More stories

  • in

    When Auschwitz Loses Its Meaning

    Andy Warhol is credited for the bon mot that in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes. Robert Keith Packer would probably agree. A nobody from Virginia, Packer made international news for the sweatshirt he wore during the recent assault on the US Capitol. Sweatshirts bear all kinds of imprints, such as the name of a university. The imprint on Packer’s sweatshirt was a little bit different. It read “Auschwitz Camp.” Below there was the claim that “Work Brings Freedom.” The back identified the wearer as “Staff.”

    Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

    READ MORE

    It stands to reason that these days, wearing this kind of sweatshirt is not entirely politically correct. Unless, of course, you do it on purpose with the intent to send a strong message, to make a point. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in semiology, or history or cultural studies to interpret the meaning behind the message conveyed by Packer. Auschwitz has become the universal symbol of genocide in the service of safeguarding not only the purity and integrity of the race, but of its very survival. More on this later.

    Work Makes Free

    “Arbeit macht frei” — “Work makes free” — the slogan that graced the entrance of Nazi concentration and extermination camps, from Dachau to Mauthausen, from Auschwitz to Flossenbürg, was a cynical notion that had nothing to do with reality. More often than not, “work” was used by the Nazis as a way to send their victims to death. For popular consumption, however, the Nazi narrative suggested that for the first time in their lives, Jews would be forced to perform “useful” labor rather than taking advantage of the hard work of their “hosts.” In 1938, after the Nazis incorporated Austria into the Third Reich, Jews were forced to clean Vienna’s streets with toothbrushes.

    Embed from Getty Images

    I don’t know whether or not Packer was aware of this. The fact is that within the context of Donald Trump’s promotion of white supremacy and his campaign’s characterization of his opponent as a dangerous socialist, the imprints on Packer’s sweatshirt convey a clear message: The only way to assure the survival of white America is to eradicate all those who threaten its supremacy. At the same time, politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in general should finally be forced to do useful work rather than living off hard-working, tax-paying (white) Americans.

    I guess, many among the Confederate flag-waving mob, proudly displaying their allegiance to QAnon and other equally ludicrous conspiracy theories, fundamentally agreed with Packer’s message, even if they probably had no clue about what it entailed. As Thomas Edsall has recently put it in the pages of The New York Times, behind the conspiracy theory-inspired assault on the Capitol was the attempt “to engineer the installation in Washington of an ultraright, ethnonationalist crypto-fascist white supremacist political regime.”

    As a German, I know a little bit about this kind of regime. I grew up in a small town in southern Bavaria, which was severely damaged by American and British bombers in the last months of the war. Not far from the town, in the forests, there were the ruins of huge bunker installations where slave laborers were working on assembling fighter planes. The workers came from a satellite camp that was part of the Dachau concentration camp, many of them Jews. Many of them died of exhaustion and malnutrition. Once dead, they were dumped into mass graves. Immediately after the war, my father was among the young men forced to dig up the corpses and rebury them in a proper cemetery. He never talked about the experience. I learned about it from my mother.

    The Jewish Question

    I doubt that the likes of Roger Keith Packer have ever bothered to get a sense of what Nazism really entailed. It seems to me that for him and his comrades in spirit, Auschwitz has become an empty signifier devoid of real-life meaning and, therefore, perfect as a vehicle for resentment. The fact, however, is that Auschwitz stands for something — namely a bureaucratically efficient, quasi-industrial annihilation of hundreds of thousands of human lives for no other reason than that they happened to belong to a “race” the Nazis deemed equivalent to a highly noxious bacillus. This was the core of Nazi ideology on race, most prominently espoused by Heinrich Himmler, the undisputed head of the SS.

    Among the top echelons of German Nazis, Heinrich Himmler is among the most notorious. An unassuming agronomist with round spectacles, he was a far cry from the Aryan ideal official ideology espoused. And yet he was the most fervent promoter of the “Aryan race”: blond, blue-eyed, close to the soil, epitomized by the SS — a new order of quasi-medieval knights, ascetic, dedicated to their leader and prepared to give their lives for a greater cause. According to a contemporary urban legend, Himmler considered himself as an incarnation of Heinrich I, a medieval king who is credited with being the first to unite the disparate German “nations” under one flag.

    Today, of course, Heinrich Himmler is almost exclusively known for his eminent role in promoting the destruction and extermination of Europe’s Jewish population — a “task” he considered his ultimate mission in the service of the German people. At the end would stand, or so he envisioned, the “final solution to the Jewish question,” the complete eradication of anything that might remind future generations of the presence of Jewish life in Europe.

