the first woman to lead the SEIU, the fight for a higher minimum wage is just the beginning of a greater push for workers’ rights – not least the right to join unions, in a service sector where women and people of color make up a disproportionate number of workers.
    “Eighty per cent of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Service and care jobs are the dominant sectors in the US economy, and we have to create the ability of those workers to join together in unions in this century, just like auto, rubber and steel were the foundation in the last century,” she said.
    “If the US Congress can’t see what the American people are demanding, in terms of ‘Respect us, protect us, pay us’, then they’re going to have a political price to pay in 2022,” she added. “Our nation’s leaders need to get this done. Congress has used its rules to pass trillions of dollars in tax cuts for billionaires and massive corporations, so now it’s time for our nation’s leaders to give tens of millions of essential workers a raise.”
    Backing Henry will be a younger generation of activists who cut their teeth in the Fight for $15 movement and have used it as a springboard into a political debate that is now centered around racial and economic justice. One of those leaders is Rasheen Aldridge, one of the first to take action when the Fight for $15 spread to St Louis, who was elected to Missouri state assembly last November.
    Aldridge was working at a Jimmy John’s restaurant in 2013 when he was approached by a community organizer asking him about his pay and conditions. Aldridge had recently been humiliated by a manager who took pictures of him and a co-worker holding signs they were forced to make, saying they had made sandwiches incorrectly and had been 15 seconds late with a drive-through order. “It was so dehumanizing and just a complete embarrassment,” said Aldridge.
    The organizer talked about the strikes in New York, Chicago and elsewhere, and suggested the same could happen in conservative Missouri. More

  • in

    The Good American review: Bob Gersony and a better foreign policy

    What adjective should describe “the American” active in foreign policy? Graham Greene chose “quiet”, as his character harmed a country he did not understand. Eugene Burdick and William Lederer used “ugly”.
    Robert D Kaplan, one of America’s most thoughtful chroniclers of foreign affairs, proposes “good” to describe Bob Gersony, who in “a frugal monastic existence that has been both obscure and extraordinary” has devoted his life to using the power and treasure of the US to serve others through humanitarian action.
    A son of Holocaust refugees, he never held a formal government position. He was instead a contractor for the state department, USAid or the United Nations. Yet his work improved the lives of millions, saving many, and corrected policies that might otherwise have been implemented by “ugly” or “quiet” figures who did not understand the countries in which they operated.
    Gersony’s method was simple: to conduct interviews through a trusted translator with individuals fleeing conflict, to stay “in continuous, tactile contact with the evidence”. It was exhausting work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances but his information, transmitted to senior policymakers in highly detailed “Gersony reports”, was both essential and frequently (as in Mozambique and Bosnia) the opposite of what the policy community believed or wished to believe.
    The truth about a place “emerges from the bottom up”, he said, and thus “you must always believe refugees”.
    Accountability, absolute integrity, objectivity and boldness in speaking to authority were his watchwords. His independence meant personal insecurity. He often shared a simple shack with a translator and slept with his notes under his pillow. Personal danger and hardship were part of the job, yet in no other way could the truth emerge and successful policy be formulated.
    “When you listen to ordinary people,” Gersony believed, “there is so much wisdom.”
    Kaplan calls Gersony “a business-oriented math brain with a non-ideological conservative streak … think of him as an emotionally tortured character straight out of a Saul Bellow novel, engrossed throughout his life in the brooding and dangerous tropical settings defined by Joseph Conrad.”
    This is also the story of another era of US foreign policy, one in which realism and humanitarianism combined to include human rights in the national interest, against the backdrop of the cold war, so often hot in the developing world. Human rights and grand strategy complemented each other. Gersony had bosses who were “authentic, heartland Americans … the ultimate selfless public servants … deeply moral without being ideological, while operating at the top of the power structure”.
    Gersony started in Guatemala, where he began a language school and after the 1976 earthquake worked with relief organizations. He took charge of hurricane relief in Dominica, standing up to the prime minister, asserting, “If you empower people, they won’t be corrupt.” Moving on to El Salvador in the civil war, he recommended massive employment programs for displaced persons, building sewage canals and cobblestone streets – practical improvements that also discouraged guerrillas from attacking the people.
    His solutions were often elegantly simple because they provided the dignity of work and reflected what people actually wanted. And yet, as Kaplan writes, “He still had no credentials … in the ordinary careerist sense, he had risen as far as he ever would.” For Kaplan, as for Gersony, “a meaningful life is about truth, not success.”
    The assignments kept coming: Vietnamese boat people in Thailand; Sudan and Chad; Honduras, where his counterintuitive but accurate recommendation showed once again that “ground-level fieldwork … triumphs over the discussion of big abstract ideas”. In Uganda’s Lowero Triangle, he uncovered genocide with the unexpected help of a British officer advising President Obote. The secretary of state, George Shultz, cut off aid.
    As Kaplan writes, “History pivoted in southern Africa thanks to Bob Gersony.” After an unusual meeting with Shultz and Maureen Reagan, daughter of the president, the US did not aid Renamo guerrillas in Mozambique. Gersony tackled a highly complex situation in Somalia and in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide worked with UNHCR on the repatriation of Hutus. As one official said, his unwelcome truth-telling “stopped the killing machine”. He worked in northern Uganda with World Vision long before Joseph Kony became a hashtag. Knowing the dangers of travel in that region, “he treated the motor pool chief like a high official”.
    Gersony worked tirelessly. “If we skipped lunch,” he said, “we could interview one more refugee, and each refugee was precious – you never knew which one would yield a breakthrough in understanding.”
    By Kaplan’s own admission, his book is also something of his own story, a lament for a time when internationalist moderates dominated both parties and the foreign service enjoyed “the last golden age of American diplomacy … when the bureaucracy at all levels had sufficient money and rewarded talent” in furthering “that sturdy, moderate national security consensus that no longer exists”.
    Embed
    Kaplan does not quite regret the end of the cold war but he does note the resulting separation between idealism and power.
    Indeed, Gersony’s career ended in a very different world. Kaplan sees Plan Colombia, an early 2000s push against leftwing guerrillas and drug cartels, as “a precursor for the fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq”, where gigantic projects and a “dysfunctional interagency process” often failed for lack of perspective. Gersony’s later tasks included tracking food assistance for North Korea, examining the Maoist insurgency in Nepal (and wishing USAid had continued road-building there), and disaster planning in Micronesia, where “in this emerging naval century … Oceania was indeed at the heart of geopolitics” and control of shipping lanes.
    Can realism and idealism combine again? Only through what the French academic Gérard Prunier wrote about Gersony’s “great respect for the factual truth. The world is not just an interpretation or a place for competing narratives.” In the end, Kaplan’s life of Gersony recalls the advice of another quintessential American, Mark Twain: “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”
    The Good American is published in the US by Random House More