    Practice and Practitioners of Holocaust Denial

    READ MORE

    Heinrich Himmler was exceedingly proud of his ability to execute this “historical mission” of saving the German “race” from being destroyed from the inside by the Jewish “bacillus.” We know that because he himself said so, in his notorious speech to high-ranking members of the SS in Poznan, in occupied Poland, in October 1943. The speech is remarkable for its candor, a candor quite unusual for official references to the Holocaust.

    Himmler not only acknowledged the “extermination of the Jewish people,” he also charged that Germans had “the moral right,” the “duty” to the German people “to kill these people who wanted to kill us.” In fact, he noted, “we have carried out this most difficult task out of love for our own people.” This, he continued, was “a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written.”

    Anyone who reads or listens to Himmler’s speech understands that the physical liquidation of Jewish life in Europe was central to Nazism. Hitler himself had made that quite clear in a speech in 1939, commemorating his Machtergreifung, his seizure of power in 1933 — an event, he attributed to divine providence. It is in this vein that Hitler touted his prophetic clairvoyance, particularly with regard to what would happen to Europe’s Jews. If the “international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe,” he insisted, “should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” Three years later, high SS officials in occupied Serbia proudly proclaimed that it was the first country where the “Jewish question” had been successfully solved.

    “Chapter of Glory“

    There can be no doubt that leading Nazis considered the liquidation of Jewish life in Europe the most significant accomplishment of the Nazi regime. In fact, toward the end of the war, at a time when German troops were under increasing pressure on the eastern front, Nazi authorities continued to divert vital resources such as trains to assure that the death machinery could continue unimpeded. After all, as Himmler had put it, the annihilation of Jewish life in Europe was a “chapter of glory” that would indelibly be associated with the Nazi regime.

    Curiously enough, intellectual Nazi apologists such as David Irving and pedestrian neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States want nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, the most fervent champions of the National Socialist cause are adamant in their disavowal of what their heroes considered their greatest accomplishments. As Hitler put it in his last will, “I call upon the leadership of the nation … to fight mercilessly against the poisoners of all the peoples of the world, international Jewry.” Yet Hitler’s contemporary would-be acolytes don’t seem to be eager to embrace Hitler’s racist heritage — an instance of opportunism, hypocrisy, or both?

    These days, genocide is no longer considered a Kavarliersdelikt — a cavalier’s delict. As a result, Packer’s sweatshirt has stood out and, for good reason, gained widespread media attention. It suggests that the physical elimination of fellow human beings is okay, perhaps even an honorable feat, as long as it is done in the name of the greater good — in this case, the defense of white supremacy. It boggles the mind that the United States, which after all was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, has been fomenting a type of ideology derived from the worst of German racist thinking. But then, after all, Donald Trump has always been proud of his German heritage.

     *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • in

    US economy adds 49,000 jobs as Biden aims for further Covid relief

    The US economy added back 49,000 jobs last month as coronavirus restrictions eased and fiscal stimulus from Washington goosed up the economy, the labor department announced on Friday.The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3%, down significantly from its pandemic high of 14.7% in April. While January’s figure marked a return to growth after job losses in December, the number was weak and big problems remain.On Thursday, the labor department said 779,000 people filed new unemployment claims last week, down from the week before but still close to four times pre-pandemic levels. The latest figures showed some 17.8 million Americans are still claiming unemployment benefits.In December the US lost 140,000 jobs as the latest wave of Covid-19 infections led to more shutdowns across the country and a slowdown in economic activity. That figure was revised to a loss of 227,000 jobs on Friday.Professional and business services (up 97,000 jobs) and local government (up 49,000) saw the largest gains over the month. The US is still losing huge numbers of jobs in leisure and hospitality (down 61,000) and retail (down 38,000) and the stark gap in racial unemployment rates remains.The unemployment rate for white Americans was 6% while for Black Americans it was 9.2% and for Latinos it was 8.6%.The jobs figure come as the Biden administration is trying to push through a $1.9tn stimulus package which would send $1,400 cheques to many Americans and provide fresh aid for struggling businesses. It would also increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 – the first increase since 2009.The plan has widespread support from voters, with a Quinnipiac survey showing more than two-thirds of respondents in favor of the plan. But it has met with opposition from Republicans in Congress, who have balked at the size of the stimulus and proposed a far smaller package. Biden’s plan was approved in the Senate early Friday by a 51 to 50 vote, with the vice-president casting the tie-breaking vote, but still faces hurdles and is not expected to become law before mid March.The recovery in the jobs market may embolden opponents but some economists warned that the economic toll of the virus is far from over.Jason Reed, assistant chair of finance at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, said: “We shouldn’t forget that the economy is still down about 10m jobs since the start of the pandemic. We aren’t anywhere close to where we were this time last year.“The rollout of the vaccine will surely help Americans get back to work, but we shouldn’t expect a return to normal until late 2021 or early 2022.” More

  • in

    Will the US and Russia Start Over?

    It’s winter in Russia, which is not a season for the faint-hearted. The pandemic is still hitting the country hard, with the number of new COVID cases hovering around 20,000 a day, which has cumulatively put the country in the global top five in terms of infections.

    Under these inauspicious conditions, if you are brave enough to face down the cold and COVID to protest openly against the government of President Vladimir Putin, your reward may well be a trip to jail. If you’re very good at your job of protesting, you might win the grand prize of an attempt on your life.

    Yet, for the last two weeks, Russians have poured into the streets in the tens of thousands. Even in the Russian Far East, protesters turned out in Yakutsk (45 below zero) and Krasnoyarsk (22 below). Putin has predictably responded with force, throwing more than 5,000 people into jail.

    The US Will Need Turkey to Counter Russia

    READ MORE

    Media coverage of the Russian protests focus, not surprisingly, on Alexei Navalny. After recovering in Germany from an assassination attempt, the Russian opposition leader returned to Moscow on January 17. He was promptly arrested at the airport where his plane was rerouted. His close associates, who’d shown up at the original destination of his flight to welcome him home, were also detained. These arrests, and the government’s desire to lock Navalny away in prison for as long as possible, triggered the latest round of demonstrations throughout the country.

    Putin has ruled over Russia for more than two decades. Because of the constitutional changes he rammed through last year, he has effectively made himself leader for life. Will these latest protests make a dent in his carapace of power?

    Meanwhile, the US and Russian governments this week exhibited a modest form of engagement by extending the New START treaty on nuclear weapons for another five years. Despite this hopeful sign, no one expects anything close to a full reset of US–Russian relations during a Biden administration.

    But as Putin faces protests in the street and US President Joe Biden deals with recalcitrant Republicans in Congress, the US and Russia might at least avoid direct conflict with one another. More optimistically — and can you blame a boy for dreaming? — the two countries could perhaps find common cause against the global scourges of nuclear weapons, climate change and pandemics.

    Putin vs. Navalny

    Although they face each other across the Russian chessboard, Putin and Navalny share some basic attributes. They are both adept politicians who know the power of visuals, symbols and stories. They rely on the media to sustain their popularity, Putin using state-controlled media and Navalny exploiting social media.

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    And they have both been willing to adjust their messages to grow their appeal among everyday Russians by turning to nationalism. Putin started out as a rather conventional Soviet bureaucrat, with a commitment to all of the ethnic groups within the Soviet Union. Even when he became the leader of Russia in 1999, he thought of himself as the head of a multiethnic country. Particularly after 2014 and the conflict with Ukraine, however, Putin began to make appeals to russky (ethnic) Russians rather than rossisky (civic) Russians. He has made the defense of ethnic Russians in surrounding regions — Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics — a priority for his administration.

    Navalny, meanwhile, started out as a rather conventional Russian liberal who joined the reformist party Yabloko. Liberalism, however, has never really appealed to a majority of Russians, and parties like Yabloko attracted few voters. Navalny began to promote some rather ugly xenophobic and chauvinistic messages. As Alexey Sakhnin writes in Jacobin:

    “He participated in the far-right Russian Marches, waged war on “illegal immigration,” and even launched campaign “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” directed against government subsidies to poor, ethnic minority-populated autonomous regions in the south of the country. It was a time when right-wing sentiments were widespread, and urban youth sympathized with ultra-right groups almost en masse. It seemed to Navalny that this wind would fill his sails — and partly, it worked.”

    Navalny used nationalism to wipe away any memories of his unpopular liberalism, but it was difficult to compete with Putin on that score. So, increasingly, the oppositionist focused on the corruption of the Putin regime, publishing exposes of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s wealth and most recently a video tour of a huge palace on the Black Sea said to be the Russian president’s (which Putin denies).

    With these critiques of the ruling elite’s corruption, Navalny can bring tens of thousands of angry protesters, particularly young people, onto the streets. Unlike present-day Belarus or Ukraine 2014, the Russian protesters don’t represent the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens. Putin remains a relatively popular figure in Russia. Although his approval ratings have dropped from the 80% range that was common five years ago, they still hover around 70%. US presidents would be thrilled with those numbers. Approval of the Russian government is considerably less — around 50% — which suggests that Putin has successfully portrayed himself as somehow above everyday politics.

    Putin Is Worried

    Still, the Russian leader is worried. In his latest speech at the World Economic Forum, Putin spoke in apocalyptic terms of a deteriorating international situation. “The pandemic has exacerbated the problems and disbalances that have been accumulating,” he said. “International institutions are weakening, regional conflicts are multiplying, and the global security is degrading.”

    His comments on the global situation reflect more parochial concerns. Because of COVID-19, the Russian economy contracted by 4% in 2020. Although the government implemented various measures to cushion the impact, many Russians are suffering as a result of rising unemployment and falling production. The Russian economy depends a great deal on sales of oil and natural gas. Any further reduction in global trade — either because of the pandemic or tariff wars — would complicate Russia’s economic recovery and consequently undermine Putin’s political position.

    The immediate challenge comes from the parliamentary elections later this year. Putin’s United Russia party currently holds a comfortable majority in the Duma. The other two top parties are led by nationalists who are equally if not more fanatical — Gennady Zyuganov of the Communist Party and Vladimir Zhirinovsky of the Liberal Democratic Party. But a political force coalescing around a figure like Navalny could disrupt Putin’s balance of power.

    That’s why Navalny returned to Moscow. And that’s why the Russian court decided this week to lock Navalny away for more than two years — for violations of parole that required him to report to the authorities that tried to kill him. Navalny has taken an enormous risk, while Putin is taking no chances. The Russian leader has long deployed a preemptive strategy against any potential rival. Those who dare to oppose him have been killed (Boris Nemtsov), poisoned (Vladimir Kara-Murza), jailed (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) or forced into exile (Garry Kasparov).

    Embed from Getty Images

    Civil society is also under siege in Russia, with activists vulnerable to charges of being, basically, spies and saboteurs under a “foreign agent law.” Yet the environmental movement, the women’s movement, the LGBT community and others continue to protest against the country’s authoritarian system. And these protests are not just taking place in relatively liberal enclaves in the western part of the country like Moscow and St. Petersburg. Large-scale demonstrations took place at the end of 2020 in Khabarovsk, in the Russian Far East, over the arrest of the region’s independent-minded governor. While Navalny gets the press, civil society activists have quietly built up networks around the country that can turn people out onto the streets when necessary.

    Like all authoritarians, Putin uses “law and order” arguments to his advantage. Russians have a horror of anarchy and civil strife. They have long favored an “iron fist” approach to domestic politics, which helps explain the persistent, posthumous fondness for Joseph Stalin, who had a 70% approval rating in 2019. According to polling conducted last year, three in four Russians believe that the Soviet era was the best period of time for Russia, and it certainly wasn’t the dissident movement of that period that made them nostalgic.

    The protesters thus have to tread carefully to avoid losing popular support among a population fond of an iron fist but also deeply disgusted by the corruption, economic mismanagement and social inequality of the Putin era. The Russian opposition also has to grapple with the distinct possibility that getting rid of Putin will usher in someone even worse.

    US-Russia Relations: A New START?

    The extension of New START, the last nuclear arms control treaty in effect between Russia and the United States, is a spot of good news in an otherwise dismal outlook for relations between the two countries. Joe Biden has prided himself on his knowledge of and commitment to arms control. So, if the two countries can agree on terms of selective engagement, the next four years could be profitably taken up by a series of negotiations on military weaponry.

    New START merely establishes ceilings on nuclear warheads for both sides and addresses only strategic, not tactical, nukes. So, as Stephen Pifer argues, a follow-on treaty could establish a ceiling on all nuclear warheads, for instance at 2,500, which would cover battlefield nuclear weapons and result in at least a 50% cut in the arsenals of the two sides. Another option for bilateral negotiations would be to focus on limitations to missile defense or, at the very least, cooperation to protect against third-party missile attacks. A third option would be to focus on conventional weaponry and constraints on weapons sales.

    The Biden administration could even move more quickly with an announcement of a no-first-use policy of nuclear weapons — something Biden has supported in the past — and agreeing with Moscow to de-alert intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) much as Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev de-alerted another leg of the nuclear triad, strategic bombers, back in 1991.

    This arms control agenda is only part of a larger potential program of selective engagement. The US and Russia could return to their coordination around the Iran nuclear deal. They could explore ways to cooperate on global challenges like climate change and pandemics. They could even start addressing together the harmful effects of economic globalization, a topic Putin brought up in his recent Davos speech.

    Embed from Getty Images

    To do so, however, the two countries will have to manage the numerous points of friction in their relationship. For one thing, they’ve gone head-to-head in various proxy battles — in Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Russia is legitimately furious that NATO expanded to its very doorstep, and the United States is legitimately concerned about Russian interventions in its “near abroad,” most recently in Ukraine. The US has lots of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — not to mention Russian involvement in a coup attempt in Montenegro that same year and its meddling in the presidential election in Madagascar two years later — and Russia is pissed off at US “democracy promotion” in the Color Revolutions and within Russia itself. Russia is eager to finish the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would bring natural gas to Germany, while the US is eager to sell its own gas to its European ally. Then there’s Russia’s penchant for assassinating Russians in other countries and repressing protestors at home.

    Any of these issues could scuttle cooperation between Moscow and Washington. One way of negotiating around this minefield is to delink the agendas of cooperation and conflict. Arms control advocates have a long history of doing just that by resisting calls to link other issues to arms control negotiations. Thus, the Iran nuclear deal focuses exclusively on the country’s nuclear program, not its missiles, not its relations with other countries in the region, not its human rights situation. The same lack of linkage has historically applied to all the arms control agreements between Washington and Moscow.

    This strategy of delinking doesn’t mean that these other issues are completely off the table. They are simply addressed at different tables.

    Those who desperately want a new cold war with Russia will not be happy with such a practical solution. They don’t want to talk with Putin about anything. As repugnant as I find the Russian leader, I have to acknowledge that he heads up an important global player and he has the support (for the time being at least) of much of his population. So, even as we challenge the Russian leadership’s conduct at home and abroad, we must also work with Moscow in the interests of global peace, prosperity and sustainability.

    Of course, there’s another word for all this: diplomacy.

    *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • in

    Kamala Harris uses casting vote to pass Covid relief budget resolution

    The US Senate has passed a budget resolution that allows for the passage of Joe Biden’s $1.9tn (£1.4tn) Covid-19 relief package in the coming weeks without Republican support.
    The vice-president, Kamala Harris, broke a 50/50 tie by casting a vote in favour of the Democratic measure, which sends it to the House of Representatives for final approval. It marked the first time Harris, in her role as president of the Senate, cast a tie-breaking vote after being sworn in as the first female vice-president on 20 January.
    The House passed its own budget measure on Wednesday. Congress can now work to write a bill that can be passed by a simple majority in both houses, which are controlled by Democrats. Mid-March has been suggested as a likely date by which the measure could be passed, a point at which enhanced unemployment benefits will expire if Congress does not act.
    The vote came at 5.30am on Friday at the end of a marathon Senate debate session, known among senators as a “vote-a-rama”, a procedure whereby they can theoretically offer unlimited amendments.
    US cases
    Biden is scheduled to meet with Democratic House leaders and committee chairs early on Friday morning to discuss the Covid economic stimulus, and is expected to make public remarks on the progress at an 11.45am EST (1645 GMT) briefing.
    There was dissent from Republicans in the Senate overnight, particularly over plans for a $15 federal minimum wage. Iowa’s Republican senator, Joni Ernst, raised an amendment to “prohibit the increase of the federal minimum wage during a global pandemic”, which was carried by a voice vote.
    The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders said he still intended to support bringing the measure through: “We need to end the crisis of starvation wages in Iowa and around the United States.”
    He outlined plans to get a wage increase, phased in over five years, included in a budget reconciliation bill. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, and has not been raised since 2009.
    In a tweet after the vote, Sanders said: “Today, with the passage of this budget resolution to provide relief to our working families, we have the opportunity not only to address the pandemic and the economic collapse – we have the opportunity to give hope to the American people and restore faith in our government.”
    During the debate Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said “This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make perpetual lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. Notwithstanding the actual needs, notwithstanding all the talk about bipartisan unity, Democrats in Congress are plowing ahead. They’re using this phony budget to set the table to ram through their $1.9 trillion rough draft.”
    The $1.9 trillion relief package proposed would be used to speed Covid-19 vaccines throughout the nation. Other funds would extend special unemployment benefits that will expire at the end of March and make direct payments to people to help them pay bills and stimulate the economy. Democrats also want to send money to state and local governments dealing with the worst health crisis in decades. More

  • in

    Biden to welcome more refugees: Politics Weekly Extra

    This week Jonathan Freedland speaks to David Miliband. The former UK foreign secretary and current president of the International Rescue Committee explains why Joe Biden’s announcement on Thursday about resettling thousands of refugees in the US is important, following Donald Trump’s abandonment of the cause.

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    President Joe Biden was quick to sign executive orders rescinding many of the anti-immigrant policies of his predecessor. On Thursday, in a speech outlining his foreign policy plans, Biden announced he intended to allow more refugees into the US this year, as part of a resettlement programme that Donald Trump all but stopped. David Miliband joins Jonathan Freedland to talk about the new president’s true bandwidth when it comes to rejecting Trump’s isolationist policies. Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

  • in

    Donald Trump's second impeachment: will the Senate convict him?

    Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins in the Senate next week. Lawrence Douglas explains the process and politics of the spectacle ahead

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    The US Senate will be transformed into a courtroom next week when Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins. After hearing evidence against the former president, the Senate’s 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats will have to decide whether Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” when he incited supporters to storm the Capitol building and disrupt the election certification process. Lawrence Douglas, an Amherst College professor and Guardian opinion contributor, explains what kind of defence Trump is planning to mount, and whether any Senate Republicans are likely to vote to convict him. And the former Democratic senator Russ Feingold, who served during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the 90s, tells Anushka Asthana how the process has become more partisan than ever. Archive: CNN, C-Span, Rev, Bloomberg, CBS-DFW, Fox News, CBS, 60 Minutes (CBS), YouTube More

  • in

    Donald Trump will refuse to testify at Senate impeachment trial, lawyers say

    Donald Trump’s legal team has said the former president will not voluntarily testify under oath at his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, where he faces the charge from House Democrats that he incited the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.
    The lead House impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, wrote to Trump asking him to testify under oath before or during the trial, challenging the former president to explain why he and his lawyers have disputed key factual allegations at the center of their charge that he incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
    “You denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue,” Raskin wrote in a letter made public on Thursday.
    He went on to say that if Trump refused to do so, an adverse inference would be made from his reluctance.
    Hours after the letter was released, the Trump adviser Jason Miller said that the former president “will not testify” in what he described as an “unconstitutional proceeding”. Trump’s lawyers dismissed the request as a “public relations stunt”.
    The request from House impeachment managers does not require Trump to appear – though the Senate could later force a subpoena – but it does warn that any refusal to testify could be used at trial to support arguments for a conviction. Even if Trump does not testify, the request nonetheless makes clear Democrats’ determination to present an aggressive case against him even though he has left the White House.
    The Senate impeachment trial starts on 9 February. Trump is charged with inciting an insurrection on 6 January, when a mob of his supporters broke into the Capitol to interrupt the electoral vote count. Democrats have said a trial is necessary to provide a final measure of accountability for the attack. If he is convicted, the Senate could hold a second vote to disqualify him from seeking office again.
    In the letter, Raskin asked that Trump provide testimony about his conduct “either before or during the Senate impeachment trial”, and under cross-examination, as early as Monday, 8 February, and not later than Thursday, 11 February.
    The request from Raskin cites the words of Trump’s own attorneys, who in a legal brief earlier this week not only denied that Trump had incited the riot, but also asserted that he had “performed admirably in his role as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the American people”.
    With that argument, Raskin said, Trump had questioned critical facts in the case “notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense”. He said Trump should be able to testify now that he is no longer president.
    Raskin said if Trump refuses to appear, the managers will use his refusal against him in the trial – a similar argument put forth by House Democrats in last year’s impeachment trial, when many Trump officials ignored subpoenas. Trump was eventually acquitted of the Democratic charges that he abused his presidential powers by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden, now the president.
    The impeachment managers do not have the authority to subpoena witnesses now since the House has already voted to impeach him. The Senate could vote to subpoena Trump, or any other witnesses, on a simple majority vote during the trial. But it is unclear if the Senate would be willing to do so.
    Shortly after Raskin’s letter was made public, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said he would listen to the House managers’ arguments if they felt a subpoena was necessary. But he said that “the more I see what’s already in the public record, the more powerful the case” against Trump, based on his own words and actions.
    Trump’s statements before and after the attack on the Capitol “are the most powerful evidence”, Blumenthal said. “His own words incriminate him. They show his guilty intent.”
    The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s closest GOP allies, said he thought the letter was a “political ploy” and noted that Democrats did not invite or subpoena him to testify before the House, which voted to impeach Trump on 13 January.
    Asked if he thought Trump would testify, Graham said it would be a “bad idea”.
    “I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” he said.
    Associated Press contributed to this report More

  • in

    Biden declares 'diplomacy is back' as he outlines foreign policy agenda at state department – live

    Key events

    Show

    3.52pm EST15:52
    Trump’s legal team signals he will not testify in impeachment trial

    3.07pm EST15:07
    Biden to sign executive order raising US refugee admissions to 125,000

    3.02pm EST15:02
    Biden says defense secretary will launch global posture review

    2.50pm EST14:50
    Biden at state department: ‘Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy’

    2.47pm EST14:47
    Senate vote-a-rama on budget resolution begins

    1.54pm EST13:54
    Biden sends message to global leaders: ‘America is back’

    1.50pm EST13:50
    Democrats criticize Greene’s remarks ahead of vote on committee assignments

    Live feed

    Show

    4.52pm EST16:52

    House minority leader Kevin McCarthy denounced the resolution to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments over her extremist views.
    McCarthy argued the resolution, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent that would only intensify partisan divisions in the House.
    The Republican leader condemned Greene’s past racist and anti-Semitic comments, but McCarthy has refused to remove the congresswoman from her committee assignments.
    McCarthy accused Democrats of being “blinded by partisanship and politics”.

    4.47pm EST16:47

    The House floor debate over whether Marjorie Taylor Greene should be removed from her committee assignments over her past racist, anti-Semitic and extremist comments is underway.
    Ted Deutch, the Democratic chairman of the House ethics committee, denounced Greene for supporting conspiracy theories suggesting that school shootings, like the Parkland shooting that took place in Deutch, were staged.
    “The 17 people who never came home from school on Feb. 14, 2018 were my constituents. Their families’ pain is real. And it is felt every single day,” Deutch said.
    Greene said in a speech today that school shootings were real, but she did not apologize for her past comments.

    4.25pm EST16:25

    The House voted along partly lines, 205-218, to reject Republican congressman Chip Roy’s motion to adjourn for the day.

    House Press Gallery
    (@HouseDailyPress)
    The motion to adjourn was rejected 205-218.The House is debating H.Res. 72 – Removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

    February 4, 2021

    The House is now debating the resolution to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments over her racist, anti-Semitic and extremist rhetoric.

    4.12pm EST16:12

    The Guardian’s Kari Paul reports:
    Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO, announced last week the platform will no longer algorithmically recommend political groups to users in an attempt to “turn down the temperature” on online divisiveness.
    But experts say such policies are difficult to enforce, much less quantify, and the toxic legacy of the Groups feature and the algorithmic incentives promoting it will be difficult to erase.
    “This is like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” said Jessica J González, the co-founder of the anti-hate speech group Change the Terms. “It doesn’t do enough to combat the long history of abuse that’s been allowed to fester on Facebook.”
    Read Kari’s full report:

    3.52pm EST15:52

    Trump’s legal team signals he will not testify in impeachment trial

    Donald Trump’s legal team has signaled that he will not testify in the Senate impeachment trial, despite the impeachment managers’ request for him to do so.
    One of Trump’s senior advisers, Jason Miller, shared a letter to lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin describing the congressman’s request for the former president to testify as a “public relations stunt”.

    Jason Miller
    (@JasonMillerinDC)
    🚨Response to Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin🚨 pic.twitter.com/I13JBvbkmD

    February 4, 2021

    The letter to Raskin is signed by two of Trump’s lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen.
    “Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: you cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” Castor and Schoen wrote.
    Castor also told NBC News that the former president did not intend to testify in the impeachment trial.

    Carol Lee
    (@carolelee)
    Trump impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor tells @NBCNews the former president won’t testify, per House Dems request. “It’s a publicity stunt in order to make up for the weakness of the House managers’ case,” Castor says, calling the case “a winner” for Trump.

    February 4, 2021

    3.33pm EST15:33

    The House has adopted the rule for the resolution to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments, clearing another procedural hurdle.

    House Press Gallery
    (@HouseDailyPress)
    The rule for H.Res. 72 – Removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives was adopted by a vote of 218-210.The House is voting on a motion to adjourn.

    February 4, 2021

    But Republican congressman Chip Roy has now introduced a motion to adjourn the chamber, which is expected to be defeated by the Democratic majority.
    Roy’s motion will delay the final vote on Greene, who has been widely denounced for her racist and anti-Semitic views, until about 5:30 pm ET.

    3.19pm EST15:19

    Joe Biden also used his state department speech to emphasize the importance of an independent press in a healthy democracy.
    “We believe a free press isn’t an adversary, rather it’s essential,” the president said. “The free press is essential to the health of a democracy.”
    The comments represented a stark contrast to Donald Trump, who repeatedly attacked the press as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” for revealing unflattering facts about him and his administration.
    Biden’s speech at the state department has now concluded.

    3.15pm EST15:15

    Over his four years in office, Donald Trump brought down the cap on annual US refugee admissions to historic lows.

    John Gramlich
    (@johngramlich)
    Here’s how the refugee cap (ie, the maximum number of refugees allowed into the US) has changed in recent fiscal years: 2017: 110,0002018: 45,0002019: 30,0002020: 18,000https://t.co/zpvLZi0p9B https://t.co/Ypspv3rEGj

    February 4, 2021

    Joe Biden said in his state department speech today that he would sign an executive order to raise annual refugee admissions back up to 125,000.
    But the new president acknowledged it would take time to “rebuild what has been so badly damaged” after four years of Trump’s leadership.

    3.07pm EST15:07

    Biden to sign executive order raising US refugee admissions to 125,000

    Joe Biden said he will sign an executive order to raise annual US refugee admissions to 125,000, after the Trump administration repeatedly slashed the refugee cap.
    The president pledged that his administration would “begin the hard work of restoring our refugee admissions program to help meet the unprecedented global need”.
    But Biden acknowledged it would take time to increase the US refugee capacity, after the Trump administration targeted some of the infrastructure that supports refugee admissions.
    “It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged,” Biden said.

    3.02pm EST15:02

    Biden says defense secretary will launch global posture review

    Joe Biden said his newly confirmed secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, will lead a global posture review to assess US military operations.
    In the meantime, any US troop redeployments from Germany that were approved by Donald Trump will be frozen, Biden said.
    The president’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, announced the global posture review at the White House earlier today.
    Biden also confirmed Sullivan’s announcement that the US is ending support for offensive operations and relevant arms sales in Yemen.
    “We’re going to continue to help and support Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty,” the US president added.

    2.57pm EST14:57

    Joe Biden criticized the Vladimir Putin’s government, after a Russian court ruled that opposition leader Alexei Navalny should be jailed for two years and eight months.
    Biden said Navalny “should be released immediately and without condition,” as protests rage over the opposition leader’s detainment.
    “We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people,” Biden said at the state department.

    2.50pm EST14:50

    Biden at state department: ‘Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy’

    Joe Biden is delivering a speech at the state department, outlining his vision for America’s foreign policy agenda.
    “America is back,” Biden said, echoing his comments to state department staffers earlier this afternoon. “Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy.”
    The president also reiterated the need for America to strengthen its global alliances, after four years of Donald Trump belittling those relationships.
    “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again — not to meet yesterday’s challenges but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden said. “We can’t do it alone.”

    2.47pm EST14:47

    Senate vote-a-rama on budget resolution begins

    The Senate’s “vote-a-rama” on the Democratic budget resolution is now underway, and it will likely continue for hours.

    Senate Cloakroom
    (@SenateCloakroom)
    NOW VOTING: Adoption of Wicker Amendment #261 in relation to S.Con.Res.5, Sanders Budget Resolution.

    February 4, 2021

    Republicans have prepared hundreds of amendments to the budget resolution, meaning the vote-a-rama could stretch well into the night.
    With the Democrats in the majority, most of the Republican proposals will likely fail, but the amendments will force Democratic senators to take some painful votes on issues like abortion and immigration.
    Once the budget resolution is approved, it paves the way for congressional Democrats to pass Joe Biden’s coronavirus relief package using reconciliation, meaning they will not need any Republican support to get the legislation to the president’s desk.

    Updated
    at 3.24pm EST

    2.31pm EST14:31

    The House has voted to move forward with the resolution to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments over her racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.
    The House voted 218-209, exactly along party lines, to approve the procedural motion in connection to the resolution. A second procedural vote is now underway.

    House Press Gallery
    (@HouseDailyPress)
    The previous question on the rule for H.Res. 72 – Removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives was ordered by a vote of 218-209.The House is voting on the rule for H.Res. 72.

    February 4, 2021

    Updated
    at 2.42pm EST

    2.26pm EST14:26

    Congressman Don Beyer, a Democrat of Virginia, said Marjorie Taylor Greene’s floor speech was “filled with whataboutism that concluded with comparing American journalists to violent QAnon conspiracy theories”.
    “She continued claiming to be a victim. She took no responsibility for advocating violence. She did not apologize,” Beyer said.

    Rep. Don Beyer
    (@RepDonBeyer)
    Greene just took the House Floor to give a speech filled with whataboutism that concluded with comparing American journalists to violent QAnon conspiracy theories.She continued claiming to be a victim.She took no responsibility for advocating violence.She did not apologize.

    February 4, 2021

    The House’s procedural vote on removing Greene from her committee assignments over her racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric is still underway.
    As of now, the vote has fallen exactly along party lines.

    2.01pm EST14:01

    A procedural vote on the motion to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments is now underway in the House.
    Earlier this afternoon, Greene delivered a floor speech to defend herself amid widespread condemnation over her racist and extremist rhetoric.
    In the speech, Greene claimed that she has not promoted the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory QAnon since she was elected to Congress.
    But as a Daily Beast reported noted, that is not true. In December, Greene sent a now-deleted tweet promoting QAnon.

    Will Sommer
    (@willsommer)
    Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed today that she hasn’t promoted QAnon since being elected. But on Dec. 4, she praised an article promoting Q in a now-deleted tweet. The story Greene praised as “accurate” calls QAnon an “objective flow of information” that’s “uniting Christians.” pic.twitter.com/nN3bnTCyPa

    February 4, 2021

    1.54pm EST13:54

    Biden sends message to global leaders: ‘America is back’

    Joe Biden is speaking at the state department, thanking its staffers for their service to the country at home and abroad.
    The president praised the state department employees as “an incredible group of individuals,” after four years of decreasing morale among diplomats due to Donald Trump’s attacks on them.
    Biden said he would later go up to the eighth floor of the state department to deliver a message to world leaders about the direction of his foreign policy agenda.
    “America is back,” Biden said. “Diplomacy is back.” More